scholarly journals A collaborative genetic carrier screening model for the British Ashkenazi Jewish community

Author(s):  
Monica Ziff ◽  
Juliette Harris
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael H. Guo ◽  
Anthony R. Gregg

AbstractPurposePrenatal genetic carrier screening can identify parents at risk of having a child affected by a recessive condition. However, the conditions/genes most appropriate for screening remain a matter of debate. Estimates of carrier rates across genes are needed to guide construction of carrier screening panels.MethodsWe leveraged an exome sequencing database (n=123,136) to estimate carrier rates across 6 major ancestries for 416 genes associated with severe recessive conditions.Results36.5% (East Asian) to 65% (Ashkenazi Jewish) of individuals are variant carriers in at least one of the 416 genes. For couples, screening all 416 genes would identify 0.4-2.8% of couples as being at-risk for having a child affected by one of these conditions. Screening just the 47 genes with carrier rate > 1.0% would identify more than 85% of these at-risk couples. An ancestry-specific panel designed to capture genes with carrier rates > 1.0% would include 6 to 30 genes, while a comparable pan-ethnic panel would include 47 genes.ConclusionOur work guides the design of carrier screening panels and provides data to assist in counseling prospective parents. Our results highlight a high cumulative carrier rate across genes, underscoring the need for careful selection of genes for screening.


Author(s):  
Kristine Barlow-Stewart ◽  
Kayley Bardsley ◽  
Elle Elan ◽  
Jane Fleming ◽  
Yemima Berman ◽  
...  

AbstractPrograms offering reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) to high school students within the Ashkenazi Jewish community in several countries including Canada and Australia have demonstrated high uptake and retention of educational messages over time. This study was undertaken to evaluate whether testing for an expanded number of conditions in a high school setting would impact the effectiveness of education. In this questionnaire-based study, genetic carrier testing for nine conditions was offered to 322 year 11 students from five high schools, with students attending a compulsory 1-h education session prior to voluntary testing. Comparison of pre- and post-education measures demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge, positive attitudes, and reduced concern immediately after the education session. Retention of knowledge, measures of positive attitude, and low concern over a 12-month period were significantly higher than baseline, although there was some reduction over time. In total, 77% of students exhibited informed choice regarding their intention to test. A significant increase in baseline knowledge scores and positive attitude was also demonstrated between our original 1995 evaluation (with testing for only one condition) and 2014 (testing for nine conditions) suggesting community awareness and attitudes to RGCS have increased. These findings validate the implementation of effective education programs as a key component of RGCS and are relevant as gene panels expand with the introduction of genomic technologies.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Gbur ◽  
Logan Mauney ◽  
Kathryn J. Gray ◽  
Louise Wilkins‐Haug ◽  
Stephanie Guseh

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ebony Richardson ◽  
Alison McEwen ◽  
Toby Newton-John ◽  
Karine Manera ◽  
Chris Jacobs

Abstract Background Reproductive genetic carrier screening is a type of genetic testing available to those planning a pregnancy, or during their first trimester, to understand their risk of having a child with a severe genetic condition. There is a lack of consensus for ‘what to measure’ in studies on this intervention, leading to heterogeneity in choice of outcomes and methods of measurement. Such outcome heterogeneity has implications for the quality and comparability of these studies and has led to a lack of robust research evidence in the literature to inform policy and decision-making around the offer of this screening. As reproductive genetic carrier screening becomes increasingly accessible within the general population, it is timely to investigate the outcomes of this intervention. Objectives The development of a core outcome set is an established methodology to address issues with outcome heterogeneity in research. We aim to develop a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening to clarify and standardise outcomes for research and practice. Methods In accordance with guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative, this study will consist of five steps: (i) a systematic review of quantitative studies, using narrative synthesis to identify previously reported outcomes, their definitions, and methods of measurement; (ii) a systematic review of qualitative studies using content analysis to identify excerpts related to patient experience and perspectives that can be interpreted as outcomes; (iii) semi-structured focus groups and interviews with patients who have undertaken reproductive genetic carrier screening to identify outcomes of importance to them; (iv) Delphi survey of key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, and researchers, to refine and prioritise the list of outcomes generated from the previous steps; and (v) a virtual consensus meeting with a purposive sample of key stakeholders to finalise the core outcome set for reporting. Discussion This protocol outlines the core outcome set development process and its novel application in the setting of genetic testing. This core outcome set will support the standardisation of outcome reporting in reproductive carrier screening research and contribute to an evolving literature on outcomes to evaluate genetic testing and genetic counselling as health interventions. COMET core outcome set registration http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1381.


Author(s):  
Mariam Eissa ◽  
Taghrid Aloraini ◽  
Lamia Alsubaie ◽  
Abdulrahman Alswaid ◽  
Wafaa Eyiad ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 104075
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Thomas ◽  
Sharon Lewis ◽  
John Massie ◽  
Edwin P. Kirk ◽  
Alison D. Archibald ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan J Gross ◽  
Beth A Pletcher ◽  
Kristin G Monaghan

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 709-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Pereira ◽  
Michelle Wood ◽  
Emerly Luong ◽  
Allison Briggs ◽  
Michael Galloway ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document