Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Assist Reprod Genet ; 41(5): 1221-1231, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38470550

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We explored and compared perspectives of reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (REIs) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients regarding polygenic embryo screening (PES), a new type of preimplantation screening that estimates the genetic chances of developing polygenic conditions and traits in the future. METHODS: Qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with US-based REIs and IVF patients. RESULTS: 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 frequently than patients, who generally held more positive views. Most clinicians were either unwilling to discuss or offer PES to patients or were willing to do so only under certain circumstances, while many patients expressed interest in PES. Both stakeholder groups envisioned multiple potential benefits or uses of PES and raised multiple potential, interrelated concerns about PES. CONCLUSION: A gap exists between clinician and patient attitudes toward PES; clinicians generally maintained reservations about such screening and patients indicated interest in it. Clinicians and patients sometimes imagined using PES to prepare for the birth of a predisposed or "affected" individual-a rationale that is often associated with prenatal testing. Many clinicians and patients held different attitudes depending on what is specifically screened, despite the sometimes blurry distinction between conditions and traits. Considerations raised by clinicians and patients may help guide professional societies in developing guidelines to navigate the uncertain terrain of PES.


Subject(s)
Fertilization in Vitro , Preimplantation Diagnosis , Humans , Female , Adult , Genetic Testing , Male , Multifactorial Inheritance/genetics , Pregnancy , Infertility/genetics , Infertility/psychology , Infertility/diagnosis , Qualitative Research , Attitude of Health Personnel
2.
Hum Reprod ; 37(7): 1375-1378, 2022 06 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35604365

ABSTRACT

Recent advances in developing polygenic scores have made it possible to screen embryos for common, complex conditions and traits. Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is currently offered commercially, and though there has been much recent media and academic coverage, reproductive specialists' points of view have not yet been prominent in these discussions. We convened a roundtable of multidisciplinary experts, including reproductive specialists to discuss PES and its implications. In this Opinion, we describe four clinically relevant issues associated with the use of PES that have not yet been discussed in the literature and warrant consideration.


Subject(s)
Mass Screening , Multifactorial Inheritance , Attention , Embryo, Mammalian , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genome-Wide Association Study , Humans , Phenotype
3.
Mol Psychiatry ; 23(1): 15-23, 2018 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29158581

ABSTRACT

There is an emerging consensus that genomic researchers should, at a minimum, offer to return to individual participants clinically valid, medically important and medically actionable genomic findings (for example, pathogenic variants in BRCA1) identified in the course of research. However, this is not a common practice in psychiatric genetics research. Furthermore, psychiatry researchers often generate findings that do not meet all of these criteria, yet there may be ethically compelling arguments to offer selected results. Here, we review the return of results debate in genomics research and propose that, as for genomic studies of other medical conditions, psychiatric genomics researchers should offer findings that meet the minimum criteria stated above. Additionally, if resources allow, psychiatry researchers could consider offering to return pre-specified 'clinically valuable' findings even if not medically actionable-for instance, findings that help corroborate a psychiatric diagnosis, and findings that indicate important health risks. Similarly, we propose offering 'likely clinically valuable' findings, specifically, variants of uncertain significance potentially related to a participant's symptoms. The goal of this Perspective is to initiate a discussion that can help identify optimal ways of managing the return of results from psychiatric genomics research.


Subject(s)
Ethics Committees, Research/standards , Genetic Research/ethics , Genomics/methods , Guidelines as Topic , Mental Disorders/genetics , Female , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genetic Variation , Genomics/ethics , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/diagnosis
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL