Papers

Antenatal screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis: randomised trial of stepwise v couple screening

^a University of Aberdeen, Medical Genetics, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB9 2ZD, ^b Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB9 2ZD, ^c Health Services Research Unit, Drew Kay Wing, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB9 2ZD, ^d Psychology and Genetics Research Group, United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's Hospitals, Guy's Campus, London SE1 9RT

Correspondence to: Dr Miedzybrodzka.

Abstract

Objective: To perform a rigorous comparative evaluation of stepwise and couple approaches to antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis.
Design: Pragmatic randomised trial.
Setting: Hospital antenatal clinic serving a regional population.
Subjects: 2002 women (couples) attending for booking antenatal visit at less than 17 weeks' gestation with no family history of cystic fibrosis.
Interventions: Offering counselling and carrier testing for cystic fibrosis, either to women in the first instance (stepwise) or to couples (couple screening).
Main outcome measures: Uptake rates; anxiety; knowledge of cystic fibrosis and carrier status (both partners); attitudes to health, pregnancy, the baby, and screening (both partners); and uptake of carrier testing by relatives.
Results: Uptake of screening was the same for both approaches (90%). After delivery most women remembered test results and their meaning, but 53/253 (21%) of those with negative results of couple testing had forgotten that repeat testing would be advisable if they had a pregnancy with a new partner. With stepwise screening women identified as carriers had high levels of anxiety when results were received (mean anxiety score 52.3). This dissipated with a reassuring partner's result (carriers' mean anxiety score 36.1) to levels similar to those receiving negative results from couple screening. Of those receiving negative results, women who had stepwise screening were significantly less anxious than those who had couple screening (mean score with result 32.1 v 35.4, 95% confidence interval for difference -4.7 to -2.1).
Conclusions: Couple screening allows carriers to avoid transient high levels of anxiety, but is associated with more anxiety and false reassurance among most screenees who will test negative. Stepwise screening gives carriers and their relatives genetic information and is, in our opinion, the better method.

Introduction

Cystic fibrosis is a common autosomal recessive disorder which shortens life through chronic lung disease and affects one in 2500 people in Britain. The discovery of the cystic fibrosis gene and its major mutations has made it possible to detect 82-92% of carriers in the British population by using a mouthwash test.^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7} As most new cases of cystic fibrosis arise in families with no known affected members carrier screening of the population is the only way to alert most couples at risk before the birth of an affected child. The effectiveness and timing of such screening have been the subjects of recent studies.^{8 9 10 11} Carrier testing before conception may allow couples more time to adjust to their increased risk and more reproductive options, including avoiding pregnancy. Pregnant women, however, have a high degree of interest in their own reproduction, have usually chosen their partner, and are readily available for counselling by specialised staff. Prenatal testing is thereby also available for the large number of pregnancies that are unplanned.

Mennie et al reported a study of stepwise carrier screening for pregnant women attending hospital for antenatal care.¹⁰ If a carrier was found she and her partner were offered genetic counselling and testing of the partner. Uptake of screening was 71%. Identification of carriers increased maternal distress, although this disappeared when a negative result in her partner became available.¹⁰ In part to avoid such distress and the associated need for counselling, screening of couples was proposed by Wald.¹² Both partners are asked to submit a sample, but only one is tested in the first instance. If a carrier is found the partner's sample is tested. A positive result is issued only if both partners are found to be carriers. If one partner tests negative, even though the other may be a carrier, a negative result is issued to the couple. Couple testing avoids the potential problem of carriers whose partner's test is negative being concerned by the residual 1 in 500 risk that their child is affected, but it fails to inform carriers of their risk with new partners and to warn their families.¹³ The advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches have generated much debate. Livingstone et al recently reported a study of the use of routine couple screening in hospital antenatal clinics.¹⁴ They concluded that couple screening was not associated with anxiety in the short term. They did not, however, use a randomised study design, and the measure of anxiety used was not the most sensitive for detecting distress in this group of patients. Pragmatic, as opposed to explanatory, trials seek to establish the most effective treatment for everyday clinical practice, with analysis by intention to treat rather than assessing treatments provided under ideal circumstances.^{15 16} We carried out a pragmatic randomised trial to compare the two methods and to assess knowledge and attitudes of pregnant and delivered women to their babies and their own health.

