1
|
Madni SA, Sharma AJ, Zauche LH, Waters AV, Nahabedian JF, Johnson T, Olson CK. CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Pregnancy Registry: Design, data collection, response rates, and cohort description. Vaccine 2024; 42:1469-1477. [PMID: 38057207 PMCID: PMC11062484 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.11.061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023]
Abstract
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed and implemented the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Pregnancy Registry (C19VPR) to monitor vaccine safety. Potential participants who received a COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy or up to 30 days prior to their pregnancy-associated last menstrual period were eligible to participate in the registry, which monitored health outcomes of participants and their infants through phone interviews and review of available medical records. Data for select outcomes, including birth defects, were reviewed by clinicians. In certain cases, medical records were used to confirm and add detail to participant-reported health conditions. This paper serves as a description of CDC C19VPR protocol. We describe the development and implementation for each data collection aspect of the registry (i.e., participant phone interviews, clinical review, and medical record abstraction), data management, and strengths and limitations. We also describe the demographics and vaccinations received among eligible and enrolled participants. There were 123,609 potential participants 18-54 years of age identified from January 2021 through mid-June 2021; 23,339 were eligible and enrolled into the registry. Among these, 85.3 % consented to medical record review for themselves and/or their infants. Participants were majority non-Hispanic White (79.1 %), residents of urban areas (93.3 %), and 48.3 % were between 30 and 34 years of age. Most participants completed the primary series of vaccination by the end of pregnancy (89.7 %). Many participants were healthcare personnel (44.8 %), possibly due to the phased roll-out of the vaccination program. The registry continues to provide important information about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant people, a population with higher risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19 who were not included in pre-authorization clinical trials. Lessons learned from the registry may guide development and implementation of future vaccine safety monitoring efforts for pregnant people and their infants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabrina A Madni
- Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| | - Andrea J Sharma
- Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA; U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, North Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Lauren Head Zauche
- Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ansley V Waters
- Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA; Deloitte Consulting LLP, Rosslyn, VA, USA
| | - John F Nahabedian
- Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA; Eagle Global Scientific, LLC, San Antonio, TX, USA
| | - Tara Johnson
- Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA; Eagle Global Scientific, LLC, San Antonio, TX, USA
| | - Christine K Olson
- Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA; U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, North Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mai CT, Isenburg JL, Canfield MA, Meyer RE, Correa A, Alverson CJ, Lupo PJ, Riehle-Colarusso T, Cho SJ, Aggarwal D, Kirby RS. National population-based estimates for major birth defects, 2010-2014. Birth Defects Res 2019; 111:1420-1435. [PMID: 31580536 PMCID: PMC7203968 DOI: 10.1002/bdr2.1589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 508] [Impact Index Per Article: 84.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2019] [Revised: 08/20/2019] [Accepted: 08/22/2019] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Using the National Birth Defects Prevention Network (NBDPN) annual data report, U.S. national prevalence estimates for major birth defects are developed based on birth cohort 2010-2014. METHODS Data from 39 U.S. population-based birth defects surveillance programs (16 active case-finding, 10 passive case-finding with case confirmation, and 13 passive without case confirmation) were used to calculate pooled prevalence estimates for major defects by case-finding approach. Fourteen active case-finding programs including at least live birth and stillbirth pregnancy outcomes monitoring approximately one million births annually were used to develop national prevalence estimates, adjusted for maternal race/ethnicity (for all conditions examined) and maternal age (trisomies and gastroschisis). These calculations used a similar methodology to the previous estimates to examine changes over time. RESULTS The adjusted national birth prevalence estimates per 10,000 live births ranged from 0.62 for interrupted aortic arch to 16.87 for clubfoot, and 19.93 for the 12 critical congenital heart defects combined. While the birth prevalence of most birth defects studied remained relatively stable over 15 years, an increasing prevalence was observed for gastroschisis and Down syndrome. Additionally, the prevalence for atrioventricular septal defect, tetralogy of Fallot, omphalocele, and trisomy 18 increased in this period compared to the previous periods. Active case-finding programs generally had higher prevalence rates for most defects examined, most notably for anencephaly, anophthalmia/microphthalmia, trisomy 13, and trisomy 18. CONCLUSION National estimates of birth defects prevalence provide data for monitoring trends and understanding the impact of these conditions. Increasing prevalence rates observed for selected conditions warrant further examination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cara T. Mai
- Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Jennifer L. Isenburg
- Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Mark A. Canfield
- Birth Defects Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas
| | - Robert E. Meyer
- North Carolina Birth Defects Monitoring Program, State Center for Health Statistics, Raleigh, North Carolina
- Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Adolfo Correa
- University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi
| | - Clinton J. Alverson
- Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso
- Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Sook Ja Cho
- Birth Defects Monitoring & Analysis Unit, Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, Minnesota
| | - Deepa Aggarwal
- California Birth Defects Monitoring Program, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, California
| | - Russell S. Kirby
- Department of Community and Family Health, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Steele A, Johnson J, Nance A, Satterfield R, Alverson CJ, Mai C. A quality assessment of reporting sources for microcephaly in Utah, 2003 to 2013. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2017; 106:983-988. [PMID: 27891786 DOI: 10.1002/bdra.23593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2016] [Revised: 10/12/2016] [Accepted: 10/12/2016] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Obtaining accurate microcephaly prevalence is important given the recent association between microcephaly and Zika virus. Assessing the quality of data sources can guide surveillance programs as they focus their data collection efforts. The Utah Birth Defect Network (UBDN) has monitored microcephaly by data sources since 2003. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of reporting sources for microcephaly surveillance. METHODS All reported cases of microcephaly among Utah mothers from 2003 to 2013 were clinically reviewed and confirmed. The UBDN database was linked to state vital records and hospital discharge data for analysis. Reporting sources were analyzed for positive predictive value and sensitivity. RESULTS Of the 477 reported cases of microcephaly, 251 (52.6%) were confirmed as true cases. The UBDN identified 94 additional cases that were reported to the surveillance system as another birth defect, but were ultimately determined to be true microcephaly cases. The prevalence for microcephaly based on the UBDN medical record abstraction and clinical review was 8.2 per 10,000 live births. Data sources varied in the number and accuracy of reporting, but a case was more likely to be a true case if identified from multiple sources than from a single source. CONCLUSION While some reporting sources are more likely to identify possible and true microcephaly cases, maintaining a multiple source methodology allows for more complete case ascertainment. Surveillance programs should conduct periodic assessments of data sources to ensure their systems are capturing all possible birth defects cases. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:983-988, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Steele
- Data Resources Program, Bureau of Maternal Child Health, Division of Family Health and Preparedness, Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Jane Johnson
- Utah Birth Defect Network, Bureau of Children with Special Health Care Needs, Division of Family Health and Preparedness, Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Amy Nance
- Utah Birth Defect Network, Bureau of Children with Special Health Care Needs, Division of Family Health and Preparedness, Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Robert Satterfield
- Data Resources Program, Bureau of Maternal Child Health, Division of Family Health and Preparedness, Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - C J Alverson
- Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Cara Mai
- Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Although collectively they are fairly common, birth defects receive limited attention as a group of outcomes either clinically or from a public health perspective. This article provides an overview of the prevalence, trends and selected socio-demographic risk factors for several major birth defects, including neural tube defects, cranio-facial anomalies, congenital heart defects, trisomies 13, 18, and 21, and gastroschisis and omphalocele. Attention should focus on strengthening existing registries, creating birth defects surveillance programs in states that do not have them, and standardizing registry methods so that broadly national data to monitor these trends are available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Russell S Kirby
- Department of Community and Family Health, Birth Defects Surveillance Program, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, 13201 Bruce B. Downs Blvd, MDC56, Tampa, FL 33612-3805.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cragan JD, Mai CT, Petersen EE, Liberman RF, Forestieri NE, Stevens AC, Delaney A, Dawson AL, Ellington SR, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Dunn JE, Higgins CA, Meyer RE, Williams T, Polen KN, Newsome K, Reynolds M, Isenburg J, Gilboa SM, Meaney-Delman DM, Moore CA, Boyle CA, Honein MA. Baseline Prevalence of Birth Defects Associated with Congenital Zika Virus Infection - Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Atlanta, Georgia, 2013-2014. MMWR-MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT 2017; 66:219-222. [PMID: 28253231 PMCID: PMC5657891 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6608a4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|