Objective: To describe the psychological reaction to information about diagnostic genetic testing for α-1 antitrypsin deficiency (Alpha-1) and cystic fibrosis (CF) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or bronchiectasis patients who were tested but did not know the results. Methods: One hundred and three adults took the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory before and after a standardized educational intervention and responded to a questionnaire. Results: Information about the limitations, risks and benefits of Alpha-1 and CF testing did not raise mean anxiety levels. Mean anxiety was slightly lower after the educational intervention than at baseline (mean pretest score 35.0, posttest score 33.7; p < 0.05). Participants whose physician preinformed them of genetic testing had slightly higher mean anxiety than other participants, both before and after the intervention, but scores were comparable to those in a normative sample of general medical and surgical patients. Conclusions: Disclosure of information regarding Alpha-1 and CF testing appears to be potentially acceptable to patients and unlikely to prevent clinicians from conducting useful diagnostic procedures. This study is a step in alleviating concerns about raising issues related to genetic testing for Alpha-1 and CF in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients during the informed consent process.

Keywords:
Informed consent, Anxiety, Genetic testing, Ethics, α-1 antitrypsin deficiency
1.
Wertz DC, Robin G: Genetics services in a social, ethical and policy context: a collaboration between consumers and providers. J Med Ethics 2000;26:261–265.
2.
American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: standards for the diagnosis and management of individuals with α-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;169:818–900.
3.
Brandt R, Hartmann E, Ali Z, Tucci R, Gilman P: Motivations and concerns of women considering genetic testing for breast cancer: a comparison between affected and at-risk probands. Genet Test 2002;6:203–205.
4.
Parker M, Lucassen A: Concern for families and individuals in clinical genetics. J Med Ethics 2003;29:70–73.
5.
Burke W: Genetic testing in primary care. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet 2004;5:1–14.
6.
Ensenauer RE, Michels VV, Reinke SS: Genetic testing: practical, ethical, and counseling considerations. Mayo Clin Proc 2005;80:63–73.
7.
Bennett RL, Hampel HL, Mandell JB, Marks JH: Genetic counselors: translating genomic science into clinical practice. J Clin Invest 2003;112:1274–1279.
8.
Power TE, Adams PC: Psychosocial impact of C282Y mutation testing for hemochromatosis. Genet Test 2001;5:107–110.
9.
Nordin K, Liden A, Hansson M, Rosenquist R, Berglund G: Coping styles, psychological distress, risk perception, and satisfaction in subjects attending genetic counseling for hereditary cancer (letter). J Med Genet 2002;39:689–705.
10.
Gritz ER, Peterson SK, Vernon SW, Marani SK, Baile WF, Watts BG, Amos CI, Frazier ML, Lynch PM: Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol2005;23:1902–1910.
11.
Wood ML, Mullineauz L, Rahm AK, Fairclough D, Wenzel L: Impact of BRCA1 testing on women with cancer: a pilot study. Genet Test 2000;4:265–272.
12.
Van Roosmalen MS, Stalmeier PFM, Verhoef LCG, Hoekstra-Weebers JEHM, Oosterwijk JC, Hoogerbrugge N, Moog U, van Daal WAJ: Impact of BRCA1/2 testing and disclosure of a positive test result on women affected and unaffected with breast or ovarian cancer. Am J Med Genet 2003;124:346–355.
13.
Hicken BL, Calhoun DA, Barton JC, Tucher DC: Attitudes about and psychosocial outcomes of HFE genotyping for hemochromatosis. Genet Test 2004;8:90–97.
14.
Stoller JK, Smith P, Yang P, Spray J: Physical and social impact of α1-antitrypsin deficiency: results of a survey. Cleve Clin J Med 1994;61:461–467.
15.
Fanos JH, Strange C: ‘The lion, the witch and the wardrobe’: impact on sibs of individuals with AAT deficiency. Am J Med Genet 2004;130:251–257.
16.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JK: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, ed 4. New York, Oxford University Press, 1994.
17.
Tluczek A, Koscik RL, Farrell PH, Rock MJ: Psychosocial risk associated with newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: parents’ experience while awaiting the sweat-test appointment. Pediatrics 2005;115:1692–1703.
18.
Beckwith J, Huang F: Should we make a fuss? A case for social responsibility in science. Nat Biotech 2005;23:1479–1480.
19.
American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs: Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations.Chicago, American Medical Association, 2002, pp 36–38.
20.
Schuck PH: Rethinking informed consent. Yale Law J 1994;103:899–959.
21.
Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors Am J Hum Genet 1995;57:1233–1241.
22.
Culbertson v. Mernitz: 602 N.E. 2nd 98 (Ind. 1992).
23.
Conti A, Delbon P, Sirignano A: Informed consent when taking genetic decisions. Med Law 2004;23:337–353.
24.
Cheuvront B, Sorenson JR, Callanan NP, Stearns SC, DeVellis BM: Psychosocial and educational outcomes associated with home- and clinic-based pretest education and cystic fibrosis carrier testing among a population of at-risk relatives. Am J Med Genet 1998;75:461–468.
25.
Lyon E, Miller C: Current challenges in cystic fibrosis screening. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:1133–1139.
26.
Hallowell N, Foster C, Eeles R, Ardern-Jones A, Watson M: Accommodating risk: responses to BRCA1/2 genetic testing of women who have had cancer. Soc Sci Med 2004;59:553–565.
27.
Ranes J, Stoller JK: A review of α-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Semin Respir Crit CareMed 2005;26:154–166.
28.
Callanan NP, Cheuvront BJ, Sorenson JR: CF carrier testing in a high risk population: anxiety, risk perceptions, and reproductive plans of carrier by ‘non carrier’ couples. Genet Med 2000;1:323–327.
29.
Marteau TM, Dundas R, Axworthy D: Long-term cognitive and emotional impact of genetic testing for carriers of cystic fibrosis: the effects of test result and gender. Health Psychol 1997;16:51–62.
30.
Newman JE, Sorenson JR, DeVellis BM, Cheuvront B: Gender differences in psychosocial reactions to cystic fibrosis carrier testing. Am J Med Genet 2002;113:151–157.
31.
Watson EK, Mayall ES, Lamb J, Chapple J, Williamson R: Psychosocial and social consequences of community carrier screening programme for cystic fibrosis. Lancet 1992;340:217–220.
32.
Bekker H, Nidekk M, Denniss G, Silver A, Mathew C, Bobrow M, Marteau T: Uptake of cystic fibrosis testing in primary care: supply push or demand pull? BMJ 1994;306:1558–1559.
33.
Modell M: Screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis – a general practitioner’s perspective. BMJ 1993;307:816–817.
34.
Bekker H, Denniss G, Modell M, Bobrow M, Marteau T: The impact of population based screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis. J Med Genet 1994;31:364–368.
35.
Speilberger CD, Goruch RL, Lushene RE: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, Consulting Psychologists Press, 1970.
36.
Axilbund JE, Hamby LA, Thompson DB, Olsen SJ, Griffin CA: Assessment of the use and feasibility of video to supplement the genetic counseling process: a cancer genetic counseling perspective. J Genet Counsel 2005;14:235–243.
37.
Alpha-1 Foundation: A Healthcare Provider’s Guide to Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency. www.alphaone.org.
38.
Weinstein ND: Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol 1980;39:306–320.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.