Method

RANDOMISATION

Two thousand and two couples without a family history of cystic fibrosis attending Aberdeen Maternity Hospital antenatal clinic were randomised in a ratio of 5 to 1 to be offered either stepwise or couple screening. We expected that about 1500 women would accept the offer of a stepwise test, about 300 would accept a couple test, and, of those offered stepwise testing, about 55 would be identified as carriers.¹⁷ This design enabled us to estimate the proportion of women who were falsely reassured with a standard error of about 1% for women with negative stepwise results, 3% for negative couple results, and 6% for carriers in the stepwise arm.

Randomisation was performed on a weekly basis with stepwise testing being offered for five consecutive weeks followed by one week of couple screening. This method of randomisation was used to simplify study protocols for laboratory staff, who had to be aware whether or not to await the arrival of a partner's sample before testing.

SCREENING

At recruitment to the study women, and their partners if present, were given an information leaflet and counselling by a study midwife. Women were dissuaded from participating if their partner was not available for testing. Consent forms were completed before tests were carried out. DNA analysis was performed on samples of mouthwash for four cystic fibrosis mutations to allow detection of 92% of carriers in the Grampian population and thus 85% of carrier couples.^{7 18} Positive and negative results were sent to women, their obstetric consultants, and their general practitioners. Carriers (stepwise arm) were contacted by telephone if possible to arrange an early appointment, and were offered counselling and testing of partners with a clinical geneticist. If both partners were found to be carriers, further counselling was provided and prenatal diagnosis was offered via the obstetrician. Carriers were encouraged to inform their families of the genetic risk and of how testing might be obtained if desired.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures were uptake of prenatal screening, anxiety, knowledge, perception of genetic risk, attitudes towards the pregnancy and the baby, perception of health, and attitudes to screening. Anxiety was measured by using a six item short form of the state part of the Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory.¹⁹ The inventory itself is a widely used measure of anxiety that is reliable and sensitive. It has been extensively used in prenatal screening research in the United Kingdom, allowing results from this study to be compared with others. As the original form is 40 items long we used a six item short form to increase compliance with completion. The six item form has been shown to be reliable (reliability coefficient 0.82) and valid, producing scores similar to those produced by the long form.²⁰

Knowledge about cystic fibrosis and carrier status was assessed by using the questions in tables III and IV with either "yes/no/don't know" responses being available or up to four choices. All the questions could be answered with information given during the standardised counselling at recruitment. Perception of genetic risk was measured by using two questions: how likely do you think it is that you are a carrier of cystic fibrosis? and how likely do you think it is that your baby has cystic fibrosis? In response, those being questioned were asked to ring a number from 0 to 7, the words "not at all" being beside the number 0 and "definitely a carrier/has cystic fibrosis" being beside the number 7. Attitudes to pregnancy and the baby were measured with a series of eight point rating scales, previously used in other studies.²¹ Women were asked to consider how they felt about their pregnancy and their baby in response to seven different adjectives and to rate their feelings on a series of eight point scales, which were marked "not at all" beside the figure 0 and "very much" beside the figure 7. The adjectives "fulfilled," "stressed," "pleased," "optimistic," "worried," "uncertain." and "depressed," were considered with respect to the pregnancy, and "uncertain," "confident," "attached," "loving," "maternal," "concerned," and "detached" were considered with respect to the baby. Responses were then summarised in two scores; one for negative attitudes to pregnancy and one for negative attitudes to the baby, produced by reversing the negative responses and then adding the component scores, giving a worst score of 28. Perception of health was measured with a five item questionnaire relating to past, present, and future health. The responses were summarised in a score with the score for the most pessimistic view of health being 5 and the most optimistic score possible 24.²² Attitudes to screening were assessed with the questions in table VIII.

QUESTIONNAIRES

Women received self completion questionnaires at the time of recruitment, with test results, and after delivery (not sent to 93 women because of loss of pregnancy or baby, or new address unknown). Women's knowledge and attitudes were assessed at recruitment and after delivery, with the other outcomes being assessed at each time point. Partners received questionnaires at recruitment and after delivery regarding knowledge, perception of genetic risk, and attitudes to screening. An additional questionnaire was sent to carriers after their partner's result was available. After delivery carriers were also asked about the number of relatives they had informed. These results are expressed as the ratio of the number of relatives told (siblings/parents/aunts or uncles/cousins) over total number of relatives.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Two group comparisons for continuous variables with a normal distribution were made by using Student's t test. Categorical data were analysed by the ² test. Differences in "with test result" anxiety scores were confirmed by using analysis of covariance (multiple regression) to adjust for baseline anxiety scores. An economic analysis will be reported elsewhere.

