Affiliation:
1. Department of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health Genetic Counseling Program, University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA
2. Northwestern Medicine Winfield Illinois USA
3. School of Medicine University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA
4. UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA
5. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA
6. UPMC Vision Institute Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA
Abstract
AbstractThere are 10 gene therapies (GTs) for hereditary conditions that are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While prior research demonstrates that the majority of healthcare providers lack knowledge regarding GTs, this has not been explored within the genetic counseling profession. The authors hypothesize that the availability of GTs impacts the genetic counseling profession and that there is variable awareness on this topic among genetic counselors (GCs). We conducted a survey to assess GCs' familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing FDA‐approved GTs at the time of the survey, as well as GCs' perceived impact of and educational experiences related to GT. The survey was distributed through listservs and word of mouth from January through March 2021. One hundred of the 109 responses met eligibility criteria. Respondents were more familiar with onasemnogene abeparvovec‐xioi (ZOLGENSMA; Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., Durham, NC, USA) than voretigene neparvovec‐rzyl (LUXTURNA; Spark Therapeutics, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA; p < 0.001). Familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing both GTs varied by specialty but not by years of experience. Fifty‐nine percent of respondents (58/98) reported that GTs impact their work, with differences by specialty but not by years of experience. The majority of respondents (93%; 90/97) felt that GCs should be comfortable discussing GTs with patients, and most respondents (83%; 79/95) were interested in additional GT training. Only 38% of respondents (36/95) recalled GT being included in their genetic counseling training program's curriculum, which may be skewed by recent growth of this field. Our results suggest that GCs feel that GTs impact their practice, have discrepant awareness and comfort in this area, and desire additional training on this topic. Further investigation into the actual impact and models for addressing training is warranted and will be critical as the number of approved GTs increases.
Funder
National Institutes of Health
Reference23 articles.
1. Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC). (2023a).Revised Practice Based Competencies. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gceducation.org/wp‐content/uploads/2023/12/ACGC_PracticeBasedCompetencies_2023.pdf
2. Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC). (2023b).Standards of Accreditation for Graduate Programs in Genetic Counseling. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gceducation.org/wp‐content/uploads/2023/11/ACGC_StandardsOfAccreditation_2023.pdf
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Genetics (ACOG). (2017).Carrier screening for genetic conditions. Retrieved fromhttps://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical‐guidance/committee‐opinion/articles/2017/03/carrier‐screening‐for‐genetic‐conditions
4. American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ASGCT). (2022).Gene therapy basics. Retrieved fromhttps://patienteducation.asgct.org/gene‐therapy‐101/gene‐therapy‐basics