Aggressive vs. conservative phototherapy for infants with extremely low birth weight.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether aggressive phototherapy to prevent neurotoxic effects of bilirubin benefits or harms infants with extremely low birth weight (1000 g or less). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1974 infants with extremely low birth weight at 12 to 36 hours of age to undergo either aggressive or conservative phototherapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death or neurodevelopmental impairment determined for 91% of the infants by investigators who were unaware of the treatment assignments. RESULTS: Aggressive phototherapy, as compared with conservative phototherapy, significantly reduced the mean peak serum bilirubin level (7.0 vs. 9.8 mg per deciliter [120 vs. 168 micromol per liter], P<0.01) but not the rate of the primary outcome (52% vs. 55%; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.02; P=0.15). Aggressive phototherapy did reduce rates of neurodevelopmental impairment (26%, vs. 30% for conservative phototherapy; relative risk, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.99). Rates of death in the aggressive-phototherapy and conservative-phototherapy groups were 24% and 23%, respectively (relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.22). In preplanned subgroup analyses, the rates of death were 13% with aggressive phototherapy and 14% with conservative phototherapy for infants with a birth weight of 751 to 1000 g and 39% and 34%, respectively (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.34), for infants with a birth weight of 501 to 750 g. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive phototherapy did not significantly reduce the rate of death or neurodevelopmental impairment. The rate of neurodevelopmental impairment alone was significantly reduced with aggressive phototherapy. This reduction may be offset by an increase in mortality among infants weighing 501 to 750 g at birth. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114543.)

Intensive care for extreme prematurity--moving beyond gestational age.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding whether to administer intensive care to extremely premature infants are often based on gestational age alone. However, other factors also affect the prognosis for these patients. METHODS: We prospectively studied a cohort of 4446 infants born at 22 to 25 weeks' gestation (determined on the basis of the best obstetrical estimate) in the Neonatal Research Network of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to relate risk factors assessable at or before birth to the likelihood of survival, survival without profound neurodevelopmental impairment, and survival without neurodevelopmental impairment at a corrected age of 18 to 22 months. RESULTS: Among study infants, 3702 (83%) received intensive care in the form of mechanical ventilation. Among the 4192 study infants (94%) for whom outcomes were determined at 18 to 22 months, 49% died, 61% died or had profound impairment, and 73% died or had impairment. In multivariable analyses of infants who received intensive care, exposure to antenatal corticosteroids, female sex, singleton birth, and higher birth weight (per each 100-g increment) were each associated with reductions in the risk of death and the risk of death or profound or any neurodevelopmental impairment; these reductions were similar to those associated with a 1-week increase in gestational age. At the same estimated likelihood of a favorable outcome, girls were less likely than boys to receive intensive care. The outcomes for infants who underwent ventilation were better predicted with the use of the above factors than with use of gestational age alone. CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of a favorable outcome with intensive care can be better estimated by consideration of four factors in addition to gestational age: sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, whether single or multiple birth, and birth weight. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00063063 [ClinicalTrials.gov] and NCT00009633 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Symposium for dental treatment of medically complex children: Practice based culminating experience a continuing education course

The purpose of this Continuing Education Course is to provide oral health professionals with information to address the unique dental needs of medically complex children. The objective is to train dentists to treat special needs patients so these children have more access to oral healthcare. ^ Under the auspice of Dell Children Hospital of Austin, Lisa Jacob DDS MS is administering this Continuing Education Course for dentists and dental staff from the 46 counties of central Texas served by the hospital.^ Needs assessment was determined through a survey questionnaire to collect data about the number of special needs patients seen by general dentists in Central Texas.^ In recent years, an increasing number of continuing education courses have been developed to help dentists learn techniques for providing dentistry in more understanding ways to patients with special needs. Dentists and dental staff are trained to provide care specifically in dentistry, regardless of who the patient is. This means dentists can perform a clinical examination, carry out procedures to diagnose and treat oral diseases, and provide restorations such as fillings and crowns. ^ Four prominent speakers will provide an instructional tool to address the need for dentists to increase their competence and comfort level in caring for individuals with developmental disabilities. Each speaker will address one of the most frequently encountered cases of medically complex children. The four topics selected by Dr. Lisa Jacob are Cancer, Mental Disability, Downs Syndrome, and Craniofacial Syndromes.^ The public health implications of this continuing education course are presented in providing dental service to this underserved population. When general dentist turn away patients with special needs because of lack of knowledge to treat them, these patients will, more than likely, postpone or abandon needed dental visits because of difficulties reaching pediatric dentists who may not be available in certain areas.^

Evaluation of Knowledge Regarding Diagnostic Strategies for Genetic Diseases in Select Residents

Genetics education for physicians has been a popular publication topic in the United States and in Europe for over 20 years. Decreasing numbers of medical genetics professionals and an increasing volume of genetic information has created a dire need for increased genetics training in medical school and in clinical practice. This study aimed to assess how well pediatrics-focused primary care physicians apply their general genetics knowledge to clinical genetic testing using scenario-based questions. We chose to specifically focus on knowledge of the diagnostic applicability of Chromosomal Microarray (CMA) technology in pediatrics because of its recent recommendation by the International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium as a first-tier genetic test for individuals with developmental disabilities and/or congenital anomalies. Proficiency in ordering baseline genetic testing was evaluated for eighty-one respondents from four pediatrics-focused residencies (categorical pediatrics, pediatric neurology, internal medicine/pediatrics, and family practice) at two large residency programs in Houston, Texas. Similar to other studies, we found an overall deficit of genetic testing knowledge, especially among family practice residents. Interestingly, residents who elected to complete a genetics rotation in medical school scored significantly better than expected, as well as better than residents who did not elect to complete a genetics rotation. We suspect that the insufficient knowledge among physicians regarding a baseline genetics work-up is leading to redundant (i.e. concurrent karyotype and CMA) and incorrect (i.e. ordering CMA to detect achondroplasia) genetic testing and is contributing to rising health care costs in the United States. Our results provide specific teaching points upon which medical schools can focus education about clinical genetic testing and suggest that increased collaboration between primary care physicians and genetics professionals could benefit patient health care overall.

Editorial: Roles and Expertise

We all take on roles, probably several each day. Parent, worker, consumer, spouse, or shortstop, the roles we play are varied and complex. After one's own family, perhaps the roles of consumer and worker are most important to Family Preservation. How do we come to play these roles, and in what ways are they changing, or should they change? Often, neither the worker or family set out to play their roles, but through the twist and turns of life, the opportunity to serve and preserve a family presents itself. At a recent conference, a group of workers spoke of how, rather than having a career goal to do Family Preservation, Family Preservation found them. Many of the families probably say the same thing! In the fields of mental health, developmental disabilities, and adoption, families may seek Family Preservation services; rarely do families involved in juvenile justice, corrections, or child welfare systems look for Family Preservation. Family Preservation finds them. And thus the roles begin.