Results

Randomisation--There was little difference in the ages of women or partners between the two arms of the study, nor in social class, economic status, race, number of children, or reproductive intentions (table I). Response rates for the women's questionnaires were 1844/2002 (92%) at recruitment, 1642/2002 (82%) with the test result, 42/48 (88%) with the partner's result, and 1470/1908 (77%) after delivery. Partners' response rates were 1421/2002 (71%) at recruitment and 1413/1908 (74%) after delivery.

TABLE I--Baseline data for those offered testing in each arm of study.
 Figures are numbers (percentages) unless otherwise stated
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Stepwise       Couple
                                            screening     screening
                                            (minimum      (minimum
Detail                                      n=1513*)      n=330*)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean (SD) age (years):
 Women                                    27.6 (4.82)   27.9 (4.72)
 Partners                                 29.9 (5.68)   30.1 (5.59)
Marital status:
 Married                                   1190 (79)      269 (81)
 Living together                            224 (15)       45 (14)
 Single                                      99 (6)        16 (5)
No of children:
 None                                       761 (50)      179 (54)
 One                                        550 (36)      117 (36)
 Two                                        163 (11)       28 (8)
 More than two                               42 (3)         6 (2)
Partner present at antenatal visit?
 Yes                                        840 (51)      188 (52)
 No                                         796 (49)      173 (48)
Gestation (weeks):
 6-8                                         60 (4)        15 (4)
 9-12                                       938 (58)      193 (54)
 13-16                                      618 (38)      149 (41)
 17+                                         13 (1)         3 (1)
Social class++ (woman's occupation):
 I                                           83 (6)        16 (5)
 II                                         405 (27)      100 (30)
 IIIN                                       621 (41)      135 (41)
 IIIM                                       156 (10)       35 (11)
 IV                                         124 (8)        25 (8)
 V                                           73 (5)        13 (4)
 Other (for example, students)               23 (2)         3 (1)
 Not classified                              34 (1)         4 (1)
Related to someone with cystic fibrosis?:
 Yes++                                       10 (1)         2 (1)
 No/don't know                             1507 (99)      327 (99)
Know someone with cystic fibrosis?
 Yes                                        255 (17)       51 (16)
 No                                        1254 (83)      279 (84)
Heard of cystic fibrosis?:
 Yes                                       1377 (91)      304 (92)
 No                                         135 (9)        26 (8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Data for age, gestation, and social class were available for all women (1638)
and most partners (361).
+1980 HMSO classification of occupations.
++Relations were cousins (five), second cousins (four), father in law (one),
sister in law (one).

Screening--Stepwise testing was offered to 1641 women, of whom 1487 (91%) accepted a test. Twelve women were found to have a family history of cystic fibrosis; extra counselling and appropriate mutation analysis were performed. Forty eight carriers were identified and offered genetic counselling and testing of their partners. Samples from partners were provided in all but one instance, that carrier having refused to take any further part in the study. Three carriers' partners were not available at the time of counselling but provided postal samples. One carrier couple was identified. Couple screening was offered to 361 couples, of whom 321 (89%) provided two samples. Nineteen (5%) couples did not provide a sample from the man. One couple received a positive result. Of the 320 couples given negative results, 11 included one partner who was a carrier. Both of the carrier couples identified by the study elected to have prenatal diagnosis; both fetuses were unaffected.

Anxiety--At recruitment those offered couple testing were slightly more anxious than those offered stepwise testing (table II), but this difference was of borderline significance (P=0.02). On receipt of negative test results women from the couple screening arm were significantly more anxious than women from the stepwise arm (P<0.001). This difference was still present when analysis of covariance was used to correct for differences in anxiety score at recruitment (F11362=19.2, P<0.001). Women identified as carriers in the stepwise arm had very high levels of anxiety, but this dissipated after receiving a negative result for their partners. Anxiety levels of carriers were then similar to those of women with a negative couple result. After delivery there was no difference in anxiety between groups, and anxiety levels were lower than at recruitment.

