The Treatment of Neonatal Seizures: A Critical Review of the Evidence

In a critical review of the literature to assess the efficacy of monotherapy and subsequent combinant anticonvulsant therapy in the treatment of neonatal seizures, four studies were examined; three randomised control trials and one retrospective cohort study. Each study used phenobarbital for monotherapy with doses reaching a maximum of 40mg/kg. Anticonvulsant drugs used in conjunction with phenobarbitone for combinant therapy included midazolam, clonazepam, lorazepam, phenytoin and lignocaine. Each study used an electroencephalograph for seizure diagnosis and neonatal monitoring when determining therapy efficacy and final outcome assessments. Collectively the studies suggest neither monotherapy nor combinant therapy are entirely effective in seizure control. Monotherapy demonstrated a 29% - 50% success rate for complete seizure control whereas combinant therapy administered after the failure of monotherapy demonstrated a success rate of 43% - 100%. When these trials were combined the overall success for monotherapy was 44% (n = 34/78) and for combinant therapy 72% ( n = 56/78). Though the evidence was inconclusive, it would appear that combinant therapy is of greater benefit to infants unresponsive to monotherapy. Further research such as multi-site randomised controlled trials using standardised criteria and data collection are required within this specialised area.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment

• At common law, a competent adult can refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, either contemporaneously or through an advance directive which will operate at a later time when the adult’s capacity is lost. • Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions also provides for a competent adult to complete an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment. • At common law, a court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction can consent to, or authorise, the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining medical treatment from an adult or child who lacks capacity if that is in the best interests of the person. A court may also declare that the withholding or withdrawal of treatment is lawful. • Guardianship legislation in most jurisdictions allows a substitute decision-maker, in an appropriate case, to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for an adult who lacks capacity. • In terms of children, a parent may refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for his or her child if it is in the child’s best interests. • While a refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment by a competent child may be valid, this decision can be overturned by a court. • At common law and generally under guardianship statutes, demand for futile treatment need not be complied with by doctors.

Children, Obesity and Exercise: Prevention, Treatment and Management of Childhood and Adolescent Obesity

Throughout the developed world there is an increasing prevalence of childhood obesity. Because of this increase, and awareness of the risks to long term health that childhood obesity presents, the phenomena is now described by many as a global epidemic. Children, Obesity and Exercise provides sport, exercise and medicine students and professionals with an accessible and practical guide to understanding and managing childhood and adolescent obesity. It covers: overweight, obesity and body composition; physical activity, growth and development; psycho-social aspects of childhood obesity; physical activity behaviours; eating behaviours; measuring childrens behaviour; interventions for prevention and management of childhood obesity. Children, Obesity and Exercise addresses the need for authoritative advice and innovative approaches to the prevention and management of this chronic problem.

Interactions between energy intake and expenditure in the development and treatment of obesity.

Summary There are four interactions to consider between energy intake (EI) and energy expenditure (EE) in the development and treatment of obesity. (1) Does sedentariness alter levels of EI or subsequent EE? and (2) Do high levels of EI alter physical activity or exercise? (3) Do exercise-induced increases in EE drive EI upwards and undermine dietary approaches to weight management and (4) Do low levels of EI elevate or decrease EE? There is little evidence that sedentariness alters levels of EI. This lack of cross-talk between altered EE and EI appears to promote a positive EB. Lifestyle studies also suggest that a sedentary routine actually offers the opportunity for over-consumption. Substantive changes in non exercise activity thermogenesis are feasible, but not clearly demonstrated. Cross talk between elevated EE and EI is initially too weak and takes too long to activate, to seriously threaten dietary approaches to weight management. It appears that substantial fat loss is possible before intake begins to track a sustained elevation of EE. There is more evidence that low levels of EI does lower physical activity levels, in relatively lean men under conditions of acute or prolonged semi-starvation and in dieting obese subjects. During altered EB there are a number of small but significant changes in the components of EE, including (i) sleeping and basal metabolic rate, (ii) energy cost of weight change alters as weight is gained or lost, (iii) exercise efficiency, (iv) energy cost of weight bearing activities, (v) during substantive overfeeding diet composition (fat versus carbohydrate) will influence the energy cost of nutrient storage by ~ 15%. The responses (i-v) above are all “obligatory” responses. Altered EB can also stimulate facultative behavioural responses, as a consequence of cross-talk between EI and EE. Altered EB will lead to changes in the mode duration and intensity of physical activities. Feeding behaviour can also change. The degree of inter-individual variability in these responses will define the scope within which various mechanisms of EB compensation can operate. The relative importance of “obligatory” versus facultative, behavioural responses -as components of EB control- need to be defined.

Developing a model of care to improve the health and well-being for Indigenous people receiving renal dialysis treatment

The high levels of end-stage renal disease among Indigenous Australians, particularly in remote areas of the country, are a serious public health concern. The magnitude of the problem is reflected in figures from the Australian and New Zealand Transplant and Dialysis Registry that show that Indigenous Australians experience end-stage renal disease at a rate almost 9–10 times higher than other non-Indigenous Australians. A majority of Indigenous Australians have to relocate to receive appropriate renal dialysis treatment. In some Australian states, renal treatment is based on self-care dialysis which allows those Indigenous Australians to be treated back in their community. Evidence clearly shows that reuniting renal patients with community and family improves overall health and well-being for those Indigenous Australians. With the appropriate resources, training, and support, self-care management of renal dialysis treatment is an effective way for Indigenous people with end-stage renal failure to be treated at home. In this context, the study was used to gain insight and further understanding of the impact that end-stage renal disease and renal dialysis treatment has had on the lives of Indigenous community members. The study findings are from 14 individually interviewed people from South East Queensland. Data from the interviews were analysed using a combination of thematic and content analysis. The study methodology was based on qualitative data principles where the Indigenous community members were able to share their experiences and journeys living with end-stage renal disease. Many of the experiences and understanding closely relate to the renal disease pattern and the treatment with other outside influences, such as social, cultural, and environmental influences, all having an equal impact. Each community member’s experience with end-stage renal disease is unique; some manage with family and medical support, while others try to manage independently. From the study, community members who managed their renal dialysis treatment independently were much more aware of their renal health status. The study provides recommendations towards a model of care to improve the health and well-being is based on self-care and self-determination principles.