<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_437"
                     title="Autism Risk Linked to Maternal Age (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.014"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/tb/18341?impressionId=1265748717161"
                     
      Older women are more likely to give birth to a child who develops autism than younger women, but the father&apos;s age is a factor only when moms are younger, a large case-control study showed.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;In an analysis of nearly five million births and more than 12,000 autism cases, every five-year increase in maternal age at delivery was associated with an 18% greater risk of the child later being diagnosed with autism, according to Janie Shelton, MPH, a doctoral student at the University of California Davis, and colleagues.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Mothers who gave birth when they were 40 or older had a 51% increased risk of having a child with autism compared with those who were 25 to 29, the largest age group (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.70), the researchers reported in the February issue of &lt;em&gt;Autism Research&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The effect of the biological father&apos;s age appeared to depend on the mother&apos;s. When the mothers were 30 and older, paternal age did not significantly increase the risk of having a child develop autism. In mothers younger than 30, paternal age did contribute to the autism risk.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This study builds upon earlier work that has demonstrated associations between parental age and autism risk,&quot; commented Bryan King, MD, program director of the Seattle Children&apos;s Autism Center, in an e-mail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But previous studies have yielded mixed results on the relative contributions of the mothers&apos; and fathers&apos; ages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;I think the size of the sample used in the present study (close to five million births) has resulted in a clear signal that both maternal and paternal age are involved,&quot; said King, who was not involved in the study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He noted, however, that parental age &quot;does not account for the big increase in autism prevalence, although it may be contributing somewhat.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Shelton and her colleagues calculated that the rising average maternal age during their study  --  covering 1990 to 1999  --  contributed to a 4.6% increase in autism incidence. That compares with about a six-fold increase in autism rates in that decade, Shelton said in an interview.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;I worry a little bit that in the media attention on this issue that mothers who had children at ages 37, 38, 39 might think that, &apos;Okay, well that&apos;s why my child had autism,&apos;&quot; she said. &quot;And so, I think it&apos;s important to stress that the increased number of cases that we&apos;ve observed can&apos;t be attributable towards women having children later.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers looked at data from 4,935,776 singleton births in California in the 1990&apos;s using records from the state Department of Development Services. Records identified 12,159 cases of &quot;Full Syndrome Autism&quot; diagnosed before age 6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That diagnosis may include autistic disorder, as well as Asperger&apos;s disorder and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. However, the breakdown of specific diagnoses could not be determined from this data set, Shelton said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even after controlling for parental education, the year of the child&apos;s birth, the race/ethnicity of the parents, the mother&apos;s parity, and insurance payment type, older maternal age was associated with an increased risk of autism in the child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nancy Minshew, MD, director of the Center of Excellence in Autism Research at the University of Pittsburgh, said in an e-mail that the results were not surprising because genetic errors are more common with older parents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;King said genetics were one possible mechanism underlying the relationship.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The mechanisms by which risk goes up might include a greater likelihood of chromosomal changes, a greater likelihood of problems at birth like prematurity, and many other factors,&quot; he said. &quot;The possibility of environmental exposures would also be expected to increase with age, and so this finding does not necessarily help narrow our focus on causes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sheldon and her colleagues wrote, &quot;It is plausible that multiple exposure types may increase the risk of autism through a common pathway or pathways (i.e., mitochondrial function, thyroid function, epigenetics, hormonal alterations) and be represented as a generalized increased risk with age.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;In this case,&quot; they continued, &quot;maternal or paternal age would serve as an index of lifetime exposure status and be a proxy for the true underlying etiologic agent.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Shelton said further research is needed to determine why biological age is serving as a risk factor for autism.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency and by the University of California Davis School of Medicine and Office of Graduate Studies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers did not report any conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; mce_src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_392"
