User login
Febrile infant guideline allows wiggle room on hospital admission, testing
The long-anticipated American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for the treatment of well-appearing febrile infants have arrived, and key points include updated guidance for cerebrospinal fluid testing and urine cultures, according to Robert Pantell, MD, and Kenneth Roberts, MD, who presented the guidelines at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.
The AAP guideline was published in the August 2021 issue of Pediatrics. The guideline includes 21 key action statements and 40 total recommendations, and describes separate management algorithms for three age groups: infants aged 8-21 days, 22-28 days, and 29-60 days.
Dr. Roberts, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Dr. Pantell, of the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that all pediatricians should read the full guideline, but they offered an overview of some of the notable points.
Some changes that drove the development of evidence-based guideline included changes in technology, such as the increased use of procalcitonin, the development of large research networks for studies of sufficient size, and a need to reduce the costs of unnecessary care and unnecessary trauma for infants, Dr. Roberts said. Use of data from large networks such as the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network provided enough evidence to support dividing the aged 8- to 60-day population into three groups.
The guideline applies to well-appearing term infants aged 8-60 days and at least 37 weeks’ gestation, with fever of 38° C (100.4° F) or higher in the past 24 hours in the home or clinical setting. The decision to exclude infants in the first week of life from the guideline was because at this age, infants “are sufficiently different in rates and types of illness, including early-onset bacterial infection,” according to the authors.
Dr. Roberts emphasized that the guidelines apply to “well-appearing infants,” which is not always obvious. “If a clinician is not confident an infant is well appearing, the clinical practice guideline should not be applied,” he said.
The guideline also includes a visual algorithm for each age group.
Dr. Pantell summarized the key action statements for the three age groups, and encouraged pediatricians to review the visual algorithms and footnotes available in the full text of the guideline.
The guideline includes seven key action statements for each of the three age groups. Four of these address evaluations, using urine, blood culture, inflammatory markers (IM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). One action statement focuses on initial treatment, and two on management: hospital admission versus monitoring at home, and treatment cessation.
Infants aged 8-21 days
The key action statements for well-appearing infants aged 8-21 days are similar to what clinicians likely would do for ill-appearing infants, the authors noted, based in part on the challenge of assessing an infant this age as “well appearing,” because they don’t yet have the ability to interact with the clinician.
For the 8- to 21-day group, the first two key actions are to obtain a urine specimen and blood culture, Dr. Pantell said. Also, clinicians “should” obtain a CSF for analysis and culture. “We recognize that the ability to get CSF quickly is a challenge,” he added. However, for the 8- to 21-day age group, a new feature is that these infants may be discharged if the CSF is negative. Evaluation in this youngest group states that clinicians “may assess inflammatory markers” including height of fever, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin.
Treatment of infants in the 8- to 21-day group “should” include parenteral antimicrobial therapy, according to the guideline, and these infants “should” be actively monitored in the hospital by nurses and staff experienced in neonatal care, Dr. Pantell said. The guideline also includes a key action statement to stop antimicrobials at 24-36 hours if cultures are negative, but to treat identified organisms.
Infants aged 22-28 days
In both the 22- to 28-day-old and 29- to 60-day-old groups, the guideline offers opportunities for less testing and treatment, such as avoiding a lumbar puncture, and fewer hospitalizations. The development of a separate guideline for the 22- to 28-day group is something new, said Dr. Pantell. The guideline states that clinicians should obtain urine specimens and blood culture, and should assess IM in this group. Further key action statements note that clinicians “should obtain a CSF if any IM is positive,” but “may” obtain CSF if the infant is hospitalized, if blood and urine cultures have been obtained, and if none of the IMs are abnormal.
As with younger patients, those with a negative CSF can go home, he said. As for treatment, clinicians “should” administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy to infants managed at home even if they have a negative CSF and urinalysis (UA), and no abnormal inflammatory markers Other points for management of infants in this age group at home include verbal teaching and written instructions for caregivers, plans for a re-evaluation at home in 24 hours, and a plan for communication and access to emergency care in case of a change in clinical status, Dr. Pantell explained. The guideline states that infants “should” be hospitalized if CSF is either not obtained or not interpretable, which leaves room for clinical judgment and individual circumstances. Antimicrobials “should” be discontinued in this group once all cultures are negative after 24-36 hours and no other infection requires treatment.
Infants aged 29-60 days
For the 29- to 60-day group, there are some differences, the main one is the recommendation of blood cultures in this group, said Dr. Pantell. “We are seeing a lot of UTIs [urinary tract infections], and we would like those treated.” However, clinicians need not obtain a CSF if other IMs are normal, but may do so if any IM is abnormal. Antimicrobial therapy may include ceftriaxone or cephalexin for UTIs, or vancomycin for bacteremia.
Although antimicrobial therapy is an option for UTIs and bacterial meningitis, clinicians “need not” use antimicrobials if CSF is normal, if UA is negative, and if no IMs are abnormal, Dr. Pantell added. Overall, further management of infants in this oldest age group should focus on discharge to home in the absence of abnormal findings, but hospitalization in the presence of abnormal CSF, IMs, or other concerns.
During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Roberts said that, while rectal temperature is preferable, any method is acceptable as a starting point for applying the guideline. Importantly, the guideline still leaves room for clinical judgment. “We hope this will change some thinking as far as whether one model fits all,” he noted. The authors tried to temper the word “should” with the word “may” when possible, so clinicians can say: “I’m going to individualize my decision to the infant in front of me.”
Ultimately, the guideline is meant as a guide, and not an absolute standard of care, the authors said. The language of the key action statements includes the words “should, may, need not” in place of “must, must not.” The guideline recommends factoring family values and preferences into any treatment decisions. “Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.”
The guideline received no outside funding. The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The long-anticipated American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for the treatment of well-appearing febrile infants have arrived, and key points include updated guidance for cerebrospinal fluid testing and urine cultures, according to Robert Pantell, MD, and Kenneth Roberts, MD, who presented the guidelines at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.
The AAP guideline was published in the August 2021 issue of Pediatrics. The guideline includes 21 key action statements and 40 total recommendations, and describes separate management algorithms for three age groups: infants aged 8-21 days, 22-28 days, and 29-60 days.
Dr. Roberts, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Dr. Pantell, of the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that all pediatricians should read the full guideline, but they offered an overview of some of the notable points.
Some changes that drove the development of evidence-based guideline included changes in technology, such as the increased use of procalcitonin, the development of large research networks for studies of sufficient size, and a need to reduce the costs of unnecessary care and unnecessary trauma for infants, Dr. Roberts said. Use of data from large networks such as the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network provided enough evidence to support dividing the aged 8- to 60-day population into three groups.
The guideline applies to well-appearing term infants aged 8-60 days and at least 37 weeks’ gestation, with fever of 38° C (100.4° F) or higher in the past 24 hours in the home or clinical setting. The decision to exclude infants in the first week of life from the guideline was because at this age, infants “are sufficiently different in rates and types of illness, including early-onset bacterial infection,” according to the authors.
Dr. Roberts emphasized that the guidelines apply to “well-appearing infants,” which is not always obvious. “If a clinician is not confident an infant is well appearing, the clinical practice guideline should not be applied,” he said.
The guideline also includes a visual algorithm for each age group.
Dr. Pantell summarized the key action statements for the three age groups, and encouraged pediatricians to review the visual algorithms and footnotes available in the full text of the guideline.
The guideline includes seven key action statements for each of the three age groups. Four of these address evaluations, using urine, blood culture, inflammatory markers (IM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). One action statement focuses on initial treatment, and two on management: hospital admission versus monitoring at home, and treatment cessation.
Infants aged 8-21 days
The key action statements for well-appearing infants aged 8-21 days are similar to what clinicians likely would do for ill-appearing infants, the authors noted, based in part on the challenge of assessing an infant this age as “well appearing,” because they don’t yet have the ability to interact with the clinician.
For the 8- to 21-day group, the first two key actions are to obtain a urine specimen and blood culture, Dr. Pantell said. Also, clinicians “should” obtain a CSF for analysis and culture. “We recognize that the ability to get CSF quickly is a challenge,” he added. However, for the 8- to 21-day age group, a new feature is that these infants may be discharged if the CSF is negative. Evaluation in this youngest group states that clinicians “may assess inflammatory markers” including height of fever, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin.
Treatment of infants in the 8- to 21-day group “should” include parenteral antimicrobial therapy, according to the guideline, and these infants “should” be actively monitored in the hospital by nurses and staff experienced in neonatal care, Dr. Pantell said. The guideline also includes a key action statement to stop antimicrobials at 24-36 hours if cultures are negative, but to treat identified organisms.
