Expanded carrier screening should not be mandatory for gamete donors

[CFTR gene variant screening in gamete donation candidates in France: Which indications? How to screen? Why?]

OBJECTIVES

According to French recommendations, only the caryotype is carried out as a first line in candidates for gamete donation. The prescription of additional genetic tests for variants responsible for serious monogenic diseases is only recommended in the case of call points. However, cystic fibrosis remains the most common genetic disease with serious consequences in childhood. The purpose is to assess the different screening strategies in the Centres d'Études et de Conservation des Œufs et du Sperme humain (CECOS) regarding abnormalities of the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane conductance Regulator gene (CFTR).

METHOD

Our study is based on the analysis of data collected using a questionnaire. Private centres authorised to donate have been excluded from this work.

RESULTS

Twenty-six centres participated out of the 33 interviewees. Two centres carry out systematic screening in all their sperm donation candidates while only one centre practises it in its oocyte donation candidates. For the other 23 centres, research is carried out in case of strong clinical suspicions according to personal or family history and when one of the two members of the recipient couple has a known variant. Regarding the molecular analysis technique used, 56.5% of centres use PCR with commercial kits, whereas the other centers use next-generation sequencing.

CONCLUSION

Targeted screening therefore remains widely practiced in France unlike other countries. Moving to expanded systematic screening raises ethical, financial and organisational issues.

An ESHG-ESHRE survey on the current practice of expanded carrier screening in medically assisted reproduction

STUDY QUESTION

What is the current practice and views on (expanded) carrier screening ((E)CS) among healthcare professionals in medically assisted reproductive (MAR) practices in Europe?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The findings show a limited support for ECS with less than half of the respondents affiliated to centres offering ECS, and substantial variation in practice between centres in Europe.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The availability of next-generation sequencing, which enables testing for large groups of genes simultaneously, has facilitated the introduction and expansion of ECS strategies, currently offered particularly in the private sector in the context of assisted reproduction.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A cross-sectional survey evaluating practice and current views among professionals working in MAR practice in different European countries was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool. The web-based questionnaire included questions on general information regarding the current practice of (E)CS in MAR and questions on what is offered, to whom the test is offered, and how it is offered. It consisted mostly of multiple-choice questions with comment boxes, but also included open questions on the respondents' attitudes/concerns relevant to (E)CS practice, and room to upload requested files (e.g. guidelines and gene panels). In total, 338 responses were collected from 8 February 2022 to 11 April 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The online survey was launched with an invitation email from the ESHRE central office (n = 4889 emails delivered) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) central office (n = 1790 emails delivered) sent to the ESHRE and ESHG members, and by social media posts. The survey was addressed to European MAR centres or gamete banks and to centres located in non-European countries participating in the European IVF-monitoring Consortium. Two reminder emails were sent. After exclusion of 39 incomplete responses received (e.g. only background information), 299 respondents from 40 different countries were included for analyses.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Overall, 42.5% (127/299) of respondents were affiliated to centres offering ECS. The perceived responsibility to enable prospective parents to make informed reproductive decisions and preventing suffering/burden for parents were the main reasons to offer ECS. A single ECS panel is offered by nearly 45% (39/87 received answers) of the centres offering ECS, 25.3% (22/87) of those centres offer a selection of ECS panels, and 29.9% (26/87) offer whole exome sequencing and a large in silico panel. Different ranges of panel sizes and conditions were included in the ECS panel(s) offered. Most of the respondents (81.8%; 72/88 received answers) indicated that the panels they offer are universal and target the entire population. Pathogenic variants (89.7%; 70/78 received answers), and to a lesser extent, likely pathogenic variants (64.1%%; 50/78 received answers), were included in the ECS report for individuals and couples undergoing MAR with their own gametes. According to 87.9% (80/91 received answers) of the respondents, patients have to pay to undergo an ECS test. Most respondents (76.2%; 61/80 received answers) reported that counselling is provided before and after the ECS test. Preimplantation genetic testing, the use of donor gametes, and prenatal diagnostic testing were the three main reproductive options discussed with identified carrier couples. The main reason, according to the respondents, for not offering ECS in their centre, was the lack of professional recommendations supporting ECS (52.5%; 73/139 received answers) and the high cost for couples or reimbursement not being available (49.6%; 69/139). The challenges and moral dilemmas encountered by the respondents revolved mainly around the content of the offer, including the variants classification and the heterogeneity of the panels, the counselling, and the cost of the test.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Although the total number of respondents was acceptable, the completion rate of the survey was suboptimal. In addition, the heterogeneity of answers to open-ended questions and the ambiguity of some of the answers, along with incomplete responses, posed a challenge in interpreting survey results. It is also plausible that some questions were not easily understood by the respondents. For this reason, response and non-response bias are acknowledged as further limitations of the survey.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The results of this survey could aid in identifying potential challenges or areas for improvement in the current practice of ECS in the MAR field and contribute to the discussion on how to address them. The results underline the need to stimulate a more knowledge-based debate on the complexity and the pros and cons of a possible implementation of ECS in MAR.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All costs relating to the development process were covered from European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and European Society of Human Genetics funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. A.C. is full-time employee of Juno Genetics. L.H. declared receiving a research grant during the past 36 months from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. She has also participated in a Health Council report of the Netherlands on preconception carrier screening and collaborated with the VSOP Dutch Genetic Alliance (patient umbrella organization on rare and genetic disorders). L.H. and C.v.E. are affiliated with Amsterdam University Medical Centre, a hospital that offers ECS in a non-commercial setting. R.V. received honoraria for presentations from Merck Academy and is unpaid board member of the executive committee of the Spanish Fertility Society. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Managing risks for genetic conditions in donor sperm treatment: current practices in Belgian fertility clinics

