Search

Epilepsy is a common, and often genetic, neurological disorder. Few guidelines exist to help medical providers or insurance companies decide when to order or cover epilepsy panels for patients with epilepsy. The most recent guidelines were published by NSGC after this study's data collection. Since 2017, the Genetic Testing Stewardship Program (GTSP) at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP) has been utilizing a set of internally developed epilepsy panel (EP) testing criteria to facilitate appropriate EP ordering practices. The purpose of this study was to assess these testing criteria by determining their sensitivities and positive predictive values (PPV). Retrospective chart review of the electronic medical record (EMR) was performed for 1242 CHP Neurology patients that were evaluated for a primary diagnosis of epilepsy between 2016 and 2018. One hundred and nine patients had EPs at various testing laboratories. Of the patients that met criteria, 17 had diagnostic EPs and 54 had negative EPs. Criteria were organized into category groupings (C1‐C4), and analyzed alone for C1, in pairs for C2, etc. The highest sensitivity and PPV results in each category grouping were: C1 (64.7%, 60%); C2, (88%, 30.3%); C3, (94.1%, 27.1%); C4, (94.1%, 25.4%). Family history was crucial to increasing sensitivity. Confidence intervals (CIs) narrowed as category grouping level increased, though this was not statistically significant due to the considerable CI overlap across category groupings. The PPV from C4 was applied to the untested population cohort and predicted 121 patients with unidentified positive EPs. This study presents data supporting the predictive capabilities of EP testing criteria and suggests the addition of a family history criterion. This study impacts public health by encouraging the adoption of evidence‐driven insurance policies and by suggesting guidelines to ease EP ordering and coverage decisions, which could potentially improve patient access to EP testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Graduation from a genetic counseling graduate program accredited by the Accreditation Council of Genetic Counseling and certification obtained by passing the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) certification examination are increasingly required to practice as a genetic counselor in the USA. Despite the ABGC certification examination serving as a gateway to the genetic counseling career, there have been no research studies to date that have examined what variables are associated with examination performance. Therefore, the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors established a Task Force to assess whether trainee demographics, Grade point average (GPA) and Graduate Record Exam (GRE®) percentile scores are associated with passing the ABGC certification examination on the first attempt. We surveyed accredited genetic counseling graduate programs in North America and gathered demographic data, admissions variables, and certification examination outcome data for 1,494 trainees from 24 training programs, representing approximately 60.5% of matriculants between 2007 and 2016. Univariable analysis was performed to assess associations between admissions variables and categorical outcome (pass vs. fail) on the certification examination using Wilcoxon rank‐sum or Fisher's exact test. Variables significantly associated with the categorical board outcome were then entered in a stepwise model selection procedure. In stepwise logistic regression, trainees with higher GPA (OR = 3.41; 95% CI = 1.99, 5.83), higher verbal (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) and quantitative (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) GRE® scores, female trainees (OR = 2.95; 95% CI = 1.70, 5.12), and White trainees (OR 3.37; 95% CI = 2.14, 5.30) had higher odds of passing the certification examination on the first attempt. As programs move to a holistic approach to graduate admissions in order to improve access to the genetic counseling profession, our results may influence programs to provide additional preparation for the certification examination for all trainees. In addition, genetic counseling professional organizations should continue to work together to assess and eliminate outcome disparities in admissions, training, and certification processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The identification of patient outcomes unique to the field of genetic counseling has become a recent priority of the profession. Current health‐care efforts have targeted patient engagement as an outcome capable of improving population health and reducing health‐care costs. This study analyzed patient engagement levels among 182 participants who underwent genetic counseling for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer risk assessment in an outpatient specialty clinic. Patients seen at the UPMC Hereditary GI Tumor Program completed a validated patient engagement measure, the Altarum Consumer Engagement (ACE), prior to undergoing genetic counseling and again three months after enrollment. Paired t test analysis was conducted to assess the changes in Total ACE scores, and within the following three domains: Navigation, Informed Choice, and Commitment. In the sample of 182 participants, Total ACE scores increased after genetic counseling (by 5.7%; p < .0001), as did all three domains (Commitment p = .0008; Navigation p = .0008; and Informed Choice p = .0016). This study is the first known report of patient engagement levels in individuals undergoing genetic counseling in a specialty cancer clinic and suggests that genetic counseling improves patient engagement levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are 10 gene therapies (GTs) for hereditary conditions that are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While prior research demonstrates that the majority of healthcare providers lack knowledge regarding GTs, this has not been explored within the genetic counseling profession. The authors hypothesize that the availability of GTs impacts the genetic counseling profession and that there is variable awareness on this topic among genetic counselors (GCs). We conducted a survey to assess GCs' familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing FDA-approved GTs at the time of the survey, as well as GCs' perceived impact of and educational experiences related to GT. The survey was distributed through listservs and word of mouth from January through March 2021. One hundred of the 109 responses met eligibility criteria. Respondents were more familiar with onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (ZOLGENSMA; Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., Durham, NC, USA) than voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (LUXTURNA; Spark Therapeutics, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA; p < 0.001). Familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing both GTs varied by specialty but not by years of experience. Fifty-nine percent of respondents (58/98) reported that GTs impact their work, with differences by specialty but not by years of experience. The majority of respondents (93%; 90/97) felt that GCs should be comfortable discussing GTs with patients, and most respondents (83%; 79/95) were interested in additional GT training. Only 38% of respondents (36/95) recalled GT being included in their genetic counseling training program's curriculum, which may be skewed by recent growth of this field. Our results suggest that GCs feel that GTs impact their practice, have discrepant awareness and comfort in this area, and desire additional training on this topic. Further investigation into the actual impact and models for addressing training is warranted and will be critical as the number of approved GTs increases., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Genetic Counseling published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of National Society of Genetic Counselors.)