                     title="Parents Often Err in Dosing Kids (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Parenting/tb/18290?impressionId=1265748717161"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Adults tasked with giving their children liquid medications often gave them too much, especially when the dosing device was a cup instead of a spoon or oral syringe, researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Asked to prepare a 5-mL dose for a child, adult caregivers in a study were almost always within 20% of the target when using a 5-mL syringe, according to a report in the February &lt;em&gt;Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But about 70% of the 302 parents in the trial put more than 6 mL in cups that were packaged with the medication, H. Shonna Yin, MD, of New York University, in New York City, and colleagues reported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cups with etched markings gave the adults nearly as much trouble, the researchers found, but droppers and dosing spoons were more accurate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yin and colleagues also found that dosing errors were nearly twice as common among caregivers who tested poorly for health literacy (adjusted OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.8).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that many liquid medications come with cups, it may be necessary to reconsider how products intended for young children are packaged, the researchers suggested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Redesign of dosing devices as well as instructions for their use, with a focus on standardization and consistency, has the potential to decrease medication errors and improve safety and efficacy,&quot; Yin and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers recruited adults who brought children to a pediatric clinic in New York&apos;s Bellevue Hospital in late 2008. Participants were given each of six dosing instruments in random order and asked to fill it with one teaspoon (5 mL) of acetaminophen suspension.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some 95% of participants were the children&apos;s mothers, with the remaining 5% split between fathers and legal guardians. Most were Hispanic, foreign-born, and poor, and 56% spoke Spanish as their first language. Half were not high school graduates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The instruments included the cup packaged with Children&apos;s Tylenol Suspension Liquid, which has printed markings on the side; a cup with etched markings bought from a local drugstore; a 5-mL dropper; a 10-mL dosing spoon; a 5-mL syringe; and a 5-mL syringe with bottle adapter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean doses actually put into the cups were 6.7 mL (SD 1.7) for those with printed markings and 7.0 (SD 3.2) for those with etched markings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the mean doses were similar with these devices, fewer parents made errors when using the etched cup. Some 50% of doses measured with it were in the range of 4 to 6 mL, compared with only 30.5% of doses put into the cup with printed markings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Small errors (20% to 40% more or less than the target) were also less common with the etched cup: 26.6% of doses, versus 43.7% of doses measured with the printed cup. But the rate of large errors was nearly the same with the two cups, at about 25%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With the other instruments, mean doses were close to the target, ranging from 4.6 for the oral syringe with bottle adapter to 5.5 for the spoon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From 86% to 94% of doses prepared with these devices were within 20% of the 5-mL target. When errors were made, they were usually small and on the low side of the target, Yin and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adjusted odds ratios for making large errors, with the oral syringe as reference, were: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Cup with printed markings: 7.3 (95% CI 4.1 to 13.2)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Cup with etched markings: 6.3 (95% CI 3.5 to 11.2)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Dropper: 0.8 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.5)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Dosing spoon: 0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Oral syringe with bottle adapter: 0.8 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.5)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the spoon was more often associated with dosing errors, both small and large, than the syringe, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.7).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adjustments included caregivers&apos; age, relationship to child, marital status, language, ethnicity, U.S. birth, socioeconomic status, presence of young child, and presence of child with a chronic medical problem.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Caregivers were given the Newest Vital Sign test to evaluate their health literacy, which turned out to be a factor in dosing errors, the researchers found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Scores of 0 or 1 reflected a high likelihood of limited literacy, 2 or 3 was considered &quot;possible limited literacy,&quot; and 4 to 6 was deemed adequate literacy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;About 40% of participants had scores of 0 or 1 and 38% scored in the range of 2 to 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both levels of low health literacy predicted dosing errors, and poor literacy was also significantly associated with increased risk of large errors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adjusted odds ratios for any dosing error and large errors associated with poor literacy were 1.7 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02) and 2.3 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.01), respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Possible limited literacy predicted any dosing error and large errors with adjusted odds ratios of 1.6 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.04) and 1.9 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.07), respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These findings on health literacy and medication errors have important implications for the design of dosing instruments, Yin and colleagues indicated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Provision of instruments designed to place fewer literacy demands on families is one strategy to decrease dosing errors,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Limitations to the study included its setting in a clinic, which may not reflect parents&apos; performance at home; the largely Hispanic immigrant sample with low socioeconomic status; and the use of a written test to assess health literacy, which does not measure verbal comprehension and other skills that may contribute to health literacy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded from internal sources. Yin received partial support from the Pfizer Fellowship in Health Literacy/Clear Health Communication.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No potential conflicts of interest were reported.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_368"
