Neonatal Medicine

Increasingly popular alternative peripartum practices such as water immersion and nonseverance of the umbilical cord may increase the risk of infections in newborns, a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics found.

Another perinatal measure potentially raising infection risk was placentophagy, according to a review led by Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Awareness of emerging alternative peripartum and neonatal practices helps pediatricians provide counseling to families before birth and to appropriately evaluate and treat neonates who have been exposed to these practices,” Dr. Nolt and colleagues wrote online in Pediatrics.

Amid growing inquiries made from women seeking a positive and meaningful birth experience through alternative approaches as well as reports of possibly related illness in newborns, Dr. Nolt’s group reviewed observational studies, case series, and medical society guidance on the risks associated with seven alternative birthing practices.

Based on their summation, it was not possible to quantify the actual risk associated with any one practice. “But of the seven we reviewed, as an infectious disease pediatrician I would say the most discernible immediate risk is likely attached to nonseverance of the cord,” Dr. Nolt said in an interview. “Left attached, the tissue can potentially necrote and transfer bacteria directly to the child.”

The authors made the following recommendations:

• Water immersion for labor and delivery. While this can increase the comfort of the mother in the first stages of labor, the water can become contaminated and increase the infant’s exposure to water-borne pathogens such as Legionella and Pseudomonas. It is not recommended after the second stage of labor and if offered, requires rigorous prophylactic and infection-control measures. This practice has also been linked to aspiration, drowning, hyponatremia, cord rupture, and death.
• Vaginal seeding. The skin, noses, and mouths of infants born by cesarean section are inoculated with swabs of vaginal fluid in order to expose them to vaginal bacteria that positively influence the infant’s microbiome. Of no known benefit, this measure can expose newborns to microbes such as group B Streptococcus and herpes simplex virus. Infants born by C-section receiving vaginal seeding should be evaluated the same way as those delivered vaginally.
• Umbilical cord nonseverance. Colloquially known as lotus birth, this is another practice with no evidence of advantage but with the potential to raise the risk of neonatal sepsis owing to the presence of necrotic umbilical or placental tissue. Some parents may view the placenta as a spiritual entity and fail to recognize it may be contaminated with harmful pathogens. Any placenta and umbilical cord attached to a febrile or ill-seeming neonate should be immediately removed.
• Placentophagy. Proponents believe placental consumption has antidepressive, analgesic, galactogogic, and nutritional properties. But eating raw, cooked, or dehydrated afterbirth tissue – viewed by some as a spiritual event – can expose a neonate to flora from the mother’s genitourinary tract and other sources encountered during preparation. Placentophagy has been associated with a case of recurrent late-onset group B streptococcal sepsis in a newborn. Strict food-handling practices at the level for raw meat should be maintained.
• HBV vaccine deferral. Viewed as “a critical safety net in preventing HBV infection,” the birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should not be postponed except for medical reasons. An estimated 1,000 new perinatally acquired HBV cases occurred annually in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
• Deferral of ocular prophylaxis. While ocular prophylaxis with topical erythromycin protects against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum, particularly in infants of high-risk mothers, it is not effective against other common pathogens. Parents and health care providers have recently questioned the need for its routine application, with concerns including its limited range of effectiveness as well as antibiotic resistance and shortages. With adequate prenatal testing, the risk of this neonatal conjunctivitis is significantly reduced, and deferral of prophylaxis may be considered in low-risk situations although it may be mandated by state legislation.
• Delayed bathing. The practice of delaying the infant’s first bath until several hours after birth may have several benefits. These include the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding, decreased mother/child separation time and risk of hypothermia, and protection of the neonatal skin microbiome. It should be discouraged, however, in neonates exposed to active herpes simplex virus lesions or whose mothers have a known history of HIV infection.

When women inquire about alternative practices, physicians need to strike a diplomatic balance between respecting women’s wishes and the benefits they hope to gain and at the same time informing them of potential risks, Dr. Nolt said. “The conversation we want to have with them should show compassion and sympathy but also tell them what the medical literature shows.” Patient and doctor should engage in shared decision-making about the safety of various alternative approaches.

“Over the last decade information on a variety of birth practices have become more widely available through social media and other Internet forums, which certainly has increased the variety of questions to health professionals, Amy C. Hermesch, MD, PhD, director of obstetric services at OHSC, said in an interview.

“We counsel about rare but serious risk, as noted in Dr. Nolt’s article,” said Dr. Hermesch, who was not involved in the AAP report. Most important is a discussion about appropriate pregnancy risk stratification. “For example, persons considering water immersion birth, probably the most common one I get inquiries about, should have an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy with good mobility to get in and out of tub in the event of an emergency.”

While adverse events can happen during any birth, she sees these more often in mothers who underestimate the risk level of their situation or pregnancy when declining provider-recommended interventions. “I encourage pregnant persons to find a health care professional they trust who is knowledgeable about the benefits and the risk of all birth environments and interventions.”

Dr. Hermesch added that most alternative practices have little data to guide decisions, so she offers professional society recommendations, evidence review, and her own professional experiences. “The patient must weight the risk and benefits in the context of their value system and sometimes this means not following my advice or recommendations. My medical recommendation with the best of intentions does not remove patient autonomy.”

This report had no external funding. The authors had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Hermesch had no competing interests to declare.

Increasingly popular alternative peripartum practices such as water immersion and nonseverance of the umbilical cord may increase the risk of infections in newborns, a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics found.

Another perinatal measure potentially raising infection risk was placentophagy, according to a review led by Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Awareness of emerging alternative peripartum and neonatal practices helps pediatricians provide counseling to families before birth and to appropriately evaluate and treat neonates who have been exposed to these practices,” Dr. Nolt and colleagues wrote online in Pediatrics.

Amid growing inquiries made from women seeking a positive and meaningful birth experience through alternative approaches as well as reports of possibly related illness in newborns, Dr. Nolt’s group reviewed observational studies, case series, and medical society guidance on the risks associated with seven alternative birthing practices.

Based on their summation, it was not possible to quantify the actual risk associated with any one practice. “But of the seven we reviewed, as an infectious disease pediatrician I would say the most discernible immediate risk is likely attached to nonseverance of the cord,” Dr. Nolt said in an interview. “Left attached, the tissue can potentially necrote and transfer bacteria directly to the child.”

The authors made the following recommendations:

• Water immersion for labor and delivery. While this can increase the comfort of the mother in the first stages of labor, the water can become contaminated and increase the infant’s exposure to water-borne pathogens such as Legionella and Pseudomonas. It is not recommended after the second stage of labor and if offered, requires rigorous prophylactic and infection-control measures. This practice has also been linked to aspiration, drowning, hyponatremia, cord rupture, and death.
• Vaginal seeding. The skin, noses, and mouths of infants born by cesarean section are inoculated with swabs of vaginal fluid in order to expose them to vaginal bacteria that positively influence the infant’s microbiome. Of no known benefit, this measure can expose newborns to microbes such as group B Streptococcus and herpes simplex virus. Infants born by C-section receiving vaginal seeding should be evaluated the same way as those delivered vaginally.
• Umbilical cord nonseverance. Colloquially known as lotus birth, this is another practice with no evidence of advantage but with the potential to raise the risk of neonatal sepsis owing to the presence of necrotic umbilical or placental tissue. Some parents may view the placenta as a spiritual entity and fail to recognize it may be contaminated with harmful pathogens. Any placenta and umbilical cord attached to a febrile or ill-seeming neonate should be immediately removed.
• Placentophagy. Proponents believe placental consumption has antidepressive, analgesic, galactogogic, and nutritional properties. But eating raw, cooked, or dehydrated afterbirth tissue – viewed by some as a spiritual event – can expose a neonate to flora from the mother’s genitourinary tract and other sources encountered during preparation. Placentophagy has been associated with a case of recurrent late-onset group B streptococcal sepsis in a newborn. Strict food-handling practices at the level for raw meat should be maintained.
• HBV vaccine deferral. Viewed as “a critical safety net in preventing HBV infection,” the birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should not be postponed except for medical reasons. An estimated 1,000 new perinatally acquired HBV cases occurred annually in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
• Deferral of ocular prophylaxis. While ocular prophylaxis with topical erythromycin protects against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum, particularly in infants of high-risk mothers, it is not effective against other common pathogens. Parents and health care providers have recently questioned the need for its routine application, with concerns including its limited range of effectiveness as well as antibiotic resistance and shortages. With adequate prenatal testing, the risk of this neonatal conjunctivitis is significantly reduced, and deferral of prophylaxis may be considered in low-risk situations although it may be mandated by state legislation.
• Delayed bathing. The practice of delaying the infant’s first bath until several hours after birth may have several benefits. These include the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding, decreased mother/child separation time and risk of hypothermia, and protection of the neonatal skin microbiome. It should be discouraged, however, in neonates exposed to active herpes simplex virus lesions or whose mothers have a known history of HIV infection.

When women inquire about alternative practices, physicians need to strike a diplomatic balance between respecting women’s wishes and the benefits they hope to gain and at the same time informing them of potential risks, Dr. Nolt said. “The conversation we want to have with them should show compassion and sympathy but also tell them what the medical literature shows.” Patient and doctor should engage in shared decision-making about the safety of various alternative approaches.

“Over the last decade information on a variety of birth practices have become more widely available through social media and other Internet forums, which certainly has increased the variety of questions to health professionals, Amy C. Hermesch, MD, PhD, director of obstetric services at OHSC, said in an interview.

“We counsel about rare but serious risk, as noted in Dr. Nolt’s article,” said Dr. Hermesch, who was not involved in the AAP report. Most important is a discussion about appropriate pregnancy risk stratification. “For example, persons considering water immersion birth, probably the most common one I get inquiries about, should have an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy with good mobility to get in and out of tub in the event of an emergency.”

While adverse events can happen during any birth, she sees these more often in mothers who underestimate the risk level of their situation or pregnancy when declining provider-recommended interventions. “I encourage pregnant persons to find a health care professional they trust who is knowledgeable about the benefits and the risk of all birth environments and interventions.”

Dr. Hermesch added that most alternative practices have little data to guide decisions, so she offers professional society recommendations, evidence review, and her own professional experiences. “The patient must weight the risk and benefits in the context of their value system and sometimes this means not following my advice or recommendations. My medical recommendation with the best of intentions does not remove patient autonomy.”

This report had no external funding. The authors had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Hermesch had no competing interests to declare.

Increasingly popular alternative peripartum practices such as water immersion and nonseverance of the umbilical cord may increase the risk of infections in newborns, a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics found.

Another perinatal measure potentially raising infection risk was placentophagy, according to a review led by Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Awareness of emerging alternative peripartum and neonatal practices helps pediatricians provide counseling to families before birth and to appropriately evaluate and treat neonates who have been exposed to these practices,” Dr. Nolt and colleagues wrote online in Pediatrics.

Amid growing inquiries made from women seeking a positive and meaningful birth experience through alternative approaches as well as reports of possibly related illness in newborns, Dr. Nolt’s group reviewed observational studies, case series, and medical society guidance on the risks associated with seven alternative birthing practices.

Based on their summation, it was not possible to quantify the actual risk associated with any one practice. “But of the seven we reviewed, as an infectious disease pediatrician I would say the most discernible immediate risk is likely attached to nonseverance of the cord,” Dr. Nolt said in an interview. “Left attached, the tissue can potentially necrote and transfer bacteria directly to the child.”

The authors made the following recommendations:

• Water immersion for labor and delivery. While this can increase the comfort of the mother in the first stages of labor, the water can become contaminated and increase the infant’s exposure to water-borne pathogens such as Legionella and Pseudomonas. It is not recommended after the second stage of labor and if offered, requires rigorous prophylactic and infection-control measures. This practice has also been linked to aspiration, drowning, hyponatremia, cord rupture, and death.
• Vaginal seeding. The skin, noses, and mouths of infants born by cesarean section are inoculated with swabs of vaginal fluid in order to expose them to vaginal bacteria that positively influence the infant’s microbiome. Of no known benefit, this measure can expose newborns to microbes such as group B Streptococcus and herpes simplex virus. Infants born by C-section receiving vaginal seeding should be evaluated the same way as those delivered vaginally.
• Umbilical cord nonseverance. Colloquially known as lotus birth, this is another practice with no evidence of advantage but with the potential to raise the risk of neonatal sepsis owing to the presence of necrotic umbilical or placental tissue. Some parents may view the placenta as a spiritual entity and fail to recognize it may be contaminated with harmful pathogens. Any placenta and umbilical cord attached to a febrile or ill-seeming neonate should be immediately removed.
• Placentophagy. Proponents believe placental consumption has antidepressive, analgesic, galactogogic, and nutritional properties. But eating raw, cooked, or dehydrated afterbirth tissue – viewed by some as a spiritual event – can expose a neonate to flora from the mother’s genitourinary tract and other sources encountered during preparation. Placentophagy has been associated with a case of recurrent late-onset group B streptococcal sepsis in a newborn. Strict food-handling practices at the level for raw meat should be maintained.
• HBV vaccine deferral. Viewed as “a critical safety net in preventing HBV infection,” the birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should not be postponed except for medical reasons. An estimated 1,000 new perinatally acquired HBV cases occurred annually in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
• Deferral of ocular prophylaxis. While ocular prophylaxis with topical erythromycin protects against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum, particularly in infants of high-risk mothers, it is not effective against other common pathogens. Parents and health care providers have recently questioned the need for its routine application, with concerns including its limited range of effectiveness as well as antibiotic resistance and shortages. With adequate prenatal testing, the risk of this neonatal conjunctivitis is significantly reduced, and deferral of prophylaxis may be considered in low-risk situations although it may be mandated by state legislation.
• Delayed bathing. The practice of delaying the infant’s first bath until several hours after birth may have several benefits. These include the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding, decreased mother/child separation time and risk of hypothermia, and protection of the neonatal skin microbiome. It should be discouraged, however, in neonates exposed to active herpes simplex virus lesions or whose mothers have a known history of HIV infection.

When women inquire about alternative practices, physicians need to strike a diplomatic balance between respecting women’s wishes and the benefits they hope to gain and at the same time informing them of potential risks, Dr. Nolt said. “The conversation we want to have with them should show compassion and sympathy but also tell them what the medical literature shows.” Patient and doctor should engage in shared decision-making about the safety of various alternative approaches.

“Over the last decade information on a variety of birth practices have become more widely available through social media and other Internet forums, which certainly has increased the variety of questions to health professionals, Amy C. Hermesch, MD, PhD, director of obstetric services at OHSC, said in an interview.

“We counsel about rare but serious risk, as noted in Dr. Nolt’s article,” said Dr. Hermesch, who was not involved in the AAP report. Most important is a discussion about appropriate pregnancy risk stratification. “For example, persons considering water immersion birth, probably the most common one I get inquiries about, should have an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy with good mobility to get in and out of tub in the event of an emergency.”

