RESUMEN
STUDY QUESTION: Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)? SUMMARY ANSWER: While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven-and not all-European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas Genéticas , Diagnóstico Preimplantación , Humanos , Diagnóstico Preimplantación/ética , Europa (Continente) , Pruebas Genéticas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Pruebas Genéticas/ética , Pruebas Genéticas/métodos , Femenino , Herencia Multifactorial , Embarazo , Puntuación de Riesgo GenéticoRESUMEN
Pharmacogenomics has a burgeoning role in cardiovascular medicine, from warfarin dosing to antiplatelet choice, with recent developments in sequencing bringing the promise of personalised medicine ever closer to the bedside. Further scientific evidence, real-world clinical trials, and economic modelling are needed to fully realise this potential. Additionally, tools such as polygenic risk scores, and results from Mendelian randomisation analyses, are only in the early stages of clinical translation and merit further investigation. Genetically targeted rational drug design has a strong evidence base and, due to the nature of genetic data, academia, direct-to-consumer companies, healthcare systems, and industry may meet in an unprecedented manner. Data sharing navigation may prove problematic. The present manuscript addresses these issues and concludes a need for further guidance to be provided to prescribers by professional bodies to aid in the consideration of such complexities and guide translation of scientific knowledge to personalised clinical action, thereby striving to improve patient care. Additionally, technologic infrastructure equipped to handle such large complex data must be adapted to pharmacogenomics and made user friendly for prescribers and patients alike.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/genética , Farmacogenética/métodos , Medicina de Precisión/métodos , Investigación Biomédica Traslacional/métodos , Bioética , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Descubrimiento de Drogas/métodos , Humanos , Análisis de la Aleatorización Mendeliana , Medición de RiesgoRESUMEN
Whole exome and whole genome sequencing are increasingly being offered to patients in the clinical setting. Yet, the question of whether, and to what extent, unsolicited findings (UF) and/or secondary findings (SF) should be returned to patients remains open and little is known about how diagnostic consent forms address this issue. We systematically identified consent forms for diagnostic genomic sequencing online and used inductive content analysis to determine if and how they discuss reporting of UF and SF, and whether patients are given options regarding the return of these results. Fifty-four forms representing 38 laboratories/clinics were analyzed. A quarter of the forms did not mention UF or SF. Forms used a variety of terms to discuss UF and SF, sometimes using these interchangeably or incorrectly. Reporting policies for UF varied: 5 forms stated that UF will not be returned, 15 indicated UF may be returned, and 28 did not specify their policy. One-third indicated their laboratory returns SF. Addressing inconsistent terminology and providing sufficient information about UF/SF in consent forms will increase patient understanding and help ensure adequate informed consent.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas Genéticas , Secuenciación de Nucleótidos de Alto Rendimiento/métodos , Hallazgos Incidentales , Consentimiento Informado , Secuenciación Completa del Genoma , Humanos , Secuenciación del ExomaRESUMEN
Although NGS technologies are well-embedded in the clinical setting for identification of genetic causes of disease, guidelines issued by professional bodies are inconsistent regarding some aspects of reporting results. Most recommendations do not give detailed guidance about whether variants of uncertain significance (VUS) should be reported by laboratory personnel to clinicians, and give conflicting messages regarding whether unsolicited findings (UF) should be reported. There are also differences both in their recommendations regarding whether actively searching for secondary findings (SF) is appropriate, and in the extent to which they address the duty (or lack thereof) to reanalyse variants when new information arises. An interdisciplinary working group considered the current guidelines, their own experiences, and data from a recent qualitative study to develop a set of points to consider for laboratories reporting results from diagnostic NGS. These points to consider fall under six categories: (i) Testing approaches and technologies used, (ii) Approaches for VUS; (iii) Approaches for reporting UF, (iv) Approaches regarding SF; (v) Reanalysis of data & re-contact; and vi) Minors. While it is unclear whether uniformity in reporting across all laboratories is desirable, we hope these points to consider will be useful to diagnostic laboratories as they develop their processes for making decisions about reporting VUS and UF from NGS in the diagnostic context.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas Genéticas/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Informe de Investigación/normas , Análisis de Secuencia de ADN/normas , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
Two leading European professional societies, the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, have worked together since 2004 to evaluate the impact of fast research advances at the interface of assisted reproduction and genetics, including their application into clinical practice. In September 2016, the expert panel met for the third time. The topics discussed highlighted important issues covering the impacts of expanded carrier screening, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, voiding of the presumed anonymity of gamete donors by advanced genetic testing, advances in the research of genetic causes underlying male and female infertility, utilisation of massively parallel sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal screening, mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes, and additionally, issues related to cross-generational epigenetic inheritance following IVF and germline genome editing. The resulting paper represents a consensus of both professional societies involved.
