Search

A 35-year-old female with no medical history presented with fever. Laboratory work was normal except for elevated liver function test (LFT): alkaline phosphatase (AP) (296), aspartate transaminase (AST) (343), alanine transaminase (ALT) (378), and international normalized ratio (INR) (1.23). Ultrasound liver was normal. Infectious workup was negative for hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis E virus (HEV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), Herpes simplex virus (HSV), and COVID-19. Similarly, autoimmune hepatitis, Wilson, and alpha-1 antitrypsin workup were negative. She reported taking Yogi-Kanthika (ayurvedic-proprietary medicine) on/off for seasonal sore throat, yet RUCAM-score was 2 (unlikely a drug induced injury). Respiratory-viral-panel came positive for adenovirus. With supportive treatment, symptoms and LFT trended down, thus, liver biopsy decision was deferred. We believe this is the first reported case of adenovirus hepatitis in an immunocompetent adult. Hence, we suggest that clinicians should consider a refined differential diagnosis for elevated LFT (that includes adenovirus).

Objective: To describe behavior problems in extremely low birth weight (ELBW, <1000 g) adolescents born 1992 through 1995 based on parent ratings and adolescent self-ratings at age 14 years and to examine changes in parent ratings from ages 8-14., Method: Parent ratings of behavior problems and adolescent self-ratings were obtained for 169 ELBW adolescents (mean birth weight 815 g, gestational age 26 wk) and 115 normal birth weight (NBW) controls at 14 years. Parent ratings of behavior at age 8 years were also available. Behavior outcomes were assessed using symptom severity scores and rates of scores above DSM-IV symptom cutoffs for clinical disorder., Results: The ELBW group had higher symptom severity scores on parent ratings at age 14 years than NBW controls for inattentive attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, and social problems (all p's < .01). Rates of parent ratings meeting DSM-IV symptom criteria for inattentive ADHD were also higher for the ELBW group (12% vs. 1%, p < .01). In contrast, the ELBW group had lower symptom severity scores on self-ratings than controls for several scales. Group differences in parent ratings decreased over time for ADHD, especially among females, but were stable for anxiety and social problems., Conclusions: Extremely low birth weight adolescents continue to have behavior problems similar to those evident at a younger age, but these problems are not evident in behavioral self-ratings. The findings suggest that parent ratings provide contrasting perspectives on behavior problems in ELBW youth and support the need to identify and treat these problems early in childhood.

Background: Catch-up growth may predispose to obesity and metabolic sequelae. We sought to examine the trajectory and correlates of growth and catch up among extremely-low-birth-weight (ELBW) (<1 kg) adolescents., Methods: A cohort study of 148 neurologically normal ELBW children and 115 normal-birth-weight (NBW) controls born during the period 1992-1995 was conducted. Longitudinal measures of gender-specific growth of ELBW children from birth, in addition to growth and measures of obesity of ELBW and NBW children at 14 y, were evaluated., Results: Following neonatal growth failure, ELBW children had accelerated growth, but at 8 y, they still had lower weight and height z scores than NBW children. By 14 y, ELBW boys had caught up in growth to their NBW controls, but ELBW girls remained significantly smaller. ELBW children, however, did not differ from their controls in measures of obesity. In hierarchical multiple regression analyses, only maternal BMI and weight gain during infancy and childhood predicted the ELBW children's 14-y weight z scores, BMI z scores, and abdominal circumference. Perinatal risk factors, including intrauterine growth, only predicted growth up to 20 mo., Conclusion: Maternal BMI and rate of growth, rather than perinatal factors, predict 14-y obesity among neurologically normal ELBW adolescents.

Background: Preterm children have many risk factors which may increase their susceptibility to being bullied., Aims: To examine the prevalence of bullying among extremely low birth weight (ELBW, <1 kg) and normal birth weight (NBW) adolescents and the associated sociodemographic, physical, and psychosocial risk factors and correlates among the ELBW children., Methods: Cohort study of self-reports of bullying among 172 ELBW adolescents born 1992-1995 compared to 115 NBW adolescents of similar age, sex and sociodemographic status. Reports of being bullied were documented using the KIDSCREEN-52 Questionnaire which includes three Likert type questions concerning social acceptance and bullying. Multiple linear regression analyses adjusting for sociodemographic factors were used to examine the correlates of bullying among the ELBW children., Results: Group differences revealed a non-significant trend of higher mean bullying scores among ELBW vs. NBW children (1.56 vs. 1.16, p=0.057). ELBW boys had significantly higher bullying scores than NBW boys (1.94 vs. 0.91, p<0.01), whereas ELBW and NBW girls did not differ (1.34 vs. 1.30, p=0.58). Bullying of ELBW children was significantly associated with subnormal IQ, functional limitations, anxiety and ADHD, poor school connectedness, less peer connectedness, less satisfaction with health and comfort, and less risk avoidance., Conclusion: ELBW boys, but not girls, are more likely to be victims of bullying than NBW boys. School and health professionals need to be aware of the risk of bullying among ELBW male adolescents., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To assess academic achievement, rates of learning disabilities (LD) and special education in extremely low birth weight (ELBW <1 kg) adolescents relative to normal birth weight (NBW) controls and to identify cognitive weaknesses., Methods: Compared 181 ELBW adolescents born from 1992 to 1995 (mean age 14.8 years, mean BW 809 g, mean GA 26.4 weeks) and 115 NBW term controls. Measures included tests of IQ, reading and math achievement and executive function. Analyses included ANCOVA and logistic and linear regression. Covariates were sex, race and socioeconomic status., Results: Extremely low birth weight adolescents had significantly lower scores on tests of IQ (87.1 vs. 96.4), achievement (88.6 vs. 95.5 reading; 81.3 vs. 93.2 math) and executive function than the NBW group (all p-values <0.001). ELBW also had higher rates of math LD, 51(50%) vs. 26 (28%), OR (95% CI) = 3.10 (1.65, 5.84), p < 0.001, and need for special education, 88 (49%) vs. 11(10%), OR (95% CI) = 11.78 (5.67, 24.47), p < 0.001. Measures of executive function were related to math independent of IQ., Conclusions: Extremely low birth weight adolescents born in the 1990s have poorer achievement and higher rates of math LD than NBW peers. The findings suggest a need for more intensive interventions addressing the specific cognitive vulnerabilities in this population., (© 2012 The Author(s)/Acta Paediatrica © 2012 Foundation Acta Paediatrica.)

Objectives: To compare the self-reported health of extremely low birth weight (ELBW, <1 kg) adolescents with that of normal birth weight (NBW) controls and the children's assessments of their general health at ages 8 versus 14 years., Methods: One hundred sixty-eight ELBW children and 115 NBW controls of similar gender and sociodemographic status completed the Child Health and Illness Profile-Adolescent Edition at age 14 years. It includes 6 domains: Satisfaction, Comfort, Resilience, Risk Avoidance, Achievement, and Disorders. At age 8 years, the children had completed the Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition. Results were compared between ELBW and NBW subjects adjusting for gender and sociodemographic status., Results: ELBW adolescents rated their health similar to that of NBW adolescents in the domains of Satisfaction, Comfort, Resilience, Achievement and Disorders but reported more Risk Avoidance (effect size [ES] 0.6, P < .001). In the subdomain of Resilience, they also noted less physical activity (ES -0.58, P < .001), and in the subdomain of Disorders, more long-term surgical (ES -0.49) and psychosocial disorders (ES -0.49; both P < .01). Both ELBW and NBW children reported a decrease in general health between ages 8 and 14 years, which did not differ significantly between groups., Conclusions: ELBW adolescents report similar health and well-being compared with NBW controls but greater risk avoidance. Both ELBW and NBW children rate their general health to be poorer at age 14 than at age 8 years, possibly due to age-related developmental changes.

Context: Extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW) children have high rates of chronic conditions during childhood. Information on their trajectory of health during adolescence is needed for health care planning., Objective: To examine changes in the rates of chronic conditions between the ages of 8 and 14 years among ELBW children compared with normal-birth-weight (NBW) controls., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study conducted from 2004 through 2009 of 181 ELBW children (weight < 1 kg) and 115 NBW controls of similar sociodemographic status born from 1992 through 1995 in Cleveland, Ohio., Main Outcome Measures: Rates of chronic conditions overall (measured with the revised Questionnaire for Identifying Children With Chronic Conditions) and rates of asthma and obesity., Results: The overall rates of chronic conditions did not change significantly between the ages of 8 and 14 years among ELBW children (75% at age 8 years vs 74% at age 14 years) or NBW controls (37% at age 8 years vs 47% at age 14 years). In generalized estimating equations logistic regression adjusting for sociodemographic status, sex, and race, ELBW children continued to have a higher rate of chronic conditions than NBW controls at age 14 years (74% vs 47%, respectively, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.8 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.7 to 4.6]). Rates of asthma requiring medication did not change between the ages of 8 and 14 years among ELBW children (23% at both ages) but increased among NBW controls from 8% at age 8 years to 17% at age 14 years (P = .002). Differences in rates of asthma between ELBW and NBW children were no longer significant at the age of 14 years (23% vs 17%, respectively; AOR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.8 to 2.8]). Mean z scores for body mass index increased in ELBW children from 0.06 at age 8 years to 0.38 at age 14 years (P <.001) and rates of obesity increased from 12% at age 8 years to 19% at age 14 years (P = .02). However, the scores and rates did not change among NBW controls such that at the age of 14 years the differences between ELBW and NBW children in mean z scores for body mass index (0.38 vs 0.56, respectively; adjusted mean difference -0.2 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.1]) or rates of obesity (19% vs 20%, respectively; AOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0]) were not significant., Conclusions: Among ELBW children, rates of overall chronic conditions and asthma did not change between the ages of 8 and 14 years but the rate of obesity increased. Compared with NBW controls, the rates of chronic conditions were higher but there were no significant differences in the rates of asthma or obesity.

Objective: To examine neighborhood effects on academic achievement of children with extremely low birth weight (ELBW <1000 g) and normal birth weight (NBW) controls., Methods: The study included 183 8-year-old children with ELBW born during 1992-1995 and 176 sociodemographically similar NBW controls. Academic achievement was measured via The Woodcock-Johnson III Academic Skills Cluster., Results: Children with ELBW had significantly lower achievement scores (89 +/- 16 vs. 97 +/- 13). A multilevel estimation of predictors of academic achievement revealed that neighborhood poverty was significantly associated with lower achievement (beta = -.17; 95% CI -.3, -.05; p < .01). Additional correlates included birth weight status, male sex, and parent ratings of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms. Family characteristics included maternal education and parent protection., Conclusions: Neighborhood characteristics affect academic achievement of both children with ELBW and NBW controls, over and above individual and family influences. Interventions designed to address family and neighborhood factors may potentially improve these outcomes.

Objective: To examine parent protection and its correlates among 8-year-old ELBW children compared with normal birth weight (NBW) controls., Methods: The population included 217 eight-year-old ELBW children born 1992-1995 (92% of the surviving birth cohort; mean birth weight, 811 g; mean gestational age, 26.4 weeks) and 176 NBW controls. The primary outcome measure, the Parent Protection Scale (PPS), included a total score and four domains including Supervision, Separation, Dependence, and Control. Multivariate analyses were performed to examine the predictors of parental protection and overprotection., Results: After adjusting for socioeconomic status (SES), race, sex, and age of the child, parents of ELBW children reported significantly higher mean total Parent Protection Scale scores (31.1 vs 29.7, p = .03) than parents of NBW children and higher scores on the subscale of Parent Control (8.0 vs 7.5, p = .04). These differences were not significant when the 36 children with neurosensory impairments were excluded. Parents of ELBW children also reported higher rates of overprotection than controls (10% vs 2%, p = .001), findings that remained significant even after excluding children with neurosensory impairments (8% vs 2%, p = .011). Multivariate analyses revealed lower SES to be associated with higher total Parent Protection Scale scores in both the ELBW (p < .001) and NBW (p < .05) groups. Additional correlates included neurosensory impairment (p < .05) and functional limitations (p < .001) in the ELBW group and black race (p < .05) and maternal depression (p < .01) in the NBW group. Lower child IQ was significantly associated with higher PPS scores only in the neurosensory impaired subgroup of ELBW children., Conclusions: Longer term follow-up will be necessary to examine the effects of the increased parent protection on the development of autonomy and interpersonal relationships as the children enter adolescence.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to document the impact and burden of extremely low birth weight (<1000 g) and associated problems on the families of school-aged children in a controlled study. The study was also designed to document the salient predictors of individual differences of family impact within the extremely low birth weight group., Methods: A prospective study was completed at 8 years of a cohort of 219 children with extremely low birth weight born 1992-1995 and 176 children with normal birth weight. Measures included the following predictor variables: socioeconomic status and parent risk, birth risk, neonatal risk, neurodevelopmental outcome, impairment in adaptive abilities, and functional impact of chronic conditions. The primary outcome measure was the Impact on Family scale. A measure of family stressors and resources (the Life Stressors and Social Resources Inventory) was also obtained., Results: The primary finding was that the total family impact was greater in the extremely low birth weight group compared with controls. Moreover, the negative impact on family in specific domains was greater in the extremely low birth weight group in financial impact, caretaker burden, and familial burden. These differences were not attributable to general family stressors, socioeconomic status, child, gender, or race. Higher parent/socioeconomic risk, neurodevelopmental outcomes, and the functional impact of chronic conditions predicted greater family impact within the extremely low birth weight group, whereas birth and neonatal risk scores did not., Conclusions: Extremely low birth weight was associated with a negative impact on families. Socioeconomic parental risk, but most especially child-related factors such as neurodevelopmental and the functional impact of chronic conditions, predicted the negative family impact within the extremely low birth weight group. Findings underscore the need to develop and test interventions to provide support for families of extremely low birth weight infants to ameliorate the burden of extremely low birth weight and associated risk factors on families.

Context: Information on the school-age functioning and special health care needs of extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW, <1000 g) children is necessary to plan for medical and educational services., Objective: To examine neurosensory, developmental, and medical conditions together with the associated functional limitations and special health care needs of ELBW children compared with normal-birth-weight (NBW) term-born children (controls)., Design, Setting, and Participants: A follow-up study at age 8 years of a cohort of 219 ELBW children born 1992 to 1995 (92% of survivors) and 176 NBW controls of similar sociodemographic status conducted in Cleveland, Ohio., Main Outcome Measures: Parent Questionnaire for Identifying Children with Chronic Conditions of 12 months or more and categorization of specific medical diagnoses and developmental disabilities based on examination of the children., Results: In logistic regression analyses adjusting for sociodemographic status and sex, ELBW children had significantly more chronic conditions than NBW controls, including functional limitations (64% vs 20%, respectively; odds ratio [OR], 8.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.0-13.1; P<.001), compensatory dependency needs (48% vs 23%, respectively; OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.7; P<.001), and services above those routinely required by children (65% vs 27%, respectively; OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.4-8.5; P<.001). These differences remained significant when the 36 ELBW children with neurosensory impairments were excluded. Specific diagnoses and disabilities for ELBW vs NBW children included cerebral palsy (14% vs 0%, respectively; P<.001), asthma (21% vs 9%; OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.6-5.6; P = .001), vision of less than 20/200 (10% vs 3%; OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.2-7.8; P = .02), low IQ of less than 85 (38% vs 14%; OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.7-7.7; P<.001), limited academic skills (37% vs 15%; OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.5-7.3; P<.001), poor motor skills (47% vs 10%; OR, 7.8; 95% CI, 4.5-13.6; P<.001), and poor adaptive functioning (69% vs 34%; OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 4.0-10.6; P<.001)., Conclusion: The ELBW survivors in school at age 8 years who were born in the 1990s have considerable long-term health and educational needs.