Search

The European Union (EU) Council Recommendation on rare diseases urged the member states to implement national and EU collaborative actions to improve the health care of rare disease patients. Following this recommendation, the European Commission launched a tender on newborn screening (NBS) to report on current practices of laboratory testing, form a network of experts and provide guidance on how to further implement NBS screening in a responsible way, the latter of which was provided in an Expert Opinion document. After consultation of experts from EU member states, (potential) candidate member states and European Free Trade Association countries, in a consensus meeting in June 2011, 70 expert opinions were finalized. They included the need to develop case definitions for all disorders screened for to facilitate assessment and international outcome studies. Decision whether a screening program should be performed can be based on screening criteria updated from the traditional Wilson and Jungner (1968) criteria, relating to disease, treatment, test and cost. The interest of the child should be central in the assessment of pros and cons. A European NBS body should assess evidence on (new) screening candidate disorders. For rare conditions, best level evidence should be used. The health system should ensure treatment to cases diagnosed by screening, controlled and revised by follow-up outcome studies. Screening methodology should aim to avoid unintended findings, such as mild forms and carrier status information, as much as possible. Activities to improve NBS in Europe, such as training and scientific evaluation, could benefit from collaboration at EU level and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and assisted reproductive technology (ART), and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials. Seven years later, in March 2012, a follow-up interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies, including experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project. The main goal of this meeting was to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ARTs. As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognised and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome before conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from randomised clinical trials to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole-genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (International Standards Organisation - ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo. The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonisation and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe and beyond. The aim of this paper is to complement previous publications and provide an update of selected topics that have evolved since 2005. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the guidelines by the Quality Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) on whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in health care. It states that WGS is used for diagnosing severely-ill infants who are in neonatal intensive care. It highlights the role of the Public and Professional Policy Committee (PPPC) and the recommendations by ESHG on minors' genetic testing.

The arrival of new genetic technologies that allow efficient examination of the whole human genome (microarray, next-generation sequencing) will impact upon both laboratories (cytogenetic and molecular genetics in the first instance) and clinical/medical genetic services. The interpretation of analytical results in terms of their clinical relevance and the predicted health status poses a challenge to both laboratory and clinical geneticists, due to the wealth and complexity of the information obtained. There is a need to discuss how to best restructure the genetic services logistically and to determine the clinical utility of genetic testing so that patients can receive appropriate advice and genetic testing. To weigh up the questions and challenges of the new genetic technologies, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) held a series of workshops on 10 June 2010 in Gothenburg. This was part of an ESHG satellite symposium on the 'Changing landscape of genetic testing', co-organized by the ESHG Genetic Services Quality and Public and Professional Policy Committees. The audience consisted of a mix of geneticists, ethicists, social scientists and lawyers. In this paper, we summarize the discussions during the workshops and present some of the identified ways forward to improve and adapt the genetic services so that patients receive accurate and relevant information. This paper covers ethics, clinical utility, primary care, genetic services and the blurring boundaries between healthcare and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Personalised prevention using genomic information requires active involvement from patients and the public, who should be well-informed and empowered to make healthcare decisions that reflect their personal values. We aimed to map engagement practises, and assess the extent and types of engagement methods used in the field of personalised prevention of common chronic conditions using genomic information., Methods: A scoping review on selected literature (in Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, and IBSS) from 2015 to 2023 was performed. Articles included described practises of patient and public engagement in personalised prevention and genomics conducted in Europe focusing on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and neurodegenerative disorders. Engagement was explored based on grouping practises across the domains of care, research, education, and governance., Results: A total of 23 articles describing 23 engagement practises were selected. Analysis revealed diverse engagement levels, the majority falling into the low to medium engagement category, and showing mainly unidirectional methods of engagement, especially consultation. Most engagement activities related to cancer, and none to neurodegenerative disorders. Most publications appeared in the care domain, followed by the research domain, a combination of research and care, and a combination of governance and education., Conclusion: These results suggest that most practises to engage patients and public in personalised prevention using genomic information appear to have lower levels of engagement. Elaborating on and implementing practises that engage and empower patients and the public at all levels of the engagement spectrum and for all chronic diseases is needed, fostering a more inclusive and participatory approach to personalised prevention., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Kreeftenberg, Henneman, Ket, Cornel and van El.)