While adverse events can happen during any birth, she sees these more often in mothers who underestimate the risk level of their situation or pregnancy when declining provider-recommended interventions. “I encourage pregnant persons to find a health care professional they trust who is knowledgeable about the benefits and the risk of all birth environments and interventions.”

Dr. Hermesch added that most alternative practices have little data to guide decisions, so she offers professional society recommendations, evidence review, and her own professional experiences. “The patient must weight the risk and benefits in the context of their value system and sometimes this means not following my advice or recommendations. My medical recommendation with the best of intentions does not remove patient autonomy.”

This report had no external funding. The authors had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Hermesch had no competing interests to declare.

Two new studies show how COVID-19 threatens the health of pregnant people and their newborn infants.

A study conducted in Scotland showed that unvaccinated pregnant people who got COVID were much more likely to have a stillborn infant or one that dies in the first 28 days. The study also found that pregnant women infected with COVID died or needed hospitalization at a much higher rate than vaccinated women who got pregnant.

The University of Edinburgh and Public Health Scotland studied national data in 88,000 pregnancies between Dec. 2020 and Oct. 2021, according to the study published in Nature Medicine.

Overall, 77.4% of infections, 90.9% of COVID-related hospitalizations, and 98% of critical care cases occurred in the unvaccinated people, as did all newborn deaths.

The study said 2,364 babies were born to women infected with COVID, with 2,353 live births. Eleven babies were stillborn and eight live-born babies died within 28 days. Of the live births, 241 were premature.

The problems were more likely if the infection occurred 28 days or less before the delivery date, the researchers said.

The authors said the low vaccination rate among pregnant people was a problem. Only 32% of people giving birth in Oct. 2021 were fully vaccinated, while 77% of the Scottish female population aged 18-44 was fully vaccinated.

“Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy thus requires addressing, especially in light of new recommendations for booster vaccination administration 3 months after the initial vaccination course to help protect against new variants such as Omicron,” the authors wrote. “Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.”

Vaccinated women who were pregnant had complication rates that were about the same for all pregnant women, the study shows.

The second study, published in The Lancet, found that women who got COVID while pregnant in five Western U.S. states were more likely to have premature births, low birth weights, and stillbirths, even when the COVID cases are mild.

The Institute for Systems Biology researchers in Seattle studied data for women who gave birth in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, or Washington from March 5, 2020, to July 4, 2021. About 18,000 of them were tested for COVID, with 882 testing positive. Of the positive tests, 85 came in the first trimester, 226 in the second trimester, and 571 in the third semester. None of the pregnant women had been vaccinated at the time they were infected.

Most of the birth problems occurred with first and second trimester infections, the study noted, and problems occurred even if the pregnant person didn’t have respiratory complications, a major COVID symptom.

“Pregnant people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, even when maternal COVID-19 is less severe, and they may benefit from increased monitoring following infection,” Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an author of the paper, said in a news release.

The study also pointed out continuing inequities in health care, with most of the positive cases occurring among young, non-White people with Medicaid and high body mass index.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Two new studies show how COVID-19 threatens the health of pregnant people and their newborn infants.

A study conducted in Scotland showed that unvaccinated pregnant people who got COVID were much more likely to have a stillborn infant or one that dies in the first 28 days. The study also found that pregnant women infected with COVID died or needed hospitalization at a much higher rate than vaccinated women who got pregnant.

The University of Edinburgh and Public Health Scotland studied national data in 88,000 pregnancies between Dec. 2020 and Oct. 2021, according to the study published in Nature Medicine.

Overall, 77.4% of infections, 90.9% of COVID-related hospitalizations, and 98% of critical care cases occurred in the unvaccinated people, as did all newborn deaths.

The study said 2,364 babies were born to women infected with COVID, with 2,353 live births. Eleven babies were stillborn and eight live-born babies died within 28 days. Of the live births, 241 were premature.

The problems were more likely if the infection occurred 28 days or less before the delivery date, the researchers said.

The authors said the low vaccination rate among pregnant people was a problem. Only 32% of people giving birth in Oct. 2021 were fully vaccinated, while 77% of the Scottish female population aged 18-44 was fully vaccinated.

“Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy thus requires addressing, especially in light of new recommendations for booster vaccination administration 3 months after the initial vaccination course to help protect against new variants such as Omicron,” the authors wrote. “Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.”

Vaccinated women who were pregnant had complication rates that were about the same for all pregnant women, the study shows.

The second study, published in The Lancet, found that women who got COVID while pregnant in five Western U.S. states were more likely to have premature births, low birth weights, and stillbirths, even when the COVID cases are mild.

The Institute for Systems Biology researchers in Seattle studied data for women who gave birth in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, or Washington from March 5, 2020, to July 4, 2021. About 18,000 of them were tested for COVID, with 882 testing positive. Of the positive tests, 85 came in the first trimester, 226 in the second trimester, and 571 in the third semester. None of the pregnant women had been vaccinated at the time they were infected.

Most of the birth problems occurred with first and second trimester infections, the study noted, and problems occurred even if the pregnant person didn’t have respiratory complications, a major COVID symptom.

“Pregnant people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, even when maternal COVID-19 is less severe, and they may benefit from increased monitoring following infection,” Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an author of the paper, said in a news release.

The study also pointed out continuing inequities in health care, with most of the positive cases occurring among young, non-White people with Medicaid and high body mass index.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Two new studies show how COVID-19 threatens the health of pregnant people and their newborn infants.

A study conducted in Scotland showed that unvaccinated pregnant people who got COVID were much more likely to have a stillborn infant or one that dies in the first 28 days. The study also found that pregnant women infected with COVID died or needed hospitalization at a much higher rate than vaccinated women who got pregnant.

The University of Edinburgh and Public Health Scotland studied national data in 88,000 pregnancies between Dec. 2020 and Oct. 2021, according to the study published in Nature Medicine.

Overall, 77.4% of infections, 90.9% of COVID-related hospitalizations, and 98% of critical care cases occurred in the unvaccinated people, as did all newborn deaths.

The study said 2,364 babies were born to women infected with COVID, with 2,353 live births. Eleven babies were stillborn and eight live-born babies died within 28 days. Of the live births, 241 were premature.

The problems were more likely if the infection occurred 28 days or less before the delivery date, the researchers said.

The authors said the low vaccination rate among pregnant people was a problem. Only 32% of people giving birth in Oct. 2021 were fully vaccinated, while 77% of the Scottish female population aged 18-44 was fully vaccinated.

“Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy thus requires addressing, especially in light of new recommendations for booster vaccination administration 3 months after the initial vaccination course to help protect against new variants such as Omicron,” the authors wrote. “Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.”

Vaccinated women who were pregnant had complication rates that were about the same for all pregnant women, the study shows.

The second study, published in The Lancet, found that women who got COVID while pregnant in five Western U.S. states were more likely to have premature births, low birth weights, and stillbirths, even when the COVID cases are mild.

The Institute for Systems Biology researchers in Seattle studied data for women who gave birth in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, or Washington from March 5, 2020, to July 4, 2021. About 18,000 of them were tested for COVID, with 882 testing positive. Of the positive tests, 85 came in the first trimester, 226 in the second trimester, and 571 in the third semester. None of the pregnant women had been vaccinated at the time they were infected.

Most of the birth problems occurred with first and second trimester infections, the study noted, and problems occurred even if the pregnant person didn’t have respiratory complications, a major COVID symptom.

“Pregnant people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, even when maternal COVID-19 is less severe, and they may benefit from increased monitoring following infection,” Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an author of the paper, said in a news release.

The study also pointed out continuing inequities in health care, with most of the positive cases occurring among young, non-White people with Medicaid and high body mass index.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Antibiotics were administered to newborns at low risk for early-onset sepsis as frequently as to newborns with EOS risk factors, based on data from approximately 7,500 infants.

EOS remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, and predicting which newborns are at risk remains a challenge for neonatal care that often drives high rates of antibiotic use, Dustin D. Flannery, DO, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues wrote.

Antibiotic exposures are associated with short- and long-term adverse effects in both preterm and term infants, which highlights the need for improved risk assessment in this population, the researchers said.

“A robust estimate of EOS risk in relation to delivery characteristics among infants of all gestational ages at birth could significantly contribute to newborn clinical management by identifying newborns unlikely to benefit from empirical antibiotic therapy,” they emphasized.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers identified 7,540 infants born between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2014, at two high-risk perinatal units in Philadelphia. Gestational age ranged from 22 to 43 weeks. Criteria for low risk of EOS were determined via an algorithm that included cesarean delivery (with or without labor or membrane rupture), and no antepartum concerns for intra-amniotic infection or nonreassuring fetal status.

A total of 6,428 infants did not meet the low-risk criteria; another 1,121 infants met the low-risk criteria. The primary outcome of EOS was defined as growth of a pathogen in at least 1 blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid culture obtained at 72 hours or less after birth. Overall, 41 infants who did not meet the low-risk criteria developed EOS; none of the infants who met the low-risk criteria developed EOS. Secondary outcomes included initiation of empirical antibiotics at 72 hours or less after birth and the duration of antibiotic use.

Although fewer low-risk infants received antibiotics, compared with infants with EOS (80.4% vs. 91.0%, P < .001), the duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the groups, with an adjusted difference of 0.6 hours.

Among infants who did not meet low-risk criteria, 157 were started on antibiotics for each case of EOS, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Because no cases of EOS were identified in the low-risk group, this proportion could not be calculated but suggests that antibiotic exposure in this group was disproportionately higher for incidence of EOS.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible lack of generalizability to other centers and the use of data from a period before more refined EOS strategies, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to assess the effect of lab results on antibiotic use, a lack of data on the exact indication for delivery, and potential misclassification bias.

Risk assessment tools should not be used alone, but should be used to inform clinical decision-making, the researchers emphasized. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of moderately preterm infants, who are rarely studied, and the clinical utility of the risk algorithm used in the study. “The implications of our study include potential adjustments to sepsis risk assessment in term infants, and confirmation and enhancement of previous studies that identify a subset of lower-risk preterm infants,” who may be spared empirical or prolonged antibiotic exposure, they concluded.
 

Data inform intelligent antibiotic use

“Early-onset sepsis is predominantly caused by exposure of the fetus or neonate to ascending maternal colonization or infection by gastrointestinal or genitourinary bacteria,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Scenarios where there is limited neonatal exposure to these organisms would decrease the risk of development of EOS, therefore it is not surprising that delivery characteristics of low-risk deliveries as defined by investigators – the absence of labor, absence of intra-amniotic infection, rupture of membranes at time of delivery, and cesarean delivery – would have resulted in decreased likelihood of EOS.”

Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to the development of resistant and more virulent strains of bacteria. A growing body of literature also suggests that early antibiotic usage in newborns may affect the neonatal gut microbiome, which is important for development of the neonatal immune system. Early alterations of the microbiome may have long-term implications,” Dr. Krishna said.

“Understanding the delivery characteristics that increase the risk of EOS are crucial to optimizing the use of antibiotics and thereby minimize potential harm to newborns,” she said. “Studies such as the current study are needed develop EOS prediction tools to improve antibiotic utilization.” More research is needed not only to adequately predict EOS, but to explore how antibiotics affect the neonatal microbiome, and how clinicians can circumvent potential adverse implications with antibiotic use to improve long-term health, Dr. Krishna concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Antibiotics were administered to newborns at low risk for early-onset sepsis as frequently as to newborns with EOS risk factors, based on data from approximately 7,500 infants.

EOS remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, and predicting which newborns are at risk remains a challenge for neonatal care that often drives high rates of antibiotic use, Dustin D. Flannery, DO, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues wrote.

Antibiotic exposures are associated with short- and long-term adverse effects in both preterm and term infants, which highlights the need for improved risk assessment in this population, the researchers said.

“A robust estimate of EOS risk in relation to delivery characteristics among infants of all gestational ages at birth could significantly contribute to newborn clinical management by identifying newborns unlikely to benefit from empirical antibiotic therapy,” they emphasized.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers identified 7,540 infants born between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2014, at two high-risk perinatal units in Philadelphia. Gestational age ranged from 22 to 43 weeks. Criteria for low risk of EOS were determined via an algorithm that included cesarean delivery (with or without labor or membrane rupture), and no antepartum concerns for intra-amniotic infection or nonreassuring fetal status.

A total of 6,428 infants did not meet the low-risk criteria; another 1,121 infants met the low-risk criteria. The primary outcome of EOS was defined as growth of a pathogen in at least 1 blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid culture obtained at 72 hours or less after birth. Overall, 41 infants who did not meet the low-risk criteria developed EOS; none of the infants who met the low-risk criteria developed EOS. Secondary outcomes included initiation of empirical antibiotics at 72 hours or less after birth and the duration of antibiotic use.

Although fewer low-risk infants received antibiotics, compared with infants with EOS (80.4% vs. 91.0%, P < .001), the duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the groups, with an adjusted difference of 0.6 hours.

Among infants who did not meet low-risk criteria, 157 were started on antibiotics for each case of EOS, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Because no cases of EOS were identified in the low-risk group, this proportion could not be calculated but suggests that antibiotic exposure in this group was disproportionately higher for incidence of EOS.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible lack of generalizability to other centers and the use of data from a period before more refined EOS strategies, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to assess the effect of lab results on antibiotic use, a lack of data on the exact indication for delivery, and potential misclassification bias.

Risk assessment tools should not be used alone, but should be used to inform clinical decision-making, the researchers emphasized. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of moderately preterm infants, who are rarely studied, and the clinical utility of the risk algorithm used in the study. “The implications of our study include potential adjustments to sepsis risk assessment in term infants, and confirmation and enhancement of previous studies that identify a subset of lower-risk preterm infants,” who may be spared empirical or prolonged antibiotic exposure, they concluded.
 

Data inform intelligent antibiotic use

“Early-onset sepsis is predominantly caused by exposure of the fetus or neonate to ascending maternal colonization or infection by gastrointestinal or genitourinary bacteria,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Scenarios where there is limited neonatal exposure to these organisms would decrease the risk of development of EOS, therefore it is not surprising that delivery characteristics of low-risk deliveries as defined by investigators – the absence of labor, absence of intra-amniotic infection, rupture of membranes at time of delivery, and cesarean delivery – would have resulted in decreased likelihood of EOS.”

Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to the development of resistant and more virulent strains of bacteria. A growing body of literature also suggests that early antibiotic usage in newborns may affect the neonatal gut microbiome, which is important for development of the neonatal immune system. Early alterations of the microbiome may have long-term implications,” Dr. Krishna said.

“Understanding the delivery characteristics that increase the risk of EOS are crucial to optimizing the use of antibiotics and thereby minimize potential harm to newborns,” she said. “Studies such as the current study are needed develop EOS prediction tools to improve antibiotic utilization.” More research is needed not only to adequately predict EOS, but to explore how antibiotics affect the neonatal microbiome, and how clinicians can circumvent potential adverse implications with antibiotic use to improve long-term health, Dr. Krishna concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Antibiotics were administered to newborns at low risk for early-onset sepsis as frequently as to newborns with EOS risk factors, based on data from approximately 7,500 infants.

