Articles

Read the latest articles relevant to your clinical practice, including exclusive insights from Healthed surveys and polls.

By reading selected clinical articles, you earn CPD in the Educational Activities (EA) category whenever you click the “Claim CPD” button and follow the prompts. 

Eloise Stephenson

Ross River virus is Australia’s most common mosquito-borne disease. It infects around 4,000 people a year and, despite being named after a river in North Queensland, is found in all states and territories, including Tasmania. While the disease isn’t fatal, it can cause debilitating joint pain, swelling and fatigue lasting weeks or even months. It can leave sufferers unable to work or look after children, and is estimated to cost the economy A$2.7 to A$5.6 million each year. There is no treatment or vaccine for Ross River virus; the only way to prevent is to avoid mosquito bites. Mosquitoes pick up the disease-causing pathogen by feeding on an infected animal. The typical transmission cycle involves mosquitoes moving the virus between native animals but occasionally, an infected mosquito will bite a person. If this occurs, the mosquito can spread Ross River virus to the person.

Animal hosts

Ross River virus has been found in a range of animals, including rats, dogs, horses, possums, flying foxes, bats and birds. But marsupials – kangaroos and wallabies in particular – are generally better than other animals at amplifying the virus under experimental infection and are therefore thought to be “reservoir hosts”. The virus circulates in the blood of kangaroos and wallabies for longer than other animals, and at higher concentrations. It’s then much more likely to be picked up by a blood-feeding mosquito.

Dead-end hosts

When we think of animals and disease we often try to identify which species are good at transmitting the virus to mosquitoes (the reservoir hosts). But more recently, researchers have started to focus on species that get bitten by mosquitoes but don’t transmit the virus. These species, known as dead-end hosts, may be important for reducing transmission of the virus. With Ross River virus, research suggests birds that get Ross River virus from a mosquito cannot transmit the virus to another mosquito. If this is true, having an abundance of birds in and around our urban environments may reduce the transmission of Ross River virus to animals, mosquitoes and humans in cities.

Other reservoir hosts?

Even in areas with a high rates of Ross River virus in humans, we don’t always find an abundance of kangaroos and wallabies. So there must be other factors – or animals yet to be identified as reservoirs or dead-end hosts – playing an important role in transmission. Ross River virus is prevalent in the Pacific Islands, for instance, where there aren’t any kangaroos and wallabies. One study of blood donors in French Polynesia found that 42.4% of people tested had previously been exposed to the virus. The rates are even higher in American Samoa, where 63% of people had been exposed. It’s unclear if the virus has recently started circulating in these islands, or if it’s been circulating there longer, and what animals have been acting as hosts.

What about people?

Mosquitoes can transmit some viruses, such as dengue and Zika between people quite easily. But the chances of a mosquito picking up Ross River virus when biting an infected human is low, though not impossible. The virus circulates in our blood at lower concentrations and for shorter periods of time compared with marsupials. If humans are infected with Ross River virus, around 30% will develop symptoms of joint pain and fatigue (and sometimes a rash) three to 11 days after exposure, while some may not experience any symptoms until three weeks after exposure. To reduce your risk of contracting Ross River virus, take care to cover up when you’re outdoors at sunset and wear repellent when you’re in outdoor environments where mosquitoes and wildlife may be frequently mixing.   This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Dr Linda Calabresi

While it appears the message about risky drinking is getting through to younger Australians, baby boomers are as bad as ever. According to a research letter appearing in the latest edition of the MJA, the proportion of 55-70-year-olds who could be classed as high-risk drinkers has risen over the last 15 or so years. The South Australian researchers say this is in ‘stark contrast to the significant decrease in risky drinking among people aged between 12-24 years during the same period.’ And while they do emphasise that by far the majority of older Australians (over 80%) are abstainers or drink at low risk levels, the proportional increase of those now in the high-risk category (from 2.1% in 2004 to 3.1% in 2016) represents an additional 400,000 at-risk individuals – significant in anyone’s language. The findings were based on secondary analyses of data from National drug Strategy Household Surveys conducted in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016. Interestingly the researchers defined the risk categories on the basis of the maximum number of standard alcoholic drinks drunk on a single occasion over the course of a month. So low-risk were those individuals who never consumed more than four drinks in a single session, risky drinkers drank 5-10 drinks in one session at least once a month and high-risk drinkers needed to have drunk 11 or more drinks at least once a month. It’s a slightly different means of assessment to the more common approach of asking about average daily alcohol intake and appears more likely to detect the binge drinker – or your classic ‘social drinker.’ As the letter authors point out, detecting problem drinking in this age group is especially important as this cohort is particularly vulnerable to a range of alcohol-related adverse events from falls to diabetes. Once again, the researchers are looking to GPs to detect those at-risk from drinking among our baby boomer patient population and initiate evidence-based interventions, such as short, opportunistic counselling and information sessions. But they recognise this isn’t always easy. “To facilitate early identification of problem drinking and early intervention, educating health care professionals about patterns and drivers of alcohol consumption by older people should be a priority,” the authors said. Perhaps using the study’s categorisation technique of the maximum number of drinks consumed in a single session might go some way to detecting those at risk.  

