Epigenetic data could help identify risk factors for orofacial clefts, either by revealing a causal role for epigenetic mechanisms in causing clefts or by capturing information about causal genetic or environmental factors. Given the evidence that different subtypes of orofacial cleft have distinct aetiologies, we explored whether children with different cleft subtypes showed distinct epigenetic profiles. In whole-blood samples from 150 children from the Cleft Collective cohort study, we measured DNA methylation at over 450,000 sites on the genome. We then carried out epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) to test the association between methylation at each site and cleft subtype (cleft lip only (CLO) n = 50; cleft palate only (CPO) n = 50; cleft lip and palate (CLP) n = 50). We also compared methylation in the blood to methylation in the lip or palate tissue using genome-wide data from the same 150 children and conducted an EWAS of CLO compared to CLP in lip tissue. We found four genomic regions in blood differentially methylated in CLO compared to CLP, 17 in CPO compared to CLP and 294 in CPO compared to CLO. Several regions mapped to genes that have previously been implicated in the development of orofacial clefts (for example, TBX1, COL11A2, HOXA2, PDGFRA), and over 250 associations were novel. Methylation in blood correlated with that in lip/palate at some regions. There were 14 regions differentially methylated in the lip tissue from children with CLO and CLP, with one region (near KIAA0415) showing up in both the blood and lip EWAS. Our finding of distinct methylation profiles in different orofacial cleft (OFC) subtypes represents a promising first step in exploring the potential role of epigenetic modifications in the aetiology of OFCs and/or as clinically useful biomarkers of OFC subtypes.

Objective: This study describes primary surgical reconstructions performed for children born with a cleft lip and/or palate (CL ± P) in the United Kingdom (UK). Design: Data forms completed at the time of surgery included details on timing, technique, and adjuncts used during the operative period. Demographic data on participants were validated via parental questionnaires. Setting: Data were obtained from the Cleft Collective, a national longitudinal cohort study. Patients: Between 2015 and 2021, 1782 Cleft Collective surgical forms were included, relating to the primary reconstructions of 1514 individual children. Results: The median age at primary cheiloplasty was 4.3 months. Unilateral cleft lips (UCL) were reconstructed with an anatomical subunit approximation technique in 53%, whereas bilateral cleft lips (BCL) were reconstructed with a broader range of eponymous techniques. Clefts of the soft palate were reconstructed at a median age of 10.3 months with an intravelar veloplasty in 94% cases. Clefts of the hard palate were reconstructed with a vomer flap in 84% cases in a bimodal age distribution, relating to reconstruction carried out simultaneously with either lip or soft palate reconstruction. Antibiotics were used in 96% of cases, with an at-induction-only regimen used more commonly for cheiloplasties ( P < .001) and a 5 to 7-day postoperative regime used more commonly for soft palatoplasties ( P < .001). Perioperative steroids were used more commonly in palatoplasties than cheiloplasties ( P < .001) but tranexamic acid use was equivalent ( P = .73). Conclusions: This study contributes to our understanding of current cleft surgical pathways in the UK and will provide a baseline for analysis of the effectiveness of utilized protocols.

Introduction Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) affects 1 in 700 live births globally. Children born with CL/P and their families face various challenges throughout the child’s development. Extant research is often limited by small numbers and single-centre data. The Cleft Collective, a national cohort study in the UK, aims to build a resource, available to collaborators across the globe, to understand causes, best treatments and long-term outcomes for those born with CL/P, ultimately seeking to enhance their quality of life through improved understanding and care. Methods and analysis A longitudinal prospective cohort study of children born with CL/P and their families. Recruitment occurs across the UK and started in November 2013. Recruitment will continue until September 2027 with an estimated final sample of 4822 children born with CL/P (1157 cleft lip including/excluding the alveolus; 2112 cleft palate only; 1042 unilateral cleft lip and palate and 511 bilateral cleft lip and palate). Biological samples are collected from all recruited members of the family. Parental and child questionnaires are collected at key time points throughout the child’s development. Surgical data are collected at the time of surgical repair of the child’s cleft. Consent is obtained to link to external data sources. Nested substudies can be hosted within the cohort. Regular engagement with participants takes place through birthday cards for the children, social media posts and newsletters. Patient and Public Involvement is conducted through the Cleft Lip And Palate Association and Cleft Collective Patient Consultation Group who provide insightful and essential guidance to the Cleft Collective throughout planning and conducting research. Ethics and dissemination The Cleft Collective was ethically approved by the National Research Ethics Service committee South West—Central Bristol (REC13/SW/0064). Parental informed consent is required for participation. Findings from the Cleft Collective are disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, newsletters and social media.

Background: Efforts to increase the evidence base in speech and language therapy are often limited by methodological factors that have restricted the strength of the evidence to the lower levels of the evidence hierarchy. Where higher graded studies, such as randomized controlled trials, have been carried out, it has sometimes been difficult to obtain sufficient power to detect a potential effect of intervention owing to small sample sizes or heterogeneity in the participants. With certain clinical groups such as cleft lip and palate, systematic reviews of intervention studies have shown that there is no robust evidence to support the efficacy of any one intervention protocol over another.Aims: To describe the setting up of an observational clinical cohort study and to present this as an alternative design for answering research questions relating to prevalence, risk factors and outcomes from intervention.Methods: The Cleft Collective Speech and Language (CC‐SL) study is a national cohort study of children born with cleft palate. Working in partnership with regional clinical cleft centres, a sample size of over 600 children and 600 parents is being recruited and followed up from birth to age 5 years. Variables being collected include demographic, psychological, surgical, hearing, and speech and language data.Main Contribution: The process of setting up the study has led to the creation of a unique, large‐scale data set which is available for researchers to access now and in future. As well as exploring predictive factors, the data can be used to explore the impact of interventions in relation to individual differences. Findings from these investigations can be used to provide information on sample criteria and definitions of intervention and dosage which can be used in future trials.Conclusions: The observational cohort study is a useful alternative design to explore questions around prevalence, risk factors and intervention for clinical groups where robust research data are not yet available. Findings from such a study can be used to guide service‐delivery decisions and to determine power for future clinical trials.