Fear of health insurance loss among individuals at risk for Huntington disease.

Genetic testing in Huntington disease, an inherited ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disorder, is infrequent despite wide availability. Factors influencing the decision to pursue testing are largely unknown. We conducted a prospective longitudinal observational study of 1,001 individuals in North America who were at risk for Huntington disease who had not pursued genetic testing prior to enrollment. We evaluated the rationale for remaining untested at baseline, determined the concerns of those who eventually pursued testing, and assessed the population's psychological attributes. We contrasted responses between those who did and did not pursue testing, and between United States and Canadian residents. The principal reasons for remaining untested were comfort with risk and uncertainty and the inability to "undo" knowledge gained. After enrollment, 83 individuals [8.3%] pursued genetic testing. Their greatest concern was losing health insurance, and 41.6% of them [vs. 6.7% of those who did not pursue testing; P < 0.001] reported paying out of pocket for testing or other medical services to conceal their genetic risk from their insurer/employer. Among individuals who were tested, more United States residents [46.1%] than Canadian residents [0.0%; P = 0.02] paid out of pocket for health services or genetic testing. Psychological attributes were similar among individuals who did and did not pursue testing. Individuals at risk for Huntington disease who pursued genetic testing feared losing medical insurance, and many paid out of pocket for medical services. Alleviating the fear of health insurance loss may help those who want to pursue genetic testing for many other conditions. [ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT0052143].

Pramipexole vs levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson disease: a 4-year randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The best way to initiate dopaminergic therapy for early Parkinson disease remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare initial treatment with pramipexole vs levodopa in early Parkinson disease, followed by levodopa supplementation, with respect to the development of dopaminergic motor complications, other adverse events, and functional and quality-of-life outcomes. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic movement disorders clinics at 22 sites in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Patients with early Parkinson disease (N = 301) who required dopaminergic therapy to treat emerging disability, enrolled between October 1996 and August 1997 and observed until August 2001. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 0.5 mg of pramipexole 3 times per day with levodopa placebo (n = 151) or 25/100 mg of carbidopa/levodopa 3 times per day with pramipexole placebo (n = 150). Dosage was escalated during the first 10 weeks for patients with ongoing disability. Thereafter, investigators were permitted to add open-label levodopa or other antiparkinsonian medications to treat ongoing or emerging disability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to the first occurrence of dopaminergic complications: wearing off, dyskinesias, on-off fluctuations, and freezing; changes in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and quality-of-life scales; and adverse events. RESULTS: Initial pramipexole treatment resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of developing dyskinesias (24.5% vs 54%; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.56; P<.001) and wearing off (47% vs 62.7%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.63; P =.02). Initial levodopa treatment resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of freezing (25.3% vs 37.1%; hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.11-2.59; P =.01). By 48 months, the occurrence of disabling dyskinesias was uncommon and did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. The mean improvement in the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score from baseline to 48 months was greater in the levodopa group than in the pramipexole group (2 +/- 15.4 points vs -3.2 +/- 17.3 points, P =.003). Somnolence (36% vs 21%, P =.005) and edema (42% vs 15%, P<.001) were more common in pramipexole-treated subjects than in levodopa-treated subjects. Mean changes in quality-of-life scores did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment with pramipexole resulted in lower incidences of dyskinesias and wearing off compared with initial treatment with levodopa. Initial treatment with levodopa resulted in lower incidences of freezing, somnolence, and edema and provided for better symptomatic control, as measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, compared with initial treatment with pramipexole. Both options resulted in similar quality of life. Levodopa and pramipexole both appear to be reasonable options as initial dopaminergic therapy for Parkinson disease, but they are associated with different efficacy and adverse-effect profiles.

A study of chorea after tetrabenazine withdrawal in patients with Huntington disease.

OBJECTIVE: To assess tetrabenazine (TBZ) efficacy by evaluating the change in Huntington disease-associated chorea resulting from TBZ treatment withdrawal. METHODS: Thirty patients treated in the long term were randomized to 1 of 3 groups assigned to withdraw from TBZ in a double-blind, staggered fashion during a 5-day period. RESULTS: The chorea scores of subjects withdrawn from TBZ treatment increased by 5.3 units from days 1 to 3, whereas the scores of the group with partial or no withdrawal of TBZ treatment increased by 3.0 units (P = 0.0773). A post hoc analysis of the linear trend was positive for reemergent chorea (P = 0.0486). No serious adverse events were reported after abrupt withdrawal of TBZ treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The trend for reemergence of chorea in patients with Huntington disease who were withdrawn from TBZ treatment is consistent with the findings from previous studies, thus showing the effectiveness of TBZ in reducing chorea.

Preempting genetic discrimination and assaults on privacy: report of a symposium.

At a symposium in June, 2002, biomedical researchers, clinicians, legal experts, policymakers, and representatives of the insurance industry and the advocacy community gathered to address issues of genetic privacy and discrimination; and to identify research, legal, and policy gaps needing to be filled. They concluded that over the next decade, as more genetic information becomes available and the public becomes more aware of individual risks, concerns about privacy and discrimination will become increasingly important. Documented cases of genetic discrimination are rare and largely anecdotal, yet individuals with genetic conditions harbor significant fears about discrimination. Current laws enacted to protect individuals from workplace and insurance discrimination offer some measure of protection, but leave many unfilled gaps. Moreover, the use of genetic information in potentially discriminatory ways is not limited to employment and insurability. Existing laws do little to protect people seeking life, disability, or long-term care insurance. And the courts have used genetic information in a wide variety of cases including paternity, criminal, and tort (personal injury) cases. Genetic information that might jeopardize an individual's right to privacy may also be obtained in the course of research studies, including through the collection of DNA and tissue samples. The insurance industry, State and Federal agencies, and the advocacy community are all making efforts to address some of these gaps through legislation and education of clinicians, the public, and policy makers.