Aad Tibben

Background: Research on the development of prognostic biomarker-based models for genetic neurodegenerative diseases lacking disease-modifying treatments is advancing rapidly. Currently, prognostic models are being developed to predict individual disease onset and progression rates for Huntington’s disease, spinocerebellar ataxia type 1, and spinocerebellar ataxia type 3. These models have potential applications in research, such as evaluating onset-delaying treatments and their timing, and in clinical practice, where they may offer personal utility to mutation carriers. However, the perspectives of healthcare professionals in genetic counselling have not yet been adequately explored. Methods: In this qualitative interview study, we interviewed 18 Dutch healthcare professionals in genetic counselling, representing the majority of the Dutch counselling practice for these conditions, to explore their views on using onset and progression predictions in clinical practice. Results: Healthcare professionals highlighted potential benefits, such as reducing uncertainty and supporting informed life and family planning, which are among the pivotal reasons for mutation carriers to opt for predictive genetic testing. They also noted possible drawbacks, including psychological distress for mutation carriers, discussed challenges in defining clinical disease onset, and some questioned the degree of personal utility of these predictions. Finally, healthcare professionals emphasised several key conditions for implementing such prognostic models, including sufficient predictive accuracy, a narrower and more precise age range, and the need for additional counselling. Conclusion: This study provides insights in the perspectives, views, and concerns of the majority of healthcare professionals in the Dutch counselling practice regarding the use of onset and progression predictions. Healthcare professionals identified several potential benefits and drawbacks of onset and progression predictions and discussed the conditions necessary for their implementation. During model development and before clinical implementation, clarity is needed on how disease onset is defined in the model and what constitutes sufficient model performance. Furthermore, aligning the model with its intended goals, such as providing personal utility, and assessing the feasibility of achieving meaningful predictions are important steps.

Currently, new research projects aim to develop prognostic models that more accurately predict the age of onset and progression of disease for adult-onset autosomal dominant neurodegenerative diseases that lack disease-modifying treatments. While such predictions can be important for medical research and valuable in clinical practice, the perspectives of mutation carriers on receiving onset and progression predictions have not yet been explored. In this Dutch qualitative interview study, conducted between May and August 2023, the preferences, views, and concerns of 25 asymptomatic mutation carriers of Huntington’s Disease, Spinocerebellar Ataxia type 1, or Spinocerebellar Ataxia type 3 regarding onset and progression predictions were examined. Reasons for wanting to receive onset and progression predictions included life planning, preparing for the disease, informing family members, and reducing uncertainty and hypervigilance. Reasons against included concerns about negative psychological effects, the expectation of similar disease progression as family members, and a preference for receiving progression information at a later stage. Most participants were open towards disclosure of onset predictions but more hesitant regarding receiving progression information. The reasons expressed and the preferred predicted age ranges varied among age groups, and some differences in preferences were observed between the three diseases. These findings may guide the development and responsible implementation of such prognostic models and can support healthcare professionals in the counselling of mutation carriers of adult-onset genetic neurodegenerative diseases.

Background: Counseling for whole‐exome sequencing (WES) could benefit from aligning parents' pre‐ and post‐disclosure attitudes. A few studies have qualitatively compared parents' pre‐ and post‐disclosure attitudes toward receiving WES results for their child in a diagnostic setting. This study explored these attitudes in the context of children with a developmental delay.Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with parents (n = 27) of 16 children undergoing diagnostic WES in trio‐analysis, both before and after receiving results.Results: Three key insights emerged. First, the distinction between hoping and expecting was relevant for shaping parents' experiences with receiving results related to the primary indication. Second, parents of young children whose development of autonomous capacities was uncertain sometimes found themselves in a situation resembling a Catch‐22 when confronted with decisions about unsolicited findings (UFs): an important reason for consenting to WES was to gain a better picture of how the child might develop, but in order to make responsible choices about UFs, some ideas of their child's development is needed. Third, default opt‐ins and opt‐outs helped parents fathom new kinds of considerations for accepting or declining UFs in different categories, thereby aiding decision‐making.Conclusion: Results from this study are relevant for counseling and policy development.

