Patterns of co-occurring birth defects in children with anotia and microtia.

Many infants with anotia or microtia (A/M) have co-occurring birth defects, although few receive syndromic diagnoses in the perinatal period. Evaluation of co-occurring birth defects in children with A/M could identify patterns indicative of undiagnosed/unrecognized syndromes. We obtained information on co-occurring birth defects among infants with A/M for delivery years 1999-2014 from the Texas Birth Defects Registry. We calculated observed-to-expected ratios (OER) to identify birth defect combinations that occurred more often than expected by chance. We excluded children diagnosed with genetic or chromosomal syndromes from analyses. Birth defects and syndromes/associations diagnosed ≤1 year of age were considered. We identified 1310 infants with non-syndromic A/M, of whom 38% (N = 492) were diagnosed with co-occurring major defects. Top combinations included: hydrocephalus, ventricular septal defect, and spinal anomalies (OER 58.4); microphthalmia and anomalies of the aorta (OER 55.4); and cleft lip with or without cleft palate and rib or sternum anomalies (OER 32.8). Some combinations observed in our study may represent undiagnosed/atypical presentations of known A/M associations or syndromes, or novel syndromes yet to be described in the literature. Careful evaluation of infants with multiple birth defects including A/M is warranted to identify individuals with potential genetic or chromosomal syndromes.

Epidemiology of Nonsyndromic, Orofacial Clefts in Texas: Differences by Cleft Type and Presence of Additional Defects.

To describe the current epidemiology of nonsyndromic cleft palate alone (CP) and cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL ± P) in Texas and examine differences in the characteristics of infants with CP and CL ± P based on the presence/absence of additional defects.We used data from the Texas Birth Defects Registry, a statewide active birth defect surveillance system, from 1815 cases with CP and 5066 with CL ± P, without a syndrome diagnosis (1999-2014 deliveries). All live births in Texas were used for comparison. Poisson regression was used to calculate crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for each characteristic, separately for each cleft subphenotype.The prevalence of CL ± P and CP in our study was estimated as 8.3 and 3.0 per 10 000 live births, respectively. After adjusting for several characteristics, several factors were associated with CL ± P, CP, or both, including infant sex and maternal race/ethnicity, age, smoking, and diabetes. There were several differences between infants with isolated versus nonisolated clefts. For example, maternal prepregnancy diabetes was associated with an increased prevalence of CL ± P (aPR 7.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.53, 11.30) and CP (aPR 3.24, 95% CI: 1.43, 7.36), but only when additional defects were present.Findings from this study provide a contemporary description of the distribution of orofacial clefts in Texas accounting for differences between isolated and nonisolated clefts. They may contribute to increasing our understanding of the etiology of CP and CL ± P.

Birth Defect Co-Occurrence Patterns Among Infants With Cleft Lip and/or Palate.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate 2- to 5-way patterns of defects co-occurring with orofacial clefts using data from a population-based registry. DESIGN: We used data from the Texas Birth Defects Registry for deliveries between 1999 and 2014 to Texas residents, including 1884 cases with cleft palate (CP) and 5289 cases with cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL±P) without a known syndrome. We identified patterns of defects co-occurring with CP and with CL±P observed more frequently than would be expected if these defects occurred independently. We calculated adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios to account for the known tendency of birth defects to cluster nonspecifically. RESULTS: Among infants without a syndrome, 23% with CP and 21% with CL±P had at least 1 additional congenital anomaly. Several combinations of defects were observed much more often than expected. For example, the combination of CL±P, congenital hydrocephaly, anophthalmia, and other nose anomalies had an O/E ratio of 605. For both CP and CL±P, co-occurrence patterns with the highest O/E ratios involved craniofacial and brain abnormalities, and many included the skeletal, cardiovascular, and renal systems. CONCLUSIONS: The patterns of defects we observed co-occurring with clefts more often than expected may help improve our understanding of the relationships between multiple defects. Further work to better understand some of the top defect combinations could reveal new phenotypic subgroups and increase our knowledge of the developmental mechanisms that underlie the respective defects.