Causes of birth defects: Lessons from history

Lancaster, Paul

doi:10.1111/j.1741-4520.2010.00311.x

Cited by 25 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also consistent with previous experience, the adjuvanted vaccine was more locally reactogenic but did not increase systemic adverse reactions, including fever [29], [51]. This is an important feature for a vaccine to be administered in pregnancy, as fever may be teratogenic [52]–[54]. We observed no serious adverse events related to any of the vaccines.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Altered Response to A(H1N1)pnd09 Vaccination in Pregnant Women: A Single Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPregnant women were suspected to be at particular risk when H1N1pnd09 influenza became pandemic in 2009. Our primary objective was to compare the immune responses conferred by MF59®-adjuvanted vaccine (Focetria®) in H1N1pnd09-naïve pregnant and non-pregnant women. The secondary aims were to compare influences of dose and adjuvant on the immune response.MethodsThe study was nested in the Copenhagen Prospective Studies on Asthma in Childhood (COPSAC2010) pregnancy cohort in 2009-2010 and conducted as a single-blinded block-randomised [1∶1∶1] controlled clinical trial in pregnant women after gestational week 20: (1) 7.5 µg H1N1pnd09 antigen with MF59-adjuvant (Pa7.5 µg); (2) 3.75 µg antigen half MF59-adjuvanted (Pa3.75 µg); (3) 15 µg antigen unadjuvanted (P15 µg); and in non-pregnant women receiving (4) 7.5 µg antigen full adjuvanted (NPa7.5 µg). Blood samples were collected at baseline, 3 weeks, 3 and 10 months after vaccination, adverse events were recorded prospectively.Results58 pregnant women were allocated to Pa7.5 µg and 149 non-pregnant women were recruited to NPa7.5 µg. The sero-conversion rate was significantly increased in non-pregnant (NPa7.5 µg) compared with pregnant (Pa7.5 µg) women (OR = 2.48 [1.03–5.95], p = 0.04) and geometric mean titers trended towards being higher, but this difference was not statistically significant (ratio 1.27 [0.85–1.93], p = 0.23). The significant titer increase rate showed no difference between pregnant (Pa7.5 µg) and non-pregnant (NPa7.5 µg) groups (OR = 0.49 [0.13–1.85], p = 0.29).ConclusionOur study suggests the immune response to the 7.5 µg MF59-adjuvanted Focetria® H1N1pnd09 vaccine in pregnant women may be diminished compared with non-pregnant women.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01012557.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Altered Response to A(H1N1)pnd09 Vaccination in Pregnant Women: A Single Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study that analyzed case reports and case series from a high-impact journal, 24 out of a total 103 case reports/case series were actually followed by randomized clinical trials (RCTs) [ 6 ]. It is this platform of meticulous case reporting that led to the discovery of Cushing’s disease by Harvey Cushing [ 7 ], and our present understanding of the association of thalidomide and congenital disease [ 8 ]. In addition to providing insight into diseases, case reporting offers substantial educational benefits, especially for students.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Fourth-Year Medical Students on Writing and Presenting Case Reports

