1 / 49

FACE September 9,2003

FACE September 9,2003. Toward defining the behavioural phenotype in children with FASD Presented by Dr. Gail Andrew, medical director, Glenrose FASD Project. Glenrose FASD Project Clinic. Team: Pediatrician - Dr. Gail Andrew Social Worker - Gail Schuller Psychologist - Dr. Kathy Horne

betsy
Télécharger la présentation

FACE September 9,2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FACE September 9,2003 • Toward defining the behavioural phenotype in children with FASD • Presented by Dr. Gail Andrew, medical director, Glenrose FASD Project

  2. Glenrose FASD Project Clinic Team: Pediatrician - Dr. Gail Andrew Social Worker - Gail Schuller Psychologist - Dr. Kathy Horne Speech-Language Pathologist - Mary Reynolds Occupational Therapist - Lynne Abele-Webster

  3. Glenrose Project Background • Fall 2000 Consultation teams at Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton and Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary • DPN model, Clarren and Astley, Seattle • Funded by Alberta Health and Wellness • Partnerships : Ministries of Children’s Services, Learning and Justice; Community service providers; Caregivers

  4. Glenrose Project Mandate • Clinical: DPN tool for diagnosis Intervention planning • Database: Prevalence Lifespan monitoring Outcomes of intervention • Training: Increase capacity Multidisciplinary teams Mentoring and consultation

  5. FACE September 9, 2003 • Questions: • 1. Is there a neurobehavioral pattern specific to prenatal exposure to alcohol? • 2. How does this pattern change across the lifespan of the individual with FASD? • 3.What measures can be used to assess the disability in FASD? • 4. What are the best interventions/supports?

  6. FACE September 9, 2003 • Concepts: • Behaviour or learning difficulties are presenting symptoms in FASD • Need to determine deficit in brain function leading to that symptom • Need to connect brain dysfunction to etiology of organic brain damage from prenatal exposure to alcohol (maternal hx)

  7. Terminology FASD • F = Fetal: changes in normal development in utero • A = Alcohol: Teratogen causes cell/process changes and damage • S = Spectrum: damage/difficulties present from mild to severe • D = Disorder: difficulty/inability to function/adapt as expected across lifespan

  8. FASDSpectrum of Disability/Dysfunction

  9. Defining FASD : Variables • Organic brain damage in utero: • maternal: drugs, nutrition, metabolism • fetal: susceptibility, protective • alcohol: amount, pattern, timing • genetic factors (maternal, paternal, fetal) • Postnatal: • supportive or increased risk rearing • other brain damage

  10. Defining FASD: Hallmarks • Disordered pattern in development and acquiring expected skills • Out of keeping with measured IQ • Increasing difficulty in functioning with age • May not be evident at early age ( skill not expected) • May be masked by supportive environment

  11. Defining FASD: Hallmarks • Pass tests • Flunk life

  12. Assessment of Brain Dysfunction • No single test - need battery by multidisciplinary team • Test from simple to complex in all domains • Need to sample real life functions (executive, adaptive, socialization) by standardized tests and caregiver reports • Consider secondary disabilities, comorbidities, physical health issues

  13. Assessment Domains • Resources: • DPN model of Clarren and Astley • Glenrose FASD Project • Health Canada National Guidelines • Need for continued research on specificity to FASD phenotype • Need to assess that individual’s pattern to plan interventions

  14. Assessment Domains • Intellectual • Academic achievement • Language and social communication • Attention • Visuospatial • Motor and visuomotor • Sensory processing • Memory • Adaptive and executive functioning

  15. Clinical Reports of FASD • Inattentive, short attention span, not able to regulate responses to environment stimuli, impulsive, act first without thinking • Not learning from experiences or connecting cause and effect • Not able to organize, plan or sequence but live in the now • Slow to learn, need repeated learning, seem to forget especially if overstimulated

