Genetic testing for hearing loss: different motivations for the same outcome

The views of people with a lived experience of deafness and the general public regarding genetic testing for deafness in the reproductive setting: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Genes associated with nonsyndromic hearing loss are commonly included in reproductive carrier screening panels, which are now routinely offered in preconception and prenatal care in many countries. However, there is debate whether hearing loss should be considered a medical condition appropriate for screening. This systematic review assessed research on opinions of those with a lived experience of deafness and the general public regarding genetic testing for deafness in the reproductive setting.

METHODS

Search of 5 online databases yielded 423 articles, 20 of which met inclusion criteria. We assessed the quality of each study, extracted data, and performed thematic analysis on qualitative studies.

RESULTS

Most studies indicated interest in the use of prenatal diagnosis for deafness. However, there were mixed views, and sometimes strongly held views, expressed regarding the reproductive options that should be available to those with an increased chance of having a child with deafness. Studies were small, from a limited number of countries, and most were too old to include views regarding preimplantation genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

There is a broad range of views regarding the use of reproductive options for deafness. Further research is essential to explore the benefits and harms of including nonsyndromic hearing loss genes in carrier screening.

"My Plate is Full": Reasons for Declining a Genetic Evaluation of Hearing Loss

The aim of this study was to obtain patient and parent perspectives on genetic evaluation of hearing loss, in order to identify motivators, expectations, and barriers. Three focus groups were conducted following a semi-structured discussion guide, led by an independent moderator. Participants were hearing parents of children with permanent hearing loss or deaf adults. Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a codebook and identify major themes and subthemes. Participant views were compared to national guidelines. The 28 participants comprised 23 parents representing 21 unique families and 5 deaf adults. 13/21 families and 0/5 adults reported comorbidities, 4/21 families and 3/5 adults had a positive family history, and 12/21 families versus 0/5 adults had utilized genetics services. A common theme among adults and parents was a curiosity as to the cause of hearing loss. Parents were motivated to detect comorbidities and optimize care for hearing loss. Some parents felt overwhelmed by the hearing loss and unprepared to pursue early genetic evaluation as recommended in guidelines. Several reported positive experiences following genetics consultation, while others reported unease and unmet expectations. Notably, both parents and adults expressed ambivalence regarding the desire for genetic knowledge. Financial concerns and difficulties obtaining a referral were cited as extrinsic barriers. For parents of children with hearing loss, both the presence of comorbidities and a positive family history were drivers of genetics consultation and/or genetic testing. We identified educational opportunities for both patients and providers that would improve informed decision-making and increase access to genetic services. Consideration of the patient/family perspective and their decision-making processes, along with flexibility in the approach to genetics evaluation and its timing, will optimize both the development and implementation of guidelines.

Molecular diagnostics for hereditary hearing loss in children

INTRODUCTION

Hearing loss (HL) is the most common birth defect in industrialized countries with far-reaching social, psychological and cognitive implications. It is an extremely heterogeneous disease, complicating molecular testing. The introduction of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has resulted in great progress in diagnostics allowing to study all known HL genes in a single assay. The diagnostic yield is currently still limited, but has the potential to increase substantially. Areas covered: In this review the utility of NGS and the problems for comprehensive molecular testing for HL are evaluated and discussed. Expert commentary: Different publications have proven the appropriateness of NGS for molecular testing of heterogeneous diseases such as HL. However, several problems still exist, such as pseudogenic background of some genes and problematic copy number variant analysis on targeted NGS data. Another main challenge for the future will be the establishment of population specific mutation-spectra to achieve accurate personalized comprehensive molecular testing for HL.

Perception of Genetic Testing for Deafness and Factors Associated with Interest in Genetic Testing Among Deaf People in a Selected Population in Sub-Saharan Africa

