DNP 810 Topic 8 Case Study – Cumulative: Part 4
Case Study Part 4: Huntington’s Disease
Huntington’s disease is a rare autosomal dominant progressive neurodegenerative disorderaffecting both children and adults. It is characterized by progressive degeneration of nerve cells in the brain causing emotional problems, loss of thinking ability, and uncontrolled movement (Kim et al., 2020). The signs and symptoms of Huntington’s disease can start presenting at any time, with most cases reported at the ages of between 30 to 40 years. However, when an individual develops the disorder before the age of 20 years, it is referred to as juvenile Huntington’s disease. Development of the disease early in life promotes worsening of the symptoms with a high rate of progression. Several medications have been approved by the FDA for the management of the symptoms of Huntington’s disease. However, the available treatments have failed to prevent mental, behavioral, and physical decline associated with the disease. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive understanding of Huntington’s disease from prevalence and diagnosis to new treatment approaches and the role of scientific evidence in promoting the management of the disorder.
Huntington’s Disease
Huntington’s disease is a rare brain disorder caused by mutations in the HTT gene, involving a DNA sequence known as CAG trinucleotide repeat. The defect is ‘dominant’ meaning that children born of parents with Huntington’s disease are at higher risk of inheriting the disorder. Studies show that children born of parents with Huntington’s disease have a 50% chance of developing the condition, as well as being able to pass the disease to their children thereafter. According to Long et al. (2018), approximately 3 to 7 per a hundred thousand people of European ancestry are affected by Huntington’s disease. The disorder is however less common among members of some communities such as the Chinese, Japanese, and those of African descent.
There are two main forms of the disorder, known as juvenile Huntington’s disease and adult-onset Huntington disease. Juvenile Huntington’s disease is less common and begins in childhood or adolescence. It is associated with social, mental, and emotional problems. Patients will display symptoms such as drooling, slurred speech, rigidity, frequent falling, clumsiness, and slow movement. Their reasoning ability is normally impaired with declining school performance. As reported by Aziz et al. (2018) seizures develop in 30 to 50% of children diagnosed with juvenile Huntington’s disease. This disorder tends to progress faster as compared to adult-onset Huntington’s disease. Diagnosed patients with this disorder normally live up to 10 to 15 years from the time the symptoms started appearing.
Adult-onset Huntington disease on the other hand is the most common form of the disorder which develops among individuals between the ages of 30 to 40 years. Patients will present with learning problems, poor decision-making, poor coordination, small involuntary movements, depression, and irritability (Tabrizi et al., 2020). As the disease progresses, the involuntary movements become more pronounced as other symptoms worse. Patients diagnosed with adult-onset Huntington’s disease usually live for about 15 to 20 years from the time the first symptoms appeared.
Laboratory Testing
For the diagnosis of Huntington’s disease, the patient’s blood sample will be collected for genetic testing. The test will involve Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and fragment sizing of the cytosine-adenine-guanine (CAG) trinucleotide repeat region of the HTT gene (Kim et al., 2020). These tests can be performed for both the individual with symptoms and the asymptomatic ones with a family history of Huntington’s disease. The results from these tests are normally combined with other neurological and laboratory tests in addition to patient history. The neurological examination will involve testing the patient for motor, sensory and psychiatric symptoms. Neuropsychological testing will involve performing standardized tests to assess the patient’s reasoning, language skills, mental agility, and memory. Brain scans such as electroencephalography (EEG), computer tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be ordered and reviewed to build on the diagnosis.
Chromosomal Analysis
As mentioned earlier, Huntington’s disease is moved from one person to another as an autosomal dominant trait. The disorder is associated withrepeat expansion of the CAG trinucleotide in the huntingtin (HTT) gene located on the short arm of chromosome 4p16.3 (Maiuri et al., 2019). Normally, chromosomes have an HTT gene with less than 35 CAG repeats, however, in Huntington’s disease, the HTT gene has more than 36 CAG repeats. For families with a history of Huntington’s disease, chromosomal linkage analysis is recommended for predictive testing to determine if the individual will develop the disorder at some point in their life. To be able to map the disease trait segregating in the family at risk, whole-genome screening with highly polymorphic tetranucleotide-, trinucleotide- and dinucleotide-repeat DNA marker must be performed (DiFiglia, 2020). A positive LOD score obtained for the marker D20S482 on chromosome 20p through a two-point LOD score analysis with the MLINK program was used to indicated increased risks of the disorder. Consequently, through haplotype analysis, researchers were able to note that the gene responsible for the Huntington’s disease was likely located in a 2.7-cM region between D20S193 and D20S895 markers. The candidate genes must be screened for the mutation to confirm the presence of the disease.
Conclusion
Huntington’s disease is an inherited disorder resulting from mutations in the HTT gene, involving a DNA sequence known as a CAG trinucleotide repeat.The disorder is usually diagnosed based on results obtained from genetic testing among other imaging studies such as CT scans and EEG. There is no cure for the disorder, but new treatments have been approved by the FDA and incorporated in clinical treatment guidelines for the management of symptoms displayed by patients with the disease. A comprehensive understanding of the chromosomal analysis and mutations involved in the development of the disease is crucial in advancing research to come up with potential therapeutic options to promote the well-being and health of patients living with the disease.