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do fertility clinics in Belgium manage risks for genetic conditions in donor sperm treatment?

DESIGN

An electronic questionnaire was distributed to all fertility clinics in Belgium in June 2023, focusing on treatments with anonymous sperm donors from 2018 to 2022. Responses from 15 clinics were analysed anonymously using IBM SPSS statistics.

RESULTS

All clinics assessed donor risks, including a personal and family history, conventional karyotyping and (for 83.3% of the clinics) carrier screening for common autosomal recessive conditions. For recipients, 58.3% of the clinics relied only on a personal and family history. Despite efforts, the suspicion or detection of genetic conditions in donor sperm treatment was prevalent, with 9.4 adverse events reported per 100 children born. When adverse events occurred, most clinics (58.3%) would not inform the donor if no additional genetic testing was needed. Around 1 in 4 (26.7%) clinics always informed recipients about an adverse event possibly related to their donor. An equal number (26.7%) categorically ruled out the use of spermatozoa from a donor after an adverse event was traced back to his DNA, and 53.3% would not consider using the donor when the adverse event was not genetically confirmed. For the other clinics, deciding when to disclose new genetic risk information or when to allow the use of a donor linked to an adverse event was a complex matter involving different considerations.

CONCLUSION

Although suspected or detected genetic conditions linked to donor treatments were common, there was wide variation in how Belgian clinics prevented and managed these situations.

A systematic review of assisted and third-party reproduction guidelines regarding management and care of donors

BACKGROUND

Gamete and embryo donors face complex challenges affecting their health and quality of life. Healthcare providers need access to well-structured, evidence-based, and needs-based guidance to care for gamete and embryo donors. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to synthesize current assisted and third-party reproduction guidelines regarding management and care of donors.

METHODS

The databases of ISI, PubMed, Scopus, and websites of organizations related to the assisted reproduction were searched using the keywords of "third party reproduction", "gamete donation", "embryo donation", "guidelines", "committee opinion", and "best practice", without time limit up to July 2023. All the clinical or ethical guidelines and best practice statements regarding management and care for gamete and embryo donors written in the English language were included in the study. Quality assessment was carried using AGREE II tool. Included documents were reviewed and extracted data were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

In this systematic review 14 related documents were reviewed of which eight were guidelines, three were practice codes and three were committee opinions. Five documents were developed in the United States, three in Canada, two in the United Kingdom, one in Australia, and one in Australia and New Zealand. Also, two guidelines developed by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology were found. Management and care provided for donors were classified into four categories including screening, counseling, information provision, and ethical considerations.

