Susan J Astley Hemingway1,2, Julia M Bledsoe2, Allison Brooks1, Julian K Davies2, Tracy Jirikowic3, Erin Olson4, John C Thorne5. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 4. Department of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 5. Department of Speech and Hearing, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As clinicians strive to achieve consensus worldwide on how best to diagnose fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD), the most recent FASD diagnostic systems show convergence and divergence. Applying these systems to a single clinical population illustrates the contrasts between them, but validation studies are ultimately required to identify the best system. METHODS: The 4-Digit-Code, Hoyme 2016, Canadian 2015 and Australian 2016 FASD diagnostic systems were applied to 1,392 patient records evaluated for FASD at the University of Washington. The diagnostic criteria and tools, the prevalence and concordance of diagnostic outcomes, and validity measures were compared between the systems. RESULTS: The proportion diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and FASD varied significantly (4-Digit-Code 2.1%, ≤79%; Hoyme 6.4%, 44%, Australian 1.8%, 29%; Canadian 1.8%, 16%). Eighty-two percent were diagnosed FASD by at least one system; only 11% by all four systems. Key factors contributing to discordance include: requiring high alcohol exposure; excluding growth deficiency; relaxing the facial criteria; requiring brain criteria that prevent diagnosis of infants/toddlers; and excluding moderate dysfunction from the spectrum. Primate research confirms moderate dysfunction (1-2 domains ≤-2 standard deviations) is the most prevalent outcome caused by PAE (FAS 5%, severe dysfunction 31%, moderate dysfunction 59%). Only the 4-Digit-Code replicated this diagnostic pattern. CONCLUSION: The needs of individuals with FASD are best met when diagnostic systems provide accurate, validated diagnoses across the lifespan, the full spectrum of outcome, the full continuum of alcohol exposure; and utilize diagnostic nomenclature that accurately reflects the association between outcome and alcohol exposure.
BACKGROUND: As clinicians strive to achieve consensus worldwide on how best to diagnose fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD), the most recent FASD diagnostic systems show convergence and divergence. Applying these systems to a single clinical population illustrates the contrasts between them, but validation studies are ultimately required to identify the best system. METHODS: The 4-Digit-Code, Hoyme 2016, Canadian 2015 and Australian 2016 FASD diagnostic systems were applied to 1,392 patient records evaluated for FASD at the University of Washington. The diagnostic criteria and tools, the prevalence and concordance of diagnostic outcomes, and validity measures were compared between the systems. RESULTS: The proportion diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and FASD varied significantly (4-Digit-Code 2.1%, ≤79%; Hoyme 6.4%, 44%, Australian 1.8%, 29%; Canadian 1.8%, 16%). Eighty-two percent were diagnosed FASD by at least one system; only 11% by all four systems. Key factors contributing to discordance include: requiring high alcohol exposure; excluding growth deficiency; relaxing the facial criteria; requiring brain criteria that prevent diagnosis of infants/toddlers; and excluding moderate dysfunction from the spectrum. Primate research confirms moderate dysfunction (1-2 domains ≤-2 standard deviations) is the most prevalent outcome caused by PAE (FAS 5%, severe dysfunction 31%, moderate dysfunction 59%). Only the 4-Digit-Code replicated this diagnostic pattern. CONCLUSION: The needs of individuals with FASD are best met when diagnostic systems provide accurate, validated diagnoses across the lifespan, the full spectrum of outcome, the full continuum of alcohol exposure; and utilize diagnostic nomenclature that accurately reflects the association between outcome and alcohol exposure.
Authors: H Eugene Hoyme; Wendy O Kalberg; Amy J Elliott; Jason Blankenship; David Buckley; Anna-Susan Marais; Melanie A Manning; Luther K Robinson; Margaret P Adam; Omar Abdul-Rahman; Tamison Jewett; Claire D Coles; Christina Chambers; Kenneth L Jones; Colleen M Adnams; Prachi E Shah; Edward P Riley; Michael E Charness; Kenneth R Warren; Philip A May Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Nicole Hayes; Lisa K Akison; Sarah Goldsbury; Nicole Hewlett; Elizabeth J Elliott; Amy Finlay-Jones; Dianne C Shanley; Kerryn Bagley; Andi Crawford; Haydn Till; Alison Crichton; Rowena Friend; Karen M Moritz; Raewyn Mutch; Sophie Harrington; Andrew Webster; Natasha Reid Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Joan Colom; Lidia Segura-García; Adriana Bastons-Compta; Marta Astals; Vicente Andreu-Fernandez; Natalia Barcons; Raquel Vidal; Ana I Ibar; Vicky Fumadó; Nuria Gómez; Agnés Russiñol; Oscar Garcia-Algar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Carly R Luke; Katherine Benfer; Leeann Mick-Ramsamy; Robert S Ware; Natasha Reid; Arend F Bos; Margot Bosanquet; Roslyn N Boyd Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Eva Aring; Emelie Gyllencreutz; Valdemar Landgren; Leif Svensson; Magnus Landgren; Marita Andersson Grönlund Journal: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Date: 2021-10-22