Structured Abstract
Objective To explore and compare the perspectives of clinicians and patients on polygenic embryo screening.
Design Qualitative.
Subjects Fifty-three participants: 27 reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and 26 patients currently undergoing in vitro fertilization or had done so within the last five years.
Main Outcome Measures Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts.
Results Both clinicians and patients often held favorable views of screening embryos for physical or psychiatric conditions, though clinicians tended to temper their positive attitudes with specific caveats. Clinicians also expressed negative views about screening embryos for traits more often than patients, who generally held more positive views. Most clinicians were either unwilling to discuss or offer polygenic embryo screening to patients or were willing to do so only under certain circumstances, while many patients expressed interest in polygenic embryo screening. Both sets of stakeholders envisioned multiple potential benefits or uses of polygenic embryo screening; the most common included selection and/or prioritization of embryos, receipt of more information about embryos, and preparation for the birth of a predisposed or “affected” child. Both sets of stakeholders also raised multiple potential, interrelated concerns about polygenic embryo screening. The most common concerns among both sets of stakeholders included the potential for different types of “biases” – most often in relation to selection of embryos with preferred genetic chances of traits –, the probabilistic nature of polygenic embryo screening that can complicate patient counseling and/or lead to excessive cycles of in vitro fertilization, and a lack of data from long-term prospective studies supporting the clinical use of polygenic embryo screening.
Conclusion Despite patients’ interest in polygenic embryo screening, clinicians feel such screening is premature for clinical application. Though now embryos can be screened for their genetic chances of developing polygenic conditions and traits, many clinicians and patients maintain different attitudes depending on what is specifically screened, despite the blurry distinction between conditions and traits. Considerations raised by these stakeholders may help guide professional societies as they consider developing guidelines to navigate the uncertain terrain of polygenic embryo screening, which is already commercially available.
Funding Statement This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s Human Genome Research Institute [R01HG011711].
Disclosure Statement SC is a paid consultant at MyHeritage.
Attestation Statement
Data regarding any of the subjects in the study has not been previously published unless specified.
Data will be made available to the editors of the journal for review or query upon request.
Data Sharing Statement Appendices 1 and 2 will be available as supplemental materials upon publication. De-identified coded transcript excerpts will be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Capsule Clinician and patient perspectives on polygenic embryo screening both diverge and overlap, inviting greater reflection on concepts of condition severity and health for the development of professional guidelines.
Competing Interest Statement
SC is a paid consultant at MyHeritage.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Human Genome Research Institute [R01HG011711]
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The IRB of Baylor College of Medicine gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
De-identified coded transcript excerpts will be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.