CONCLUSION

While the current guidelines include some recommendations regarding the management and care of gamete/embryo donors in screening, counseling, information provision, and ethical considerations, nevertheless some shortcomings need to be addressed including donors' psychosocial needs, long-term effects of donation, donors' follow-up cares, and legal and human rights aspects of donation. Therefore, it is needed to conduct robust and well-designed research studies to fill the knowledge gap about gamete and embryo donors' needs, to inform current practices by developing evidence-based guidelines.

Israeli students' perceptions regarding sperm donation: dilemmas reflections with dominant demographic effect

BACKGROUND

Sperm donation has undergone significant medical and social transformations in recent decades. This study aimed to explore Israeli students' perceptions towards sperm donation and investigate the potential influence of demographic characteristics on these perceptions.

DESIGN

The study encompassed 254 students from Tel-Aviv University, who completed an anonymous online survey in January-February 2021. This cross-sectional quantitative online survey, comprised 35 questions categorized into three sections: demographic data, assessment of prior knowledge, and perceptions of sperm donation (general perceptions related to both positive and negative stigmas associated with sperm donation, the roles and activities of sperm banks, and considerations surrounding identity disclosure versus the anonymity of sperm donors and their offspring).

RESULTS

Participants exhibited a relatively low level of prior knowledge (mean 31.2 ± 19 of 100). Scores for positive and negative stigmas ranged from 1.3 to 2.2. Notably, the statement "Donors' anonymity preservation is crucial to maintain sperm donation" received a mean of 3.7. Seeking for anonymous sperm donation identity both by recipients and offspring was ranked with low means (1.5 and 1.7, respectively). However, the pursuit of half-siblings by mothers or siblings themselves received higher ratings ranging from 2.7 to 3. Women's stigma ranking were notably lower, while men emphasized the importance of donor anonymity.

CONCLUSIONS

Sperm Banks hold a position of medical authority rather than being perceived as being commercial entity. The preservation of donor anonymity is widely accepted as a crucial element, prioritized over the requests for identity disclosure from recipients and offspring. Demographic parameters exhibit a strong and precise effects on participants' perceptions.

Determining the right "dose" of genetic testing for gamete donors

IMPORTANCE

Genetic testing of gamete donors is becoming increasingly comprehensive and now often includes expanded carrier screening. Some argue that testing has gone too far, whereas others propose that testing is not extensive enough. Thinking critically about how much genetic testing is appropriate for gamete donors is crucial for ensuring that market forces alone do not determine the level of testing that is performed.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this paper is to highlight contradictions in the current approach toward genetic testing of gamete donors and to suggest that we either embrace the value of preventing the birth of children with hereditary diseases and do so in a logical and consistent manner or consider reducing our level of genetic testing for gamete donors.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The Food and Drug Administration requires screening for infectious diseases and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends screening for a small number of common recessive conditions. However, private donor banks are increasingly performing karyotype testing and expanded carrier screening.

FINDINGS

There are 2 major inconsistencies in our current approach to genetic testing of gamete donors: (1) if genetic information is valued by gamete recipients, why should testing stop with recessive conditions, and not expand to dominant conditions or even polygenic risk scoring? (2) Why should gamete donors be asked to undergo testing that may or may not be reciprocated by gamete recipients? Addressing these inconsistencies requires us to consider the ultimate goal of testing gamete donors' genes. We argue that the present, default goal is empowerment of gamete recipients, whereas an alternative and more laudable mission is to avoid preventable, heritable disease in offspring. However, the latter brings its own ethical and practical challenges, including the issue of which diseases are worth preventing.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

A more comprehensive and well-reasoned approach to genetic testing of gamete donors is needed. Otherwise, testing will continue to be haphazard and guided by the free market, rather than deeper societal values.

Incidence of and indications for sperm donor restriction - analysis of patients continuing treatment: a retrospective single-centre study

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the incidence of and indications for sperm donor restriction due to suspected/confirmed disease risk, and the future treatment choices of patients using these sperm donors?

DESIGN

This single-centre retrospective study involved donors who had restrictions on the use of their imported spermatozoa from January 2010 to December 2019, and current or previous recipients. Indications for sperm restriction and the characteristics of patients undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR) treatment with these specimens at the time of restriction were collected. Differential characteristics of women who decided on whether or not to contintue the procedure were assessed. Characteristics potentially leading to treatment continuation were identified.

