Literature DB >> 19605829

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

Robert C Green1, 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.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype provides information on the risk of Alzheimer's disease, but the genotyping of patients and their family members has been discouraged. We examined the effect of genotype disclosure in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
METHODS: We randomly assigned 162 asymptomatic adults who had a parent with Alzheimer's disease to receive the results of their own APOE genotyping (disclosure group) or not to receive such results (nondisclosure group). We measured symptoms of anxiety, depression, and test-related distress 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after disclosure or nondisclosure.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in changes in time-averaged measures of anxiety (4.5 in the disclosure group and 4.4 in the nondisclosure group, P=0.84), depression (8.8 and 8.7, respectively; P=0.98), or test-related distress (6.9 and 7.5, respectively; P=0.61). Secondary comparisons between the nondisclosure group and a disclosure subgroup of subjects carrying the APOE epsilon4 allele (which is associated with increased risk) also revealed no significant differences. However, the epsilon4-negative subgroup had a significantly lower level of test-related distress than did the epsilon4-positive subgroup (P=0.01). Subjects with clinically meaningful changes in psychological outcomes were distributed evenly among the nondisclosure group and the epsilon4-positive and epsilon4-negative subgroups. Baseline scores for anxiety and depression were strongly associated with post-disclosure scores of these measures (P<0.001 for both comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS: The disclosure of APOE genotyping results to adult children of patients with Alzheimer's disease did not result in significant short-term psychological risks. Test-related distress was reduced among those who learned that they were APOE epsilon4-negative. Persons with high levels of emotional distress before undergoing genetic testing were more likely to have emotional difficulties after disclosure. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00571025.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19605829      PMCID: PMC2778270          DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0809578

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  37 in total

1.  Genes on the Web--direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing.

Authors:  Adam J Wolfberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Mild cognitive impairment: current research and clinical implications.

Authors:  Ronald C Petersen
Journal:  Semin Neurol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.420

3.  Genomic profiles for disease risk: predictive or premature?

Authors:  Kenneth Offit
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-03-19       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Letting the genome out of the bottle--will we get our wish?

Authors:  David J Hunter; Muin J Khoury; Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Personalized medicine in the era of genomics.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Bruce M Psaty
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer.

Authors:  B Meiser; V Collins; R Warren; C Gaff; D J B St John; M-A Young; K Harrop; J Brown; J Halliday
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.438

7.  Apolipoprotein E and cognitive performance: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Brent J Small; Christopher B Rosnick; Laura Fratiglioni; Lars Bäckman
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2004-12

Review 8.  Outcome measurement in clinical genetics services: a systematic review of validated measures.

Authors:  Katherine Payne; Stuart Nicholls; Marion McAllister; Rhona Macleod; Dian Donnai; Linda M Davies
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 9.  Genetic testing and Alzheimer disease: has the time come? Alzheimer Disease Working Group of the Stanford Program in Genomics, Ethics & Society.

Authors:  L M McConnell; B A Koenig; H T Greely; T A Raffin
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 53.440

10.  Effects of age, sex, and ethnicity on the association between apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease. A meta-analysis. APOE and Alzheimer Disease Meta Analysis Consortium.

Authors:  L A Farrer; L A Cupples; J L Haines; B Hyman; W A Kukull; R Mayeux; R H Myers; M A Pericak-Vance; N Risch; C M van Duijn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997 Oct 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  201 in total

Review 1.  Genetic testing in psychiatry: a review of attitudes and beliefs.

Authors:  Ryan E Lawrence; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Psychiatry       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.458

2.  Research participants' perspectives on genotype-driven research recruitment.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Emily E Namey; R Jean Cadigan; Tracy Brazg; Julia Crouch; Gail E Henderson; Marsha Michie; Daniel K Nelson; Holly K Tabor; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Is there a doctor in the house? : The presence of physicians in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing context.

Authors:  Heidi Carmen Howard; Pascal Borry
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-09-06

Review 4.  Genetics of dementia.

Authors:  Henry L Paulson; Indu Igo
Journal:  Semin Neurol       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 3.420

5.  National Society of Genetic Counselors Natalie Weissburger Paul lifetime achievement award address: the power of connecting.

Authors:  Wendy R Uhlmann
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Genetic counseling and the ethical issues around direct to consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Alice K Hawkins; Anita Ho
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility.

Authors:  Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

8.  The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors.

Authors:  Julianne M O'Daniel
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Debating clinical utility.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; A-M Laberge; N Press
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 10.  Impact of genetic risk assessment on nutrition-related lifestyle behaviours.

Authors:  Jacqueline A Vernarelli
Journal:  Proc Nutr Soc       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 6.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.