Understanding the perceptions of genetic testing by members of the deaf community may help in planning deafness genetics research, especially so in the context of strong adherence to cultural values as found among native Africans. Among Yorubas in Nigeria, deafness is perceived to be caused by some offensive actions of the mother during pregnancy, spiritual attack, and childhood infections. We studied attitudes towards, and acceptance of genetic testing by the deaf community in Nigeria. Structured questionnaires were administered to individuals sampled from the Vocational Training Centre for the Deaf, the religious Community, and government schools, among others. The main survey items elicited information about the community in which the deaf people participate, their awareness of genetic testing, whether or not they view genetic testing as acceptable, and their understanding of the purpose of genetic testing. There were 150 deaf participants (61.3 % males, 38.7 % females) with mean age of 26.7 years ±9.8. A majority of survey respondents indicated they relate only with other members of the deaf community (78 %) and reported believing genetic testing does more good than harm (79.3 %); 57 % expressed interest in genetic testing. Interest in genetic testing for deafness or in genetic testing in pregnancy was not related to whether respondents relate primarily to the deaf or to the hearing community. However, a significantly higher number of male respondents and respondents with low education reported interest in genetic testing.

The many faces of sensorineural hearing loss: one founder and two novel mutations affecting one family of mixed Jewish ancestry

Dramatic progress has been made in our understanding of the highly heterogeneous molecular bases of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), demonstrating the involvement of all known forms of inheritance and a plethora of genes tangled in various molecular pathways. This progress permits the provision of prognostic information and genetic counseling for affected families, which might, nevertheless, be exceedingly challenging. Here, we describe an intricate genetic investigation that included Sanger-type sequencing, BeadArray technology, and next-generation sequencing to resolve a complex case involving one family presenting syndromic and nonsyndromic SNHL phenotypes in two consecutive generations. We demonstrate and conclude that such an effort can be completed during pregnancy.

Newborn hearing concurrent genetic screening for hearing impairment-a clinical practice in 58,397 neonates in Tianjin, China

OBJECTIVE

Newborn hearing screening (NHS) is used worldwide due to its feasibility and cost-efficiency. However, neonates with late-onset and progressive hearing impairment will be missed by NHS. Genetic factors account for an estimated 60% of congenital profound hearing loss. Our previous cohort studies were carried out in an innovative mode, i.e. hearing concurrent genetic screening, in newborns to improve the abilities or early diagnosis and intervention for the hearing defects. In this study, we performed the first clinical practice of this mode in Tianjin city.

METHODS

A large cohort of 58,397 neonates, born between December 2011 and December 2012, in 44 hospitals in Tianjin, were screened for 20 hot spot hearing loss associated mutations from GJB2, GJB3, SLC26A4 and MTRNR1(12S rRNA). The data of genetic screening results was comprehensively analyzed with newborn hearing screening (NHS) results.

RESULTS

We developed an accurate, high throughput genetic screening method and applied it to a total of 58,397 newborns in Tianjin. 3225 (5.52%) infants were detected to carry at least one mutation allele in GJB2, GJB3, SLC26A4 or MTRNR1. 34 (0.58‰) infants were positive for hearing loss caused by GJB2 or SLC26A4 mutations (homozygote or compound heterozygote). 54(0.93‰) infants are heterozygous of various genes. 109(1.87‰) infants had the pathological mitochondrial DNA mutation.

CONCLUSION

Accurate, comprehensive hearing loss associated genetic screening can facilitate genetic counseling and provides valuable prognostic information to affected infants. This united screening mode of this study was a promising clinical practice.

Do parental perceptions and motivations towards genetic testing and prenatal diagnosis for deafness vary in different cultures?

Surveys of attitudes of individuals with deafness and their families towards genetic testing or prenatal diagnosis have mostly been carried out in the West. It is expected that the perceptions and attitudes would vary amongst persons of different cultures and economic background. There is little information on the prevailing attitudes for genetic testing and prenatal diagnosis for deafness in developing countries. Therefore, this study evaluates the motivations of Indian people with inherited hearing loss towards such testing. Twenty-eight families with history of congenital hearing loss (23 hearing parents with child/family member with deafness, 4 couples with both partners having deafness and 1 parent and child with deafness) participated in a semi-structured survey investigating their interest, attitudes, and intentions for using genetic and prenatal testing for deafness. Participants opinioned that proper management and care of individuals with deafness were handicapped by limited rehabilitation facilities with significant financial and social burden. Nineteen (68%) opted for genetic testing. Twenty-six (93%) expressed high interest in prenatal diagnosis, while 19 (73%) would consider termination of an affected fetus. Three hearing couples, in whom the causative mutations were identified, opted for prenatal diagnosis. On testing, all the three fetuses were affected and the hearing parents elected to terminate the pregnancies. This study provides an insight into the contrasting perceptions towards hearing disability in India and its influence on the desirability of genetic testing and prenatal diagnosis.

