29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Etiology and clinical presentation of birth defects: population based study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To assess causation and clinical presentation of major birth defects.

          Design Population based case cohort.

          Setting Cases of birth defects in children born 2005-09 to resident women, ascertained through Utah’s population based surveillance system. All records underwent clinical re-review.

          Participants 5504 cases among 270 878 births (prevalence 2.03%), excluding mild isolated conditions (such as muscular ventricular septal defects, distal hypospadias).

          Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were the proportion of birth defects with a known etiology (chromosomal, genetic, human teratogen, twinning) or unknown etiology, by morphology (isolated, multiple, minors only), and by pathogenesis (sequence, developmental field defect, or known pattern of birth defects).

          Results Definite cause was assigned in 20.2% (n=1114) of cases: chromosomal or genetic conditions accounted for 94.4% (n=1052), teratogens for 4.1% (n=46, mostly poorly controlled pregestational diabetes), and twinning for 1.4% (n=16, conjoined or acardiac). The 79.8% (n=4390) remaining were classified as unknown etiology; of these 88.2% (n=3874) were isolated birth defects. Family history (similarly affected first degree relative) was documented in 4.8% (n=266). In this cohort, 92.1% (5067/5504) were live born infants (isolated and non-isolated birth defects): 75.3% (4147/5504) were classified as having an isolated birth defect (unknown or known etiology).

          Conclusions These findings underscore the gaps in our knowledge regarding the causes of birth defects. For the causes that are known, such as smoking or diabetes, assigning causation in individual cases remains challenging. Nevertheless, the ongoing impact of these exposures on fetal development highlights the urgency and benefits of population based preventive interventions. For the causes that are still unknown, better strategies are needed. These can include greater integration of the key elements of etiology, morphology, and pathogenesis into epidemiologic studies; greater collaboration between researchers (such as developmental biologists), clinicians (such as medical geneticists), and epidemiologists; and better ways to objectively measure fetal exposures (beyond maternal self reports) and closer (prenatally) to the critical period of organogenesis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Update on overall prevalence of major birth defects--Atlanta, Georgia, 1978-2005.

          (2008)
          Major structural or genetic birth defects affect approximately 3% of births in the United States, are a major contributor to infant mortality, and result in billions of dollars in costs for care. Although the causes of most major birth defects are unknown, concerns have been raised that certain factors, such as an increase in the prevalence of diabetes among women, might result in increased prevalence of birth defects over time. This report updates previously published data from the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program (MACDP), the oldest population-based birth defects surveillance system in the United States with active case ascertainment. For the period 1978-2005, CDC assessed the overall prevalence of major birth defects and their frequency relative to selected maternal and infant characteristics. The MACDP results indicated that the prevalence of major birth defects in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, remained stable during 1978-2005 but varied by maternal age and race/ethnicity, birthweight, and gestational age. Tracking the overall prevalence of major birth defects can identify subgroups that are affected disproportionately; additional measures focused on these subgroups might improve preconception care and care during pregnancy to prevent birth defects.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines for case classification for the National Birth Defects Prevention Study.

            Previous studies have suggested that etiologic heterogeneity may complicate epidemiologic analyses designed to identify risk factors for birth defects. Case classification uses knowledge of embryologic and pathogenetic mechanisms to make case groups more homogeneous and is important to the success of birth defects studies. The goal of the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS), an ongoing multi-site case-control study, is to identify environmental and genetic risk factors for birth defects. Information on environmental risk factors is collected through an hour-long maternal interview, and DNA is collected from the infant and both parents for evaluation of genetic risk factors. Clinical data on infants are reviewed by clinical geneticists to ensure they meet the detailed case definitions developed specifically for the study. To standardize the methods of case classification for the study, an algorithm has been developed to guide NBDPS clinical geneticists in this process. Methods for case classification into isolated, multiple, and syndrome categories are described. Defects considered minor for the purposes of case classification are defined. Differences in the approach to case classification for studies of specific defects and of specific exposures are noted. The case classification schema developed for the NBDPS may be of value to other clinicians working on epidemiologic studies of birth defects etiology. Consideration of these guidelines will lead to more comparable case groups, an important element of careful studies aimed at identifying risk factors for birth defects.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Specific SSRIs and birth defects: bayesian analysis to interpret new data in the context of previous reports

              Objective To follow up on previously reported associations between periconceptional use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and specific birth defects using an expanded dataset from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Design Bayesian analysis combining results from independent published analyses with data from a multicenter population based case-control study of birth defects. Setting 10 centers in the United States. Participants 17 952 mothers of infants with birth defects and 9857 mothers of infants without birth defects, identified through birth certificates or birth hospitals, with estimated dates of delivery between 1997 and 2009. Exposures Citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline use in the month before through the third month of pregnancy. Posterior odds ratio estimates were adjusted to account for maternal race/ethnicity, education, smoking, and prepregnancy obesity. Main outcome measure 14 birth defects categories that had associations with SSRIs reported in the literature. Results Sertraline was the most commonly reported SSRI, but none of the five previously reported birth defects associations with sertraline was confirmed. For nine previously reported associations between maternal SSRI use and birth defect in infants, findings were consistent with no association. High posterior odds ratios excluding the null value were observed for five birth defects with paroxetine (anencephaly 3.2, 95% credible interval 1.6 to 6.2; atrial septal defects 1.8, 1.1 to 3.0; right ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects 2.4, 1.4 to 3.9; gastroschisis 2.5, 1.2 to 4.8; and omphalocele 3.5, 1.3 to 8.0) and for two defects with fluoxetine (right ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects 2.0, 1.4 to 3.1 and craniosynostosis 1.9, 1.1 to 3.0). Conclusions These data provide reassuring evidence for some SSRIs but suggest that some birth defects occur 2-3.5 times more frequently among the infants of women treated with paroxetine or fluoxetine early in pregnancy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: associate professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: bioinformaticist
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2017
                30 May 2017
                : 357
                : j2249
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, 295 Chipeta Way, Suite 2S010, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA,
                [2 ]Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: M L Feldkamp marcia.feldkamp@ 123456hsc.utah.edu
                Article
                felm037846
                10.1136/bmj.j2249
                5448402
                28559234
                3f5b6e02-1d4a-4ac3-8deb-2062bf83ae53
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 03 May 2017
                Categories
                Research
                1779
                1334
                1332

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article