Infants aged 22-28 days
In both the 22- to 28-day-old and 29- to 60-day-old groups, the guideline offers opportunities for less testing and treatment, such as avoiding a lumbar puncture, and fewer hospitalizations. The development of a separate guideline for the 22- to 28-day group is something new, said Dr. Pantell. The guideline states that clinicians should obtain urine specimens and blood culture, and should assess IM in this group. Further key action statements note that clinicians “should obtain a CSF if any IM is positive,” but “may” obtain CSF if the infant is hospitalized, if blood and urine cultures have been obtained, and if none of the IMs are abnormal.
As with younger patients, those with a negative CSF can go home, he said. As for treatment, clinicians “should” administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy to infants managed at home even if they have a negative CSF and urinalysis (UA), and no abnormal inflammatory markers Other points for management of infants in this age group at home include verbal teaching and written instructions for caregivers, plans for a re-evaluation at home in 24 hours, and a plan for communication and access to emergency care in case of a change in clinical status, Dr. Pantell explained. The guideline states that infants “should” be hospitalized if CSF is either not obtained or not interpretable, which leaves room for clinical judgment and individual circumstances. Antimicrobials “should” be discontinued in this group once all cultures are negative after 24-36 hours and no other infection requires treatment.
Infants aged 29-60 days
For the 29- to 60-day group, there are some differences, the main one is the recommendation of blood cultures in this group, said Dr. Pantell. “We are seeing a lot of UTIs [urinary tract infections], and we would like those treated.” However, clinicians need not obtain a CSF if other IMs are normal, but may do so if any IM is abnormal. Antimicrobial therapy may include ceftriaxone or cephalexin for UTIs, or vancomycin for bacteremia.
Although antimicrobial therapy is an option for UTIs and bacterial meningitis, clinicians “need not” use antimicrobials if CSF is normal, if UA is negative, and if no IMs are abnormal, Dr. Pantell added. Overall, further management of infants in this oldest age group should focus on discharge to home in the absence of abnormal findings, but hospitalization in the presence of abnormal CSF, IMs, or other concerns.
During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Roberts said that, while rectal temperature is preferable, any method is acceptable as a starting point for applying the guideline. Importantly, the guideline still leaves room for clinical judgment. “We hope this will change some thinking as far as whether one model fits all,” he noted. The authors tried to temper the word “should” with the word “may” when possible, so clinicians can say: “I’m going to individualize my decision to the infant in front of me.”
Ultimately, the guideline is meant as a guide, and not an absolute standard of care, the authors said. The language of the key action statements includes the words “should, may, need not” in place of “must, must not.” The guideline recommends factoring family values and preferences into any treatment decisions. “Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.”
The guideline received no outside funding. The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The long-anticipated American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for the treatment of well-appearing febrile infants have arrived, and key points include updated guidance for cerebrospinal fluid testing and urine cultures, according to Robert Pantell, MD, and Kenneth Roberts, MD, who presented the guidelines at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.
The AAP guideline was published in the August 2021 issue of Pediatrics. The guideline includes 21 key action statements and 40 total recommendations, and describes separate management algorithms for three age groups: infants aged 8-21 days, 22-28 days, and 29-60 days.
Dr. Roberts, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Dr. Pantell, of the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that all pediatricians should read the full guideline, but they offered an overview of some of the notable points.
Some changes that drove the development of evidence-based guideline included changes in technology, such as the increased use of procalcitonin, the development of large research networks for studies of sufficient size, and a need to reduce the costs of unnecessary care and unnecessary trauma for infants, Dr. Roberts said. Use of data from large networks such as the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network provided enough evidence to support dividing the aged 8- to 60-day population into three groups.
The guideline applies to well-appearing term infants aged 8-60 days and at least 37 weeks’ gestation, with fever of 38° C (100.4° F) or higher in the past 24 hours in the home or clinical setting. The decision to exclude infants in the first week of life from the guideline was because at this age, infants “are sufficiently different in rates and types of illness, including early-onset bacterial infection,” according to the authors.
Dr. Roberts emphasized that the guidelines apply to “well-appearing infants,” which is not always obvious. “If a clinician is not confident an infant is well appearing, the clinical practice guideline should not be applied,” he said.
The guideline also includes a visual algorithm for each age group.
Dr. Pantell summarized the key action statements for the three age groups, and encouraged pediatricians to review the visual algorithms and footnotes available in the full text of the guideline.
The guideline includes seven key action statements for each of the three age groups. Four of these address evaluations, using urine, blood culture, inflammatory markers (IM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). One action statement focuses on initial treatment, and two on management: hospital admission versus monitoring at home, and treatment cessation.
Infants aged 8-21 days
The key action statements for well-appearing infants aged 8-21 days are similar to what clinicians likely would do for ill-appearing infants, the authors noted, based in part on the challenge of assessing an infant this age as “well appearing,” because they don’t yet have the ability to interact with the clinician.
For the 8- to 21-day group, the first two key actions are to obtain a urine specimen and blood culture, Dr. Pantell said. Also, clinicians “should” obtain a CSF for analysis and culture. “We recognize that the ability to get CSF quickly is a challenge,” he added. However, for the 8- to 21-day age group, a new feature is that these infants may be discharged if the CSF is negative. Evaluation in this youngest group states that clinicians “may assess inflammatory markers” including height of fever, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin.
Treatment of infants in the 8- to 21-day group “should” include parenteral antimicrobial therapy, according to the guideline, and these infants “should” be actively monitored in the hospital by nurses and staff experienced in neonatal care, Dr. Pantell said. The guideline also includes a key action statement to stop antimicrobials at 24-36 hours if cultures are negative, but to treat identified organisms.
Infants aged 22-28 days
In both the 22- to 28-day-old and 29- to 60-day-old groups, the guideline offers opportunities for less testing and treatment, such as avoiding a lumbar puncture, and fewer hospitalizations. The development of a separate guideline for the 22- to 28-day group is something new, said Dr. Pantell. The guideline states that clinicians should obtain urine specimens and blood culture, and should assess IM in this group. Further key action statements note that clinicians “should obtain a CSF if any IM is positive,” but “may” obtain CSF if the infant is hospitalized, if blood and urine cultures have been obtained, and if none of the IMs are abnormal.
As with younger patients, those with a negative CSF can go home, he said. As for treatment, clinicians “should” administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy to infants managed at home even if they have a negative CSF and urinalysis (UA), and no abnormal inflammatory markers Other points for management of infants in this age group at home include verbal teaching and written instructions for caregivers, plans for a re-evaluation at home in 24 hours, and a plan for communication and access to emergency care in case of a change in clinical status, Dr. Pantell explained. The guideline states that infants “should” be hospitalized if CSF is either not obtained or not interpretable, which leaves room for clinical judgment and individual circumstances. Antimicrobials “should” be discontinued in this group once all cultures are negative after 24-36 hours and no other infection requires treatment.
Infants aged 29-60 days
For the 29- to 60-day group, there are some differences, the main one is the recommendation of blood cultures in this group, said Dr. Pantell. “We are seeing a lot of UTIs [urinary tract infections], and we would like those treated.” However, clinicians need not obtain a CSF if other IMs are normal, but may do so if any IM is abnormal. Antimicrobial therapy may include ceftriaxone or cephalexin for UTIs, or vancomycin for bacteremia.
Although antimicrobial therapy is an option for UTIs and bacterial meningitis, clinicians “need not” use antimicrobials if CSF is normal, if UA is negative, and if no IMs are abnormal, Dr. Pantell added. Overall, further management of infants in this oldest age group should focus on discharge to home in the absence of abnormal findings, but hospitalization in the presence of abnormal CSF, IMs, or other concerns.
During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Roberts said that, while rectal temperature is preferable, any method is acceptable as a starting point for applying the guideline. Importantly, the guideline still leaves room for clinical judgment. “We hope this will change some thinking as far as whether one model fits all,” he noted. The authors tried to temper the word “should” with the word “may” when possible, so clinicians can say: “I’m going to individualize my decision to the infant in front of me.”
Ultimately, the guideline is meant as a guide, and not an absolute standard of care, the authors said. The language of the key action statements includes the words “should, may, need not” in place of “must, must not.” The guideline recommends factoring family values and preferences into any treatment decisions. “Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.”
The guideline received no outside funding. The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM PHM 2021
Does early delivery for FGR affect school outcomes?
Iatrogenic delivery for suspected fetal growth restriction (FGR) may be associated with an increased likelihood of poorer school outcomes among infants born severely small for gestational age, a study of children in Australia suggests.
researchers reported in JAMA.
“It raises the question: in our efforts to improve outcomes in babies that are small, are we potentially doing more harm than good?” said Robert M. Silver, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the study. “I think that is a very important question to ask.”