In a previous study we found that parents of children with developmental delay (DD) favoured acceptance of unsolicited findings (UFs) for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier status. Sometimes the child’s future autonomy formed a reason for withholding UFs for the present, despite an unfavourable prognosis concerning the child’s cognitive capabilities. This might be different for children undergoing whole exome sequencing (WES) for reasons other than DD and who are expected to exert future autonomy. This is the focus of the current study. We conducted nine qualitative, semi-structured interviews with parents of children, ages <1–15, after consenting to WES, but prior to feedback of results, and with three adolescent children. Several parents wished to receive any information that might in whatever way be relevant to the health and well-being of their child, and to a lesser extent wished the inclusion of information about non-actionable disorders and information concerning carrier status of autosomal recessive disorders. Although parents understood the rationale behind the centre’s UFs disclosure policy, they also felt that they needed this information in order to be able to exert their parental responsibility and take good care of a child still dependent on them. Parents reason from their notion of parental responsibility but are also inclined to take adolescent children’s preferences seriously and acknowledge the child’s incipient autonomy as a ground for granting an increasing degree of self-determination on the road to adulthood.

In debates about genetic testing of children, as well as about disclosing unsolicited findings (UFs) of pediatric exome sequencing, respect for future autonomy should be regarded as a prima facie consideration for not taking steps that would entail denying the future adult the opportunity to decide for herself about what to know about her own genome. While the argument can be overridden when other, morally more weighty considerations are at stake, whether this is the case can only be determined in concrete cases. Importantly, when children grow into adolescents, respect for future autonomy will have to give way to respecting their emerging autonomy. When pediatric exome sequencing is done for complex conditions not involving developmental delay, respect for the child’s future or emerging autonomy should be a primary consideration for those charged with deciding on behalf of the child. Building on what Emanuel and Emanuel have termed the ‘deliberative model’ of shared decision making, we argue that if parents fail to give these considerations their due, professionals should actively invite them to do so. Taking a directive stance may be needed in order to make sure that the future or emerging autonomy of the child are duly considered in the decision-making process, but also to help the parents and themselves to shape their respective roles as responsible care-givers.

Patient and public involvement for co-creation is increasingly recognized as a valuable strategy to develop healthcare research targeting patients’ real needs. However, its practical implementation is not as advanced and unanimously accepted as it could be, due to cultural differences and complexities of managing healthcare programs and clinical studies, especially in the rare disease field. The European Neuromuscular Centre, a European foundation of patient organizations, involved its key stakeholders in a special workshop to investigate the position of the neuromuscular patient community with respect to healthcare and medical research to identify and address gaps and bottlenecks. The workshop took place in Milan (Italy) on January 19–20, 2018, involving 45 participants who were mainly representatives of the patient community, but also included experts from clinical centers, industry and regulatory bodies. In order to provide practical examples and constructive suggestions, specific topics were identified upfront. The first set of issues concerned the quality of life at specific phases of a patient’s life, such as at the time of diagnosis or during pediatric to adult transition, and patient involvement in medical research on activities in daily living including patient reported outcome measures. The second set of issues concerned the involvement of patients in the management of clinical research tools, such as registries and biobanks, and their participation in study design or marketing authorization processes. Introductory presentations were followed by parallel working group sessions, to gain constructive contributions from all participants. The concept of shared decision making was used to ensure, in discussions, a partnership-based identification of the wishes and needs of all stakeholders involved, and the “ladder of participation” tool served as a model to evaluate the actual and the desired level of patients’ involvement in all topics addressed. A general consensus on the outcome of the meeting was collected during the final plenary session. This paper reports the outcome of the workshop and the specific suggestions derived from the analysis of the first set of topics, related to quality of life. The outcomes of the second set of topics are reported elsewhere and are only briefly summarized herein for the sake of completeness. The neuromuscular community proved to be very active and engaged at different levels in the healthcare initiatives of interest. The workshop participants critically discussed several topics, providing practical examples where different stakeholders could play a role in making a change and bridging gaps. Overall, they indicated the need for education of all stakeholders for better communication, where everyone should become an ambassador to promote real change. Support should also come from institutions and healthcare bodies both at structural and economic level.

Amongst the main reasons people at risk for Huntington’s disease (HD) have for undergoing predictive genetic testing are planning a family and prevention of passing on an expanded CAG-repeat to future offspring. After having received an unfavourable