Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: From the Clinic to the Population

Reproductive genetic carrier screening in pregnancy: improving health outcomes and expanding access

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) serves to screen couples for their risk of having children affected by monogenic conditions. The included conditions are mostly autosomal recessive or X-linked with infantile or early-childhood onset. Cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy, and hemoglobinopathies are now recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for universal screening. Recommendations for further RGCS remain ethnicity based. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors in recent years have recommended universal expanded-panel RGCS and moving towards a more equitable approach. ACOG guidelines state that offering RGCS is an acceptable option, however it has not provided clear guidance on standard of care. Positive results on RGCS can significantly impact reproductive plans for couples, including pursuing in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing, prenatal genetic testing, specific fetal or neonatal treatment, or adoption. RGCS is a superior approach compared to ethnicity-based carrier screening and moves away from single race-based medical practice. We urge the obstetrics and gynecology societies to adopt the guidelines for RGCS put forward by multiple societies and help reduce systemic inequalities in medicine in our new genetic age. Having national societies such as ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine officially recommend and endorse RGCS would bolster insurance coverage and financial support by employers for RGCS. The future of comprehensive reproductive care in the age of genomic medicine entails expanding access so patients and families can make the reproductive options that best fit their needs.

Should genes for non-syndromic hearing loss be included in reproductive genetic carrier screening: Views of people with a personal or family experience of deafness

Many commercial reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) panels include genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss (NSHL), however little is known about the general acceptability of their inclusion. Although some couples wish to avoid having a deaf child, there are effective interventions and supports available for deafness, and no consensus on whether it is appropriate to reproductively screen NSHL genes. This study explored views of people with personal experience of deafness regarding carrier screening for genes associated with NSHL. We interviewed 27 participants; 14 who identified as deaf and 13 hearing parents of a deaf child. Thematic analysis was undertaken on transcripts of interviews. The findings reveal the complexity of attitudes within these groups. Some vacillated between the wish to support prospective parents' reproductive autonomy and concerns about potential harms, especially the expression of negative messages about deafness and the potential loss of acceptance in society. While some participants felt carrier screening could help prospective parents to prepare for a deaf child, there was little support for reproductive screening and termination of pregnancy. Participants emphasized the need for accurate information about the lived experience of deafness. The majority felt deafness is not as severe as other conditions included in RGCS, and most do not consider deafness as a disability. People with personal experience of deafness have diverse attitudes towards RGCS for deafness informed by their own identify and experience, and many have concerns about how it should be discussed and implemented in a population wide RGCS program.

Beyond severity: utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows prospective parents to identify and act upon their chances of having a child with a genetic condition. In deciding which genetic conditions to include in RGCS, severity is often used as a criterion. However, the concept is inherently complex, subjective and multidimensional, and determinations of severity will remain intractably contested. We propose the concept of utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS, and put forward two central arguments for doing so. First, utility is a more appropriate and effective concept as it responds to context and makes an explicit connection between the purpose of RGCS and the value of information obtained for that purpose: namely, to facilitate reproductive decision-making. Utility comprises both clinical and personal utility, and varies according to the availability and accessibility of reproductive options, including pre-implantation genetic testing, prenatal genetic diagnosis, and termination of pregnancy. Second, there are ethical reasons for preferring utility over severity. Utility is a property of the information gleaned from RGCS, while severity is a property of a genetic condition or of an instance of this condition in a person. While consideration of the severity of genetic conditions is not lost when focusing on utility, the need to rely on value judgements regarding the quality of life of people who live with genetic conditions is circumvented. Therefore, utility should replace severity as justification for the inclusion of genetic conditions in RGCS programmes.

Defining core outcomes of reproductive genetic carrier screening: A Delphi survey of Australian and New Zealand stakeholders

OBJECTIVE

Understanding the value, benefits and harms of health interventions is needed to inform best practice and ensure responsible implementation of new approaches to patient care. Such value is demonstrated through the assessment of outcomes; however, which outcomes are assessed is often highly varied across studies and can hinder the ability to draw robust conclusions. The Core Outcome Development for Carrier Screening study aims to understand the outcomes that can meaningfully capture the value of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS).