However, “we can’t make that conclusion based on this one study,” he said in an interview. It could be that, in cases where severely small infants were delivered early, there may have been testing that indicated acute risks, and these infants may have tended to be sicker overall. “It may have been that if those babies weren’t delivered, they would have suffered a stillbirth or major brain injury,” Dr. Silver said. “It is really important that we acknowledge that we shouldn’t change our clinical practice” based on this one study.”
At the same time, the study underscores questions and challenges that surround the definition, identification, and management of suspected FGR, Dr. Silver said.
The study authors described their research as exploratory. In a related editorial Dr. Silver and Nathan R. Blue, MD said the findings should be considered hypothesis generating.
For the study, Roshan John Selvaratnam, BMedSc(Hons), a researcher affiliated with Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues analyzed data from 181,902 children with developmental outcomes and 425,717 children with educational outcomes in Australia. They included children born at 32 weeks’ or more gestation between 2003 and 2013.
Severely small infants delivered early for suspected FGR had an average gestation of 37.9 weeks, whereas those not suspected of having FGR had an average gestation of 39.4 weeks.
Among infants who were severely small for gestational age, those delivered early for suspected FGR were more likely to be in the bottom 10th percentile on at least two developmental domains when they started school, compared with those not suspected of having FGR (16.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.36). They also were more likely to have low test scores in subsequent years. In grade 7, for example, the adjusted odds ratio for scoring below the national minimum standard on at least two educational domains was 1.33 (13.4% vs. 10.5%).
The researchers defined severely small for gestational age as birth weight below the third percentile. Among infants with normal growth, defined as birth weight at the 10th percentile or greater, school outcomes did not significantly differ between those with early delivery for suspected FGR and those not suspected of having FGR. Approximately 8% of the infants with normal growth had poor developmental outcomes.
The study authors described the dilemma that clinicians face with suspected FGR: “Either intervene early to prevent a small risk of stillbirth but potentially cause immediate and lifelong harm to the child or accept the increasing risk of stillbirth associated with prolonging the pregnancy to avoid more common neonatal and longer-term morbidities.”
It could be that severely small infants with suspected FGR in the study were “more compromised than those not suspected of having FGR,” which might explain the outcomes, Mr. Selvaratnam and coauthors wrote.
Another more plausible explanation is that “iatrogenic prematurity was harmful,” they said.
The researchers were unable to adjust for many factors that may influence academic success, including smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy, maternal body mass index, and breastfeeding, they noted. They also lacked information about the etiology for FGR and whether children had genetic abnormalities.
The study also does not take into account neonatal, infant, and childhood complications, Dr. Silver and Dr. Blue wrote in their editorial. “Nonetheless, these data are a welcome contribution given the knowledge gaps with regard to the optimal obstetric management of FGR.”
The establishment of a diagnostic standard for FGR is needed to properly investigate ways to improve risk stratification, diagnosis, and management, Dr. Silver and Dr. Blue added.
“What we have to do is get better at predicting which babies are at very high risk for continuing the pregnancy and which babies are at low risk for continuing the pregnancy so that we can better decide which babies would benefit from slightly early delivery,” Dr. Silver said.
Improved detection and management of FGR may be on the horizon. “Our ability to image the placental function has gotten a lot better, and I think that is really going to help us,” Dr. Silver said. Studies that aim to further improve the ability to assess whether babies are getting adequate blood flow during pregnancy are ongoing, which could further help doctors evaluate risks.
The study investigators and Dr. Silver had no conflict of interest disclosures. Dr. Blue disclosed grants from Samsung Medison and personal fees from Elsevier. The study was supported by a grant from the Australian government’s National Health and Medical Research Council Program, and Mr. Selvaratnam is supported by scholarships from an Australian government research training program and the National Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth.
Iatrogenic delivery for suspected fetal growth restriction (FGR) may be associated with an increased likelihood of poorer school outcomes among infants born severely small for gestational age, a study of children in Australia suggests.
researchers reported in JAMA.
“It raises the question: in our efforts to improve outcomes in babies that are small, are we potentially doing more harm than good?” said Robert M. Silver, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the study. “I think that is a very important question to ask.”
However, “we can’t make that conclusion based on this one study,” he said in an interview. It could be that, in cases where severely small infants were delivered early, there may have been testing that indicated acute risks, and these infants may have tended to be sicker overall. “It may have been that if those babies weren’t delivered, they would have suffered a stillbirth or major brain injury,” Dr. Silver said. “It is really important that we acknowledge that we shouldn’t change our clinical practice” based on this one study.”
At the same time, the study underscores questions and challenges that surround the definition, identification, and management of suspected FGR, Dr. Silver said.
The study authors described their research as exploratory. In a related editorial Dr. Silver and Nathan R. Blue, MD said the findings should be considered hypothesis generating.
For the study, Roshan John Selvaratnam, BMedSc(Hons), a researcher affiliated with Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues analyzed data from 181,902 children with developmental outcomes and 425,717 children with educational outcomes in Australia. They included children born at 32 weeks’ or more gestation between 2003 and 2013.
Severely small infants delivered early for suspected FGR had an average gestation of 37.9 weeks, whereas those not suspected of having FGR had an average gestation of 39.4 weeks.
Among infants who were severely small for gestational age, those delivered early for suspected FGR were more likely to be in the bottom 10th percentile on at least two developmental domains when they started school, compared with those not suspected of having FGR (16.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.36). They also were more likely to have low test scores in subsequent years. In grade 7, for example, the adjusted odds ratio for scoring below the national minimum standard on at least two educational domains was 1.33 (13.4% vs. 10.5%).
The researchers defined severely small for gestational age as birth weight below the third percentile. Among infants with normal growth, defined as birth weight at the 10th percentile or greater, school outcomes did not significantly differ between those with early delivery for suspected FGR and those not suspected of having FGR. Approximately 8% of the infants with normal growth had poor developmental outcomes.
The study authors described the dilemma that clinicians face with suspected FGR: “Either intervene early to prevent a small risk of stillbirth but potentially cause immediate and lifelong harm to the child or accept the increasing risk of stillbirth associated with prolonging the pregnancy to avoid more common neonatal and longer-term morbidities.”
It could be that severely small infants with suspected FGR in the study were “more compromised than those not suspected of having FGR,” which might explain the outcomes, Mr. Selvaratnam and coauthors wrote.
Another more plausible explanation is that “iatrogenic prematurity was harmful,” they said.
The researchers were unable to adjust for many factors that may influence academic success, including smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy, maternal body mass index, and breastfeeding, they noted. They also lacked information about the etiology for FGR and whether children had genetic abnormalities.
The study also does not take into account neonatal, infant, and childhood complications, Dr. Silver and Dr. Blue wrote in their editorial. “Nonetheless, these data are a welcome contribution given the knowledge gaps with regard to the optimal obstetric management of FGR.”
The establishment of a diagnostic standard for FGR is needed to properly investigate ways to improve risk stratification, diagnosis, and management, Dr. Silver and Dr. Blue added.
“What we have to do is get better at predicting which babies are at very high risk for continuing the pregnancy and which babies are at low risk for continuing the pregnancy so that we can better decide which babies would benefit from slightly early delivery,” Dr. Silver said.
Improved detection and management of FGR may be on the horizon. “Our ability to image the placental function has gotten a lot better, and I think that is really going to help us,” Dr. Silver said. Studies that aim to further improve the ability to assess whether babies are getting adequate blood flow during pregnancy are ongoing, which could further help doctors evaluate risks.
The study investigators and Dr. Silver had no conflict of interest disclosures. Dr. Blue disclosed grants from Samsung Medison and personal fees from Elsevier. The study was supported by a grant from the Australian government’s National Health and Medical Research Council Program, and Mr. Selvaratnam is supported by scholarships from an Australian government research training program and the National Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth.
Iatrogenic delivery for suspected fetal growth restriction (FGR) may be associated with an increased likelihood of poorer school outcomes among infants born severely small for gestational age, a study of children in Australia suggests.
researchers reported in JAMA.
“It raises the question: in our efforts to improve outcomes in babies that are small, are we potentially doing more harm than good?” said Robert M. Silver, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the study. “I think that is a very important question to ask.”
However, “we can’t make that conclusion based on this one study,” he said in an interview. It could be that, in cases where severely small infants were delivered early, there may have been testing that indicated acute risks, and these infants may have tended to be sicker overall. “It may have been that if those babies weren’t delivered, they would have suffered a stillbirth or major brain injury,” Dr. Silver said. “It is really important that we acknowledge that we shouldn’t change our clinical practice” based on this one study.”