Referernce:

Roche AM, Kostadinov V. Baby boomers and booze: we should be worried about how older Australians are drinking. Med J Aust. 2019; 210(1): 38-9. DOI: 10.5694/mja2.12025. Available from: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2019/210/1/baby-boomers-and-booze-we-should-be-worried-about-how-older-australians-are
Martyn Lloyd Jones

For many years experts in the field of drug policy in Australia have known existing policies are failing. Crude messages (calls for total abstinence: “just say no to drugs”) and even cruder enforcement strategies (harsher penalties, criminalisation of drug users) have had no impact on the use of drugs or the extent of their harmful effects on the community. Whether we like it or not, drug use is common in our society, especially among young people. In 2016 43% of people aged 14 and older reported they had used an illicit drug at some point in their lifetime. And 28% of people in their twenties said they had used illicit drugs in the past year. The use of MDMA (the active ingredient in ecstasy) is common and increasing among young people. In the last three months alone five people have died as a result of using illicit drugs at music festivals and many more have been taken to hospital. The rigid and inflexible attitudes of current policy-makers contrast dramatically with the innovative approaches to public health policy for which Australia was once renowned. Since the 1970s many highly successful campaigns have improved road safety, increased immunisation rates in children and helped prevent the spread of blood-borne virus infections. The wearing of seatbelts was made compulsory throughout Australia in the early 1970s. Randomised breath testing and the wearing of helmets by bike riders were introduced in the 1980s. These measures alone have saved many thousands of lives. The introduction of needle exchange and methadone treatment programs in the late 1980s and, more recently, widespread access to effective treatments for hepatitis C have dramatically reduced the health burden from devastating infections such as HIV and the incidence of serious liver disease. Each of these programs had to overcome vigorous and sustained hostility from opponents who argued they would do more harm than good. But in all cases the pessimists were proved wrong. Safety measures on the roads did not cause car drivers and bike riders to behave more recklessly. The availability of clean needles did not increase intravenous drug use. Easier access to condoms did not lead to greater risk taking and more cases of AIDS. We believe — along with many other experts in the field — that as was the case for these earlier programs, the evidence presently available is sufficient to justify the careful introduction of trials of pill testing around Australia. Specifically, we support the availability of facilities to allow young people at venues or events where drug taking is acknowledged to be likely to seek advice about the substances they’re considering ingesting. These facilities should include tests for the presence of known toxins or contaminants to help avert the dangerous effects they may produce. Such a program should be undertaken in addition to, and not instead of, other strategies to discourage or deter young people from taking illicit drugs. Although pill testing has been widely and successfully applied in many European countries over a twenty year period, it has to be admitted the evidence about the degree of its effectiveness remains incomplete. That’s why any program in Australia should be linked to a rigorously designed data collection process to assess its impact and consequences. However, we do know that the argument that pill testing programs will increase drug use and its associated harms is very unlikely to be true. Most people seeking advice about the constituents of their drugs will not take them if they are advised that they contain dangerous contaminants. And it’s easy to avoid false reassurances about safety by careful explanations and detailed information. The opportunity to provide face-to-face advice to young people about the risks of drug taking is one of the great strengths of pill testing programs. Over the last half century we have learnt public health programs have to utilise multiple strategies and provide messages carefully and tailored for different audiences. What works to combat the harms associated with drug-taking in prisons is different from what works for specific cultural groups or for young people attending music festivals. The available evidence suggests pill testing is an effective and useful approach to harm minimisation in this last group. We believe it has the capacity to decrease ambulance calls to festival-goers, help change behaviour and save lives. It has taken until now for pill testing techniques to be developed to a level where they are able to identify the constituents in analysed samples with sufficient precision, reliability and speed. These techniques, and the range of substances for which they can test, will continue to improve over time. On the basis of experience gained in the UK, Europe and Australia it’s clear pill testing is now feasible and practicable. The members of the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine within the Royal Australasian College of Physicians are the main clinical experts in the field of addiction medicine in this country. Together with the Australian Medical Association and many prominent members of the community with experience in this area we feel this is the time for pill testing to be introduced, albeit in careful and controlled circumstances. We believe this position is also supported by peer users, concerned families, and past and present members of police forces across Australia. The fact the “War on Drugs” has failed does not mean we should give up. There are many new weapons available to us, as we have learnt from the successful public health campaigns of the past. Pill testing will not abolish all the harms associated with drug taking, but if handled carefully, carries the likelihood of reducing them significantly. Martyn Lloyd Jones, Honorary Senior Lecturer, University of Melbourne and Paul Komesaroff, Professor of Medicine, Monash University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dr Linda Calabresi