Jha

Thakur²,

Klumb

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWriting and presenting case reports has educational benefits for medical students by providing them a platform for involvement in scholarly activities and promoting scientific writing and critical thinking. This study assesses medical students’ perceived benefits, challenges, and barriers regarding the process of writing and presenting case reports.MethodsA qualtrics survey was emailed to 225 fourth-year medical students of the Medical College of Wisconsin. All of the questions in the survey were focused on obtaining the students’ perceptions of factors facilitating the writing or presenting of case reports, its benefits, and the perceived challenges and barriers to writing and presenting case reports. Responses were obtained on a five-point Likert scale. We performed conventional quantitative analysis on all the responses and analyzed the data as respective proportions. A comparison between the responses of those who have and have not presented case reports previously was performed using a chi-square test or Fischer exact test.ResultsOf the 84 medical students who completed the survey, 67% said they have not written or presented case reports in regional or national meetings. Ninety-nine percent of the total students believed (‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’) that finding a good mentor was an important factor in facilitating the process of writing and presenting case reports, and 98% perceived finding an interesting case as equally important. The top three perceived benefits of writing or presenting case reports included improving scientific-writing skills (95%), enhancing curriculum vitae (CV) and securing residency positions (93%), and improving presentation skills (90%). The main perceived barriers to writing or presenting case reports included lack of formal training (74%) and lack of a mentor (71%). In a subgroup analysis, 95% of students who have never previously written or presented a case report, versus 79% of students who have done so, perceived that a lack of formal training and/or a lack of a mentor were major barriers to writing or presenting case reports (p=0.054).ConclusionOur study shows that the majority of M4s reported that they have not written or presented any case reports and that writing case reports has multiple educational values with considerable barriers. Our findings highlight the importance of good mentorship and formal training in case report writing.

show abstract

“…The last century saw an increased understanding of the causes of congenital anomalies. The genetic origin of several congenital malformation syndromes was described since 1900, but only between 1940 and 1960 did identification of the chromosomal and environmental causes occur (Lancaster, 2011). As opposed to congenital anomalies with genetic causes, the environmental causes appeared in endemic or epidemic status as observed by Gregg (1991) in the rubella embryopathy and by Lenz (1961), Lenz and Knapp (1962), and McBride (1961) in the thalidomide embryopathy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Latin American network for congenital malformation surveillance: ReLAMC

Orioli

Dolk

López-Camelo

et al. 2020

American J of Med Genetics Pt C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The early detection of congenital anomaly epidemics occurs when comparing current with previous frequencies in the same population. The success of epidemiologic surveillance depends on numerous factors, including the accuracy of the rates available in the base period, wide population coverage, and short periodicity of analysis. This study aims to describe the Latin American network of congenital malformation surveillance: ReLAMC, created to increase epidemiologic surveillance in Latin America. We describe the main steps, tasks, strategies used, and preliminary results. From 2017 to 2019, five national registries (Argentina [RENAC], Brazil [SINASC/SIM‐BRS], Chile [RENACH], Costa Rica [CREC], Paraguay [RENADECOPY‐PNPDC]), six regional registries (Bogotá [PVSDC‐Bogota], Cali [PVSDC‐Cali], Maule [RRMC SSM], Nicaragua [SVDC], Nuevo‐León [ReDeCon HU], São Paulo [SINASC/SIM‐MSP]) and the ECLAMC hospital network sent data to ReLAMC on a total population of 9,152,674 births, with a total of 101,749 malformed newborns (1.1%; 95% CI 1.10–1.12). Of the 9,000,651 births in countries covering both live and stillbirths, 88,881 were stillborn (0.99%; 95% CI 0.98–0.99), and among stillborns, 6,755 were malformed (7.61%; 95% CI 7.44–7.79). The microcephaly rate was 2.45 per 10,000 births (95% CI 2.35–2.55), hydrocephaly 3.03 (2.92–3.14), spina bifida 2.89 (2.78–3.00), congenital heart defects 15.53 (15.27–15.79), cleft lip 2.02 (1.93–2.11), cleft palate and lip 2.77 (2.66–2.88), talipes 2.56 (2.46–2.67), conjoined twins 0.16 (0.14–0.19), and Down syndrome 5.33 (5.18–5.48). Each congenital anomaly showed heterogeneity in prevalence rates among registries. The harmonization of data in relation to operational differences between registries is the next step in developing the common ReLAMC database.

show abstract

Causes of birth defects: Lessons from history

Cited by 25 publications

References 33 publications

Altered Response to A(H1N1)pnd09 Vaccination in Pregnant Women: A Single Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Altered Response to A(H1N1)pnd09 Vaccination in Pregnant Women: A Single Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Perceptions of Fourth-Year Medical Students on Writing and Presenting Case Reports

The Latin American network for congenital malformation surveillance: ReLAMC

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About