Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages

Autores
Poletta, Fernando Adrián; López Camelo, Jorge Santiago; Gili, Juan Antonio; Leoncini, Emmanuele; Castilla, Eduardo Enrique; Mastroiacovo, Pierpaolo
Año de publicación
2012
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Background: Different approaches have been used in case-control studies to estimate maternal exposure to medications and the risk of birth defects. However, the performance of these approaches and how they affect the odds ratio (OR) estimates have not been evaluated using birth-defect surveillance programmes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scope and limitations of three case-control approaches to assess the teratogenic risk of birth defects in mothers exposed to antiepileptic medications, insulin, or acetaminophen. Methodology/Principal Findings: We studied 110,814 non-malformed newborns and 58,514 live newborns with birth defects registered by the Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Anomalies (ECLAMC) between 1967 and 2008. Four controls were randomly selected for each case in the same hospital and period, and three different control groups were used: non-malformed newborns (HEALTHY), malformed newborns (SICK), and a subgroup of SICK, only-exposed cases (OECA). Associations were evaluated using OR and Pearson's chi-square (P<0.01). There were no concordance correlations between the HEALTHY and OECA designs, and the average OR differences ranged from 3.0 to 11.5 for the three evaluated medicines. The overestimations observed for HEALTHY design were increased as higher OR values were given, with a high and statistically significant correlation between the difference and the mean. On the contrary, the concordance correlations obtained between the SICK and OECA designs were quite good, with no significant differences in the average risks. Conclusions: The HEALTHY design estimates the true population OR, but shows a high rate of false-positive results presumably caused by differential misclassification bias. This bias decreases with the increase of the proportion of exposed controls. SICK and OECA odds ratios cannot be considered a direct estimate of the true population OR except under certain conditions. However, the SICK and OECA designs could provide practical information to generate hypotheses about potential teratogens.
Fil: Poletta, Fernando Adrián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina
Fil: López Camelo, Jorge Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular; Argentina
Fil: Gili, Juan Antonio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina
Fil: Leoncini, Emmanuele. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research; Italia
Fil: Castilla, Eduardo Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz; Brasil
Fil: Mastroiacovo, Pierpaolo. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research; Italia
Materia
Teratogenic Risk
Birth Defect
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/70811
Acceder
id CONICETDig_72d03e808fbd8be45d71e898d788791e
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/70811
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and DisadvantagesPoletta, Fernando AdriánLópez Camelo, Jorge SantiagoGili, Juan AntonioLeoncini, EmmanueleCastilla, Eduardo EnriqueMastroiacovo, PierpaoloTeratogenic RiskBirth Defecthttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Background: Different approaches have been used in case-control studies to estimate maternal exposure to medications and the risk of birth defects. However, the performance of these approaches and how they affect the odds ratio (OR) estimates have not been evaluated using birth-defect surveillance programmes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scope and limitations of three case-control approaches to assess the teratogenic risk of birth defects in mothers exposed to antiepileptic medications, insulin, or acetaminophen. Methodology/Principal Findings: We studied 110,814 non-malformed newborns and 58,514 live newborns with birth defects registered by the Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Anomalies (ECLAMC) between 1967 and 2008. Four controls were randomly selected for each case in the same hospital and period, and three different control groups were used: non-malformed newborns (HEALTHY), malformed newborns (SICK), and a subgroup of SICK, only-exposed cases (OECA). Associations were evaluated using OR and Pearson's chi-square (P<0.01). There were no concordance correlations between the HEALTHY and OECA designs, and the average OR differences ranged from 3.0 to 11.5 for the three evaluated medicines. The overestimations observed for HEALTHY design were increased as higher OR values were given, with a high and statistically significant correlation between the difference and the mean. On the contrary, the concordance correlations obtained between the SICK and OECA designs were quite good, with no significant differences in the average risks. Conclusions: The HEALTHY design estimates the true population OR, but shows a high rate of false-positive results presumably caused by differential misclassification bias. This bias decreases with the increase of the proportion of exposed controls. SICK and OECA odds ratios cannot be considered a direct estimate of the true population OR except under certain conditions. However, the SICK and OECA designs could provide practical information to generate hypotheses about potential teratogens.Fil: Poletta, Fernando Adrián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; ArgentinaFil: López Camelo, Jorge Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular; ArgentinaFil: Gili, Juan Antonio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; ArgentinaFil: Leoncini, Emmanuele. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research; ItaliaFil: Castilla, Eduardo Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz; BrasilFil: Mastroiacovo, Pierpaolo. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research; ItaliaPublic Library of Science2012-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/70811Poletta, Fernando Adrián; López Camelo, Jorge Santiago; Gili, Juan Antonio; Leoncini, Emmanuele; Castilla, Eduardo Enrique; et al.; Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages; Public Library of Science; Plos One; 7; 10; 10-2012; 1-11; e466261932-6203CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0046626info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0046626info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:46:09Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/70811instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:46:10.149CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages
title Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages
spellingShingle Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages
Poletta, Fernando Adrián
Teratogenic Risk
Birth Defect
