Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2022; 39(15): 1659-1667
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1724002
Original Article

Genetic Implications in High-Risk Pregnancy and Its Outcome: A 2-Year Study

Hanan H. Afifi
1   Division of Human Genetics and Genome Research, Department of Clinical Genetics, Developmental Assessment and Genetic Disorders Clinic, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
,
Khaled R. Gaber
2   Division of Human Genetics and Genome Research, Department of Prenatal Diagnosis and Fetal Medicine, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
,
Manal M. Thomas
1   Division of Human Genetics and Genome Research, Department of Clinical Genetics, Developmental Assessment and Genetic Disorders Clinic, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
,
Mohamed B. Taher
1   Division of Human Genetics and Genome Research, Department of Clinical Genetics, Developmental Assessment and Genetic Disorders Clinic, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
,
Angie M.S. Tosson 
3   Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate high-risk pregnant females' offspring as regard the presence of any medical condition, hereditary disorder, or major anomaly as well as to document parental sociodemographic characteristics and compliance with follow-up schedules of fetal medicine and clinical genetic clinics.

Study Design This prospective 2-year cohort study of neonates and infants reported the referral indications, investigations, and diagnoses obtained through prenatal and postnatal examinations. It also reported their parental follow-up vigilance.

Results Of the 811 infants of high risk females referred 460 (56.7%) came for assessment. Mean parental consanguinity and endogamy were 67 and 71.3%, respectively. All pregnant mothers underwent first-trimester biochemical testing (plasma protein-A, α-fetoprotein [AFP], human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG]) and serial ultrasound examinations. Seventy mothers needed second-trimester biochemical testing (AFP, hCG, and estriol). Sixty-two mothers underwent amniocentesis where G-banding karyotype, fluorescence in situ hybridization and targeted molecular testing for the specific gene mutation of single gene disorders were conducted according to suspected disorders. High quality fetal ultrasound was performed when brain malformations were suspected, while 16 fetuses required brain MRI examination. Mean age of newborns at first examination was 26.5 days. They were grouped according to the maternal indication for referral. Upon examination, 18 neonates had confirmed congenital malformations/genetic disorders. Five of them were diagnosed prenatally. In four other fetuses with single gene disorder, the molecular diagnosis of their affected siblings was not established prior to this pregnancy; thus, prenatal diagnosis was not possible. The remaining nine cases were diagnosed postnatally.

Conclusion Parental consanguinity and endogamy were increased among high-risk pregnancies. Public awareness about potential adverse effects of consanguineous marriages and the importance of genetic testing are imperative. A structured multidisciplinary team of specialists in fetal medicine, clinical genetics, and neonatology provides good genetic services. Expansion and financial support of these services are urgently required.

Key Points

  • A multidisciplinary team provides good genetic services in high-risk pregnancies.

  • Parental consanguinity and endogamy are increased among high-risk pregnancies.

  • Increased public awareness about genetic testing importance and financial support are imperative.

Keywords

neonates and infants - genetic disorders - high-risk pregnancy - prenatal testing - multidisciplinary approach - parental consanguinity