High-throughput sequencing to decipher the genetic heterogeneity of deafness

Identifying genes causing non-syndromic hearing loss has been challenging using traditional approaches. We describe the impact that high-throughput sequencing approaches are having in discovery of genes related to hearing loss and the implications for clinical diagnosis.

Parental attitudes toward genetic testing for prelingual deafness in China

OBJECTIVE

Recent advances in molecular biology of hearing and deafness have made genetic testing an option for deaf individuals and their families. In China, DNA microarray and other genetic testing method has been applied to rapid genetic diagnosis of non-syndromic hearing loss. However, there is no information about the interests in such testing in China. The purpose of this study is to document the attitudes of parents with normal hearing who have one or more deaf children toward diagnostic, carrier, and prenatal genetic testing for deafness.

METHODS

A structured, self-completion questionnaire was given to delegates at a conference held at Hubei Rehabilitation Research Center for Deaf Children, Wuhan, China on March 3, 2010. Of 366 surveys distributed, 290 were completed and returned.

RESULTS

Ninety-four percent of the respondents had a positive attitude toward genetic testing. Seventy-two percent stated that they were interested in genetic testing of deaf child. Of the individuals who were interested in such testing, 69% would consider having prenatal genetic testing for deafness.

CONCLUSION

The present study provided evidence of a predominantly positive attitude toward genetics. Appropriate genetic counseling can help parents to understand the risk, benefits, and limitations of genetic testing for prelingual deafness.

Deaf adults' reasons for genetic testing depend on cultural affiliation: results from a prospective, longitudinal genetic counseling and testing study

This article examines the relationship between cultural affiliation and deaf adults' motivations for genetic testing for deafness in the first prospective, longitudinal study to examine the impact of genetic counseling and genetic testing on deaf adults and the deaf community. Participants (n = 256), classified as affiliating with hearing, Deaf, or both communities, rated interest in testing for 21 reasons covering 5 life domains. Findings suggest strong interest in testing to learn why they are deaf, but little interest in using it for decisions about a partner or having children. Culturally mediated variation was also demonstrated. Deaf and both communities groups viewed testing as useful for more life domains than the hearing community group. Deaf and both communities had similar motivations related to further exploration, understanding, or strengthening of deafness. Motivations related to "hearing" were also relevant for both communities. We conclude that cultural affiliation is an important factor for constructing motivations for genetic testing.

Examining the relationship between genetic counselors' attitudes toward deaf people and the genetic counseling session

Given the medical and cultural perspectives on deafness it is important to determine if genetic counselors' attitudes toward deaf people can affect counseling sessions for deafness genes. One hundred fifty-eight genetic counselors recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv completed an online survey assessing attitudes toward deaf people and scenario-specific comfort levels discussing and offering genetic testing for deafness. Respondents with deaf/Deaf friends or who work in prenatal or pediatric settings had more positive attitudes toward deaf people than those without deaf/Deaf friends or those working in 'other' settings. More positive attitudes toward deaf people correlated with higher comfort level talking about genetic testing for the two scenarios involving culturally Deaf clients; and correlated with higher comfort level offering genetic testing to culturally Deaf clients wishing to have a deaf child. Attitudes and comfort level were not correlated in the scenarios involving hearing or non-culturally deaf clients. These results suggest that genetic counselors' attitudes could affect information provision and the decision making process of culturally Deaf clients. Cultural sensitivity workshops in genetic counseling training programs that incorporate personal interactions with culturally Deaf individuals are recommended. Additional suggestions for fostering personal interactions are provided.

What do patients with hereditary deafness think of genetic studies?

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an attitude survey for patients with hearing loss (HL). The aim of this study was to investigate the opinions of patients or parents of deaf children regarding the deafness gene, genetic testing and a gene related HL.

METHOD

A questionnaire was sent to 201 individuals who visited the Department of Otolaryngology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University and who received genetic testing for HL from September 2000 to January 2006. There were 14 questions in the questionnaire that were classified into four topics related to a deafness gene and hereditary HL, genetic testing, outpatient department of medical genetics/genetic counseling, and the results of genetic testing. The study consisted of 140 respondents (70%) of 201 administered surveys.

