Parents' interest in genetic testing of their offspring in multiplex epilepsy families

Genetic testing and counseling for the unexplained epilepsies: An evidence‐based practice guideline of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Epilepsy, defined by the occurrence of two or more unprovoked seizures or one unprovoked seizure with a propensity for others, affects 0.64% of the population and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. A majority of unexplained epilepsy (seizures not attributed to an acquired etiology, such as trauma or infection) is estimated to have an underlying genetic etiology. Despite rapid progress in understanding of the genetic underpinnings of the epilepsies, there are no recent evidence-based guidelines for genetic testing and counseling for this population. This practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for approaching genetic testing in the epilepsies using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision framework. We used evidence from a recent systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of diagnostic yield of genetic tests in patients with epilepsy. We also compiled data from other sources, including recently submitted conference abstracts and peer-reviewed journal articles. We identified and prioritized outcomes of genetic testing as critical, important or not important and based our recommendations on outcomes deemed critical and important. We considered the desirable and undesirable effects, value and acceptability to relevant stakeholders, impact on health equity, cost-effectiveness, certainty of evidence, and feasibility of the interventions in individuals with epilepsy. Taken together, we generated two clinical recommendations: (1) Genetic testing is strongly recommended for all individuals with unexplained epilepsy, without limitation of age, with exome/genome sequencing and/or a multi-gene panel (>25 genes) as first-tier testing followed by chromosomal microarray, with exome/genome sequencing conditionally recommended over multi-gene panel. (2) It is strongly recommended that genetic tests be selected, ordered, and interpreted by a qualified healthcare provider in the setting of appropriate pre-test and post-test genetic counseling. Incorporation of genetic counselors into neurology practices and/or referral to genetics specialists are both useful models for supporting providers without genetics expertise to implement these recommendations.

Changes in empowerment and anxiety of patients and parents during genetic counselling for epilepsy

Genetic testing and counselling are increasingly important in epilepsy care, aiming at finding a diagnosis, understanding aetiology and improving treatment and outcome. The psychological impact of genetic counselling from patients' or parents' perspectives is, however, unknown. We studied the counselee-reported outcome of genetic counselling before and after genetic testing for epilepsy by evaluating empowerment - a key outcome goal of counselling reflecting cognitive, decisional and behavioural control, emotional regulation and hope - and anxiety. We asked patients or their parents (for those <16 years or intellectually disabled) referred for genetic testing for epilepsy in two university hospitals between June 2014 and 2017 to complete the same two questionnaires at three timepoints: before and after pre-test counselling and after post-test counselling. Empowerment was measured with the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-18); anxiety with the short State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6). A total of 63 participants (55 parents with the age of 29-66 years; 8 patients with the age of 21-42 years) were included in our study. Empowerment significantly increased during the genetic counselling trajectory with a medium effect size (p < 0.001, d = 0.57). A small but significant increase in empowerment was already seen after pre-test counselling (p = 0.038, d = 0.29). Anxiety did not change significantly during the counselling trajectory (p = 0.223, d = -0.24). Our study highlights that patients with epilepsy or their parents show a clinically relevant increase in empowerment after genetic counselling. Empowerment was already increased after pre-test counselling, suggesting the importance of counselling before initiating genetic testing for epilepsy. However, individual differences in changes in empowerment and anxiety were seen, suggesting that counselling could be further improved, based on individual needs.

Diagnostic gap in genetic epilepsies: A matter of age

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the access to advanced diagnostic tests in patients with epilepsy and intellectual disability, with special focus on genetics.

METHODS

Patients with epilepsy and intellectual disability evaluated between 2016 and 2018 at the Epilepsy Unit of two hospitals in Madrid, Spain were included. The main inclusion criterion was an undetermined etiological diagnosis after clinical assessment, neuroimaging, and electroencephalogram (EEG).

RESULTS

Two hundred and five patients with epilepsy and intellectual disability were evaluated, with 124 fulfilling the inclusion criteria (mean age: 33.9 years). Regarding the etiological workup, advanced neuroimaging, prolonged video-EEG, and any type of genetic test had been performed in 58%, 41%, and 40%, respectively. An etiological diagnosis was reached in 18.5%. The workup was considered incomplete in 67%. Variables that showed the strongest association with an incomplete diagnostic workup in the multivariate analysis were current age and seizure freedom.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the multiple implications of modern diagnostic techniques, especially genetic testing, there is a large proportion of patients with epilepsy and intellectual disability who do not have access to them. Older age and seizure freedom seem to be associated with the highest diagnostic gap.