References
Aziz, N. A., van der Burg, J. M., Tabrizi, S. J., & Landwehrmeyer, G. B. (2018). Overlap between age-at-onset and disease-progression determinants in Huntington disease. Neurology, 90(24), e2099-e2106. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005690
Kim, K. H., Hong, E. P., Shin, J. W., Chao, M. J., Loupe, J., Gillis, T., … & Lee, J. M. (2020). Genetic and functional analyses point to FAN1 as the source of multiple Huntington disease modifier effects. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 107(1), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.05.012
Long, J. D., Lee, J. M., Aylward, E. H., Gillis, T., Mysore, J. S., Elneel, K. A., … & Gusella, J. F. (2018). Genetic modification of Huntington’s disease acts early in the prediagnosis phase. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 103(3), 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.07.017
Maiuri, T., Suart, C. E., Hung, C. L. K., Graham, K. J., Barba Bazan, C. A., & Truant, R. (2019). DNA damage repair in Huntington’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. Neurotherapeutics, 16(4), 948-956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-019-00768-7
Tabrizi, S. J., Flower, M. D., Ross, C. A., & Wild, E. J. (2020). Huntington disease: new insights into molecular pathogenesis and therapeutic opportunities. Nature Reviews Neurology, 16(10), 529-546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-020-0389-4
Rubric Criteria
Criterion |
1. Unsatisfactory |
2. Less Than Satisfactory |
3. Satisfactory |
4. Good |
5. Excellent |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Previous Case Studies Previous Case Studies |
0 points Previous case studies are not included at the beginning of this paper. |
7 points Previous case studies are included at the beginning of this paper, but more than two areas are not incorporated. |
7.7 points Previous case studies are included at the beginning of this paper, but two areas are not incorporated. |
8.05 points Previous case studies are included at the beginning of this paper, but one area is not incorporated. |
8.75 points Previous case studies are included at the beginning of this paper. |
Ethical Considerations for This Disease Ethical Considerations for This Disease |
0 points Discussion of ethical considerations for this disease is not present. |
17 points Discussion of ethical considerations for this disease is present but incomplete. |
18.7 points Discussion of ethical considerations for this disease is present but done at a perfunctory level. |
19.55 points Discussion of ethical considerations for this disease is clearly presented and convincing. Information presented is from scholarly but dated sources. |
21.25 points Discussion of ethical considerations for this disease is clearly present. and insightful. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to as Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
0 points Sources are not documented. |
5 points Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
5.5 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
5.75 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
6.25 points Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
0 points Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
5 points Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
5.5 points Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
5.75 points Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. |
6.25 points All format elements are correct. |
Thesis Development and Purpose Thesis Development and Purpose |
0 points Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
7 points Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague; purpose is not clear. |
7.7 points Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
8.05 points Thesis is clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
8.75 points Thesis is comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
Comparison of How Genetics Can Improve Care and Health Outcomes While Reducing Cost to Usual Practic Comparison of How Genetics Can Improve Care and Health Outcomes While Reducing Cost to Usual Practices |
0 points Comparison of how genetics can improve care and health outcomes while reducing cost to usual practices is not present. |
17 points Comparison of how genetics can improve care and health outcomes while reducing cost to usual practices is present but incomplete. |
18.7 points Comparison of how genetics can improve care and health outcomes while reducing cost to usual practices is present but done at a perfunctory level. |
19.55 points Comparison of how genetics can improve care and health outcomes while reducing cost to usual practices is clearly present and convincing. Information presented is from scholarly but dated sources. |
21.25 points Comparison of how genetics can improve care and health outcomes while reducing cost to usual practices is clearly present and insightful. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
0 points Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. |
5 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. |
5.5 points Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. |
5.75 points Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. |
6.25 points Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
Changes in Approaches to Care Changes in Approaches to Care When New Evidence Warrants Evaluation of Other Options for Improving Outcomes or Decreasing Adverse Events |
0 points Discussion of the changes in approaches to care when new evidence warrants evaluation of other options for improving outcomes or decreasing adverse events is not presented. |
17 points Discussion of the changes in approaches to care when new evidence warrants evaluation of other options for improving outcomes or decreasing adverse events is presented but incomplete. |
18.7 points Discussion of the changes in approaches to care when new evidence warrants evaluation of other options for improving outcomes or decreasing adverse events is presented but done at a perfunctory level. |
19.55 points Discussion of the changes in approaches to care when new evidence warrants evaluation of other options for improving outcomes or decreasing adverse events is clearly presented and convincing. Information presented is from mostly current scholarly sources, but some outdated sources are used. |
21.25 points Discussion of the changes in approaches to care when new evidence warrants evaluation of other options for improving outcomes or decreasing adverse events is clearly presented, insightful, and detailed. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
Plan for How to Educate Colleagues or Patients on This Genetic Disorder Plan for How to Educate Colleagues or Patients on This Genetic Disorder |
0 points A plan for how to educate colleagues or patients on this genetic disorder is not presented. |
12 points A plan for how to educate colleagues or patients on this genetic disorder is presented but incomplete. |
13.2 points A plan for how to educate colleagues or patients on this genetic disorder is presented but done at a perfunctory level. |
13.8 points A plan for how to educate colleagues or patients on this genetic disorder is clearly presented and convincing. |
15 points A plan for how to educate colleagues or patients on this genetic disorder is clearly presented, insightful, and detailed. |
Argument Logic and Construction Argument Logic and Construction |
0 points Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the thesis. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
8 points Sufficient justification of thesis is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
8.8 points Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of the thesis. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
9.2 points Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression in support of the thesis from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
10 points Clear and convincing argument that presents persuasive evidence in support of the thesis in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |