A qualitative evaluation of patient and parent experiences with an undiagnosed diseases program.

Previous studies have explored patient experiences before being seen or at the beginning of their evaluation by undiagnosed diseases programs. This study provides additional insight into experiences after participation through in-depth, qualitative evaluation, allowing for reflection of current practice and patient/parent needs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and parents of patients seen at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)'s unique, clinically focused Undiagnosed Diseases Program (UDP). Analysis of the interviews was guided by a thematic approach. Participants had undergone a diagnostic odyssey before being evaluated by the UDP and remained hopeful for a diagnosis. They appreciated the opportunity to be seen by the UDP. However, perception of experiences differed based on whether evaluation by the UDP led to a diagnosis. Additionally, while participants were pleased with initial communication, they indicated that there were unmet needs regarding follow-up. Patients and parents of patients believe that participation in an undiagnosed diseases program is the best option for diagnosis. The findings of this study provide a general overview of patient experiences and highlight strengths of the UAB UDP while also emphasizing areas to focus the improvement to optimize the benefit to patients and families with undiagnosed and rare diseases, which could be used helpful in the development of similar clinics.

Creation of a National, At-home Model for Ashkenazi Jewish Carrier Screening.

Ethnicity-based carrier screening for the Ashkenazi Jewish population has been available and encouraged by advocacy and community groups since the early 1970's. Both the American College of Medical Genetics and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend carrier screening for this population (Obstetrics and Gynecology, 114(4), 950-953, 2009; Genetics in Medicine, 10(1), 55-56, 2008). While many physicians inquire about ethnic background and offer appropriate carrier screening, studies show that a gap remains in implementing recommendations (Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2011). In addition, education and outreach efforts targeting Jewish communities have had limited success in reaching this at-risk population. Despite efforts by the medical and Jewish communities, many Jews of reproductive age are not aware of screening, and remain at risk for having children with preventable diseases. Reaching this population, preferably pre-conception, and facilitating access to screening is critically important. To address this need, genetic counselors at Emory University developed JScreen, a national Jewish genetic disease screening program. The program includes a national marketing and PR campaign, online education, at-home saliva-based screening, post-test genetic counseling via telephone or secure video conferencing, and referrals for face-to-face genetic counseling as needed. Our goals are to create a successful education and screening program for this population and to develop a model that could potentially be used for other at-risk populations.

Pharmacogenomics for Prader-Willi syndrome: caregiver interest and planned utilization.

Aim: The study aim was to determine caregiver interest and planned utilization of pharmacogenomic (PGx) results for their child with Prader-Willi syndrome. Methods: Caregivers consented to PGx testing for their child and completed a survey before receiving results. Results: Of all caregivers (n = 48), 93.8% were highly interested in their child's upcoming PGx results. Most (97.9%) planned to share results with their child's medical providers. However, only 47.9% of caregivers were confident providers would utilize the PGx results. Conclusion: Caregivers are interested in utilizing PGx but are uncertain providers will use these results in their child's care. More information about provider comfort with PGx utilization is needed to understand how PGx education would benefit providers and ultimately patients with PGx results.

Investigating family history of diabetes as a predictor of fasting insulin and fasting glucose activity in a sample of healthy weight adults.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes is a major public health problem for the global community. Having a family history of diabetes significantly increases risk for diabetes development and understanding how family history contributes to diabetes risk could lead to more effective prevention efforts for at-risk individuals. In a previous study, we showed family history of diabetes is a significant predictor of fasting insulin in healthy weight children. The present study aimed to use the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2017) to apply similar multiple regression models to a population of healthy weight adults to determine if family history is a significant predictor of fasting glucose and fasting insulin. METHODS: Fasting glucose (mg/dL) and fasting insulin (pmol/L) were used as dependent variables in each model, respectively, with family history of diabetes as the independent variable. Covariates for each model included age, gender, race/ethnicity, waist circumference, and macronutrient intake. RESULTS: The model significantly predicted the variance of fasting glucose [(F(11,364) = 34.80, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.2342] and fasting insulin [F(11,343) = 17.58, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.1162]. After adjusting for covariates, family history was a significant predicator of fasting glucose (p = 0.0193) as well as age, gender, non-Hispanic black ethnicity, waist circumference, and fat intake. Significant predictors of fasting insulin included gender and waist circumference, but not family history (p = 0.8264). In addition, fasting glucose was higher in individuals with a family history of diabetes (p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: These results add to the understanding of how family history influences the biomarkers that contribute to diabetes development. Knowledge of how family history of diabetes relates to fasting insulin and fasting glucose activity in healthy weight individuals can be used to design personalized screening and early prevention strategies.

