Does universal newborn hearing screening impact the timing of deafness treatment?

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the impact of the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (UNHS) on the age at diagnosis, beginning of treatment, and first cochlear implant surgery. Methods: A retrospective cohort study with children up to 12 years old with bilateral hearing loss were divided into two groups: patients who underwent UNHS and the ones who didn't. The groups were compared according to their age at the beginning of the evaluation at a specialized center, at the beginning of the intervention, and, for the ones who had indication, at the cochlear implant surgery. The group who underwent UNHS was divided between the ones who passed the screening test and the ones who didn't. They were compared according to their ages at the same moments as the first two groups. Results: 135 patients were included. The median age at the first appointment in a specialized center was 1.42 (0.50 and 2.50) years, at the beginning of treatment 2.00 (1.00 and 3.52) years, and the cochlear implant surgery 2.83 (1.83 and 4.66) years. Children who underwent UNHS were younger than those who didn't, at the three evaluated moments (p < 0.001). In a subanalysis, children who passed the UNHS but were later diagnosed with hearing loss reached the first appointment with a specialist and started treatment older than those who failed the tests. Conclusion: Performing UNHS interfered with the timing of deafness diagnosis and treatment. However, children who passed the screening but were later diagnosed with hearing loss were the category with the most important delay.

Etiology of early hearing loss in Brazilian children.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss etiology depends on the population studied as well as on the ethnicity and the socio-economic condition of the analyzed region. Etiological diagnosis contributes to the improvement of preventive measures and to the early identification of this deficiency. OBJECTIVE: To identify the etiological factors of hearing loss and its prevalence in a tertiary hospital in southern Brazil, to verify the frequency of mutations in GJB2 and GJB6 genes, and to correlate the degree of hearing loss with the etiological factors of deafness. METHODS: This prevalence study involved 140 children with bilateral sensorineural or mixed hearing loss. Medical history, physical examination, audiometry, and evoked auditory brainstem response were conducted. Imaging and genetic examinations were also performed. RESULTS: Etiologies and their prevalence were as follows: (a) indeterminate causes, 31.4%; (b) conditions related to neonatal period, 22.1%; (c) genetic, 22.1%; (d) auditory neuropathy, 10%; (e) other factors (cortical malformation, intracranial hemorrhage, and internal ear malformations), 7.9% and (f) congenital infections, 6.4%. Within the genetic cases, ten homozygous and seven heterozygotes of the 35delG mutation were identified, besides two cases of rare variants of GJB2: p.Try172* and p.Arg184Pro. One case with homozygosis of del(GJB6-D13S1830) was found. Regarding severity of hearing loss, in 78.6% of the cases the degree of hearing loss was profound and there were no significant differences when comparing between etiologies. CONCLUSION: The number of indeterminate etiologies is still high and congenital CMV infection may be a possible cause of undiagnosed etiology for hearing loss. The predominance of etiologies related to neonatal conditions and infectious causes are characteristic of developing countries. The most prevalent mutation was 35delG, the main GJB2 gene, probably because of the European influence in the genotype of our population.

Does universal newborn hearing screening impact the timing of deafness treatment?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (UNHS) on the age at diagnosis, beginning of treatment, and first cochlear implant surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with children up to 12 years old with bilateral hearing loss were divided into two groups: patients who underwent UNHS and the ones who didn't. The groups were compared according to their age at the beginning of the evaluation at a specialized center, at the beginning of the intervention, and, for the ones who had indication, at the cochlear implant surgery. The group who underwent UNHS was divided between the ones who passed the screening test and the ones who didn't. They were compared according to their ages at the same moments as the first two groups. RESULTS: 135 patients were included. The median age at the first appointment in a specialized center was 1.42 (0.50 and 2.50) years, at the beginning of treatment 2.00 (1.00 and 3.52) years, and the cochlear implant surgery 2.83 (1.83 and 4.66) years. Children who underwent UNHS were younger than those who didn't, at the three evaluated moments (p < 0.001). In a subanalysis, children who passed the UNHS but were later diagnosed with hearing loss reached the first appointment with a specialist and started treatment older than those who failed the tests. CONCLUSION: Performing UNHS interfered with the timing of deafness diagnosis and treatment. However, children who passed the screening but were later diagnosed with hearing loss were the category with the most important delay.

