Northwestern Memorial Hospital

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission on Classification and Terminology has revised concepts, terminology, and approaches for classifying seizures and forms of epilepsy. Generalized and focal are redefined for seizures as occurring in and rapidly engaging bilaterally distributed networks (generalized) and within networks limited to one hemisphere and either discretely localized or more widely distributed (focal). Classification of generalized seizures is simplified. No natural classification for focal seizures exists; focal seizures should be described according to their manifestations (e.g., dyscognitive, focal motor). The concepts of generalized and focal do not apply to electroclinical syndromes. Genetic, structural-metabolic, and unknown represent modified concepts to replace idiopathic, symptomatic, and cryptogenic. Not all epilepsies are recognized as electroclinical syndromes. Organization of forms of epilepsy is first by specificity: electroclinical syndromes, nonsyndromic epilepsies with structural-metabolic causes, and epilepsies of unknown cause. Further organization within these divisions can be accomplished in a flexible manner depending on purpose. Natural classes (e.g., specific underlying cause, age at onset, associated seizure type), or pragmatic groupings (e.g., epileptic encephalopathies, self-limited electroclinical syndromes) may serve as the basis for organizing knowledge about recognized forms of epilepsy and facilitate identification of new forms.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to better estimate the prevalence and severity of childhood food allergy in the United States. METHODS: A randomized, cross-sectional survey was administered electronically to a representative sample of US households with children from June 2009 to February 2010. Eligible participants included adults (aged 18 years or older) able to complete the survey in Spanish or English who resided in a household with at least 1 child younger than 18 years. Data were adjusted using both base and poststratification weights to account for potential biases from sampling design and nonresponse. Data were analyzed as weighted proportions to estimate prevalence and severity of food allergy. Multiple logistic regression models were constructed to identify characteristics significantly associated with outcomes. RESULTS: Data were collected for 40 104 children; incomplete responses for 1624 children were excluded, which yielded a final sample of 38 480. Food allergy prevalence was 8.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.6-8.3). Among children with food allergy, 38.7% had a history of severe reactions, and 30.4% had multiple food allergies. Prevalence according to allergen among food-allergic children was highest for peanut (25.2% [95% CI: 23.3-27.1]), followed by milk (21.1% [95% CI: 19.4-22.8]) and shellfish (17.2% [95% CI: 15.6-18.9]). Odds of food allergy were significantly associated with race, age, income, and geographic region. Disparities in food allergy diagnosis according to race and income were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the prevalence and severity of childhood food allergy is greater than previously reported. Data suggest that disparities exist in the clinical diagnosis of disease.

Table: of ContentsA. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Updated US consensus guidelines for management of cervical screening abnormalities are needed to accommodate the 3 available cervical screening strategies: primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening, cotesting with HPV testing and cervical cytology, and cervical cytology alone. New data indicate that a patient's risk of developing cervical precancer or cancer can be estimated using current screening test results and previous screening test and biopsy results, while considering personal factors such as age and immunosuppression. Routine screening applies only to asymptomatic individuals who do not require surveillance for prior abnormal screening results. The 2012 consensus guidelines were the first to be based on the principle of equal management for equal risk, specifically, the risk of a patient developing cervical cancer, estimated by the surrogate end point of the 5-year risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 (CIN 3) or more severe diagnoses (CIN 3+), regardless of which test combinations yielded this risk level. Introduction of risk-based guidelines in 2012 was a conceptual breakthrough, but the recommendations retained a continued reliance on complicated algorithms and insufficiently incorporated screening history. With a more nuanced understanding of how previous results affect risk, and more variables to consider, the 2019 guidelines further align management recommendations with current understanding of HPV natural history and cervical carcinogenesis. More frequent surveillance, colposcopy, and treatment are recommended for patients at progressively higher risk, whereas those at lower risk can defer colposcopy, undergo follow-up at longer surveillance intervals, and, when at sufficiently low risk, return to routine screening. Clearly defined risk thresholds to guide management are designed to continue functioning appropriately when population-level prevalence of CIN 3+ decreases because of HPV vaccination and also as new screening and triage tests are introduced. The revised guidelines provide a framework for incorporating new data and technologies as ongoing incremental recommendation revisions, minimizing the time needed to implement changes that are beneficial to patient care. B. INTRODUCTION This is the fourth American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)-sponsored consensus guidelines for management of cervical cancer screening abnormalities, after the original consensus conferences in 20011 and subsequent updates in 20062 and 2012.3 An interim guidance publication providing management recommendations for primary HPV screening was released in 2015.4This document updates and replaces all previous guidance. The key difference between 2019 guidelines and previous versions is the change from primarily test results–based algorithms (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for patients with HPV-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US], low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL],” etc.) to primarily “risk-based” guidelines (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for any combination of history and current test results yielding a 4.0% or of CIN for of risk for combinations of current screening test results and screening history from a of more patients for more a at of risk are in the by The of risk to and in data from screening and those with abnormalities, can be by risk using to in and to a recommended to routine screening, surveillance with testing at or intervals, colposcopy, or of the be and of the abnormalities are using risk in and abnormalities are the consensus recommendations in are based on risk, not results. of colposcopy, or surveillance be based on a patient's risk of CIN 3+ by a combination of current results and history The current test results management recommendations on the history of test results. Colposcopy can be for HPV testing or cotesting at is recommended for patients with screening abnormalities HPV with low risk of CIN 3+ (e.g., low-grade abnormalities after a screening HPV test or 3) for treatment is treatment treatment was for patients with cytology in the 2012 this guidance is patients or defined as treatment biopsy CIN is when the risk of CIN 3+ is and is for those with between and treatment is for patients or with squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology and testing for HPV HPV and or patients with HPV-positive cytology regardless of HPV be when considering for patients with the of treatment on treatment is to treatment for (CIN or CIN 3) in the is recommended for in is to treatment for CIN based on recommendations for CIN or CIN 3 and (CIN primary HPV screening regardless of triage testing from the (e.g., testing from the is recommended because the those cytology for HPV or the risk for CIN 3 and cancer, (e.g., with is when cytology results are HPV or testing is and testing of the is not the patient to surveillance with HPV testing or cotesting at for at is recommended after treatment and management of CIN CIN or surveillance at is for as as the patient's and to be are not by The 2012 guidelines recommended return to 5-year screening and not when screening New that risk for at with that patients return to risk with 5-year with cytology is only testing with HPV or cotesting is not is HPV testing for of precancer and is recommended more is recommended at when HPV testing or cotesting is recommended is recommended when are recommended for HPV or that are and for screening be for management to in the all HPV testing in this document to testing for HPV all management HPV and HPV tests for primary screening only be as a with cytology, data are available to of tests in The of data to a recommendation the patient's age and current test results, as that previous screening history is not of management guidance be is available on test results the and previous precancer treatment the results and history are designed to the patient's risk from data are available for the abnormal screening test results with abnormal screening test results with of a HPV test or surveillance of previous abnormal screening test results that not require (e.g., follow-up after HPV-positive cytology results, and follow-up surveillance tests after or after treatment or abnormalities (e.g., CIN The that HPV is for developing precancer and cancer as CIN which diagnoses of CIN and the 2019 data indicate that when a new abnormal screening test a HPV test or the the estimated risk of CIN 3+ is by cytology 3 of a new abnormal screening not a in The 2019 guidelines also that a to (e.g., using the or the Colposcopy low-grade or a patient's estimated risk of in the This patients with HPV-positive or at follow-up after a or low-grade to return for HPV or cotesting in more return to incorporating a patient's history of previous HPV tests and results and treatment of CIN 3+ while for patients with new HPV who are at lower are based on The first are new for whereas the are from the 2012 the 2012 guidelines are to management recommendations only when new management that management guidelines only to patients with current or previous abnormal screening test screening guidelines for individuals in the that are not for a screening are New 2019 testing is the for risk The testing is this document and to of primary HPV testing or HPV testing in with cervical cytology of HPV HPV and the of a patient's risk of CIN cytology from and can be when risk, lower and lower with HPV testing for risk The results of HPV tests or in with cytology are to guide recommendations that of follow-up and of for results. risk the 2019 management guidelines are based on HPV risk-based management is with of current results and history. patient's risk of or developing CIN 3+ is estimated based on current and previous results, as as history of previous precancer recommendations thresholds of of routine screening, or surveillance, colposcopy, or treatment to a risk a of risk for CIN The lower of risk the at which the management recommendation The for risk were the consensus were estimated for all combination of current results and history for which data were available at can be and of the can be using updates to new test as are and to for as more patients who HPV vaccination screening The of cervical cancer is with new technologies on the of new technologies are and risk from HPV vaccination is as and individuals age screening to consensus which are and not with the of the The 2019 guidelines a framework that of new technologies and consensus that new and be to patient care. for management the 2019 consensus in but as new tests available and more data the test combinations to thresholds at the 2019 consensus HPV vaccination in the or were low to incorporating HPV vaccination the 2019 management this is to change in the as more who lower CIN 3+ risk, the age of and data the of vaccination on the CIN 3+ risk with abnormal test The framework as data available and are new data can be while the This is to with guidance in the Colposcopy Colposcopy with biopsy the primary of patients are after a CIN grade or higher (CIN is not of CIN at is that be of all to at those at risk, defined as cytology, of HPV and a or and a are not recommended and patients with a can be that CIN is not the Colposcopy the for when the is but any of or is 2012 primary of screening and management is cancer and treatment of cervical population-level indicate that and from cervical cancer as and treatment of cervical abnormalities defined as CIN and treatment of the grade of (CIN the for previous and the primary of the 2019 management a of the of this in the is of cervical cancer to and patient's risk of or developing CIN 3+ is estimated based on current and previous results, as as history of previous precancer recommendations are by risk of routine screening, or surveillance, colposcopy, or treatment to a risk risk of risk for CIN are defined by that were the consensus to all individuals with a to and with a individuals who were in individuals of and and to be not the primary of the 2019 management recommendations are also for patients who with of the and who a previous of CIN CIN CIN of the was for precancer treatment or management for equal and current test results are to a patient's current and risk of CIN are regardless of the combination of to the and the cancer with and all cervical is not to cervical cancer can The 2019 guidelines are designed to cervical cancer and from and by patients to current and of CIN patients require follow-up to of CIN whereas patients require tests and to asymptomatic patients that require management of abnormal cervical screening test results. with such as abnormal or or a require testing as this be a of This cervical cytology, colposcopy, and or all and is in those which are not by the 2019 are for in the management in with follow-up of colposcopy, or of the between cancer risk, and and The and a of in to the of this with the previous and 2012 risk data and for the consensus The the consensus to and the in the were and to patient and to cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal results of the and, for to consensus from the in that were previous consensus test (e.g., and the for the 2019 guidelines were with the of consensus The treatment which risk of CIN 3+ treatment as as The the for The surveillance a of at recommended for routine screening with HPV primary testing or cotesting and also when patients return to routine screening. surveillance those with abnormal screening results not (e.g., HPV-positive for or after with low-grade results, or after treatment for The risk factors that change a patient's estimated risk or on and immunosuppression. The to management and continue to as the 2019 guidelines are The new technologies and technologies to The and for to and the the guidelines and the were of to of and of patient from 2019 to data and guidelines for The consensus was by a by the and was by a of and the guidelines a the guidelines a and of patient and a consensus to and a the consensus in of CIN 3+ as for the management CIN 3+ as the surrogate for cancer The of CIN 3+ as in guidelines CIN and the of cervical cancer that are in screening management guidelines CIN 3+ risk at the time point for the for and treatment of CIN whereas surveillance recommendations 5-year was as of cancer because cancer is in the and risk is by that are in screening at first screening, of or not by screening, or CIN 3+ was of CIN because is a more the HPV in CIN 3+ more that of cervical the of in CIN and CIN in the of The of CIN 3+ as CIN of to cancer with HPV and and those in patients higher cancer and those in for cervical are in in the The and the a for of squamous to the for cervical the CIN is and data to this of guidelines on CIN is of the is but not to CIN to guidelines on a data results of cytology, HPV colposcopy, and follow-up from which cotesting as in The data continue to be the data in the for risk of combinations of HPV testing and the 2019 were to that results are to patients of and were using screening and follow-up data from a HPV and the for and and Cervical a that and The in of abnormal screening results and the prevalence of CIN the that the of CIN 3+ for the combination of current results and screening history were in that the risk for the of CIN 3+ with screening test combinations the of patients from data the higher or lower of CIN 3+ to factors to screening and HPV patients with test results and screening history combinations CIN 3+ risk, regardless of or of of how of CIN 3+ were for the combinations of test results, of tests are in the for combination of and current test results, the risk of CIN 3+ was estimated using which of of CIN 3+ at the time of the current testing using a and CIN 3+ at subsequent testing using a are designed to and in this that are only available for patients to that in the of screening or abnormal screening tests that were not for not be in this that the CIN 3+ is at but the time of of CIN 3+ be as is asymptomatic and between testing are designed to provide risk the data a (e.g., of to combination of current test results and screening history recommended management was by first and 5-year risk of CIN The estimated risk was with the to management the principle of management for equal HPV-positive and cytology of CIN 3+ and are combinations of test results, patients CIN 3+ to risk with a combination of previous and consensus were to the and of were using the that for previous consensus guidelines of were to be to a of and by the new technologies using the to risk for the and risk from the point are defined as of the risk for the recommended management on the of the and 5-year risk (e.g., and surveillance from and risk from are recommendations a management because the risk of a (e.g., biopsy in primary data previous guidelines or consensus were 3 to a recommendations are of guidelines from which were not considering from of and primary data from the the and of this and recommendations based on of data and a of and the This the from to risk-based the primary on which management recommendations are based and the in which are abnormal screening results and subsequent management the recommendations are based on estimated and by data from can the 2019 guidelines to patients the in or by using or designed to of the available at a to recommendations for management is based on factors risk recommendations are based on and to risk This how patient risk is a current results and history the CIN 3+ risk is this risk is or management or treatment is the risk is the 5-year CIN 3+ risk is to patients return in or The 5-year return the risk for a patient after a screening test using HPV testing or cotesting in the for in is recommended by screening with at or this are recommended to routine screening at 5-year with testing The return the risk for a patient after a cervical cytology in the for in 3 is recommended by screening with at or this but the 5-year are recommended to testing in 3 return is recommended for patients with the but the for The the risk for a patient after HPV-positive or screening in the for is recommended in the 2012 with at or this but the treatment are recommended to The treatment or the risk for a patient after HPV-positive atypical squamous cells cytology screening in the with at or this but the treatment are recommended to from to between with and biopsy or treatment treatment is defined as treatment The treatment the risk for a patient after HPV cytology screening in the is that patients with at or this treatment are or the of treatment on that cancer patients with (CIN who are recommended to and testing at to of Introduction is defined as follow-up testing at a that recommended for routine screening with HPV primary testing or cotesting is recommended for patients risk of CIN 3+ based on current test results and screening history is higher the risk for the screening but lower the risk at which is and which are as as after a abnormal surveillance at of to the 5-year risk of CIN 3+ as the estimated risk when surveillance are defined in and in thresholds are based on the principle of equal management for equal and were designed to current screening and surveillance which are as a of and the 2012 of and 3 were for surveillance, with return to routine screening at and patients are with intervals, and of not a to change intervals, are that for in patients (e.g., with and testing at is patients estimated 5-year CIN 3+ risk of based on history and current test results, return to routine screening at 5-year using testing is recommended the principle of equal management for equal risk, this to the 5-year CIN 3+ risk after screening testing or in the in for guidelines a 5-year 5-year CIN 3+ in the after a HPV test and are and that cytology is recommended at 5-year patients estimated 5-year CIN 3+ risk of or but based on history and current test results, testing in 3 with testing is recommended the principle of equal management for equal risk, the return to the 5-year CIN 3+ risk after cervical cytology in the for guidelines a 5-year CIN 3+ after a cytology HPV testing from in the to in the New HPV to estimated in the of the and Cervical was for the surveillance is recommended for patients risk between the and 5-year follow-up with the 2012 patients with a low-grade (e.g., HPV-positive or by a with results of CIN in by a follow-up HPV test or the return with previous patients with screening in the of history can return at 3 CIN 3+ risk This how a patient with a low-grade screening be based on risk The screening to risk Colposcopy of CIN a 5-year risk of the return a HPV-positive risk of the patient a abnormal at the is the test is return in 3 is not because risk are not patients estimated risk of CIN 3+ based on history and current results that is the for and the follow-up at testing in with testing is recommended surveillance follow-up for those between the for and with the 2012 consensus follow-up at is recommended after screening tests or with previous screening history and surveillance is also recommended after with of (CIN or by a low-grade as HPV-positive HPV-positive or HPV-positive New data for guidelines that the risk of CIN 3+ is after a HPV primary screening test or or with biopsy of CIN on lower CIN 3+ surveillance, not colposcopy, is recommended for patients with new HPV-positive or results after a HPV test or screening or CIN the a previous cytology not subsequent risk a cytology is not to subsequent management to of Colposcopy patients estimated risk of of CIN 3+ of 4.0% or based on history and current results, to is recommended The were to the for to recommended by the for the was based on the risk of CIN 3+ to the of a the be to 2012 recommendations that are as of and The consensus were the first to the patients with and HPV-positive to This recommendation in and The and that risk (CIN 3+ patients to from to data were and was that CIN 3+ risk in 3 test results as cytology atypical or low-grade results or HPV-positive cytology with previous screening history and HPV-positive cytology at 4.0% and combinations for which not cytology, cytology, and cytology with previous screening The of a CIN 3+ risk was a of and in a with screening to of HPV-positive patients with or cytology, but not the of patients with HPV-positive the 4.0% for colposcopy, the CIN 3+ risk were with those from with more in the New HPV and Cervical and the The The 4.0% risk for patients with at previous test because surveillance is recommended for low-grade abnormalities or in patients screening was a HPV test or a routine screening This the CIN 3+ risk to to a recommendation of surveillance of of the 4.0% the of patients for of screening from estimated using the 2012 to using the 2019 to the 4.0% results with cancer risk higher CIN 3+ risk, are in to of The primary of treatment is cancer or of (CIN to the of the only of CIN the risk of developing cancer was as as for not be estimated at because of of treatment is recommended as as after the of a the CIN 3+ risk was when the treatment CIN The guidelines CIN and CIN 3 as with previous the for treatment or CIN in and considering treatment with a with patients the and can be in those at risk of CIN for treatment and personal and The age of or for treatment was as of and to low cancer and of of in this age patients or with estimated risk of CIN 3+ of or based on history and current results, treatment using previous biopsy is but with biopsy is the 2012 treatment biopsy was management for with cytology treatment are with CIN 3+ in to of The data HPV-positive cytology of CIN 3+ and CIN of and the treatment is cytology that is HPV CIN 3+ of CIN of and cancer of the and Cervical with HPV-positive cytology of who were defined as screening in CIN 3+ risk of and CIN of risk not on the for that the patients for CIN 3+ a low of patients or with estimated risk of CIN 3+ or and based on history and current results, treatment using previous biopsy or with and biopsy are The 2012 guidelines treatment patients who cytology of HPV the data the to patients with the results and CIN 3+ HPV-positive HPV-positive and HPV-positive this patients undergo for CIN 3+ to with abnormal cervical cancer screening results management management of abnormal screening test return for surveillance of a previous abnormal that not to (e.g., with of to continue surveillance or to of the biopsy results with of to or surveillance test results at the return for surveillance after a biopsy CIN and follow-up after treatment of or are based on of and CIN 3+ diagnoses in of current and results. of the by which patients are of the risk and recommendations based on the are in the by The is to the of risk which are available of patients with a combination of results and personal of the available risk of is in to of the 2019 guidelines management of patients by the consensus also that to results and of on the of a for of of the is to to the guidance by the be for as recommended by the guidelines when the and the of the of is with CIN or CIN is a risk of cervical results when is a CIN on not be to (CIN and management is recommended to a by CIN or CIN to the by the guidelines This CIN can (e.g., to of CIN in patients for management is is also for surveillance and of cervical precancer that on CIN and CIN 3 end is for to diagnoses of (CIN from (CIN 3) that are with the end for current consensus recommendations were on the of a for of squamous of the by the of American and the The of the guidelines a that and and recommendations for the of to of is a of HPV and and can guidelines are based on CIN 3 end the of a cervical are data to risk with end that CIN and CIN 3 the is and that of cervical and Updated of HPV primary HPV screening is of triage test (e.g., for all HPV tests regardless of is tests for HPV primary HPV screening test results are HPV or HPV and triage testing from the is not for testing is for HPV or HPV is and triage testing is not the colposcopy, of triage test (e.g., at the is recommended The US the HPV test in and the HPV in for primary HPV testing for screening for patients or tests and are for HPV of primary HPV screening in the as is more screening with cytology and to and with lower screening with and HPV test results the risk of CIN 3 and are recommended for all test results (e.g., with biopsy for and low-grade cytology and treatment for cytology that is for HPV This replaces interim guidance for the management of a for HPV primary screening, which recommended to for HPV test results for HPV HPV and of cytology for results to HPV The risk of in patients with HPV and cytology the treatment of patients be the for treatment biopsy treatment is only cytology is cytology is recommended for all HPV-positive primary screening results, regardless of HPV testing from the as the HPV test is not patients to this of triage test (e.g., is recommended at the time of to provide further for risk-based management (e.g., HPV cytology is treatment be CIN is not on a test with (e.g., cytology when is as with a test with HPV more risk-based management of on HPV in HPV be for management to for screening, are data to of the HPV in the for in screening and of for but are for and HPV for screening be to when HPV test for be in management in the of are data to of the (e.g., as in and of HPV as as HPV HPV are for testing with cytology to as whereas a of HPV also for primary HPV testing of as or patients of all with all of and when atypical cells are is recommended regardless of HPV test is recommended at in management in triage by HPV testing is not and triage by cytology is is recommended in with and in patients or with all of and is also recommended for patients at risk of neoplasia based on (e.g., abnormal or patients with atypical cells to and is with at the time of was and is with is recommended This the of on cervical patients with cytology not or atypical cells not in (CIN or is not cotesting at and is are cotesting at 3 is any test is is recommended CIN or CIN 3 but lesion is for patients with cytology atypical or cells not management be to the 2019 guidelines for the lesion patients with atypical or cells or cytology, is not a is The in this provide with the is This follow-up management that after the in 3 cells on cytology is a HPV test results, when for HPV can be of higher risk of CIN is recommended for all patients regardless of HPV is and between are because of of the for of cells can be with and as as of the of the and are also in who test HPV the or cytology is of or this are recommended when or not results are with a of in to CIN in and cancer in to the HPV-positive CIN 3+ risk of and CIN 3+ risk of with results of HPV-positive neoplasia or CIN 3+ risk of whereas HPV-positive CIN 3+ of cancer is in patients risk the prevalence of cancer is the of when patients with cytology and or a HPV test screening or primary HPV in to is recommended using HPV testing is not recommended cytology, treatment to or when a is is patients and who are and cytology and a HPV test cytology in to or is a HPV test with is for HPV or HPV for is recommended This the in management of that to HPV testing and HPV testing is for HPV and but for HPV was from 2012 to and was to change cotesting is a HPV test in the of cytology a HPV test from the as the be for testing when the cytology is for the HPV in the of not which is of that testing is not recommended for to after a HPV results on HPV tests that are not for primary cervical cancer screening not be in the of cytology a HPV from a with on cytology not be as primary HPV test and be on patients to with screening cytology and

