Cargando…

Re-Examining Genetic Screening and Oral Contraceptives: A Patient-Centered Review

The World Health Organization classifies combined hormonal contraception as an unacceptable health risk in the presence of a known thrombogenic mutation but advises against routine thrombophilia screening before initiating combined oral contraceptives (COCs) on the grounds of high screening costs an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hiedemann, Bridget, Vernon, Erin, Bowie, Bonnie H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6462992/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30650548
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm9010004
_version_ 1783410676591493120
author Hiedemann, Bridget
Vernon, Erin
Bowie, Bonnie H.
author_facet Hiedemann, Bridget
Vernon, Erin
Bowie, Bonnie H.
author_sort Hiedemann, Bridget
collection PubMed
description The World Health Organization classifies combined hormonal contraception as an unacceptable health risk in the presence of a known thrombogenic mutation but advises against routine thrombophilia screening before initiating combined oral contraceptives (COCs) on the grounds of high screening costs and low prevalence. From the perspective of patient-centered care, we examine cost, prevalence, and other published arguments for and against thrombophilia screening before initiating COCs. Our patient-centered review draws on relevant empirical evidence concerning the advantages and disadvantages of thrombophilia screening, while placing the discussion in the broader context of evolving attitudes toward genetic testing and a shifting policy landscape that provides many women direct access to COCs and/or thrombophilia screening. Given variation in prior probabilities of thrombophilia, expected exposure to other risk factors for venous thromboembolism, attitudes towards risk, expected reactions to a positive test result, ability to pay, and concerns about genetic discrimination, we conclude that the current one-size-fits-most approach is not consistent with patient-centered care. Instead, we advocate for greater patient and provider education concerning the implications of thrombophilia screening. Moreover, we recommend offering patients optional thrombophilia screening before initiating COCs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6462992
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64629922019-04-19 Re-Examining Genetic Screening and Oral Contraceptives: A Patient-Centered Review Hiedemann, Bridget Vernon, Erin Bowie, Bonnie H. J Pers Med Review The World Health Organization classifies combined hormonal contraception as an unacceptable health risk in the presence of a known thrombogenic mutation but advises against routine thrombophilia screening before initiating combined oral contraceptives (COCs) on the grounds of high screening costs and low prevalence. From the perspective of patient-centered care, we examine cost, prevalence, and other published arguments for and against thrombophilia screening before initiating COCs. Our patient-centered review draws on relevant empirical evidence concerning the advantages and disadvantages of thrombophilia screening, while placing the discussion in the broader context of evolving attitudes toward genetic testing and a shifting policy landscape that provides many women direct access to COCs and/or thrombophilia screening. Given variation in prior probabilities of thrombophilia, expected exposure to other risk factors for venous thromboembolism, attitudes towards risk, expected reactions to a positive test result, ability to pay, and concerns about genetic discrimination, we conclude that the current one-size-fits-most approach is not consistent with patient-centered care. Instead, we advocate for greater patient and provider education concerning the implications of thrombophilia screening. Moreover, we recommend offering patients optional thrombophilia screening before initiating COCs. MDPI 2019-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6462992/ /pubmed/30650548 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm9010004 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Hiedemann, Bridget
Vernon, Erin
Bowie, Bonnie H.
Re-Examining Genetic Screening and Oral Contraceptives: A Patient-Centered Review
title Re-Examining Genetic Screening and Oral Contraceptives: A Patient-Centered Review
title_full Re-Examining Genetic Screening and Oral Contraceptives: A Patient-Centered Review
title_fullStr Re-Examining Genetic Screening and Oral Contraceptives: A Patient-Centered Review
title_full_unstemmed Re-Examining Genetic Screening and Oral Contraceptives: A Patient-Centered Review
title_short Re-Examining Genetic Screening and Oral Contraceptives: A Patient-Centered Review
title_sort re-examining genetic screening and oral contraceptives: a patient-centered review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6462992/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30650548
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm9010004
work_keys_str_mv AT hiedemannbridget reexamininggeneticscreeningandoralcontraceptivesapatientcenteredreview
AT vernonerin reexamininggeneticscreeningandoralcontraceptivesapatientcenteredreview
AT bowiebonnieh reexamininggeneticscreeningandoralcontraceptivesapatientcenteredreview