Genetic attribution and perceived impact of epilepsy in multiplex epilepsy families

OBJECTIVE

Studies have found that affected individuals who believe the cause of their disorder is genetic may react in various ways, including optimism for improved treatments and pessimism due to perceived permanence of the condition. This study assessed the psychosocial impact of genetic attribution among people with epilepsy.

METHODS

Study participants were 165 persons with epilepsy from multiplex epilepsy families who completed a self-administered survey. Psychosocial impact of epilepsy was assessed with the Impact of Epilepsy Scale, containing items about relationships, employment, overall health, self-esteem, and standard of living. Genetic attribution was assessed using a scale derived from three items asking about the role of genetics in causing epilepsy in the family, the chance of having an epilepsy-related mutation, and the influence of genetics in causing the participant's epilepsy. We estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for impact of epilepsy above the median using Poisson regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for number of lifetime seizures and time since last seizure.

RESULTS

Participants' age averaged 51 years; 87% were non-Hispanic white, 63% were women, and 54% were college graduates. The genetic attribution scale was significantly associated with having a high impact of epilepsy (adjusted PR = 1.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-1.91, P = .02). One of the three genetic attribution questions was also significantly associated with a high impact of epilepsy (belief that genetics had a big role in causing epilepsy in the family, adjusted PR = 1.8).

SIGNIFICANCE

These findings reflect an association between the psychosocial impact of epilepsy and the belief that epilepsy has a genetic cause, among people with epilepsy in families containing multiple affected individuals. This association could arise either because belief in a genetic cause leads to increased psychosocial impacts, or because a greater psychosocial impact of epilepsy leads some to believe their epilepsy is genetic.

What do people think about genetics? A systematic review

Genetics is increasingly becoming a part of modern medical practice. How people think about genetics' use in medicine and their daily lives is therefore essential. Earlier studies indicated mixed attitudes about genetics. However, this might be changing. Using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) as a guideline, we initially reviewed 442 articles that looked at awareness, attitudes, knowledge, and perception of risks among the general and targeted recruitment populations. After fitting our criteria (from the last 5 years, conducted in the USA, non-provider populations, quantitative results reported, and assessed participants 18 years and older), finally 51 eligible articles were thematically coded and presented in this paper. Awareness is reported as relatively high in the studies reviewed. Attitudes are mixed but with higher proportions reporting positive attitudes towards genetic testing and counseling. Self-reported knowledge is reasonably high, specifically with the effects of specific programs developed to raise knowledge levels of the general and targeted recruited populations. Perception of risk is somewhat aligned with actual risk. With the reasonable positive reports of genetic awareness and knowledge, there is similar positive attitude and perception of risk, supporting the need for continued dissemination of such knowledge. Given interest in incorporating community participation in genomic educational strategies, we provide this review as a baseline from which to launch community-specific educational supports and tools.

Mood disorders in familial epilepsy: A test of shared etiology

OBJECTIVE

Mood disorders are the most common comorbid conditions in epilepsy, but the cause remains unclear. One possible explanation is a shared genetic susceptibility to epilepsy and mood disorders. We tested this hypothesis by evaluating lifetime prevalence of mood disorders in relatives with and without epilepsy in families containing multiple individuals with epilepsy, and comparing the findings with rates from a general population sample.

METHODS

The Composite International Diagnostic Interview was administered to 192 individuals from 60 families, including 110 participants with epilepsy of unknown cause (50 focal epilepsy [FE], 42 generalized epilepsy [GE], 6 FE and GE, 12 unclassifiable) and 82 relatives without epilepsy (RWOE). Odds ratios (ORs) for lifetime prevalence of mood disorders in participants with versus without epilepsy were computed through logistic regression, using generalized estimation equations to account for familial clustering. Standardized prevalence ratios (SPRs) were used to compare prevalence in family members with general population rates.