METHOD

The authors report an iterative, two-round online Delphi survey of Australian and New Zealand stakeholders to determine the degree of consensus regarding the core outcomes of RGCS. Panellists ranked 83 outcomes according to their perceived importance on a nine-point Likert scale. Using the distribution of rankings, outcomes were grouped into tiers representative of their perceived level of importance and agreement between groups.

RESULTS

The top tier outcomes represent those agreed to be critically important for all future studies of RGCS to assess and were used to define a preliminary core outcome set encompassing the domains (1) primary laboratory outcomes, (2) pregnancy outcomes, (3) resource use and, (4) perceived utility of RGCS.

CONCLUSION

These findings can guide the selection of meaningful outcomes in studies aiming to demonstrate the value of RGCS. A future international consensus process will expand on these findings and guide the inclusion of diverse perspectives across the range of settings in which RGCS is offered.

Nigerian parents' perspectives on genetic testing in their children with genetic eye diseases

The decision for genetic testing in children is usually taken by their parents or caregivers, and may be influenced by sociocultural and ethical concerns. This study evaluateds the perspectives of Nigerian parents towards genetic testing of their children with genetic eye diseases parental willingness for genetic testing in their children, and its determinants, in a hospital setting in Nigeria. This cross-sectional, hospital-based study was conducted at the Eye clinic, University College Hospital, Ibadan. The participants were 42 parents of children with genetic eye diseases purposively recruited from April to July 2021. The main variables of interest were overall willingness to test, and willingness to test given ten different scenarios. Summary statistics were performed, and determinants of willingness to test (parental sociodemographic and children's clinical characteristics) were assessed using Fischer's exact test. All the participants expressed willingness to test when presented with six of the ten scenarios.However, slightly fewer (83-95%) proportions were willing to test for the other four scenarios (out-of-pocket payment, if test will reveal a systemic association, if test may confirm a diagnosis with no current treatment, and prenatal testing). Willingness to test was not significantly associated with the determinants tested. Thirty-nine (93%) would join a support group, 38 (91%) would inform a family member at risk, and 28 (67%) would be unwilling to have more children if there wais a risk to future offspring. This study demonstrated a high degree of parental willingness for genetic testing of their children. This is important evidence that can guide policy and planning of ophthalmic genetics services.

Are We Ready for Whole Population Genomic Sequencing of Asymptomatic Newborns?

The introduction of genomic sequencing technologies into routine newborn screening programs in some form is not only inevitable but also already occurring in some settings. The question is therefore not "if" but "when and how" genomic newborn screening (GNBS) should be implemented. In April 2022, the Centre for Ethics of Paediatric Genomics held a one-day symposium exploring ethical issues relating to the use of genomic sequencing in a range of clinical settings. This review article synthesises the panel discussion and presents both the potential benefits of wide-scale implementation of genomic newborn screening, as well as its practical and ethical issues, including obtaining appropriate consent, and health system implications. A more in-depth understanding of the barriers associated with implementing genomic newborn screening is critical to the success of GNBS programs, both from a practical perspective and also in order to maintain public trust in an important public health initiative.

Expressivist objections to prenatal screening and testing: Perceptions of people living with disability

The 'expressivist objection' (EO) refers to the notion that using reproductive (genetic) technologies to prevent the birth of future would-be disabled people contain, and express, a negative valuation of life with disability. Whilst the EO has received increased attention in recent years in line with rapid technological and genomic developments, there remains scant research on how EO concerns are experienced and expressed by disabled people and their families, especially within and between impairment groups. Bringing together two studies-one with adults and family members living with genetic conditions (n = 62) and one with parents of children with Down's syndrome (n = 22)-we argue that disabled people and their families variously embrace, reject or rework the EO across contexts, and yet also frequently situate it within broad support for reproductive technologies. We present three key factors that mediate responses to the EO: (1) the nature of impairment and its integration within identity; (2) social and cultural contexts relating to disability and (3) the (individual and collective) imagined futures of disabled people. In so doing, we blend the conceptual architecture of medical sociology and disability studies, arguing that this allows us to accurately illuminate the nuanced responses of disabled people and their families.

