Treatment of severe acute necrotizing encephalopathy of childhood with interleukin-6 receptor blockade in the first 24 h as add-on immunotherapy shows favorable long-term outcome at 2 years.

BACKGROUND: Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) of childhood is a rare and devastating infection-associated acute encephalopathy. While there are no consensus treatments for ANE, recent case reports suggest a beneficial role for the use of tocilizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor. The correlation of the timing of add-on tocilizumab in relation to long-term outcome has not been reported. METHODS: We report on the timing of administration of tocilizumab in two patients classified as high-risk using the ANE severity score (ANE-SS) with respect to the long-term outcome at 2 years. RESULTS: Case 1 was a 19-month-old previously well boy who presented to a tertiary children's hospital with seizures, evolving status dystonicus and shock. Case 2 was a three-year-old boy who presented to a peripheral hospital with fever, sepsis and encephalopathy. The patients were transferred to the tertiary intensive care unit and MRI confirmed ANE with extensive brainstem involvement. Case 1 received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), methylprednisolone and tocilizumab at 21, 39 and 53 h respectively. His modified Rankin scale (mRS) at discharge and two years was unchanged at 5. The functional independence measure - for children (WeeFIM) at two years was very low (19/126). Case 2 received dexamethasone at 1 h, methylprednisolone at 21 h and IVIg and tocilizumab at 22 h. The mRS at discharge and two years was 4 and 3 respectively. The WeeFIM score at two years showed substantial improvement (96/126). CONCLUSION: The very early use of interleukin-6 blockade as 'add-on' immunotherapy in the first 24 h demonstrates potential for improving the long-term outcome in patients classified as high-risk using the ANE-SS.

Changes to booking, transfer criteria and procedures in birth centres in Australia from 1997-2007: a national survey.

AIMS: This study aimed to describe booking and transfer criteria and procedures available in birth centres in Australia in 2007 and to compare results with those of a previous national birth centre study undertaken in 1997. BACKGROUND: Approximately 2% of women who give birth in Australia each year do so in a birth centre. A national study on birth centre procedures was conducted in 1997. There have been changes in the management of women in birth centres during the past 10 years and this may be due in part to changes in booking and transfer criteria. DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 23 birth centres. Questions included: types of procedures, equipment and pain relief available and exclusion criteria for booking and transfer. Of the birth centres, 19 satisfied the inclusion criteria and 16 completed surveys. RESULTS: Changes were noted in booking and transfer criteria and procedures for birth centres between 1997-2007. These included a decline in birth centres accepting postterm pregnancies, vaginal births after caesarean section and women who are obese. There were also reductions in the use of artificial rupture of membranes for augmentation of labour, forceps and opioids. Use of natural therapies was widespread in 2007. Increases in birth centres managing induction of labour and electronic fetal monitoring were also noted. CONCLUSIONS: The changes observed in birth centre practice reflect overall changes in maternity care in Australia from 1997-2007. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Findings of the study suggest that factors such as increasing obesity and limited admission for vaginal births after caesarean section may lead to proportionately more women being unable to access birth centres as their preferred place of birth.

Characteristics and practices of birth centres in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Around 2% of women who give birth in Australia each year give birth in a birth centre. There is currently no standard definition of a birth centre in Australia. AIMS: This study aimed to locate all birth centres nationally, describe their characteristics and procedures, and develop a definition. METHODS: Surveys were sent to 23 birth centres. Questions included: types of procedures, equipment and pain relief available, staffing, funding, philosophies, physical characteristics and transfer procedures. Of the birth centres, 19 satisfied the inclusion criteria and 16 completed surveys. RESULTS: Three constructs of a birth centre were identified. A 'commitment to normality of pregnancy and birth' was most commonly reported as the most important philosophy (44%). The predominant model of care was group practice/caseload midwifery (63%). Thirteen birth centres were located within/attached to a hospital, two were on a hospital campus and one was freestanding. The distance to the nearest labour ward ranged from 2 m to 15 km. Reported intrapartum transfer rates ranged from 7% to 29%. Thirteen centres had a special care nursery or neonatal intensive care unit onsite, or both. Eight centres undertook artificial rupture of membranes for induction of labour, while two administered oxytocin or prostaglandins. All centres offered nitrous oxide and local anaesthetic. Twelve centres had systemic opioids available and one offered pudendal analgesia. Fetal monitoring was used in all birth centres. Only three centres conducted instrumental deliveries, while 15 performed episiotomies. CONCLUSION: Birth centres vary in their philosophies, characteristics and service delivery.