Predictive gene testing for H untington disease and other neurodegenerative disorders
Sarah Wedderburn, Peter K. Panegyres, Susan E. Andrew, Jack Goldblatt, Toni Liebeck, F.P. McGrath, M. Wiltshire, Carmela Pestell, J. Lee, John Beilby
Abstract
Sarah Wedderburn, Peter K. Panegyres, Susan E. Andrew, Jack Goldblatt, Toni Liebeck, F.P. McGrath, M. Wiltshire, Carmela Pestell, J. Lee, John Beilby
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversies exist around predictive testing (PT) programmes in neurodegenerative disorders. AIMS: This study sets out to answer the following questions relating to Huntington disease (HD) and other neurodegenerative disorders: differences between these patients in their PT journeys, why and when individuals withdraw from PT, and decision-making processes regarding reproductive genetic testing. METHODS: A case series analysis of patients having PT from the multidisciplinary Western Australian centre for PT over the past 20 years was performed using internationally recognised guidelines for predictive gene testing in neurodegenerative disorders. RESULTS: Of 740 at-risk patients, 518 applied for PT: 466 at risk of HD, 52 at risk of other neurodegenerative disorders - spinocerebellar ataxias, hereditary prion disease and familial Alzheimer disease. Thirteen percent withdrew from PT - 80.32% of withdrawals occurred during counselling stages. Major withdrawal reasons related to timing in the patients' lives or unknown as the patient did not disclose the reason. Thirty-eight HD individuals had reproductive genetic testing: 34 initiated prenatal testing (of which eight withdrew from the process) and four initiated pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. There was no recorded or other evidence of major psychological reactions or suicides during PT. CONCLUSIONS: People withdrew from PT in relation to life stages and reasons that are unknown. Our findings emphasise the importance of: (i) adherence to internationally recommended guidelines for PT; (ii) the role of the multidisciplinary team in risk minimisation; and (iii) patient selection.
OpenAlex reports 18 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
BACKGROUND: Controversies exist around predictive testing (PT) programmes in neurodegenerative disorders. AIMS: This study sets out to answer the following questions relating to Huntington disease (HD) and other neurodegenerative disorders: differences between these patients in their PT journeys, why and when individuals withdraw from PT, and decision-making processes regarding reproductive genetic testing. METHODS: A case series analysis of patients having PT from the multidisciplinary Western Australian centre for PT over the past 20 years was performed using internationally recognised guidelines for predictive gene testing in neurodegenerative disorders. RESULTS: Of 740 at-risk patients, 518 applied for PT: 466 at risk of HD, 52 at risk of other neurodegenerative disorders - spinocerebellar ataxias, hereditary prion disease and familial Alzheimer disease. Thirteen percent withdrew from PT - 80.32% of withdrawals occurred during counselling stages. Major withdrawal reasons related to timing in the patients' lives or unknown as the patient did not disclose the reason. Thirty-eight HD individuals had reproductive genetic testing: 34 initiated prenatal testing (of which eight withdrew from the process) and four initiated pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. There was no recorded or other evidence of major psychological reactions or suicides during PT. CONCLUSIONS: People withdrew from PT in relation to life stages and reasons that are unknown. Our findings emphasise the importance of: (i) adherence to internationally recommended guidelines for PT; (ii) the role of the multidisciplinary team in risk minimisation; and (iii) patient selection.
Key concepts: Medicine, Disease, Internal medicine