  16. Clinical Reports of FASD • Poor and variable memory, not able to generalize to different situation or use stored information • Impaired executive functions such as judgement, reasoning, mental flexibility,adapting, planning • Difficulty with abstract concepts such as math, money, time

  17. Clinical Reports of FASD • Overly talkative, often off topic, interuptive, confabulation, not aware listener is not following, not connecting points or making sense, not communicating • Comprehension of language and nonverbal aspects of communication even more impaired than use of words • Poor social skills, easily victimized, immature

  18. Current Research Data • Memory: short term, encoding, long term, retrieval, working memory, verbal, auditory, nonverbal, visuospatial • Executive function • Attention • Social communication • Relationship to IQ • Correlation to animal research and neuroimaging studies

  19. Memory in FASD • Mattson, Reilly, Roebuck: n = 16, controls • Verbal: slower rate of encoding into short term memory • Continued to learn with repeated trials • Delayed recall accounted for by deficits in initial learning and not in long term memory function or retrieval • Nonverbal: recalled less after delay even when initial learning considered

  20. Memory in FASD • Mattson et al: • Variable rate of learning across trials possibly related to inconsistent attention, not utilizing strategies, more intrusions and preseverations • Carmichael Olson: • Deficits in auditory memory impacted by inattention and language comprehension

  21. Memory in FASD • Uecker and Nadel: (nonverbal memory) • Deficit in immediate but not delayed object recall (implies encoding deficit) • Spatial memory deficit, distorted spatial array • No deficit in facial recognition • Mattson, Reilly etc: n = 22, controls • Subtle differences in interhemispheric transfer in somatosensory domain (corpus callosum) • Distorted temporal processing

  22. Executive Function • Jacobson, Mattson, Coles, Kodituwaku etc: • Deficits in all 4 areas of Delis- Kaplan EF scale not explained by IQ (planning ability, cognitive flexibility, selective inhibition, concept formation and reasoning) • Difficulties in planning, more preservative on incorrect strategies • May be linked to problems using information in working memory

  23. Adaptive Function • Whaley (2001) n = 33, controls • Impaired adaptive function in all areas of Vineland in FASD and children with psychiatric disorders matched for IQ but no significant differences to be a hallmark of FASD • With increasing age FASD showed decline in socialization component

  24. Attention • Review by O’Malley and Nanson (2002) • ADHD pattern common in FASD • Earlier onset, more resistant to stimulant medications, may respond better to Dexedrine (D1 receptor of dopamine in animal model of alcohol damage) compared to ADHD not alcohol exposed • Regulatory difficulties in infancy, hyperactive toddler, later inattentive type

  25. Attention • Kodituawakku et al: • Used Wisconsin Card Sorting Test • More preservative errors suggesting inattention in FASD related to difficulty in shifting responses or attention • More problems in tasks requiring planning and manipulation of information in working memory • No difference on delayed response tasks that required sustained attention

  26. Social Communication • Disordered language pattern in FASD well recognized but communicative social use of language further impaired than even these abilities • Reflected in social failure and victimization across the lifespan

  27. Social Communication • Coggins (Seattle): • Used narrative test that requires ability to make sense of a picture story through inference and perspective taking • FASD failed cohesion (linking logically) and coherence (information) • Theory: failed to encode necessary inferences

  28. Social Communication • Monnet (2002) : n = 43, controls, adults • Impaired affective prosody ( not getting the emotional or attitudinal inferences of what is said) worse in prenatal alcohol exposed • Pattern in FASD different from that in alcoholics and acquired focal right or left brain injury and more like combination • Right parietal cortex dysfunction, also corpus callosum implicated in FASD pattern

  29. Clinical Research in FASD • Koren et al (2002) n = 52, age 4-18 yr. clinic • Profile of neuropsychological characteristics of 21 deficits and 6 assets done by 2 independent raters with threshold for ARND (FASD) Dx • Identified more problems in academic ability, intelligence, language, memory in ARND • Both groups in referred clinic setting had equal ratings on behaviour and social problems