EOS remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, and predicting which newborns are at risk remains a challenge for neonatal care that often drives high rates of antibiotic use, Dustin D. Flannery, DO, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues wrote.

Antibiotic exposures are associated with short- and long-term adverse effects in both preterm and term infants, which highlights the need for improved risk assessment in this population, the researchers said.

“A robust estimate of EOS risk in relation to delivery characteristics among infants of all gestational ages at birth could significantly contribute to newborn clinical management by identifying newborns unlikely to benefit from empirical antibiotic therapy,” they emphasized.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers identified 7,540 infants born between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2014, at two high-risk perinatal units in Philadelphia. Gestational age ranged from 22 to 43 weeks. Criteria for low risk of EOS were determined via an algorithm that included cesarean delivery (with or without labor or membrane rupture), and no antepartum concerns for intra-amniotic infection or nonreassuring fetal status.

A total of 6,428 infants did not meet the low-risk criteria; another 1,121 infants met the low-risk criteria. The primary outcome of EOS was defined as growth of a pathogen in at least 1 blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid culture obtained at 72 hours or less after birth. Overall, 41 infants who did not meet the low-risk criteria developed EOS; none of the infants who met the low-risk criteria developed EOS. Secondary outcomes included initiation of empirical antibiotics at 72 hours or less after birth and the duration of antibiotic use.

Although fewer low-risk infants received antibiotics, compared with infants with EOS (80.4% vs. 91.0%, P < .001), the duration of antibiotic use was not significantly different between the groups, with an adjusted difference of 0.6 hours.

Among infants who did not meet low-risk criteria, 157 were started on antibiotics for each case of EOS, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Because no cases of EOS were identified in the low-risk group, this proportion could not be calculated but suggests that antibiotic exposure in this group was disproportionately higher for incidence of EOS.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible lack of generalizability to other centers and the use of data from a period before more refined EOS strategies, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to assess the effect of lab results on antibiotic use, a lack of data on the exact indication for delivery, and potential misclassification bias.

Risk assessment tools should not be used alone, but should be used to inform clinical decision-making, the researchers emphasized. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of moderately preterm infants, who are rarely studied, and the clinical utility of the risk algorithm used in the study. “The implications of our study include potential adjustments to sepsis risk assessment in term infants, and confirmation and enhancement of previous studies that identify a subset of lower-risk preterm infants,” who may be spared empirical or prolonged antibiotic exposure, they concluded.
 

Data inform intelligent antibiotic use

“Early-onset sepsis is predominantly caused by exposure of the fetus or neonate to ascending maternal colonization or infection by gastrointestinal or genitourinary bacteria,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Scenarios where there is limited neonatal exposure to these organisms would decrease the risk of development of EOS, therefore it is not surprising that delivery characteristics of low-risk deliveries as defined by investigators – the absence of labor, absence of intra-amniotic infection, rupture of membranes at time of delivery, and cesarean delivery – would have resulted in decreased likelihood of EOS.”

Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to the development of resistant and more virulent strains of bacteria. A growing body of literature also suggests that early antibiotic usage in newborns may affect the neonatal gut microbiome, which is important for development of the neonatal immune system. Early alterations of the microbiome may have long-term implications,” Dr. Krishna said.

“Understanding the delivery characteristics that increase the risk of EOS are crucial to optimizing the use of antibiotics and thereby minimize potential harm to newborns,” she said. “Studies such as the current study are needed develop EOS prediction tools to improve antibiotic utilization.” More research is needed not only to adequately predict EOS, but to explore how antibiotics affect the neonatal microbiome, and how clinicians can circumvent potential adverse implications with antibiotic use to improve long-term health, Dr. Krishna concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Pediatricians play many roles as they fulfill their duties and responsibilities. Among these is the role of trusted counselor.

A pediatrician is a risk manager. Not the risk manager at a brokerage firm assessing financial risks. Not the hospital lawyer providing legal advice to minimize lawsuits against the hospital. The pediatrician, as risk manager, is a fiduciary, confidant, partner, and guide for parents seeking to protect and maximize the health of their children.

The practice of pediatrics deals with many low-probability, high-impact threats. This begins before birth. The obstetrician has already ordered a litany of prenatal screens, blood tests, and ultrasounds. Many of these have a positive predictive value of less than 20%. That means the alarming positive results are wrong more than 80% of the time. Tests done purportedly to reassure the parents are likely to falsely terrify them. This devilish process continues immediately after birth. The newborns are subjected to a wide variety of screening tests that they must pass before being stamped USDA Prime baby. Early in my career, a thorough newborn physical exam was the key means of identifying problems. Modern medicine employs a wide variety of blood tests, a hearing screen, a pulse ox check, and a transcutaneous bilirubin test before discharge. It is a gauntlet that few escape unscathed. Even the totally normal infant is going to flunk a handful of these screens. Then the nursery doctor is ready to erect additional hoops to jump through. Too big or too small? You need glucose checks. Breech presentation? A hip ultrasound. Too long in labor? Blood tests. Too pale or too ruddy? Blood tests. Not acting quite right? Temperature too high? Temperature too low? Too irritable? Too lethargic? Baby, you’ve hit the jackpot for extra blood tests, an app to estimate the risk of early-onset sepsis, and maybe a trip to the NICU.

Many of these protocols have poor positive predictive value results that are not easy to explain to lay people. The ideas are not easily taught to medical students. Those results can be even harder to communicate to new parents with health care careers. A little knowledge goes a long ways toward long, sleepless nights of worrying even though the baby is just fine. Even cute. Snuggly. A good baby! Parents, hug your baby! Feed the baby! Let the professional do most of the worrying.

What does a professional worrier offer? First, a comprehension of the science. The professional understands sensitivity and specificity, false-positive rates, prevalence, and positive predictive value. Second, particular knowledge of the various tests involved, including the confirmatory tests and the risk-benefit of treatment. Third, experienced clinical judgment that knows that lotteries are bad investments even though two people are splitting a $600 million lottery win this week. Most people don’t emotionally cope with small risks. Fourth, the ability to do values clarification. There is not a one-size-fits-all bedside approach in pediatrics. Parents have differing expectations, differing levels of risk aversion, and different methods for handling anxiety. First-time parents may be very risk intolerant with their baby. Some people deal with fear by seeking more information. Others are looking for evidence that the expert physician is committed to compassionately providing whatever is best for their child.

How has medicine evolved recently? I will highlight four items. First, as described earlier, there has been a large increase in the number of these screens that will be failed. Typical office practice continues the methodology with well child exams and developmental screening. Second, many screens have been introduced that have very low positive predictive value. This leads to many anxious parents who will benefit from pediatricians with the bedside manner to guide the parents and their precious baby through this maze of scientific interventions. The science is difficult enough to master during training. It takes more time to learn the art of counseling parents, listening to their concerns, and earning their trust. That art is practiced in face-to-face encounters with the parents. The classic approach to residency training limits the opportunity to observe and mentor the knowledge, skills, and empathy of a good bedside manner.

A third evolution, more recent, has been the widespread pollution of scientific knowledge with misinformation and disinformation through social media. I addressed that issue in my columns in January and March 2019.

Fourth, most recently, I believe the pandemic has emphasized to the public that nothing in life is totally risk free. Extreme efforts to reduce risk produce unwanted consequences. There is a window of opportunity here to work with parents and patients to build relationships that help people to assess risks and make more rational and beneficial choices. For example, when is the risk of meningitis in a febrile young infant low enough to manage at home? The risk will never be zero. But admission to the hospital “just in case” is not risk free either. People are acutely aware of that right now.

Health care professionals can position themselves as the trusted source of health information specific to a particular person’s situation. Health care professionals can be competent, committed, and compassionate listeners to what really worries people. In this way, we manage risk. This role also involves addressing the mental health crisis causing so much suicide and addiction. Severe problems should be referred to specialists, but I anticipate in the near future that most pediatricians will require more skills dealing with risk and anxiety rather than microbes.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Pediatricians play many roles as they fulfill their duties and responsibilities. Among these is the role of trusted counselor.

A pediatrician is a risk manager. Not the risk manager at a brokerage firm assessing financial risks. Not the hospital lawyer providing legal advice to minimize lawsuits against the hospital. The pediatrician, as risk manager, is a fiduciary, confidant, partner, and guide for parents seeking to protect and maximize the health of their children.

The practice of pediatrics deals with many low-probability, high-impact threats. This begins before birth. The obstetrician has already ordered a litany of prenatal screens, blood tests, and ultrasounds. Many of these have a positive predictive value of less than 20%. That means the alarming positive results are wrong more than 80% of the time. Tests done purportedly to reassure the parents are likely to falsely terrify them. This devilish process continues immediately after birth. The newborns are subjected to a wide variety of screening tests that they must pass before being stamped USDA Prime baby. Early in my career, a thorough newborn physical exam was the key means of identifying problems. Modern medicine employs a wide variety of blood tests, a hearing screen, a pulse ox check, and a transcutaneous bilirubin test before discharge. It is a gauntlet that few escape unscathed. Even the totally normal infant is going to flunk a handful of these screens. Then the nursery doctor is ready to erect additional hoops to jump through. Too big or too small? You need glucose checks. Breech presentation? A hip ultrasound. Too long in labor? Blood tests. Too pale or too ruddy? Blood tests. Not acting quite right? Temperature too high? Temperature too low? Too irritable? Too lethargic? Baby, you’ve hit the jackpot for extra blood tests, an app to estimate the risk of early-onset sepsis, and maybe a trip to the NICU.

Many of these protocols have poor positive predictive value results that are not easy to explain to lay people. The ideas are not easily taught to medical students. Those results can be even harder to communicate to new parents with health care careers. A little knowledge goes a long ways toward long, sleepless nights of worrying even though the baby is just fine. Even cute. Snuggly. A good baby! Parents, hug your baby! Feed the baby! Let the professional do most of the worrying.

What does a professional worrier offer? First, a comprehension of the science. The professional understands sensitivity and specificity, false-positive rates, prevalence, and positive predictive value. Second, particular knowledge of the various tests involved, including the confirmatory tests and the risk-benefit of treatment. Third, experienced clinical judgment that knows that lotteries are bad investments even though two people are splitting a $600 million lottery win this week. Most people don’t emotionally cope with small risks. Fourth, the ability to do values clarification. There is not a one-size-fits-all bedside approach in pediatrics. Parents have differing expectations, differing levels of risk aversion, and different methods for handling anxiety. First-time parents may be very risk intolerant with their baby. Some people deal with fear by seeking more information. Others are looking for evidence that the expert physician is committed to compassionately providing whatever is best for their child.

How has medicine evolved recently? I will highlight four items. First, as described earlier, there has been a large increase in the number of these screens that will be failed. Typical office practice continues the methodology with well child exams and developmental screening. Second, many screens have been introduced that have very low positive predictive value. This leads to many anxious parents who will benefit from pediatricians with the bedside manner to guide the parents and their precious baby through this maze of scientific interventions. The science is difficult enough to master during training. It takes more time to learn the art of counseling parents, listening to their concerns, and earning their trust. That art is practiced in face-to-face encounters with the parents. The classic approach to residency training limits the opportunity to observe and mentor the knowledge, skills, and empathy of a good bedside manner.

A third evolution, more recent, has been the widespread pollution of scientific knowledge with misinformation and disinformation through social media. I addressed that issue in my columns in January and March 2019.

Fourth, most recently, I believe the pandemic has emphasized to the public that nothing in life is totally risk free. Extreme efforts to reduce risk produce unwanted consequences. There is a window of opportunity here to work with parents and patients to build relationships that help people to assess risks and make more rational and beneficial choices. For example, when is the risk of meningitis in a febrile young infant low enough to manage at home? The risk will never be zero. But admission to the hospital “just in case” is not risk free either. People are acutely aware of that right now.

Health care professionals can position themselves as the trusted source of health information specific to a particular person’s situation. Health care professionals can be competent, committed, and compassionate listeners to what really worries people. In this way, we manage risk. This role also involves addressing the mental health crisis causing so much suicide and addiction. Severe problems should be referred to specialists, but I anticipate in the near future that most pediatricians will require more skills dealing with risk and anxiety rather than microbes.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Pediatricians play many roles as they fulfill their duties and responsibilities. Among these is the role of trusted counselor.

A pediatrician is a risk manager. Not the risk manager at a brokerage firm assessing financial risks. Not the hospital lawyer providing legal advice to minimize lawsuits against the hospital. The pediatrician, as risk manager, is a fiduciary, confidant, partner, and guide for parents seeking to protect and maximize the health of their children.

The practice of pediatrics deals with many low-probability, high-impact threats. This begins before birth. The obstetrician has already ordered a litany of prenatal screens, blood tests, and ultrasounds. Many of these have a positive predictive value of less than 20%. That means the alarming positive results are wrong more than 80% of the time. Tests done purportedly to reassure the parents are likely to falsely terrify them. This devilish process continues immediately after birth. The newborns are subjected to a wide variety of screening tests that they must pass before being stamped USDA Prime baby. Early in my career, a thorough newborn physical exam was the key means of identifying problems. Modern medicine employs a wide variety of blood tests, a hearing screen, a pulse ox check, and a transcutaneous bilirubin test before discharge. It is a gauntlet that few escape unscathed. Even the totally normal infant is going to flunk a handful of these screens. Then the nursery doctor is ready to erect additional hoops to jump through. Too big or too small? You need glucose checks. Breech presentation? A hip ultrasound. Too long in labor? Blood tests. Too pale or too ruddy? Blood tests. Not acting quite right? Temperature too high? Temperature too low? Too irritable? Too lethargic? Baby, you’ve hit the jackpot for extra blood tests, an app to estimate the risk of early-onset sepsis, and maybe a trip to the NICU.

Many of these protocols have poor positive predictive value results that are not easy to explain to lay people. The ideas are not easily taught to medical students. Those results can be even harder to communicate to new parents with health care careers. A little knowledge goes a long ways toward long, sleepless nights of worrying even though the baby is just fine. Even cute. Snuggly. A good baby! Parents, hug your baby! Feed the baby! Let the professional do most of the worrying.

What does a professional worrier offer? First, a comprehension of the science. The professional understands sensitivity and specificity, false-positive rates, prevalence, and positive predictive value. Second, particular knowledge of the various tests involved, including the confirmatory tests and the risk-benefit of treatment. Third, experienced clinical judgment that knows that lotteries are bad investments even though two people are splitting a $600 million lottery win this week. Most people don’t emotionally cope with small risks. Fourth, the ability to do values clarification. There is not a one-size-fits-all bedside approach in pediatrics. Parents have differing expectations, differing levels of risk aversion, and different methods for handling anxiety. First-time parents may be very risk intolerant with their baby. Some people deal with fear by seeking more information. Others are looking for evidence that the expert physician is committed to compassionately providing whatever is best for their child.

