Longitudinal interviews of couples diagnosed with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing fragile X premutation testing.

About 10 % of infertile/subfertile women are diagnosed with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), of which < 5 % will become pregnant spontaneously. Fragile X (FMR1) genetic testing may provide a reason for her early ovarian aging and/or have reproductive implications. Seven women with DOR (genetic study subset) and the male partners of six of these women were separately interviewed about the experience of being asked to undergo this unanticipated genetic test. Three interviews were conducted (before, within 1 week after, and 3 months after learning the test results). None of the participants carried the FMR1 premutation (largest FMR1 allele 27-50 CGG repeats). For women, their pregnancy-seeking journey was long and exhausting. Women understood the reproductive implications of carrying the FMR1 premutation, and hoped for a negative result. Being offered a genetic test caused women to pause and re-think their future reproductive plans. Husbands viewed the infertility journey as filled with unknowns, of which the genetic test results would be one more puzzle piece. The expense of fertility testing/treatment was mentioned by both spouses, though more notably by husbands. The introduction of a possible genetic cause of infertility, with additional potential health consequences for future biological children, caused women to re-think their quest for pregnancy. In contrast, the genetic test was viewed as an additional source of information for their husbands as opposed to raising concern regarding potential reproductive ramifications.

Attitudes towards potentially carrying the FMR1 premutation: before vs after testing of non-carrier females with diminished ovarian reserve.

Diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and premature ovarian failure are associated with elevated FMR1 CGG repeat alleles. We assessed pretest attitudes about potentially carrying the FMR1 premutation (FXP) (>55 CGG repeats) among reproductive age women compared with attitudes after learning their non-carrier status. Ninety-two women with DOR, regular menses and no family history of Fragile X Syndrome underwent FMR1 testing and completed attitudinal questionnaires before (T1) and 3 months after learning the test results (T2). The analysis utilized signed rank tests and α = 0.05. Very few women thought they were likely to have a FXP (6.6%). More participants thought FMR1 premutations were "serious" at T2 (62.9%) than at T1 (46.1%, p < 0.0003). When asked at T1 to "describe your feelings when you consider that you are potentially a carrier" of a FXP, 10% had negative feelings, 50% felt ambivalent, and 40% had positive feelings. At T2, feelings about not being a carrier were significantly more favorable (p < 0.0001): negative (0%), ambivalent (6.5%), positive (93%). Corroborating prior reports, few women had a negative view of FXP, perhaps anticipating that carrying the FXP explains their infertility. Perception of the seriousness of FXP increased after learning they did not carry the FXP, which would be predicted by health belief models.

Emotional reaction to fragile X premutation carrier tests among infertile women.

Female fragile X premutation carriers are at approximately 10-fold increased risk of premature ovarian failure (follicle stimulating hormone >40 mIU/mL, amenorrhea, age <40). A milder degree of premature ovarian aging (diminished ovarian reserve, where follicle stimulating hormone levels are typically 10-20 mIU/mL) results in infertility. Approximately 10% of fertility clinic patients have this diagnosis. A cohort of 20 women diagnosed with diminished ovarian reserve provided a blood specimen (confidential results), and completed structured questionnaires that assessed emotional reactions to potentially being a premutation carrier (pretest questionnaire, n = 20) and the posttest known carrier status (3 month follow-up questionnaire, n = 18 non-carriers). Responses were measured using 9-point scales, and analyzed with Fisher exact and Wilcoxon exact tests. While most participants did not view fragile X premutations as a serious medical condition, perceptions of seriousness were positively correlated with anger and regret about not knowing sooner of the potential association of these premutations with infertility. Overall, when women (pretest) imagined themselves as carriers, their self-esteem and Health Orientation Scale responses were unchanged with the exception of feeling more afraid (p = 0.004). Despite strongly wishing for negative test results, they were glad to know there might be a medical explanation for their infertility.

