2012) Mulvihill discusses the specific issue of past exposure to

2012). Mulvihill discusses the specific issue of past exposure to mutagens; this is increasingly relevant as survival from childhood cancers improves as well as rarer exposures to radiation or other environmental pollutants. Evidence from survivors of cancer and the Japanese atomic bombs suggests that one can be relatively reassured about the absence of germ-cell mutations caused by chemotherapy or radiation exposure (Mulvihill 2012). Hamamy selleckchem discusses specific issues of preconception care

in consanguineous marriages (Hamamy 2012). Consanguinity is a common cultural trend particularly in North Africa, West Asia and South India; emigrants from these countries often continue this practice and so it is important for all practitioners to be aware of the implications of consanguineous marriage and provide initial preconception counselling. The family medical history is again an important initial step in this process. In the absence of a known genetic disorder in the family, the risks are still increased but actually lower than what a couple might expect: first cousin

marriages have roughly double the risk of a child with a birth defect with an absolute risk of approximately 5 %. Consanguineous couples with a family history of a genetic disorder would require more detailed assessment by a specialist genetic counselling service. In addition to assessment of the couple’s personal and family medical history, genetic carrier screening options should also be considered as part of comprehensive preconception care. The selection of specific tests should be guided by carrier frequencies and the couple’s ethnic NVP-BSK805 chemical structure ancestry, as discussed by Metcalfe: cystic fibrosis in those from Northern Europe; haemoglobinopathies in people from Southern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, India and South East Asia; and Tay Sachs in those of Ashkenazi Jewish descent (Metcalfe 2012). More recently, studies have explored offering carrier screening for Fragile X syndrome and spinal muscular atrophy to general populations. Several studies have specifically looked at outcomes of offering genetic

carrier screening Isoconazole in primary care both preconception and prenatally. Most have demonstrated that these tests can be effectively offered in primary care without causing significant adverse psychological outcomes. Uptake of the test is affected by the method of offering the test as well as the specific setting such that active see more opportunistic testing in a family planning clinic had higher uptake compared, for example, to a letter of invitation from general practice. Other important outcomes such as informed choice, as opposed to simply test uptake, should also be taken into account. Read and Donnai discuss the range of options available to a couple if a significant genetic risk is identified (Read and Donnai 2012). Non-directive genetic counselling is central to this to allow a couple to reach a fully informed decision.

Comments are closed.