Neonatal Hyperbilirubinemia: Don't Let Glucose-6-phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency off the Hook
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor.—We read with great interest the recent article by Keren et al,1 in which factors predictive of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia were sought. We found it particularly surprising that glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency did not reach significance as a risk factor and seemed to be nonpredictive of jaundice. This finding is contrary to those of previous studies in which G6PD deficiency was found to be a major factor in the pathogenesis of hyperbilirubinemia and was highly associated with extreme hyperbilirubinemia and kernicterus. Recent examples of this association emanate from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom and Ireland, countries not usually associated with a high overall frequency of G6PD deficiency.2–4Newborns are a group at particular risk of G6PD deficiency. Commonly, there is an increased risk of moderate hyperbilirubinemia that responds to phototherapy and should not endanger these newborns.5,6 Rarely, acute hemolytic crises may precipitate extreme and dangerous hyperbilirubinemia, with the devastating consequence of bilirubin encephalopathy and the long-term outcome of kernicterus. This form of extreme icterus is unpredictable, unfortunately, and may be the reason that kernicterus may not be completely eradicable.What could be the reasons for the discrepancy between the Keren et al findings and those previously reported? One factor may be that a molecular screen, rather than customary biochemical testing, was used to identify G6PD deficiency. The particular screen used by these authors studies 5 G6PD mutations that are prevalent in the United States and is, by design, estimated to identify ∼90% of G6PD-deficient individuals in the United States, including female heterozygotes who may be partially deficient.7 Had a simple biochemical screening test or a quantitative enzyme assay been used, virtually 100% of the G6PD-deficient boys should have been identified. Although the G6PD Mediterranean mutation has been predictive of hyperbilirubinemia, even in heterozygotes,5 this mutation accounts for only a portion of the US-based G6PD genotype. Because of possible differences between G6PD Mediterranean and other genotypes, we cannot be sure how many of the study subjects designated as G6PD deficient by the DNA method actually had low levels of G6PD enzyme activity. Pooling of boys and girls, thereby including many heterozygotes, may have resulted in dilution of the patient sample. Another difference between the present and past studies includes the definition of hyperbilirubinemia: the Keren et al definition was based on the criteria for commencing phototherapy from the 2004 American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines.8 Because these guidelines vary according to the presence or absence of risk factors, and because the G6PD status was available only 2 weeks after delivery, this important risk factor was not taken into account at the time of patient management.The results of the study in question ought not to let G6PD deficiency off the hook. Until this molecular method of screening for G6PD deficiency is evaluated further and the definitions used for determining hyperbilirubinemia are put to scrutiny, G6PD deficiency should continue to be regarded as a risk factor associated with severe neonatal hyperbilirubinemia.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».