How has medicine evolved recently? I will highlight four items. First, as described earlier, there has been a large increase in the number of these screens that will be failed. Typical office practice continues the methodology with well child exams and developmental screening. Second, many screens have been introduced that have very low positive predictive value. This leads to many anxious parents who will benefit from pediatricians with the bedside manner to guide the parents and their precious baby through this maze of scientific interventions. The science is difficult enough to master during training. It takes more time to learn the art of counseling parents, listening to their concerns, and earning their trust. That art is practiced in face-to-face encounters with the parents. The classic approach to residency training limits the opportunity to observe and mentor the knowledge, skills, and empathy of a good bedside manner.

A third evolution, more recent, has been the widespread pollution of scientific knowledge with misinformation and disinformation through social media. I addressed that issue in my columns in January and March 2019.

Fourth, most recently, I believe the pandemic has emphasized to the public that nothing in life is totally risk free. Extreme efforts to reduce risk produce unwanted consequences. There is a window of opportunity here to work with parents and patients to build relationships that help people to assess risks and make more rational and beneficial choices. For example, when is the risk of meningitis in a febrile young infant low enough to manage at home? The risk will never be zero. But admission to the hospital “just in case” is not risk free either. People are acutely aware of that right now.

Health care professionals can position themselves as the trusted source of health information specific to a particular person’s situation. Health care professionals can be competent, committed, and compassionate listeners to what really worries people. In this way, we manage risk. This role also involves addressing the mental health crisis causing so much suicide and addiction. Severe problems should be referred to specialists, but I anticipate in the near future that most pediatricians will require more skills dealing with risk and anxiety rather than microbes.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Delayed umbilical cord clamping for at least 60 seconds after birth significantly reduced death or disability in infants of less than 30 weeks’ gestation, according to data from nearly 1,500 infants.

The burden of disability and mortality for babies born before 30 weeks’ gestation remains high, especially in low- and middle-income countries, wrote Kristy P. Robledo, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Delayed clamping of the umbilical cord is a simple procedure that may improve mortality in this population, but more research is needed; recommended times to delayed clamping range from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, they noted.

In a study published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, the researchers randomized 767 very preterm infants to delayed clamping at least 60 seconds after birth and 764 to immediate clamping. Of these, 384 were multiple births (who were individually randomized), 862 were male, and 505 were born before 27 weeks’ gestation. The primary outcome was death or disability at 2 years of age. Major disability was defined as cerebral palsy, severe visual loss, deafness requiring a hearing aid or cochlear implants, major language or speech problems, or cognitive delay at 2 years corrected age. The median time to clamping was 60 seconds in the delayed group and 5 seconds in the immediate group.

Primary outcome data were available for 1,419 infants. Death or major disability occurred in 29% of infants assigned to delayed clamping compared to 34% of those assigned to immediate clamping (relative risk 0.83, P = .010). The infants were part of the APTS Childhood Follow-Up Study, an open-label superiority trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand.

By age 2 years, 8% of infants in the delayed group and 11% of those in the immediate group had died; 23% and 26%, respectively, met criteria for major disability. The impact of delayed clamping translates to a 30% reduction in relative risk of mortality at 2 years of age, but no significant impact on major disability, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the unblinded study design, lack of data on heart rate or time to first breath, and the clamping prior to 60 seconds in 26% of infants in the delayed group based on clinical concerns for these specific infants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size, low risk of bias, and specific primary outcome, they said. The data support findings from recent systematic reviews and highlight the need for further trials to evaluate delayed clamping at different time points, with larger populations, inclusion of time to first breath and heart rate, and improved measures of disability, the researchers added.

In clinical practice, “Given that aiming to delay cord clamping for 60 seconds or more improved 2-year outcomes and short-term hematological measures with no evidence of significant harm, it seems reasonable to conclude that delayed clamping is appropriate as standard care in very preterm infants,” they concluded.
 

Accepting simple intervention could have great impact

This study is important in light of the overwhelming burden of preterm birth on the health care system and society as a whole, Lisette D. Tanner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Preterm birth is associated with billions in health care costs each year, and a large portion of that money is directed to the complications associated with preterm birth, such as early intervention services, educational support, and ongoing medical care,” Dr. Tanner said. “This study is particularly timely, as we are quickly approaching 2030, the deadline for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age,” she said. The goal involves “all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births. Effective treatments to reduce infant and child mortality would make strong inroads toward this goal,” she explained.

Dr. Tanner said she was not surprised by the findings because previous studies have shown similar results. “However, the large, multicenter nature of this study provides additional weight to recommendations to delay cord clamping as standard practice,” she said.

“The findings of this study support the recommendations of a number of large organizations,” said Dr. Tanner. “The World Health Organization recommends that the umbilical cord not be clamped earlier than 1 minute after birth in term or preterm infants who do not require positive pressure ventilation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommend a delay in umbilical cord clamping in vigorous term and preterm infants for at least 30–60 seconds after birth,” she said. “The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also recommends deferring umbilical cord clamping for healthy term and preterm infants for at least 2 minutes after birth,” she added.  

However, “the delay in adoption of this guidelines in practice appears to be related to some concerns regarding universal adoption of this approach,” Dr. Tanner noted. “Some clinicians have suggested that delayed cord clamping could delay vital neonatal resuscitative efforts, leading to worse neonatal outcomes, but this concern has not been borne out in the data, as all guidelines specifically state that this intervention is for vigorous newborns,” she said. “In fact, in preterm infants, delayed cord clamping is associated with improved transitional circulation, decreased need for blood transfusion, and lower incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis and intraventricular hemorrhage,” Dr. Tanner emphasized. “Additionally, concerns persist that delayed cord clamping could lead to excessive transfusion with resultant polycythemia. Again, no data have supported this claim to date,” she said.

“Finally, some clinicians are concerned that delayed clamping could lead to delay in addressing maternal complications of birth such as hemorrhage, but studies have shown the opposite; delayed umbilical cord clamping has not been associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage or increased blood loss at delivery, nor has it been with a difference in the need for blood transfusion,” said Dr. Tanner.

Ideally, practitioners will become more comfortable in delaying cord clamping as a routine practice as more data demonstrating the safety and benefit of this easy intervention are disseminated, she said.

Additional research delineating which gestational ages benefit most from delayed cord clamping would help direct education efforts to implement this intervention, Dr. Tanner noted.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The researchers and Dr. Tanner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Delayed umbilical cord clamping for at least 60 seconds after birth significantly reduced death or disability in infants of less than 30 weeks’ gestation, according to data from nearly 1,500 infants.

The burden of disability and mortality for babies born before 30 weeks’ gestation remains high, especially in low- and middle-income countries, wrote Kristy P. Robledo, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Delayed clamping of the umbilical cord is a simple procedure that may improve mortality in this population, but more research is needed; recommended times to delayed clamping range from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, they noted.

In a study published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, the researchers randomized 767 very preterm infants to delayed clamping at least 60 seconds after birth and 764 to immediate clamping. Of these, 384 were multiple births (who were individually randomized), 862 were male, and 505 were born before 27 weeks’ gestation. The primary outcome was death or disability at 2 years of age. Major disability was defined as cerebral palsy, severe visual loss, deafness requiring a hearing aid or cochlear implants, major language or speech problems, or cognitive delay at 2 years corrected age. The median time to clamping was 60 seconds in the delayed group and 5 seconds in the immediate group.

Primary outcome data were available for 1,419 infants. Death or major disability occurred in 29% of infants assigned to delayed clamping compared to 34% of those assigned to immediate clamping (relative risk 0.83, P = .010). The infants were part of the APTS Childhood Follow-Up Study, an open-label superiority trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand.

By age 2 years, 8% of infants in the delayed group and 11% of those in the immediate group had died; 23% and 26%, respectively, met criteria for major disability. The impact of delayed clamping translates to a 30% reduction in relative risk of mortality at 2 years of age, but no significant impact on major disability, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the unblinded study design, lack of data on heart rate or time to first breath, and the clamping prior to 60 seconds in 26% of infants in the delayed group based on clinical concerns for these specific infants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size, low risk of bias, and specific primary outcome, they said. The data support findings from recent systematic reviews and highlight the need for further trials to evaluate delayed clamping at different time points, with larger populations, inclusion of time to first breath and heart rate, and improved measures of disability, the researchers added.

In clinical practice, “Given that aiming to delay cord clamping for 60 seconds or more improved 2-year outcomes and short-term hematological measures with no evidence of significant harm, it seems reasonable to conclude that delayed clamping is appropriate as standard care in very preterm infants,” they concluded.
 

Accepting simple intervention could have great impact

This study is important in light of the overwhelming burden of preterm birth on the health care system and society as a whole, Lisette D. Tanner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Preterm birth is associated with billions in health care costs each year, and a large portion of that money is directed to the complications associated with preterm birth, such as early intervention services, educational support, and ongoing medical care,” Dr. Tanner said. “This study is particularly timely, as we are quickly approaching 2030, the deadline for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age,” she said. The goal involves “all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births. Effective treatments to reduce infant and child mortality would make strong inroads toward this goal,” she explained.

Dr. Tanner said she was not surprised by the findings because previous studies have shown similar results. “However, the large, multicenter nature of this study provides additional weight to recommendations to delay cord clamping as standard practice,” she said.

“The findings of this study support the recommendations of a number of large organizations,” said Dr. Tanner. “The World Health Organization recommends that the umbilical cord not be clamped earlier than 1 minute after birth in term or preterm infants who do not require positive pressure ventilation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommend a delay in umbilical cord clamping in vigorous term and preterm infants for at least 30–60 seconds after birth,” she said. “The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also recommends deferring umbilical cord clamping for healthy term and preterm infants for at least 2 minutes after birth,” she added.  

However, “the delay in adoption of this guidelines in practice appears to be related to some concerns regarding universal adoption of this approach,” Dr. Tanner noted. “Some clinicians have suggested that delayed cord clamping could delay vital neonatal resuscitative efforts, leading to worse neonatal outcomes, but this concern has not been borne out in the data, as all guidelines specifically state that this intervention is for vigorous newborns,” she said. “In fact, in preterm infants, delayed cord clamping is associated with improved transitional circulation, decreased need for blood transfusion, and lower incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis and intraventricular hemorrhage,” Dr. Tanner emphasized. “Additionally, concerns persist that delayed cord clamping could lead to excessive transfusion with resultant polycythemia. Again, no data have supported this claim to date,” she said.

“Finally, some clinicians are concerned that delayed clamping could lead to delay in addressing maternal complications of birth such as hemorrhage, but studies have shown the opposite; delayed umbilical cord clamping has not been associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage or increased blood loss at delivery, nor has it been with a difference in the need for blood transfusion,” said Dr. Tanner.

Ideally, practitioners will become more comfortable in delaying cord clamping as a routine practice as more data demonstrating the safety and benefit of this easy intervention are disseminated, she said.

Additional research delineating which gestational ages benefit most from delayed cord clamping would help direct education efforts to implement this intervention, Dr. Tanner noted.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The researchers and Dr. Tanner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Delayed umbilical cord clamping for at least 60 seconds after birth significantly reduced death or disability in infants of less than 30 weeks’ gestation, according to data from nearly 1,500 infants.

The burden of disability and mortality for babies born before 30 weeks’ gestation remains high, especially in low- and middle-income countries, wrote Kristy P. Robledo, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Delayed clamping of the umbilical cord is a simple procedure that may improve mortality in this population, but more research is needed; recommended times to delayed clamping range from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, they noted.

In a study published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, the researchers randomized 767 very preterm infants to delayed clamping at least 60 seconds after birth and 764 to immediate clamping. Of these, 384 were multiple births (who were individually randomized), 862 were male, and 505 were born before 27 weeks’ gestation. The primary outcome was death or disability at 2 years of age. Major disability was defined as cerebral palsy, severe visual loss, deafness requiring a hearing aid or cochlear implants, major language or speech problems, or cognitive delay at 2 years corrected age. The median time to clamping was 60 seconds in the delayed group and 5 seconds in the immediate group.

Primary outcome data were available for 1,419 infants. Death or major disability occurred in 29% of infants assigned to delayed clamping compared to 34% of those assigned to immediate clamping (relative risk 0.83, P = .010). The infants were part of the APTS Childhood Follow-Up Study, an open-label superiority trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand.

By age 2 years, 8% of infants in the delayed group and 11% of those in the immediate group had died; 23% and 26%, respectively, met criteria for major disability. The impact of delayed clamping translates to a 30% reduction in relative risk of mortality at 2 years of age, but no significant impact on major disability, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the unblinded study design, lack of data on heart rate or time to first breath, and the clamping prior to 60 seconds in 26% of infants in the delayed group based on clinical concerns for these specific infants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size, low risk of bias, and specific primary outcome, they said. The data support findings from recent systematic reviews and highlight the need for further trials to evaluate delayed clamping at different time points, with larger populations, inclusion of time to first breath and heart rate, and improved measures of disability, the researchers added.

In clinical practice, “Given that aiming to delay cord clamping for 60 seconds or more improved 2-year outcomes and short-term hematological measures with no evidence of significant harm, it seems reasonable to conclude that delayed clamping is appropriate as standard care in very preterm infants,” they concluded.
 

Accepting simple intervention could have great impact

This study is important in light of the overwhelming burden of preterm birth on the health care system and society as a whole, Lisette D. Tanner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Preterm birth is associated with billions in health care costs each year, and a large portion of that money is directed to the complications associated with preterm birth, such as early intervention services, educational support, and ongoing medical care,” Dr. Tanner said. “This study is particularly timely, as we are quickly approaching 2030, the deadline for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age,” she said. The goal involves “all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births. Effective treatments to reduce infant and child mortality would make strong inroads toward this goal,” she explained.

Dr. Tanner said she was not surprised by the findings because previous studies have shown similar results. “However, the large, multicenter nature of this study provides additional weight to recommendations to delay cord clamping as standard practice,” she said.

“The findings of this study support the recommendations of a number of large organizations,” said Dr. Tanner. “The World Health Organization recommends that the umbilical cord not be clamped earlier than 1 minute after birth in term or preterm infants who do not require positive pressure ventilation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommend a delay in umbilical cord clamping in vigorous term and preterm infants for at least 30–60 seconds after birth,” she said. “The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also recommends deferring umbilical cord clamping for healthy term and preterm infants for at least 2 minutes after birth,” she added.  