At the same time, the study underscores questions and challenges that surround the definition, identification, and management of suspected FGR, Dr. Silver said.
The study authors described their research as exploratory. In a related editorial Dr. Silver and Nathan R. Blue, MD said the findings should be considered hypothesis generating.
For the study, Roshan John Selvaratnam, BMedSc(Hons), a researcher affiliated with Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues analyzed data from 181,902 children with developmental outcomes and 425,717 children with educational outcomes in Australia. They included children born at 32 weeks’ or more gestation between 2003 and 2013.
Severely small infants delivered early for suspected FGR had an average gestation of 37.9 weeks, whereas those not suspected of having FGR had an average gestation of 39.4 weeks.
Among infants who were severely small for gestational age, those delivered early for suspected FGR were more likely to be in the bottom 10th percentile on at least two developmental domains when they started school, compared with those not suspected of having FGR (16.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.36). They also were more likely to have low test scores in subsequent years. In grade 7, for example, the adjusted odds ratio for scoring below the national minimum standard on at least two educational domains was 1.33 (13.4% vs. 10.5%).
The researchers defined severely small for gestational age as birth weight below the third percentile. Among infants with normal growth, defined as birth weight at the 10th percentile or greater, school outcomes did not significantly differ between those with early delivery for suspected FGR and those not suspected of having FGR. Approximately 8% of the infants with normal growth had poor developmental outcomes.
The study authors described the dilemma that clinicians face with suspected FGR: “Either intervene early to prevent a small risk of stillbirth but potentially cause immediate and lifelong harm to the child or accept the increasing risk of stillbirth associated with prolonging the pregnancy to avoid more common neonatal and longer-term morbidities.”
It could be that severely small infants with suspected FGR in the study were “more compromised than those not suspected of having FGR,” which might explain the outcomes, Mr. Selvaratnam and coauthors wrote.
Another more plausible explanation is that “iatrogenic prematurity was harmful,” they said.
The researchers were unable to adjust for many factors that may influence academic success, including smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy, maternal body mass index, and breastfeeding, they noted. They also lacked information about the etiology for FGR and whether children had genetic abnormalities.
The study also does not take into account neonatal, infant, and childhood complications, Dr. Silver and Dr. Blue wrote in their editorial. “Nonetheless, these data are a welcome contribution given the knowledge gaps with regard to the optimal obstetric management of FGR.”
The establishment of a diagnostic standard for FGR is needed to properly investigate ways to improve risk stratification, diagnosis, and management, Dr. Silver and Dr. Blue added.
“What we have to do is get better at predicting which babies are at very high risk for continuing the pregnancy and which babies are at low risk for continuing the pregnancy so that we can better decide which babies would benefit from slightly early delivery,” Dr. Silver said.
Improved detection and management of FGR may be on the horizon. “Our ability to image the placental function has gotten a lot better, and I think that is really going to help us,” Dr. Silver said. Studies that aim to further improve the ability to assess whether babies are getting adequate blood flow during pregnancy are ongoing, which could further help doctors evaluate risks.
The study investigators and Dr. Silver had no conflict of interest disclosures. Dr. Blue disclosed grants from Samsung Medison and personal fees from Elsevier. The study was supported by a grant from the Australian government’s National Health and Medical Research Council Program, and Mr. Selvaratnam is supported by scholarships from an Australian government research training program and the National Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth.
FROM JAMA
Pregnant women no longer detained by ICE
Immigration and Customs Enforcement will no longer detain most migrant women who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing for deportation. This reverses the policy previously put in place by the Trump administration.
Under the new directive, ICE officials generally will not detain or arrest women who are pregnant or nursing, or who have given birth within the previous year. In a July 1 memo signed by ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, ICE officers are directed to house women in “an appropriate facility to manage their care.”
The memo goes on to state that “generally ICE should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation of the immigration laws individuals known to be pregnant, post partum, or nursing unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances exist.”
In addition, ICE is also required to evaluate those individuals who are already in custody “to determine if continued detention is appropriate.”
During the Obama administration, pregnant women were generally not detained except under extraordinary circumstances. However, these policies were reversed after Donald Trump took office, and there was an 80% increase in the number of times ICE detained pregnant women in the year that followed implementation of the new directive – from 1,160 in 2017 to 2,097 in 2018.
The new guidance now goes even further than the directive issued under President Obama as it also includes women who are nursing and the 1-year postpartum period.
This policy stems from the Biden-Harris administration’s plan to reform the immigration system, part of which was to create a more humane asylum system. In a statement released early in February 2021, the White House stated that the “Trump administration’s policies at the border have caused chaos, cruelty, and confusion,” and that they will now “begin to roll back the most damaging policies adopted by the prior administration, while taking effective action to manage migration across the region.” After migrant women are taken into custody, pregnancy tests are administered as part of regular health screenings. If women are found to be pregnant, the new ICE policy states that they “generally” should be released from detention.
However, there will still be circumstances when pregnant and postpartum women may be detained, such as when there is a high risk that the individual is violent or a national security concern. In these cases, a field office director must approve the arrest and detention as well as making sure that the women receive appropriate medical care.
“The harmful consequences of immigration detention have been documented for years,” said Rebekah Wolf, JD, staff attorney with the American Immigration Council. “Our 2017 joint complaint urging a thorough investigation into the increasing numbers of pregnant women facing harm in detention, illustrated the disturbing practice of detaining pregnant women and the lack of quality medical care provided to these women.”
She added that the “federal government should not be in the business of detaining pregnant or nursing individuals, and it’s good to see the Biden administration directing ICE to finally take meaningful steps to limit enforcement activities in this manner. We are hopeful that this announcement is an indication of a broader shift on detention policy.”
There are currently 13 pregnant women in ICE custody, and they are being considered for release under the new policy.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement will no longer detain most migrant women who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing for deportation. This reverses the policy previously put in place by the Trump administration.
Under the new directive, ICE officials generally will not detain or arrest women who are pregnant or nursing, or who have given birth within the previous year. In a July 1 memo signed by ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, ICE officers are directed to house women in “an appropriate facility to manage their care.”
The memo goes on to state that “generally ICE should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation of the immigration laws individuals known to be pregnant, post partum, or nursing unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances exist.”
In addition, ICE is also required to evaluate those individuals who are already in custody “to determine if continued detention is appropriate.”
During the Obama administration, pregnant women were generally not detained except under extraordinary circumstances. However, these policies were reversed after Donald Trump took office, and there was an 80% increase in the number of times ICE detained pregnant women in the year that followed implementation of the new directive – from 1,160 in 2017 to 2,097 in 2018.
The new guidance now goes even further than the directive issued under President Obama as it also includes women who are nursing and the 1-year postpartum period.
This policy stems from the Biden-Harris administration’s plan to reform the immigration system, part of which was to create a more humane asylum system. In a statement released early in February 2021, the White House stated that the “Trump administration’s policies at the border have caused chaos, cruelty, and confusion,” and that they will now “begin to roll back the most damaging policies adopted by the prior administration, while taking effective action to manage migration across the region.” After migrant women are taken into custody, pregnancy tests are administered as part of regular health screenings. If women are found to be pregnant, the new ICE policy states that they “generally” should be released from detention.
However, there will still be circumstances when pregnant and postpartum women may be detained, such as when there is a high risk that the individual is violent or a national security concern. In these cases, a field office director must approve the arrest and detention as well as making sure that the women receive appropriate medical care.
“The harmful consequences of immigration detention have been documented for years,” said Rebekah Wolf, JD, staff attorney with the American Immigration Council. “Our 2017 joint complaint urging a thorough investigation into the increasing numbers of pregnant women facing harm in detention, illustrated the disturbing practice of detaining pregnant women and the lack of quality medical care provided to these women.”
She added that the “federal government should not be in the business of detaining pregnant or nursing individuals, and it’s good to see the Biden administration directing ICE to finally take meaningful steps to limit enforcement activities in this manner. We are hopeful that this announcement is an indication of a broader shift on detention policy.”
There are currently 13 pregnant women in ICE custody, and they are being considered for release under the new policy.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement will no longer detain most migrant women who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing for deportation. This reverses the policy previously put in place by the Trump administration.
Under the new directive, ICE officials generally will not detain or arrest women who are pregnant or nursing, or who have given birth within the previous year. In a July 1 memo signed by ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, ICE officers are directed to house women in “an appropriate facility to manage their care.”
The memo goes on to state that “generally ICE should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation of the immigration laws individuals known to be pregnant, post partum, or nursing unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances exist.”
In addition, ICE is also required to evaluate those individuals who are already in custody “to determine if continued detention is appropriate.”
