Old sperm related to autism?

[partgypsy]

Hmm. I tried to find the actual article this referred to but couldn''t find it (it''s best to go to original source to understand what they are saying and limitations of study. Only thing could find was in reference to this that fathers who are in mid, late 40''s at increased risk, and a sperm center stating their cutoff is 35 (due to increased risk of mutation in older sperm). For peace of mind remember it is not one study but a body of evidence that makes for drawing a conclusion, and a study is only as strong as it''s limitations (for example regarding correlational studies both diagnosis of autism is going up at the same time more older fathers, also older fathers tend to be second marriages with possible differences in environment, etc).

I would suggest finding and talking to fertility specialist in your health group about this concern as I would think (hope!) they would be up on the research. I personally hope it''s not true as my 2 kids were conceived when I and my husband were respectively 35/36 and 38/39 years old.

 

[cara]

Grether JK, Anderson MC, Croen LA, Smith D, Windham GC. Risk of autism and increasing maternal and paternal age in a large north American population. Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Nov 1;170(9):1118-26. Epub 2009 Sep 25.

Previous studies are inconsistent regarding whether there are independent effects of maternal and paternal age on the risk of autism. Different biologic mechanisms are suggested by maternal and paternal age effects. The study population included all California singletons born in 1989-2002 (n = 7,550,026). Children with autism (n = 23,311) were identified through the California Department of Developmental Services and compared with the remainder of the study population, with parental ages and covariates obtained from birth certificates. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used to evaluate the risk of autism associated with increasing maternal and paternal age. In adjusted models that included age of the other parent and demographic covariates, a 10-year increase in maternal age was associated with a 38% increase in the odds ratio for autism (odds ratio = 1.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.32, 1.44), and a 10-year increase in paternal age was associated with a 22% increase (odds ratio = 1.22, 95% confidence interval: 1.18, 1.26). Maternal and paternal age effects were seen in subgroups defined by race/ethnicity and other covariates and were of greater magnitude among first-born compared with later-born children. Further studies are needed to help clarify the biologic mechanisms involved in the independent association of autism risk with increasing maternal and paternal age.

Here's the abstract of one study. I don't think the authors are being irresponsible at all by reporting their findings; they state quite clearly in the abstract that further study is needed on what might cause paternal age to affect autism risk, and in the discussion section they speculate on other mechanisms besides old sperm (older parents might be more likely to aggressively seek treatment and diagnosis for affected kids, or people with a genetic predisposition to autism in their children might be more likely to delay childbearing relative to their non-affected peers.) Maybe all the caveats weren't translated well in the lay press - always a hazard for science!

But MP, the bottom line is that even if this risk is real, the effect is small. The study found paternal age in the 40s was associated with a 40% increase in the adjusted risk of autism over the baseline risk for paternal age of 25-29 yrs. The overall incidence of autism in the study was 3 per 1000 babies; other more recent studies with different criteria have found higher rates but still less than 1%. This means that the increased *incidence* of autism one would expect due to paternal age in the 40s is still only 1 per 1000 to 3 per 1000 babies above the baseline rate. Which is not zero, but small. I don't want to tell you not to worry about it, cause I think part of what parents and potential parents do is worry about what might affect or afflict their children, but these kinds of odds are far, far from doom and gloom. There is a time and place for hope.

 

[ksinger]

Here is a link and an excerpt from the original article I read on the topic, back in 2006.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400513.html

The new study presents an intriguing new avenue for research, because it suggests that genetic traits passed along by fathers, as opposed to mothers, may play some significant role in creating susceptibility to autism. Several other studies have suggested that older parents of both sexes are at greater risk of having children with developmental disorders. Three earlier studies looking at the relationship between paternal age and autism have produced mixed results; the new study is the most rigorous analysis conducted to date.

The study was based on an enormous sample of 17-year-olds -- nearly all the male and three-quarters of the female subjects of that age found over a six-year period in Israel, as they came of draft age. In all, data from 378,891 people were analyzed.

Since all Israeli citizens have a unique identification number, and the draft process routinely calls for listing the identification numbers of parents, researchers were able to develop a large-scale map that allowed them to determine the age of both parents for 132,271 draft candidates. They then compared that information against medical evaluations conducted by the draft board for autism and other disorders for those same candidates.

Abraham Reichenberg at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, along with several others at research institutions in the United States and Israel, found a significant relationship between paternal age and autism, even after accounting for other factors, such as mothers'' age and socioeconomic status.

Children of fathers who were 15 to 29 years of age had a risk of about six in 10,000 of developing autism. Children of fathers in their thirties had a risk of nine in 10,000. Children of fathers in their forties had a risk of 32 in 10,000, and children of fathers who were older than 50 had a risk of 52 in 10,000.

