PurposeExpanded carrier screening (ECS) informs couples of their risk of having offspring affected by certain genetic conditions. Limited data exists assessing the actions and reproductive outcomes of at-risk couples (ARCs). We describe the impact of ECS on planned and actual pregnancy management in the largest sample of ARCs studied to date.MethodsCouples who elected ECS and were found to be at high risk of having a pregnancy affected by at least one of 176 genetic conditions were invited to complete a survey about their actions and pregnancy management.ResultsThree hundred ninety-one ARCs completed the survey. Among those screened before becoming pregnant, 77% planned or pursued actions to avoid having affected offspring. Among those screened during pregnancy, 37% elected prenatal diagnostic testing (PNDx) for that pregnancy. In subsequent pregnancies that occurred in both the preconception and prenatal screening groups, PNDx was pursued in 29%. The decision to decline PNDx was most frequently based on the fear of procedure-related miscarriage, as well as the belief that termination would not be pursued in the event of a positive diagnosis.ConclusionECS results impacted couples’ reproductive decision-making and led to altered pregnancy management that effectively eliminates the risk of having affected offspring.

Background Disease severity is important when considering genes for inclusion on reproductive expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels. We applied a validated and previously published algorithm that classifies diseases into four severity categories (mild, moderate, severe, and profound) to 176 genes screened by ECS. Disease traits defining severity categories in the algorithm were then mapped to four severity‐related ECS panel design criteria cited by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Methods Eight genetic counselors (GCs) and four medical geneticists (MDs) applied the severity algorithm to subsets of 176 genes. MDs and GCs then determined by group consensus how each of these disease traits mapped to ACOG severity criteria, enabling determination of the number of ACOG severity criteria met by each gene. Results Upon consensus GC and MD application of the severity algorithm, 68 (39%) genes were classified as profound, 71 (40%) as severe, 36 (20%) as moderate, and one (1%) as mild. After mapping of disease traits to ACOG severity criteria, 170 out of 176 genes (96.6%) were found to meet at least one of the four criteria, 129 genes (73.3%) met at least two, 73 genes (41.5%) met at least three, and 17 genes (9.7%) met all four. Conclusion This study classified the severity of a large set of Mendelian genes by collaborative clinical expert application of a trait‐based algorithm. Further, it operationalized difficult to interpret ACOG severity criteria via mapping of disease traits, thereby promoting consistency of ACOG criteria interpretation.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) suggest carrier screening panel design criteria intended to ensure meaningful results. This study used a data-driven approach to interpret the criteria to identify guidelines-consistent panels. Methods: Carrier frequencies in >460,000 individuals across 11 races/ethnicities were used to assess carrier frequency. Other criteria were interpreted on the basis of published data. A total of 176 conditions were then evaluated. Stringency thresholds were set as suggested by ACOG and/or ACMG or by evaluating conditions already recommended by ACOG and ACMG. Results: Forty and 75 conditions had carrier frequencies of ≥1 in 100 and ≥1 in 200, respectively; 175 had a well-defined phenotype; and 165 met at least 1 severity criterion and had an onset early in life. Thirty-seven conditions met conservative thresholds, including a carrier frequency of ≥1 in 100, and 74 conditions met permissive thresholds, including a carrier frequency of ≥1 in 200; thus, both were identified as guidelines-consistent panels. Conclusion: Clear panel design criteria are needed to ensure quality and consistency among carrier screening panels. Evidence-based analyses of criteria resulted in the identification of guidelines-consistent panels of 37 and 74 conditions.

The size and reach of the genetic counseling profession have expanded on a global scale since the 1970s. Despite this growth, the profession of genetic counseling has remained demographically homogenous. Promoting a culture of inclusivity that supports visible and invisible diversity and leveraging that culture not only expands perspectives represented in the field, but also helps foster equity in genetic services. This report summarizes the formation, implementation, and outcomes of the 2019 Diversity and Inclusion Task Force (TF) of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), including the group's responses to their allotted charges from the NSGC Board of Directors. The recommendations generated by the TF aim to aid in the (1) establishment of infrastructure for ongoing diversity, inclusion, and equity (DEI) work by collaborating with a DEI organizational expert and forming a DEI advisory group within the NSGC, (2) development of specific short‐term DEI initiatives, and (3) identification of seven areas of focus areas that must be addressed in order to create meaningful and measurable DEI improvements. The efficacy of these recommendations will depend on the consistency and creativity of implementation, shared responsibility, sufficient resources allocated to DEI initiatives, and measurable outcomes.

Objective Expanded carrier screening (ECS) assesses the risk of individuals and couples of having a child affected with a set of genetic conditions. Carriers have options available to optimize pregnancy outcomes based on personal values and preferences. The greatest range of options is available prior to pregnancy, therefore professional societies recommend this screening be performed preconception. This study aimed to assess awareness of, and interest in, ECS in women preconception. Additionally, it aimed to evaluate preferences for timing and location of education and availability of ECS. Methods A total of 260 nulliparous women from the general population were surveyed through Qualtrics, a national market research survey platform. Data were delineated using descriptive statistics. Results Of this cohort, 43.5% reported being aware of ECS prior to the survey and 77.8% indicated interest. Those previously aware were first informed by family, friends, or independent online research. Interest was primarily driven by a desire for reassurance and to make informed decisions about future pregnancies. Interested respondents indicated a willingness to request testing from providers. Participants showed a preference for education and access from a healthcare provider in person. Conclusion These findings provide insight regarding when and where to best educate and reach women prior to pregnancy about ECS to maximize pregnancy outcomes.

No abstract

(Abstracted from Genet Med 2019;21(5):1041–1048) One in 300 pregnancies is impacted by a recessive or X-linked condition. Universal screening is recommended by guidelines for 2 of these conditions (cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy), but this misses approximately 70% of carriers of other diseases and fails to detect somewhere between 13% and 94% of pregnancies affected with severe conditions, depending on race/ethnicity.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of three different carrier screening workflows designed to identify couples at risk for having offspring with autosomal recessive conditions.Methods: Partner testing compliance, unnecessary testing, turnaround time, and ability to identify at-risk couples (ARCs) were measured across all three screening strategies (sequential, tandem, or tandem reflex).Results: A total of 314,100 individuals who underwent carrier screening were analyzed. Sequential, tandem, and tandem reflex screening yielded compliance frequencies of 25.8%, 100%, and 95.9%, respectively. Among 14,595 couples tested in tandem, 42.2% of females were screen-negative, resulting in unnecessary testing of the male partner. In contrast, less than 1% of tandem reflex couples included unnecessary male testing. The median turnaround times were 29.2 days (sequential), 8 days (tandem), and 13.3 days (tandem reflex). The proportion of ARCs detected per total number of individual screens were 0.5% for sequential testing and 1.3% for both tandem and tandem reflex testing. Conclusion:The tandem reflex strategy simplifies a potentially complex clinical scenario by providing a mechanism by which providers can maximize partner compliance and the detection of at-risk couples while minimizing workflow burden and unnecessary testing and is more efficacious than both sequential and tandem screening strategies. Highlights What's already known about this topic?� Studies have explored barriers to carrier screening and follow up partner testing to identify at-risk couples. However, to date, no one has explored the efficacy of different carrier screening workflows.Ben-Shachar and Johansen Taber are co-senior authors.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.