Somatic gene editing (SGE) holds great promise for making genetic therapy possible for many monogenic conditions very soon. Is our current system of European market authorization and reimbursement ready for the expected tsunami of gene therapies? At a recent workshop of the Netherlands ZonMw consortium on ethical, legal, and social implications of personalized medicine, we discussed the current possibilities for bringing new gene therapies to the clinic. In Europe, it is not yet clear whether the route via the European medicines agency as an advanced therapy medicinal product is the most appropriate for evaluation of highly personalized SGE applications, although this may optimally guarantee safety and effectiveness. Compassionate use may ensure faster access than the centralized procedure but does not stimulate the commercial development of products. Prescription to named patients may only provide adequate access for single patients. Temporary authorization of use may allow access to medication half a year before formal market authorization has been granted, but may also have large budget impacts. Magistral compounding under a hospital exemption may be an attractive solution for rare, tailor-made applications at an acceptable price. To approve local experimental use of a therapy on a case-by-case basis may be fast, but does not guarantee optimal safety, effectiveness, and broad implementation. We argue that alternative routes should be considered for products developed for a market of large groups of patients versus unique personalized treatments. A balance between scientific evidence for safety and effectiveness, affordability, and fast access may demand a range of alternative solutions., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that 'actionable' genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings-so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, preclinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g., gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g., safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns.

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.

We studied trends in genetic patent applications in order to identify the trends in the commercialization of research findings in genetics. To define genetic patent applications, the European version (ECLA) of the International Patent Classification (IPC) codes was used. Genetic patent applications data from the PATSTAT database from 1990 until 2009 were analyzed for time trends and regional distribution. Overall, the number of patent applications has been growing. In 2009, 152 000 patent applications were submitted under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and within the EP (European Patent) system of the European Patent Office (EPO). The number of genetic patent applications increased until a peak was reached in the year 2000, with >8000 applications, after which it declined by almost 50%. Continents show different patterns over time, with the global peak in 2000 mainly explained by the USA and Europe, while Asia shows a stable number of >1000 per year. Nine countries together account for 98.9% of the total number of genetic patent applications. In The Netherlands, 26.7% of the genetic patent applications originate from public research institutions. After the year 2000, the number of genetic patent applications dropped significantly. Academic leadership and policy as well as patent regulations seem to have an important role in the trend differences. The ongoing investment in genetic research in the past decade is not reflected by an increase of patent applications.

Study Question: How has the interface between genetics and assisted reproduction technology (ART) evolved since 2005?, Summary Answer: The interface between ART and genetics has become more entwined as we increase our understanding about the genetics of infertility and we are able to perform more comprehensive genetic testing., What Is Known Already: In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and ART and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials., Study Design, Size, Duration: An interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies and experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: In March 2012, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the EuroGentest2 Coordination Action Project met to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ART., Main Results and the Role of Chance: As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognized and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome prior to conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and PGD may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from RCTs to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving, but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonization and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe, and beyond., Wider Implications of the Findings: This continually evolving field requires communication between the clinical genetics and IVF teams and patients to ensure that they are fully informed and can make well-considered choices., Study Funding/competing Interests: Funding was received from ESHRE, ESHG and EuroGentest2 European Union Coordination Action project (FP7 - HEALTH-F4-2010-26146) to support attendance at this meeting., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and assisted reproductive technology (ART), and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials. Seven years later, in March 2012, a follow-up interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies, including experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project. The main goal of this meeting was to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ARTs. As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognised and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome before conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from randomised clinical trials to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole-genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (International Standards Organisation - ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo. The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonisation and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe and beyond. The aim of this paper is to complement previous publications and provide an update of selected topics that have evolved since 2005.

The participation of minors in biobank research can offer great benefits for science and health care. However, as minors are a vulnerable population they are also in need of adequate protective measures when they are enrolled in research. Research using biobanked biological samples from children poses additional ethical issues to those raised by research using adult biobanks. For example, small children have only limited capacity, if any, to understand the meaning and implications of the research and to give a documented agreement to it. Older minors are gradually acquiring this capacity. We describe principles for good practice related to the inclusion of minors in biobank research, focusing on issues related to benefits and subsidiarity, consent, proportionality and return of results. Some of these issues are currently heavily debated, and we conclude by providing principles for good practice for policy makers of biobanks, researchers and anyone involved in dealing with stored tissue samples from children. Actual implementation of the principles will vary according to different jurisdictions.