However, “the delay in adoption of this guidelines in practice appears to be related to some concerns regarding universal adoption of this approach,” Dr. Tanner noted. “Some clinicians have suggested that delayed cord clamping could delay vital neonatal resuscitative efforts, leading to worse neonatal outcomes, but this concern has not been borne out in the data, as all guidelines specifically state that this intervention is for vigorous newborns,” she said. “In fact, in preterm infants, delayed cord clamping is associated with improved transitional circulation, decreased need for blood transfusion, and lower incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis and intraventricular hemorrhage,” Dr. Tanner emphasized. “Additionally, concerns persist that delayed cord clamping could lead to excessive transfusion with resultant polycythemia. Again, no data have supported this claim to date,” she said.

“Finally, some clinicians are concerned that delayed clamping could lead to delay in addressing maternal complications of birth such as hemorrhage, but studies have shown the opposite; delayed umbilical cord clamping has not been associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage or increased blood loss at delivery, nor has it been with a difference in the need for blood transfusion,” said Dr. Tanner.

Ideally, practitioners will become more comfortable in delaying cord clamping as a routine practice as more data demonstrating the safety and benefit of this easy intervention are disseminated, she said.

Additional research delineating which gestational ages benefit most from delayed cord clamping would help direct education efforts to implement this intervention, Dr. Tanner noted.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The researchers and Dr. Tanner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

They say you are what you eat, but scientists have long wondered whether breastfeeding babies are what their mothers eat, too. Their question: How much of a nursing mother’s diet eventually plays a role in a child’s food preferences later in life?

The aroma, taste, and makeup of breast milk change from day to day, based mostly on the mother’s diet. But previous research has already shown that the foods a mother eats do not directly translate into the same smells and tastes of that food in breast milk. Some substances from the mother’s diet enter her breast milk, some don’t, and even ones that do may have a different scent or flavor than what the mother experiences.

But a new study suggests that the active ingredient in black pepper makes its way into breast milk and may help the infant develop a tolerance to pepper later. The researchers published their findings in the journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research.
 

Pinch of pepper

The study authors thought that maybe some food preferences could result from sensory programming that occurs through breast milk in the first few months of life. Though past studies have looked at which odor-producing substances transfer into breast milk, not many have explored specific substances that give food its distinctive flavor, or even what makes up the taste of breast milk. So they decided to investigate what happens when a mother consumes a meal containing three specific compounds: those that give pepper, chili, and ginger their particularly pungent flavors.

The researchers recruited 18 healthy, nonsmoking, nursing mothers who were producing more than enough milk for their baby’s needs. Their breastfeeding children ranged in age from 8 weeks to 1 year old. The women all ate a curry dish after having spent 2 days avoiding onion, garlic, and the spices in the curry. Then they provided pumped breast milk samples at 1, 2, and 3 hours after eating the curry.

Within an hour of the women eating the curry, the scientists were able to detect piperine, the compound that gives black pepper its bite, in the mothers’ breast milk. They did not find the compounds from ginger, chili, or curcumin – the main active ingredient in turmeric – in the breast milk. The piperine remained there for several hours, but there wasn’t enough for an adult to be able to taste it. It wasn’t possible to reliably tell whether the infants could consciously detect the flavor, but the researchers don’t think it’s likely they did.

But the scientists do suggest it’s possible that the piperine in breast milk could regularly activate a protein that detects pungent or potentially harmful substances. This is the same protein that produces the sensation of heat when eating a spicy food. If the piperine frequently activates that protein in a nursing baby at levels too low for the baby to notice, it may increase the baby’s tolerance for similar spicy substances later in life.

Ultimately, the findings suggest that some compounds in a mother’s diet have the potential to influence a child’s taste preferences later.

A version of this story first appeared on WebMD.com.

They say you are what you eat, but scientists have long wondered whether breastfeeding babies are what their mothers eat, too. Their question: How much of a nursing mother’s diet eventually plays a role in a child’s food preferences later in life?

The aroma, taste, and makeup of breast milk change from day to day, based mostly on the mother’s diet. But previous research has already shown that the foods a mother eats do not directly translate into the same smells and tastes of that food in breast milk. Some substances from the mother’s diet enter her breast milk, some don’t, and even ones that do may have a different scent or flavor than what the mother experiences.

But a new study suggests that the active ingredient in black pepper makes its way into breast milk and may help the infant develop a tolerance to pepper later. The researchers published their findings in the journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research.
 

Pinch of pepper

The study authors thought that maybe some food preferences could result from sensory programming that occurs through breast milk in the first few months of life. Though past studies have looked at which odor-producing substances transfer into breast milk, not many have explored specific substances that give food its distinctive flavor, or even what makes up the taste of breast milk. So they decided to investigate what happens when a mother consumes a meal containing three specific compounds: those that give pepper, chili, and ginger their particularly pungent flavors.

The researchers recruited 18 healthy, nonsmoking, nursing mothers who were producing more than enough milk for their baby’s needs. Their breastfeeding children ranged in age from 8 weeks to 1 year old. The women all ate a curry dish after having spent 2 days avoiding onion, garlic, and the spices in the curry. Then they provided pumped breast milk samples at 1, 2, and 3 hours after eating the curry.

Within an hour of the women eating the curry, the scientists were able to detect piperine, the compound that gives black pepper its bite, in the mothers’ breast milk. They did not find the compounds from ginger, chili, or curcumin – the main active ingredient in turmeric – in the breast milk. The piperine remained there for several hours, but there wasn’t enough for an adult to be able to taste it. It wasn’t possible to reliably tell whether the infants could consciously detect the flavor, but the researchers don’t think it’s likely they did.

But the scientists do suggest it’s possible that the piperine in breast milk could regularly activate a protein that detects pungent or potentially harmful substances. This is the same protein that produces the sensation of heat when eating a spicy food. If the piperine frequently activates that protein in a nursing baby at levels too low for the baby to notice, it may increase the baby’s tolerance for similar spicy substances later in life.

Ultimately, the findings suggest that some compounds in a mother’s diet have the potential to influence a child’s taste preferences later.

A version of this story first appeared on WebMD.com.

They say you are what you eat, but scientists have long wondered whether breastfeeding babies are what their mothers eat, too. Their question: How much of a nursing mother’s diet eventually plays a role in a child’s food preferences later in life?

The aroma, taste, and makeup of breast milk change from day to day, based mostly on the mother’s diet. But previous research has already shown that the foods a mother eats do not directly translate into the same smells and tastes of that food in breast milk. Some substances from the mother’s diet enter her breast milk, some don’t, and even ones that do may have a different scent or flavor than what the mother experiences.

But a new study suggests that the active ingredient in black pepper makes its way into breast milk and may help the infant develop a tolerance to pepper later. The researchers published their findings in the journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research.
 

Pinch of pepper

The study authors thought that maybe some food preferences could result from sensory programming that occurs through breast milk in the first few months of life. Though past studies have looked at which odor-producing substances transfer into breast milk, not many have explored specific substances that give food its distinctive flavor, or even what makes up the taste of breast milk. So they decided to investigate what happens when a mother consumes a meal containing three specific compounds: those that give pepper, chili, and ginger their particularly pungent flavors.

The researchers recruited 18 healthy, nonsmoking, nursing mothers who were producing more than enough milk for their baby’s needs. Their breastfeeding children ranged in age from 8 weeks to 1 year old. The women all ate a curry dish after having spent 2 days avoiding onion, garlic, and the spices in the curry. Then they provided pumped breast milk samples at 1, 2, and 3 hours after eating the curry.

Within an hour of the women eating the curry, the scientists were able to detect piperine, the compound that gives black pepper its bite, in the mothers’ breast milk. They did not find the compounds from ginger, chili, or curcumin – the main active ingredient in turmeric – in the breast milk. The piperine remained there for several hours, but there wasn’t enough for an adult to be able to taste it. It wasn’t possible to reliably tell whether the infants could consciously detect the flavor, but the researchers don’t think it’s likely they did.

But the scientists do suggest it’s possible that the piperine in breast milk could regularly activate a protein that detects pungent or potentially harmful substances. This is the same protein that produces the sensation of heat when eating a spicy food. If the piperine frequently activates that protein in a nursing baby at levels too low for the baby to notice, it may increase the baby’s tolerance for similar spicy substances later in life.

Ultimately, the findings suggest that some compounds in a mother’s diet have the potential to influence a child’s taste preferences later.

A version of this story first appeared on WebMD.com.

The season of conception does not affect whether more boys than girls are born, nor do temperatures in the environment, a large study reveals. Similarly, researchers found no connection with a location’s violent crime level, unemployment rate, or major events like Hurricane Katrina.

But certain chemical pollutants were related to fewer boys being born compared to girls when researchers looked at data for more than 3 million newborns over 8 years in the U.S. and another 3 million born over 30 years in Sweden.

“With data on births in 150 million people in the U.S. over 8 years and 9 million Swedes over 9 years, this is almost surely the largest study to date on the question of environmental factors and their influence on sex ratio at birth,” says Shanna Swan, PhD, who was not affiliated with the research

Variations in the annual sex birth ratio (SRB) – the number of boys born compared to the total birth rate – are well-accepted. Less clear is what things drive these changes.

Although not the first study to look for connections between major events or pollutants in the air, water, and land and the SRB, it is the first to mine two very large electronic medical record databases for answers, senior study author Andrey Rzhetsky, PhD, a professor of medicine and human genetics at the University of Chicago, tells this news organization.

The findings were published Dec. 2, 2021, in PLOS Computational Biology.

And even though the SRB did not vary significantly after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it did after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues found. The SRB was lower than expected 34 weeks after the mass shooting.
 

Location, location, location

The researchers also found the levels of chemical pollutants “varied remarkably” across different regions of the country. For example, lead in the land was elevated in the Northeast, Southwest, and Mideastern U.S. but not in the South. Also, the highest levels of total mercury in water samples was found mostly in Eastern states, especially in the Northeast.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues mapped these regional differences in many factors, including hydrazine. Hydrazine is a foaming agent used to make pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and as a propellant for spacecraft.

“Hydrazine appears to follow capricious, blotch-like shapes in the eastern U.S., each blotch likely centered at a factory emitting this pollutant,” the authors wrote.

To get a more complete picture, the investigators also compared changes in the SRB to data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, and Statistics Sweden.

They found that aluminium in air, chromium in water, and total mercury levels drove the SRB up. By comparison, lead in soil and areas with a higher renter occupancy were linked to a lower SRB, or a higher proportion of girls being born.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues also add to the evidence for a link between polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the SRB. Previous findings conflict, the authors noted.

“Since the sample sizes of the studies published thus far were very small, our PCBs result would have substantially larger statistical power,” they said.

Several pollutants had no significant link to SRB in the study, including levels of lead or chromium in the air, arsenic in the soil, and cadmium in the air or water.
 

Consistent findings

That said, the research had limits.

“The magnitude is new in terms of number of births, and the statistical methods are unusually sophisticated, but the conclusions don’t really differ from much of what has been published,” says Dr. Swan, a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The takeaway message that many examined exposures are associated with lower – and some with higher – SRBs is not new but consistent with other, smaller studies,” says Dr. Swan, who co-authored a Sept. 2021 study evaluating endocrine-disrupting chemicals and lower birth rates in Asia.

The data on environmental exposures “is, however, quite uneven, and only known at the ecologic and not the individual level,” she says. “We learn, for example, that SRB was significantly reduced ... among families living in areas with the highest septile of lead exposure but also in those among the highest septile of percent renter occupancy.”

“Evaluating these as to mechanism and plausibility is difficult,” Dr. Swan says.
 

More research warranted

The mechanism remains unknown, but the investigators suggested that female embryo pregnancies may end early in development, driving the SRB up. Also, male embryo deaths are more common in the late second or third trimester, at which point they would drive the SRB down. A third factor, maternal hormone levels around the time of conception, could also alter the SRB.

The associations between individual factors and SRB changes are just that – associations – not intended to be interpreted as “sex-specific selection mechanisms” causing the differences at this point, the authors noted. Further studies to confirm the associations are needed.

The research is a good stepping off point for future studies to look closer at the contribution of pollutants like arsenic, lead, cadmium, and more, Dr. Rzhetsky says.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The season of conception does not affect whether more boys than girls are born, nor do temperatures in the environment, a large study reveals. Similarly, researchers found no connection with a location’s violent crime level, unemployment rate, or major events like Hurricane Katrina.

But certain chemical pollutants were related to fewer boys being born compared to girls when researchers looked at data for more than 3 million newborns over 8 years in the U.S. and another 3 million born over 30 years in Sweden.

“With data on births in 150 million people in the U.S. over 8 years and 9 million Swedes over 9 years, this is almost surely the largest study to date on the question of environmental factors and their influence on sex ratio at birth,” says Shanna Swan, PhD, who was not affiliated with the research

Variations in the annual sex birth ratio (SRB) – the number of boys born compared to the total birth rate – are well-accepted. Less clear is what things drive these changes.

Although not the first study to look for connections between major events or pollutants in the air, water, and land and the SRB, it is the first to mine two very large electronic medical record databases for answers, senior study author Andrey Rzhetsky, PhD, a professor of medicine and human genetics at the University of Chicago, tells this news organization.

The findings were published Dec. 2, 2021, in PLOS Computational Biology.

And even though the SRB did not vary significantly after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it did after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues found. The SRB was lower than expected 34 weeks after the mass shooting.
 

Location, location, location

The researchers also found the levels of chemical pollutants “varied remarkably” across different regions of the country. For example, lead in the land was elevated in the Northeast, Southwest, and Mideastern U.S. but not in the South. Also, the highest levels of total mercury in water samples was found mostly in Eastern states, especially in the Northeast.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues mapped these regional differences in many factors, including hydrazine. Hydrazine is a foaming agent used to make pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and as a propellant for spacecraft.

“Hydrazine appears to follow capricious, blotch-like shapes in the eastern U.S., each blotch likely centered at a factory emitting this pollutant,” the authors wrote.

To get a more complete picture, the investigators also compared changes in the SRB to data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, and Statistics Sweden.

They found that aluminium in air, chromium in water, and total mercury levels drove the SRB up. By comparison, lead in soil and areas with a higher renter occupancy were linked to a lower SRB, or a higher proportion of girls being born.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues also add to the evidence for a link between polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the SRB. Previous findings conflict, the authors noted.

“Since the sample sizes of the studies published thus far were very small, our PCBs result would have substantially larger statistical power,” they said.

Several pollutants had no significant link to SRB in the study, including levels of lead or chromium in the air, arsenic in the soil, and cadmium in the air or water.
 

Consistent findings

That said, the research had limits.

“The magnitude is new in terms of number of births, and the statistical methods are unusually sophisticated, but the conclusions don’t really differ from much of what has been published,” says Dr. Swan, a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The takeaway message that many examined exposures are associated with lower – and some with higher – SRBs is not new but consistent with other, smaller studies,” says Dr. Swan, who co-authored a Sept. 2021 study evaluating endocrine-disrupting chemicals and lower birth rates in Asia.

