Search

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 Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Which clinical and ethical aspects of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders or structural rearrangements (PGT-M, PGT-SR) should be considered when accepting requests and counselling couples for PGT when applied for more than one condition (combination-PGT; cPGT-M/SR)?Summary Answer: cPGT is a feasible extension of the practice of PGT-M/SR that may require adapting the criteria many countries have in place with regard to indications-setting for PGT-M/SR, while leading to complex choices that require timely counselling and information.What Is Known Already: Although PGT-M/SR is usually performed to prevent transmission of one disorder, requests for PGT-M/SR for more than one condition (cPGT-M/SR) are becoming less exceptional. However, knowledge about implications for a responsible application of such treatments is lacking.Study Design, Size, Duration: Retrospective review of all (40) PGT-M/SR applications concerning more than one genetic condition over the period 1995-2018 in the files of the Dutch national PGT centre. This comprises all relevant national data since the start of PGT in the Netherlands.Participants/materials, Setting and Methods: Data regarding cPGT-M/SR cases were collected by means of reviewing medical files of couples applying for cPGT-M/SR. Ethical challenges arising with cPGT-M/SR were explored against the background of PGT-M/SR regulations in several European countries, as well as of relevant ESHRE-guidance regarding both indications-setting and transfer-decisions.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: We report 40 couples applying for cPGT-M/SR of which 16 couples started their IVF treatment. Together they underwent 39 IVF cycles leading to the birth of five healthy children. Of the couples applying for cPGT, 45% differentiated between a primary and secondary condition in terms of perceived severity. In the light of an altered balance of benefits and drawbacks, we argue the 'high risk of a serious condition' standard that many countries uphold as governing indications-setting, should be lowered for secondary conditions in couples who already have an indication for PGT-M/SR. As a consequence of cPGT, professionals will more often be confronted with requests for transferring embryos known to be affected with a condition that they were tested for. In line with ESHRE guidance, such transfers may well be acceptable, on the condition of avoiding a high risk of a child with a seriously diminished quality of life.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We are the first to give an overview of cPGT-M/SR treatments. Retrospective analysis was performed using national data, possibly not reflecting current trends worldwide.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Our observations have led to recommendations for cPGT-M/SR that may add to centre policy making and to the formulation of professional guidelines. Given that the introduction of generic methods for genomic analysis in PGT will regularly yield incidental findings leading to transfer requests with these same challenges, the importance of our discussion exceeds the present discussion of cPGT.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The research for this publication was funded by the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), project number: 141111002 (Long term safety, quality and ethics of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis). None of the authors has any competing interests to declare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]