Literature DB >> 19012865

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

Michael R Cassidy1, J Scott Roberts, Thomas D Bird, Ellen J Steinbart, L Adrienne Cupples, Clara A Chen, Erin Linnenbringer, Robert C Green.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be conferred by the susceptibility polymorphism apolipoprotein E (APOE), where the epsilon 4 allele increases the risk of developing late-onset AD but is not a definitive predictor of the disease, or by autosomal dominant mutations (eg, the presenilins), which almost inevitably result in early-onset familial AD. The purpose of this study was to compare the psychological impact of using these two different types of genetic information to disclose genetic risk for AD to family members of affected patients.
METHODS: Data were compared from two separate protocols. The Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer's Disease (REVEAL) Study is a randomized, multi-site clinical trial that evaluated the impact of susceptibility testing for AD with APOE in 101 adult children of AD patients. A separate study, conducted at the University of Washington, assessed the impact of deterministic genetic testing by disclosing presenilin-1, presenilin-2, or TAU genotype to 22 individuals at risk for familial AD or frontotemporal dementia. In both protocols, participants received genetic counseling and completed the impact of event scale (IES), a measure of test-specific distress. Scores were analyzed at the time point closest to 1 year after disclosure at which IES data were available. The role of genetic test result (positive vs negative) and type of genetic testing (deterministic vs susceptibility) in predicting log-transformed IES scores were assessed with linear regression, controlling for age, gender, and time from disclosure.
RESULTS: Subjects from the REVEAL Study who learned that they were positive for the susceptibility gene APOE epsilon 4+ experienced similar, low levels of test-specific distress compared with those who received positive results of deterministic testing in the University of Washington study (P = .78). APOE epsilon 4+ individuals in the susceptibility protocol experienced more test-specific distress than those who tested epsilon 4- in the same study (P = .04); however, among those receiving deterministic test disclosure, the subjects who received positive results did not experience significantly higher levels of distress when compared with those who received negative results (P = .88).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this preliminary study, with limited sample size, suggest that the test-related distress experienced by those receiving positive results for a deterministic mutation is similar to the distress experienced by those receiving positive results from genetic susceptibility testing, and that the majority of participants receiving genotype disclosure do not experience clinically significant distress as indicated by IES scores 1 year after learning of their test results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19012865      PMCID: PMC2610442          DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2008.04.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Alzheimers Dement        ISSN: 1552-5260            Impact factor:   21.566


  50 in total

1.  Public attitudes about genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  P J Neumann; J K Hammitt; C Mueller; H M Fillit; J Hill; N A Tetteh; K S Kosik
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC): a prospective follow-up study.

Authors:  K Aktan-Collan; A Haukkala; J P Mecklin; A Uutela; H Kääriäinen
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2001-08-15       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Can parents adjust to the idea that their child is at risk for a sudden death?: Psychological impact of risk for long QT syndrome.

Authors:  Karin S W H Hendriks; F J M Grosfeld; J P van Tintelen; I M van Langen; A A M Wilde; J van den Bout; H F J ten Kroode
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 2.802

4.  Psychosocial impact of C282Y mutation testing for hemochromatosis.

Authors:  T E Power; P C Adams
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2001

5.  Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychologic distress in a clinic-based sample.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Chanita Hughes; David Main; Claudine Isaacs; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Predictive genetic testing in children and adults: a study of emotional impact.

Authors:  S Michie; M Bobrow; T M Marteau
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.318

7.  Impact of genetic testing for Huntington disease on the family system.

Authors:  S K Sobel; D B Cowan
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2000-01-03

8.  Impact of DNA testing for early-onset familial Alzheimer disease and frontotemporal dementia.

Authors:  E J Steinbart; C O Smith; P Poorkaj; T D Bird
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  2001-11

9.  Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress.

Authors:  M Horowitz; N Wilner; W Alvarez
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 4.312

10.  Attitudes of persons at risk for Huntington disease toward predictive testing.

Authors:  S Kessler; T Field; L Worth; H Mosbarger
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1987-02
View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  New approaches to genetic counseling and testing for Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal degeneration.

Authors:  Jill S Goldman
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.081

2.  Clinical implications of APOE genotyping for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) risk estimation: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Victoria S Marshe; Ilona Gorbovskaya; Sarah Kanji; Maxine Kish; Daniel J Müller
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.575

3.  Genetics patients' perspectives on clinical genomic testing.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Allison Glinka; Janelle Highland; George Asaad; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 2.512

4.  Integrating genomics into clinical oncology: ethical and social challenges from proponents of personalized medicine.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Richard A Settersten; Eric T Juengst; Jennifer R Fishman
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.498

5.  Only connect: personal genomics and the future of American medicine.

Authors:  Misha Angrist
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 4.074

6.  We are the genes we've been waiting for: rational responses to the gathering storm of personal genomics.

Authors:  Misha Angrist
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 11.229

7.  What Psychiatrists Should Know about Genes and Alzheimer's Disease.

Authors:  Edmund Howe
Journal:  Psychiatry (Edgmont)       Date:  2010-10

8.  Genetic Sample Provision Among National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Participants.

Authors:  Shoshana H Bardach; Gregory A Jicha; Shama Karanth; Xuan Zhang; Erin L Abner
Journal:  J Alzheimers Dis       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 4.472

Review 9.  Ethics of genetic and biomarker test disclosures in neurodegenerative disease prevention trials.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Jason Karlawish; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 10.  A review of quality of life after predictive testing for and earlier identification of neurodegenerative diseases.

Authors:  Jane S Paulsen; Martha Nance; Ji-In Kim; Noelle E Carlozzi; Peter K Panegyres; Cheryl Erwin; Anita Goh; Elizabeth McCusker; Janet K Williams
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 11.685

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.