Getting insurance after genetic screening on familial hypercholesterolaemia; the need to educate both insurers and the public to increase adherence to national guidelines in The Netherlands.

Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common autosomal dominant inherited metabolic disease with a prevalence of 1 in 500 in most Western countries. People with FH experience an increased risk for coronary artery disease (CAD) and excess mortality especially at a young age. Until recently the diagnosis of FH was based on clinical signs and symptoms alone. These included increased cholesterol concentrations, in particular of LDL-cholesterol, in combination with the presence of tendon xanthoma, corneal arcus, xanthelasmata and a history of early CAD. Frequently FH was diagnosed after a first cardiac event.

QUOTAC: QUestionnaire On day and night Time respiratory symptoms in Asthmatic Children -- a validity study.

The aim of this study was to validate the QUOTAC, a questionnaire on day and night time respiratory symptoms in asthmatic children. Validity was examined by measuring agreement between the QUOTAC and a self-report diary in children aged 6 to 16 years, divided in an asthma group and a control group. As an extra interest in our study a sum score was computed as a measure of the severity of asthma. This study shows that the QUOTAC is discriminative between asthmatic and healthy children and is a reliable and sensitive scale for measuring the severity of asthma. However, cut-off scores for mild, moderate, or severe asthma should be investigated in further research.

Risk perception of participants in a family-based genetic screening program on familial hypercholesterolemia.

The aim of this article is threefold. First, we describe the accuracy of people's risk perception who have been screened on familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) in a family-based screening program. Second, we identify factors that modify risk perception. Finally, we show the influence of risk perception on subsequent preventive behavior. The risk perception of 556 screenees (677 participants, overall response = 82%) was measured by postal questionnaires on three occasions: at screening and 3 days and 7 months after the test result was reported to the patient. Presentation of the risk was precategorized and given both as numerical (1 in x) and as verbal probability. In addition, medication use and attitudes toward gene therapy were determined 7 months after screening. On average, the screenees underestimated their numeric risk of having FH and getting a myocardial infarction (MI). Furthermore, FH-positive screenees perceived that they were at greater risk of MI than FH negatives, and screenees with the highest actual risk used medication more, perceived a greater risk, and opted more often for future gene therapy. Risk perception of having FH was influenced by cholesterol level, while MI risk perception was affected by age, education, cholesterol level, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the family. We conclude that FH-positive screenees correctly perceive a higher risk of getting a heart attack than do FH-negative screenees. Screenees did not believe that MI was inevitable, and risk perception was associated with both medication use and the intention to opt for gene therapy, but not with other preventive measures. Thus, genetic risk notification seems to be acceptable and does not lead to aversion to preventive behavior.

How disturbing is it to be approached for a genetic cascade screening programme for familial hypercholesterolaemia? Psychological impact and screenees' views.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the screenees' views on, and the psychological impact of, a family-based genetic screening programme for familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) and to evaluate non-participation. METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires were filled out at the time of screening and after communication of the test result. Non-participants were interviewed by phone. RESULTS: Of the people approached for screening, 2% did not participated. These 2% were not interested, had already been clinically diagnosed, or were afraid of insurance consequences. 677 screenees participated, of whom 215 (32%) tested FH positive. Less than 5% of the screenees were critical of the approach and the information provided. 20% of the screenees expressed feelings of social pressure. Effects on mood were minimal to absent, as were general 'quality of life' effects. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for FH is highly acceptable to screenees, although social pressure is prevalent. Only a small percentage of people being approached did not participate.