Etiology of early hearing loss in Brazilian children / Etiologia da perda auditiva precoce em crianças brasileiras

Abstract Introduction Hearing loss etiology depends on the population studied as well as on the ethnicity and the socio-economic condition of the analyzed region. Etiological diagnosis contributes to the improvement of preventive measures and to the early identification of this deficiency. Objective To identify the etiological factors of hearing loss and its prevalence in a tertiary hospital in southern Brazil, to verify the frequency of mutations in GJB2 and GJB6 genes, and to correlate the degree of hearing loss with the etiological factors of deafness. Methods This prevalence study involved 140 children with bilateral sensorineural or mixed hearing loss. Medical history, physical examination, audiometry, and evoked auditory brainstem response were conducted. Imaging and genetic examinations were also performed. Results Etiologies and their prevalence were as follows: (a) indeterminate causes, 31.4%; (b) conditions related to neonatal period, 22.1%; (c) genetic, 22.1%; (d) auditory neuropathy, 10%; (e) other factors (cortical malformation, intracranial hemorrhage, and internal ear malformations), 7.9% and (f) congenital infections, 6.4%. Within the genetic cases, ten homozygous and seven heterozygotes of the 35delG mutation were identified, besides two cases of rare variants of GJB2: p.Try172* and p.Arg184Pro. One case with homozygosis of del(GJB6-D13S1830) was found. Regarding severity of hearing loss, in 78.6% of the cases the degree of hearing loss was profound and there were no significant differences when comparing between etiologies. Conclusion The number of indeterminate etiologies is still high and congenital CMV infection may be a possible cause of undiagnosed etiology for hearing loss. The predominance of etiologies related to neonatal conditions and infectious causes are characteristic of developing countries. The most prevalent mutation was 35delG, the main GJB2 gene, probably because of the European influence in the genotype of our population.

Resumo Introdução A etiologia da perda auditiva depende da população estudada, da etnia e da condição socioeconômica da região analisada. O diagnóstico etiológico contribui para o aprimoramento das medidas preventivas e para a identificação precoce dessa deficiência. Objetivos Identificar os fatores etiológicos da perda auditiva e sua prevalência em um hospital terciário do sul do Brasil, verificar a frequência de mutações nos genes GJB2 e GJB6 e correlacionar o grau da perda auditiva com os fatores etiológicos da deficiência auditiva. Método Este estudo de prevalência avaliou 140 crianças com perda auditiva neurossensorial bilateral ou mista. Foram submetidos a anamnese com histórico médico, exame físico, audiometria e potencial evocado auditivo de tronco encefálico. Exames de imagem e genéticos também foram feitos. Resultados As etiologias e sua prevalência foram as seguintes: (a) causas indeterminadas, 31,4%; (b) condições relacionadas ao período neonatal, 22,1%; (c) genética, 22,1%; (d) neuropatia auditiva, 10%; (e) outros fatores (malformação cortical, hemorragia intracraniana e malformações da orelha interna), 7,9% e (f) infecções congênitas, 6,4%. Entre os casos genéticos, foram identificados dez casos homozigotos e sete heterozigotos da mutação 35delG, além de dois casos de variantes raras do GJB2: p.Try172* e p.Arg184Pro. Foi encontrado um caso homozigoto da mutação del (GJB6‐D13S1830). Em relação à gravidade da perda auditiva, em 78,6% dos casos o grau da perda auditiva foi profundo e não houve diferenças significantes na comparação entre as etiologias. Conclusão O número de etiologias indeterminadas ainda é elevado e a infecção congênita por CMV pode ser uma possível causa de etiologia não diagnosticada para perda auditiva. A predominância das etiologias relacionadas às condições neonatais e às causas infecciosas são características de países em desenvolvimento. A mutação mais prevalente foi a 35delG e o principal gene foi o GJB2, provavelmente devido à influência europeia no genótipo de nossa população.

Incidence of tuberculosis infection in spondyloarthritis patients treated with biological and conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in an endemic area

Introduction: Registries of spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients' follow-up provided evidence that tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) increase the incidence of active tuberculosis infection (TB). However, most of these registries are from low burden TB areas. Few studies evaluated the safety of biologic agents in TB endemic areas. This study compares the TB incidence rate (TB IR) in anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-experienced subjects with SpA in a high TB incidence setting.Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, medical records from patients attending a SpA clinic during 13 years (2004 to 2016) in a university hospital were reviewed. The TB IR was calculated and expressed as number of events per 105 patients/year; the incidence rate ratio (IRR) associated with the use of TNFi was calculated.Results: A total of 277 patients, 173 anti-TNF-naïve and 104 anti-TNF-experienced subjects, were evaluated; 35.7% (N = 35) of patients who were prescribed an anti-TNF drug were diagnosed with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Total follow-up time (person-years) was 1667.8 for anti-TNF-naïve and 394.9 for anti-TNF-experienced patients. TB IR (95% CI) was 299.8 (37.4-562.2) for anti-TNF naïve and 1012.9 (25.3-2000.5) for anti-TNF experienced subjects. The IRR associated with the use of TNFi was 10.4 (2.3- 47.9).Conclusions: In this high TB incidence setting, SpA patients exposed to anti-TNF therapy had a higher incidence of TB compared to anti-TNF-naïve subjects, although the TB incidence in the control group was significant.(AU)