TABLE II--Mean (SD) anxiety scores* of women at different time
 points. Note that different numbers of women answered each questionnaire
 so minimum number answering is given
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Stepwise
                         screening
                         (minimum          Couple
                       n=carriers 34;     screening    Difference between arms
                       negative results   (minimum     (95% confidence interval
Timing of scores          1072)            n=250)      for difference in means)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At recruitment:
 Overall                 32.7 (10.1)     34.2 (10.9)   -1.50 (-2.81 to -0.19)
With result:
 Overall                 32.8 (10.7)     35.4 (11.5)   -2.67 (-4.04 to -1.30)
 Carriers                52.3 (14.4)         N/A
 Negative result         32.1 (9.9)      35.4 (11.5)   -3.36 (-4.66 to -2.06)
With partner's result:
 Carriers                36.1 (13.5)         N/A       0.68 (-3.13 to 4.49)+
After delivery:
 Overall                 31.2 (9.7)      32.0 (10.3)   -0.78 (-2.14 to 0.58)
 Carriers                32.3 (10.7)
 Negative result         31.2 (9.7)      32.0 (10.3)   -0.82 (-2.18 to 0.54)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Anxiety score derived from six item short form of state part of Spielberger
state-trait anxiety inventory (worst score=100).20
+Comparison made with negative couple results.
NA=not applicable.

Knowledge of carrier status and perception of genetic risk--After delivery most women and their partners remembered their results, remembered some facts about cystic fibrosis and carrier status, and perceived their own genetic risk appropriately (tables III-V). There was no significant difference in perception of the baby's risk of cystic fibrosis between the two methods. Of those receiving negative results, however, 160 (21%) of the women in the stepwise group and 23 (13%) of the women in the couple group perceived incorrectly that they had no risk of being a carrier, and 145 (19%) of the stepwise group and 30 (17%) of the couple group perceived incorrectly that they had no risk of having a baby with cystic fibrosis. There was no significant difference between these groups in the proportions of those incorrectly perceiving their baby to have no risk of cystic fibrosis (P=0.9). After delivery, but not before, partners had a significantly greater perception of their own carrier risk than did women (P<0.01). This was appropriate for partners in the stepwise arm but inappropriate in the couple arm. After delivery, partners' perception that their baby might have cystic fibrosis was greater than women's (both arms of the study, P<0.01). Of 253 women with negative couple results, 53 (21%) were unaware that repeat testing would be required with a new partner.

TABLE III--Women's and partners' understanding of their own results after delivery, by study arm, and test
 result. Figures are numbers (percentages) of group giving correct response to question
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Stepwise screening
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Couple screening
                                                         Carriers           Negative results      (Negative results)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Women    Partners    Women      Partners      Women     Partners
Question (correct response in brackets)              (n=36)    (n=35)    (n=1092)    (n=1067)     (n=253)    (n=248)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you/your partner have a cystic fibrosis
  carrier test? (Yes)                               36 (100)   34 (97)   1081 (99)    960 (90)    250 (99)   238 (96)
What was the result of your own test?               36 (100)     N/A     1081 (99)      N/A       243 (96)   246 (99)
Was your partner found to be a carrier?             36 (100)   34 (97)      N/A       1046 (98)     N/A        N/A
If you had a pregnancy in future with a
  different partner would you need to have
  another carrier test? (no for stepwise, yes for
  couple)                                           29 (81)              732 (67)                 200 (79)   179 (72)
Would your new partner need to have a carrier
  test? (carriers and couples yes)                  34 (94)      N/A        N/A         N/A       200 (79)   179 (72)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A=not applicable.

TABLE IV--Women's and partners' knowledge about cystic fibrosis and
 carrier status at different times. Figures are numbers (percentage)
 giving correct response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     At recruitment            After delivery
General knowledge questions   --------------------------------------------------
on cystic fibrosis (correct          Women     Partners     Women      Partners
response)                          (n=1841)    (n=1427)    (n=1470)    (n=1457)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If both parents are cystic
  fibrosis carriers can they
  have a normal baby? (Yes)        1546 (84)   1126 (79)   1147 (78)   1078 (74)
Which sex is more likely to be
  carriers? (Equally likely)       1565 (85)   941 (66)    779 (53)    627 (43)
What proportion of British
  people are carriers? (1/25)      1638 (89)   1140 (80)     N/A         N/A
Are all carriers related to
  someone with cystic
  fibrosis? (No)                   1418 (77)   898 (63)      N/A         N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A=not applicable.