RESULT

Before visiting our department, only 36% of the respondents were aware that a genetic factor was a cause of HL. Despite our explanation of a deafness gene and hereditary HL, 23% of 134 respondents answered that they had not received any such explanation. Furthermore, 14% of the 103 respondents who had answered that they receive the explanation, however, they did not fully understand it. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents made their own decision regarding the genetic testing, whereas 53.5% received the tests upon the advice of a physician or family member. In contrast, 91% of the respondents had a positive attitude towards other future genetic tests. The existence of the genetic outpatient department or genetic counseling has been seldom acknowledged, but upon learning of its availability, nearly one third of the respondents indicated that they would like to receive genetic counseling. Although no respondent had social and/or family problems after being informed that they had a deafness gene mutation, some respondents worried about the result.

CONCLUSION

The results of the survey suggested that the vast majority of the respondents were satisfied with genetic testing for HL and that the barriers to take the genetic test were less than expected. However, some respondents have a negative attitude towards genetic testing and counseling. Furthermore, the issue of disclosure may be burdensome to patients.

A prospective, longitudinal study of the impact of GJB2/GJB6 genetic testing on the beliefs and attitudes of parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing infants

There are limited data on the impact of incorporating genetic counseling and testing into the newborn hearing screening process. We report on results from a prospective, longitudinal study to determine the impact of genetic counseling and GJB2/GJB6 genetic testing on parental knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about genetic testing. One hundred thirty culturally hearing parents of 93 deaf or hard-of-hearing children ages 0-3 years primarily identified through newborn hearing screening received pre- and post-test genetic counseling for GJB2 and GJB6. Parents completed questionnaires following pre-test counseling, and 1- and 6-month post-test result disclosure. Results indicate that following pre-test counseling all parents perceived benefits to genetic testing. While parents who received positive results continued to perceive benefits from testing, perceived benefit declined among parents who received inconclusive or negative results. Parents did not perceive genetic testing as harmful following pre-test counseling or receipt of test results. Parents who received positive test results performed better in understanding recurrence and causation of their child's deafness and indicated greater interest in prenatal genetic testing than those who received inconclusive or negative test results. Parents felt that pediatricians and audiologists should inform parents of genetic testing availability; however, there was no consensus on timing of this discussion. Thus culturally hearing parents do not perceive genetic testing of their deaf or hard-of-hearing infants/toddlers as harmful; they feel that primary care providers should discuss genetic testing with them; and positive genetic test results with genetic counseling give rise to better understanding and perceived benefit than negative or inconclusive results.

Parental Narratives About Genetic Testing for Hearing Loss: A One Year Follow Up Study

Few studies examine whether and how parental attitudes towards genetic testing change over time. In this study we interviewed parents of 14 children with newly identified hearing loss at two time points: after referral to genetics and 1 year later. Qualitative analyses of parental narratives indicate that parental attitudes did not change significantly over this time. Parents who perceived genetic testing to be useful continued to value it after testing, while parents who did not perceive it as being useful for their child's future held the same view a year later. The only parents who changed their views regarding the usefulness of genetic testing for hearing loss were those who reported that their children underwent significant changes in their hearing loss or were faced with other life threatening conditions. Parents were also often unaware of the role of the genetic counselor and how genetic counseling could help address many of their lingering questions and concerns. These emergent themes indicate the need for geneticists and genetic counselors to be aware of and sensitized to the questions and attitudes that bring parents to a genetic evaluation, as well as the reasons why parents may not follow up with genetic testing for hearing loss when recommended.

Assessing parental attitudes toward genetic testing for childhood hearing loss: Before and after genetic consultation

