Search

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a broad diagnosis unbound by aetiology and is based on a clinical examination demonstrating abnormalities of movement or posture. CP represents a static neurological condition, provided that neurodegenerative conditions, leukoencephalopathies and neuromuscular disorders are excluded. In paediatrics, the genetic conditions associated with CP are rapidly increasing, with primary and overlapping neurodevelopmental conditions perhaps better categorised by the predominant clinical feature such as CP, intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder or epilepsy. Progress in molecular genetics may challenge what constitutes CP, but a genetic diagnosis does not negate the CP diagnosis. As clinicians working in the field, we discuss the changing tide of CP. Neuroimaging provides essential information through pattern recognition and demonstration of static brain changes. We present examples of children where a layered clinical diagnosis or dual aetiologies are appropriate. We also present examples of children with genetic causes of CP to highlight the challenges and limitations of neuroimaging to provide an aetiological diagnosis. In consultation with a geneticist, access to genomic testing (exome or genome sequencing) is now available in Australia under Medicare billing for children under the age of 10 with dysmorphic features, one or more major structural organ anomalies, (an evolving) intellectual disability or global developmental delay. We encourage the uptake of genomic testing in CP, because it can be difficult to tell whether a child has an environmental or genetic cause for CP. A specific genetic diagnosis may change patient management, reduce guilt and enable more distinctive research in the future to assist with understanding disease mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: There is a paucity of data from randomized controlled treatment trials in childhood arterial ischaemic stroke. Our objectives were to identify and plan a trial through use of a Delphi consensus process.Method: The Delphi panel consisted of Australian, New Zealand, and European paediatric neurologists with interests in childhood stroke. Four rounds were conducted using a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) Web-based application: the first consisted of open-ended questions; the second evaluated agreement for the most important trial; the third and fourth reached consensus on design.Results: Forty-seven out of 66 neurologists answered the first round. Eight areas of research for important and feasible trials were identified. In the second round, 43 paediatric neurologists ranked the three highest rated trials: (1) aspirin versus aspirin plus steroids in focal arteriopathy (n=31); (2) heparin versus aspirin (n=6); and (3) heparin versus aspirin versus modern anticoagulation (n=6). The third and fourth surveys reached consensus among 43 out of 44 respondents on design of the highest ranked trial, and allowed agreement on inclusion/exclusion criteria, clinical/neuroimaging data, and treatment protocols.Conclusion: The Delphi consensus process is an efficient method of identifying and planning paediatric stroke trials. An international, multicentre trial is now in preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]