Experiences of nonpregnant couples after receiving reproductive genetic carrier screening results in Belgium

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows for the identification of couples who have an increased likelihood of conceiving a child with a particular autosomal recessive or X-linked condition. The aim of this study was to assess the level of satisfaction, anxiety, knowledge retention, psychosocial and counseling-related aspects among couples who chose to have RGCS. Participants were initially informed about their screening results by telephone. After obtaining a written report of test results, participants were asked to complete an individual self-administered questionnaire. All participants (n = 67) felt they had enough information to make an informed choice. None of the participants regretted their choice to have RGCS. Test results were most often shared with parents (61%) or siblings (37%). Our findings demonstrate that the information/counseling and reporting strategy that was used in the context of this study led to high participant satisfaction, an increase in knowledge over time and favorable psychosocial and counseling-related outcomes.

Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: A Discourse Analysis of Dutch Webpages

Preconception expanded carrier screening (PECS) informs prospective parents about the risk of conceiving a child with a heritable genetic condition. PECS will also, for many, become an important screening test, and websites will likely play a vital role in providing information on this practice. The aim of this article is to examine rationalities in the information on PECS on Dutch websites. The method used is multimodal critical discourse analysis. This method allows an examination of norms and assumptions in the descriptions, as well as of the positions that are discursively made available. The data consist of publicly available material on websites from two genetics departments in the Netherlands. In the results, we present the three main discourses and subject positions that were identified: risk and the couple as possible mediators of severe conditions; the focus on scientific facts and rational conceivers; and severity of the conditions and the responsible couple. In this study, we highlight the importance of acknowledging the interrelation between epistemology and ethics in the discourse on PECS. Finally, it is claimed that the focus on scientific facts in information on PECS risks making existential and ethical dilemmas and choices invisible.

Is It Just for a Screening Program to Give People All the Information They Want?

Genomic screening at population scale generates many ethical considerations. One is the normative role that people's preferences should play in determining access to genomic information in screening contexts, particularly information that falls beyond the scope of screening. We expect both that people will express a preference to receive such results and that there will be interest from the professional community in providing them. In this paper, we consider this issue in relation to the just and equitable design of population screening programs like reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Drawing on a pluralistic public health ethics perspective, we claim that generating and reporting information about genetic variants beyond the scope of the screening program usually lacks clinical, and perhaps personal, utility. There are both pragmatic and ethical reasons to restrict information provision to that which fits the stated purpose of the program.

Views of healthcare professionals on the inclusion of genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss in reproductive genetic carrier screening

Genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss (NSHL) are frequently included in panels for reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS), despite a lack of consensus on whether NSHL is a condition appropriate for inclusion in RGCS. We conducted a national online survey using a questionnaire to explore the views of clinicians who facilitate RGCS or provide care to deaf individuals in Australia and New Zealand regarding the inclusion of such genes in RGCS. Results were analysed descriptively, and free-text responses were analysed thematically. The questionnaire was completed by 386 respondents including genetic healthcare providers, obstetricians, ear nose and throat specialists, and general practitioners. The majority of respondents agreed that genes associated with NSHL should be included in RGCS, but there were differences between the groups. 74% of clinicians working in a hearing clinic agreed these genes should be included compared to 67% of genetic healthcare providers, 54% of reproductive care healthcare providers, and 44% of general practitioners. A majority of respondents agreed that moderate to profound deafness is a serious disability, although genetic healthcare providers were less likely to agree than other groups. Overall, respondents agreed that including NSHL in RGCS upholds prospective parents' right to information. However, they also identified major challenges, including concern that screening may express a discriminatory attitude towards those living with deafness. They also identified the complexity of defining the severity of deafness.

The Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission): Design and Implementation

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) provides people with information about their chance of having children with autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions, enabling informed reproductive decision-making. RGCS is recommended to be offered to all couples during preconception or in early pregnancy. However, cost and a lack of awareness may prevent access. To address this, the Australian Government funded Mackenzie’s Mission—the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project. Mackenzie’s Mission aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an easily accessible RGCS program, provided free of charge to the participant. In study Phase 1, implementation needs were mapped, and key study elements were developed. In Phase 2, RGCS is being offered by healthcare providers educated by the study team. Reproductive couples who provide consent are screened for over 1200 genes associated with >750 serious, childhood-onset genetic conditions. Those with an increased chance result are provided comprehensive genetic counseling support. Reproductive couples, recruiting healthcare providers, and study team members are also invited to complete surveys and/or interviews. In Phase 3, a mixed-methods analysis will be undertaken to assess the program outcomes, psychosocial implications and implementation considerations alongside an ongoing bioethical analysis and a health economic evaluation. Findings will inform the implementation of an ethically robust RGCS program.