Acceptance of fragile X premutation genetic screening in women with ovarian dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess patient perception of fragile X premutation genetic testing (FRAX). STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey of women with elevated follicle stimulating hormone levels with (premature ovarian failure or early menopause [POF/EM], n = 20) or without (diminished ovarian reserve [DOR], n = 20) amenorrhea. Seventy-five percent participated. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of the DOR group and 43% of the POF/EM group desired FRAX testing. Eighty-three percent wanted to assist the scientific knowledge of FRAX, even if they did not want to know their own results. POF/EM women were more concerned than DOR women about paying out-of-pocket (P = .001) and maintaining confidentiality insurance-wise (P = .07). Primary motivations for women who wanted testing were the desire to know if they have FRAX, and wanting to determine if FRAX is the cause of their ovarian dysfunction. The primary decision factor for those declining testing was unwillingness to pay out-of-pocket (75%). CONCLUSION: Women with ovarian dysfunction are interested in FRAX testing. Cost, confidentiality, and the implications for relatives are their key concerns.

Elevated prevalence of 35-44 FMR1 trinucleotide repeats in women with diminished ovarian reserve.

INTRODUCTION: Fragile X premutations are associated with primary ovarian insufficiency when the patient presents with amenorrhea, but the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) CGG repeat count among cycling women with low ovarian reserve (diminished ovarian reserve [DOR]) is not yet established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two infertile DOR patients were recruited from 4 US private and academic fertility centers. RESULTS: The prevalence of 35-44 FMR1 CGG repeats was 14.5%. Compared with the general female population estimate from the literature, infertile women with DOR were more likely to have 35-44 FMR1 CGG repeats (14.5% and 3.9%, respectively, P = .0003). Similar findings were noted by 5-repeat bandwidth: 35-39 CGG repeats (9.7% DOR vs 3.2% comparison, P = .012) or 40-44 CGG repeats (4.8% DOR vs 0.7% comparison, P = .024). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that CGG repeats of 35-44 may be markedly overrepresented in women with DOR, whereas the current FMR1 reference range indicates that there is no clinical phenotype with <45 CGG repeats.

Patient preferences for screening in the first trimester.

OBJECTIVE: We theorized that a significant number of women would choose integrated screening (IS) over first trimester screening (FTS) and that demographic characteristics and baseline anxiety levels might predict which patients would choose each test. We also hypothesized that screening results might alter patients' future preferences. METHOD: Patients underwent non-directive genetic counselling and were offered FTS or IS. Prior to undergoing nuchal translucency (NT) ultrasound, patients were given surveys. These questionnaires were repeated in the second trimester and postpartum. They focussed on the patients' background, motivations for screening and anxiety level. RESULTS: Out of 110 patients surveyed, 81 returned their initial questionnaire. 60% of these patients chose FTS and 40% chose IS. There were no demographic differences between the groups. FTS patients desired early reassurance while IS patients wanted the 'most information' and the lowest chance of needing diagnostic testing. In all, 47 women returned second trimester questionnaires and 35 women returned postpartum surveys. These surveys demonstrated that women's motivations remained constant over time. Of the five screen positive results, only one woman regretted her screening choice. CONCLUSION: One cannot predict patients' screening preferences, thus both FTS and IS should be offered. Given non-directive counselling, patients are generally satisfied with their screening choices.

End-of-life discussions for the primary care obstetrician/gynecologist.

This review of end-of-life decisions centers on the role of the obstetrician/gynecologist in assisting women patients to develop advanced directives that are targeted to unique risks of the pregnant woman; these risks are related to trauma, cancer, and aging; to the special need for lesbian couples to identify health proxies; and to the woman's responsibilities as a caregiver to ensure advance directives and medical proxies for the family. End-of-life decisions are much more stressful when surrogate decision makers do not know in advance what decisions a patient would want made if the patient becomes incapacitated.

Gamete retrieval in terminal conditions: is it practical? What are the consequences?

There is an increasing interest in, and request for, gamete retrieval from recently deceased or near-dead subjects for the purpose of posthumous procreation. This usually arises in an emergency situation with little time for physicians to consider ethical ramifications. Advance planning is needed to help these physicians make thoughtful decisions. After considering the complexity of the issues involved, the Ethics Consult Service and the Ethics Committee at the University of Virginia requested that we develop a policy on gamete retrieval for subjects in terminal conditions, which would govern and guide involved providers should this process be requested. Our team consisted of members of the Ethics Consult Service and Ethics Committee, as well as personnel who might be intimately involved in the gamete retrieval process, including the director of the Human Gamete and Embryo Laboratory, a urologist, and a reproductive endocrinologist. In addition to reviewing the current literature describing the actual processes involved, we explored the ethical implications of gamete retrieval in these situations. A policy was developed and approved by the Ethics Committee at our institution, and is included in this article.