Pediatrics · 2018
Prevalence and Risk Factors for Microcephaly at Birth in Brazil in 2010.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Silva Antônio A, Barbieri Marco A, Alves Maria T, Carvalho Carolina A, Batista Rosângela F, Ribeiro Marizélia R, Lamy-Filho Fernando, Lamy Zeni C, Cardoso Viviane C, Cavalli Ricardo C, Simões Vanda M, Bettiol Heloisa
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the baseline prevalence and risk factors for microcephaly at birth before the Zika virus epidemic in 2 Brazilian cities.
METHODS: We used population-based data from the Brazilian Ribeirão Preto (RP) and São Luís (SL) birth cohort studies of 2010 that included hospital deliveries by resident mothers. The final sample was 7376 live births in RP and 4220 in SL. Gestational age was based on the date of the mother's last normal menstrual period or obstetric ultrasonography, if available. Microcephaly at birth was classified according to the criteria of the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century and the Brazilian Ministry of Health. Risk factors for microcephaly, proportionate and disproportionate microcephaly, and severe microcephaly were estimated in a hierarchized logistic regression model.
RESULTS: According to the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century definition, the prevalence of microcephaly (>2 SDs below the mean for gestational age and sex) was higher in SL (3.5%) than in RP (2.5%). The prevalence of severe microcephaly (>3 SDs below the mean) was higher in SL (0.7%) than in RP (0.5%). Low maternal schooling, living in consensual union or without a companion, maternal smoking during pregnancy, primiparity, vaginal delivery, and intrauterine growth restriction were consistently associated with microcephaly. The number of cases of microcephaly is grossly underestimated, with an underreporting rate of ∼90%.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of severe microcephaly was much higher than expected in both cities. Our findings suggest that microcephaly was endemic in both municipalities before the circulation of the Zika virus.
METHODS: We used population-based data from the Brazilian Ribeirão Preto (RP) and São Luís (SL) birth cohort studies of 2010 that included hospital deliveries by resident mothers. The final sample was 7376 live births in RP and 4220 in SL. Gestational age was based on the date of the mother's last normal menstrual period or obstetric ultrasonography, if available. Microcephaly at birth was classified according to the criteria of the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century and the Brazilian Ministry of Health. Risk factors for microcephaly, proportionate and disproportionate microcephaly, and severe microcephaly were estimated in a hierarchized logistic regression model.
RESULTS: According to the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century definition, the prevalence of microcephaly (>2 SDs below the mean for gestational age and sex) was higher in SL (3.5%) than in RP (2.5%). The prevalence of severe microcephaly (>3 SDs below the mean) was higher in SL (0.7%) than in RP (0.5%). Low maternal schooling, living in consensual union or without a companion, maternal smoking during pregnancy, primiparity, vaginal delivery, and intrauterine growth restriction were consistently associated with microcephaly. The number of cases of microcephaly is grossly underestimated, with an underreporting rate of ∼90%.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of severe microcephaly was much higher than expected in both cities. Our findings suggest that microcephaly was endemic in both municipalities before the circulation of the Zika virus.