Finally, we’ve got some robust evidence to answer the question - is ondansetron safe to take for morning sickness. Published in JAMA, a very large retrospective study involving over 1.8 million pregnancies, almost 90,000 of which included exposure to ondansetron in the first trimester has found that taking the drug did not increase the risk of cardiac malformations or congenital malformations overall. However, first trimester ondansetron was associated with a very small increased risk of oral clefts (three additional cases per 10,000 women treated). Interestingly the increased risk for oral clefts was confined to cleft palate, there was no evidence for an increased risk of cleft lip. The information will be eagerly received by the thousands of pregnant women who experience severe nausea and vomiting, and the clinicians who care for them many of whom have been prescribing ondansetron because of its effectiveness, despite the lack of detailed safety data. “Although not formally approved for the treatment of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, ondansetron, a 5-HT receptor antagonist, has rapidly become the most frequently prescribed drug for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy in the United States because of its perceived superior antiemetic effects and improved adverse effect profile compared with treatment alternatives,” the study authors said. “In 2014, an estimated 22% of pregnant women used ondansetron in the United States,” they said. The major strengths of this study lie in the size of the cohort and the fact that the information on ondansetron exposure was based on filled prescriptions, thereby negating any possible recall bias. Both these factors are particularly important given how rare these abnormalities are and how many possible confounders there could be. As for limitations of the study, of course just because a prescription has been filled doesn’t always mean the medication has been taken, but even if the exposure wasn’t as great as calculated, the risk would be only lessened rather than raised. There is also the possibility that there might have been some other unrecognised factor involved especially since all the women in the study were uninsured and treated under Medicaid insurance and therefore included a higher percentage of women from disadvantaged communities. However, given the detailed information collected on these women and their pregnancies, and the multiple analyses conducted on this data, the likelihood of unmeasured confounders affecting the findings was thought to be low. Overall the results of this study should provide reassurance for clinicians and pregnant women, according to an accompanying editorial, written by a US obstetrician and gynaecologist. “As clinicians and pregnant women engage in informed, shared decision-making surrounding treatment for nausea and vomiting, the current information is important for contextualising risks in light of the potential benefits,” he concluded.

References

Huybrechts KF, Hernández-Díaz S, Straub L, Gray KJ, Zhu Y, Patorno E, et al. Association of Maternal First-Trimester Ondansetron Use With Cardiac Malformations and Oral Clefts in Offspring. JAMA. 2018 Dec 18; 320(23): 2429-37. DOI: [10/1001/jama.2018.18307] Haas DM. Helping Pregnant Women and Clinicians Understand the Risk of Ondansetron for Nausea and Vomiting During Pregnancy. JAMA. 2018 Dec 18; 320(23): 2425-6. DOI: [10.1001/jama.2018.19328]
Daryl Efron and Harriet Hiscock

The rate of medications dispensed for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children aged 17 and under increased by 30% between 2013-14 and 2016-17. The Australian Atlas for Healthcare Variation, released today, shows around 14,000 prescriptions were dispensed per 100,000 children aged 17 and under in 2016-17, compared with around 11,000 in 2013-14. The atlas for 2016-17 also showed some areas had a high dispensing rate of around 34,000 per 100,000 while the area with the lowest rate was around 2,000 per 100,000 – a 17-fold difference. This difference is much lower than in 2013-14, when the highest rate was 75 times the lowest. For decades people have been concerned too many children could be diagnosed with ADHD and treated with medications. We are conducting a study called the Children’s Attention Project, following 500 children recruited through Melbourne schools. So far, we have found only one in four children who met full ADHD criteria were taking medication at age ten. So it looks like, if anything, more children with ADHD should be referred for assessment and consideration of management options.

How many kids are medicated?

ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder of childhood – the prevalence is around 5% in Australia. Children with ADHD have great difficulty staying focused, are easily distracted and have poor self-control. Many are also physically hyperactive, especially when they are young. To be diagnosed, children need to have major problems from their ADHD symptoms both at home and school. These include learning difficulties, behavioural problems and trouble making friends. Young people with ADHD are more likely to fail school, have lower quality of life, experience substance abuse issues and teenage pregnancy, or end up in prison. Medication can make a big difference to these children’s lives. While there are many ways to help children with ADHD, stimulant medication is the most effective treatment. All international clinical guidelines recommend it for children with significant ADHD that persists after non-medication approaches have been offered. Our previous research found that about 80% of children diagnosed with ADHD by a paediatrician (the main medical specialty that manages ADHD) in Australia are treated with medication. The atlas shows the proportion of children and adolescents who had at least one ADHD medication prescription dispensed was 1.5% in 2013-14 and 1.9% in 2016-7. This is similar to the prevalence of stimulant medication prescription in previous Australian studies in the past 15 years. It sits between the US (high) and Europe (low) and is not excessive given the prevalence of the condition. The Children’s Attention Project found those with the most severe symptoms were more likely to be prescribed medications, as were those from families of lower socioeconomic status. Other Australian studies have found similar results. This is not surprising as ADHD does appear to be more common in children from socioeconomically disadvantaged families. Our research suggests that disadvantaged families in Australia appear to be able to access services for ADHD, at least in metropolitan centres.

Why does it vary between areas?