The data on environmental exposures “is, however, quite uneven, and only known at the ecologic and not the individual level,” she says. “We learn, for example, that SRB was significantly reduced ... among families living in areas with the highest septile of lead exposure but also in those among the highest septile of percent renter occupancy.”

“Evaluating these as to mechanism and plausibility is difficult,” Dr. Swan says.
 

More research warranted

The mechanism remains unknown, but the investigators suggested that female embryo pregnancies may end early in development, driving the SRB up. Also, male embryo deaths are more common in the late second or third trimester, at which point they would drive the SRB down. A third factor, maternal hormone levels around the time of conception, could also alter the SRB.

The associations between individual factors and SRB changes are just that – associations – not intended to be interpreted as “sex-specific selection mechanisms” causing the differences at this point, the authors noted. Further studies to confirm the associations are needed.

The research is a good stepping off point for future studies to look closer at the contribution of pollutants like arsenic, lead, cadmium, and more, Dr. Rzhetsky says.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The season of conception does not affect whether more boys than girls are born, nor do temperatures in the environment, a large study reveals. Similarly, researchers found no connection with a location’s violent crime level, unemployment rate, or major events like Hurricane Katrina.

But certain chemical pollutants were related to fewer boys being born compared to girls when researchers looked at data for more than 3 million newborns over 8 years in the U.S. and another 3 million born over 30 years in Sweden.

“With data on births in 150 million people in the U.S. over 8 years and 9 million Swedes over 9 years, this is almost surely the largest study to date on the question of environmental factors and their influence on sex ratio at birth,” says Shanna Swan, PhD, who was not affiliated with the research

Variations in the annual sex birth ratio (SRB) – the number of boys born compared to the total birth rate – are well-accepted. Less clear is what things drive these changes.

Although not the first study to look for connections between major events or pollutants in the air, water, and land and the SRB, it is the first to mine two very large electronic medical record databases for answers, senior study author Andrey Rzhetsky, PhD, a professor of medicine and human genetics at the University of Chicago, tells this news organization.

The findings were published Dec. 2, 2021, in PLOS Computational Biology.

And even though the SRB did not vary significantly after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it did after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues found. The SRB was lower than expected 34 weeks after the mass shooting.
 

Location, location, location

The researchers also found the levels of chemical pollutants “varied remarkably” across different regions of the country. For example, lead in the land was elevated in the Northeast, Southwest, and Mideastern U.S. but not in the South. Also, the highest levels of total mercury in water samples was found mostly in Eastern states, especially in the Northeast.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues mapped these regional differences in many factors, including hydrazine. Hydrazine is a foaming agent used to make pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and as a propellant for spacecraft.

“Hydrazine appears to follow capricious, blotch-like shapes in the eastern U.S., each blotch likely centered at a factory emitting this pollutant,” the authors wrote.

To get a more complete picture, the investigators also compared changes in the SRB to data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, and Statistics Sweden.

They found that aluminium in air, chromium in water, and total mercury levels drove the SRB up. By comparison, lead in soil and areas with a higher renter occupancy were linked to a lower SRB, or a higher proportion of girls being born.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues also add to the evidence for a link between polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the SRB. Previous findings conflict, the authors noted.

“Since the sample sizes of the studies published thus far were very small, our PCBs result would have substantially larger statistical power,” they said.

Several pollutants had no significant link to SRB in the study, including levels of lead or chromium in the air, arsenic in the soil, and cadmium in the air or water.
 

Consistent findings

That said, the research had limits.

“The magnitude is new in terms of number of births, and the statistical methods are unusually sophisticated, but the conclusions don’t really differ from much of what has been published,” says Dr. Swan, a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The takeaway message that many examined exposures are associated with lower – and some with higher – SRBs is not new but consistent with other, smaller studies,” says Dr. Swan, who co-authored a Sept. 2021 study evaluating endocrine-disrupting chemicals and lower birth rates in Asia.

The data on environmental exposures “is, however, quite uneven, and only known at the ecologic and not the individual level,” she says. “We learn, for example, that SRB was significantly reduced ... among families living in areas with the highest septile of lead exposure but also in those among the highest septile of percent renter occupancy.”

“Evaluating these as to mechanism and plausibility is difficult,” Dr. Swan says.
 

More research warranted

The mechanism remains unknown, but the investigators suggested that female embryo pregnancies may end early in development, driving the SRB up. Also, male embryo deaths are more common in the late second or third trimester, at which point they would drive the SRB down. A third factor, maternal hormone levels around the time of conception, could also alter the SRB.

The associations between individual factors and SRB changes are just that – associations – not intended to be interpreted as “sex-specific selection mechanisms” causing the differences at this point, the authors noted. Further studies to confirm the associations are needed.

The research is a good stepping off point for future studies to look closer at the contribution of pollutants like arsenic, lead, cadmium, and more, Dr. Rzhetsky says.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

In recent weeks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has greatly expanded recommendations for boosters for vaccinations against COVID-19.

These recommendations have been widened because of the continued emergence of new variants of the virus and the wane of protection over time for both vaccinations and previous disease.

The new recommendations take away some of the questions surrounding eligibility for booster vaccinations while potentially leaving some additional questions. All in all, they provide flexibility for individuals to help protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus, as many are considering celebrating the holidays with friends and family.

The first item that has become clear is that all individuals over 18 are now not only eligible for a booster vaccination a certain time after they have completed their series, but have a recommendation for one.¹

But what about a fourth dose?  There is a possibility that some patients should be receiving one.  For those who require a three-dose series due to a condition that makes them immunocompromised, they should receive their booster vaccination six months after completion of the three-dose series.  This distinction  may cause confusion for some, but is important for those immunocompromised.

Boosters in women who are pregnant

The recommendations also include specific comments about individuals who are pregnant. Although initial studies did not include pregnant individuals, there has been increasing real world data that vaccination against COVID, including booster vaccinations, is safe and recommended. As pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease if infected by COVID-19, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,² along with other specialty organizations, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend vaccinations for pregnant individuals.

The CDC goes on to describe that there is no evidence of vaccination increasing the risk of infertility. The vaccine protects the pregnant individual and also provides protection to the baby once born. The same is true of breastfeeding individuals.³

I hope that this information allows physicians to feel comfortable recommending vaccinations and boosters to those who are pregnant and breast feeding.
 

Expanded recommendations for those aged 16-17 years

Recently, the CDC also expanded booster recommendations to include those aged 16-17 years, 6 months after completing their vaccine series.

Those under 18 are currently only able to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine. This new guidance has left some parents wondering if there will also be approval for booster vaccinations soon for those aged 12-16 who are approaching or have reached six months past the initial vaccine.¹

Booster brand for those over 18 years?

Although the recommendation has been simplified for all over age 18 years, there is still a decision to be made about which vaccine to use as the booster.

The recommendations allow individuals to decide which brand of vaccine they would like to have as a booster. They may choose to be vaccinated with the same vaccine they originally received or with a different vaccine. This vaccine flexibility may cause confusion, but ultimately is a good thing as it allows individuals to receive whatever vaccine is available and most convenient. This also allows individuals who have been vaccinated outside of the United States by a different brand of vaccine to also receive a booster vaccination with one of the options available here.
 

Take home message

Overall, the expansion of booster recommendations will help everyone avoid severe disease from COVID-19 infections. Physicians now have more clarity on who should be receiving these vaccines. Along with testing, masking, and appropriate distancing, these recommendations should help prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, also in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 9.

2. COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021 November.

3. COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 6.

In recent weeks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has greatly expanded recommendations for boosters for vaccinations against COVID-19.

These recommendations have been widened because of the continued emergence of new variants of the virus and the wane of protection over time for both vaccinations and previous disease.

The new recommendations take away some of the questions surrounding eligibility for booster vaccinations while potentially leaving some additional questions. All in all, they provide flexibility for individuals to help protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus, as many are considering celebrating the holidays with friends and family.

The first item that has become clear is that all individuals over 18 are now not only eligible for a booster vaccination a certain time after they have completed their series, but have a recommendation for one.¹

But what about a fourth dose?  There is a possibility that some patients should be receiving one.  For those who require a three-dose series due to a condition that makes them immunocompromised, they should receive their booster vaccination six months after completion of the three-dose series.  This distinction  may cause confusion for some, but is important for those immunocompromised.

Boosters in women who are pregnant

The recommendations also include specific comments about individuals who are pregnant. Although initial studies did not include pregnant individuals, there has been increasing real world data that vaccination against COVID, including booster vaccinations, is safe and recommended. As pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease if infected by COVID-19, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,² along with other specialty organizations, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend vaccinations for pregnant individuals.

The CDC goes on to describe that there is no evidence of vaccination increasing the risk of infertility. The vaccine protects the pregnant individual and also provides protection to the baby once born. The same is true of breastfeeding individuals.³

I hope that this information allows physicians to feel comfortable recommending vaccinations and boosters to those who are pregnant and breast feeding.
 

Expanded recommendations for those aged 16-17 years

Recently, the CDC also expanded booster recommendations to include those aged 16-17 years, 6 months after completing their vaccine series.

Those under 18 are currently only able to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine. This new guidance has left some parents wondering if there will also be approval for booster vaccinations soon for those aged 12-16 who are approaching or have reached six months past the initial vaccine.¹

Booster brand for those over 18 years?

Although the recommendation has been simplified for all over age 18 years, there is still a decision to be made about which vaccine to use as the booster.

The recommendations allow individuals to decide which brand of vaccine they would like to have as a booster. They may choose to be vaccinated with the same vaccine they originally received or with a different vaccine. This vaccine flexibility may cause confusion, but ultimately is a good thing as it allows individuals to receive whatever vaccine is available and most convenient. This also allows individuals who have been vaccinated outside of the United States by a different brand of vaccine to also receive a booster vaccination with one of the options available here.
 

Take home message

Overall, the expansion of booster recommendations will help everyone avoid severe disease from COVID-19 infections. Physicians now have more clarity on who should be receiving these vaccines. Along with testing, masking, and appropriate distancing, these recommendations should help prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, also in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 9.

2. COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021 November.

3. COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 6.

In recent weeks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has greatly expanded recommendations for boosters for vaccinations against COVID-19.

These recommendations have been widened because of the continued emergence of new variants of the virus and the wane of protection over time for both vaccinations and previous disease.

The new recommendations take away some of the questions surrounding eligibility for booster vaccinations while potentially leaving some additional questions. All in all, they provide flexibility for individuals to help protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus, as many are considering celebrating the holidays with friends and family.

The first item that has become clear is that all individuals over 18 are now not only eligible for a booster vaccination a certain time after they have completed their series, but have a recommendation for one.¹

But what about a fourth dose?  There is a possibility that some patients should be receiving one.  For those who require a three-dose series due to a condition that makes them immunocompromised, they should receive their booster vaccination six months after completion of the three-dose series.  This distinction  may cause confusion for some, but is important for those immunocompromised.

Boosters in women who are pregnant

The recommendations also include specific comments about individuals who are pregnant. Although initial studies did not include pregnant individuals, there has been increasing real world data that vaccination against COVID, including booster vaccinations, is safe and recommended. As pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease if infected by COVID-19, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,² along with other specialty organizations, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, recommend vaccinations for pregnant individuals.

The CDC goes on to describe that there is no evidence of vaccination increasing the risk of infertility. The vaccine protects the pregnant individual and also provides protection to the baby once born. The same is true of breastfeeding individuals.³

I hope that this information allows physicians to feel comfortable recommending vaccinations and boosters to those who are pregnant and breast feeding.
 

Expanded recommendations for those aged 16-17 years

Recently, the CDC also expanded booster recommendations to include those aged 16-17 years, 6 months after completing their vaccine series.

Those under 18 are currently only able to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine. This new guidance has left some parents wondering if there will also be approval for booster vaccinations soon for those aged 12-16 who are approaching or have reached six months past the initial vaccine.¹

Booster brand for those over 18 years?

Although the recommendation has been simplified for all over age 18 years, there is still a decision to be made about which vaccine to use as the booster.

The recommendations allow individuals to decide which brand of vaccine they would like to have as a booster. They may choose to be vaccinated with the same vaccine they originally received or with a different vaccine. This vaccine flexibility may cause confusion, but ultimately is a good thing as it allows individuals to receive whatever vaccine is available and most convenient. This also allows individuals who have been vaccinated outside of the United States by a different brand of vaccine to also receive a booster vaccination with one of the options available here.
 

Take home message

Overall, the expansion of booster recommendations will help everyone avoid severe disease from COVID-19 infections. Physicians now have more clarity on who should be receiving these vaccines. Along with testing, masking, and appropriate distancing, these recommendations should help prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, also in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 9.

2. COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021 November.

3. COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021 Dec 6.

Even before their baby is born, parents face some tough questions: Home birth or hospital? Cloth or disposable diapers? Breast, bottle, or both? But advances in genetic sequencing technology mean that parents will soon face yet another choice: whether to sequence their newborn’s DNA for an overview of the baby’s entire genome.

Genetic testing has been used for decades to diagnose conditions even before birth. But DNA sequencing technologies, once expensive and tough to access, are now rapid and cheap enough that doctors could order genomic screening for any infant, regardless of health status.

The possibility has raised many questions about the ethical, legal, and social repercussions of doing so. One of the biggest sticking points of sequencing newborns is the potential psychosocial fallout for families of such wide-scale use of genetic screening.

“There’s a narrative of catastrophic distress,” says Robert Green, MD, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and lead investigator on the BabySeq study, which is evaluating the medical, social, and economic consequences of newborn genetic screening. The concern is that parents learning that their child carries a gene variant related to cancer or heart disease will become “incredibly anxious and distressed,” he says. “And it’s not an unreasonable speculation.”

But Dr. Green’s team found no evidence of such anxiety in the results from a randomized trial it conducted, published in JAMA Pediatrics. In the meantime, Genomics England announced it would begin a pilot study involving whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 babies. The first goal is to identify severe disease that starts in childhood, but the information would also be stored and used to detect drug sensitivities and conditions that come up later in life.

The large U.K. project is a bold move, according to David Amor, PhD, a pediatric geneticist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, who says its time has come. Geneticists have been accused of thinking their field involves unique pitfalls, compared with the rest of medicine, he points out, and that doctors need to protect patients and families from the potential harm genetic testing poses.

“But it is becoming apparent that that’s not really the case,” he says, and “maybe there’s not a whole lot special about genetics – it’s just medicine.”

When a first-draft copy of the human genome was published in 2001, scientists and doctors hailed the start of a new era of precision medicine. Knowing our genome sequence was expected to lead to a better grasp on our individual disease risks. Yet even as technologies advanced, clinical genetics remained focused on diagnosis rather than screening, according to Lilian Downie, a clinical genetics PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. She calls the difference subtle but important.