TABLE V--Women's and partners' perception of genetic risk at different time point by study arm. Figures are
 mean (SD) score*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Stepwise screening        Couple screening
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Women         Partners
                                                       (minimum        (minimum
                                                      n=carriers      n=carriers    Women    Partners
                                                     35; negative    35; negative  (minimum  (minimum
Perception of risk question                          results 1089)   results 1069)  n=251)    n=245)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How likely do you think it is that you are a carrier?:
 At recruitment:
  Overall                                               2.1 (0.9)    2.0 (0.9)    2.0 (0.9)   2.0 (1.0)
 With results:
  Carriers                                              6.6 (1.0)                   N/A
  Negative results                                      1.5 (0.9)                 1.9 (0.9)
 After delivery:
  Carriers                                              6.7 (1.3)    2.5 (1.4)      N/A         N/A
  Negative results                                      1.4 (1.0)    3.0 (1.0)    1.6 (1.0)   2.6 (1.0)
How likely do you think it is that your baby has
 cystic fibrosis?:
 At recruitment:
  Overall                                               1.9 (0.9)    1.8 (0.9)    1.9 (0.8)   1.8 (0.9)
 With results:
  Carriers                                              3.2 (1.1)                   N/A
  Negative results                                      1.5 (0.9)                 1.7 (0.9)
 With partner's results:
  Carriers                                              2.0 (1.7)                   N/A
 After delivery:
  Carriers                                              1.6 (1.2)    2.5 (1.4)      N/A         N/A
  Negative results                                      1.5 (1.0)    3.0 (1.0)    1.5 (0.9)   2.6 (1.0)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Score on eight point rating scale: 0=impossible, 7=definitely a carrier/has cystic fibrosis.

Negative attitudes to pregnancy and the baby--Carriers had more negative attitudes towards their pregnancies and their babies on receipt of results (table VI). Once a partner's negative result was available, carriers' attitudes towards the baby were slightly more positive than those of women receiving negative results (mean difference in scores 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 3.0). There were no differences between attitudes of the two groups receiving negative results.

TABLE VI--Women's attitudes to pregnancy and the baby at different times by study arm. Figures are mean
 (SD) scores
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Stepwise screening                         Difference
                                                    (minimum                              between arms
                                                n=carriers 34;      Couple screening     (95% confidence
                                                negative results       (minimum       interval for difference
Timing of attitude questions                          1047)             n=263)              in means)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attitude to pregnancy scores (worst score=28):
 At recruitment:
  Overall                                            5.5 (3.3)         5.7 (3.6)        -0.2 (-0.6 to 0.3)
 With result:
  Overall                                            5.4 (3.4)         5.5 (3.6)        -0.1 (-0.5 to 0.3)
  Carriers                                           7.7 (4.2)
  Negative result                                    5.3 (3.6)         5.5 (3.6)        -0.2 (-0.6 to 0.2)
 With partner's result:
  Carriers                                           4.9 (3.2)            N/A           -0.6 (-1.8 to 0.6)*
After delivery                                          N/A               N/A                    N/A
Attitude to baby scores (worst score=28):
 At recruitment:
  Overall                                            7.9 (2.7)         8.2 (2.8)        -0.3 (-0.6 to 0.0)
 With result:
  Overall                                            7.9 (2.7)         8.0 (2.7)        -0.2 (-0.5 to 0.2)
  Carriers                                           9.0 (2.8)            N/A
  Negative result                                    7.8 (2.7)         8.0 (2.7)        -0.2 (-0.6 to 0.1)
 With partner's result:
  Carriers                                           5.7 (4.4)            N/A           -2.3 (-3.3 to -1.3)*
 After delivery:
  Overall                                            4.0 (2.7)         4.2 (3.0)        -0.0 (-0.7 to 0.1)
  Carriers                                           4.2 (3.1)            N/A
  Negative result                                    4.0 (2.7)         4.2 (3.0)        -0.3 (-0.7 to 0.1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Carriers' scores compared with negative couple results. Carriers' scores compared with negative stepwise results
were as follows: Pregnancy--difference 2.3 (1.3 to 3.4), baby--difference 1.1 (0.3 to 2.0).

Perception of own health--No significant differences were found in perceptions of health between arms or between carriers and those receiving negative stepwise results at any time point (table VII).

TABLE VII--Women's perception of health* at different time points by
 study arm. Figures are mean (SD) scores
------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Stepwise screening
                               (minimum
                           n=carriers 36;       Couple screening
                           negative results         (minimum
Timing of perception            1084)               n=252)
------------------------------------------------------------------
At recruitment:
 Overall                      16.1 (1.6)          16.0 (1.6)
With result:
 Overall                      15.8 (1.6)          15.8 (1.6)
 Carriers                     15.6 (1.4)             N/A
 Negative result              15.8 (1.6)          15.8 (1.6)
With partner's result:
 Carriers                     15.7 (1.4)             N/A
After delivery:
 Overall                      15.9 (1.7)          15.8 (1.8)
 Carriers                     15.8 (1.4)             N/A
 Negative result              15.9 (1.8)          15.8 (1.8)
------------------------------------------------------------------
*Perception of health score derived from responses to questions published
elsewhere.22 Score calculated by adding score for each response after
recoding of negative attitudes as positive attitudes (most pessimistic view of
health score 5, most optimistic view of health score 24).
N/A=not applicable.