Children with medical complexity (CMC) have medical fragility and intensive care needs that are not easily met by existing health care models. CMC may have a congenital or acquired multisystem disease, a severe neurologic condition with marked functional impairment, and/or technology dependence for activities of daily living. Although these children are at risk of poor health and family outcomes, there are few well-characterized clinical initiatives and research efforts devoted to improving their care. In this article, we present a definitional framework of CMC that consists of substantial family-identified service needs, characteristic chronic and severe conditions, functional limitations, and high health care use. We explore the diversity of existing care models and apply the principles of the chronic care model to address the clinical needs of CMC. Finally, we suggest a research agenda that uses a uniform definition to accurately describe the population and to evaluate outcomes from the perspectives of the child, the family, and the broader health care system.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of acute Kawasaki syndrome with a four-day course of intravenous gamma globulin, together with aspirin, has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in preventing coronary-artery lesions and reducing systemic inflammation. We hypothesized that therapy with a single, very high dose of gamma globulin would be at least as effective as the standard regimen. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 549 children with acute Kawasaki syndrome. The children were assigned to receive gamma globulin either as a single infusion of 2 g per kilogram of body weight over 10 hours or as daily infusions of 400 mg per kilogram for four consecutive days. Both treatment groups received aspirin (100 mg per kilogram per day through the 14th day of illness, then 3 to 5 mg per kilogram per day). RESULTS: The relative prevalence of coronary abnormalities, adjusted for age and sex, among patients treated with the four-day regimen, as compared with those treated with the single-infusion regimen, was 1.94 (95 percent confidence limits, 1.01 and 3.71) two weeks after enrollment and 1.84 (95 percent confidence limits, 0.89 and 3.82) seven weeks after enrollment. Children treated with the single-infusion regimen had lower mean temperatures while hospitalized (day 2, P less than 0.001; day 3, P = 0.004), as well as a shorter mean duration of fever (P = 0.028). Furthermore, in the single-infusion group the laboratory indexes of acute inflammation moved more rapidly toward normal, including the adjusted serum albumin level (P = 0.004), alpha 1-antitrypsin level (P = 0.007), and C-reactive protein level (P = 0.017). Lower IgG levels on day 4 were associated with a higher prevalence of coronary lesions (P = 0.005) and with a greater degree of systemic inflammation. The two groups had a similar incidence of adverse effects (including new or worsening congestive heart failure in nine children), which occurred in 2.7 percent of the children overall. All the adverse effects were transient. CONCLUSIONS: In children with acute Kawasaki disease, a single large dose of intravenous gamma globulin is more effective than the conventional regimen of four smaller daily doses and is equally safe.

EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists. no immunosuppressants IV D no nasal saline irrigation Ib, no data in single use D yes for symptomatic relief topical antibiotics no data D no anti-IL-5 no data D unclear phytotherapy no data D no decongestant topical / oral no data in single use D no mucolytics no data D no oral antihistamine in allergic patients no data D no antimycotics -topical Ia (-) ** A(-) no antimycotics -systemic Ib (-)# A(-) $ no anti leukotrienes Ib (-) A(-) no anti-IgE Ib (-) A(-) no * Some of these studies also included patients with CRS with nasal polyps. % short term antibiotics shows one positive and one negative study. Therefore recommendation C. oral antibiotic short term <4 weeks Ib(-) # A(-)* no intravenous antibiotics III(-) ## C(-) ** no # Ib (-): Ib study with a negative outcome.

Worldwide, about 65 million people are estimated to have epilepsy. Epidemiologic studies are necessary to define the full public health burden of epilepsy; to set public health and health care priorities; to provide information needed for prevention, early detection, and treatment; to identify education and service needs; and to promote effective health care and support programs for people with epilepsy. However, different definitions and epidemiologic methods complicate the tasks of these studies and their interpretations and comparisons. The purpose of this document is to promote consistency in definitions and methods in an effort to enhance future population-based epidemiologic studies, facilitate comparison between populations, and encourage the collection of data useful for the promotion of public health. We discuss: (1) conceptual and operational definitions of epilepsy, (2) data resources and recommended data elements, and (3) methods and analyses appropriate for epidemiologic studies or the surveillance of epilepsy. Variations in these are considered, taking into account differing resource availability and needs among countries and differing purposes among studies.

Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are common and clinically heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorders. Gastrointestinal disorders and associated symptoms are commonly reported in individuals with ASDs, but key issues such as the prevalence and best treatment of these conditions are incompletely understood. A central difficulty in recognizing and characterizing gastrointestinal dysfunction with ASDs is the communication difficulties experienced by many affected individuals. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed the medical literature with the aim of generating evidence-based recommendations for diagnostic evaluation and management of gastrointestinal problems in this patient population. The panel concluded that evidence-based recommendations are not yet available. The consensus expert opinion of the panel was that individuals with ASDs deserve the same thoroughness and standard of care in the diagnostic workup and treatment of gastrointestinal concerns as should occur for patients without ASDs. Care providers should be aware that problem behavior in patients with ASDs may be the primary or sole symptom of the underlying medical condition, including some gastrointestinal disorders. For these patients, integration of behavioral and medical care may be most beneficial. Priorities for future research are identified to advance our understanding and management of gastrointestinal disorders in persons with ASDs.

PURPOSE Radiation dose to the neuroregenerative zone of the hippocampus has been found to be associated with cognitive toxicity. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy during whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is hypothesized to preserve cognition. METHODS This phase III trial enrolled adult patients with brain metastases to HA-WBRT plus memantine or WBRT plus memantine. The primary end point was time to cognitive function failure, defined as decline using the reliable change index on at least one of the cognitive tests. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and patient-reported symptom burden. RESULTS Between July 2015 and March 2018, 518 patients were randomly assigned. Median follow-up for alive patients was 7.9 months. Risk of cognitive failure was significantly lower after HA-WBRT plus memantine versus WBRT plus memantine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95; P = .02). This difference was attributable to less deterioration in executive function at 4 months (23.3% v 40.4%; P = .01) and learning and memory at 6 months (11.5% v 24.7% [ P = .049] and 16.4% v 33.3% [ P = .02], respectively). Treatment arms did not differ significantly in OS, intracranial PFS, or toxicity. At 6 months, using all data, patients who received HA-WBRT plus memantine reported less fatigue ( P = .04), less difficulty with remembering things ( P = .01), and less difficulty with speaking ( P = .049) and using imputed data, less interference of neurologic symptoms in daily activities ( P = .008) and fewer cognitive symptoms ( P = .01). CONCLUSION HA-WBRT plus memantine better preserves cognitive function and patient-reported symptoms, with no difference in intracranial PFS and OS, and should be considered a standard of care for patients with good performance status who plan to receive WBRT for brain metastases with no metastases in the HA region.

With the increasing use of cocaine in the United States, there has been growing concern regarding its effects on the fetuses and neonates of pregnant cocaine abusers. Twenty-three cocaine-using women enrolled in a comprehensive perinatal-addiction program were divided into two groups: those using cocaine only and those using cocaine plus narcotics. These two groups were compared with a group of women who had used narcotics in the past and were maintained on methadone during pregnancy, and with a group of drug-free women. All four groups were similar in maternal age, socioeconomic status, number of pregnancies, and cigarette, marijuana, and alcohol use. Their medical histories indicated that the cocaine-using women had a significantly higher rate of spontaneous abortion than the women in the other two groups. In the pregnancies under study, four cocaine-using women had onset of labor with abruptio placentae immediately after intravenous self-injection of cocaine. Neonatal gestational age, birth weight, length, and head circumference were not affected by cocaine use. However, the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale revealed that infants exposed to cocaine had significant depression of interactive behavior and a poor organizational response to environmental stimuli (state organization). These preliminary observations suggest that cocaine influences the outcome of pregnancy as well as the neurologic behavior of the newborn, but a full assessment will require a larger number of pregnancies and longer follow-up.