During the Obama administration, pregnant women were generally not detained except under extraordinary circumstances. However, these policies were reversed after Donald Trump took office, and there was an 80% increase in the number of times ICE detained pregnant women in the year that followed implementation of the new directive – from 1,160 in 2017 to 2,097 in 2018.
The new guidance now goes even further than the directive issued under President Obama as it also includes women who are nursing and the 1-year postpartum period.
This policy stems from the Biden-Harris administration’s plan to reform the immigration system, part of which was to create a more humane asylum system. In a statement released early in February 2021, the White House stated that the “Trump administration’s policies at the border have caused chaos, cruelty, and confusion,” and that they will now “begin to roll back the most damaging policies adopted by the prior administration, while taking effective action to manage migration across the region.” After migrant women are taken into custody, pregnancy tests are administered as part of regular health screenings. If women are found to be pregnant, the new ICE policy states that they “generally” should be released from detention.
However, there will still be circumstances when pregnant and postpartum women may be detained, such as when there is a high risk that the individual is violent or a national security concern. In these cases, a field office director must approve the arrest and detention as well as making sure that the women receive appropriate medical care.
“The harmful consequences of immigration detention have been documented for years,” said Rebekah Wolf, JD, staff attorney with the American Immigration Council. “Our 2017 joint complaint urging a thorough investigation into the increasing numbers of pregnant women facing harm in detention, illustrated the disturbing practice of detaining pregnant women and the lack of quality medical care provided to these women.”
She added that the “federal government should not be in the business of detaining pregnant or nursing individuals, and it’s good to see the Biden administration directing ICE to finally take meaningful steps to limit enforcement activities in this manner. We are hopeful that this announcement is an indication of a broader shift on detention policy.”
There are currently 13 pregnant women in ICE custody, and they are being considered for release under the new policy.
Postpartum depression affects dads, too
Michael W., a 38-year-old New Jersey–based attorney, and his wife had been excitedly planning for the birth of their baby and were overjoyed when she was born.
But after that, “I found that parenting a newborn was shockingly exhausting. I felt unprepared for the task, overwhelmed by the burden of the 24-hour-schedule and lack of sleep, and I struggled with feelings of inadequacy,” he said in an interview.
Michael never thought he had postpartum depression (PPD), perhaps because the condition is more commonly associated with women. But a study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health suggests that PPD also affects men.
A team of Danish investigators led by researcher Sarah Pedersen, of the department of public health, Aarhus University, extensively interviewed eight fathers with PPD and found their primary experiences involved feelings of being overwhelmed and powerless or inadequate, which sometimes turned into anger and frustration.
“I think one of the most important take-home messages is that practicing clinicians working with new parents should invite fathers to your consultations and engage the fathers as much as possible,” Ms. Pedersen said in an interview.
The findings also contained a message for parents, she says.
“I hope you will support each other and talk about your feelings and how you experience the transition to parenthood – know that it will take time to adjust to your new role,” she said.
Not enough attention
There’s been too little focus on fathers when it comes to PPD, according to Ms. Pedersen.
“During the last decade, several studies have examined the prevalence of PPD in men, and there is rising evidence that paternal PPD is associated with increased risk of long-term adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes in children,” she said.
Nevertheless, only three studies have been based on interviews with fathers who had personal experience with PPD.
“The purpose of our study was, first of all, to explore the lived experience of fathers who had PPD and, secondly, to gain deeper understanding of their help-seeking behavior – barriers to seeking help and facilitators of help-seeking,” Ms. Pedersen said.
The study was based on “semistructured” interviews with eight Danish fathers (ages 29-38 years) who had had PPD, none of whom had a previous history of depression.
All of them had received a formal diagnosis of PPD by a general practitioner or psychologist, and all had sought or received mental health care and considered themselves recovered from depression at the time of the interview.
The researchers used a technique called interpretative phenomenological analysis to analyze the interviews.
This method “aims to produce in-depth examinations of certain phenomena by examining how individuals make meaning of their own life experiences,” the authors wrote.
A ‘radical change’
Of the fathers, five described the period of pregnancy as a “time of happiness, full of positive expectations about fatherhood.”
But “the fathers’ great expectations were later replaced by a very different reality of fatherhood,” the authors wrote, noting that the transition to fatherhood was, in the words of one participant, a “radical change that you just can’t imagine.”
Most fathers expressed a feeling of being overwhelmed, and three felt unready for the task, which added to their depression.
“The participants wanted to be emotionally and physically present in their child’s life, but during the time of their depression, these kind-hearted intentions changed into feelings of guilt and inadequacy, as the participants did not feel they had enough energy and mental strength to become the kind of fathers they wanted to be,” the authors wrote.
The fathers mentioned stressors they believed contributed to their PPD, including complications during their partners’ pregnancies, unplanned cesarean birth (three fathers), the partners’ difficulties with breastfeeding (five fathers), and employment-related concerns. Five reported that their partners had postpartum emotional distress.
‘Masculine norms’
A second focus of the research was to examine fathers’ help-seeking behaviors, Ms. Pedersen said.
Ultimately, all the men sought formal help, either from their general practitioners or from a health visitor, with two seeking help right after birth.
Although the men were able to recognize changes in mood and behavior in retrospect, many did not regard them as signs of depression before their diagnosis.
Most had heard of PPD, but primarily as it affects women. Three sought information online about paternal PPD but couldn’t find any.
Four participants described experiencing PPD as “taboo,” based on a “combination of false beliefs, stigma, and masculine norms,” the authors stated, since men “are supposed to be big and strong and take care of everything, and suddenly you can’t.”
The authors reported that seven participants were screened for PPD or depression by a health care professional.
“The screening was an important part of the help-seeking process, as this was the first time two of the fathers were introduced to PPD,” the authors noted.
Although the screening “had the potential to spark conversation” about PPD, it was geared toward women, and some participants did not feel it was relevant to them.
“Future research should focus on identification of educational needs about paternal PPD among both parents, health care professionals, and other professionals taking care of new families,” Ms. Pedersen said.
Michael W. says it would have been helpful if someone had prepared him and his wife for what to expect, or if there had been some type of screening. Also, he advises expectant parents to “get some real-life experience by spending time around a newborn to see what’s involved.”
Different symptoms
“We often talk about mothers suffering from PPD, so it is more normalized for mothers to bring it up or for loved ones to ask mothers about how they are doing physically and psychologically after the birth,” Craig Garfield, MD, an attending physician and founder/director of Family and Child Health innovations at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, said in an interview.
For fathers, “it is not discussed as commonly, so friends and families don’t often ask dads, and dads don’t know where to turn,” said Dr. Garfield, professor of pediatrics and medical social sciences at Northwestern University, Chicago. He was not involved with the study.
He noted that symptoms in fathers might differ from those of mothers.
“I have seen fathers who are anxious or more moody than they had been prior, or more angry, and I have seen fathers who throw themselves into work or begin drinking more – all related to changes in mood and depressive symptoms in the postnatal period,” he said.
Symptoms in men may last longer than in women. Dr. Garfield’s group published a study in which they surveyed 400 mothers and fathers of premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) about depressive symptoms around the time of NICU admission, at discharge home, and then after 30 days at home.
Roughly one-third of mothers screened positive for depressive symptoms around NICU admission, as did 17% of fathers. But the mothers’ depression scores improved by discharge and 30 days after being home, while the fathers’ remained “essentially unchanged,” he said.
“Further, we found that if doctors were to screen mothers and fathers during the NICU stay – at admission or even at discharge – that would greatly improve their ability to predict who would still have depressive symptoms 1 month after going home.”
Ms. Pedersen agrees that clinicians should incorporate screening for PPD into their practices and be proactive in encouraging fathers to get help.
“Keep pushing,” she advised, as “men rarely seek help, compared to women, in matters of mental health.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Michael W., a 38-year-old New Jersey–based attorney, and his wife had been excitedly planning for the birth of their baby and were overjoyed when she was born.
But after that, “I found that parenting a newborn was shockingly exhausting. I felt unprepared for the task, overwhelmed by the burden of the 24-hour-schedule and lack of sleep, and I struggled with feelings of inadequacy,” he said in an interview.
Michael never thought he had postpartum depression (PPD), perhaps because the condition is more commonly associated with women. But a study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health suggests that PPD also affects men.
A team of Danish investigators led by researcher Sarah Pedersen, of the department of public health, Aarhus University, extensively interviewed eight fathers with PPD and found their primary experiences involved feelings of being overwhelmed and powerless or inadequate, which sometimes turned into anger and frustration.
“I think one of the most important take-home messages is that practicing clinicians working with new parents should invite fathers to your consultations and engage the fathers as much as possible,” Ms. Pedersen said in an interview.
The findings also contained a message for parents, she says.
“I hope you will support each other and talk about your feelings and how you experience the transition to parenthood – know that it will take time to adjust to your new role,” she said.
Not enough attention
There’s been too little focus on fathers when it comes to PPD, according to Ms. Pedersen.
“During the last decade, several studies have examined the prevalence of PPD in men, and there is rising evidence that paternal PPD is associated with increased risk of long-term adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes in children,” she said.
Nevertheless, only three studies have been based on interviews with fathers who had personal experience with PPD.
“The purpose of our study was, first of all, to explore the lived experience of fathers who had PPD and, secondly, to gain deeper understanding of their help-seeking behavior – barriers to seeking help and facilitators of help-seeking,” Ms. Pedersen said.
The study was based on “semistructured” interviews with eight Danish fathers (ages 29-38 years) who had had PPD, none of whom had a previous history of depression.
All of them had received a formal diagnosis of PPD by a general practitioner or psychologist, and all had sought or received mental health care and considered themselves recovered from depression at the time of the interview.
The researchers used a technique called interpretative phenomenological analysis to analyze the interviews.
This method “aims to produce in-depth examinations of certain phenomena by examining how individuals make meaning of their own life experiences,” the authors wrote.
A ‘radical change’
Of the fathers, five described the period of pregnancy as a “time of happiness, full of positive expectations about fatherhood.”
But “the fathers’ great expectations were later replaced by a very different reality of fatherhood,” the authors wrote, noting that the transition to fatherhood was, in the words of one participant, a “radical change that you just can’t imagine.”
Most fathers expressed a feeling of being overwhelmed, and three felt unready for the task, which added to their depression.
“The participants wanted to be emotionally and physically present in their child’s life, but during the time of their depression, these kind-hearted intentions changed into feelings of guilt and inadequacy, as the participants did not feel they had enough energy and mental strength to become the kind of fathers they wanted to be,” the authors wrote.
The fathers mentioned stressors they believed contributed to their PPD, including complications during their partners’ pregnancies, unplanned cesarean birth (three fathers), the partners’ difficulties with breastfeeding (five fathers), and employment-related concerns. Five reported that their partners had postpartum emotional distress.
‘Masculine norms’
A second focus of the research was to examine fathers’ help-seeking behaviors, Ms. Pedersen said.
Ultimately, all the men sought formal help, either from their general practitioners or from a health visitor, with two seeking help right after birth.
Although the men were able to recognize changes in mood and behavior in retrospect, many did not regard them as signs of depression before their diagnosis.
Most had heard of PPD, but primarily as it affects women. Three sought information online about paternal PPD but couldn’t find any.
Four participants described experiencing PPD as “taboo,” based on a “combination of false beliefs, stigma, and masculine norms,” the authors stated, since men “are supposed to be big and strong and take care of everything, and suddenly you can’t.”
The authors reported that seven participants were screened for PPD or depression by a health care professional.
“The screening was an important part of the help-seeking process, as this was the first time two of the fathers were introduced to PPD,” the authors noted.
Although the screening “had the potential to spark conversation” about PPD, it was geared toward women, and some participants did not feel it was relevant to them.
“Future research should focus on identification of educational needs about paternal PPD among both parents, health care professionals, and other professionals taking care of new families,” Ms. Pedersen said.
Michael W. says it would have been helpful if someone had prepared him and his wife for what to expect, or if there had been some type of screening. Also, he advises expectant parents to “get some real-life experience by spending time around a newborn to see what’s involved.”
Different symptoms
“We often talk about mothers suffering from PPD, so it is more normalized for mothers to bring it up or for loved ones to ask mothers about how they are doing physically and psychologically after the birth,” Craig Garfield, MD, an attending physician and founder/director of Family and Child Health innovations at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, said in an interview.
For fathers, “it is not discussed as commonly, so friends and families don’t often ask dads, and dads don’t know where to turn,” said Dr. Garfield, professor of pediatrics and medical social sciences at Northwestern University, Chicago. He was not involved with the study.
He noted that symptoms in fathers might differ from those of mothers.
“I have seen fathers who are anxious or more moody than they had been prior, or more angry, and I have seen fathers who throw themselves into work or begin drinking more – all related to changes in mood and depressive symptoms in the postnatal period,” he said.
Symptoms in men may last longer than in women. Dr. Garfield’s group published a study in which they surveyed 400 mothers and fathers of premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) about depressive symptoms around the time of NICU admission, at discharge home, and then after 30 days at home.
Roughly one-third of mothers screened positive for depressive symptoms around NICU admission, as did 17% of fathers. But the mothers’ depression scores improved by discharge and 30 days after being home, while the fathers’ remained “essentially unchanged,” he said.
“Further, we found that if doctors were to screen mothers and fathers during the NICU stay – at admission or even at discharge – that would greatly improve their ability to predict who would still have depressive symptoms 1 month after going home.”
Ms. Pedersen agrees that clinicians should incorporate screening for PPD into their practices and be proactive in encouraging fathers to get help.
“Keep pushing,” she advised, as “men rarely seek help, compared to women, in matters of mental health.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Michael W., a 38-year-old New Jersey–based attorney, and his wife had been excitedly planning for the birth of their baby and were overjoyed when she was born.
But after that, “I found that parenting a newborn was shockingly exhausting. I felt unprepared for the task, overwhelmed by the burden of the 24-hour-schedule and lack of sleep, and I struggled with feelings of inadequacy,” he said in an interview.
Michael never thought he had postpartum depression (PPD), perhaps because the condition is more commonly associated with women. But a study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health suggests that PPD also affects men.
A team of Danish investigators led by researcher Sarah Pedersen, of the department of public health, Aarhus University, extensively interviewed eight fathers with PPD and found their primary experiences involved feelings of being overwhelmed and powerless or inadequate, which sometimes turned into anger and frustration.
“I think one of the most important take-home messages is that practicing clinicians working with new parents should invite fathers to your consultations and engage the fathers as much as possible,” Ms. Pedersen said in an interview.
The findings also contained a message for parents, she says.
“I hope you will support each other and talk about your feelings and how you experience the transition to parenthood – know that it will take time to adjust to your new role,” she said.
Not enough attention
There’s been too little focus on fathers when it comes to PPD, according to Ms. Pedersen.
“During the last decade, several studies have examined the prevalence of PPD in men, and there is rising evidence that paternal PPD is associated with increased risk of long-term adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes in children,” she said.
Nevertheless, only three studies have been based on interviews with fathers who had personal experience with PPD.
“The purpose of our study was, first of all, to explore the lived experience of fathers who had PPD and, secondly, to gain deeper understanding of their help-seeking behavior – barriers to seeking help and facilitators of help-seeking,” Ms. Pedersen said.
The study was based on “semistructured” interviews with eight Danish fathers (ages 29-38 years) who had had PPD, none of whom had a previous history of depression.
All of them had received a formal diagnosis of PPD by a general practitioner or psychologist, and all had sought or received mental health care and considered themselves recovered from depression at the time of the interview.
The researchers used a technique called interpretative phenomenological analysis to analyze the interviews.
This method “aims to produce in-depth examinations of certain phenomena by examining how individuals make meaning of their own life experiences,” the authors wrote.
A ‘radical change’
Of the fathers, five described the period of pregnancy as a “time of happiness, full of positive expectations about fatherhood.”
But “the fathers’ great expectations were later replaced by a very different reality of fatherhood,” the authors wrote, noting that the transition to fatherhood was, in the words of one participant, a “radical change that you just can’t imagine.”
Most fathers expressed a feeling of being overwhelmed, and three felt unready for the task, which added to their depression.
“The participants wanted to be emotionally and physically present in their child’s life, but during the time of their depression, these kind-hearted intentions changed into feelings of guilt and inadequacy, as the participants did not feel they had enough energy and mental strength to become the kind of fathers they wanted to be,” the authors wrote.
The fathers mentioned stressors they believed contributed to their PPD, including complications during their partners’ pregnancies, unplanned cesarean birth (three fathers), the partners’ difficulties with breastfeeding (five fathers), and employment-related concerns. Five reported that their partners had postpartum emotional distress.
‘Masculine norms’
A second focus of the research was to examine fathers’ help-seeking behaviors, Ms. Pedersen said.
Ultimately, all the men sought formal help, either from their general practitioners or from a health visitor, with two seeking help right after birth.
Although the men were able to recognize changes in mood and behavior in retrospect, many did not regard them as signs of depression before their diagnosis.
Most had heard of PPD, but primarily as it affects women. Three sought information online about paternal PPD but couldn’t find any.