The atlas finding that there is considerable regional variation in prescribing of stimulant medications in Australia has been identified in previous studies and needs to be better understood. Some variation in health care is normal and good, but too much suggests there may be a problem with the quality of care or access to care. For example, greater prescribing in regional areas may reflect lack of timely access to non-pharmacological services. We do need to keep watching this space, monitoring rates and regional variation of medication use. A landmark study in the US, published in 1999, compared medication with intensive parent and teacher behaviour training. The children who received medication had a much greater reduction in ADHD symptoms. But medication is only one consideration in ADHD. Other supports are also important. Behavioural therapies can help reduce anxiety and behaviour problems in children with ADHD and improve relationships with parents and teachers. However, accessing psychologists can be hard for many families. While Medicare rebates are available for up to ten sessions per year, costs can still be a barrier. In our research, Victorian parents reported out-of-pocket costs of up to A$200 per session with a psychologist. ADHD is not considered a disability under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, so families are not eligible for funding packages. Further research is needed to better understand the factors influencing access to care for Australian children with ADHD, and why there is such variation in rates of prescribing between regions. We also need to ensure children across Australia get equitable access to non-medication management. We need evidence-based clinical guidelines relevant to the Australian healthcare system, which is quite different from places such as the UK and US. This work must include adult ADHD, which is an emerging area with a raft of clinical and service system complexities.The Conversation This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Dr Linda Calabresi

Women with a normal BMI can no longer tick off weight as breast cancer risk factor, US researchers say. According to their study, published in JAMA Oncology, it’s body fat that increases the risk even if the woman falls into a healthy weight range. The study was in fact a secondary analysis of the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial along with observational study cohorts involving almost 3500 post-menopausal, healthy BMI women who at baseline had their body fat analysed (by DXA) and were then followed up for a median duration of 16 years. What the researchers discovered was that women in the highest quartile for total body fat and trunk fat mass were about twice as likely to develop ER-positive breast cancer. “In this long-term prospective study of postmenopausal with normal BMI, relatively high body fat levels were associated with an elevated risk of invasive breast cancers,” the study authors spelled. Perhaps less surprisingly, the analysis also found that the breast cancer risk increased incrementally as the body fat levels increased. “We found a 56% increase in the risk of developing ER-positive breast cancer per 5-kg increase in trunk fat, despite a normal BMI,” they said. The proposed mechanism that explains why high body fat levels increases the risk of breast cancer, is much the same as the known mechanism that explains the link between obesity and breast cancer risk. People with high body fat levels tend to have adipocyte hypertrophy and cell death which means the adipose tissue is chronically although sub-clinically inflamed. This inflammation triggers the production of a number of factors including an increased ratio of oestrogens to androgens which is believed to predispose to the development of oestrogen-dependent breast cancer. Basically the study authors believe these women with high body fat but normal BMI, are ‘metabolically obese’ even though they do not fit the standard definition of obese. And while using DXA to determine body fat levels is highly accurate, such an assessment is rarely used in everyday practice. Most doctors look only at BMI measurements or they may also assess waist measurement which has variable sensitivity in terms of diagnosing excess body fat. Consequently, the researchers say, many non-overweight women who are at increased risk of breast cancer because of their high adiposity may be going unrecognised. So where does that leave us? Here the study authors were less definitive. The link between body fat and breast cancer is clear but, they say, more research is needed to determine the most appropriate management for this cohort of women with high body fat levels and normal BMI. “Future studies are needed to determine whether interventions that reduce fat mass, such as diet and exercise programs or medications including aromatase inhibitors, might lower the elevated risk of breast cancer in this population with normal BMI,” they concluded.

Reference

Iyengar NM, Arthur R, Manson JE, Chlebowski RT, Kroenke CH, Peterson L, et al. Association of Body Fat and Risk of Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women With Normal Body Mass Index: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial and Observational StudyJAMA 2018 Dec 6. DOI: [10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.5327] [Epub ahead of print]
Dr Amanda Henry

Women often wonder what the “right” length of time is after giving birth before getting pregnant again. A recent Canadian study suggests 12-18 months between pregnancies is ideal for most women. But the period between pregnancies, and whether a shorter or longer period poses risks, is still contested, especially when it comes to other factors such as a mother’s age. It’s important to remember that in high-income countries most pregnancies go well regardless of the gap in between.

What is short and long

The time between the end of the first pregnancy and the conception of the next is known as the interpregnancy interval. A short interpregnancy interval is usually defined as less than 18 months to two years. The definition of a long interpregnancy interval varies – with more than two, three or five years all used in different studies. Most studies look at the difference every six months in the interpregnancy interval makes. This means we can see whether there are different risks between a very short period in between (less than six months) versus just a short period (less than 18 months). Most subsequent pregnancies, particularly in high-income countries like Australia, go well regardless of the gap. In the recent Canadian study, the risk of mothers having a severe complication varied between about one in 400 to about one in 100 depending on the interpregnancy interval and the mother’s age. The risk of stillbirth or a severe baby complication varied from just under 2% to about 3%. So overall, at least 97% of babies and 99% of mothers did not have a major issue. Some differences in risk of pregnancy complications do seem to be related to the interpregnancy interval. Studies of the next pregnancy after a birth show that:

What about other factors?

