Janet D Cragan1, Jennifer L Isenburg1,2, Samantha E Parker3, C J Alverson1, Robert E Meyer4, Erin B Stallings1,2, Russell S Kirby5, Philip J Lupo6, Jennifer S Liu1,7, Amanda Seagroves1,2, Mary K Ethen8, Sook Ja Cho9, MaryAnn Evans10, Rebecca F Liberman11, Jane Fornoff12, Marilyn L Browne13, Rachel E Rutkowski5, Amy E Nance14, Marlene Anderka15, Deborah J Fox13, Amy Steele14, Glenn Copeland16, Paul A Romitti17, Cara T Mai1. 1. Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Carter Consulting Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. State Center for Health Statistics, N.C. Division of Public Health, Raleigh, North Carolina. 5. Department of Community and Family Health, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 6. Section of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 7. Leidos Holdings, Inc., Reston, Virginia. 8. Birth Defects Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas. 9. Division of Community and Family Health, Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, Minnesota. 10. Oregon Birth Anomalies Surveillance System, Oregon Public Health Division, Portland, Oregon. 11. Center for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 12. Division of Epidemiologic Studies, Illinois Department of Public Health, Springfield, Illinois. 13. New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 14. Utah Birth Defect Network, Division of Family Health and Preparedness, Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. 15. National Birth Defects Prevention Network, Houston, Texas. 16. Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Lansing, Michigan. 17. College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Congenital microcephaly has been linked to maternal Zika virus infection. However, ascertaining infants diagnosed with microcephaly can be challenging. METHODS: Thirty birth defects surveillance programs provided data on infants diagnosed with microcephaly born 2009 to 2013. The pooled prevalence of microcephaly per 10,000 live births was estimated overall and by maternal/infant characteristics. Variation in prevalence was examined across case finding methods. Nine programs provided data on head circumference and conditions potentially contributing to microcephaly. RESULTS: The pooled prevalence of microcephaly was 8.7 per 10,000 live births. Median prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was similar among programs using active (6.7) and passive (6.6) methods; the interdecile range of prevalence estimates was wider among programs using passive methods for all race/ethnicity categories except Hispanic. Prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was lowest among non-Hispanic Whites (6.5) and highest among non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics (11.2 and 11.9, respectively); estimates followed a U-shaped distribution by maternal age with the highest prevalence among mothers <20 years (11.5) and ≥40 years (13.2). For gestational age and birth weight, the highest prevalence was among infants <32 weeks gestation and infants <1500 gm. Case definitions varied; 41.8% of cases had an HC ≥ the 10th percentile for sex and gestational age. CONCLUSION: Differences in methods, population distribution of maternal/infant characteristics, and case definitions for microcephaly can contribute to the wide range of observed prevalence estimates across individual birth defects surveillance programs. Addressing these factors in the setting of Zika virus infection can improve the quality of prevalence estimates. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:972-982, 2016.
BACKGROUND:Congenital microcephaly has been linked to maternal Zika virus infection. However, ascertaining infants diagnosed with microcephaly can be challenging. METHODS: Thirty birth defects surveillance programs provided data on infants diagnosed with microcephaly born 2009 to 2013. The pooled prevalence of microcephaly per 10,000 live births was estimated overall and by maternal/infant characteristics. Variation in prevalence was examined across case finding methods. Nine programs provided data on head circumference and conditions potentially contributing to microcephaly. RESULTS: The pooled prevalence of microcephaly was 8.7 per 10,000 live births. Median prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was similar among programs using active (6.7) and passive (6.6) methods; the interdecile range of prevalence estimates was wider among programs using passive methods for all race/ethnicity categories except Hispanic. Prevalence (per 10,000 live births) was lowest among non-Hispanic Whites (6.5) and highest among non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics (11.2 and 11.9, respectively); estimates followed a U-shaped distribution by maternal age with the highest prevalence among mothers <20 years (11.5) and ≥40 years (13.2). For gestational age and birth weight, the highest prevalence was among infants <32 weeks gestation and infants <1500 gm. Case definitions varied; 41.8% of cases had an HC ≥ the 10th percentile for sex and gestational age. CONCLUSION: Differences in methods, population distribution of maternal/infant characteristics, and case definitions for microcephaly can contribute to the wide range of observed prevalence estimates across individual birth defects surveillance programs. Addressing these factors in the setting of Zika virus infection can improve the quality of prevalence estimates. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:972-982, 2016.
Authors: Cara T Mai; Jennifer Isenburg; Peter H Langlois; C J Alverson; Suzanne M Gilboa; Russel Rickard; Mark A Canfield; Suzanne B Anjohrin; Philip J Lupo; Deanna R Jackson; Erin B Stallings; Angela E Scheuerle; Russell S Kirby Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2015-11
Authors: Mariah M Kalmin; Emily W Gower; Elizabeth M Stringer; Natalie M Bowman; Elizabeth T Rogawski McQuade; Daniel Westreich Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Paige L Williams; Cenk Yildirim; Ellen G Chadwick; Russell B Van Dyke; Renee Smith; Katharine F Correia; Alexandria DiPerna; George R Seage; Rohan Hazra; Claudia S Crowell Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 12.767
Authors: Carrie K Shapiro-Mendoza; Marion E Rice; Romeo R Galang; Anna C Fulton; Kelley VanMaldeghem; Miguel Valencia Prado; Esther Ellis; Magele Scott Anesi; Regina M Simeone; Emily E Petersen; Sascha R Ellington; Abbey M Jones; Tonya Williams; Sarah Reagan-Steiner; Janice Perez-Padilla; Carmen C Deseda; Andrew Beron; Aifili John Tufa; Asher Rosinger; Nicole M Roth; Caitlin Green; Stacey Martin; Camille Delgado Lopez; Leah deWilde; Mary Goodwin; H Pamela Pagano; Cara T Mai; Carolyn Gould; Sherif Zaki; Leishla Nieves Ferrer; Michelle S Davis; Eva Lathrop; Kara Polen; Janet D Cragan; Megan Reynolds; Kimberly B Newsome; Mariam Marcano Huertas; Julu Bhatangar; Alma Martinez Quiñones; John F Nahabedian; Laura Adams; Tyler M Sharp; W Thane Hancock; Sonja A Rasmussen; Cynthia A Moore; Denise J Jamieson; Jorge L Munoz-Jordan; Helentina Garstang; Afeke Kambui; Carolee Masao; Margaret A Honein; Dana Meaney-Delman Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Ludovic Reveiz; Michelle M Haby; Ruth Martínez-Vega; Carlos E Pinzón-Flores; Vanessa Elias; Emma Smith; Mariona Pinart; Nathalie Broutet; Francisco Becerra-Posada; Sylvain Aldighieri; Maria D Van Kerkhove Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Iêda M Orioli; Helen Dolk; Jorge S Lopez-Camelo; Daniel Mattos; Fernando A Poletta; Maria G Dutra; Flavia M Carvalho; Eduardo E Castilla Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-11-21