Four participants described experiencing PPD as “taboo,” based on a “combination of false beliefs, stigma, and masculine norms,” the authors stated, since men “are supposed to be big and strong and take care of everything, and suddenly you can’t.”
The authors reported that seven participants were screened for PPD or depression by a health care professional.
“The screening was an important part of the help-seeking process, as this was the first time two of the fathers were introduced to PPD,” the authors noted.
Although the screening “had the potential to spark conversation” about PPD, it was geared toward women, and some participants did not feel it was relevant to them.
“Future research should focus on identification of educational needs about paternal PPD among both parents, health care professionals, and other professionals taking care of new families,” Ms. Pedersen said.
Michael W. says it would have been helpful if someone had prepared him and his wife for what to expect, or if there had been some type of screening. Also, he advises expectant parents to “get some real-life experience by spending time around a newborn to see what’s involved.”
Different symptoms
“We often talk about mothers suffering from PPD, so it is more normalized for mothers to bring it up or for loved ones to ask mothers about how they are doing physically and psychologically after the birth,” Craig Garfield, MD, an attending physician and founder/director of Family and Child Health innovations at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, said in an interview.
For fathers, “it is not discussed as commonly, so friends and families don’t often ask dads, and dads don’t know where to turn,” said Dr. Garfield, professor of pediatrics and medical social sciences at Northwestern University, Chicago. He was not involved with the study.
He noted that symptoms in fathers might differ from those of mothers.
“I have seen fathers who are anxious or more moody than they had been prior, or more angry, and I have seen fathers who throw themselves into work or begin drinking more – all related to changes in mood and depressive symptoms in the postnatal period,” he said.
Symptoms in men may last longer than in women. Dr. Garfield’s group published a study in which they surveyed 400 mothers and fathers of premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) about depressive symptoms around the time of NICU admission, at discharge home, and then after 30 days at home.
Roughly one-third of mothers screened positive for depressive symptoms around NICU admission, as did 17% of fathers. But the mothers’ depression scores improved by discharge and 30 days after being home, while the fathers’ remained “essentially unchanged,” he said.
“Further, we found that if doctors were to screen mothers and fathers during the NICU stay – at admission or even at discharge – that would greatly improve their ability to predict who would still have depressive symptoms 1 month after going home.”
Ms. Pedersen agrees that clinicians should incorporate screening for PPD into their practices and be proactive in encouraging fathers to get help.
“Keep pushing,” she advised, as “men rarely seek help, compared to women, in matters of mental health.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Bifidobacteria supplementation regulates newborn immune system
Supplementing breastfed infants with bifidobacteria promotes development of a well-regulated immune system, theoretically reducing risk of immune-mediated conditions like allergies and asthma, according to investigators.
These findings support the importance of early gut colonization with beneficial microbes, an event that may affect the immune system throughout life, reported lead author Bethany M. Henrick, PhD, director of immunology and diagnostics at Evolve Biosystems, Davis, Calif., and adjunct assistant professor at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and colleagues.
“Dysbiosis of the infant gut microbiome is common in modern societies and a likely contributing factor to the increased incidences of immune-mediated disorders,” the investigators wrote in Cell. “Therefore, there is great interest in identifying microbial factors that can support healthier immune system imprinting and hopefully prevent cases of allergy, autoimmunity, and possibly other conditions involving the immune system.”
Prevailing theory suggests that the rising incidence of neonatal intestinal dysbiosis – which is typical in developed countries – may be caused by a variety of factors, including cesarean sections; modern hygiene practices; antibiotics, antiseptics, and other medications; diets high in fat and sugar; and infant formula.
According to Dr. Henrick and colleagues, a healthy gut microbiome plays the greatest role in immunological development during the first 3 months post partum; specifically, a lack of bifidobacteria during this time has been linked with increased risks of autoimmunity and enteric inflammation, although underlying immune mechanisms remain unclear.
Bifidobacteria also exemplify the symbiotic relationship between mothers, babies, and beneficial microbes. The investigators pointed out that breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs), which humans cannot digest, but are an excellent source of energy for bifidobacteria and other beneficial microbes, giving them a “selective nutritional advantage.”
Bifidobacteria should therefore be common residents within the infant gut, but this is often not now the case, leading Dr. Henrick and colleagues to zero in on the microbe, in hopes of determining the exactly how beneficial bacteria shape immune development.
It is only recently that the necessary knowledge and techniques to perform studies like this one have become available, the investigators wrote, noting a better understanding of cell-regulatory relationships, advances in immune profiling at the systems level, and new technology that allows for profiling small-volume samples from infants.
The present study involved a series of observational experiments and a small interventional trial.
First, the investigators conducted a wide array of blood- and fecal-based longitudinal analyses from 208 infants in Sweden to characterize immune cell expansion and microbiome colonization of the gut, with a focus on bifidobacteria.
Their results showed that infants lacking bifidobacteria, and HMO-utilization genes (which are expressed by bifidobacteria and other beneficial microbes), had higher levels of systemic inflammation, including increased T helper 2 (Th2) and Th17 responses.
“Infants not colonized by Bifidobacteriaceae or in cases where these microbes fail to expand during the first months of life there is evidence of systemic and intestinal inflammation, increased frequencies of activated immune cells, and reduced levels of regulatory cells indicative of systemic immune dysregulation,” the investigators wrote.
The interventional part of the study involved 60 breastfed infants in California. Twenty-nine of the newborns were given 1.8 x 1010 colony-forming units (CFUs) of B. longum subsp. infantis EVC001 daily from postnatal day 7 to day 28, while the remaining 31 infants were given no supplementation.
Fecal samples were collected on day 6 and day 60. At day 60, supplemented infants had high levels of HMO-utilization genes, plus significantly greater alpha diversity (P = .0001; Wilcoxon), compared with controls. Infants receiving EVC001 also had less inflammatory fecal cytokines, suggesting that microbes expressing HMO-utilization genes cause a shift away from proinflammatory Th2 and Th17 responses, and toward Th1.
“It is not the simple presence of bifidobacteria that is responsible for the immune effects but the metabolic partnership between the bacteria and HMOs,” the investigators noted.
According to principal investigator Petter Brodin, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric immunology at Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden, the findings deserve further investigation.
“Our data indicate that substitution with beneficial microbes efficiently metabolizing HMOs could open a way to prevent cases of immune-mediated diseases, but larger, randomized trials aimed at this will be required to determine this potential,” Dr. Brodin said in an interview.
Carolynn Dude, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, agreed that more work is needed.
“While this study provides some insight into the mechanisms that may set up a newborn for poor health outcomes later in life, the data is still very limited, and more long-term follow-up on these infants is needed before recommending any sort of bacterial supplementation to a newborn,” Dr. Dude said in an interview.
Dr. Brodin and colleagues are planning an array of related studies, including larger clinical trials; further investigations into mechanisms of action; comparisons between the present cohort and infants in Kenya, where immune-mediated diseases are rare; and evaluations of vaccine responses and infectious disease susceptibility.
The study was supported by the European Research Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Marianne & Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with Cytodelics, Scailyte, Kancera, and others. Dr. Dude reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Supplementing breastfed infants with bifidobacteria promotes development of a well-regulated immune system, theoretically reducing risk of immune-mediated conditions like allergies and asthma, according to investigators.
These findings support the importance of early gut colonization with beneficial microbes, an event that may affect the immune system throughout life, reported lead author Bethany M. Henrick, PhD, director of immunology and diagnostics at Evolve Biosystems, Davis, Calif., and adjunct assistant professor at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and colleagues.
“Dysbiosis of the infant gut microbiome is common in modern societies and a likely contributing factor to the increased incidences of immune-mediated disorders,” the investigators wrote in Cell. “Therefore, there is great interest in identifying microbial factors that can support healthier immune system imprinting and hopefully prevent cases of allergy, autoimmunity, and possibly other conditions involving the immune system.”
Prevailing theory suggests that the rising incidence of neonatal intestinal dysbiosis – which is typical in developed countries – may be caused by a variety of factors, including cesarean sections; modern hygiene practices; antibiotics, antiseptics, and other medications; diets high in fat and sugar; and infant formula.
According to Dr. Henrick and colleagues, a healthy gut microbiome plays the greatest role in immunological development during the first 3 months post partum; specifically, a lack of bifidobacteria during this time has been linked with increased risks of autoimmunity and enteric inflammation, although underlying immune mechanisms remain unclear.
Bifidobacteria also exemplify the symbiotic relationship between mothers, babies, and beneficial microbes. The investigators pointed out that breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs), which humans cannot digest, but are an excellent source of energy for bifidobacteria and other beneficial microbes, giving them a “selective nutritional advantage.”
