Abstract
Congenital anomalies (CA) are present in approximately 3% of all newborn babies and account for about 12% of paediatric hospital admissions. They represent an important public health problem. Surveillance is especially important so that preventive measures such as folic acid fortification can be properly assessed without resorting to a series of ad hoc studies. Canada’s surveillance of CAs is weak, with only Alberta and British Columbia having established sytems. Most provinces have perinatal systems but their CA data are incomplete and they do not capture terminations of pregnancy. The same is true of the Public Health Agency of Canada’s system. A new system, the Fetal Alert Network, has been proposed for Ontario, which represents a start but will require additional sources of ascertainment if it is to be a truly population-based system for Ontario.
Keywords: Congenital anomalies, surveillance, Canada, provinces, prevention
Résumé
Des anomalies congénitales (AC) sont présentes chez environ 3 % des nouveau-nés et sont la cause d’environ 12 % des hospitalisations en pédiatrie. Elles constituent donc un important problème de santé publique. La surveillance est particulièrement importante, car il faut pouvoir évaluer convenablement les mesures de prévention (comme l’enrichissement des aliments en acide folique) sans recourir à une série d’études spéciales. La surveillance des AC présente des lacunes au Canada, où seules l’Alberta et la Colombie-Britannique ont des systèmes établis à cet effet. La plupart des provinces ont des systèmes de surveillance périnatale, mais leurs données sur les AC sont incomplètes, et les interruptions de grossesse n’y sont pas enregistrées. Il en va de même pour le système de l’Agence de la santé publique du Canada. Un nouveau réseau, le Fetal Alert Network, a été proposé pour l’Ontario; c’est un début, mais pour en faire un système vraiment représentatif de la population ontarienne, il faudra trouver des sources de vérification supplémentaires.
Mots clés: anomalies congénitales, surveillance, Canada, provinces, prévention
Footnotes
Acknowledgement: The Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System is supported by Alberta Health & Wellness.
References
- 1.Lary JM, Paulozzi LJ. Sex differences in the prevalence of human birth defects: A population based study. Teratology. 2001;64:237–51. doi: 10.1002/tera.1070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Yoon PW, Olney RS, Khoury MJ, Sappenfield WM, Chavez GF, Taylor D. Contribution of birth defects and genetic diseases to pediatric hospitalizations. A population-based study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:1096–103. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1997.02170480026004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Johnson KC, Rouleau J. Temporal trends in Canadian birth defects birth prevalences 1979–1993. Can J Public Health. 1997;88(3):169–76. doi: 10.1007/BF03403882. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Sherman GJ. The Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (CCASS): Four years later. Chron Dis Can. 1986;6:76–77. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sherman GJ. The Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System. Chron Dis Can. 1988;8:58–60. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Rouleau J, Arbuckle TE, Johnson KC, Sherman GJ. Description and limiitations of the Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System. Chron Dis Can. 1995;16:37–42. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kim PCW, Walker M, Beduz M-A. The Fetal Alert Network: An innovative program of access to care, surveillance, and education for birth defects in Ontario. J Obstet Gynecol Can. 2006;28:1099–102. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32332-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lowry RB. The Fetal Alert Network. J Obstet Gynecol Canada. 2007;29(4):307. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32438-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dolk H. EUROCAT: 25 years of European surveillance of congenital anomalies. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90:355–58. doi: 10.1136/adc.2004.062810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Misra T, Dattani N, Majeed A. Evaluation of the National Congenital Anomaly System in England and Wales. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90:368–73. doi: 10.1136/adc.2004.052936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Boyd PA, Armstrong B, Dolk H, Botting B, Pattenden S, Abramsky L, et al. Congenital anomaly surveillance in England — ascertainment deficiencies in the national system. Br Med J. 2005;330:27–31. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38300.665301.3A. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Boulet SL, Correa-Villasenor A, Hsia J, Atrash H. Feasibility of using national hospital discharge data to estimate the prevalence of selected birth defects. Birth Defects Res. 2006;PartA76:757–61. doi: 10.1002/bdra.20291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.De Wals P, Tairou F, Van Allen MI, Uh S-H, Lowry RB, Sibbald B, et al. Impact of folic acid food fortification on the prevalence of neural tube defects in Canada. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:135–42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa067103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Meyer RE, Sever SE. Towards a gold standard for National prevalence estimates of birth defects. Birth Defects Res. 2006;PartA76:770–71. doi: 10.1002/bdra.20326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]