Fionnuala Mone1,2, Samantha Doyle3, Asfa Ahmad3, Hala Abu Subieh1, Susan Hamilton3, Stephanie Allen3, Tamas Marton4, Denise Williams3, Mark D Kilby1,2. 1. Fetal Medicine Centre, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 2. Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 3. West Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory and Clinical Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 4. West Midland's Perinatal Pathology Service, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Consanguineous unions occur when a couple are related outside marriage and is associated with adverse genetic and perinatal outcomes for affected offspring. The objectives of this study were to evaluate: (i) background characteristics, (ii) uptake of prenatal and postnatal investigation and (iii) diagnostic outcomes of UK consanguineous couples presenting with a fetal structural anomaly. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective and partly prospective cohort study comparing consanguineous (n = 62) and non-consanguineous (n = 218) pregnancies with current or previous fetal structural anomalies reviewed in a UK prenatal genetic clinic from 2008 to 2019. Outcomes were compared using odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: Most consanguineous couples were of Pakistani ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 29, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 13-62) and required use of an interpreter [OR 9, 95% CI 4-20). In the consanguineous group, the uptake of prenatal invasive testing was lower (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7) and the number declining follow up was greater (OR 10, 95% CI 3-34) than in the non-consanguineous group. This likely explained the lower proportion of consanguineous couples where a final definitive unifying diagnosis to explain the fetal structural anomalies was reached (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6). When a diagnosis was obtained in this group, it was always postnatal and most often using genomic sequencing technologies (OR 6, 95% CI 1-27). The risk of perinatal death was greater (OR 3, 95% CI 1-6) in the consanguineous group, as was the risk of fetal structural anomaly recurrence in a subsequent pregnancy (OR 4, 95% CI 1-13). There was no difference in the uptake of perinatal autopsy or termination of pregnancy between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Consanguineous couples are a vulnerable group in the prenatal setting. Although adverse perinatal outcomes in this group are more common secondary to congenital anomalies, despite the evolution of genomic sequencing technologies, due to a lower uptake of prenatal testing it is less likely that a unifying diagnosis is obtained and recurrence can occur. There is a need for proactive genetic counseling and education from the multidisciplinary team, addressing language barriers as well as religious and cultural beliefs in an attempt to optimize reproductive options.
INTRODUCTION: Consanguineous unions occur when a couple are related outside marriage and is associated with adverse genetic and perinatal outcomes for affected offspring. The objectives of this study were to evaluate: (i) background characteristics, (ii) uptake of prenatal and postnatal investigation and (iii) diagnostic outcomes of UK consanguineous couples presenting with a fetal structural anomaly. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective and partly prospective cohort study comparing consanguineous (n = 62) and non-consanguineous (n = 218) pregnancies with current or previous fetal structural anomalies reviewed in a UK prenatal genetic clinic from 2008 to 2019. Outcomes were compared using odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: Most consanguineous couples were of Pakistani ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 29, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 13-62) and required use of an interpreter [OR 9, 95% CI 4-20). In the consanguineous group, the uptake of prenatal invasive testing was lower (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7) and the number declining follow up was greater (OR 10, 95% CI 3-34) than in the non-consanguineous group. This likely explained the lower proportion of consanguineous couples where a final definitive unifying diagnosis to explain the fetal structural anomalies was reached (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6). When a diagnosis was obtained in this group, it was always postnatal and most often using genomic sequencing technologies (OR 6, 95% CI 1-27). The risk of perinatal death was greater (OR 3, 95% CI 1-6) in the consanguineous group, as was the risk of fetal structural anomaly recurrence in a subsequent pregnancy (OR 4, 95% CI 1-13). There was no difference in the uptake of perinatal autopsy or termination of pregnancy between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Consanguineous couples are a vulnerable group in the prenatal setting. Although adverse perinatal outcomes in this group are more common secondary to congenital anomalies, despite the evolution of genomic sequencing technologies, due to a lower uptake of prenatal testing it is less likely that a unifying diagnosis is obtained and recurrence can occur. There is a need for proactive genetic counseling and education from the multidisciplinary team, addressing language barriers as well as religious and cultural beliefs in an attempt to optimize reproductive options.
Authors: Elena Hadjicosta; Rodney Franklin; Anna Seale; Oliver Stumper; Victor Tsang; David R Anderson; Christina Pagel; Sonya Crowe; Ferran Espuny Pujol; Deborah Ridout; Kate L Brown Journal: Heart Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 7.365