In many European countries neonatal screening has been introduced over the last 50 years as an important public health programme. Depending on health care structure, available funds, local politics, input from professional groups, parent groups, and the general public this introduction has led to different approaches in the way the screening programmes have been set up, financed and governed. To get some insight about the current situation, in 2009 the European Union, via its EAHC agency, put out a call for a tender that was acquired by our project group. An online survey was compiled in which the whole screening programme was covered by a questionnaire. This survey covered the EU member states, (potential) candidate member states and EFTA countries, in total 40 countries. Results showed little consensus concerning 1. information of parents including informed consent; 2. which conditions are screened for, ranging from 1 to around 30 conditions; 3. sampling time post partum; 4. screening methodology including cut-offs values even between screening laboratories within countries.; 5. storage of residual specimens, varying from 3 months to 1000 years. In addition, confirmatory diagnostics and follow-up also show large discrepancies (Burgard et al. http://www.iss.it/cnmr/prog/cont.php?id=1621&lang=1&tipo=64 2011). In addition to the current practices report an expert opinion document has been produced with recommendations to the EU Commission for future improvements, e.g. in parallel to the way the USA has harmonized its practices based on recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics (Watson et al., Pediatrics 117: S296-S307, 2006).

In a survey conducted in 2010/2011 data from the 28 EU member states, four EU candidate states (Croatia, FYROM, Iceland, Turkey), three potential EU candidate states (Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia), and two EFTA states (Norway and Switzerland) were collected. The status and function of newborn screening (NBS) programmes were investigated from the information to prospective parents and the public via confirmation of a positive screening result up to decisions on treatment. This article summarises the results from screening laboratory findings to start of treatment. In addition we asked about the existence of feedback loops reporting the conclusions of confirmation of screening results to the screening laboratory and communication of long-term outcome to diagnostic units and possibly existing central registries. Parallel to the description of actual practices of where, how and by whom the different steps of the programmes are executed, we also asked for the existence of guidelines or directives regulating the screening programmes, material to support information of parents about diagnoses and treatment and training facilities for professionals involved in the programmes. This survey gives a first comprehensive overview of the steps following a positive screening result in European NBS programmes. The 37 data sets reveal substantial variation of national screening panels, but also a lot of similarities. Analysis across all countries revealed that actual practice is often organised but not regulated by guidelines. Material to inform patients is available more often for explaining treatment (69 %) than explaining the necessity of confirmatory diagnostics (41 %). Training of professionals is rarely regulated by a guideline (2 %), but is offered for paediatricians (40 %) and dieticians (29 %) and only rarely for other professions (e.g. geneticists, clinical nurse specialists, psychologists). Registry-based evaluation of long-term outcome is as yet almost nonexistent (3 %).

Background: European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT) is a network of population-based congenital anomaly registries in Europe surveying more than 1 million births per year, or 25% of the births in the European Union. This paper describes the potential of the EUROCAT collaboration for pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety surveillance., Methods: The 34 full members and 6 associate members of the EUROCAT network were sent a questionnaire about their data sources on drug exposure and on drug coding. Available data on drug exposure during the first trimester available in the central EUROCAT database for the years 1996-2000 was summarised for 15 out of 25 responding full members., Results: Of the 40 registries, 29 returned questionnaires (25 full and 4 associate members). Four of these registries do not collect data on maternal drug use. Of the full members, 15 registries use the EUROCAT drug code, 4 use the international ATC drug code, 3 registries use another coding system and 7 use a combination of these coding systems. Obstetric records are the most frequently used sources of drug information for the registries, followed by interviews with the mother. Only one registry uses pharmacy data. Percentages of cases with drug exposure (excluding vitamins/minerals) varied from 4.4% to 26.0% among different registries. The categories of drugs recorded varied widely between registries., Conclusions: Practices vary widely between registries regarding recording drug exposure information. EUROCAT has the potential to be an effective collaborative framework to contribute to post-marketing drug surveillance in relation to teratogenic effects, but work is needed to implement ATC drug coding more widely, and to diversify the sources of information used to determine drug exposure in each registry.