Kim Van Naarden Braun1, Nancy Doernberg2, Laura Schieve2, Deborah Christensen2, Alyson Goodman2, Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp2. 1. Developmental Disabilities Branch, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia kbn5@cdc.gov. 2. Developmental Disabilities Branch, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Population-based data in the United States on trends in cerebral palsy (CP) birth prevalence are limited. The objective of this study was to examine trends in the birth prevalence of congenital spastic CP by birth weight, gestational age, and race/ethnicity in a heterogeneous US metropolitan area. METHODS: Children with CP were identified by a population-based surveillance system for developmental disabilities (DDs). Children with CP were included if they were born in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, from 1985 to 2002, resided there at age 8 years, and did not have a postneonatal etiology (n = 766). Birth weight, gestational age, and race/ethnicity subanalyses were restricted to children with spastic CP (n = 640). Trends were examined by CP subtype, gender, race/ethnicity, co-occurring DDs, birth weight, and gestational age. RESULTS: Birth prevalence of spastic CP per 1000 1-year survivors was stable from 1985 to 2002 (1.9 in 1985 to 1.8 in 2002; 0.3% annual average prevalence; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.1 to 1.8). Whereas no significant trends were observed by gender, subtype, birth weight, or gestational age overall, CP prevalence with co-occurring moderate to severe intellectual disability significantly decreased (-2.6% [95% CI -4.3 to -0.8]). Racial disparities persisted over time between non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white children (prevalence ratio 1.8 [95% CI 1.5 to 2.1]). Different patterns emerged for non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black children by birth weight and gestational age. CONCLUSIONS: Given improvements in neonatal survival, evidence of stability of CP prevalence is encouraging. Yet lack of overall decreases supports continued monitoring of trends and increased research and prevention efforts. Racial/ethnic disparities, in particular, warrant further study.
OBJECTIVE: Population-based data in the United States on trends in cerebral palsy (CP) birth prevalence are limited. The objective of this study was to examine trends in the birth prevalence of congenital spastic CP by birth weight, gestational age, and race/ethnicity in a heterogeneous US metropolitan area. METHODS:Children with CP were identified by a population-based surveillance system for developmental disabilities (DDs). Children with CP were included if they were born in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, from 1985 to 2002, resided there at age 8 years, and did not have a postneonatal etiology (n = 766). Birth weight, gestational age, and race/ethnicity subanalyses were restricted to children with spastic CP (n = 640). Trends were examined by CP subtype, gender, race/ethnicity, co-occurring DDs, birth weight, and gestational age. RESULTS: Birth prevalence of spastic CP per 1000 1-year survivors was stable from 1985 to 2002 (1.9 in 1985 to 1.8 in 2002; 0.3% annual average prevalence; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.1 to 1.8). Whereas no significant trends were observed by gender, subtype, birth weight, or gestational age overall, CP prevalence with co-occurring moderate to severe intellectual disability significantly decreased (-2.6% [95% CI -4.3 to -0.8]). Racial disparities persisted over time between non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white children (prevalence ratio 1.8 [95% CI 1.5 to 2.1]). Different patterns emerged for non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black children by birth weight and gestational age. CONCLUSIONS: Given improvements in neonatal survival, evidence of stability of CP prevalence is encouraging. Yet lack of overall decreases supports continued monitoring of trends and increased research and prevention efforts. Racial/ethnic disparities, in particular, warrant further study.
Authors: Ann R Stark; Waldemar A Carlo; Betty R Vohr; Lu Ann Papile; Shampa Saha; Charles R Bauer; William Oh; Seetha Shankaran; Jon E Tyson; Linda L Wright; W Kenneth Poole; Abhik Das; Barbara J Stoll; Avroy A Fanaroff; Sheldon B Korones; Richard A Ehrenkranz; David K Stevenson; Myriam Peralta-Carcelen; Deanne E Wilson-Costello; Henrietta S Bada; Roy J Heyne; Yvette R Johnson; Kimberly Gronsman Lee; Jean J Steichen Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Joyce A Martin; Brady E Hamilton; Stephanie J Ventura; Michelle J K Osterman; Elizabeth C Wilson; T J Mathews Journal: Natl Vital Stat Rep Date: 2012-08-28
Authors: Qing Li; Stephen L Kinsman; Dorothea D Jenkins; Melbourne F Hovell; Rita M Ryan Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Andrea A Domenighetti; Margie A Mathewson; Rajeswari Pichika; Lydia A Sibley; Leyna Zhao; Henry G Chambers; Richard L Lieber Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 4.249
Authors: Jacquelin Peck; Ivan Urits; Hisham Kassem; Christopher Lee; Wilton Robinson; Elyse M Cornett; Amnon A Berger; Jared Herman; Jai Won Jung; Alan D Kaye; Omar Viswanath Journal: Psychopharmacol Bull Date: 2020-10-15