How much of the differences in complications are due to the period between pregnancies versus other factors such as a mother’s age is still contested. On the one hand, there are biological reasons why a short or a long period in between pregnancies could lead to complications. If the gap is too short, mothers may not have had time to recover from the physical stressors of pregnancy and breastfeeding, such as pregnancy weight gain and reduced vitamin and mineral reserves. They may also not have completely recovered emotionally from the previous birth experience and demands of parenthood. If the period between pregnancies is quite long, the body’s helpful adaptations to the previous pregnancy, such as changes in the uterus that are thought to improve the efficiency of labour, might be lost. However, many women who tend to have a short interpregnancy interval also have characteristics that make them more at risk of pregnancy complications to start with – such as being younger or less educated. Studies do attempt to control for these factors. The recent Canadian study took into account the number of previous children, smoking and the previous pregnancy outcomes, among other things. Even so, they concluded that risks of complications were modestly increased with a lower-than-six-month interpregnancy period for older women (over 35 years) compared to a 12-24-month period. Other studies, however, including a 2014 West Australian paper comparing different pregnancies in the same women, have found little evidence of an effect of a short interpregnancy interval.

So, what’s the verdict?

Based on 1990s and early 2000s data, the World Health Organisation recommends an interpregnancy interval of at least 24 months. The more recent studies would suggest that this is overly restrictive in high-resource countries like Australia. Although there may be modestly increased risks to mother and baby of a very short gap (under six months), the absolute risks appear small. For most women, particularly those in good health with a previously uncomplicated pregnancy and birth, their wishes about family spacing should be the major focus of decision-making. In the case of pregnancy after miscarriage, there appears even less need for restrictive recommendations. A 2017 review of more than 1 million pregnancies found that, compared to an interpregnancy interval of six to 12 months or over 12 months, an interpregnancy interval of less than six months had a lower risk of miscarriage and preterm birth, and did not increase the rate of pre-eclampsia or small babies. So, once women feel ready to try again for pregnancy after miscarriage, they can safely be encouraged to do so.
Dr David Kanowski

Short or tall stature is considered to be height below or above the 3rd or 97th percentile respectively. Abnormal growth velocity, showing on serial height measurements, is also an important finding. Growth charts based on the US NHANES study are available from www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/charts.htm. Copies of growth charts, together with height velocity and puberty charts are available at the Australasian Paediatric Endocrine Group (APEG) website, https://apeg.org.au/clinical-resources-links/growth-growth-charts/. Local Australian growth charts are currently not available. The height of the parents should be considered in evaluating the child. Expected final height can be calculated from the parents’ heights as follows: For boys: Expected final height = mean parental height + 6.5cm For girls: Expected final height = mean parental height – 6.5cm Assessment of bone age (hand/wrist) is also useful. With familial short or tall stature, bone age matches chronological age. Conversely, in a child with pathological short stature, bone age is often well behind chronological age, and may continue to fall if the disease is untreated. The stage of puberty is relevant, as it will affect the likely final height. A short child who is still pre-pubertal (with unfused epiphyses) is more likely to achieve an adequate final height than one in late puberty.

Short stature

Causes to consider include:
  • Malnutrition, the commonest cause worldwide
  • Chronic disease, for example, liver/renal failure, chronic inflammatory diseases
  • Growth hormone deficiency, with/without other features of hypopituitarism
  • Other endocrinopathies, for example, hypothyroidism, (rarely) Cushing’s syndrome
  • Genetic/syndromic causes, for example, Down, Turner, Noonan, Prader-Willi syndromes
  • Depression or social deprivation should also be considered
  • Idiopathic short stature is a diagnosis of exclusion
Appropriate initial screening investigations can include liver and renal function tests, blood count, iron studies, thyroid function tests, coeliac disease screen, thyroid function tests, urinalysis (including pH) and karyotype. Other specialised tests may be needed, based on suspicion. In the lower range, IGF-1 shows considerable overlap between normal and abnormal levels, especially in the setting of poor nutrition. Small children tend to have low levels, regardless of whether growth hormone deficiency is the underlying cause. Random growth hormone levels vary widely because of pulsatile secretion and are also not a reliable test. Therefore, unless there is a clear underlying genetic or radiological diagnosis associated with clearly low IGF-1, stimulation testing is typically required to formally diagnose growth hormone deficiency and may be essential for funding of growth hormone treatment.

Tall stature

Causes include:
  • Chromosomal abnormalities, for example, Klinefelter syndrome (qv), XYY syndrome
  • Marfan syndrome
  • Homocystinuria
  • Hyperthyroidism
  • Growth hormone excess (see Acromegaly; Growth hormone; Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1))
  • Precocious puberty
  • Other syndromic causes, for example, Sotos, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndromes
  • Familial tall stature (predicted final height should match mid-parental height)
Investigation of stature is a specialised area and early discussion with a paediatric endocrinologist is indicated if there is clinical concern, for example, height below the 3rd percentile at age five, slow growth (crossing two percentile lines away from the median), significant height/ weight discrepancy (more than two centile lines), suspected/confirmed metabolic or genetic abnormality, or clinical evidence of malnutrition or marked obesity.

References

  1. Cohen P, Rogol AD, Deal CL, Saenger P, Reiter EO, Ross JL, et al. Consensus statement on the diagnosis and treatment of children with idiopathic short stature: a summary of the Growth Hormone Research Society, the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology workshop. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Nov; 93(11): 4210-7. DOI: [10.1210/jc.2008-0509]
  2. Nwosu BU, Lee MM. Evaluation of short and tall stature in children. Am Fam Physician. 2008 Sep 1; 78(5): 597-604. Available from: www.aafp.org/afp/2008/0901/p597.pdf.
  General Practice Pathology is a regular column each authored by an Australian expert pathologist on a topic of particular relevance and interest to practising GPs. The authors provide this editorial free of charge as part of an educational initiative developed and coordinated by Sonic Pathology.
Dr Linda Calabresi

Giving children with acute gastroenteritis probiotics will not help them recover more quickly, according to two large randomised controlled trials. At least if the probiotic includes Lactobacillus rhamnosus. The research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, provides solid evidence against the adjunctive treatment, which, as the study authors point out, has been recommended by many health professionals and authoritative bodies. “Many experts consider acute infectious diarrhoea to be the main indication for probiotic use,” they said. However, the two studies, both conducted on children aged three months to four years with a less than 72-hour history of acute vomiting and diarrhoea, failed to show any benefit of taking a five-day course of the probiotics. One of the studies conducted across six tertiary paediatric centres in Canada, involved almost 900 children with acute gastroenteritis randomly assigned to receive either a combination probiotic (L. rhamnosus and L. helveticus) or placebo. The other very similar study, this one involving US centres, included 970 children with gastroenteritis and tested the effectiveness of giving the single probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus against placebo. The results of the two trials, using almost identical outcome measures were the same – the probiotics did not make a difference. “Neither trial showed a significant difference in the duration of diarrhoea and vomiting, the number of unscheduled visits to a health provider or the duration of day-care absenteeism,” an accompanying editorial concluded. The role of probiotics in the management of gastroenteritis in children has been an area of controversy and contradiction not only among individual specialists but also among different expert bodies, with guideline recommendations varying from “not recommended” by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention to “strongly recommended” by the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. But now, it appears this grey area has now become very black and white. “Taken together, neither of these large, well-done trials provides support for the use of probiotics containing L. rhamnosus to treat moderate-severe gastroenteritis in children,” the editorial stated. The caveat, of course, is that this evidence while robust only applies to this particular probiotic. There might still be probiotics out there that do make a difference. The editorial author referred to a recent large randomised-controlled trial conducted in rural India that found giving healthy newborns the probiotic, L. planatarum in the first few days of life was associated with a significantly lower risk of sepsis and lower respiratory tract infection in the subsequent two months. So while these studies might appear to be the nail in the coffin for L. rhamnosus -containing probiotics, it is still a case of ‘watch this space’ with regard the role of probiotics more generally.

Reference

Schnadower D, Tarr PI, Casper TC, Gorelick MH, Dean JM, O'Connell KJ, et al. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG versus Placebo for Acute Gastroenteritis in Children. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22; 379(21): 2002-2014. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1802598 Freedman SB, Williamson-Urquhart S, Farion KJ, Gouin S, Willan AR, Poonai N, et al. Multicenter Trial of a Combination Probiotic for Children with Gastroenteritis. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22; 379(21): 2015-26. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1802597 LaMont JT. Probiotics for Children with Gastroenteritis. N Engl J Med 2018 Noc 22; 379(21): 2076-77. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1814089
Dr Julia Marcello

“Be patient with yourself… nothing in Nature blooms all year.” One of my favourite quotes regarding perinatal depression and anxiety which affects 10-16% of all new parents. The importance of perinatal mental health cannot be overstated. Research has shown that an untreated perinatal mental health condition can lead to substance misuse, poor antenatal attendance as well as poor self-care. There is also a risk of poor attachment to the infant, and a long-term risk of poor child development outcomes through neglect. Suicide is the final risk. The government have recently supported our concerns regarding this important topic by changing the MBS item numbers (16590, 16591, 16407) to include a mental health assessment. We have a duty of care to our patients to know what is safe to prescribe or continue to use in pregnancy- remembering that pregnancy is not protective against mental illness. Did you know that more than half of all women abruptly discontinue antidepressant medication upon confirming a pregnancy? Almost 70% of these women suffer a relapse of depression. Currently the recommendations for a woman on an antidepressant who has been euthymic for at least 12 months include cease the medication in pregnancy, continue the current medication, change to an alternative, safer medication or cease the medication and then reintroduce it if a relapse occurs. Antidepressant medications can cross the placenta, meaning the fetus is exposed. There are also potential pregnancy complications, but the risks to the fetus and the pregnancy are very low. Congenital malformation may occur from exposure to some antidepressants in the first trimester. Growth restriction and neurobehavioural problems may result from exposure in the second trimester. And congenital cardiac defects have been associated with paroxetine use in pregnancy. Postpartum haemorrhage is the only significant potential obstetric complication associated with SSRI and SNRI use. There is also a small increased risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn associated with SSRI, SNRI and TCA use in late pregnancy. Antidepressants taken in late pregnancy, may also cause poor neonatal adaptation syndrome (PNAS). This manifests as hypotonia, respiratory distress, hypoglycaemia, seizures and most commonly ‘jittery-ness’ in the infant. Paroxetine has the highest risk of PNAS. Despite this, it is NOT recommended that the dose of medication be reduced in late pregnancy. Because the fetus may not clear the medication in the same way the mother does, lowering the dose might simply risk a relapse of depression in the mother while gaining little or no benefit to the infant. RANZCOG states that SSRIs are generally considered low risk and safe to prescribe in pregnancy and breastfeeding. It is important to know that sertraline has the lowest placental exposure and the lowest excretion into breastmilk. Other medications are listed in the table below as a quick reference guide:

Table 1. ANTIDEPRESSANT CATEGORIES FOR PREGNANCY AND BREASTFEEDING:

Medication Pregnancy Category Breastfeeding
TCAs * avoid doxepin during breastfeeding C Compatible
Citalopram C Compatible
Escitalopram *preferred to citalopram in breastfeeding C Compatible
Fluoxetine C Compatible
Mirtazapine C Compatible
Paroxetine *can cause cardiac defects with high dose first trimester but safest for breastfeeding along with sertraline D Compatible
Sertraline B Compatible
Venlafaxine C Compatible
Compatible- an acceptably low relative infant dose or no significant plasma concentrations or no adverse effects in breastfed infants. When managing perinatal depression is it important to consider potential risk against the known benefits of the medications and the potential detrimental effects of mental illness on the development of the infant and other children in the home.

Key References:

  1. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.  Perinatal Depression and Anxiety: C-Obs 48. East Melbourne (AU): RANZCOG; Mar 2015. 16 p. RANZCOG Cat. No.: C-Obs 48. Available from: https://www.ranzcog.edu.au/RANZCOG_SITE/media/RANZCOG-MEDIA/Women%27s%20Health/Statement%20and%20guidelines/Clinical-Obstetrics/Mental-health-care-in-the-perinatal-period-(C-Obs-48).pdf?ext=.pdf
  2. White L. Antidepressants in Pregnancy. O&G Magazine. 2018; 20(3): 24-25. Available from: https://www.ogmagazine.org.au/20/3-20/antidepressants-in-pregnancy/
  3. Galbally M, Lewis AJ, Snellen M. Introduction Pharmacological management of major depression in pregnancy. In: Gabally M, Snellen M, Lewis AJ, editors. Psychopharmacology and Pregnancy. Berlin: Springer; 2014. p. 67-85.
  Dr Julia Marcello works at Bentley Maternity Unit which provides maternity services to low risk women in WA. The unit is staffed by GP obstetricians, specialist obstetricians and gynaecologists and midwives and offers the option of private care within a public setting. The midwife service is available to low risk women and includes antenatal care, birthing services and postnatal care through the visiting midwifery service and lactation consultant support.  GP shared care services are also available. The Unit also provides a gynaecology service led by Dr Aseel Alkiaat and specialists from King Edward Hospital.  For further information go to www.bhs.health.wa.gov.auFor-health-professionals
Dr Linda Calabresi

Australian research has found an increased risk of intellectual disability with some forms of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). The WA study published in Pediatrics found that one in 48 children conceived using ART were diagnosed with an intellectual disability, compared with only one in 59 children conceived naturally. And the risk was even greater for certain subgroups within the ART cohort. “The risk was more than doubled for those born very preterm, for severe [intellectual disability] and after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments,” said the researchers from the Telethon Kids Institute. To conduct the study, researchers analysed population registers of over 200,000 live births occurring between 1994 and 2002 in Western Australia and examined data on ART and diagnoses of intellectual disability occurring within eight years of follow-up. The fact that the study findings were based on analyses of statistics from almost 20 years ago was acknowledged by the authors, especially since ART practices have changed greatly since then. “Our study included children born from 1994 to 2002 when multiple embryo transfer was common practice in Western Australia,” they said. This increased the likelihood of a multiple pregnancy and preterm birth. However even when the analyses are restricted to singleton births the small increased risk of intellectual disability persisted but was not as great. The link between ICSI-conceived children and intellectual disability was also of interest. At the time, this technique was restricted to couples with severe male-factor subfertility and was often associated with older aged males. “Genetic abnormalities occur more frequently in men who are infertile, so ICSI (which bypasses natural selection barriers) may allow for the transmission of chromosomal anomalies in the offspring,” the authors said. According to the study, one in 32 children conceived using ICSI were diagnosed with an intellectual disability. ICSI is now used more broadly, prompting concerns. As lead author, Dr Michele Hansen said, “[ICSI] is currently used in 63 per cent of treatment cycles.” “Our findings show an urgent need for more recent data to establish whether the increased risks of intellectual disability seen in children conceived using ICSI are solely related to severe male subfertility and older paternal age, or if there are other risks associated with the technique itself.” Overall the study findings provide supportive evidence for Australia’s current IVF policy of single embryo transfer unlike many other countries where multiple embryo transfers are still routinely performed. The researchers also point out the study has implications for the use of ICSI, or more exactly restricting the use of ICSI and recognising the increased risk of genetic anomalies that might occur in children conceived in this way. “These couples may opt to use preimplantation genetic testing to maximise the transfer of chromosomally normal embryos,” they suggest.  

