Baseline Prevalence of Birth Defects Associated with Congenital Zika Virus Infection - Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Atlanta, Georgia, 2013-2014.

Zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause serious brain abnormalities, but the full range of adverse outcomes is unknown (1). To better understand the impact of birth defects resulting from Zika virus infection, the CDC surveillance case definition established in 2016 for birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection* (2) was retrospectively applied to population-based birth defects surveillance data collected during 2013-2014 in three areas before the introduction of Zika virus (the pre-Zika years) into the World Health Organization's Region of the Americas (Americas) (3). These data, from Massachusetts (2013), North Carolina (2013), and Atlanta, Georgia (2013-2014), included 747 infants and fetuses with one or more of the birth defects meeting the case definition (pre-Zika prevalence = 2.86 per 1,000 live births). Brain abnormalities or microcephaly were the most frequently recorded (1.50 per 1,000), followed by neural tube defects and other early brain malformations† (0.88), eye abnormalities without mention of a brain abnormality (0.31), and other consequences of central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction without mention of brain or eye abnormalities (0.17). During January 15-September 22, 2016, the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry (USZPR) reported 26 infants and fetuses with these same defects among 442 completed pregnancies (58.8 per 1,000) born to mothers with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy (2). Although the ascertainment methods differed, this finding was approximately 20 times higher than the proportion of one or more of the same birth defects among pregnancies during the pre-Zika years. These data demonstrate the importance of population-based surveillance for interpreting data about birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection.

Identifying possible inaccuracy in reported birth head circumference measurements among infants in the US Zika Pregnancy and Infant Registry.

BACKGROUND: The US Zika Pregnancy and Infant Registry (USZPIR) monitors infants born to mothers with confirmed or possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy. The surveillance case definition for Zika-associated birth defects includes microcephaly based on head circumference (HC). METHODS: We assessed birth and follow-up data from infants with birth HC measurements <3rd percentile and birthweight ≥10th percentile to determine possible misclassification of microcephaly. We developed a schema informed by literature review and expert opinion to identify possible HC measurement inaccuracy using HC growth velocity and longitudinal HC measurements between 2 and 12 months of age. Two or more HC measurements were required for assessment. Inaccuracy in birth HC measurement was suspected if growth velocity was >3 cm/month in the first 3 months or HC was consistently >25th percentile during follow-up. RESULTS: Of 6,799 liveborn infants in USZPIR, 351 (5.2%) had Zika-associated birth defects, of which 111 had birth HC measurements <3rd percentile and birthweight ≥10th percentile. Of 84/111 infants with sufficient follow-up, 38/84 (45%) were classified as having possible inaccuracy of birth HC measurement, 19/84 (23%) had HC ≥3rd percentile on follow-up without meeting criteria for possible inaccuracy, and 27/84 (32%) had continued HC <3rd percentile. After excluding possible inaccuracies, the proportion of infants with Zika-associated birth defects including microcephaly decreased from 5.2% to 4.6%. CONCLUSIONS: About one-third of infants in USZPIR with Zika-associated birth defects had only microcephaly, but indications of possible measurement inaccuracy were common. Implementation of this schema in longitudinal studies can reduce misclassification of microcephaly.

Delayed diagnosis of critical congenital heart defects: trends and associated factors.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine trends in timing of diagnosis of critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) and factors associated with delayed diagnosis (diagnosis after discharge home following delivery). METHODS: We examined a population-based retrospective cohort of CCHD cases among live births identified through the Massachusetts Birth Defects Monitoring Program. Congenital heart defects were considered critical if the infant received corrective surgery, interventional catheterization, palliative care, or died as a result of the defect within 12 months of birth. Timing of initial diagnosis was classified as prenatal, postnatal before discharge home, or delayed. Demographic, perinatal, and mortality information was obtained from the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics. Prevalence ratios (PRs) were used to examine associations with delayed diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 460 467 live births to Massachusetts residents between 2004 and 2009, we identified 916 CCHD cases, of which 126 (13.8%) had delayed diagnosis. Rates of prenatal CCHD diagnosis increased from 44.9% in 2004 to 63.8% in 2009, whereas rates of delayed diagnosis decreased from 17.1% to 10.6% over the same time period. Among cases with delayed diagnosis, the most common defects were coarctation, pulmonary valve stenosis, and tetralogy of Fallot. Delayed diagnosis was associated with delivery outside a tertiary hospital (adjusted PR: 3.6 [95% confidence interval: 2.5-5.2]) and isolated CCHD (adjusted PR: 1.7 [95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.7]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing prenatal diagnosis of CCHDs, delayed diagnosis still occurs in over 10% of cases. Understanding factors associated with delayed diagnosis could help to improve prenatal and postnatal screening efforts, including pulse oximetry testing.

Clinician reviewers in birth defects surveillance programs: survey of the National Birth Defects Prevention Network.

BACKGROUND: Some birth defects surveillance programs utilize a clinician reviewer ("Clinician") to assist the multidisciplinary staff in the process of case review, coding and classification. The untested assumption is that expertise in the evaluation of individuals with birth defects and genetic syndromes in clinical practice, usually clinical genetics, is useful in reviewing medical records. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory survey of the 50 functioning birth defects surveillance programs that participated in the National Birth Defects Prevention Network in 2004. The survey was mailed electronically to program coordinators and included 10 questions with check-off option replies. Open-ended comments were also solicited. RESULTS: Responses were received from 31 of 50 (62%) programs, 21 (68%) which used a Clinician. In addition to the 9 centers that identified themselves as participants in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS), there were 12 non-NBDPS programs using a Clinician, 2 of whom were not clinical geneticists (1 nurse genetic counselor and 1 primary pediatrician). A total of 86% (18/21) of Clinicians were employed part-time or as consultants; 1 was full-time, and 2 were volunteers. In addition to the core activities of classifying defects and reviewing cases to determine if a syndrome was present, over one-half of the Clinicians participated in education of birth defects surveillance programs staff, research, and program development. Most (86%; 18/21) Clinicians had been trained informally for their roles. Only 1 had received a formal performance review. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from the 9 centers in the NBDPS in which the position of Clinician is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about one-half of the remaining respondent birth defects surveillance programs used a Clinician. Future research is needed to determine why a birth defects surveillance program hires or refrains from using a Clinician, and whether a Clinician accomplishes the desired goals. This survey reveals a lack of formal training for the Clinicians in their roles in the surveillance programs, and a lack of quality monitors, which might be addressed in the future.