CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES IN NEWBORNS OF CONSANGUINEOUS AND NON-CONSANGUINEOUS PARENTS

K SABAHAT; P NAVEED

doi:10.54112/pjicm.v5i02.127

Authors

K SABAHAT Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Saidu Group of Teaching Hospital, Swat, Pakistan
P NAVEED Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Saidu Group of Teaching Hospital, Swat, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/pjicm.v5i02.127

Keywords:

Congenital Anomalies, Consanguinity, Neonatal Malformations, Genetic Risk, Pakistan, Prenatal Counseling

Abstract

Background: Congenital abnormalities contribute significantly to neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Consanguinity is recognized as a potential risk factor for various structural and genetic malformations, yet its impact on the prevalence of specific anomalies in local populations remains underreported. Objective: To determine the frequency of congenital abnormalities in newborns of consanguineous versus non-consanguineous parents. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Saidu Medical College, Swat, Pakistan. Duration of Study: November 1, 2024, to May 1, 2025. Methods: A total of 207 women with fetuses diagnosed with congenital malformations were enrolled. Diagnoses included clubfoot, congenital heart disease, cleft palate, polycystic kidney disease, and anencephaly, confirmed through physical examination and relevant diagnostic tests. Frequencies of anomalies were compared between consanguineous and non-consanguineous groups using the chi-square test, with p-values <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The mean maternal age was 27.52 ± 7.80 years. Congenital heart disease was significantly more common among consanguineous cases (17.4%) than non-consanguineous cases (3.6%) (p = 0.001). Similarly, cleft palate occurred in 15.9% vs. 2.9%, polycystic kidney disease in 7.2% vs. 1.4%, and anencephaly in 5.8% vs. 0.7%, respectively. Conclusion: Congenital abnormalities were significantly more frequent among newborns of consanguineous parents compared to those of non-consanguineous parents. These findings highlight the importance of genetic counseling and public health interventions in populations with high rates of consanguineous marriages.

References

Oniya O, Neves K, Ahmed B, Konje JC. A review of the reproductive consequences of consanguinity. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;232:87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.10.042

El Goundali K, Chebabe M, Laamiri FZ, Hilali A. The determinants of consanguineous marriages among the Arab population: a systematic review. Iran J Public Health. 2022;51(2):253. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v51i2.8679

Hamamy H. Consanguineous marriages: preconception consultation in primary health care settings. J Community Genet. 2012;3:185-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0072-y

Temaj G, Nuhii N, Sayer JA. The impact of consanguinity on human health and disease with an emphasis on rare diseases. J Rare Dis. 2022;1(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44162-022-00004-5

El Shanti H, Chouchane L, Badii R, Gallouzi IE, Gasparini P. Genetic testing and genomic analysis: a debate on ethical, social, and legal issues in the Arab world with a focus on Qatar. J Transl Med. 2015;13:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-015-0720-9

Fatemaq K, Begum F, Akter N, Zaman SM. Major congenital malformations among the newborns in BSMMU hospital. Bangladesh Med J. 2011;40(1):7-12. https://doi.org/10.3329/bmj.v40i1.9955

Singh M, Sharma SK. Spectrum of congenital malformations in the newborns. Indian J Pediatr. 1980;47:239-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02758201

Asindi A, Ibrahim H. Major congenital malformations among Saudi infants admitted to Asir Central Hospital. Ann Saudi Med. 1997;17(2):250-3. https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.1997.250

Parveen F, Tyab S. Frequency and pattern of distribution of congenital anomalies in the newborn and associated maternal risk factors. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2007;17(6):340-3. https://europepmc.org/article/med/17623582 [DOI not available]

Gelineau Van Wase J, Fennel RH. Genetics of neural tube defects. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2001;8:160-4. https://doi.org/10.1053/spen.2001.26449

Binbacher R, Messerchmidt A. Diagnosis and prevention of neural tube defects. Curr Opin Urol. 2002;12:161-4.

Yunis K, Rafei RE, Mumtaz G. Consanguinity: Perinatal outcomes and prevention – a view from the Middle East. Neo Rev. 2018;9:e59-65.

Perveen F, Tyab S. Frequency & pattern of distribution of congenital anomalies in the newborn & associated maternal risk factors. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2007;17(6):340-3. https://doi.org/06.2007/jcpsp.340343

Fatema K, Zabin F, Sultana N, Pervin HH. Fetal congenital anomalies among consanguineous and non-consanguineous marriage pregnant women attending Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2022;11(5):1337-44. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20221017

Mosayebi Z, Movahedian AH. Pattern of congenital malformations in consanguineous versus non-consanguineous marriages in Kashan, Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 2007;13(4):868-75.

Butt F, Shahzad R, Pasha I. Pattern and outcomes of congenital anomalies and maternal risk factor association. Biomedica. 2013;29:234-40. http://www.thebiomedicapk.com/articles/350.pdf [DOI not available]

Anbreen T, Ali L, Butt S, Shah T. Congenital anomaly frequency, risk factor, and trends among antenatal patients presenting at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. Pak J Med Res. 2021;60(2):52-6. https://pjmr.org.pk/index.php/pjmr/article/view/143