Publication History

Received: 30 May 2020

Accepted: 14 January 2021

Article published online:
26 February 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Levy B, Stosic M. Traditional prenatal diagnosis: past to present. Methods Mol Biol 2019; 1885: 3-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Haque IS, Lazarin GA, Kang HP, Evans EA, Goldberg JD, Wapner RJ. Modeled fetal risk of genetic diseases identified by expanded carrier screening. JAMA 2016; 316 (07) 734-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wojcik MH, Reimers R, Poorvu T, Agrawal PB. Genetic diagnosis in the fetus. J Perinatol 2020; 40 (07) 997-1006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Al-Gazali L, Hamamy H, Al-Arrayad S. Genetic disorders in the Arab world. BMJ 2006; 333 (7573): 831-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Afifi HH, El-Ruby MO, El-Bassyouni HT. et al. The most encountered groups of genetic disorders in Giza Governorate, Egypt. Bratisl Lek Listy 2010; 111 (02) 62-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tadmouri GO, Nair P, Obeid T, Al Ali MT, Al Khaja N, Hamamy HA. Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs. Reprod Health 2009; 6: 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bener A, Mohammad RR. Global distribution of consanguinity and their impact on complex diseases: genetic disorders from an endogamous population. Egypt J Med Hum Genet 2017; 18: 315-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Shawky RM, El-Awady MY, Elsayed SM, Hamadan GF. Consanguineous matings among Egyptian population. Egypt J Med Hum Genet 2011; 12: 157-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Romdhane L, Mezzi N, Hamdi Y, El-Kamah G, Barakat A, Abdelhak S. Consanguinity and inbreeding in health and disease in North African Populations. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2019; 20: 155-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ben Halim N, Ben Alaya Bouafif N, Romdhane L. et al. Consanguinity, endogamy, and genetic disorders in Tunisia. J Community Genet 2013; 4 (02) 273-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Jelin AC, Sagaser KG, Wilkins-Haug L. Prenatal genetic testing options. Pediatr Clin North Am 2019; 66 (02) 281-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Chitayat D, Langlois S, Douglas Wilson R. SOGC Genetics Committee, CCMG Prenatal Diagnosis Committee. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011; 33 (07) 736-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Li H, Li Y, Zhao R, Zhang Y. Cytogenetic analysis of amniotic fluid cells in 4206 cases of high-risk pregnant women. Iran J Public Health 2019; 48 (01) 126-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jia CW, Wang SY, Ma YM. et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization in uncultured amniocytes for detection of aneuploidy in 4210 prenatal cases. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011; 124 (08) 1164-1168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Strachan T, Read AP. Human Molecular Genetics. 5th ed.. New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2019: 203-242
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Wojcik MH, Schwartz TS, Yamin I. et al. Genetic disorders and mortality in infancy and early childhood: delayed diagnoses and missed opportunities. Genet Med 2018; 20 (11) 1396-1404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Temtamy S, Aglan M. Consanguinity and genetic disorders in Egypt. Middle East J Med Genet 2012; 1: 12-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bener A, Al-Mulla M, Clarke A. Premarital screening and genetic counseling program: studies from an endogamous population. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2019; 9 (01) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Omer S, Farooq S, Jabeen S. Effects of cousin marriages on adverse pregnancy outcomes among women in Pakistan: a secondary analysis of data from the Pakistan demographic and health survey 2012–2013. Pakistan J Women Stud 2016; 23: 65-76
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Becker R, Keller T, Wegner RD. et al. Consanguinity and pregnancy outcomes in a multi-ethnic, metropolitan European population. Prenat Diagn 2015; 35 (01) 81-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jo HS. Genetic risk factors associated with respiratory distress syndrome. Korean J Pediatr 2014; 57 (04) 157-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Clark H, Clark LS. The genetics of neonatal respiratory disease. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2005; 10 (03) 271-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 OMIM (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man). 2020 Mc Kusick-Nathans Institute for Genetic Medicine, John Hopkins University (Baltiomore, MD) and National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine (Bethesda, MD). Accessed May 11, 2020 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim
  • 24 Somaschini M, Presi S, Ferrari M, Vergani B, Carrera P. Surfactant proteins gene variants in premature newborn infants with severe respiratory distress syndrome. J Perinatol 2018; 38 (04) 337-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Agopian AJ, Evans JA, Lupo PJ. Analytic methods for evaluating patterns of multiple congenital anomalies in birth defect registries. Birth Defects Res 2018; 110 (01) 5-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pierpont ME, Brueckner M, Chung WK. et al; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine. Genetic basis for congenital heart disease: revisited: a scientific statement from the american heart association. Circulation 2018; 138 (21) e653-e711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fitzgerald-Butt SM, Klima J, Kelleher K, Chisolm D, McBride KL. Genetic knowledge and attitudes of parents of children with congenital heart defects. Am J Med Genet A 2014; 164A (12) 3069-3075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bonnet D. [Genetics of congenital heart diseases]. Presse Med 2017; 46 (6 pt. 1): 612-619
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Brandt JS, Cruz Ithier MA, Rosen T, Ashkinadze E. Advanced paternal age, infertility, and reproductive risks: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 2019; 39 (02) 81-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tully HM, Dobyns WB. Infantile hydrocephalus: a review of epidemiology, classification and causes. Eur J Med Genet 2014; 57 (08) 359-368
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Liu J, Jin L, Li Z. et al. Prevalence and trend of isolated and complicated congenital hydrocephalus and preventive effect of folic acid in northern China, 2005-2015. Metab Brain Dis 2018; 33 (03) 837-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 López-Muñoz E, Becerra-Solano LE. An update on amniotic bands sequence. Arch Argent Pediatr 2018; 116 (03) e409-e420
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lowry RB, Bedard T, Sibbald B. The prevalence of amnion rupture sequence, limb body wall defects and body wall defects in Alberta 1980-2012 with a review of risk factors and familial cases. Am J Med Genet A 2017; 173 (02) 299-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Dotters-Katz SK, Hardisty E, Campbell E, Vora N. Trisomy 13-confined placental mosaicism: is there an increased risk of gestational hypertensive disorders?. Prenat Diagn 2017; 37 (09) 938-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Dotters-Katz SK, Humphrey WM, Senz KL. et al. Trisomy 13 and the risk of gestational hypertensive disorders: a population-based study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31 (15) 1951-1955
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Allen EG, Freeman SB, Druschel C. et al. Maternal age and risk for trisomy 21 assessed by the origin of chromosome nondisjunction: a report from the Atlanta and National Down Syndrome Projects. Hum Genet 2009; 125 (01) 41-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ray A, Oliver TR, Halder P. et al. Risk of Down syndrome birth: consanguineous marriage is associated with maternal meiosis-II nondisjunction at younger age and without any detectable recombination error. Am J Med Genet A 2018; 176 (11) 2342-2349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Bourdens M, Tadonnet J, Hostalery L, Renesme L, Tosello B. Severe fetal abnormality and outcomes of continued Pregnancies: a French Multicenter Retrospective Study. Matern Child Health J 2017; 21 (10) 1901-1910
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Boardman FK, Hale R, Gohel R, Young PJ. Preventing lives affected by hemophilia: a mixed methods study of the views of adults with hemophilia and their families toward genetic screening. Mol Genet Genomic Med 2019; 7 (05) e618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar