Description of the methodology used in an ongoing pediatric care interventional study of children born with cleft lip and palate in South America [NCT00097149]

George L Wehby, Eduardo E Castilla, Norman Goco, Monica Rittler, Viviana Cosentino, Lorette Javois, Ann Marie McCarthy, Georgiy Bobashev, Stephen Litavecz, Alejandra Mariona, Graca Dutra, Jorge S López-Camelo, Iêda M Orioli, Jeffrey C Murray, George L Wehby, Eduardo E Castilla, Norman Goco, Monica Rittler, Viviana Cosentino, Lorette Javois, Ann Marie McCarthy, Georgiy Bobashev, Stephen Litavecz, Alejandra Mariona, Graca Dutra, Jorge S López-Camelo, Iêda M Orioli, Jeffrey C Murray

Abstract

Background: The contribution of birth defects, including cleft lip and palate, to neonatal and infant mortality and morbidity is substantial. As other mortality and morbidity causes including infections, hygiene, prematurity, and nutrition are eradicated in less developed countries, the burden of birth defects will increase proportionally.

Methods/design: We are using cleft lip and palate as a sentinel birth defect to evaluate its burden on neonatal and infant health and to assess the effectiveness of systematic pediatric care during the first month and first two years of life in decreasing this burden. The neonatal intervention, consisting of weekly pediatric evaluation and referral to appropriate care, is delivered to about 696 infants born with cleft lip and/or palate in 47 hospitals in South America. Neonatal mortality in this group will be compared to that in a retrospective control group of about 464 infants born with cleft lip and/or palate in the same hospitals. The subgroup of infants with isolated clefts of both the lip and palate (about 264) is also randomized into two groups, intervened and non-intervened, and further followed up over 2 years. Intervened cases are evaluated by pediatricians every three months and referred for appropriate care. The intervened and non-intervened cases will be compared over study outcomes to evaluate the intervention effectiveness. Non-intervened cases are matched and compared to healthy controls to assess the burden of cleft lip and palate. Outcomes include child's neurological and physical development and family social and economic conditions.

Discussion: Large-scale clinical trials to improve infant health in developing countries are commonly suggested, making it important to share the methods used in ongoing studies with other investigators implementing similar research. We describe here the content of our ongoing pediatric care study in South America. We hope that this may help researchers targeting this area to plan their studies more effectively and encourage the development of similar research efforts to target other birth defects or infant outcomes such as prematurity and low birth weight.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00097149.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study Design. Figure 1 presents a flowchart of the study design of the neonatal and the two-year subprojects. All infants born with a typical form of cleft lip and palate in the study hospitals are enrolled in the neonatal subproject. Only isolated cases with both cleft of lip and cleft palate who are singleton births, normal birth weight, and without complications other than cleft lip and palate that require systematic care are enrolled at birth in the two-year subproject and randomized into intervened and non-intervened groups. A group of healthy controls is matched to the non-intervened group by gender, date and hospital of birth at a ratio of 2 to 1. A = Evaluating the impact of the intervention on neonatal mortality. B1 = Evaluating the impacts of cleft lip and palate on child's development and family socioeconomic outcomes (Two-year subproject). B2 = Evaluating the impact of the two-year intervention on child development and family socioeconomic outcomes.

References

    1. World Health Organization The World Health Report 2003-Shaping The Future Table 11 and Annex Table 3. 2003. Accessed January 1, 2003.
    1. Black RE, Morris SS, Bryce J. Where and why are 10 million children dying every year? Lancet. 2003;361:2226–2234. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13779-8.
    1. Save the children State of the World's Newborns. 2001. Accessed January 10, 2003.
    1. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J, Lancet Neonatal Survival Steering Team 4 million neonatal deaths: when? Where? Why? Lancet. 2005;365:891–900. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5.
    1. Lee K, Khoshnood B, Chen L, Wall SN, Cromie WJ, Mittendorf RL. Infant mortality from congenital malformations in the United States, 1970–1997. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:620–627. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01507-1.
    1. Arias E, MacDorman MF, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics – 2002. Pediatrics. 2003;112:1215–1230. doi: 10.1542/peds.112.6.1215.
    1. Vanderas AP. Incidence of cleft lip, cleft palate, and cleft lip and palate among races: a review. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:216–225.
    1. Mossey PA, Little J. Epidemiology of oral clefts: an international perspective. In: Wyszynski DF, editor. Cleft Lip and Palate: From Origin to Treatment. New York, Ny: Oxford University Press; 2002. pp. 127–158.
    1. Murray JC. Gene/environment causes of cleft lip and/or palate. Clin Genet. 2002;61:248–256. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.610402.x.
    1. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, OMIM (TM) McKusick-Nathans Institute for Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD) and National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine (Bethesda, MD) 2000. Accessed May 1, 2002.
    1. Hujoel PP, Bollen AM, Mueller BA. First-year mortality among infants with facial clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:451–5. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569(1992)029<0451:FYMAIW>;2.
    1. Druschel CM, Hughes JP, Olsen CL. First year-of-life mortality among infants with oral clefts: New York State, 1983–1990. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33:400–405. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569(1996)033<0400:FYOLMA>;2.
    1. Forrester MB, Merz RD. First-year mortality rates for selected birth defects, Hawaii, 1986–1999. Am J Med Genet. 2003;119A:311–318. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20151.
    1. Kapp-Simon KA, Simon DJ, Kristovich S. Self-perception, social skills, adjustment, and inhibition in young adolescents with craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:352–356. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569(1992)029<0352:SPSSAA>;2.
    1. Thomas PT, Turner SR, Rumsey N, Dowell T, Sandy JR. Satisfaction with facial appearance among subjects affected by a cleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34:226–231. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569(1997)034<0226:SWFAAS>;2.
    1. Marcusson A, Akerlind I, Paulin G. Quality of life in adults with repaired complete cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:379–385. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569(2001)038<0379:QOLIAW>;2.
    1. Christensen K, Juel K, Herskind AM, Murray JC. Long term follow up study of survival associated with cleft lip and palate at birth. BMJ. 2004;328:1405–1408. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38106.559120.7C.
    1. Castilla EE, Orioli IM. ECLAMC: the Latin-American collaborative study of congenital malformations. Community Genet. 2004;7:76–94. doi: 10.1159/000080776.
    1. Bhutta ZA, Darmstadt GL, Hasan BS, Haws RA. Community-based interventions for improving perinatal and neonatal health outcomes in developing countries: a review of the evidence. Pediatrics. 2005. pp. 519–617.
    1. Darmstadt GL, Bhutta ZA, Cousens S, Adam T, Walker N, de Bernis L, Lancet Neonatal Survival Steering Team Evidence-based, cost-effective interventions: how many newborn babies can we save? Lancet. 2005;365:977–988. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71088-6.
    1. Benish JK. Test Review of the Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener. In: Impara JC, Plake BS, editor. The Thirteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Buros Institute's Test Reviews; 1998. Accessed May 1, 2002.
    1. Aylward GP, Verhulst SJ. Predictive utility of the Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener (BINS) risk status classifications: clinical interpretation and application. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2000;42:25–31. doi: 10.1017/S0012162200000062.
    1. Bzoch KR, League R. Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Scale. 2. Austin, TX: Pro-ed; 1991.
    1. Bachman LF. Review of the receptive-expressive emergent language scale. In: Impara JC, Plake BS, editor. The Thirteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Second. Buros Institute's Test Reviews; 1998. Accessed May 1, 2002.
    1. Orioli IM, Ribeiro MG, Castilla EE. Clinical and epidemiological studies of amniotic deformity, adhesion, and mutilation (ADAM) sequence in a South American (ECLAMC) population. Am J Med Genet. 2003;118A:135–145. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.10194.
    1. Institute of Medicine of The National Academics Reducing Birth Defects: Meeting the Challenge in The Developing World. 2003. Accessed December 10, 2003.
    1. United Nations Children's Fund and World Health Organization Low Birthweight: Country, regional and global estimates. 2004. Accessed April 24, 2005.
    1. Castilla EE, Orioli IM, Lopez-Camelo JS, Dutra Mda G, Nazer-Herrera J, Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Malformations (ECLAMC) Preliminary data on changes in neural tube defect prevalence rates after folic acid fortification in South America. Am J Med Genet. 2003;123A:123–128. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20230.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit