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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |