1. Creagh O, Torres H, Rivera K, Morales-Franqui M, Altieri-Acevedo G, Warner D. {{Previous Exposure to Anesthesia and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A Puerto Rican Population-Based Sibling Cohort Study}}. {Bol Asoc Med P R}. 2015; 107(3): 29-37.
BACKGROUND: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior, that begins usually before a child is three years old.1 Researchers have shown that prevalence rates in the U.S. may be as high as 1 in 68.52 A number of studies have examined the effects of early exposure to anesthesia on brain development and subsequent impairment in neurocognitive function; yet, little is known about the possible effects of anesthetic agents on social-behavioral functioning. The association between exposure to anesthesia either in uterus, during the first years of life, or later and development of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or its severity was determined in a retrospective population based cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Identify if children who had previous exposure to anesthesia either in uterus, first years of life during their developing brain years, or later, are at risk of developing ASD and its severe form of the disease. METHODS: Data was obtained from structured interviews administered to a sample of 515 parents/guardians distributed in two groups: ASD = 262 children diagnosed with this condition and Non-ASD: 253 children (siblings of ASD group) without diagnosis (p = 0.8069) when comparing exposure to anesthesia in uterus to subsequent severe form of ASD. Of the 262 ASD patients, 99 had exposure to anesthetics before their diagnosis, while in Non-ASD population, 110 had exposure to anesthesia, demonstrating no statistically significant association between both groups (p = 0.2091). Out of 99 ASD patients exposed to anesthesia prior to their diagnosis, 72 were exposed before age 2. When compared to the 110 Non-ASD patients exposed to anesthesia, 86 had exposure during this developing brain period, which indicates no statistically significant association (p = 0.4207). In addition, most of the ASD children exposed to anesthesia during developing brain were diagnosed with mild degree of the disorder when compared to ASD children without any previous exposure to anesthesia (p = 0.9700) during the same period. When the exposure occurred after age 2, ASD children developed mild form of the disorder as compared with ASD children without any previous exposure to anesthesia (p = 0.1699) in that period. CONCLUSIONS: Children under early exposure to anesthesia in uterus, first 2 years of life, or later are not more likely to develop neither ASD nor severe form of the disorder. INDEX WORDS: Anesthesia, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Puerto Rico. (95% confidence interval) that freely decided to participate and agreed to a consent form. Variables studied, include: demographics, diagnosis and severity of ASD, exposure to anesthesia, method of childbirth, and age of exposure. Children less than 2 years of age were considered into have developing brain period. Data was analyzed using Chi-square or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: In contrast to non-ASD group, most of the children within ASD group were male, 76% (p = 0.0001). With regards to methods of childbirth, 64% of the ASD population were vaginal delivery (VD; Non-anesthesia exposure group) and 36% cesarean delivery (CD) compared to non-autistic population with 71% VD and 29% CD, which demonstrates no statistical difference between both groups (p = 0.1113). Out of the 36% of ASD population that underwent CD, 7% were performed using general anesthesia and 93% regional anesthesia, while the 29% of the CD of non-ASD, 5% were performed using general anesthesia and 95% regional anesthesia. This reveals no statistical significance (p = 0.7569) with the development of ASD and the type of anesthesia used when comparing ASD with non-ASD patients. In view of severity of autism, in VD, 56% of ASD population had mild form of the disorder, 34% moderate, and 10% severe; while CD had a 54% mild form of the disorder, 33% moderate, and 13% severe. This shows no statistical association.
2. Farmer CA, Kaat AJ, Mazurek MO, Lainhart JE, DeWitt MB, Cook EH, Butter EM, Aman MG. {{Confirmation of the Factor Structure and Measurement Invariance of the Children’s Scale of Hostility and Aggression: Reactive/Proactive in Clinic-Referred Children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder}}. {J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol}. 2016.
OBJECTIVE: The measurement of aggression in its different forms (e.g., physical and verbal) and functions (e.g., impulsive and instrumental) is given little attention in subjects with developmental disabilities (DD). In this study, we confirm the factor structure of the Children’s Scale for Hostility and Aggression: Reactive/Proactive (C-SHARP) and demonstrate measurement invariance (consistent performance across clinical groups) between clinic-referred groups with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We also provide evidence of the construct validity of the C-SHARP. METHODS: Caregivers provided C-SHARP, Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), and Proactive/Reactive Rating Scale (PRRS) ratings for 644 children, adolescents, and young adults 2-21 years of age. Five types of measurement invariance were evaluated within a confirmatory factor analytic framework. Associations among the C-SHARP, CBCL, and PRRS were explored. RESULTS: The factor structure of the C-SHARP had a good fit to the data from both groups, and strict measurement invariance between ASD and non-ASD groups was demonstrated (i.e., equivalent structure, factor loadings, item intercepts and residuals, and latent variance/covariance between groups). The C-SHARP Problem Scale was more strongly associated with CBCL Externalizing than with CBCL Internalizing, supporting its construct validity. Subjects classified with the PRRS as both Reactive and Proactive had significantly higher C-SHARP Proactive Scores than those classified as Reactive only, who were rated significantly higher than those classified by the PRRS as Neither Reactive nor Proactive. A similar pattern was observed for the C-SHARP Reactive Score. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided evidence of the validity of the C-SHARP through confirmation of its factor structure and its relationship with more established scales. The demonstration of measurement invariance demonstrates that differences in C-SHARP factor scores were the result of differences in the construct rather than to error or unmeasured/nuisance variables. These data suggest that the C-SHARP is useful for quantifying subtypes of aggressive behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults with DD.
Lien vers le texte intégral (Open Access ou abonnement)Lien vers le texte intégral (Open Access ou abonnement)Lien vers le texte intégral (Open Access ou abonnement)Lien vers le texte intégral (Open Access ou abonnement)1 type of service at each assessment point. At T1, the most common service was developmental (eg, speech-language therapy). Subsequently, the most common services were a combination of behavioural and developmental (eg, intensive therapy based on applied behaviour analysis and speech-language therapy). Service provision varied across provinces and over time. DISCUSSION: Although most preschool children with ASD residing in urban centres were able to access specialized services shortly after diagnosis, marked variation in services across provinces remains a concern.