Diagnostic genetic testing confirms whether a person has a specific condition, whereas genetic screening tests evaluate someone’s risk of getting an illness. Both approaches use sequencing, but they answer different questions, explains Ms. Downie.
 

Diagnosing disease versus predicting future illness

Genetic testing is on the upswing for both purposes, whether clinically for diagnosis or through direct-to-consumer screening-oriented services like 23andMe. Scientists began to note that many people carried disease-related genetic variants without having signs of disease. In some cases, a variant that is mathematically linked to a disease simply doesn’t cause it. In other cases, though, even if the gene variant contributes to a disease, not everyone who carries the genetic change will get the condition.

This potential disconnect between having a variant and developing the condition is a big problem, says Katie Stoll, a genetic counselor and executive director of the Genetic Support Foundation in Olympia, WA.

“It’s more complicated than just looking at one gene variant and one outcome,” she says. Without a sure link between the two, this information could unnecessarily entail “some pretty big emotional and financial costs.”

Ms. Stoll and others in the genetics field who share similar concerns are one reason the BabySeq project was first funded back in 2015. Although the overall aim of the initiative is to answer questions about the value of genomic sequencing in newborn screening, the media and scientific attention has focused on the psychosocial impact of healthy newborn sequencing, says Dr. Green. In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, his group focused on these issues, too.

For that randomized trial, they enrolled 325 families, 257 with healthy babies and 68 whose babies had spent time in neonatal intensive care. Enrolled infants were randomly given standard care alone or standard care with genomic sequencing added on. The genomic sequencing report contained information about the presence of genetic variants associated with disease that start in childhood. Parents also could choose whether to learn about genetic risks for conditions that start in adulthood, such as cancer.

Boston-based Tina Moniz was one of those parents. When her first daughter was born in Jan. 2016, someone from the BabySeq study asked her and her husband if they would like to take part. The decision was simple for the couple.

“I didn’t hesitate,” she says. “To me, knowledge is power.”

Using screening tools for parental and marital distress and parent-child bonding, the research evaluated BabySeq families at 3 and 10 months after parents received the sequencing results. The investigators found no significant differences in any of these measures between screened and unscreened families. Ms. Moniz learned that her daughter’s only concerning result was being a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Rather than finding this information anxiety-provoking, Ms. Moniz considered it to be reassuring.

“My mom brain worries about so many things, but at least I know I don’t have to add genetic disease to the list,” she says.

But Ms. Stoll, who wasn’t involved in the BabySeq study, isn’t as convinced. She says that less than 10% of the families approached about the trial ultimately agreed to take part, suggesting potential bias in the selection process. Most participants were white, well-educated, and well-off, making it hard to generalize the study’s results.

What’s more, the standard care involved meeting with a genetic counselor and giving a detailed family history, neither of which is routinely offered to new parents, Ms. Stoll says. These study features leave her unconvinced that healthy newborn genetic screening is beneficial.

“We can’t assume these psychosocial consequences will be true for everyone,” she says.
 

Follow-up and treatment needed

Traditional newborn screening relies on blood biochemical tests to detect and diagnose metabolic diseases. This approach still outperforms DNA sequencing in trials, says Cynthia Powell, MD, a pediatric geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the BabySeq study. Despite the enthusiasm for genomics, this kind of screening won’t replace newborn biochemical screening anytime soon, she says.

“There are some states that have only one geneticist available, so should we really be doing this if we can’t provide the necessary follow-up and treatment for these babies?” she asks.

Still, Dr. Powell says, the BabySeq study helps advance understanding of what the infrastructure needs are for widespread use of DNA sequencing in newborns. She says those needs include appropriate consent processes, access to genetic counselors to discuss testing, and referrals for further testing and treatment in those babies with concerning results.

The BabySeq program will also guide new initiatives, like the pilot program that Genomics England launched in Sept. 2021. As part of that project, the U.K. group intends to look into how practical whole-genome sequencing for newborn screening would be and look at the risks, benefits, and limits of its widespread use.

“For the first time, we’re putting real data into these questions that people have basically just speculated and hypothesized and created narratives about,” Dr. Green says.

But for now, the findings on the psychosocial effects of general newborn genomic screening show that “we should consider genetics to be just one more arrow in our medical quiver.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Even before their baby is born, parents face some tough questions: Home birth or hospital? Cloth or disposable diapers? Breast, bottle, or both? But advances in genetic sequencing technology mean that parents will soon face yet another choice: whether to sequence their newborn’s DNA for an overview of the baby’s entire genome.

Genetic testing has been used for decades to diagnose conditions even before birth. But DNA sequencing technologies, once expensive and tough to access, are now rapid and cheap enough that doctors could order genomic screening for any infant, regardless of health status.

The possibility has raised many questions about the ethical, legal, and social repercussions of doing so. One of the biggest sticking points of sequencing newborns is the potential psychosocial fallout for families of such wide-scale use of genetic screening.

“There’s a narrative of catastrophic distress,” says Robert Green, MD, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and lead investigator on the BabySeq study, which is evaluating the medical, social, and economic consequences of newborn genetic screening. The concern is that parents learning that their child carries a gene variant related to cancer or heart disease will become “incredibly anxious and distressed,” he says. “And it’s not an unreasonable speculation.”

But Dr. Green’s team found no evidence of such anxiety in the results from a randomized trial it conducted, published in JAMA Pediatrics. In the meantime, Genomics England announced it would begin a pilot study involving whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 babies. The first goal is to identify severe disease that starts in childhood, but the information would also be stored and used to detect drug sensitivities and conditions that come up later in life.

The large U.K. project is a bold move, according to David Amor, PhD, a pediatric geneticist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, who says its time has come. Geneticists have been accused of thinking their field involves unique pitfalls, compared with the rest of medicine, he points out, and that doctors need to protect patients and families from the potential harm genetic testing poses.

“But it is becoming apparent that that’s not really the case,” he says, and “maybe there’s not a whole lot special about genetics – it’s just medicine.”

When a first-draft copy of the human genome was published in 2001, scientists and doctors hailed the start of a new era of precision medicine. Knowing our genome sequence was expected to lead to a better grasp on our individual disease risks. Yet even as technologies advanced, clinical genetics remained focused on diagnosis rather than screening, according to Lilian Downie, a clinical genetics PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. She calls the difference subtle but important.

Diagnostic genetic testing confirms whether a person has a specific condition, whereas genetic screening tests evaluate someone’s risk of getting an illness. Both approaches use sequencing, but they answer different questions, explains Ms. Downie.
 

Diagnosing disease versus predicting future illness

Genetic testing is on the upswing for both purposes, whether clinically for diagnosis or through direct-to-consumer screening-oriented services like 23andMe. Scientists began to note that many people carried disease-related genetic variants without having signs of disease. In some cases, a variant that is mathematically linked to a disease simply doesn’t cause it. In other cases, though, even if the gene variant contributes to a disease, not everyone who carries the genetic change will get the condition.

This potential disconnect between having a variant and developing the condition is a big problem, says Katie Stoll, a genetic counselor and executive director of the Genetic Support Foundation in Olympia, WA.

“It’s more complicated than just looking at one gene variant and one outcome,” she says. Without a sure link between the two, this information could unnecessarily entail “some pretty big emotional and financial costs.”

Ms. Stoll and others in the genetics field who share similar concerns are one reason the BabySeq project was first funded back in 2015. Although the overall aim of the initiative is to answer questions about the value of genomic sequencing in newborn screening, the media and scientific attention has focused on the psychosocial impact of healthy newborn sequencing, says Dr. Green. In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, his group focused on these issues, too.

For that randomized trial, they enrolled 325 families, 257 with healthy babies and 68 whose babies had spent time in neonatal intensive care. Enrolled infants were randomly given standard care alone or standard care with genomic sequencing added on. The genomic sequencing report contained information about the presence of genetic variants associated with disease that start in childhood. Parents also could choose whether to learn about genetic risks for conditions that start in adulthood, such as cancer.

Boston-based Tina Moniz was one of those parents. When her first daughter was born in Jan. 2016, someone from the BabySeq study asked her and her husband if they would like to take part. The decision was simple for the couple.

“I didn’t hesitate,” she says. “To me, knowledge is power.”

Using screening tools for parental and marital distress and parent-child bonding, the research evaluated BabySeq families at 3 and 10 months after parents received the sequencing results. The investigators found no significant differences in any of these measures between screened and unscreened families. Ms. Moniz learned that her daughter’s only concerning result was being a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Rather than finding this information anxiety-provoking, Ms. Moniz considered it to be reassuring.

“My mom brain worries about so many things, but at least I know I don’t have to add genetic disease to the list,” she says.

But Ms. Stoll, who wasn’t involved in the BabySeq study, isn’t as convinced. She says that less than 10% of the families approached about the trial ultimately agreed to take part, suggesting potential bias in the selection process. Most participants were white, well-educated, and well-off, making it hard to generalize the study’s results.

What’s more, the standard care involved meeting with a genetic counselor and giving a detailed family history, neither of which is routinely offered to new parents, Ms. Stoll says. These study features leave her unconvinced that healthy newborn genetic screening is beneficial.

“We can’t assume these psychosocial consequences will be true for everyone,” she says.
 

Follow-up and treatment needed

Traditional newborn screening relies on blood biochemical tests to detect and diagnose metabolic diseases. This approach still outperforms DNA sequencing in trials, says Cynthia Powell, MD, a pediatric geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the BabySeq study. Despite the enthusiasm for genomics, this kind of screening won’t replace newborn biochemical screening anytime soon, she says.

“There are some states that have only one geneticist available, so should we really be doing this if we can’t provide the necessary follow-up and treatment for these babies?” she asks.

Still, Dr. Powell says, the BabySeq study helps advance understanding of what the infrastructure needs are for widespread use of DNA sequencing in newborns. She says those needs include appropriate consent processes, access to genetic counselors to discuss testing, and referrals for further testing and treatment in those babies with concerning results.

The BabySeq program will also guide new initiatives, like the pilot program that Genomics England launched in Sept. 2021. As part of that project, the U.K. group intends to look into how practical whole-genome sequencing for newborn screening would be and look at the risks, benefits, and limits of its widespread use.

“For the first time, we’re putting real data into these questions that people have basically just speculated and hypothesized and created narratives about,” Dr. Green says.

But for now, the findings on the psychosocial effects of general newborn genomic screening show that “we should consider genetics to be just one more arrow in our medical quiver.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Even before their baby is born, parents face some tough questions: Home birth or hospital? Cloth or disposable diapers? Breast, bottle, or both? But advances in genetic sequencing technology mean that parents will soon face yet another choice: whether to sequence their newborn’s DNA for an overview of the baby’s entire genome.

Genetic testing has been used for decades to diagnose conditions even before birth. But DNA sequencing technologies, once expensive and tough to access, are now rapid and cheap enough that doctors could order genomic screening for any infant, regardless of health status.

The possibility has raised many questions about the ethical, legal, and social repercussions of doing so. One of the biggest sticking points of sequencing newborns is the potential psychosocial fallout for families of such wide-scale use of genetic screening.

“There’s a narrative of catastrophic distress,” says Robert Green, MD, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and lead investigator on the BabySeq study, which is evaluating the medical, social, and economic consequences of newborn genetic screening. The concern is that parents learning that their child carries a gene variant related to cancer or heart disease will become “incredibly anxious and distressed,” he says. “And it’s not an unreasonable speculation.”

But Dr. Green’s team found no evidence of such anxiety in the results from a randomized trial it conducted, published in JAMA Pediatrics. In the meantime, Genomics England announced it would begin a pilot study involving whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 babies. The first goal is to identify severe disease that starts in childhood, but the information would also be stored and used to detect drug sensitivities and conditions that come up later in life.

The large U.K. project is a bold move, according to David Amor, PhD, a pediatric geneticist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, who says its time has come. Geneticists have been accused of thinking their field involves unique pitfalls, compared with the rest of medicine, he points out, and that doctors need to protect patients and families from the potential harm genetic testing poses.

“But it is becoming apparent that that’s not really the case,” he says, and “maybe there’s not a whole lot special about genetics – it’s just medicine.”

When a first-draft copy of the human genome was published in 2001, scientists and doctors hailed the start of a new era of precision medicine. Knowing our genome sequence was expected to lead to a better grasp on our individual disease risks. Yet even as technologies advanced, clinical genetics remained focused on diagnosis rather than screening, according to Lilian Downie, a clinical genetics PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. She calls the difference subtle but important.

Diagnostic genetic testing confirms whether a person has a specific condition, whereas genetic screening tests evaluate someone’s risk of getting an illness. Both approaches use sequencing, but they answer different questions, explains Ms. Downie.
 

Diagnosing disease versus predicting future illness

Genetic testing is on the upswing for both purposes, whether clinically for diagnosis or through direct-to-consumer screening-oriented services like 23andMe. Scientists began to note that many people carried disease-related genetic variants without having signs of disease. In some cases, a variant that is mathematically linked to a disease simply doesn’t cause it. In other cases, though, even if the gene variant contributes to a disease, not everyone who carries the genetic change will get the condition.

This potential disconnect between having a variant and developing the condition is a big problem, says Katie Stoll, a genetic counselor and executive director of the Genetic Support Foundation in Olympia, WA.

“It’s more complicated than just looking at one gene variant and one outcome,” she says. Without a sure link between the two, this information could unnecessarily entail “some pretty big emotional and financial costs.”

Ms. Stoll and others in the genetics field who share similar concerns are one reason the BabySeq project was first funded back in 2015. Although the overall aim of the initiative is to answer questions about the value of genomic sequencing in newborn screening, the media and scientific attention has focused on the psychosocial impact of healthy newborn sequencing, says Dr. Green. In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, his group focused on these issues, too.

For that randomized trial, they enrolled 325 families, 257 with healthy babies and 68 whose babies had spent time in neonatal intensive care. Enrolled infants were randomly given standard care alone or standard care with genomic sequencing added on. The genomic sequencing report contained information about the presence of genetic variants associated with disease that start in childhood. Parents also could choose whether to learn about genetic risks for conditions that start in adulthood, such as cancer.

Boston-based Tina Moniz was one of those parents. When her first daughter was born in Jan. 2016, someone from the BabySeq study asked her and her husband if they would like to take part. The decision was simple for the couple.

“I didn’t hesitate,” she says. “To me, knowledge is power.”

Using screening tools for parental and marital distress and parent-child bonding, the research evaluated BabySeq families at 3 and 10 months after parents received the sequencing results. The investigators found no significant differences in any of these measures between screened and unscreened families. Ms. Moniz learned that her daughter’s only concerning result was being a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Rather than finding this information anxiety-provoking, Ms. Moniz considered it to be reassuring.

“My mom brain worries about so many things, but at least I know I don’t have to add genetic disease to the list,” she says.

But Ms. Stoll, who wasn’t involved in the BabySeq study, isn’t as convinced. She says that less than 10% of the families approached about the trial ultimately agreed to take part, suggesting potential bias in the selection process. Most participants were white, well-educated, and well-off, making it hard to generalize the study’s results.

