Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Carrier screening and PGT for an autosomal recessive monogenic disorder: insights from virtual trials

  • Genetics
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the costs and benefits of carrier screening and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for recessive autosomal monogenic disorders for couples attempting assisted conception.

Methods

A simulated first full cycle for women less than 35 years transferring embryos one at a time. The effect of testing on pregnancy outcomes was evaluated for different reporting scenarios. A Monte Carlo method utilising 1000 trials for 10,000 couples, testing 4, 16 and 38 genes, was used to assess the numbers likely to be at high risk and to estimate the incremental cost of screening and PGT to avoid an affected child.

Results

PGT for high-risk couples: testing embryos only for the monogenic condition avoided 1 affected pregnancy for 4 cycles started. Combined with testing for chromosomal aneuploidy: ranking test results avoided 1 adverse pregnancy (affected, biochemical, clinical miscarriage) from 3 cycles started; 1 in 2 when excluding from transfer all embryos with an abnormal test result, within 1 in 25 fewer women achieving an unaffected live birth. Carrier screening for 4, 16 and 38 gene scenarios, where 1:250, 1:196 and 1:29 couples were at high risk: the incremental cost to prevent 1 affected live birth was estimated to be less than GBP 1,150,000 (US $1,587,000), < 836,642 (1,154,566) and < 137,794 (190,156), respectively, in 95% of trials.

Conclusions

Carrier screening combined with PGT, with and without testing for unrelated chromosomal abnormalities, for couples attempting assisted conception is complex but likely to be effective and also expensive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Supplementary file provided.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Xiao Q, Lauschke VM. The prevalence, genetic complexity and population-specific founder effects of human autosomal recessive disorders. NPJ Genom Med. 2021;6:41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baird PA, Anderson TW, Newcombe HB, Lowry RB. Genetic disorders in children and young adults: a population study. Am J Hum Genet. 1988;42:677–93.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Capalbo A, Fabiani M, Caroselli S, Poli M, Girardi L, Patassini C, et al. Clinical validity and utility of preconception expanded carrier screening for the management of reproductive genetic risk in IVF and general population. Hum Reprod. 2021;36:2050–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Payne MR, Skytte AB, Harper JC. The use of expanded carrier screening of gamete donors. Hum Reprod. 2021;36:1702–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bigg M. BioNews. Expanded carrier screening: careful what you look for. https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_151868. Accessed 24 Nov 2021

  6. Shapiro AJ, Kroener L, Quinn MM. Expanded carrier screening for recessively inherited disorders: economic burden and factors in decision-making when one individual in a couple is identified as a carrier. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:957–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang F, Tan J, Shao B, Jiang T, Zhou R, Wang Y, et al. Current attitudes and preconceptions towards expanded carrier screening in the Eastern Chinese reproductive-aged population. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:697–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gregg AR, Aarabi M, Klugman S, Leach NT, Bashford MT, Goldwaser T, et al. ACMG Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee. Screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception: a practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2021;23:1793–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Public Health England: newborn blood spot screening data collection and performance analysis report 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/newborn-blood-spot-screening-data-collection-and-performance-analysis-report/newborn-blood-spot-screening-data-collection-and-performance-analysis-report-1-april-2018-to-31-march-2019. Accessed 24 Nov 2021.

  10. NHS screening programmes: cystic fibrosis screening laboratory handbook (updated 18 August 2021). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cystic-fibrosis-screening-laboratory-handbook/cystic-fibrosis-screening-laboratory-handbook Accessed 24 Nov 2021.

  11. van der Riet AA, van Hout BA, Rutten FF. Cost effectiveness of DNA diagnosis for four monogenic diseases. J Med Genet. 1997;34:741–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cummings, JP, “The lifetime economic burden of monogenic diseases and the social motivations for their treatment with genetic therapy” (2018). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses/9845 . Accessed 24 Novr 2021.

  13. ESHRE PGT Consortium Steering Committee, Carvalho F, Coonen E, Goossens V, Kokkali G, Rubio C, Meijer-Hoogeveen M, el. ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the organisation of PGT. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(3):hoaa021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Rycke M, Berckmoes V. Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders. Genes. 2020;11:871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1786–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Handyside AH, Harton GL, Mariani B, Thornhill AR, Affara N, Shaw MA, et al. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping crossovers between parental haplotypes. J Med Genet. 2010;47:651–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Backenroth D, Zahdeh F, Kling Y, Peretz A, Rosen T, Kort D, et al. Haploseek: a 24-hour all-in-one method for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of monogenic disease and aneuploidy. Genet Med. 2019;21:1390–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang S, Lei C, Wu J, Xiao M, Zhou J, Zhu S, et al. A comprehensive and universal approach for embryo testing in patients with different genetic disorders. Clin Transl Med. 2011;11:e490.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ben-Nagi J, Jones B, Naja R, Amer A, Sunkara S, SenGupta S, et al. Live birth rate is associated with oocyte yield and number of biopsied and suitable blastocysts to transfer in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles for monogenic disorders and chromosomal structural rearrangements. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2019;4:100055.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Yuan P, Zheng L, Ou S, Zhao H, Li R, Luo H, et al. Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities from preimplantation genetic testing to the reproductive outcomes: a comparison between three different structural rearrangements based on next-generation sequencing. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:709–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheng D, Hu L, Gong F, Yuan S, Luo K, Wu X, et al. Clinical outcomes following preimplantation genetic testing and microdissecting junction region in couples with balanced chromosome rearrangement. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:735–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tiegs AW, Tao X, Zhan Y, Whitehead C, Kim J, Hanson B, et al. A multicenter, prospective, blinded, nonselection study evaluating the predictive value of an aneuploid diagnosis using a targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy assay and impact of biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:627–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Scriven PN. A tale of two studies: now is no longer the best of times for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:673–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Scriven PN. PGT-SR (reciprocal translocation) using trophectoderm sampling and next-generation sequencing: insights from a virtual trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:1971–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yan J, Qin Y, Zhao H, Sun Y, Gong F, Li R, et al. Live birth with or without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2047–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Scriven PN. Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy: insights from a virtual trial for women under the age of 40 when transferring embryos one at a time. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ray PF. Ethics and genetics of carrier embryos. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2722–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Guy’s and St Thomas’ Assisted Conception Unit Private Healthcare. https://guysandstthomasprivatehealthcare.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ACU-Self-Funding-Price-List.pdf . Accessed 24 Nov 2021

  29. Scriven PN. Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening and cumulative reproductive outcome: transfer strategy, diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. AIMS Genetics. 2016;3:177–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Uitenbroek DG: SISA. https://www.quantitativeskills.com/sisa/ . Accessed 24 Nov 2021

  31. Coonen E, van Montfoort A, Carvalho F, Kokkali G, Moutou C, Rubio C, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium data collection XVI-XVIII: cycles from 2013 to 2015. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(4):hoaa043.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. van Montfoort A, Carvalho F, Coonen E, Kokkali G, Moutou C, Rubio C, Goossens V, De Rycke M. ESHRE PGT Consortium data collection XIX-XX: PGT analyses from 2016 to 2017. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021(3):hoab024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. NHS Health: cystic fibrosis. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cystic-fibrosis/. Accessed 24 Nov 2021.

  34. NHS Health: MCADD. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mcadd/. Accessed 24 Nov 2021.

  35. Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority: PGT-M conditions. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/pgt-m-conditions/. Accessed 14 Jul 2021

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The author is responsible for the content and writing of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul N. Scriven.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 6449 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scriven, P.N. Carrier screening and PGT for an autosomal recessive monogenic disorder: insights from virtual trials. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 331–340 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02398-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02398-z

Keywords

Navigation