Centering the Inner Experience of Autism: Development of the Self-Assessment of Autistic Traits.

Current tools for identifying autism are critiqued for their lack of specificity and sensitivity, especially in autistic people who are older, have higher verbal ability or significant compensatory skills, and are not cisgender boys. This may reflect the following: the historical focus of autism research on White (cisgender) male, upper and middle class children; limited interest in the inner, lived experience of autism; and the predominance of a deficit-based model of autism. We report here on the first attempt of which we are aware to develop a clinical self-report measure of autistic traits as described by autistic people. We believe this is an advance in methodology because prior work in the development of autistic trait/diagnostic measures has prioritized the perspectives of nonautistic clinicians and scientists. The measure was developed under the leadership of two autistic researchers and constructed by leveraging descriptions of autism by autistic people to generate items designed to encompass the range of the autistic experience, using strength-based, accessible language. The team utilized iterative feedback from a panel of autistic experts to refine and enhance the measure, called the Self Assessment of Autistic Traits (SAAT). It is intended for people 16 years or older and uses a format that is designed to increase its accessibility and acceptability for autistic respondents. Future work will report on the preliminary psychometrics of the SAAT, with a long-term goal of advancing our understanding of the inner autistic experience and enhancing the clinical and scientific assessment of autism.

Why is this topic important?: Some people, especially older people, and those who can "mask" their autism, are missed by the current autism assessment tools. This can keep them from getting supports or getting connected to autistic communities. This can harm their well-being and independence. The tools we currently have to assess autism are important, but they were not developed with people who represent the full range of genders, ages, abilities, and cultural identities that characterize autism. Furthermore, current tools emphasize behaviors that other people observe, for example, making eye contact, and do not fully explore the lived or inner experience of autism. What is the purpose of this article?: This article describes the first attempt we know of to begin developing a self-report measure of autistic traits as described by autistic people. What did the authors do?: The authors started by reading what autistic people had to say about autism. They used those readings to come up with initial ideas about autistic experience. Then they used those ideas to write questions for a questionnaire about autistic traits. They asked autistic experts to review the questionnaire and made changes based on what they said. How did the authors work together?: This project was led by two autistic researchers who worked with a team of nonautistic researchers experienced in different research methods. A panel of autistic experts, including both autistic scientist and community leaders, also provided important input. Some of those methods were community-based research, Delphi panels, cognitive interviewing, and measure development. The research team made decisions together. The autistic researchers made the final decisions if there was disagreement. What did they produce?: They produced a preliminary version of the Self Assessment of Autistic Traits (SAAT). The SAAT is a questionnaire that asks if a person has common autistic experiences and traits. It has 58 items that are written with the aim of being respectful and using accessible language. The questionnaire is designed to work with common autistic thinking styles. How will this help autistic adults now or in the future?: The long-term goal is to create a reliable and valid self-report questionnaire that people 16 years old and older can complete to measure their autistic traits. We believe that this could be an important tool for advancing our understanding of the inner autistic experience of autism. This could improve how we assess autistic adults and how we research and think about autism.

Fixed-Dose Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypassing Activity (FEIBA) in the Management of Warfarin-Associated Coagulopathies.

This retrospective review evaluated our institutions' practice of administering low fixed-dose FEIBA (high (1000 units) or low dose (500 units) for an INR ≥ 5 or <5, respectively) for the management of warfarin-associated coagulopathies. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who had a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5. In the total population, 55.6% (10/18) of patients achieved a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5. In the subgroup analysis, significantly more patients in the low dose FEIBA group achieved a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5 compared to the high dose FEIBA group (71.4% vs. 45.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). In the post hoc analysis, there was a significant difference in the number of patients who achieved a post-FEIBA INR ≤ 1.5 when comparing those who received high dose FEIBA with a baseline INR 5−9.9 to those who received high dose FEIBA with a baseline INR ≥ 10 (60% vs. 33.3%, respectively, p < 0.001). The existing literature and our findings suggest that patients who present with lower baseline INR values and receive additional reversal agents are more likely to meet post-reversal INR goals. Current low fixed-dose protocols may be oversimplified and may need to be revised to provide larger fixed-doses.

Intravenous Metoprolol Versus Diltiazem for Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Currently, it remains unclear whether ß-blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are preferred for the acute management of atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem for rate control. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients who presented to the emergency department between 2015 and 2019 with AF with rapid ventricular rate (RVR) and received IV metoprolol or diltiazem. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved rate control (defined as heart rate < 100 beats per minute). Secondary outcomes included time to rate control, percentage of patients requiring additional agents for rate control, and incidence of cardioversion, bradycardia, and hypotension. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were included in this study. Rate control was achieved in 35% and 41% of the metoprolol and diltiazem groups, respectively (P = 0.38). Mean time to rate control was not significantly different between the metoprolol and diltiazem groups (35 vs 21 minutes, P = 0.23). One patient developed hypotension, no patient developed bradycardia, and 4 patients required electric cardioversion. No adverse events were observed in patients with ejection fraction ≤40%. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: There was no difference in the achievement of rate control between IV metoprolol and diltiazem. This is the largest study to date comparing the two classes of agents for acute rate control in AF. No patient-specific factors were identified that would influence the preferential use of one medication over the other.

C1 esterase inhibitor use in the management of lisinopril-induced angioedema: A case series.

OBJECTIVE: Review 4 patients who presented with presumed lisinopril-induced angioedema and received C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH). CASE SUMMARY: Four patients received C1-INH for presumed lisinopril-induced angioedema. In all cases, angioedema was attributed to lisinopril use after the patients' symptoms did not resolve after receiving other interventions. The patients received either 1500 units or 2000 units of C1-INH. All patients' symptoms resolved after receiving a single C1-INH dose, and all were discharged home within 48 hours of receiving C1-INH. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of the available literature and our study, C1-INH may effectively treat angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced angioedema (ACEi-AE). Owing to the low incidence of ACEi-AE and the high cost of C1-INH, physicians should consider limiting the use of C1-INH to patients who remain symptomatic after the initial interventions and are at risk of a compromised airway.