Attitudes towards screening, prenatal diagnosis, and termination of pregnancy--Most women and their partners believed that carrier screening for cystic fibrosis should be generally available, although in pregnancy only 486 women (32%) and 437 partners (30%) thought they would have a termination if they learned that their fetus was affected by cystic fibrosis. After delivery of an unaffected child, women were less likely to favour termination than in early pregnancy (table VIII). Carriers were more likely to favour termination.

TABLE VIII--Attitudes after delivery of all women and their partners to
 screening for cystic fibrosis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                No (%) of       No (%) of
                                                  women         partners
Question                                        (n=1470)        (n=1457)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should cystic fibrosis screening be
 generally available?:
 Yes                                             1426 (97)      1399 (96)
 No/don't know                                     4 (3)          58 (4)
When should testing be done?
 Birth                                           368 (25)        423 (29)
 Age 13/16                                       382 (26)        379 (26)
 Age >/= 18 years                                235 (16)        189 (13)
 Antenatal clinic                                485 (33)        466 (32)
Who should be tested in the first instance?:
 Both individually                               778 (53)        829 (57)
 Couples                                         469 (32)        465 (32)
 Women                                           219 (15)        160 (11)
 Men                                              4 (0.3)         3 (0.2)
Would you recommend carrier testing to a
 pregnant friend?:
 Yes                                             1235 (84)      1151 (79)
 No                                                73 (5)        117 (8)
 Don't know                                       162 (11)       189 (13)
If you and your partner were both found
 to be carriers in pregnancy:
 Would you ask for tests to be done on the baby?
  Yes                                            1338 (91)      1326 (91)
  No                                               59 (4)         44 (3)
  Don't know                                       73 (5)         87 (6)
 Would you have a termination if the baby
  was found to have cystic fibrosis?
  Yes                                            323 (22)*       437 (30)
  No                                             1073 (73)       408 (28)
  Don't know                                      74 (5)*        612 (42)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*At time of test results 486 (32%) women stated they would have
termination if fetus had cystic fibrosis; 395 (26%) said they would not; and
639 (42%) were undecided. Responses significantly different from those
after delivery (P<0.01).

Spread of genetic information--Of 35 carriers in the stepwise arm who completed an extra questionnaire after delivery, all had told some relatives their result (four telling all, 11 most, and 20 a few). The mean proportion of relatives told was 1.0 for siblings, 0.94 for parents, 0.37 for aunts and uncles, and 0.23 for cousins. Fifteen months after completion of recruitment to the study, 18 relatives of carriers have attended for genetic counselling and carrier testing.

Discussion

Both methods of screening worked well in practice. Very few partners did not provide samples when a woman had elected to be tested; all partners of carriers except for one provided samples. Stepwise screening required more staff time, but couple screening required slightly more laboratory organisation to pair samples. Although not formally measured, stepwise testing was more demanding for counselling and laboratory staff. Uptake of screening was the same for both approaches (90%), suggesting that having some form of test was important rather than the actual process of testing. Uptake of testing was higher in this study than previously reported but was similar to the local uptake rate for the triple test (Down's syndrome and spina bifida).^{10 14}

Although carriers detected in pregnancy had very high levels of anxiety before results from their partners were available, levels of anxiety after receipt of a negative result for the partner (one in 500 risk or less) were similar to those of women given a negative couple test result. All those couples tested were subjected to slightly but significantly increased anxiety. Thus, once carriers have received partners' results, there is no benefit for them from non-disclosure. Although those in the couple arm had a slightly higher anxiety level at recruitment (perhaps because women found getting a sample from their partner stressful), the differences in anxiety between those with negative results on receipt of these results were still present if recruitment scores were taken into account. In either arm of the study any excess anxiety seemed to dissipate after delivery.

Similar proportions of both groups with negative results perceived that their baby had no risk of being affected by cystic fibrosis (17% v 15%). Only 200 (79%) women couple tested remembered that testing would be necessary in a pregnancy with another partner (despite a leaflet and an oral explanation). In contrast, nearly all the carriers (34/36, 94%) were aware that a new partner should be tested. Thus overall, couple screening is associated with more misunderstanding of results.