Learning by doing represents an important mechanism through which organizations prosper. Some firms, however, learn from their experience at a dramatic rate, while other firms exhibit very little learning at all. Three factors have been identified that affect the rate at which firms learn: (a) the proficiency of individual workers, (b) the ability of firm members to leverage knowledge accumulated by others, and (c) the capacity for coordinated activity inside the organization. Each factor varies with a particular kind of experience. An increase in cumulative individual experience increases individual proficiency. An increase in cumulative organizational experience provides individuals with the opportunity to benefit from knowledge accumulated by others. An increase in cumulative experience working together promotes more effective coordination and teamwork. To gain insight into factors responsible for the learning curve, we examine the contribution of each kind of experience to performance, while controlling for the impact of the other two. The study context is a teaching hospital. The task is a total joint replacement procedure, and the performance metric is procedure completion time. We find that each kind of experience makes a distinct contribution to team performance. We discuss the implications of our findings for the learning-by-doing framework in general, and learning in the team context in particular.

In 2003, the American Cancer Society updated its guidelines for early detection of breast cancer based on recommendations from a formal review of evidence and a recent workshop. The new screening recommendations address screening mammography, physical examination, screening older women and women with comorbid conditions, screening women at high risk, and new screening technologies.

While medications can improve patients' health, the process of prescribing them is complex and error prone, and medication errors cause many preventable injuries. Computer provider order entry (CPOE) with clinical decision support (CDS), can improve patient safety and lower medication-related costs. To realize the medication-related benefits of CDS within CPOE, one must overcome significant challenges. Healthcare organizations implementing CPOE must understand what classes of CDS their CPOE systems can support, assure that clinical knowledge underlying their CDS systems is reasonable, and appropriately represent electronic patient data. These issues often influence to what extent an institution will succeed with its CPOE implementation and achieve its desired goals. Medication-related decision support is probably best introduced into healthcare organizations in two stages, basic and advanced. Basic decision support includes drug-allergy checking, basic dosing guidance, formulary decision support, duplicate therapy checking, and drug-drug interaction checking. Advanced decision support includes dosing support for renal insufficiency and geriatric patients, guidance for medication-related laboratory testing, drug-pregnancy checking, and drug-disease contraindication checking. In this paper, the authors outline some of the challenges associated with both basic and advanced decision support and discuss how those challenges might be addressed. The authors conclude with summary recommendations for delivering effective medication-related clinical decision support addressed to healthcare organizations, application and knowledge base vendors, policy makers, and researchers.

The authors present a four-step model of debriefing as formative assessment that blends evidence and theory from education research, the social and cognitive sciences, experience drawn from conducting over 3,000 debriefings, and teaching debriefing to approximately 1,000 clinicians worldwide. The steps are to: 1) note salient performance gaps related to predetermined objectives, 2) provide feedback describing the gap, 3) investigate the basis for the gap by exploring the frames and emotions contributing to the current performance level, and 4) help close the performance gap through discussion or targeted instruction about principles and skills relevant to performance. The authors propose that the model, designed for postsimulation debriefings, can also be applied to bedside teaching in the emergency department (ED) and other clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established treatment for patients with advanced heart failure. We compared a newer LVAD design (a small intrapericardial centrifugal-flow device) against existing technology (a commercially available axial-flow device) in patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized trial involving 446 patients who were assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to the study (centrifugal-flow) device or the control (axial-flow) device. Adults who met contemporary criteria for LVAD implantation for permanent use were eligible to participate in the trial. The primary end point was survival at 2 years free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or failure. The trial was powered to show noninferiority with a margin of 15 percentage points. RESULTS: The intention-to treat-population included 297 participants assigned to the study device and 148 participants assigned to the control device. The primary end point was achieved in 164 patients in the study group and 85 patients in the control group. The analysis of the primary end point showed noninferiority of the study device relative to the control device (estimated success rates, 55.4% and 59.1%, respectively, calculated by the Weibull model; absolute difference, 3.7 percentage points; 95% upper confidence limit, 12.56 percentage points; P=0.01 for noninferiority). More patients in the control group than in the study group had device malfunction or device failure requiring replacement (16.2% vs. 8.8%), and more patients in the study group had strokes (29.7% vs. 12.1%). Quality of life and functional capacity improved to a similar degree in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation, a small, intrapericardial, centrifugal-flow LVAD was found to be noninferior to an axial-flow LVAD with respect to survival free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or failure. (Funded by HeartWare; ENDURANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01166347 .).

