Reproductive Genetic Medicine in a Post-Dobbs World: Will it Make Life Harder for People with Genetic Disease?

Post-Dobbs abortion restrictions impact access and choice in the context of reproductive genetic medicine, raising serious reproductive justice concerns. The consequences of these restrictions are particularly acute and far-reaching for individuals with genetic conditions and their families.

How do experts in psychiatric genetics view the clinical utility of polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia?

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are promising for identifying common variant-related inheritance for psychiatric conditions but their integration into clinical practice depends on their clinical utility and psychiatrists' understanding of PRS. Our online survey explored these issues with 276 professionals working in psychiatric genetics (RR: 19%). Overall, participants demonstrated knowledge of how to interpret PRS results. Their performance on knowledge-based questions was positively correlated with participants' self-reported familiarity with PRS (r = 0.21, p = 0.0006) although differences were not statistically significant (Wald Chi-square = 3.29, df = 1, p = 0.07). However, only 48.9% of all participants answered all knowledge questions correctly. Many participants (56.5%), especially researchers (42%), indicated having at least occasional conversations about the role of genetics in psychiatric conditions with patients and/or family members. Most participants (62.7%) indicated that PRS are not yet sufficiently robust for assessment of susceptibility to schizophrenia; most significant obstacles were low predictive power and lack of population diversity in available PRS (selected, respectively, by 53.6% and 29.3% of participants). Nevertheless, 89.8% of participants were optimistic about the use of PRS in the next 10 years, suggesting a belief that current shortcomings could be addressed. Our findings inform about the perceptions of psychiatric professionals regarding PRS and the application of PRS in psychiatry.

Prenatal genetic counseling in states hostile to abortion in the final days of Roe v. Wade: A qualitative study.

Genetic counselors (GCs) play an important role in providing and coordinating care for patients considering abortion care secondary to fetal anomaly and/or genetic diagnosis. In the United States, restrictive legislation reducing access to abortion has increased dramatically in recent years. In Texas, an unusual vigilante-style law went into effect in September 2021, effectively banning all abortion after 6-week gestation; this more restrictive legislation was widely seen as a harbinger of things to come. To assess the impact of evolving abortion restrictions on genetic counseling practice and patient care, we conducted semistructured interviews with 34 GCs practicing in states characterized as hostile to abortion using standards developed by the Guttmacher Institute and analyzed using Dedoose software. All interviews took place prior to the June 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Our qualitative study offered some support for earlier work, suggesting that time pressure created by gestational age limits and the potential need for patients to travel out of state for abortion care was the most significant impact on GC practice. However, GCs practicing in Texas and other highly restrictive states were more likely to report that legal uncertainty had a greater impact, often affecting their ability to counsel patients. GCs in Texas also emphasized that institutional guidance was helpful and that a lack of institutional guidance hindered patient care. With the Supreme Court decision in June 2022 overturning the right to abortion established under Roe v. Wade, many more GCs are likely to practice in states where abortion is restricted or banned. Our study suggests that impediments to counseling may be underappreciated in the changing landscape of abortion law.

Outcomes of psychiatric genetic counseling in relation to time since diagnosis and symptom onset.