We report on the development of a Genetic Attitude Assessment Tool (GAAT) to measure parental attitudes in contemplating genetic testing for childhood hearing loss, and to examine the differences in assessments made before and after genetic counseling. The GAAT tool was administered to a convenient sample of 119 parents of children with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The respondents completed the survey either before (n = 77) or after (n = 42) genetic counseling. Exploratory Factor Analysis was applied to identify and quantify the underlying psychosocial structure. Our results showed the validated 54-item GAAT instrument contains six subscales: (1) "test intention," (2) "beliefs in non-genetic causes of hearing loss," (3) "deferral of decision to undergo genetic testing," (4) "appropriate use of genetic testing results," (5) "beliefs in the benefits," and (6) "concerns about stigma." The respondents who answered the survey after genetic counseling had higher "test intention" (P = 0.017) and endorsed to a greater extent "beliefs in the benefits" (P < 0.001). They believed to a lesser extent that childhood hearing loss was due to "non-genetic causes" (P < 0.001) and were less inclined to prefer "decision deferral" (P = 0.031). Respondents who themselves had a hearing loss expressed a significantly weaker belief in "non-genetic causes" of hearing loss (P < 0.0001). In conclusion the validated GAAT instrument is responsive to changes in parental attitudes after genetic counseling. The GAAT may be used to monitor parental attitudes serially, to further understand how parental attitudes change from pre genetic counseling, post genetic counseling, to post test result disclosure.

Parental narratives on genetic testing for children with hearing loss: A qualitative inquiry

Studies on parental attitudes towards genetic testing for hearing loss have surveyed parents of newborns with hearing loss as well as deaf and hearing adults. Although research indicates that most people have positive attitudes about genetic testing, few studies examine parental narratives about the personal implications of genetic hearing loss in their children. In this qualitative study we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 parents whose children had been referred for, but had not yet undergone, genetic testing for hearing loss. The parents were recruited to represent a diverse range of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Genetics and genetic testing for hearing loss were poorly understood topics. Beyond supporting or opposing genetic testing for hearing loss, parents' construction of meaning included struggles to locate responsibility (metaphysical attributions, ascription or alleviation of parental responsibility) as well as questions about the usefulness and implications of genetic testing for hearing loss in their child. Based on the themes that emerged from this study, we highlight the need for healthcare professionals to be aware and sensitized to parents' narratives, personal meanings and socio-cultural context when referring them for genetic testing for hearing loss. Listening attentively to parental narratives can help minimize prevailing misconceptions among parents and enable appropriate medical care and education.

Parental Narratives of Genetic Testing for Hearing Loss: Audiologic Implications for Clinical Work With Children and Families

Purpose

Few studies have examined how parents personalize the possibility of genetic hearing loss in their children and whether they actually intend to pursue testing for their child. This article addresses the audiologist’s important role in the genetic testing referral and follow-up processes.

Method

Twenty-four parents whose children were referred to genetic testing for hearing loss were interviewed in depth. Parents were selected to include a diverse range of races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic levels. Interviews were coded and analyzed using qualitative methods.

Results

Parental associations with genetic testing included feeling personally responsible, feeling relief, and considering metaphysical attributions for their child’s hearing loss. Parental attitudes were related to perceptions and experiences with deafness. Many misconceptions about genetics were also found.

Conclusions

Audiologists need to be sensitized to parents' personal and sociocultural contexts when discussing genetic testing and should tailor informational and emotional support to parents' requirements when confronting the possibility of their child having a genetic hearing loss.

Connexins in hearing loss: a comprehensive overview

Connexins are a family of transmembrane proteins that form gap junctions between adjacent cells and allow intercellular communication. Connexin proteins are involved in pathological conditions in humans, mainly in hearing loss, neurodegenerative disorders and skin diseases. The association between connexin proteins and the inner ear is well established. The abundant expression of connexins in the auditory system of the inner ear demonstrates their importance in inner ear development and the hearing process. Most compelling, there are over 100 mutations in genes encoding connexins that are associated with deafness. Most prominent is the remarkable involvement of connexin 26 in hearing loss. Mutations in the gene GJB2, encoding connexin 26, are responsible for around 50% of genetic cases of severe to profound non-syndromic hearing loss in some parts of the world. Learning more about the connexin family in general and about connexin 26 in particular can shed light on the pathogenesis of the inner ear and bring us closer to finding clinical solutions for the hearing impaired.

Attitudes of the broader hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing community toward genetic testing for deafness

PURPOSE

To assess attitudes in a nonmedically and nonculturally influenced setting of reproductive-age adults toward genetic testing for deafness in newborns.

METHODS

Hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing individuals at a university completed questionnaires assessing attitudes toward genetic testing.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of hearing (n = 133) and 62% of deaf/hard-of-hearing (n = 89) individuals would allow genetic testing for deafness in their own newborn.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate an acceptance of newborn genetic testing for deafness by individuals in the broader community, regardless of hearing status.