Eighteen relatives of 48 carriers attended for testing during the study period, but we found that most carriers had informed their siblings and sometimes more distant relatives of their results. More informed relatives may yet come forward for testing when considering or during a pregnancy. The personal and resource implications of informing relatives, however, have not been evaluated. The number of people having children with more than one partner is increasing, so knowledge of carrier status may be useful for future pregnancies. Informed carriers have the opportunity of new partners being tested before conception, thus increasing reproductive choice.

Carriers (whose partners tested negative) did not perceive their baby to be more at risk of cystic fibrosis than those women who had tested negative, although they realised there was some residual risk of the baby being affected. The possibility that carriers would be more pessimistic about their own health was not confirmed. Pregnant women and their partners considered that carrier testing for cystic fibrosis should be available, but long term studies are required to assess how carriers will use their genetic information. Women from this study have been recruited to an ongoing long term follow up of carriers detected by the recent United Kingdom studies of population based cystic fibrosis screening (coordinated by Theresa Marteau).

Among those with negative results, couple testing was associated with more anxiety and false reassurance than stepwise testing. Women seemed to find residual doubt about their carrier status acceptable if it was due to technical reasons like the deficiencies of the test itself, but non-disclosure of potentially useful information seemed less acceptable. These findings contrast with those of Livingstone et al.¹⁴ We consider that the anxiety measure used in this study is more suitable than the general health questionnaire and the randomised design allows appropriate comparison to be made between alternative treatments. Stepwise screening did not seem to affect adversely carriers' perception of their health and gave them information for themselves and their families. Carriers were, however, subjected to high levels of anxiety for a short period. Testing both partners to allow simultaneous disclosure of results might prevent much of this anxiety while allowing results to be available for other pregnancies, but additional resources would be needed.

In our opinion, stepwise screening is the better of the two methods compared as although carriers do experience transiently high levels of anxiety, the method is associated with less anxiety and false reassurance for most screenees. Additionally detected carriers and their families are given information for future pregnancies, although the long term benefits and costs of this knowledge are yet to be assessed.

We thank Dorothy Tay, Ruth Adamson, Alison McDonald, Margaret McNeil, Gail Rettie, Alasdair Williamson, and Zhikang Yin for their contributions to the study. In addition, we thank Drs Norman Smith and Gordon Lang for performing prenatal diagnoses, Dr Mona Abdalla for comments on the manuscript, and the staff of Aberdeen Maternity Hospital and Medical Genetics, Aberdeen University, for all their help.

This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Scottish Office Home and Health Department. The Scottish Hospitals Endowments Research Trust and Grampian Health Board funded complementary work which made the study possible. Cystic fibrosis mutation detection kits were donated by Cellmark Diagnostics. Theresa M Marteau is supported by the Wellcome Trust. Opinions are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding bodies.