To our knowledge, no studies have yet evaluated whether genetic counseling (GC) outcomes are influenced by the timing of the counseling session in relation to the onset or diagnosis of the condition of interest. We conducted an exploratory retrospective chart review using a database from a psychiatric GC (pGC) clinic, to examine the relationship between GC outcomes and time elapsed between: (a) onset of psychiatric symptoms (time since onset, TSO) and/or (b) psychiatric diagnosis (time since diagnosis, TSD), and the pGC session. Linear regression was used to assess the relationship between change in Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale (GCOS) scores from pre-GC to 1 month post-GC and TSO and/or TSD. Charts of 271 patients (80% women, mean age = 39.9 years old) seen between 2012 and 2018 were included in the analyses. Mean TSO = 19.6 years (range 0-62 years), and mean TSD = 11.1 years (range 0-43 years). Overall, empowerment increased after GC regardless of TSO/TSD (p < 0.0001, d = 1.11). While there was no relationship between GCOS change and TSD, a negative relationship was observed for TSO (p = .032) suggesting better outcomes with shorter TSO, although the effect size was very small (f2  = 0.019). Post hoc analysis revealed this effect was driven by two diagnoses, depression (n = 164, p = 0.013) and schizoaffective disorder (n = 6, p = 0.042). For the former, the effect size was very small (f2  = 0.038) and for the latter, the probability of type 2 error was high. In sum, our data suggest that TSO/TSD plays a negligible role in outcomes of pGC, with patients benefitting from pGC, regardless how long ago symptoms started/diagnosis was made.

Application of a framework to guide genetic testing communication across clinical indications.

BACKGROUND: Genetic information is increasingly relevant across healthcare. Traditional genetic counseling (GC) may limit access to genetic information and may be more information and support than some individuals need. We report on the application and clinical implications of a framework to consistently integrate genetics expertise where it is most useful to patients. METHODS: The Clinical Genome Resource's (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) workgroup designed rubrics to guide pre- and post-genetic test communication. Using a standard set of testing indications, pre- and post-test rubrics were applied to 40 genetic conditions or testing modalities with diverse features, including variability in levels of penetrance, clinical actionability, and evidence supporting a gene-disease relationship. Final communication recommendations were reached by group consensus. RESULTS: Communication recommendations were determined for 478 unique condition-indication or testing-indication pairs. For half of the conditions and indications (238/478), targeted discussions (moderate communication depth) were the recommended starting communication level for pre- and post-test conversations. Traditional GC was recommended pre-test for adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions for individuals with no personal history and post-test for most conditions when genetic testing revealed a molecular diagnosis as these situations are likely higher in complexity and uncertainty. A brief communication approach was recommended for more straightforward conditions and indications (e.g., familial hypercholesterolemia; familial variant testing). CONCLUSIONS: The CADRe recommendations provide guidance for clinicians in determining the depth of pre- and post-test communication, strategically aligning the anticipated needs of patients with the starting communication approach. Shorter targeted discussions or brief communications are suggested for many tests and indications. Longer traditional GC consultations would be reserved for patients with more complex and uncertain situations where detailed information, education, and psychological support can be most beneficial. Future studies of the CADRe communication framework will be essential for determining if CADRe-informed care supports quality patient experience while improving access to genetic information across healthcare.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies tell their customers to 'see a genetic counselor'. How do genetic counselors feel about direct-to-consumer genetic testing?

Professional societies, the FDA, and many direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) companies have highlighted the value of counseling from a medical professional with genetics expertise in order to enhance the value and minimize the risks associated with DTC-GT. However, there is limited information available identifying genetic counselors' own views on DTC-GT, their willingness to counsel consumers based on DTC-GT results, and their experiences to date seeing DTC-GT consumers in a clinical setting. We surveyed genetic counselors accessed through mailing lists associated with the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC). Response rate was estimated to be 12.2% (n = 482). A majority of all respondents (56.4%, n = 263) described themselves as feeling negatively or very negatively toward DTC-GT; only 6.9% (n = 32) described themselves as feeling positively or very positively. While 90.9% of respondents (n = 398) believed that DTC-GT would be improved with the involvement of genetic counselors, only 31.2% agreed or strongly agreed that they are comfortable providing counseling to DTC-GT consumers (n = 142). Clinical counseling of DTC-GT consumers is not routine but it is also not uncommon; 40.1% of all respondents (n = 189) have seen at least one consumer in clinic for the sole purpose of reviewing DTC-GT results. The results of our study suggest that most respondents would be more accepting of DTC-GT if genetic counseling was a part of the process, but the majority of counselors do not feel comfortable providing this service.

Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing.

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.

Discouraging Elective Genetic Testing of Minors: A Norm under Siege in a New Era of Genomic Medicine.

Consistently, the field of genetic counseling has advocated that parents be advised to defer elective genetic testing of minors until adulthood to prevent a range of potential harms, including stigma, discrimination, and the loss of the child's ability to decide for him- or herself as an adult. However, consensus around the policy of "defer-when-possible" obscures the extent to which this norm is currently under siege. Increasingly, routine use of full or partial genome sequencing challenges our ability to control what is discovered in childhood or, when applied in a prenatal context, even before birth. The expansion of consumer-initiated genetic testing services challenges our ability to restrict what is available to minors. As the barriers to access crumble, medical professionals should proceed with caution, bearing in mind potential risks and continuing to assess the impact of genetic testing on this vulnerable population.

Developing a conceptual, reproducible, rubric-based approach to consent and result disclosure for genetic testing by clinicians with minimal genetics background.

PURPOSE: In response to genetic testing being widely ordered by nongenetics clinicians, the Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) Workgroup of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen; clinicalgenome.org ) developed guidance to facilitate communication about genetic testing and efficiently improve the patient experience. Considering ethical, legal, and social implications, and medical factors, CADRe developed and pilot tested two rubrics addressing consent for genetic testing and results disclosure. The CADRe rubrics allow for adjusting the communication approach based on circumstances specific to patients and ordering clinicians. METHODS: We present results of a formative survey of 66 genetics clinicians to assess the consent rubric for nine genes (MLH1, CDH1, TP53, GJB2, OTC; DMD, HTT, and CYP2C9/VKORC1). We also conducted interviews and focus groups with family and patient stakeholders (N = 18), nongenetics specialists (N = 27), and genetics clinicians (N = 32) on both rubrics. RESULTS: Formative evaluation of the CADRe rubrics suggests key factors on which to make decisions about consent and disclosure discussions for a "typical" patient. CONCLUSION: We propose that the CADRe rubrics include the primary issues necessary to guide communication recommendations, and are ready for pilot testing by nongenetics clinicians. Consultation with genetics clinicians can be targeted toward more complex or intensive consent and disclosure counseling.

Genetic counseling students' experiences with mental illness during training: An exploratory study.

Mental illness is a substantive issue for graduate students. We investigated experiences of mental illness during training among genetic counseling students, a subgroup of graduate students for which little data exists on this topic. Genetic counseling students and recent graduates (n = 227) completed an online survey, from who 11 were selected to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews. Thematic analysis and member checking were employed to interpret the interviews. An overarching theme of importance to participants' mental health during genetic counseling training was safety, with subthemes of: trust/confidentiality, stigma and fear of labeling, developing a unique professional identity, and ability to engage in self care strategies. Our data could help genetic counseling training programs develop strategies to support students' mental health.

Human Germline Genome Editing.

With CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies, successful somatic and germline genome editing are becoming feasible. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in March 2017. The workgroup included representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The statement includes the following positions. (1) At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy. (2) Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research. (3) Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

Genetic Counselors' Perception of the Effect on Practice of Laws Restricting Abortion.

In 2013, twenty-two states enacted seventy provisions restricting access to abortion. The legislation restricted access to abortions by instituting more regulations on providers and facilities, by prohibiting abortion prior to viability, by restricting funding available to patients and by requiring patients to wait a mandatory time period before having a procedure. Genetic counselors are trained to provide unbiased, comprehensive information in a non-directive style in order to allow patients to exercise their reproductive freedom. We developed a survey of 37 questions for genetic counselors to gauge the potential impact these provisions will have on their ability to be a patient advocate. A total of 286 individuals completed the survey; however, not all respondents answered all questions. Qualitative questions complemented quantitative survey entries, allowing respondents to input thoughts and examples. Results indicate genetic counselors in all regions share similar professional opinions about the provisions. More genetic counselors in the South and Midwest noticed changes impacting patients since the provisions have been enacted. These regional differences correlate with the location of states that have seem the greatest increase in antiabortion provisions.