RESULTS

Of 1124 sperm donors identified, 200 (17.8%) were restricted, most commonly for multifactorial (27.5%) and autosomal recessive (17.5%) disorders. The spermatozoa had been used for 798 recipients, of whom 172, receiving spermatozoa from 100 donors, were informed about the restriction and constituted the 'decision cohort'. The specimens from the restricted donors were accepted by 71 (approximately 40%) patients, with 45 (approximately 63%) eventually using the restricted donor for their future MAR treatment. The odds of accepting the restricted spermatozoa decreased with increasing age (OR 0.857, 95% CI 0.800-0.918, P < 0.001) and the time between MAR treatment and the restriction date (OR 0.806, 95% CI 0.713-0.911, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Donor restriction due to suspected/confirmed disease risk is relatively frequent. This affected a relevant number of women (around 800), of whom 172 (approximately 20%) had to decide whether or not to use these donors further. Although donor screening is being performed thoroughly, there remain health risks for donor children. Realistic counselling of all stakeholders involved is necessary.

Genetic testing of sperm donors in China: a survey of current practices

Background

The National Health and Family Planning Commission of China (NHFPCC) issued the "Measures for the Management of Human Sperm Banks," which was revised in 2003 and is still in effect today. One of the standard guidelines is that potential donors undergo laboratory testing to exclude infectious and genetic diseases and karyotype analysis. However, patient demands for donor genetic testing have also increased, and only karyotype analysis to exclude genetic diseases is not sufficient to meet these demands.

Objective

To examine donor genetic screening practices at sperm banks in China and to evaluate the qualifications and skills of genetic counselors at the banks.

Materials and methods

An electronic survey was distributed to twenty-seven sperm banks to examine donor genetic screening practices at sperm banks in China and to evaluate the qualifications and skills of genetic counselors at the banks. Twenty-six human sperm banks responded to a 32-question survey about their current practices related to genetic testing of sperm donors.

Results

The 26 sperm banks reported that all qualified sperm donors undergo karyotype analysis; 22 banks (84.6%) collected three generations of family history from each qualified sperm donor; 10 (38.5%) reported that they attempted to accommodate special requests from donor semen recipients for particular genetic tests. Only 2 of the 26 (7.7%) sperm banks reported that they performed whole-exome sequencing. At all the sperm banks, consent for genetic testing was obtained as part of the overall contract for sperm donors. Nineteen (73.1%) sperm banks had genetic counselors on their staff, while six (23.1%) had no genetic counselors on their staff but had access to genetic counselors at the hospital. Only one (3.8%) sperm bank had no genetic counselors on their staff or at the hospital.

Conclusions

The need for larger scale genetic testing of donors and recipients and an extensive panel of genetic tests specific to the Chinese population. Additionally, professionally trained geneticists must be employed as genetic counsellors so that the results of genetic tests and their implications can be explained to donors.

When elective egg freezers become egg donors: practical and ethical issues

Many people hope that the unused and unwanted eggs frozen by women for self-use could be applied to reduce the shortage of donor eggs. However, several practical (additional screening and counselling) and ethical (informed consent and reimbursement) issues may dampen this hope. This paper also considers the question of whether elective egg freezers who want to donate their eggs should be reimbursed for the costs they have met for the IVF cycle and storage. It is argued that a partial reimbursement for the collection (hormonal stimulation and retrieval) is morally acceptable because it is limited to proven expenses (and does not violate the altruism rule) and because the recipients should contribute to the costs of a scheme from which they are benefiting. The storage fee should be paid by the egg freezer herself and no reward for effort, time and inconvenience should be given. This compromise benefits both donors and recipients.

