Anne-Marie Laberge1, Bruce M Psaty, Lucia A Hindorff, Wylie Burke. 1. Institute for Public Health Genetics, Center for Genomics and Healthcare Equality, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. anne-marie.laberge.hsj@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the use of the genetic test for Factor V Leiden in clinical practice, physician adherence to national and local guidelines, and impacts of test results on patient management. METHODS: Chart review of all patients tested for Factor V Leiden during a 1-year period (2003) in a large nonprofit health care system (group health) (n = 272). RESULTS: The test for Factor V Leiden was most often used in nonacute outpatient settings by primary care practitioners, in combination with other tests for procoagulant disorders. Testing was performed more broadly than recommended: 61% of tests met American College of Medical Genetics guidelines, 46% of tests met CAP guidelines, and 37% of tests met group health internal guidelines. The most common rationale for testing was to explain a clinical event (58%). Patient management was modified more often in heterozygotes (54%) than in those with normal results (13%) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of the test for Factor V Leiden has not followed existing recommendations. Genetic risk information was used to influence patient management in the absence of supporting evidence related to health outcomes. These results underscore the importance of further research concerning effective prevention and treatment strategies for patients with genetic risk to help translate genetic risk information into improved health outcomes.
PURPOSE: To assess the use of the genetic test for Factor V Leiden in clinical practice, physician adherence to national and local guidelines, and impacts of test results on patient management. METHODS: Chart review of all patients tested for Factor V Leiden during a 1-year period (2003) in a large nonprofit health care system (group health) (n = 272). RESULTS: The test for Factor V Leiden was most often used in nonacute outpatient settings by primary care practitioners, in combination with other tests for procoagulant disorders. Testing was performed more broadly than recommended: 61% of tests met American College of Medical Genetics guidelines, 46% of tests met CAP guidelines, and 37% of tests met group health internal guidelines. The most common rationale for testing was to explain a clinical event (58%). Patient management was modified more often in heterozygotes (54%) than in those with normal results (13%) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of the test for Factor V Leiden has not followed existing recommendations. Genetic risk information was used to influence patient management in the absence of supporting evidence related to health outcomes. These results underscore the importance of further research concerning effective prevention and treatment strategies for patients with genetic risk to help translate genetic risk information into improved health outcomes.
Authors: Marc A Rodger; Marc Carrier; Erin Keely; Alan Karovitch; Carl Nimrod; Mark Walker; Philip S Wells Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2002-12
Authors: F R Rosendaal; D S Siscovick; S M Schwartz; R K Beverly; B M Psaty; W T Longstreth; T E Raghunathan; T D Koepsell; P H Reitsma Journal: Blood Date: 1997-04-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: O Wu; L Robertson; S Twaddle; G D O Lowe; P Clark; M Greaves; I D Walker; P Langhorne; I Brenkel; L Regan; I Greer Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Maren T Scheuner; Jane Peredo; Kelly Tangney; Diane Schoeff; Taylor Sale; Caroline Lubick-Goldzweig; Alison Hamilton; Lee Hilborne; Martin Lee; Brian Mittman; Elizabeth M Yano; Ira M Lubin Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 8.822