Reference

Hansen M, Greenop KR, Bourke J, Baynam G, Hart RJ, Leonard H. Intellectual Disability in Children Conceived Using Assisted Reproductive Technology. Pediatrics. 2018; 142(6): e20181269. DOI 10.1542/peds.2018-1269
Dr Ian Chambers

Each year, around late winter to spring, we see an increase in the number of serologically-confirmed infections with parvovirus B19. These infections are usually trivial in nature and benign in outcome, but there are important exceptions to this rule. This article will review the typical presentation and course of infection with parvovirus B19, discuss its potential adverse outcomes and in whom that potential is greatest. Parvovirus B19 was discovered and named in 1975 by virologists working at the University of Sydney. It is the predominant genotype (of three) which are pathogenic for humans. Infection is common, occurring sporadically and in clusters, it has a clear seasonality (late winter through to spring) and also has an epidemic cycle with a 4–5 year periodicity. While 50–80% of adults have parvovirus IgG and are regarded as immune, there remains a significant proportion of the adult population who are susceptible to infection.

Infection and its complications

Humans are the only known host for parvovirus B19. The anaemia and thrombocytopenia which are usually subclinical in a normal individual may, in those with increased red blood cell turnover (for example, sickle-cell disease, haemoglobinopathies), lead to significant falls in haemoglobin and, potentially, aplastic crisis. Because B19 is cytotoxic to fetal red blood cell precursors, fetal infection may cause severe anaemia, high cardiac output failure and non-immune hydrops. Unlike rubella, which has a similar presentation and with which it can cross-react in serological assays, B19 has no association with congenital malformations.

Clinical presentation

The clinical presentation of infection is highly variable; Fifth disease, slapped cheek disease and erythema infectiosum all refer to the same febrile exanthem, without significant sequelae, occurring in young children, while an adult frequently presents with fever and arthralgia/arthritis but with no rash at all. However, the same adult with sickle-cell disease may present in aplastic crisis and, in pregnancy, there is a risk of hydrops fetalis, myocarditis and fetal death. In general, the typical presentation of B19 infection in children and its benign outcome require laboratory confirmation relatively infrequent. By contrast, the more variable and dramatic clinical presentation in adults, the absence of any rash rather than the presence of a typical one and, in women, the threat of adverse pregnancy outcomes lead to a much greater reliance on laboratory diagnosis.

Laboratory diagnosis

Generally, diagnosis of parvovirus B19 infection is serological. IgM is usually detectable from just before the onset of symptoms and present in >90% of people by the time of onset of the rash. Detectable IgM is suggestive of infection but not conclusive, unless an IgG seroconversion is also demonstrated or (if IgG was also present at the time IgM was detected) there has been a significant rise when testing is repeated after two weeks. When infection has been diagnosed in a pregnant woman, there is little reason to attempt definitive diagnosis in the fetus. Parvovirus PCR can provide that confirmation however it requires amniocentesis to obtain the required specimen.

Erythema infectiosum (Fifth disease, slapped cheek disease)

These terms all refer to the same presentation of parvovirus B19 infection in childhood. After an incubation period of 4–14 days, and a non-specific prodrome of fever, malaise and rhinorrhoea, a red, macular rash appears on the cheeks, fading to become more lacy and erythematous after a few days. There is no such typical presentation in an adult (see above), with rash being variable or absent. Joint pain and swelling, however, are almost as typical of adult infection as a slapped-cheek rash is in childhood.

Parvovirus B19 infection in pregnancy

Around 40% of women of child-bearing age are susceptible to parvovirus infection. The highest infection rates are seen in school teachers, day-care workers and women with school-aged children in the home. The obvious common factor is their greater likelihood of being exposed to children with erythema infectiosum and that exposure being sustained for longer. Transmission is thought to be through respiratory droplets, with infectivity lasting from one week prior to the rash until the time of onset of the rash. Between 25 and 50% of susceptible household contacts of a case will acquire infection, of whom up to 50% will do so asymptomatically. Therefore, unless women are aware of their potential exposure there is a significant risk of acquisition going undetected. The incidence of parvovirus infection in pregnancy is approximately 1–2% and vertical transmission occurs in about 50%. The risk of hydrops is low (estimated incidence, 3–6%) but there is an overall excess fetal loss of 10% for infection acquired in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. The fetus is particularly susceptible to hydrops in the second trimester when haematopoiesis is occurring in the liver. During this time, there is a 34-fold increase in red cell mass and a reduction in the life span of the red blood cells. In pregnant women with proven recent infection, the overall fetal death rate of hydrops or its treatment is 0.6% according to ASID guideline.

Management of proven parvovirus B19 infection in pregnancy

When maternal infection is proven or is highly likely, it is not necessary to prove that vertical transmission has occurred, but the fetus should be monitored by frequent ultrasonography. This allows the early detection and assessment of both myocardial dysfunction and fetal hydrops, but more importantly, it makes possible the early detection of fetal anaemia, prior to the development of hydrops. The peak systolic velocity (PSV) of the waveform in the middle cerebral artery can detect moderate to severe fetal anaemia with a sensitivity of 100%, followed by intra-uterine transfusion.   General Practice Pathology is a regular column each authored by an Australian expert pathologist on a topic of particular relevance and interest to practising GPs. The authors provide this editorial free of charge as part of an educational initiative developed and coordinated by Sonic Pathology.