Attitudes Toward Discussing Approved and Investigational Treatments for Cystic Fibrosis in Prenatal Genetic Counseling Practice.

This project aimed to explore the attitudes of prenatal genetic counselors toward discussion of novel approved and experimental CF treatments in the prenatal setting, and to assess how knowledge of genotype-specific, targeted treatments may influence their current practices. Targeted treatments have the potential to impact the health-related quality of life of individuals affected with CF and therefore, knowledge of the availability of such treatments may influence the decision-making process of parents who receive a fetal diagnosis of CF. Using the 2012 FDA approval and introduction of ivacaftor into CF clinical practice as a case study, a survey was designed to explore the opinions and practices of prenatal genetic counselors with regard to counseling for a prenatal diagnosis of CF, and how those practices might be impacted by the availability of a new genotype-specific treatment. Approximately 800 genetic counselors were sent questionnaires in January of 2013. Respondents were provided information about this treatment and were asked to rate its perceived benefits, along with the likelihood that they would discuss potential benefits and limitations with parents receiving a prenatal diagnosis of CF. One-hundred sixty-nine prenatal genetic counselors (21.1 %) responded to the survey. Results indicated that 80 % of respondents 'never heard of the drug', or they were 'not exactly sure' what it was. After reading the materials provided, counselors felt the new treatment would have 'some' or a 'significant' impact on an affected individual's life. Their opinions varied on what information about this treatment they would choose to discuss with their patients; even if the treatment is currently FDA approved and clinically available for affected individuals with the genotype of the fetus. However, they would 'definitely' refer these patients to a specialist to discuss targeted treatments further. Most prenatal genetic counselors indicated there are certain scenarios in the prenatal setting which warrant a discussion of targeted treatments for CF, at least on some level. Counselor's views on sharing information about new treatment options are shaped by their familiarity with the treatment and their perception of its benefits and limitations, their comfort discussing these subjects, and their interpretation of the genetic counselor's role. Most genetic counselors had never heard of ivacaftor or Kalydeco™ prior to taking the survey. Therefore, counselors need to be better educated about the availability of CFTR mutation-based treatments before they will be able to incorporate discussion of new treatment options into their counseling.

Prenatal Testing for Adult-Onset Conditions: the Position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Advances in genetic testing and the availability of such testing in pregnancy allows prospective parents to test their future child for adult-onset conditions. This ability raises several complex ethical issues. Prospective parents have reproductive rights to obtain information about their fetus. This information may or may not alter pregnancy management. These rights can be in conflict with the rights of the future individual, who will be denied the right to elect or decline testing. This paper highlights the complexity of these issues, details discussions that went into the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Public Policy Task Force's development of the Prenatal testing for Adult-Onset Conditions position statement adopted in November 2014, and cites relevant literature on this topic through December 2015. Issues addressed include parental rights and autonomy, rights of the future child, the right not to know, possible adverse effects on childhood and the need for genetic counseling. This paper will serve as a reference to genetic counselors and healthcare professionals when faced with this situation in clinical practice.

Student-Athletes' Views on APOE Genotyping for Increased Risk of Poor Recovery after a Traumatic Brain Injury.

Use of apolipoprotein E genotyping to personalize the risk of a poor recovery after traumatic brain injury is complicated by the potential for genetic discrimination and the potential to reveal an increased risk for late onset Alzheimer's disease. We developed a survey to gauge interest in testing among athletes participating in National Collegiate Athletic Association programs. Eight hundred and forty seven student-athletes were surveyed to determine their interest in genetic testing, their willingness to share the results of testing with parents, coaches and physicians, their concerns about privacy and/or discrimination, and their interest in genetic counseling. Nearly three quarters of respondents expressed some level of interest in testing, with the largest number describing themselves as 'possibly interested' (54.9 %, n = 463) and a smaller number describing themselves as 'very interested' (18.9 %, n = 159). Most student-athletes said that receiving secondary information about their risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease made them more likely to test (50.6 %, n = 426) rather than less likely to test (12.4 %, n = 104). Student-athletes were open to apolipoprotein E genotyping and willing to share test results with their parents, coaches and physicians. They did not anticipate that test results would impact their behavior or ability to play. Testing programs may be welcome but should provide clear information as to risks and benefits.

