Literature DB >> 15210524

Impact of presymptomatic genetic testing for hereditary ataxia and neuromuscular disorders.

Corrine O Smith1, Hillary P Lipe, Thomas D Bird.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the exception of Huntington disease, the psychological and psychosocial impact of DNA testing for neurogenetic disorders has not been well studied.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychosocial impact of genetic testing for autosomal dominant forms of hereditary ataxia and neuromuscular disorders. Patients Fifty subjects at risk for autosomal dominant forms of spinocerebellar ataxia (n = 11), muscular dystrophy (n = 28), and hereditary neuropathy (n = 12). DESIGN AND
SETTING: A prospective, descriptive, observational study in a university setting of individuals who underwent genetic counseling and DNA testing. Participants completed 3 questionnaires before testing and at regular intervals after testing. The questionnaire set included the Revised Impact of Event Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, demographic information, and an assessment of attitudes and feelings about genetic testing.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine subjects (78%) completed 6 months to 5 years of posttest follow-up. Common reasons for pursuing genetic testing were to provide an explanation for symptoms, emotional relief, and information for future planning. Thirty-four (68%) had positive and 16 (32%) had negative genetic results. In those with a positive result, 26 (76%) had nonspecific signs or symptoms of the relevant disorder. Forty-two participants (84%) felt genetic testing was beneficial. Groups with positive and negative test results coped well with results. However, 13 subjects (10 with positive and 3 with negative results) reported elevated anxiety levels, and 3 (1 with positive and 2 with negative results) expressed feelings of depression during the follow-up period. The test result was not predictive of anxiety or depression.
CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals find neurogenetic testing to be beneficial, regardless of the result. Anxiety or depression may persist in some persons with positive or negative test results. Testing can have a demonstrable impact on family planning and interpersonal relationships. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of such testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15210524     DOI: 10.1001/archneur.61.6.875

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Neurol        ISSN: 0003-9942


  16 in total

1.  The role of distress in uptake and response to predisposition genetic testing: the BMPR2 experience.

Authors:  Diana L Jones; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2011-11-15

2.  Genetic counseling and testing for FSHD (facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy) in the Israeli population.

Authors:  Miri Yanoov-Sharav; Esther Leshinsky-Silver; Sarit Cohen; Chana Vinkler; Marina Michelson; Tally Lerman-Sagie; Mira Ginzberg; Menahem Sadeh; Dorit Lev
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  Machado-Joseph Disease: from first descriptions to new perspectives.

Authors:  Conceição Bettencourt; Manuela Lima
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 4.123

4.  Disclosing the disclosure: factors associated with communicating the results of genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Sato Ashida; Laura M Koehly; J Scott Roberts; Clara A Chen; Susan Hiraki; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2009-12

Review 5.  Chronic diseases influence major life changing decisions: a new domain in quality of life research.

Authors:  Zu Bhatti; Ms Salek; Ay Finlay
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  ironXS: high-school screening for hereditary haemochromatosis is acceptable and feasible.

Authors:  Martin B Delatycki; Michelle Wolthuizen; Veronica Collins; Elizabeth Varley; Joanna Craven; Katrina J Allen; Lyle C Gurrin; Maryanne Aitken; M Kaye Trembath; Lyndal Bond; Gabrielle R Wilson; Sarah E M Stephenson; Ivan Macciocca; Chriselle Hickerton; Paul J Lockhart; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Tamsen Brown; Susan LaRusse Eckert; Melissa Butson; A Dessa Sadovnick; Kimberly A Quaid; Clara Chen; Robert Cook-Deegan; Lindsay A Farrer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Using AD biomarker research results for clinical care: a survey of ADNI investigators.

Authors:  Melanie B Shulman; Kristin Harkins; Robert C Green; Jason Karlawish
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 9.910

9.  High school Tay-Sachs disease carrier screening: 5 to 11-year follow-up.

Authors:  Helen Curd; Sharon Lewis; Ivan Macciocca; Margaret Sahhar; Vicki Petrou; Agnes Bankier; Sari Lieberman; Ephrat Levy-Lahad; Martin B Delatycki
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-07-27

10.  Comparing test-specific distress of susceptibility versus deterministic genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Michael R Cassidy; J Scott Roberts; Thomas D Bird; Ellen J Steinbart; L Adrienne Cupples; Clara A Chen; Erin Linnenbringer; Robert C Green
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 21.566

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.