Attachment to Caregivers and Type 1 Diabetes in Children

Attachment is a behavioral and physiological system, which enables individual’s dynamic adaptation to its environment. Attachment develops in close interaction between an infant and his/her mother, plays an important role in the development of the infant’s brain, and influences the quality of interpersonal relationships throughout life.Security of attachment is believed to influence individual response to stress, exposing insecurely organized individuals to deregulated autonomic nervous system and exaggerated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity, which, in turn, produces increased and prolonged exposure to stress-hormones. Such stress responses may have considerable implications for the development of diverse health-risk conditions, such as insulin resistance and hyperlipidemia, shown by numerous studies.Although the mechanisms are not yet fully understood, there is compelling evidence highlighting the role of psychological stress in the development of type 1 diabetes (T1D). One of the possible contributing factors for the development of T1D may be the influence of attachment security on individual stress reactivity. Thus, the suggestion is that insecurely attached individuals are more prone to experience increased and prolonged influence of stress hormones and other mechanisms causing pancreatic beta-cell destruction.The present paper opens with a short overview of the field of attachment in children, the principal attachment classifications and their historic development, describes the influence of attachment security on individual stress-reactivity and the role of the latter in the development of T1D. Following is a review of recent literature on the attachment in patients with T1D with a conclusion of a proposed role of attachment organization in the etiology of T1D.     

Secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis: Experience from the Uppsala University Hospital

Background. Haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a rare clinical syndrome characterized by fever, hepatosplenomegaly, cytopenia, and progressive multiple-organ failure. HLH in adults is often secondary to autoimmune diseases, cancer, or infections in contrast to familial HLH. Treatment of secondary HLH is directed against the triggering disease in addition to immunosuppressive therapy, the latter commonly according to the HLH-2004 protocol.Methods. We conducted a retrospective study to identify triggering diseases, disease-specific and immunosuppressive therapy administered, and prognosis in adult patients with secondary HLH. Patient data were collected from October 2010 to January 2015.Results. Ten adult patients with secondary HLH were identified. Seven were men, and the median age at diagnosis was 62 years. Five cases were triggered by malignant disease and five by infection. The median patient fulfilled five of the eight HLH-2004 diagnostic criteria. All patients fulfilled the criteria fever, cytopenia, and ferritin >500 µg/L. Median time from hospital admission to HLH diagnosis was 20 days. Four patients received immunosuppressive therapy according to the HLH-2004 protocol. The prognosis was dismal, especially for the patients with malignancy-associated HLH, of whom all died.Conclusion. HLH should be suspected in patients who present with fever, cytopenia, and ferritin >500 µg/L. Secondary HLH has a dismal prognosis. None of the patients with HLH triggered by malignancy survived. Achieving remission of the triggering disease seems to be important for a favourable outcome as, in all surviving patients, the haemophagocytic syndrome resolved after remission of the underlying infection.     

Anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff: a retrospective comparison of patient-reported outcomes using the systems outcomes database with up to 5-year follow-up

BackgroundThe growing enthusiasm for the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) with an intact rotator cuff is based on data derived from single-center studies with limited generalizability and follow-up. This study compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between RSA and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for the treatment of primary GHOA with up to 5-year follow-up and examined temporal trends in the treatment of GHOA between 2012 and 2021.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on patients with primary GHOA undergoing primary arthroplasty surgery from the Surgical Outcomes System global registry between 2012 and 2021. PROs including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were compared between RSA and TSA at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively.ResultsA total of 4451 patients were included, with 2693 (60.5%) undergoing TSA and 1758 (39.5%) undergoing RSA. Both RSA and TSA provided clinically excellent outcomes at 1 year postoperatively (ASES: 80.8 ± 17.9 vs. 85.9 ± 15.2, respectively; SANE: 74.8 ± 24.7 vs. 79.5 ± 22.9; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.0 vs. 1.1 ± 1.7; all P < .05) that were maintained at 2 years (ASES: 81.3 ± 19.3 vs. 87.3 ± 14.9; SANE: 74.8 ± 26.2 vs. 79.7 ± 24.7; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.1 vs. 1.0 ± 1.6; all P < .05) and 5 years (ASES: 81.7 ± 16.5 vs. 86.9 ± 15.3; SANE: 71.6 ± 28.5 vs. 78.2 ± 25.9; VAS pain: 1.0 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 1.7; all P < .05), with statistical significance favoring TSA. After controlling for age and sex, there was an adjusted difference of 4.5 units in the ASES score favoring TSA (P = .005) at 5 years postoperatively but no differences in adjusted SANE (P = .745) and VAS pain (P = .332) scores. The use of RSA for GHOA grew considerably over time, from representing only 17% of all replacements performed for GHOA in 2012 to nearly half (47%) in 2021 (P < .001).ConclusionRSA as a treatment for GHOA with an intact rotator cuff seems to yield PROs that are largely clinically equivalent to TSA extending to 5 years postoperatively. The observed statistical significance favoring TSA appears to be of marginal clinical benefit based on established minimal clinically important differences and may be a result of the large sample size. Further research using more granular clinical data and examining differences in range of motion and complications is warranted as it may change the value analysis.