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess physicians' attitudes toward obese patients and the causes and treatment of obesity. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A questionnaire assessed attitudes in 2 geographically representative national random samples of 5000 primary care physicians. In one sample (N = 2500), obesity was defined as a BMI of 30 to 40 kg/m(2), and in the other (N = 2500), obesity was defined as a BMI > 40. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty physicians responded. They rated physical inactivity as significantly more important than any other cause of obesity (p < 0.0009). Two other behavioral factors-overeating and a high-fat diet-received the next highest mean ratings. More than 50% of physicians viewed obese patients as awkward, unattractive, ugly, and noncompliant. The treatment of obesity was rated as significantly less effective (p < 0.001) than therapies for 9 of 10 chronic conditions. Most respondents (75%), however, agreed with the consensus recommendations that a 10% reduction in weight is sufficient to improve obesity-related health complications and viewed a 14% weight loss (i.e., 78 +/- 5 kg from an initial weight of 91 kg) as an acceptable treatment outcome. More than one-half (54%) would spend more time working on weight management issues if their time was reimbursed appropriately. DISCUSSION: Primary care physicians view obesity as largely a behavioral problem and share our broader society's negative stereotypes about the personal attributes of obese persons. Practitioners are realistic about treatment outcomes but view obesity treatment as less effective than treatment of most other chronic conditions.

The identification of ultraconserved noncoding sequences in vertebrates has been associated with developmental regulators and DNA-binding proteins. One of the first of these was identified in the intergenic region between the Dlx-5 and Dlx-6 genes, members of the Dlx/dll homeodomain-containing protein family. In previous experiments, we showed that Sonic hedgehog treatment of forebrain neural explants results in the activation of Dlx-2 and the novel noncoding RNA (ncRNA), Evf-1. In this report, we show that the Dlx-5/6 ultraconserved region is transcribed to generate an alternatively spliced form of Evf-1, the ncRNA Evf-2. Evf-2 specifically cooperates with Dlx-2 to increase the transcriptional activity of the Dlx-5/6 enhancer in a target and homeodomain-specific manner. A stable complex containing the Evf-2 ncRNA and the Dlx-2 protein forms in vivo, suggesting that the Evf-2 ncRNA activates transcriptional activity by directly influencing Dlx-2 activity. These experiments identify a novel mechanism whereby transcription is controlled by the cooperative actions of an ncRNA and a homeodomain protein. The possibility that a subset of vertebrate ultraconserved regions may function at both the DNA and RNA level to control key developmental regulators may explain why ultraconserved sequences exhibit 90% or more conservation even after 450 million years of vertebrate evolution.

BACKGROUND: Open spina bifida is the most complex congenital abnormality compatible with long-term survival. This report outlines the 20- to 25-year outcome for our original cohort of patients with a myelomeningocele treated in a nonselective, prospective manner. METHODS: Of the initial 118 children, 71 patients were available for our most recent review. Nineteen patients have been lost to follow-up and 28 patients have died. Data were collected on: motor level, shunt status, education/employment, seizure history, mobility, bladder/bowel continence, tethered cord, scoliosis, latex allergy, posterior cervical decompression, tracheostomy and/or gastrostomy tube. RESULTS: Mortality (24%) continues to climb into young adulthood. Eighty-six percent of the cohort have cerebrospinal fluid diversion, with 95% having undergone at least one shunt revision. Thirty-two percent have undergone a tethered cord release, with 97% having an improvement or stabilization in their preoperative symptoms. Forty-nine percent have scoliosis, with 43% eventually requiring a spinal fusion. Sixteen patients (23%) have had at least one seizure. Eighty-five percent are attending or have graduated from high school and/or college. More than 80% of young adults have social bladder continence. Approximately 1/3 of patients are allergic to latex, with 6 patients having experienced a life-threatening reaction. CONCLUSION: At least 75% of children born with a myelomeningocele can be expected to reach their early adult years. Late deterioration is common. One of the greatest challenges in medicine today is establishing a network of care for these adults with spina bifida.

Postoperative pulmonary complications play an important role in the risk for patients undergoing noncardiothoracic surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications are as prevalent as cardiac complications and contribute similarly to morbidity, mortality, and length of stay. Pulmonary complications may even be more likely than cardiac complications to predict long-term mortality after surgery. The purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance to clinicians on clinical and laboratory predictors of perioperative pulmonary risk before noncardiothoracic surgery. It also evaluates strategies to reduce the perioperative pulmonary risk and focuses on atelectasis, pneumonia, and respiratory failure. The target audience for this guideline is general internists or other clinicians involved in perioperative management of surgical patients. The target patient population is all adult persons undergoing noncardiothoracic surgery. *This paper, written by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA; Vincenza Snow, MD; Nick Fitterman, MD; E. Rodney Hornbake, MD; Valerie A. Lawrence, MD; Gerald W. Smetana, MD; Kevin Weiss, MD, MPH; and Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, was developed for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians (ACP): Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS (Chair); Mark Aronson, MD; Patricia Barry, MD, MPH; Donald E. Casey Jr., MD, MPH, MBA; J. Thomas Cross Jr., MD, MPH; Nick Fitterman, MD; E. Rodney Hornbake, MD; Katherine D. Sherif, MD; and Kevin B. Weiss, MD, MPH (Immediate Past Chair). Approved by the ACP Board of Regents on 21 January 2006.

This paper presents the prevalence rates of schizophrenia and major affective disorders by age and race among a random sample of male jail detainees. Subjects were administered the National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule (NIMH-DIS). The jail prevalence rates were then compared with general population data from the five-city Epidemiologic Catchment Area program using difference of proportion tests and loglinear analysis. After controlling for demographic differences between the jail and five-city samples, the jail prevalence rates were still two to three times higher than those in the general population. These findings suggest several public policy modifications concerning the psychiatric management of our burgeoning jail population.