ObjectivesTo evaluate the long term neurodevelopmental outcome of premature infants exposed to either gram- negative sepsis (GNS) or neonatal Candida sepsis (NCS), and to compare their outcome with premature infants without sepsis.MethodsHistorical cohort study in a population of infants born at <30 weeks gestation and admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam during the period 1997–2007. Outcome of infants exposed to GNS or NCS and 120 randomly chosen uncomplicated controls (UC) from the same NICU were compared. Clinical data during hospitalization and neurodevelopmental outcome data (clinical neurological status; Bayley –test results and vision/hearing test results) at the corrected age of 24 months were collected. An association model with sepsis as the central determinant of either good or adverse outcome (death or severe developmental delay) was made, corrected for confounders using multiple logistic regression analysis.ResultsOf 1362 patients, 55 suffered from GNS and 29 suffered from NCS; cumulative incidence 4.2% and 2.2%, respectively. During the follow-up period the mortality rate was 34% for both GNS and NCS and 5% for UC. The adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) [95% CI] for adverse outcome in the GNS group compared to the NCS group was 1.4 [0.4–4.9]. The adjusted ORs [95% CI] for adverse outcome in the GNS and NCS groups compared to the UC group were 4.8 [1.5–15.9] and 3.2 [0.7–14.7], respectively.ConclusionsWe found no statistically significant difference in outcome at the corrected age of 24 months between neonatal GNS and NCS cases. Suffering from either gram –negative or Candida sepsis increased the odds for adverse outcome compared with an uncomplicated neonatal period.

BackgroundCochlear implants (CIs) are considered an effective treatment for severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, speech perception outcomes are highly variable among adult CI recipients. Top-down neurocognitive factors have been hypothesized to contribute to this variation that is currently only partly explained by biological and audiological factors. Studies investigating this, use varying methods and observe varying outcomes, and their relevance has yet to be evaluated in a review. Gathering and structuring this evidence in this scoping review provides a clear overview of where this research line currently stands, with the aim of guiding future research.ObjectiveTo understand to which extent different neurocognitive factors influence speech perception in adult CI users with a postlingual onset of hearing loss, by systematically reviewing the literature.MethodsA systematic scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies investigating the influence of one or more neurocognitive factors on speech perception post-implantation were included. Word and sentence perception in quiet and noise were included as speech perception outcome metrics and six key neurocognitive domains, as defined by the DSM-5, were covered during the literature search (Protocol in open science registries: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z3G7W of searches in June 2020, April 2022).ResultsFrom 5,668 retrieved articles, 54 articles were included and grouped into three categories using different measures to relate to speech perception outcomes: (1) Nineteen studies investigating brain activation, (2) Thirty-one investigating performance on cognitive tests, and (3) Eighteen investigating linguistic skills.ConclusionThe use of cognitive functions, recruiting the frontal cortex, the use of visual cues, recruiting the occipital cortex, and the temporal cortex still available for language processing, are beneficial for adult CI users. Cognitive assessments indicate that performance on non-verbal intelligence tasks positively correlated with speech perception outcomes. Performance on auditory or visual working memory, learning, memory and vocabulary tasks were unrelated to speech perception outcomes and performance on the Stroop task not to word perception in quiet. However, there are still many uncertainties regarding the explanation of inconsistent results between papers and more comprehensive studies are needed e.g., including different assessment times, or combining neuroimaging and behavioral measures.Systematic review registrationhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z3G7W.

ObjectivesGeneral practitioners (GPs) and sexual health centres (SHCs) are the main providers of HIV testing and diagnose two-thirds of HIV infections in the Netherlands. We compared regional HIV testing and positivity by GPs versus SHCs to gain insight into strategies to improve HIV testing, to enable timely detection of HIV infections.MethodsLaboratory data (2011–2018) on HIV testing by GPs and SHCs in five Dutch regions with varying levels of urbanisation were evaluated. Regional HIV testing rates per 10 000 residents ≥15 years (mean over period and annual) were compared between providers using negative binomial generalised additive models and additionally stratified by sex and age (15–29 years, 30–44 years, 45–59 years, ≥60 years). χ2 tests were used to compare positivity percentage between the two groups of providers.ResultsIn the study period, 505 167 HIV tests (GP 36%, SHC 64%) were performed. The highest HIV testing rates were observed in highly urbanised regions, with large regional variations. The HIV testing rates ranged from 28 to 178 per 10 000 residents by GPs and from 30 to 378 per 10 000 by SHCs. Testing rates by GPs were lower than by SHCs in three regions and comparable in two. In all regions, men were tested less by GPs than by SHCs; for women, this varied by region. Among those aged 15–29 years old, GPs’ testing rates were lower than SHCs’, while this was reversed in older age categories in four out of five regions. The overall mean HIV positivity was 0.4%. In contrast to other regions, positivity in Amsterdam was significantly higher among individuals tested by GPs than by SHCs.ConclusionsThis retrospective observational study shows that besides SHCs, who perform opt-out testing for key groups, GPs play a prominent role in HIV testing, especially in non-key populations, such as women and older individuals. Large regional variation exists, requiring region-specific interventions to improve GPs’ HIV testing practices.

No abstract