  30. Clinical Research in FASD • Steinhausen (2003) n = 38, controls • Compared IQ, age matched controls with other diagnoses to FAS/FAE Developmental Behavioural Checklist (Einfield, Tonge) • FAS similar to FAE and both more severe than controls in all areas : disruptive, self absorbed, communication disturbance, anxiety • Persistence over time in psychopathology and cognitive function

  31. Glenrose Clinic Experience • Rationale of DPN model - 4 digit code • Characterizes Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder objectively • Documents alcohol exposure without judging causal role • Considers other pre and post natal factors (multifactorial)

  32. Assessment of Brain Function • History and neurological exam • Psychometric testing • Adaptive functioning / daily life • Caregiver interview • Scales • Direct observation

  33. Assessment of Brain Function • Specific tests of executive function • higher order language • social communication • memory • attention • planning, organizing • sensory issues

  34. Glenrose Experience Question 1 • What patterns emerged among the rankings of Growth, Face and Brain Function in children with confirmed prenatal alcohol exposure?

  35. Glenrose Experience:Participants • Question 1 • N = 75 children • 41 male, 34 female • age range 1 year 1 month to 15 years 2 months • All were exposed to alcohol at levels 3 and 4

  36. Glenrose Experience:Participants

  37. Glenrose Experience:Participants

  38. FASD Pilot Project January 2001 to March 2002

  39. Glenrose Experience:Results

  40. Glenrose Experience:Implications • Brain dysfunction can be present without growth deficiency or typical facial features • If only look at face or growth many children with brain dysfunction would be missed

  41. Glenrose Experience Question 2 • What assessed functions most clearly differentiated children ranked as Brain 3 (Static Encephalopathy) from those ranked as Brain 2 (Neurobehavioral Disorder)?

  42. Glenrose Experience:Participants • Question 2 • subgroup of N being n = 34 • 17 Brain 2, 17 Brain 3 • age range 6 years to 15 years 2 months

  43. FASD Pilot Project January 2001 to March 2002 Common Findings in Brain 2 & 3 : • IQ scores variable but considerable scatter • Half of scattered profiles showed statistically significant split but in both directions • Motor skills variable • Discrete measures of basic language usually within average range • < 6 years - 75% variable language delays, expressive better than receptive (early sign)

  44. Glenrose Experience:Results Comparison between Neurobehavioral Disorder (brain 2) and Static Encephalopathy (brain 3) on 8 measures:

  45. Glenrose Experience:Results • Sequencing, social communication, and working memory differentiated severity of brain dysfunction • Attention, behavior and adaptive functioning did not differentiate and present in most • Higher order language, verbosity, and receptive language difficulties indicate some differentiation

  46. Implications of Glenrose Findings • Discrete measures of intelligence and basic language skills alone do not predict or indicate degree of dysfunction / disability • Deficits in executive function characterizes FASD and impacts daily living • Not always evident at young age • May be supported by structured environment • Need to reassess over time

  47. FACE September 9, 2003 • Questions: • 1. Is there a neurobehavioral pattern specific to prenatal exposure to alcohol? • 2. How does this pattern change across the lifespan of the individual with FASD? • 3.What measures can be used to assess the disability in FASD? • 4. What are the best interventions/supports?

  48. Answer to Questions • 1. Clinical reports and emerging research data support a neurobehavioral phenotype in FASD that is complex (small sample nos.) • 2. Increasing difficulty with age and increase in societal expectations • 3. Assessment tools in each domain are identifying specific impairments • 4. Need to systematically apply to interventions and measure outcomes

  49. Future Research • Need larger sample sizes with control groups from normal population, other brain dysfunction , learning disabilities and behaviour disorders; longitudinal follow up • Testing in clinical situation does not necessarily represent how individual functions in day to day life; need to develop tools to assess this • Apply information to intervention strategies

More Related