Carterflanagan2821

Although autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders it is also one of the most heterogeneous conditions, making identification and diagnosis complex. The importance of a stable and consistent diagnosis cannot be overstated. An accurate diagnosis is the basis for understanding the individual and establishing an individualized treatment plan. We present those elements that should be included in any assessment for ASD and describe the ways in which ASD typically manifests itself at various developmental stages. The implications and challenges for assessment at different ages and levels of functioning are discussed.Although 9 of 10 of the world's children live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and children constitute nearly half of the populations of these countries, far too little research has focused on child mental health in LMICs.1 The expansion of research in global health and global mental health over the past several decades has not yet been matched by new research in child and adolescent mental health in LMICs.2 It is time for that to change. New research should include a focus on social drivers and the mechanisms by which they contribute to mental illnesses.Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic is causing extensive morbidity and mortality and is fueling psychological distress across populations. Early evidence has shown an increase in anxiety, depression and sleep problems in the general population.1,2 Although pandemics shatter the functioning of communities and families globally, there is a paucity of studies targeting the effects of pandemics on youth mental health.In "The Need for a Clinically Useful Schema of Social Communication," Blank et al. present an observation and coding method (The Initiating, Responding, Expectancy Violations [IREV] schema) for identifying "expectancy violations (EVs)," which may signal clinically significant departures from normal social communication behavior (eg, in individuals with autism spectrum disorder [ASD]).1 The authors point out that "historically, observation of a patient's (social communication) has not been part of the routine psychiatric mental status examination," and argue that this is an important missed opportunity for clinicians. Several direct observation methods exist for identifying and/or monitoring changes in social communication deficits associated with ASD.2 Despite their established diagnostic validity, it remains true that these measures used in isolation will result in a relatively high rate of "false positives"-usually comprising children who are better described with other diagnoses (eg, intellectual disability, language disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]).2 This underscores the critical importance of context when interpreting observed social communication deficits.The recent Translations article by Bishop et al.1 draws much-needed attention to social communication (SC) in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and to the need in autism research for treatment-sensitive measures of this key domain. In this context, the authors define SC ability as "the appropriate use and modulation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors during interactions with others"1(p. 555). "Appropriate" is defined relative to normative behaviors for developmental age and language level based on parent report. HRS-4642 datasheet This stirred us to share our concern that clinicians, too, need ways to assess SC. Historically, observation of a patient's SC has not been part of the routine psychiatric mental status examination (MSE); clinicians lack even a common basic vocabulary for describing this vital domain. The DSM-52 does not explicitly define SC or distinguish it from social interaction (SI) or language, important terms also used in the criteria for ASD. All three terms are used interchangeably and inconsistently across the literature. Here we offer a definition of SC, distinguish it from SI and language, and propose a schema, or conceptual model, for observing and documenting an impression of a patient's SC.The association between kidney disease and cancer is multifaceted and complex. Persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased incidence of cancer, and both cancer and cancer treatments can cause impaired kidney function. Renal issues in the setting of malignancy can worsen patient outcomes and diminish the adequacy of anticancer treatments. In addition, the oncology treatment landscape is changing rapidly, and data on tolerability of novel therapies in patients with CKD are often lacking. Caring for oncology patients has become more specialized and interdisciplinary, currently requiring collaboration among specialists in nephrology, medical oncology, critical care, clinical pharmacology/pharmacy, and palliative care, in addition to surgeons and urologists. To identify key management issues in nephrology relevant to patients with malignancy, KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) assembled a global panel of multidisciplinary clinical and scientific expertise for a controversies conference on onco-nephrology in December 2018. This report covers issues related to kidney impairment and solid organ malignancies as well as management and treatment of kidney cancer. Knowledge gaps, areas of controversy, and research priorities are described.Hyperkalemia in patients on dialysis is associated with an increased mortality rate. Dietary restriction is often not effective and deprives patients of heart-healthy foods. Lowering the dialysate K+ concentration can potentially increase the risk of arrhythmias. In this commentary, we discuss the findings of Amdur et al., and the potential use for K+-binding drugs as a strategy to maintain plasma K+ concentrations within a narrow and normal range during the interdialytic and intradialytic intervals.Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is defined as abnormalities of kidney structure and function proven to be chronic. The prevalence of CKD in the majority of studies is 10%-16%, neglecting the chronicity character. Jonsson et al., in a nationwide study defining CKD adhering strictly to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria, found a clearly lower prevalence of CKD (6%). This indicated that to obtain a correct CKD prevalence, one should start by correctly applying the KDIGO guidelines.