1. Kerem B, Rommens JM, Buchanan JA, Markiewicz D, Cox TK, Chakravarti A, et al. Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: genetic analysis. Science 1989;245:1073-80. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Zielenski J, Bozon D, Kerem B, Markiewicz D, Durie P, Rommens JM, et al. Identification of mutations in exons 1 through 8 of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. Genomics 1991;10:229-35. [Medline]
3. Cutting GR, Kasch ML, Rosenstein BJ. A cluster of cystic fibrosis mutations in the first nucleotide binding fold of the cystic fibrosis conductance regulator protein. Nature 1990;346:366-9. [Medline]
4. Kerem B, Zielenski J, Markiewicz D, Bozon D, Gazit E, Yahaf J, et al. Identification of mutations in regions corresponding to the two putative nucleotide (ATP)-binding folds of the cystic fibrosis gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990;87:8447-51. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Lench N, Stainer P, Williamson R. Simple non-invasive method to obtain DNA for gene analysis. Lancet 1988;i:1356-8.
6. Shrimpton AE, McIntosh I, Brock DJ. The incidence of different cystic fibrosis mutations in the Scottish population: effects on prenantal diagnosis and genetic counselling. J Med Genet 1991;28:317-21. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Miedzybrodzka ZH, Dean JCS, Russell G, Friend JAR, Kelly KF, Haites NE. Prevalence of cystic fibrosis mutations in the Grampian region of Scotland. J Med Genet 1993;30:316-7. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Watson EK, Mayall E, Chapple J, Dalziel M, Harrington K, Williams C, et al. Screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis through primary health care services. BMJ 1991;303:504-7.
9. Bekker H, Modell M, Denniss G, Silver A, Mathew C, Bobrow M, et al. Uptake of cystic fibrosis testing in primary care: supply push or demand pull? BMJ 1993;306:1584-6.
10. Mennie ME, Gilfillan A, Compton M, Curtis L, Liston WA, Pullen I, et al. Prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Lancet 1992;340:214-6. [Medline]
11. Harris H. Scotcher D, Hartley N, Wallace A, Craufurd D, Harris R. Cystic fibrosis carrier testing in early pregnancy by general practitioners. BMJ 1993;306:1580-3.
12. Wald NJ. Couple screening for cystic fibrosis. Lancet 1991;338:1318-9. [Medline]
13. Miedzybrodzka Z, Dean J, Haites N. Screening for cystic fibrosis. Lancet 1991;338:1524-5.
14. Livingstone J, Axton RA, Gilfillan A, Mennie M, Compton M, Liston WA, et al. Antental screening for cystic fibrosis: a trial of the couple method. BMJ 1994;308:1459-62. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Schwarz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. Journal of Chronic Disease 1967;20:637-48. [Medline]
16. Henshaw RC, Naji SA, Russell IT, Templeton AA. Comparison of medical abortion with surgical vacuum aspiration: women's preferences and acceptability of treatment. BMJ 1993;307:714-7.
17. Miedzybrodzka Z, Haites N, Hall M, Templeton A, Marteau T, Dean J, et al. Antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: whether, when and how? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1993;7:368-75.
18. Ferrie RM, Schwarz MJ, Robertson NH, Vaudin S, Super M, Malone G, et al. Development, multiplexing and application of ARMS tests for common mutations in the CFTR gene. Am J Hum Genet 1992;51:251-62. [Medline]
19. Spielberger CD. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory STAI (form Y). Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists' Press, 1970.
20. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992;31:301-6.
21. Marteau TM, Kidd J, Cook R, Michie S, Johnston M, Slack J, et al. Psychological effects of having amniocentesis: are these due to the procedure, the risk or the behaviour? J Psychosom Res 1992;36:395-402.
22. Marteau TM, van Duijn M, Ellis I. Effects of genetic screening on perceptions of health: a pilot study. J Med Genet 1992;29:24-6. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis

Nicholas J Wald, David J H Brock, James E Haddow, and Richard A Doherty
BMJ 1995 310: 1199. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Gardner, F, Dezateux, C, Elbourne, D, Gray, A, King, A, Quinn, A, on behalf of the Collaborative Hip Trial Group, (2005). The hip trial: psychosocial consequences for mothers of using ultrasound to manage infants with developmental hip dysplasia. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 90: F17-F24 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Henneman, L, ten Kate, L P (2002). Preconceptional couple screening for cystic fibrosis carrier status: couples prefer full disclosure of test results. J. Med. Genet. 39: e26-26 [Full text]  
• Henneman, L, Bramsen, I, van der Ploeg, H M, Ader, H J, van der Horst, H E, Gille, J J P, ten Kate, L P (2001). Participation in preconceptional carrier couple screening: characteristics, attitudes, and knowledge of both partners. J. Med. Genet. 38: 695-703 [Full text]  
• Graham, W., Smith, P., Kamal, A, Fitzmaurice, A, Smith, N, Hamilton, N, Wyatt, J. (2000). Randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness of touch screen system with leaflet for providing women with information on prenatal tests • Commentary: Evaluating electronic consumer health material. BMJ 320: 155-160 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Emery, J., Watson, E., Rose, P., Andermann, A. (1999). A systematic review of the literature exploring the role of primary care in genetic services. Fam Pract 16: 426-445 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bogardus, S. T. Jr, Concato, J., Feinstein, A. R. (1999). Clinical Epidemiological Quality in Molecular Genetic Research: The Need for Methodological Standards. JAMA 281: 1919-1926 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Kronn, D., Jansen, V., Ostrer, H. (1998). Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis, Gaucher Disease, and Tay-Sachs Disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish Population: The First 1000 Cases at New York University Medical Center, New York, NY. Arch Intern Med 158: 777-781 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• De Braekeleer, M. (1996). Prenatal screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis should screen both partners individually. BMJ 313: 820b-821 [Full text]  
• Cairns, J., Shackley, P., Hundley, V. (1996). Decision Making with Respect to Diagnostic Testing: A Method of Valuing the Benefits of Antenatal Screening. Med Decis Making 16: 161-168 [Abstract]  
• Cuckle, H S, Richardson, G A, Sheldon, T A, Quirke, P (1995). Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. BMJ 311: 1460-1460 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Wald, N. J, Brock, D. J H, Haddow, J. E, Doherty, R. A (1995). Antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. BMJ 310: 1199a-1199 [Full text]