An old problem in a new age: Revisiting the clinical dilemma of misattributed paternity.

Clinical genetics has wrestled with the problem of misattributed paternity for decades. While there are no clear directives on policy, surveys suggest that genetics professionals are inclined to avoid disclosure when possible. Changes associated with the increased use of genomic testing will alter the context and may limit the benefits of non-disclosure. Multi-site testing will preclude the uncertainty often associated with single-gene testing. Increased use of genetic testing in clinical and non-clinical settings will create new opportunities for the subsequent unmasking of misattributed relationships, as will the presence of test results in the electronic medical record. Family health history information will become more valuable as it is used more often and to better effect in risk assessment, diagnosis, treatment and reproductive decision-making. These changes associated with genomic testing increase the risks and decrease the benefits associated with the nondisclosure of misattributed paternity. For ethical and practical reasons, genetics professionals, and those who advise them, should consider a greater emphasis on the value of carefully planned disclosure.

The Integration of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening into the Existing Prenatal Paradigm: a Survey of Current Genetic Counseling Practice.

Since its introduction four years ago, noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy (NIPS) has been widely adopted as a screening tool for women at a high risk for fetal aneuploidy. As use expands into the general population, questions arise concerning the integration of NIPS into preexisting screening paradigms. This study aims to examine the use of NIPS in current practice among prenatal counselors, predominantly in the United States, in order to inform strategies for the optimal use of both new and existing screening techniques. We electronically surveyed 208 members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors to ascertain how NIPS is currently being used. Genetic counselors were also queried as to the advantages and disadvantages of offering NIPS to all patients regardless of a priori risk. Results indicate substantial variation in practice regarding which patients are offered NIPS and how counselors have incorporated this technology into existing screening routines. The majority of participants report offering NIPS in conjunction with another method of screening for fetal aneuploidy, indicating that NIPS is being used as an addition rather than as a replacement. These screening methods primarily include nuchal translucency (NT) (45.1 %, n = 78) and first trimester serum screening, with or without an NT (19.7 %, n = 34). Furthermore, the majority report that they would be concerned about losing the clinical value of an NT in a complete transition to NIPS (85.4 %, n = 164). Counselors are evenly split on the merits of expanding the use of NIPS to the general population (con: 55.3 %, n = 105; pro: 44.7 %, n = 85). The lack of consensus suggests that updated practice guidelines might benefit counselors. In addition, respondents emphasized the need to better educate patients and providers about the risks, benefits, and limitations of the test.

Stem cell research and therapy: the position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Stem cells' regenerative capabilities present a unique opportunity to treat human illness and injury. In 2003, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) issued a position statement supporting stem cell use in research settings. Almost a decade later, in response to legislative and technological developments within the field of stem cell science, NSGC convened a task force to revisit and update its statement on stem cell research. In doing so, the Task Force developed a new statement reaffirming NSGC's support for stem cell research and endorsed continued stem cell therapy development. NSGC recognizes that the unique potential of stem cell therapy to treat human disease and injury can be realized only through research on a diverse array of stem cell lines drawn from multiple sources, including embryonic, cord blood, and adult cells. NSGC supports the use of stem cells in research and clinical settings when practices adhere to defined ethical and legal guidelines. Available stem cell lines should reflect our genetically diverse population, and donor recruitment should be without discrimination or coercion and include a thorough and dynamic informed consent process.