Leveraging Existing Birth Defects Surveillance Infrastructure to Build Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Surveillance Systems - Illinois, New Mexico, and Vermont, 2015-2016.

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is a drug withdrawal syndrome that can occur following prenatal exposure to opioids (1). NAS surveillance in the United States is based largely on diagnosis codes in hospital discharge data, without validation of these codes or case confirmation. During 2004-2014, reported NAS incidence increased from 1.5 to 8.0 per 1,000 U.S. hospital births (2), based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes identified in hospital discharge data, without case confirmation. However, little is known about how well these codes identify NAS or how the October 1, 2015, transition from ICD-9-CM to the tenth revision of ICD-CM (ICD-10-CM) codes affected estimated NAS incidence. This report describes a pilot project in Illinois, New Mexico, and Vermont to use birth defects surveillance infrastructure to obtain state-level, population-based estimates of NAS incidence among births in 2015 (all three states) and 2016 (Illinois) using hospital discharge records and other sources (varied by state) with case confirmation, and to evaluate the validity of NAS diagnosis codes used by each state. Wide variation in NAS incidence was observed across the three states. In 2015, NAS incidence for Illinois, New Mexico, and Vermont was 3.0, 7.5, and 30.8 per 1,000 births, respectively. Among evaluated diagnosis codes, those with the highest positive predictive values (PPVs) for identifying confirmed cases of NAS, based on a uniform case definition, were drug withdrawal syndrome in a newborn (ICD-9-CM code 779.5; state range = 58.6%-80.2%) and drug withdrawal, infant of dependent mother (ICD-10-CM code P96.1; state range = 58.5%-80.2%). The methods used to assess NAS incidence in this pilot project might help inform other states' NAS surveillance efforts.

Validation of selected items on the 2003 U.S. standard certificate of live birth: New York City and Vermont.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the validity of selected items on the 2003 revised U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth to understand the accuracy of new and existing items. METHODS: We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of select variables reported on the birth certificate using the medical record as the gold standard for a representative sample of live births in New York City (n=603) and Vermont (n=664) in 2009. RESULTS: In both sites, sensitivity was excellent (>90%) for Medicaid coverage at delivery, any previous live births, and current method of delivery; sensitivity was moderate (70%-90%) for gestational diabetes; and sensitivity was poor (<70%) for premature rupture of the membranes and gestational hypertension. In both sites, PPV was excellent for Medicaid coverage, any previous live births, previous cesarean delivery, and current method of delivery, and poor for premature rupture of membranes. In both sites, almost all items had excellent (>90%) specificity and NPV. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to determine how best to improve the quality of data on the birth certificate. Future revisions of the birth certificate may consider removing those items that have consistently proven difficult to report accurately.

Validation of self-reported maternal and infant health indicators in the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.

To assess the validity of self-reported maternal and infant health indicators reported by mothers an average of 4 months after delivery. Three validity measures-sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV)-were calculated for pregnancy history, pregnancy complications, health care utilization, and infant health indicators self-reported on the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) questionnaire by a representative sample of mothers delivering live births in New York City (NYC) (n = 603) and Vermont (n = 664) in 2009. Data abstracted from hospital records served as gold standards. All data were weighted to be representative of women delivering live births in NYC or Vermont during the study period. Most PRAMS indicators had >90 % specificity. Indicators with >90 % sensitivity and PPV for both sites included prior live birth, any diabetes, and Medicaid insurance at delivery, and for Vermont only, infant admission to the NICU and breastfeeding in the hospital. Indicators with poor sensitivity and PPV (<70 %) for both sites (i.e., NYC and Vermont) included placenta previa and/or placental abruption, urinary tract infection or kidney infection, and for NYC only, preterm labor, prior low-birth-weight birth, and prior preterm birth. For Vermont only, receipt of an HIV test during pregnancy had poor sensitivity and PPV. Mothers accurately reported information on prior live births and Medicaid insurance at delivery; however, mothers' recall of certain pregnancy complications and pregnancy history was poor. These findings could be used to prioritize data collection of indicators with high validity.