The views of people with a lived experience of deafness and the general public regarding genetic testing for deafness in the reproductive setting: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Genes associated with nonsyndromic hearing loss are commonly included in reproductive carrier screening panels, which are now routinely offered in preconception and prenatal care in many countries. However, there is debate whether hearing loss should be considered a medical condition appropriate for screening. This systematic review assessed research on opinions of those with a lived experience of deafness and the general public regarding genetic testing for deafness in the reproductive setting.

METHODS

Search of 5 online databases yielded 423 articles, 20 of which met inclusion criteria. We assessed the quality of each study, extracted data, and performed thematic analysis on qualitative studies.

RESULTS

Most studies indicated interest in the use of prenatal diagnosis for deafness. However, there were mixed views, and sometimes strongly held views, expressed regarding the reproductive options that should be available to those with an increased chance of having a child with deafness. Studies were small, from a limited number of countries, and most were too old to include views regarding preimplantation genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

There is a broad range of views regarding the use of reproductive options for deafness. Further research is essential to explore the benefits and harms of including nonsyndromic hearing loss genes in carrier screening.

Outcomes of Importance to Patients in Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: A Qualitative Study to Inform a Core Outcome Set

There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes assessed across studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Only a small number of studies have measured patient-reported outcomes or included patients in the selection of outcomes that are meaningful to them. This study was a cross-sectional, qualitative study of 15 patient participants conducted to inform a core outcome set. A core outcome set is an approach to facilitate standardisation in outcome reporting, allowing direct comparison of outcomes across studies to enhance understanding of impacts and potential harms. The aim of this study was to incorporate the patient perspective in the development of a core outcome set by eliciting a detailed understanding of outcomes of importance to patients. Data were collected via online, semi-structured interviews using a novel method informed by co-design and the nominal group technique. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Outcomes elicited from patient stakeholder interviews highlighted several under-explored areas for future research. This includes the role of grief and loss in increased risk couples, the role of empowerment in conceptualising the utility of RGCS, the impact of societal context and barriers that contribute to negative experiences, and the role of genetic counselling in ensuring that information needs are met and informed choice facilitated as RGCS becomes increasingly routine. Future research should focus on incorporating outcomes that accurately reflect patient needs and experience.

Qualitative study of GPs' views and experiences of population-based preconception expanded carrier screening in the Netherlands: bioethical perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Between 2016 and 2017, a population-based preconception expanded carrier screening (PECS) test was developed in the Netherlands during a pilot study. It was subsequently made possible in mid-2018 for couples to ask to have such a PECS test from specially trained general practitioners (GPs). Research has described GPs as crucial in offering PECS tests, but little is known about the GPs' views on PECS and their experiences of providing this test. This article presents a thematic analysis of the PECS practice from the perspective of GPs and a bioethical discussion of the empirical results.

DESIGN

Empirical bioethics. A thematic analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews was conducted, and is combined with an ethical/philosophical discussion.

SETTING

The Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

7 Dutch GPs in the Netherlands, interviewed in 2019-2020.

RESULTS

Two themes were identified in the thematic analysis: 'Choice and its complexity' and 'PECS as prompting existential concerns'. The empirical bioethics discussion showed that the first theme highlights that several areas coshape the complexity of choice on PECS, and the need for shared relational autonomous decision-making on these areas within the couple. The second theme highlights that it is not possible to analyse the existential issues raised by PECS solely on the level of the couple or family. A societal level must be included, since these levels affect each other. We refer to this as 'entangled existential genetics'.

CONCLUSION

The empirical bioethical analysis leads us to present two practical implications. These are: (1) training of GPs who are to offer PECS should cover shared relational autonomous decision-making within the couple and (2) more attention should be given to existential issues evoked by genetic considerations, also during the education of GPs and in bioethical discussions around PECS.