A GENETIC MARKER STUDY OF NON - INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETICS IN THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY FROM STARR COUNTY, TEXAS (PLASMA GLUCOSE, HEMOGLOBIN ANALYSIS)

Diabetes mellitus occurs in two forms, insulin-dependent (IDDM, formerly called juvenile type) and non-insulin dependent (NIDDM, formerly called adult type). Prevalence figures from around the world for NIDDM, show that all societies and all races are affected; although uncommon in some populations (.4%), it is common (10%) or very common (40%) in others (Tables 1 and 2).^ In Mexican-Americans in particular, the prevalence rates (7-10%) are intermediate to those in Caucasians (1-2%) and Amerindians (35%). Information about the distribution of the disease and identification of high risk groups for developing glucose intolerance or its vascular manifestations by the study of genetic markers will help to clarify and solve some of the problems from the public health and the genetic point of view.^ This research was designed to examine two general areas in relation to NIDDM. The first aims to determine the prevalence of polymorphic genetic markers in two groups distinguished by the presence or absence of diabetes and to observe if there are any genetic marker-disease association (univariate analysis using two by two tables and logistic regression to study the individual and joint effects of the different variables). The second deals with the effect of genetic differences on the variation in fasting plasma glucose and percent glycosylated hemoglobin (HbAl) (analysis of Covariance for each marker, using age and sex as covariates).^ The results from the first analysis were not statistically significant at the corrected p value of 0.003 given the number of tests that were performed. From the analysis of covariance of all the markers studied, only Duffy and Phosphoglucomutase were statistically significant but poor predictors, given that the amount they explain in terms of variation in glycosylated hemoglobin is very small.^ Trying to determine the polygenic component of chronic disease is not an easy task. This study confirms the fact that a larger and random or representative sample is needed to be able to detect differences in the prevalence of a marker for association studies and in the genetic contribution to the variation in glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin. The importance that ethnic homogeneity in the groups studied and standardization in the methodology will have on the results has been stressed. ^

ATTITUDES TOWARD AND UTILIZATION OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL TESTING FOR CHROMOSOME ANEUPLOIDY AMONG OB/GYNS

Prenatal diagnosis is traditionally made via invasive procedures such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS). However, both procedures carry a risk of complications, including miscarriage. Many groups have spent years searching for a way to diagnose a chromosome aneuploidy without putting the fetus or the mother at risk for complications. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for chromosome aneuploidy became commercially available in the fall of 2011, with detection rates similar to those of invasive procedures for the common autosomal aneuploidies (Palomaki et al., 2011; Ashoor et al. 2012; Bianchi et al. 2012). Eventually NIPT may become the diagnostic standard of care and reduce invasive procedure-related losses (Palomaki et al., 2011). The integration of NIPT into clinical practice has potential to revolutionize prenatal diagnosis; however, it also raises some crucial issues for practitioners. Now that the test is clinically available, no studies have looked at the physicians that will be ordering the testing or referring patients to practitioners who do. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of OB/GYN’s and how they are incorporating the test into clinical practice. Our study shows that most physicians are offering this new, non-invasive technology to their patients, and that their practices were congruent with the literature and available professional society opinions. Those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients would like more literature on the topic as well as instructive guidelines from their professional societies. Additionally, this study shows that the practices and attitudes of MFMs and OBs differ. Our population feels that the incorporation of NIPT will change their practices by lowering the amount of invasive procedures, possibly replacing maternal serum screening, and that it will simplify prenatal diagnosis. However, those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients are not quite sure how the test will affect their clinical practice. From this study we are able to glean how physicians are incorporating this new technology into their practice and how they feel about the addition to their repertoire of tests. This knowledge gives insight as to how to best move forward with the quickly changing field of prenatal diagnosis.