Research Triangle Park

About: Research Triangle Park is a nonprofit organization based out in Durham, North Carolina, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Receptor. The organization has 24961 authors who have published 35800 publications receiving 1684504 citations. The organization is also known as: RTP.

Consensus Statement : Chromosomal Microarray Is a First-Tier Clinical Diagnostic Test for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities or Congenital Anomalies

Abstract: Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is increasingly utilized for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). Performing CMA and G-banded karyotyping on every patient substantially increases the total cost of genetic testing. The International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium held two international workshops and conducted a literature review of 33 studies, including 21,698 patients tested by CMA. We provide an evidence-based summary of clinical cytogenetic testing comparing CMA to G-banded karyotyping with respect to technical advantages and limitations, diagnostic yield for various types of chromosomal aberrations, and issues that affect test interpretation. CMA offers a much higher diagnostic yield (15%–20%) for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained DD/ID, ASD, or MCA than a G-banded karyotype (~3%, excluding Down syndrome and other recognizable chromosomal syndromes), primarily because of its higher sensitivity for submicroscopic deletions and duplications. Truly balanced rearrangements and low-level mosaicism are generally not detectable by arrays, but these are relatively infrequent causes of abnormal phenotypes in this population (<1%). Available evidence strongly supports the use of CMA in place of G-banded karyotyping as the first-tier cytogenetic diagnostic test for patients with DD/ID, ASD, or MCA. G-banded karyotype analysis should be reserved for patients with obvious chromosomal syndromes (e.g., Down syndrome), a family history of chromosomal rearrangement, or a history of multiple miscarriages.

Late-Onset Sepsis in Very Low Birth Weight Neonates: The Experience of the NICHD Neonatal Research Network

Abstract: Objective. Late-onset sepsis (occurring after 3 days of age) is an important problem in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. To determine the current incidence of late-onset sepsis, risk factors for disease, and the impact of late-onset sepsis on subsequent hospital course, we evaluated a cohort of 6956 VLBW (401–1500 g) neonates admitted to the clinical centers of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network over a 2-year period (1998–2000). Methods. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network maintains a prospective registry of all VLBW neonates admitted to participating centers within 14 days of birth. Expanded infection surveillance was added in 1998. Results. Of 6215 infants who survived beyond 3 days, 1313 (21%) had 1 or more episodes of blood culture-proven late-onset sepsis. The vast majority of infections (70%) were caused by Gram-positive organisms, with coagulase-negative staphylococci accounting for 48% of infections. Rate of infection was inversely related to birth weight and gestational age. Complications of prematurity associated with an increased rate of late-onset sepsis included patent ductus arteriosus, prolonged ventilation, prolonged intravascular access, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and necrotizing enterocolitis. Infants who developed late-onset sepsis had a significantly prolonged hospital stay (mean length of stay: 79 vs 60 days). They were significantly more likely to die than those who were uninfected (18% vs 7%), especially if they were infected with Gram-negative organisms (36%) or fungi (32%). Conclusions. Late-onset sepsis remains an important risk factor for death among VLBW preterm infants and for prolonged hospital stay among VLBW survivors. Strategies to reduce late-onset sepsis and its medical, social, and economic toll need to be addressed urgently.

Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic

Abstract: Development of strategies for mitigating the severity of a new influenza pandemic is now a top global public health priority. Influenza prevention and containment strategies can be considered under the broad categories of antiviral, vaccine and non-pharmaceutical (case isolation, household quarantine, school or workplace closure, restrictions on travel) measures. Mathematical models are powerful tools for exploring this complex landscape of intervention strategies and quantifying the potential costs and benefits of different options. Here we use a large-scale epidemic simulation to examine intervention options should initial containment of a novel influenza outbreak fail, using Great Britain and the United States as examples. We find that border restrictions and/or internal travel restrictions are unlikely to delay spread by more than 2-3 weeks unless more than 99% effective. School closure during the peak of a pandemic can reduce peak attack rates by up to 40%, but has little impact on overall attack rates, whereas case isolation or household quarantine could have a significant impact, if feasible. Treatment of clinical cases can reduce transmission, but only if antivirals are given within a day of symptoms starting. Given enough drugs for 50% of the population, household-based prophylaxis coupled with reactive school closure could reduce clinical attack rates by 40-50%. More widespread prophylaxis would be even more logistically challenging but might reduce attack rates by over 75%. Vaccine stockpiled in advance of a pandemic could significantly reduce attack rates even if of low efficacy. Estimates of policy effectiveness will change if the characteristics of a future pandemic strain differ substantially from those seen in past pandemics.