Advertisement

Perspectives of couples with high risk of transmitting genetic disorders

      Objective

      To investigate the preference for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) as an alternative to prenatal diagnosis (PND) in a large group of couples representing a wide array of genetic disorders. We also investigated the couple's familiarity with PGD and presented time trade-off scenarios for PGD versus PND, as PGD treatment is regularly accompanied by waiting lists.

      Design

      Questionnaire study.

      Setting

      Patient organizations representing genetic disorders.

      Patient(s)

      A total of 210 couples carrying genetic disorders.

      Main Outcome Measure(s)

      Preference for PGD or PND and familiarity with PGD in carrier couples.

      Result(s)

      Fifteen organizations representing 38 genetic disorders agreed to participate. Nine hundred eighty-three couples responded. In total 210 couples were in their reproductive years (women 18–40 years) and had a desire to conceive. Ninety couples (42%) had never heard of PGD. After they were informed, 127 couples (60%) wanted to have diagnostic testing (PND or PGD) performed. Ninety-four (74%) of these couples preferred testing with PGD. When no waiting list was used 102 couples (80%) preferred PGD. With a 2-year waiting list for PGD, 58 couples (46%) would opt for PGD.

      Conclusion(s)

      Many carrier couples are unaware of the existence of PGD. When informed, most couples prefer PGD more than PND. The preference for PGD decreases with longer waiting lists.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Handyside A.H.
        • Kontogianni E.H.
        • Hardy K.
        • Winston R.M.
        Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification.
        Nature. 1990; 344: 768-770
        • Blumberg B.D.
        • Golbus M.S.
        • Hanson K.H.
        The psychological sequelae of abortion performed for a genetic indication.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975; 122: 799-808
        • Donnai P.
        • Charles N.
        • Harris R.
        Attitudes of patients after “genetic” termination of pregnancy.
        Br Med J. 1981; 282: 621-622
        • Lloyd J.
        • Laurence K.M.
        Sequelae and support after termination of pregnancy for fetal malformation.
        Br Med J. 1985; 290: 907-909
        • Black R.B.
        A 1 and 6 month follow-up of prenatal diagnosis patients who lost pregnancies.
        Prenat Diagn. 1989; 9: 795-804
        • Kenyon S.L.
        • Hackett G.A.
        • Campbell S.
        Termination of pregnancy following diagnosis of fetal malformation: the need for improved follow-up services.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 31: 97-100
        • Heckerling P.S.
        • Verp M.S.
        Amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal genetic testing: a decision analysis.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 44: 657-670
        • Elias S.
        • Simpson J.L.
        Amniocentesis and fetal blood sampling.
        in: Milunsky A. Genetic disorders and the fetus. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore2004: 66-99
        • Fletcher J.F.
        The ethics of genetic control: ending reproductive roulette.
        Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY1998
        • Schieve L.A.
        • Meikle S.F.
        • Ferre C.
        • Peterson H.B.
        • Jeng G.
        • Wilcox L.S.
        Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 731-737
        • Hansen M.
        • Kurinczuk J.J.
        • Bower C.
        • Webb S.
        The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 725-730
        • Ludwig A.K.
        • Sutcliffe A.G.
        • Diedrich K.
        • Ludwig M.
        Post-neonatal health and development of children born after assisted reproduction: a systematic review of controlled studies.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006; 127: 3-25
      1. Corveleyn A, Zika E, Morris M, Dequeker E, Lawford Davies J, Sermon K, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Europe. European Commission; Joint Research Centre; Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Published in Spain by the office for official Publications of the European Communities 2008 ISBN 978-92-79-05654-3.

        • Goossens V.
        • Harton G.
        • Moutou C.
        • Scriven P.N.
        • Traeger-Synodinos J.
        • Sermon K.
        • et al.
        ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VIII: cycles from January to December 2005 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2006.
        Hum Reprod. 2008; 23: 2629-2645
        • Palomba M.L.
        • Monni G.
        • Lai R.
        • Cau G.
        • Olla G.
        • Cao A.
        Psychological implications and acceptability of preimplantation diagnosis.
        Hum Reprod. 1994; 9: 360-362
        • Pergament E.
        Preimplantation diagnosis: a patient perspective.
        Prenat Diagn. 1991; 11: 493-500
        • Chamayou S.
        • Guglielmino A.
        • Giambona A.
        • Siciliano S.
        • Di Stefano G.
        • Scibilia G.
        • et al.
        Attitude of potential users in Sicily towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis for beta-thalassaemia and aneuploidies.
        Hum Reprod. 1998; 13: 1936-1944
        • Lavery S.A.
        • Aurell R.
        • Turner C.
        • Castellu C.
        • Veiga A.
        • Barri P.N.
        • et al.
        Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: patients' experiences and attitudes.
        Hum Reprod. 2002; 12: 2464-2467
        • Hui P.W.
        • Lam Y.H.
        • Chen M.
        • Tang M.H.
        • Yeung W.S.
        • Ng E.H.
        • et al.
        Attitude of at-risk subjects towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis of alpha- and beta-thalassaemias in Hong Kong.
        Prenat Diagn. 2002; 22: 508-511
        • Snowdon C.
        • Green J.M.
        Preimplantation diagnosis and other reproductive options: attitudes of male and female carriers of recessive disorders.
        Hum Reprod. 1997; 12: 341-350
        • Twisk M.
        • van der Veen F.
        • Repping S.
        • Heineman M.J.
        Preferences of subfertile women regarding elective single embryo transfer: additional in vitro fertilization cycles are acceptable, lower pregnancy rates are not.
        Fertil Steril. 2007; 88: 1006-1009
        • Twisk M.
        • Haadsma M.L.
        • van der Veen F.
        • Repping S.
        • Mastenbroek S.
        • Heineman M.J.
        • et al.
        Preimplantation genetic screening as an alternative to prenatal testing for Down syndrome: preferences of women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment.
        Fertil Steril. 2007; 88: 804-810
        • Franssen M.T.
        • Korevaar J.C.
        • van der Veen F.
        • Boer K.
        • Leschot N.J.
        • Goddijn M.
        Management of recurrent miscarriage: evaluating the impact of a guideline.
        Hum Reprod. 2007; 22: 1298-1303