What is the prevalence of Endoglin (ENG) mutations in the general population?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 16, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Prevalence of ENG Mutations

ENG mutations causing Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia (HHT Type 1) occur in approximately 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 10,000 individuals in the general population, though recent genomic data suggest the true prevalence may be substantially higher at 2.1 to 11.9 per 5,000 due to widespread underdiagnosis. 1, 2, 3

Established Prevalence Estimates

Traditional estimates place HHT prevalence at 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 10,000 globally, with geographic variation ranging from 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 18,000 depending on location. 1, 2 Among all HHT cases:

  • ENG mutations (HHT Type 1) account for approximately 54-61% of identified HHT families 4, 5
  • ACVRL1 mutations (HHT Type 2) account for 37-46% of cases 5
  • SMAD4 mutations represent 1-2% of HHT cases 6

This means ENG mutations specifically affect approximately 1 in 9,000 to 1 in 18,000 individuals based on traditional calculations (taking 54-61% of the 1:5,000-1:10,000 overall HHT prevalence). 1, 4, 5

Evidence of Substantial Underdiagnosis

Recent genomic analysis using the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD v4.1) reveals HHT prevalence may be 2 to 12 times higher than current estimates, suggesting between 2.1 and 11.9 per 5,000 individuals. 3 This dramatic discrepancy stems from:

  • Variable penetrance and clinical manifestations mean not all gene carriers present with obvious symptoms, leading to missed diagnoses 2
  • Delays in diagnosis are common, with patients experiencing recurrent symptoms for years before HHT recognition 2
  • Clinician unfamiliarity with the Curaçao diagnostic criteria contributes to underrecognition 2
  • Nearly 50% of individuals with a single HHT symptom (including three patients reporting only nosebleeds) were found to have pathogenic mutations, indicating many mild cases go undiagnosed 7

Mutation Detection Rates

When genetic testing is performed on clinically diagnosed HHT patients, mutations are identified in 76-85% of families, with the remaining 15-24% potentially harboring mutations in undiscovered genes or mutations too complex to detect with current methods. 8, 5 Specifically:

  • Genetic testing identifies causative mutations in 97% of patients with definite clinical diagnosis (3 of 4 Curaçao criteria) 2, 6
  • Sensitivity of mutation detection is approximately 80% across all referred families 5
  • ENG mutations are widely distributed throughout the gene, while ACVRL1 mutations cluster largely in exons 7 and 8 9

Clinical Implications of Prevalence Data

The higher-than-expected prevalence based on genomic data means HHT should be considered more common than traditionally classified "rare diseases," with important implications:

  • Increased clinical suspicion is warranted when evaluating patients with recurrent bilateral epistaxis, even without family history 2, 7
  • Screening of asymptomatic family members should be prioritized, as each child of an affected parent has a 50% inheritance risk 6
  • Earlier diagnosis allows presymptomatic treatment of pulmonary and cerebral arteriovenous malformations, preventing life-threatening complications including stroke, cerebral abscess, and hemorrhage 2, 6, 4

Geographic and Ethnic Considerations

HHT prevalence appears similar across genetic ancestries based on machine learning analysis of gnomAD variants, suggesting underdiagnosis is a global rather than population-specific phenomenon. 3 Founder effects have been identified in certain regions, which may simplify genetic diagnosis of new patients from those areas. 8

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.