Cassidy, Adam R.

AbstractIntroductionStudies have reported a higher risk of suboptimal neurodevelopment among children who are HIV‐exposed uninfected (HEU) compared to children HIV‐unexposed uninfected (HUU). Actual academic performance among school‐aged children by HIV exposure status has not been studied.MethodsAcademic performance in Mathematics, Science, English, Setswana and overall among children enrolled in the Botswana‐based FLOURISH study who were attending public primary school and ranging in age from 7.1 to 14.6 years were compared by HIV exposure status using a Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel test. Lower academic performance was defined as a grade of “C” or lower (≤60%). Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were fit to assess for an association between HIV exposure and lower academic performance.ResultsBetween April 2021 and December 2022, 398 children attending public primary school enrolled in the FLOURSH study, 307 (77%) were HEU. Median age was 9.4 years (IQR 8.9–10.2). Only 17.9% of children HEU were breastfeed versus 100% of children HUU. Among children HEU, 80.3% had foetal exposure to three‐drug antiretroviral treatment, 18.7% to zidovudine only and 1.0% had no antiretroviral exposure. Caregivers of children HEU were older compared to caregivers of children HUU (median 42 vs. 36 years) and more likely to have no or primary education only (15.0% vs. 1.1%). In unadjusted analyses, children HEU were more likely to have lower overall academic performance compared to their children HUU (odds ratio [OR]: 1.96 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16, 3.30]), and lower performance in Mathematics, Science and English. The association was attenuated after adjustment for maternal education, caregiver income, breastfeeding, low birth weight and child sex (aOR: 1.86 [95% CI: 0.78, 4.43]).ConclusionsIn this Botswana‐based cohort, primary school academic performance was lower among children HEU compared to children HUU. Biological and socio‐demographic factors, including child sex, appear to contribute to this difference. Further research is needed to identify modifiable contributors, develop screening tools to identify the risk of poor academic performance and design interventions to mitigate risk.

Abstract Objective In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, psychologists were pushed to look beyond traditional in-person models of neurodevelopmental assessment to maintain continuity of care. A wealth of data demonstrates that telehealth is efficacious for pediatric behavioral intervention; however, best practices for incorporating telehealth into neurodevelopmental assessment are yet to be developed. In this topical review, we propose a conceptual model to demonstrate how telehealth can be incorporated into various components of neurodevelopmental assessment. Methods Harnessing existing literature and expertise from a multidisciplinary task force comprised of clinicians, researchers, and patient/parent representatives from the subspecialty of cardiac neurodevelopmental care, a conceptual framework for telehealth neurodevelopmental assessment was developed. Considerations for health equity and access to care are discussed, as well as general guidelines for clinical implementation and gaps in existing literature. Results There are opportunities to integrate telehealth within each stage of neurodevelopmental assessment, from intake to testing, through to follow-up care. Further research is needed to determine whether telehealth mitigates or exacerbates disparities in access to care for vulnerable populations as well as to provide evidence of validity for a wider range of neurodevelopmental measures to be administered via telehealth. Conclusions While many practices are returning to traditional, face-to-face neurodevelopmental assessment services, psychologists have a unique opportunity to harness the momentum for telehealth care initiated during the pandemic to optimize the use of clinical resources, broaden service delivery, and increase access to care for pediatric neurodevelopmental assessment.

CASE: Phillip is a young man born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome referred to your practice for a range of mental health concerns. He underwent palliation to an extracardiac Fontan in infancy and experienced multiple complications over the next decade including valvular regurgitation and arrhythmias necessitating a pacemaker. Phillip continued to have systolic heart failure with New York Heart Association class II symptoms, managed with 4 medications and anticoagulation. Despite this complex history, Phillip had intact cognitive abilities, achieved typical milestones, and performed well academically in secondary school. His first year of college proved to be more challenging, and Phillip presented to the outpatient psychiatry service with an acute depressive episode. His family history included depression, without known attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Treatment, including a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, cognitive behavioral therapy, and family support, led to near resolution of his symptoms of depression. In subsequent appointments, Phillip described a long history of inattention and disorganization with onset in childhood. This contributed to the decision to leave college, despite remission of symptoms of depression. Phillip was unable to study for any extended period without “perfect conditions,” described as the absence of potential distractions except for background music. Despite attempts to maintain “perfect conditions,” Phillip was often off task and “hyperfocusing” on irrelevant topics. Phillip struggled with planning and time management and would misplace items daily. Moreover, although the importance of self-care was well understood, Phillip often forgot to take his cardiac medication or to exercise, and he admitted to inconsistent sleep habits because of losing track of time. Based on a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation including retrospective report from a parent, Phillip was diagnosed with ADHD, coexisting with major depressive disorder, in remission. Significant ADHD symptoms were documented by interview, self-report, and administration of an abbreviated neuropsychological battery. Considering concerns regarding use of stimulants in a patient with congenital heart disease, including death, stroke, and myocardial infarction,1,2 how would you assess the risks-benefits of use of stimulants with Phillip? REFERENCES 1. Wilens TE, Prince JB, Spencer TJ, et al. Stimulants and sudden death: what is a physician to do? Pediatrics. 2006;118:1215–1219. 2. Zito JM, Burcu M. Stimulants and pediatric cardiovascular risk. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2017;27:538–545.