Asunto(s)
Genética Médica/métodos , Técnicas Reproductivas Asistidas , Congresos como Asunto , Pruebas Genéticas/métodos , HumanosRESUMEN
Despite the increasing availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, it is currently unclear how such services are regulated in Europe, due to the lack of EU or national legislation specifically addressing this issue. In this article, we provide an overview of laws that could potentially impact the regulation of DTC genetic testing in 26 European countries, namely Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Emphasis is placed on provisions relating to medical supervision, genetic counselling and informed consent. Our results indicate that currently there is a wide spectrum of laws regarding genetic testing in Europe. There are countries (e.g. France and Germany) which essentially ban DTC genetic testing, while in others (e.g. Luxembourg and Poland) DTC genetic testing may only be restricted by general laws, usually regarding health care services and patients' rights.
RESUMEN
Two leading European professional societies, the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, have worked together since 2004 to evaluate the impact of fast research advances at the interface of assisted reproduction and genetics, including their application into clinical practice. In September 2016, the expert panel met for the third time. The topics discussed highlighted important issues covering the impacts of expanded carrier screening, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, voiding of the presumed anonymity of gamete donors by advanced genetic testing, advances in the research of genetic causes underlying male and female infertility, utilisation of massively-parallel sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal screening, mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes, and additionally, issues related to cross-generational epigenetic inheritance following IVF and germline genome editing. The resulting paper represents a consensus of both professional societies involved.
RESUMEN
Living organ donation (LD) is an increasingly established practice. Whereas in the United States and Canada LD by minors has occasionally been reported, LD by minors seems to be largely absent in the European Union (EU). It is currently unclear whether this is the result of a different legal approach. This study is the first to systematically analyze the regulations of EU member states, Norway, and Iceland toward LD by minors. Relevant regulations were identified by searching government websites, translated, compared, and sent for verification to national legal experts. We identified five countries where LD by minors is allowed. In two of these (Belgium and the United Kingdom), some minors may be deemed sufficiently mature to make an autonomous decision regarding LD. In contrast, in the three other countries (Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden), LD by minors is only allowed subject to parental permission and the assent (or absence of objection) of the donor. Where allowed, regulations differ significantly with regard to the substantive and procedural safeguards in place. In view of the controversial nature of the procedure, as illustrated by recent reports and surveys, we argue for a very cautious approach and greater harmonization in countries where LD by minors is allowed.
Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones , Consentimiento Informado/legislación & jurisprudencia , Donadores Vivos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Competencia Mental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Menores/legislación & jurisprudencia , Trasplante de Órganos , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Adolescente , Unión Europea , HumanosRESUMEN
Recent technological developments in molecular genetics facilitate the large-scale detection of inherited genetic disorders and allow an increasing number of genetic conditions to be screened for (American College of Medical Genetics 2012). This technological evolution creates the background which makes reflection necessary about the desirability to offer community-based (preconception) carrier screening in the healthcare system. A positive attitude of potential providers is vital to the success of a screening program. Therefore, the objective of this article is to elaborate a review of the attitudes of healthcare professionals toward carrier screening. Examination of existing carrier screening programs could provide such information. The literature review will be focused on the attitudes toward carrier screening for cystic fibrosis (CF). The databases Pubmed and Web of Science, as well as the interface Google Scholar, were searched using the keywords for the period 1990-2011. Studies were selected if they were published in a peer-reviewed journal in English and described the attitudes of potential providers toward carrier screening. Eleven studies were retrieved describing the attitudes toward carrier screening for CF. In total, seven studies reported attitudes toward the best time for carrier screening; four studies described opinions toward the best setting to offer CF carrier screening; six studies investigated the willingness to be involved in a carrier screening program, and in total 11 articles reported the concerns about offering carrier screening. Ten papers described a general attitude toward carrier screening. We can conclude that health care providers state willingness to be involved in a carrier screening program, but there is need for appropriate education as well as adequate support given the time constraints already present in consultation. The prospect of an increasing number of genetic disorders for which screening becomes possible, and the potential increasing demand for such screening in the future calls for the need for further debate on the desirability of carrier screening and relevant questions such as the conditions screened, the providers involved, the information provision, and counseling.