Incorporation of a genetics-based information module into standardized diabetes patient education.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of a genetics educational module created to improve understanding about the genetics of diabetes, assess motivation to engage in healthy lifestyle behaviors, and gauge interest in genetic testing for diabetes. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the Multidisciplinary Comprehensive Diabetes Clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Participants completed a pre-survey to assess three domains: (1) knowledge about diabetes etiology and testing, (2) healthy lifestyle behaviors, and (3) interest in genetic testing. Participants viewed a short, recorded educational module, then completed a post-survey to re-assess the domains. RESULTS: Participants increased knowledge about genetics of diabetes (p < 0.0001) and genetic testing (p = 0.0184), demonstrated motivation to adopt healthy behaviors (p < 0.0001), and decreased interest in genetic testing (p = 0.0833) after viewing the module. CONCLUSIONS: The educational module increased understanding of diabetes and increased motivation to adopt healthy behaviors. The need for patient-friendly educational modules explaining the genetics of diabetes will likely increase with continued discoveries of how genetics contributes to diabetes risk and outcomes. This short, educational module has the potential to provide genetic information in an effective way that is easily adapted in a routine clinic setting.

Challenges and Errors in Genetic Testing: The Fifth Case Series.

PURPOSE: In this ongoing case series, 33 genetic testing cases are documented in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly and/or in which clinicians faced challenges related to history/reports provided by patients or laboratories. METHODS: An invitation to submit cases of challenges or errors in genetic testing was issued to the general National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group members, as part of a case series with Precision Oncology News, and via social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Deidentified clinical documentation was requested and reviewed when available. Thirty-three cases were submitted, reviewed, and accepted. A thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve cases before submission. RESULTS: All cases took place in the United States, involved hereditary cancer testing and/or findings in cancer predisposition genes, and involved medical-grade genetic testing, direct-to-consumer testing, or research genetic testing. In 9 cases, test results were misinterpreted, leading to incorrect screening or risk-reducing procedures being performed/recommended. In 5 cases, incorrect or unnecessary testing was ordered/recommended. In 3 cases, incorrect clinical diagnoses were made, or opportunities for diagnoses were delayed. In 3 cases, errors or challenges arose related to medical intervention after testing or reported genetic diagnosis. In 2 cases, physicians provided incorrect information related to the inheritance pattern of a syndrome. In 2 cases, there were challenges related to the interpretation of genetic variants. In 2 cases, challenges arose after direct-to-consumer testing. One case involved test results that should never have been reported based on sample quality. In 1 case, a patient presented a falsified test result. In 5 cases, multiple errors were made. DISCUSSION: As genetic testing continues to become more complicated and common, it is critical that patients and nongenetics providers have access to accurate and timely genetic counseling information. Even as multiple medical bodies highlight the value of genetic counselors (GCs), tension exists in the genomics community as GCs work toward licensure and Medicare provider status. It is critical that health care communities leverage, rather than restrict, the expertise and experience of GCs so that patients can benefit from, and not be harmed by, genetic testing. In order to responsibly democratize genomics, it will be important for genetics and nongenetic health care providers to collaborate and use alternative service delivery models and technology solutions at point of care. To deliver on the promise of precision medicine, accurate resources and tools must be utilized.