Fertility stakeholders' concerns regarding payment for egg and sperm donation in New Zealand and Australia

New Zealand and Australia are countries which currently prohibit donor payment and require open-identity forms of donation. This study explored the concerns of fertility stakeholders regarding payment which would constitute financial reward for gamete donation, and factors predicting such concerns. A total of 434 participants from across New Zealand and Australia completed an online survey anonymously. Participants included those with infertility and treatment experience, donors, recipients, donor-conceived people and clinic professionals. Results indicated that participants' concerns related to their assumptions about the type of donor motivated by financial reward, and the possibility that, if paid, donors might conceal information relevant to treatment and the donor-conceived person. Furthermore, participants were concerned about increasing recipient costs. Participants with personal experience of infertility held stronger concerns overall. Professionals expressed concerns of clinical relevance, such as the withholding of donor information relevant to treatment outcomes. The lowest levels of concern were expressed in relation to payment devaluing the meaning of human life. Qualitatively, themes highlighted concerns regarding payment enticing the 'wrong' type of donor, increased cost to recipients, and concern about the wellbeing of donor-offspring. Collectively, such concerns must be understood against the New Zealand and Australia open-identity donation context which enables the possibility of contact between donors and offspring. These findings indicate that donor recruitment campaigns need to account for different stakeholder concerns, and consider ways to address donor shortages effectively while remaining compliant with legislative requirements.

Attitudes of sperm donors towards offspring, identity release and extended genetic screening

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is sperm donors' attitude towards offspring, anonymity and extended genetic screening?

DESIGN

An online questionnaire for sperm donors was administered at Cryos International in the USA and Denmark between 9 and 30 September 2020. A total of 233 donors (37 in the USA and 196 in Denmark) completed the questionnaire. This study is unique because it was performed in a setting that allows donors to choose to be either ID-release or non-ID-release donors.

RESULTS

Most donors had two motives to donate: helping childless people and/or financial compensation. ID-release donors differed significantly from non-ID-release donors in numerous aspects of the donation, including relationships with the offspring, information sharing with others and wanting information about offspring. In general, donors had a very positive attitude towards genetic testing and extended genetic screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering the possibility for donors to be either ID-release or non-ID-release allows more donors to be recruited than if only one option were available. The multiple differences between the two donor types suggests that these are groups with profoundly different attitudes towards donation. The general attitude of donors towards genetic testing and expanded genetic screening is very positive but further studies on the attitude of candidate donors are needed.

The use of expanded carrier screening of gamete donors

STUDY QUESTION

What are the sperm and egg donor rejection rates after expanded carrier screening (ECS)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Using an ECS panel looking at 46/47 genes, 17.6% of donors were rejected.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The use of ECS is becoming commonplace in assisted reproductive technology, including testing of egg and sperm donors. Most national guidelines recommend rejection of donors if they are carriers of a genetic disease. If the use of ECS increases, there will be a decline in the number of donors available.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A review of the current preconception ECS panels available to donors was carried out through an online search. The genetic testing results of donors from Cryos International were analysed to determine how many were rejected on the basis of the ECS.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Data on gamete donors and their carrier status was provided by Cryos International, who screen donors using their own bespoke ECS panel. The ECS panels identified through the review were compared to the Cryos International panel and data.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 16 companies and 42 associated ECS panels were reviewed. There were a total of 2673 unique disorders covered by the panels examined, with a mean of 329 disorders screened. None of these disorders were common to all panels. Cryos International screen 46 disorders in males and 47 in females. From 883 candidate donors, 17.6% (155/883) were rejected based on their ECS result. Carriers of alpha-thalassaemia represented the largest proportion of those rejected (19.4%, 30/155), then spinal muscular atrophy (15.5%, 24/155) and cystic fibrosis (14.8%, 23/155).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Panel information was found on company websites and may not have been accurate.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study highlights the need for consistent EU regulations and guidelines that allow genetic matching of gamete donors to their recipients, preventing the need to reject donors who are known carriers. A larger ECS panel would be most beneficial; however, this would not be viable without matching of donors and recipients.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No specific funding was obtained. J.C.H. is the founder of Global Women Connected, a platform to discuss women's health issues and the Embryology and PGD Academy, who deliver education in clinical embryology. She has been paid to give a lecture by Cryos in 2019. A-B.S. is an employee of Cryos International.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Mild stimulation should be mandatory for oocyte donation

The increasing commercialization of oocyte donation is a source of concern. This evolution is expressed in the fact that oocyte donors’ interests are not a priority. For decades now, people mention that oocyte donation holds serious health risks for donors, as if this is an unavoidable given. However, most of the harm is caused by high hormonal stimulation. The risk/benefit balance of high stimulation compared to the risk/benefit balance of mild stimulation does not justify causing greater harm to donors, especially given the fact that donors submit to the procedure without any medical benefit for themselves and to help others.