RESUMEN
With the human genome project running from 1989 until its completion in 2003, and the incredible advances in sequencing technology and in bioinformatics during the last decade, there has been a shift towards an increase focus on studying common complex disorders which develop due to the interplay of many different genes as well as environmental factors. Although some susceptibility genes have been identified in some populations for disorders such as cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, the integration of this information into the health care system has proven to be much more problematic than for single gene disorders. Furthermore, with the 1000$ genome supposedly just around the corner, and whole genome sequencing gradually being integrated into research protocols as well as in the clinical context, there is a strong push for the uptake of additional genomic testing. Indeed, the advent of public health genomics, wherein genomics would be integrated in all aspects of health care and public health, should be taken seriously. Although laudable, these advances also bring with them a slew of ethical and social issues that challenge the normative frameworks used in clinical genetics until now. With this in mind, we highlight herein 5 principles that are used as a primer to discuss the ethical introduction of genome-based information and genome-based technologies into public health.
Asunto(s)
Ética , Genoma Humano , Salud Pública , HumanosRESUMEN
A linguistic barrier between healthcare professional and patient is a challenging experience for both parties. In many cases, the absence of formally trained medical interpreters necessitates that an informal interpreter, drawn from the immediate environment, be used to facilitate communication. While the presence of an interpreter in a medical interview raises many questions about the effectiveness of the communication between healthcare professional and patient, it also gives rise to new speculations revolving on patient rights, medical ethics and patient privacy. In this article we examine the concept of communication competency in medical interviews, as well as translation theory, and link these theories to Western medical ethics in order to identify potential areas in which informal interpretation could impact on the patient.
Asunto(s)
Barreras de Comunicación , Entrevistas como Asunto/normas , Multilingüismo , Defensa del Paciente/ética , Confidencialidad , Diversidad Cultural , Humanos , Relaciones Médico-Paciente/éticaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: A study was made of attitudes of clinical geneticists regarding the age at which minors should be allowed to undergo a carrier test and the reasons they provide to explain their answer. METHODS: European clinical institutions where genetic counselling is offered to patients were contacted. 177 (63%) of the 287 eligible respondents answered a questionnaire. RESULTS: Clinical geneticists were significantly more in favour of providing a carrier test to a younger person if the request was made together with the parents than if the adolescent requested the test personally. Although a large fraction of respondents (16%-30%) were "neither unwilling nor willing" to provide a carrier test to a 16-year-old adolescent who requested the test personally, for most disorders slightly more clinical geneticists were "very willing" or "willing". CONCLUSION: Age is not the only decisive element when considering the participation of adolescents in decisions affecting their health. The clinical geneticists referred to cognitive, emotional and sexual maturity and the support of parents as crucial elements in their comments regarding when to tell children about their genetic risk or to allow adolescents to request a carrier test.
Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Predisposición Genética a la Enfermedad , Pruebas Genéticas/ética , Genética Médica/ética , Menores , Adolescente , Factores de Edad , Preescolar , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Asesoramiento Genético/ética , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Consentimiento Informado/psicología , Masculino , Relaciones Padres-Hijo , Práctica Profesional/ética , Práctica Profesional/normas , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
The objective of this study is to review ethical and clinical guidelines and position papers concerning the presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing of minors. The databases Medline, Philosopher's Index, Biological Abstracts, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched using keywords relating to the presymptomatic and predictive testing of children. We also searched the websites of the national bioethics committees indexed on the websites of World Health Organization (WHO) and the German Reference Centre for Ethics in the Life Sciences, the websites of the Human Genetics Societies of various nations indexed on the website of the International Federation of Human Genetics Societies and related links and the national medical associations indexed on the website of the World Medical Association. We retrieved 27 different papers dealing with guidelines or position papers that fulfilled our search criteria. They encompassed the period 1991-2005 and originated from 31 different organizations. The main justification for presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing was the direct benefit to the minor through either medical intervention or preventive measures. If there were no urgent medical reasons, all guidelines recommend postponing testing until the child could consent to testing as a competent adolescent or as an adult. Ambiguity existed for childhood-onset disorders for which preventive or therapeutic measures are not available and for the timing of testing for childhood-onset disorders. Although the guidelines covering presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing of minors agree strongly that medical benefit is the main justification for testing, a lack of consensus remains in the case of childhood-onset disorders for which preventive or therapeutic measures are not available.
Asunto(s)
Tamización de Portadores Genéticos , Pruebas Genéticas/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Factores de Edad , Niño , Bases de Datos Factuales , Enfermedades Genéticas Congénitas/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Genéticas Congénitas/genética , Pruebas Genéticas/ética , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Consentimiento Informado/normasRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this research is to analyse the evolution and nature of published empirical research in the fields of medical ethics and bioethics. DESIGN: Retrospective quantitative study of nine peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics and medical ethics (Bioethics, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Hastings Center Report, Journal of Clinical Ethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Nursing Ethics, Christian Bioethics, and Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics). RESULTS: In total, 4029 articles published between 1990 and 2003 were retrieved from the journals studied. Over this period, 435 (10.8%) studies used an empirical design. The highest percentage of empirical research articles appeared in Nursing Ethics (n = 145, 39.5%), followed by the Journal of Medical Ethics (n = 128, 16.8%) and the Journal of Clinical Ethics (n = 93, 15.4%). These three journals account for 84.1% of all empirical research in bioethics published in this period. The results of the chi2 test for two independent samples for the entire dataset indicate that the period 1997-2003 presented a higher number of empirical studies (n = 309) than did the period 1990-1996 (n = 126). This increase is statistically significant (chi2 = 49.0264, p < .0001). Most empirical studies employed a quantitative paradigm (64.6%, n = 281). The main topic of research was prolongation of life and euthanasia (n = 68). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the proportion of empirical research in the nine journals increased steadily from 5.4% in 1990 to 15.4% in 2003. It is likely that the importance of empirical methods in medical ethics and bioethics will continue to increase.
Asunto(s)
Bioética , Investigación Empírica , Ética Médica , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Recolección de Datos/métodos , Humanos , Proyectos de Investigación , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
The objective of this article is to review the attitudes of the different stakeholders (minors, healthcare professionals, parents and relatives of affected individuals) towards carrier testing in minors. The databases Pubmed, Google Scholar, Psychinfo, Biological Abstracts, Francis, Anthropological Index online, Web of Science, and Sociological Abstracts were searched using key words for the period 1990-2004. Studies were included if they were published in a peer reviewed journal in English and described the attitudes of minors, parents or healthcare professionals towards carrier testing in minors in a family context. The results were presented in a summary form. In total 20 relevant studies were retrieved (2 studies reported the attitudes of two stakeholders). Only one study reported the attitudes of adolescents, two studies reported the attitudes of adults who had undergone carrier testing in childhood. In total six studies have been retrieved discussing the parental attitudes towards carrier testing in their children. Over all studies, most parents showed interest in detecting their children's carrier status and responded they wanted their child tested before the age of majority: some parents even before 12 years. Eight studies were retrieved that reported the attitudes of relatives of affected individuals. Most were in favor of carrier testing before 18 years. The studies retrieved suggest that most parents are interested in the carrier status of their children and want their children to be tested before they reach legal majority (and some even in childhood). This can lead to tensions between parents and healthcare professionals regarding carrier testing in minors. Guidelines of healthcare professionals advise to defer carrier testing on the grounds that children should be able to decide for themselves later in life to request a carrier test or not.