                     title="Lancet Retracts 1998 MMR-Autism Paper"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/tb/18255?impressionId=1265748717161"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Editors of &lt;em&gt;The Lancet&lt;/em&gt; have retracted the 1998 study that first suggested autism might be caused by the MMR vaccine, less than a week after an official rebuke to the paper&apos;s lead author, Andrew Wakefield, MBBS, and two co-authors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a brief note posted on the journal&apos;s Web site, &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; editors wrote, &quot;It has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al. are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.... Therefore, we fully retract this paper from the published record.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Evidence presented in a Jan. 28 hearing before the U.K. General Medical Council&apos;s Fitness to Practise Panel persuaded the journal that the paper had misrepresented how the study was conducted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;msgBody&quot;&gt;The council, which has no direct American equivalent, is an independent, nationwide regulatory body that registers doctors and enforces standards of medical practice in the U.K.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hospital records and other sources contradicted findings of a 2004 investigation by Wakefield&apos;s institution, the Royal Free and University College, that the study had been properly vetted by an institutional review board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The claims in the original paper that children were &apos;consecutively referred&apos; and that investigations were &apos;approved&apos; by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false,&quot; according to the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; editors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The editor of Britain&apos;s other leading medical journal, &lt;em&gt;BMJ&lt;/em&gt;, congratulated &lt;em&gt;The Lancet&lt;/em&gt; for its action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This will help to restore faith in this globally important vaccine and in the integrity of the scientific literature,&quot; according to a statement from Fiona Godlee, MB, BChir, BSc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the 1998 paper, Wakefield and colleagues reported on findings in 12 children who, they said, had developed intestinal inflammation and autistic symptoms following MMR vaccination. They suggested that the inflammation released gut proteins into the circulation that eventually migrated to the brain, causing permanent damage reflected in autism symptoms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report and the ensuing mass-media publicity sparked consternation among parents and the medical community. Vaccination rates in Britain and the U.S. dropped sharply, and measles rates spiked in consequence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although subsequent population-based research and other studies have failed to confirm a causal link between MMR vaccines and autism, a vocal group of parents of autistic children continues to insist that it is real. They call Wakefield a hero.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, a nearly decade-long investigation by a British journalist, Brian Deer, uncovered discrepancies between the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; paper and hospital records and other sources. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Father of Vaccine-Autism Link Said to Have Fudged Data&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whereas the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; paper indicated that, in most cases, symptoms developed within days of vaccination, the records indicated that this was true only for one child, according to Deer&apos;s account in the &lt;em&gt;Times of London&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The patients&apos; records also indicated that five of the children had psychosocial problems before vaccination, said the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt;, but the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; paper described them as &quot;developmentally normal.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; paper described abnormal intestinal pathology results in the children, but the hospital pathology reports showed no findings of inflammation, the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt; report said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At last week&apos;s hearing, the U.K.&apos;s General Medical Council panel heard evidence that Wakefield had taken blood samples from children attending his son&apos;s birthday party and performed spinal taps on other children in a hospital without due regard for their safety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The panel found Wakefield guilty of more than 30 charges that he had acted unethically in conducting the study. He could be stripped of his license to practice in Britain, but no ruling has been made yet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two of Wakefield&apos;s 12 co-authors on the 1998 paper, John Walker-Smith, MD, and Simon Murch, PhD, were also found to have committed ethical violations. The other 10 co-authors had previously repudiated the paper&apos;s findings and were not charged.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Wakefield was in London while the hearing took place but did not attend. Afterward, he told reporters he was innocent of wrongdoing and would continue his research.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Wakefield is now based at Thoughtful House, a private autism research and treatment facility in Austin, Texas. After the panel&apos;s ruling, it issued a statement expressing disappointment and calling the charges &quot;unfounded and unfair.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_252"
                     title="MS Walking Drug Gets FDA Nod"
                     score="0.001"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/MultipleSclerosis/tb/18112?impressionId=1265748717161"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  The FDA has approved the first drug that improves walking in patients with multiple sclerosis, the tablet dalfampridine (Ampyra).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The approval was based on clinical trial data that found patients could walk better with the drug than those treated with placebo.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients who exceed recommended dosage, 10 mg twice a day, or who have moderate to severe kidney disease, may experience seizures the FDA said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adverse events reported during clinical trials include urinary tract infection, insomnia, dizziness, headache, nausea, weakness, back pain, balance disorder, swelling of the nose or throat, constipation, diarrhea, indigestion, throat pain, and burning, tingling, or itching skin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The drug is manufactured by Elan of Dublin, Ireland and distributed by Acorda Therapeutics Inc. of Hawthone, NY.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20090101_1_26"
                     title="FDA Advisers Recommend Black Box Warning for ADHD Drugs"
                     score="-0.005"
                     href="