In a paper published yesterday in the Archives of General Psychiatry, the researchers said that the number of cases of autism among families with the oldest dads was too small to lead to definitive conclusions about that group, but that there was little doubt about the overall trend. The only question, they said, is whether the risk accumulates at an accelerating rate with advancing paternal age, as the numbers in this study suggest.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 11/8/2009 3:23:31 PM
Author: cara

Grether JK, Anderson MC, Croen LA, Smith D, Windham GC. Risk of autism and increasing maternal and paternal age in a large north American population. Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Nov 1;170(9):1118-26. Epub 2009 Sep 25.

Previous studies are inconsistent regarding whether there are independent effects of maternal and paternal age on the risk of autism. Different biologic mechanisms are suggested by maternal and paternal age effects. The study population included all California singletons born in 1989-2002 (n = 7,550,026). Children with autism (n = 23,311) were identified through the California Department of Developmental Services and compared with the remainder of the study population, with parental ages and covariates obtained from birth certificates. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used to evaluate the risk of autism associated with increasing maternal and paternal age. In adjusted models that included age of the other parent and demographic covariates, a 10-year increase in maternal age was associated with a 38% increase in the odds ratio for autism (odds ratio = 1.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.32, 1.44), and a 10-year increase in paternal age was associated with a 22% increase (odds ratio = 1.22, 95% confidence interval: 1.18, 1.26). Maternal and paternal age effects were seen in subgroups defined by race/ethnicity and other covariates and were of greater magnitude among first-born compared with later-born children. Further studies are needed to help clarify the biologic mechanisms involved in the independent association of autism risk with increasing maternal and paternal age.

Here''s the abstract of one study. I don''t think the authors are being irresponsible at all by reporting their findings; they state quite clearly in the abstract that further study is needed on what might cause paternal age to affect autism risk, and in the discussion section they speculate on other mechanisms besides old sperm (older parents might be more likely to aggressively seek treatment and diagnosis for affected kids, or people with a genetic predisposition to autism in their children might be more likely to delay childbearing relative to their non-affected peers.) Maybe all the caveats weren''t translated well in the lay press - always a hazard for science!

But MP, the bottom line is that even if this risk is real, the effect is small. The study found paternal age in the 40s was associated with a 40% increase in the adjusted risk of autism over the baseline risk for paternal age of 25-29 yrs. The overall incidence of autism in the study was 3 per 1000 babies; other more recent studies with different criteria have found higher rates but still less than 1%. This means that the increased *incidence* of autism one would expect due to paternal age in the 40s is still only 1 per 1000 to 3 per 1000 babies above the baseline rate. Which is not zero, but small. I don''t want to tell you not to worry about it, cause I think part of what parents and potential parents do is worry about what might affect or afflict their children, but these kinds of odds are far, far from doom and gloom. There is a time and place for hope.

Oh THAT is absolutely guaranteed. Headlines don''t catch the eye unless they say something like "Autism Risk Rises With Age of Father!!!!, which is exactly (minus the exclamation points, which are almost implied in news article titles) what the one I posted is entitled. So, unless you READ the piece, you might assume that it is now known unequivocally that older fathers CAUSE autism. This article is not that bad, and actually tells you a bit about the study, and that it is pretty much only a promising area to LOOK AT FURTHER. But most people aren''t looking that closely, and many get the wrong idea, which can be dang hard to eradicate. Health headlines generally irritate the snot out of me for that reason. They are typically sensationalist to the point of being near lies, even when the article itself may not be all that bad.

 

[MonkeyPants]

Thanks for sharing Pandora. I have a friend who''s child is autistic so I know this is not the worst thing in the world for a child to have. I had a mini-panic because I never really thought about a man''s age affecting the mental/physical health of a child... The autism issue was more of a freak out about other potential health/well being issues our child could have because of Fi''s age.

 

[MonkeyPants]

Whoa, lots of info on this thread that I haven''t read yet. Thanks to everyone in advance for posting. now back to reading all of your insights on the topic...

 

[MonkeyPants]

Cara and ksinger, thanks for your thoughtful and informative posts and links.

Thanks to everyone else for your thoughts on this subject. The general consensus seems to be this: 1) I should worry a little, but then again all parents regardless of age worry about the health of their child 2) Autism spectrum disorders are not the biggest issues to worry about 3) I shouldn''t let one study make me anxious...especially with the lay press translating findings to "sell papers" not necessarily to educate and lastly 4) my future children will probably be just fine.

And that''s all the reassurance I needed