What’s more, the standard care involved meeting with a genetic counselor and giving a detailed family history, neither of which is routinely offered to new parents, Ms. Stoll says. These study features leave her unconvinced that healthy newborn genetic screening is beneficial.

“We can’t assume these psychosocial consequences will be true for everyone,” she says.
 

Follow-up and treatment needed

Traditional newborn screening relies on blood biochemical tests to detect and diagnose metabolic diseases. This approach still outperforms DNA sequencing in trials, says Cynthia Powell, MD, a pediatric geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the BabySeq study. Despite the enthusiasm for genomics, this kind of screening won’t replace newborn biochemical screening anytime soon, she says.

“There are some states that have only one geneticist available, so should we really be doing this if we can’t provide the necessary follow-up and treatment for these babies?” she asks.

Still, Dr. Powell says, the BabySeq study helps advance understanding of what the infrastructure needs are for widespread use of DNA sequencing in newborns. She says those needs include appropriate consent processes, access to genetic counselors to discuss testing, and referrals for further testing and treatment in those babies with concerning results.

The BabySeq program will also guide new initiatives, like the pilot program that Genomics England launched in Sept. 2021. As part of that project, the U.K. group intends to look into how practical whole-genome sequencing for newborn screening would be and look at the risks, benefits, and limits of its widespread use.

“For the first time, we’re putting real data into these questions that people have basically just speculated and hypothesized and created narratives about,” Dr. Green says.

But for now, the findings on the psychosocial effects of general newborn genomic screening show that “we should consider genetics to be just one more arrow in our medical quiver.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Mothers who use cannabis during pregnancy risk disrupting immune gene networks in the placenta and potentially increasing the risk of anxiety and hyperactivity in their children.

These findings emerged from a study led by Yasmin Hurd, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Addiction Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Yoko Nomura, PhD, a professor of behavioral neuroscience at Queen’s College, City University of New York, that was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The analysis assessed the effects of gestational maternal cannabis use on psychosocial and physiological measures in young children as well as its potentially immunomodulatory effect on the in utero environment as reflected in the placental transcriptome.

Participants were drawn from a larger cohort in a study launched in 2012; the investigators evaluated offspring aged 3-6 years for hair hormone levels, neurobehavioral traits on the Behavioral Assessment System for Children survey, and heart rate variability (HRV) at rest and during auditory startle.

The cohort consisted of 322 mother-child dyads and children with prenatal exposure to cannabis were compared with those having no exposure. The cohort consisted of 251 non–cannabis-using mothers and 71 cannabis-using mothers, with mean maternal ages in the two groups of 28.46 years and 25.91 years, respectively, The mothers gave birth at Mount Sinai and they and their children were assessed annually at affiliated medical centers in Mount Sinai’s catchment area.

For a subset of children with behavioral assessments, placental specimens collected at birth were processed for RNA sequencing.

Among the findings:

• Maternal cannabis use was associated with reduced maternal and paternal age, more single-mother pregnancies, state anxiety, trait anxiety, depression, cigarette smoking, and African American race.
• Hair hormone analysis revealed increased cortisol levels in the children of cannabis-using mothers, and was associated with greater anxiety, aggression, and hyperactivity.
• Affected children showed a reduction in the high-frequency component of HRV at baseline, reflecting reduced vagal tone.
• In the placenta, there was reduced expression of many genes involved in immune system function. These included genes for type I interferon, neutrophil, and cytokine-signaling pathways.

Several of these genes organized into coexpression networks that correlated with child anxiety and hyperactivity.

The principal active component of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), targets the endocannabinoid system in placental tissue and the developing brain, the authors noted. Exposure during pregnancy is associated with a range of adverse outcomes from fetal growth restriction to low birth weight and preterm birth.

“There are cannabinoid receptors on immune cells, and it is known that cannabinoids can alter immune function, which is important for maintaining maternal tolerance and protecting the fetus,” Dr. Hurd said. “It’s not surprising that something that affects the immune cells can have an impact on the developing fetus.”

“Overall, our findings reveal a relationship between [maternal cannabis use] and immune response gene networks in the placenta as a potential mediator of risk for anxiety-related problems in early childhood,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote, adding that the results have significant implications for defining mental health issues in the children gestated by cannabis-smoking mothers.

Their results align with previous research indicating a greater risk for psychiatric illness in children with prenatal cannabis exposure from maternal use.

“While data are pretty limited in this realm, there are other studies that demonstrate a relationship between early child developmental and behavioral measures and cannabis use during pregnancy,” Camille Hoffman, MD, MSc, a high-risk obstetrics specialist and an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. “Our research group found children exposed to cannabis in utero at 10 weeks’ gestation and beyond were less interactive and more withdrawn than children who were not exposed.”

And THC remains in maternal breast milk even 6 weeks after usage stops.

The long-term effects of prenatal cannabis exposure remain to be determined and it is unknown whether the effects of gestational THC might attenuate as a child grows older. “We use early childhood measures in research as a proxy for the later development of diagnosed mental health conditions or behavioral problems,” Dr. Hoffman explained. “We know when we do this that not every child with an abnormal score early will go on to develop an actual condition. Fortunately, or unfortunately, other factors and exposures during childhood can change the trajectory for the better or worse.”

According to Dr. Hurd, child development is a dynamic process and epigenetic events in utero need not be deterministic. “The important thing is to identify children at risk early and to be able to go in and try to improve the environment they’re being raised in – not in terms of impoverishment but in terms of positive nurturing and giving the mother and family support.”

At the prenatal level, what’s the best advice for cannabis-using mothers-to-be? “If a woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant and has been using cannabis, taking extra choline for the remainder of the pregnancy can help buffer the potential negative impact of the cannabis exposure,” Dr. Hoffman said. The Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association recommend a dose of 550 mg daily. “The same is true for alcohol, which we know is also very bad for fetal brain development. This is not to say go ahead and use these substances and just take choline. The choline is more to try and salvage damage to the fetal brain that may have already occurred.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Hoffman disclosed no conflicts of interest with respect to her comments.

Mothers who use cannabis during pregnancy risk disrupting immune gene networks in the placenta and potentially increasing the risk of anxiety and hyperactivity in their children.

These findings emerged from a study led by Yasmin Hurd, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Addiction Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Yoko Nomura, PhD, a professor of behavioral neuroscience at Queen’s College, City University of New York, that was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The analysis assessed the effects of gestational maternal cannabis use on psychosocial and physiological measures in young children as well as its potentially immunomodulatory effect on the in utero environment as reflected in the placental transcriptome.

Participants were drawn from a larger cohort in a study launched in 2012; the investigators evaluated offspring aged 3-6 years for hair hormone levels, neurobehavioral traits on the Behavioral Assessment System for Children survey, and heart rate variability (HRV) at rest and during auditory startle.

The cohort consisted of 322 mother-child dyads and children with prenatal exposure to cannabis were compared with those having no exposure. The cohort consisted of 251 non–cannabis-using mothers and 71 cannabis-using mothers, with mean maternal ages in the two groups of 28.46 years and 25.91 years, respectively, The mothers gave birth at Mount Sinai and they and their children were assessed annually at affiliated medical centers in Mount Sinai’s catchment area.

For a subset of children with behavioral assessments, placental specimens collected at birth were processed for RNA sequencing.

Among the findings:

• Maternal cannabis use was associated with reduced maternal and paternal age, more single-mother pregnancies, state anxiety, trait anxiety, depression, cigarette smoking, and African American race.
• Hair hormone analysis revealed increased cortisol levels in the children of cannabis-using mothers, and was associated with greater anxiety, aggression, and hyperactivity.
• Affected children showed a reduction in the high-frequency component of HRV at baseline, reflecting reduced vagal tone.
• In the placenta, there was reduced expression of many genes involved in immune system function. These included genes for type I interferon, neutrophil, and cytokine-signaling pathways.

Several of these genes organized into coexpression networks that correlated with child anxiety and hyperactivity.

The principal active component of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), targets the endocannabinoid system in placental tissue and the developing brain, the authors noted. Exposure during pregnancy is associated with a range of adverse outcomes from fetal growth restriction to low birth weight and preterm birth.

“There are cannabinoid receptors on immune cells, and it is known that cannabinoids can alter immune function, which is important for maintaining maternal tolerance and protecting the fetus,” Dr. Hurd said. “It’s not surprising that something that affects the immune cells can have an impact on the developing fetus.”

“Overall, our findings reveal a relationship between [maternal cannabis use] and immune response gene networks in the placenta as a potential mediator of risk for anxiety-related problems in early childhood,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote, adding that the results have significant implications for defining mental health issues in the children gestated by cannabis-smoking mothers.

Their results align with previous research indicating a greater risk for psychiatric illness in children with prenatal cannabis exposure from maternal use.

“While data are pretty limited in this realm, there are other studies that demonstrate a relationship between early child developmental and behavioral measures and cannabis use during pregnancy,” Camille Hoffman, MD, MSc, a high-risk obstetrics specialist and an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. “Our research group found children exposed to cannabis in utero at 10 weeks’ gestation and beyond were less interactive and more withdrawn than children who were not exposed.”

And THC remains in maternal breast milk even 6 weeks after usage stops.

The long-term effects of prenatal cannabis exposure remain to be determined and it is unknown whether the effects of gestational THC might attenuate as a child grows older. “We use early childhood measures in research as a proxy for the later development of diagnosed mental health conditions or behavioral problems,” Dr. Hoffman explained. “We know when we do this that not every child with an abnormal score early will go on to develop an actual condition. Fortunately, or unfortunately, other factors and exposures during childhood can change the trajectory for the better or worse.”

According to Dr. Hurd, child development is a dynamic process and epigenetic events in utero need not be deterministic. “The important thing is to identify children at risk early and to be able to go in and try to improve the environment they’re being raised in – not in terms of impoverishment but in terms of positive nurturing and giving the mother and family support.”

At the prenatal level, what’s the best advice for cannabis-using mothers-to-be? “If a woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant and has been using cannabis, taking extra choline for the remainder of the pregnancy can help buffer the potential negative impact of the cannabis exposure,” Dr. Hoffman said. The Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association recommend a dose of 550 mg daily. “The same is true for alcohol, which we know is also very bad for fetal brain development. This is not to say go ahead and use these substances and just take choline. The choline is more to try and salvage damage to the fetal brain that may have already occurred.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Hoffman disclosed no conflicts of interest with respect to her comments.

Mothers who use cannabis during pregnancy risk disrupting immune gene networks in the placenta and potentially increasing the risk of anxiety and hyperactivity in their children.

These findings emerged from a study led by Yasmin Hurd, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Addiction Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Yoko Nomura, PhD, a professor of behavioral neuroscience at Queen’s College, City University of New York, that was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The analysis assessed the effects of gestational maternal cannabis use on psychosocial and physiological measures in young children as well as its potentially immunomodulatory effect on the in utero environment as reflected in the placental transcriptome.

Participants were drawn from a larger cohort in a study launched in 2012; the investigators evaluated offspring aged 3-6 years for hair hormone levels, neurobehavioral traits on the Behavioral Assessment System for Children survey, and heart rate variability (HRV) at rest and during auditory startle.

The cohort consisted of 322 mother-child dyads and children with prenatal exposure to cannabis were compared with those having no exposure. The cohort consisted of 251 non–cannabis-using mothers and 71 cannabis-using mothers, with mean maternal ages in the two groups of 28.46 years and 25.91 years, respectively, The mothers gave birth at Mount Sinai and they and their children were assessed annually at affiliated medical centers in Mount Sinai’s catchment area.

For a subset of children with behavioral assessments, placental specimens collected at birth were processed for RNA sequencing.

Among the findings:

• Maternal cannabis use was associated with reduced maternal and paternal age, more single-mother pregnancies, state anxiety, trait anxiety, depression, cigarette smoking, and African American race.
• Hair hormone analysis revealed increased cortisol levels in the children of cannabis-using mothers, and was associated with greater anxiety, aggression, and hyperactivity.
• Affected children showed a reduction in the high-frequency component of HRV at baseline, reflecting reduced vagal tone.
• In the placenta, there was reduced expression of many genes involved in immune system function. These included genes for type I interferon, neutrophil, and cytokine-signaling pathways.

Several of these genes organized into coexpression networks that correlated with child anxiety and hyperactivity.

The principal active component of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), targets the endocannabinoid system in placental tissue and the developing brain, the authors noted. Exposure during pregnancy is associated with a range of adverse outcomes from fetal growth restriction to low birth weight and preterm birth.

“There are cannabinoid receptors on immune cells, and it is known that cannabinoids can alter immune function, which is important for maintaining maternal tolerance and protecting the fetus,” Dr. Hurd said. “It’s not surprising that something that affects the immune cells can have an impact on the developing fetus.”

“Overall, our findings reveal a relationship between [maternal cannabis use] and immune response gene networks in the placenta as a potential mediator of risk for anxiety-related problems in early childhood,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote, adding that the results have significant implications for defining mental health issues in the children gestated by cannabis-smoking mothers.

Their results align with previous research indicating a greater risk for psychiatric illness in children with prenatal cannabis exposure from maternal use.

“While data are pretty limited in this realm, there are other studies that demonstrate a relationship between early child developmental and behavioral measures and cannabis use during pregnancy,” Camille Hoffman, MD, MSc, a high-risk obstetrics specialist and an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. “Our research group found children exposed to cannabis in utero at 10 weeks’ gestation and beyond were less interactive and more withdrawn than children who were not exposed.”

And THC remains in maternal breast milk even 6 weeks after usage stops.

The long-term effects of prenatal cannabis exposure remain to be determined and it is unknown whether the effects of gestational THC might attenuate as a child grows older. “We use early childhood measures in research as a proxy for the later development of diagnosed mental health conditions or behavioral problems,” Dr. Hoffman explained. “We know when we do this that not every child with an abnormal score early will go on to develop an actual condition. Fortunately, or unfortunately, other factors and exposures during childhood can change the trajectory for the better or worse.”

According to Dr. Hurd, child development is a dynamic process and epigenetic events in utero need not be deterministic. “The important thing is to identify children at risk early and to be able to go in and try to improve the environment they’re being raised in – not in terms of impoverishment but in terms of positive nurturing and giving the mother and family support.”

At the prenatal level, what’s the best advice for cannabis-using mothers-to-be? “If a woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant and has been using cannabis, taking extra choline for the remainder of the pregnancy can help buffer the potential negative impact of the cannabis exposure,” Dr. Hoffman said. The Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association recommend a dose of 550 mg daily. “The same is true for alcohol, which we know is also very bad for fetal brain development. This is not to say go ahead and use these substances and just take choline. The choline is more to try and salvage damage to the fetal brain that may have already occurred.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Hoffman disclosed no conflicts of interest with respect to her comments.