title_short Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages
title_full Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages
title_fullStr Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages
title_full_unstemmed Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages
title_sort Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Poletta, Fernando Adrián
López Camelo, Jorge Santiago
Gili, Juan Antonio
Leoncini, Emmanuele
Castilla, Eduardo Enrique
Mastroiacovo, Pierpaolo
author Poletta, Fernando Adrián
author_facet Poletta, Fernando Adrián
López Camelo, Jorge Santiago
Gili, Juan Antonio
Leoncini, Emmanuele
Castilla, Eduardo Enrique
Mastroiacovo, Pierpaolo
author_role author
author2 López Camelo, Jorge Santiago
Gili, Juan Antonio
Leoncini, Emmanuele
Castilla, Eduardo Enrique
Mastroiacovo, Pierpaolo
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Teratogenic Risk
Birth Defect
topic Teratogenic Risk
Birth Defect
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Background: Different approaches have been used in case-control studies to estimate maternal exposure to medications and the risk of birth defects. However, the performance of these approaches and how they affect the odds ratio (OR) estimates have not been evaluated using birth-defect surveillance programmes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scope and limitations of three case-control approaches to assess the teratogenic risk of birth defects in mothers exposed to antiepileptic medications, insulin, or acetaminophen. Methodology/Principal Findings: We studied 110,814 non-malformed newborns and 58,514 live newborns with birth defects registered by the Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Anomalies (ECLAMC) between 1967 and 2008. Four controls were randomly selected for each case in the same hospital and period, and three different control groups were used: non-malformed newborns (HEALTHY), malformed newborns (SICK), and a subgroup of SICK, only-exposed cases (OECA). Associations were evaluated using OR and Pearson's chi-square (P<0.01). There were no concordance correlations between the HEALTHY and OECA designs, and the average OR differences ranged from 3.0 to 11.5 for the three evaluated medicines. The overestimations observed for HEALTHY design were increased as higher OR values were given, with a high and statistically significant correlation between the difference and the mean. On the contrary, the concordance correlations obtained between the SICK and OECA designs were quite good, with no significant differences in the average risks. Conclusions: The HEALTHY design estimates the true population OR, but shows a high rate of false-positive results presumably caused by differential misclassification bias. This bias decreases with the increase of the proportion of exposed controls. SICK and OECA odds ratios cannot be considered a direct estimate of the true population OR except under certain conditions. However, the SICK and OECA designs could provide practical information to generate hypotheses about potential teratogens.
Fil: Poletta, Fernando Adrián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina
Fil: López Camelo, Jorge Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular; Argentina
Fil: Gili, Juan Antonio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina
Fil: Leoncini, Emmanuele. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research; Italia
Fil: Castilla, Eduardo Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET.; Argentina. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz; Brasil
Fil: Mastroiacovo, Pierpaolo. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research; Italia
description Background: Different approaches have been used in case-control studies to estimate maternal exposure to medications and the risk of birth defects. However, the performance of these approaches and how they affect the odds ratio (OR) estimates have not been evaluated using birth-defect surveillance programmes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scope and limitations of three case-control approaches to assess the teratogenic risk of birth defects in mothers exposed to antiepileptic medications, insulin, or acetaminophen. Methodology/Principal Findings: We studied 110,814 non-malformed newborns and 58,514 live newborns with birth defects registered by the Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Anomalies (ECLAMC) between 1967 and 2008. Four controls were randomly selected for each case in the same hospital and period, and three different control groups were used: non-malformed newborns (HEALTHY), malformed newborns (SICK), and a subgroup of SICK, only-exposed cases (OECA). Associations were evaluated using OR and Pearson's chi-square (P<0.01). There were no concordance correlations between the HEALTHY and OECA designs, and the average OR differences ranged from 3.0 to 11.5 for the three evaluated medicines. The overestimations observed for HEALTHY design were increased as higher OR values were given, with a high and statistically significant correlation between the difference and the mean. On the contrary, the concordance correlations obtained between the SICK and OECA designs were quite good, with no significant differences in the average risks. Conclusions: The HEALTHY design estimates the true population OR, but shows a high rate of false-positive results presumably caused by differential misclassification bias. This bias decreases with the increase of the proportion of exposed controls. SICK and OECA odds ratios cannot be considered a direct estimate of the true population OR except under certain conditions. However, the SICK and OECA designs could provide practical information to generate hypotheses about potential teratogens.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2012-10
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/70811
Poletta, Fernando Adrián; López Camelo, Jorge Santiago; Gili, Juan Antonio; Leoncini, Emmanuele; Castilla, Eduardo Enrique; et al.; Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages; Public Library of Science; Plos One; 7; 10; 10-2012; 1-11; e46626
1932-6203
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/70811
identifier_str_mv Poletta, Fernando Adrián; López Camelo, Jorge Santiago; Gili, Juan Antonio; Leoncini, Emmanuele; Castilla, Eduardo Enrique; et al.; Methodological Approaches to Evaluate Teratogenic Risk Using Birth Defect Registries: Advantages and Disadvantages; Public Library of Science; Plos One; 7; 10; 10-2012; 1-11; e46626
1932-6203
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0046626
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0046626
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Public Library of Science
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Public Library of Science
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613442121498624
score 13.070432

Publicaciones similares