RESULTS

Compared with RWOE, ORs for mood disorders were significantly increased in participants with FE (OR = 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1-5.2) but not in those with GE (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.4-2.2). In addition, prevalence of mood disorders was increased in individuals with epilepsy who had ≥1 relative with FE. Compared with general population rates, mood disorders were significantly increased in individuals with FE but not in those with GE. Rates were also increased in RWOE, but not significantly so (SPR = 1.4, P = .14).

SIGNIFICANCE

These findings are consistent with the hypothesis of shared genetic susceptibility to epilepsy and mood disorders, but suggest (1) the effect may be restricted to FE, and (2) the shared genetic effect on risk of mood disorders and epilepsy may be restricted to individuals with epilepsy, that is, to those in whom the genetic risk for epilepsy is "penetrant."

Barriers to Genetic Testing for Pediatric Medicaid Beneficiaries With Epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Children with public insurance (Medicaid) have increased barriers to specialty care in the United States. For children with epilepsy, the relationship between public insurance and barriers to genetic testing is understudied.

METHODS

We surveyed a sample of US child neurology clinicians. We performed quantitative and qualitative analysis of responses.

RESULTS

There were 302 responses (of 1982 surveyed; response rate 15%) from clinicians from 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, including board-certified child neurologists (82%), resident physicians (6%), nurses (3%), and nurse practitioners (3%). Clinicians felt it was more difficult to get genetic testing for patients with Medicaid insurance compared with commercial insurance, (43% vs 12%, P < 0.05), although many felt it was about the same degree of difficulty (25%) or were not sure (20%). Increased availability of testing was associated with less complex testing (P < 0.001), in-house testing (P < 0.001), and no preauthorization requirements (P < 0.001). Qualitative responses described barriers related to cost, clinician familiarity and comfort, commercial laboratories, health care organization, payer, and patient concerns. Descriptions of facilitators included lowered cost, availability of clinical genetics expertise, clinician knowledge, commercial laboratory assistance, health care organizational changes, improved payer coverage, and increased interest by parents.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric Medicaid beneficiaries with epilepsy have barriers to genetic testing, compared with children with commercial insurance, particularly for more advanced testing. Potential strategies to improve access include broader coverage, lower co-pays, increased capacity for testing outside of specialty laboratories, fewer preauthorization requirements, improved clinician education, ongoing development and dissemination of guidelines, improved availability of clinical genetics services, and continued assistance programs from commercial laboratories.

Depression and genetic causal attribution of epilepsy in multiplex epilepsy families

OBJECTIVES

Rapid advances in genetic research and increased use of genetic testing have increased the emphasis on genetic causes of epilepsy in patient encounters. Research in other disorders suggests that genetic causal attributions can influence patients' psychological responses and coping strategies, but little is known about how epilepsy patients and their relatives will respond to genetic attributions of epilepsy. We investigated the possibility that among members of families containing multiple individuals with epilepsy, depression, the most frequent psychiatric comorbidity in the epilepsies, might be related to the perception that epilepsy has a genetic cause.

METHODS

A self-administered survey was completed by 417 individuals in 104 families averaging 4 individuals with epilepsy per family. Current depression was measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire. Genetic causal attribution was assessed by three questions addressing the following: perceived likelihood of having an epilepsy-related mutation, perceived role of genetics in causing epilepsy in the family, and (in individuals with epilepsy) perceived influence of genetics in causing the individual's epilepsy. Relatives without epilepsy were asked about their perceived chance of developing epilepsy in the future, compared with the average person.

RESULTS

Prevalence of current depression was 14.8% in 182 individuals with epilepsy, 6.5% in 184 biologic relatives without epilepsy, and 3.9% in 51 individuals married into the families. Among individuals with epilepsy, depression was unrelated to genetic attribution. Among biologic relatives without epilepsy, however, prevalence of depression increased with increasing perceived chance of having an epilepsy-related mutation (p = 0.02). This association was not mediated by perceived future epilepsy risk among relatives without epilepsy.

SIGNIFICANCE

Depression is associated with perceived likelihood of carrying an epilepsy-related mutation among individuals without epilepsy in families containing multiple affected individuals. This association should be considered when addressing mental health issues in such families.