Bifidobacteria should therefore be common residents within the infant gut, but this is often not now the case, leading Dr. Henrick and colleagues to zero in on the microbe, in hopes of determining the exactly how beneficial bacteria shape immune development.
It is only recently that the necessary knowledge and techniques to perform studies like this one have become available, the investigators wrote, noting a better understanding of cell-regulatory relationships, advances in immune profiling at the systems level, and new technology that allows for profiling small-volume samples from infants.
The present study involved a series of observational experiments and a small interventional trial.
First, the investigators conducted a wide array of blood- and fecal-based longitudinal analyses from 208 infants in Sweden to characterize immune cell expansion and microbiome colonization of the gut, with a focus on bifidobacteria.
Their results showed that infants lacking bifidobacteria, and HMO-utilization genes (which are expressed by bifidobacteria and other beneficial microbes), had higher levels of systemic inflammation, including increased T helper 2 (Th2) and Th17 responses.
“Infants not colonized by Bifidobacteriaceae or in cases where these microbes fail to expand during the first months of life there is evidence of systemic and intestinal inflammation, increased frequencies of activated immune cells, and reduced levels of regulatory cells indicative of systemic immune dysregulation,” the investigators wrote.
The interventional part of the study involved 60 breastfed infants in California. Twenty-nine of the newborns were given 1.8 x 1010 colony-forming units (CFUs) of B. longum subsp. infantis EVC001 daily from postnatal day 7 to day 28, while the remaining 31 infants were given no supplementation.
Fecal samples were collected on day 6 and day 60. At day 60, supplemented infants had high levels of HMO-utilization genes, plus significantly greater alpha diversity (P = .0001; Wilcoxon), compared with controls. Infants receiving EVC001 also had less inflammatory fecal cytokines, suggesting that microbes expressing HMO-utilization genes cause a shift away from proinflammatory Th2 and Th17 responses, and toward Th1.
“It is not the simple presence of bifidobacteria that is responsible for the immune effects but the metabolic partnership between the bacteria and HMOs,” the investigators noted.
According to principal investigator Petter Brodin, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric immunology at Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden, the findings deserve further investigation.
“Our data indicate that substitution with beneficial microbes efficiently metabolizing HMOs could open a way to prevent cases of immune-mediated diseases, but larger, randomized trials aimed at this will be required to determine this potential,” Dr. Brodin said in an interview.
Carolynn Dude, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, agreed that more work is needed.
“While this study provides some insight into the mechanisms that may set up a newborn for poor health outcomes later in life, the data is still very limited, and more long-term follow-up on these infants is needed before recommending any sort of bacterial supplementation to a newborn,” Dr. Dude said in an interview.
Dr. Brodin and colleagues are planning an array of related studies, including larger clinical trials; further investigations into mechanisms of action; comparisons between the present cohort and infants in Kenya, where immune-mediated diseases are rare; and evaluations of vaccine responses and infectious disease susceptibility.
The study was supported by the European Research Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Marianne & Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with Cytodelics, Scailyte, Kancera, and others. Dr. Dude reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Supplementing breastfed infants with bifidobacteria promotes development of a well-regulated immune system, theoretically reducing risk of immune-mediated conditions like allergies and asthma, according to investigators.
These findings support the importance of early gut colonization with beneficial microbes, an event that may affect the immune system throughout life, reported lead author Bethany M. Henrick, PhD, director of immunology and diagnostics at Evolve Biosystems, Davis, Calif., and adjunct assistant professor at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and colleagues.
“Dysbiosis of the infant gut microbiome is common in modern societies and a likely contributing factor to the increased incidences of immune-mediated disorders,” the investigators wrote in Cell. “Therefore, there is great interest in identifying microbial factors that can support healthier immune system imprinting and hopefully prevent cases of allergy, autoimmunity, and possibly other conditions involving the immune system.”
Prevailing theory suggests that the rising incidence of neonatal intestinal dysbiosis – which is typical in developed countries – may be caused by a variety of factors, including cesarean sections; modern hygiene practices; antibiotics, antiseptics, and other medications; diets high in fat and sugar; and infant formula.
According to Dr. Henrick and colleagues, a healthy gut microbiome plays the greatest role in immunological development during the first 3 months post partum; specifically, a lack of bifidobacteria during this time has been linked with increased risks of autoimmunity and enteric inflammation, although underlying immune mechanisms remain unclear.
Bifidobacteria also exemplify the symbiotic relationship between mothers, babies, and beneficial microbes. The investigators pointed out that breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs), which humans cannot digest, but are an excellent source of energy for bifidobacteria and other beneficial microbes, giving them a “selective nutritional advantage.”
Bifidobacteria should therefore be common residents within the infant gut, but this is often not now the case, leading Dr. Henrick and colleagues to zero in on the microbe, in hopes of determining the exactly how beneficial bacteria shape immune development.
It is only recently that the necessary knowledge and techniques to perform studies like this one have become available, the investigators wrote, noting a better understanding of cell-regulatory relationships, advances in immune profiling at the systems level, and new technology that allows for profiling small-volume samples from infants.
The present study involved a series of observational experiments and a small interventional trial.
First, the investigators conducted a wide array of blood- and fecal-based longitudinal analyses from 208 infants in Sweden to characterize immune cell expansion and microbiome colonization of the gut, with a focus on bifidobacteria.
Their results showed that infants lacking bifidobacteria, and HMO-utilization genes (which are expressed by bifidobacteria and other beneficial microbes), had higher levels of systemic inflammation, including increased T helper 2 (Th2) and Th17 responses.
“Infants not colonized by Bifidobacteriaceae or in cases where these microbes fail to expand during the first months of life there is evidence of systemic and intestinal inflammation, increased frequencies of activated immune cells, and reduced levels of regulatory cells indicative of systemic immune dysregulation,” the investigators wrote.
The interventional part of the study involved 60 breastfed infants in California. Twenty-nine of the newborns were given 1.8 x 1010 colony-forming units (CFUs) of B. longum subsp. infantis EVC001 daily from postnatal day 7 to day 28, while the remaining 31 infants were given no supplementation.
Fecal samples were collected on day 6 and day 60. At day 60, supplemented infants had high levels of HMO-utilization genes, plus significantly greater alpha diversity (P = .0001; Wilcoxon), compared with controls. Infants receiving EVC001 also had less inflammatory fecal cytokines, suggesting that microbes expressing HMO-utilization genes cause a shift away from proinflammatory Th2 and Th17 responses, and toward Th1.
“It is not the simple presence of bifidobacteria that is responsible for the immune effects but the metabolic partnership between the bacteria and HMOs,” the investigators noted.
According to principal investigator Petter Brodin, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric immunology at Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden, the findings deserve further investigation.
“Our data indicate that substitution with beneficial microbes efficiently metabolizing HMOs could open a way to prevent cases of immune-mediated diseases, but larger, randomized trials aimed at this will be required to determine this potential,” Dr. Brodin said in an interview.
Carolynn Dude, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, agreed that more work is needed.
“While this study provides some insight into the mechanisms that may set up a newborn for poor health outcomes later in life, the data is still very limited, and more long-term follow-up on these infants is needed before recommending any sort of bacterial supplementation to a newborn,” Dr. Dude said in an interview.
Dr. Brodin and colleagues are planning an array of related studies, including larger clinical trials; further investigations into mechanisms of action; comparisons between the present cohort and infants in Kenya, where immune-mediated diseases are rare; and evaluations of vaccine responses and infectious disease susceptibility.
The study was supported by the European Research Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Marianne & Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with Cytodelics, Scailyte, Kancera, and others. Dr. Dude reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM CELL
Skip routine probiotics for preemies, AAP says
The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends against the routine administration of probiotics to preterm infants, particularly the most vulnerable (those whose birth weight is <1,000 g), for the treatment or prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and late-onset sepsis.
Although probiotics are increasingly given to preterm infants, the AAP notes that the data on their safety and efficacy are inconsistent. In addition, the supplements are not subject to approval by the Food and Drug Administration.
Therefore, the academy advises clinicians to use extreme caution in selecting preterm neonates to receive these microorganisms and recommends obtaining informed consent from parents after carefully discussing the risks. It also recommends that centers using probiotics conduct surveillance, inasmuch as probiotics can alter a center’s flora, potentially affecting all patients. Such centers should also carefully document outcomes, adverse events, and safety.
The AAP’s clinical report, published online May 24 in Pediatrics, highlights wide differences between commercially available formulations and a lack of regulatory standards in this country.
Absent FDA-approved drug labeling, these nutritional supplements cannot be marketed as treatment or prophylaxis, but that has scarcely stopped their use. “Despite lack of availability of a pharmaceutical-grade product, the number of preterm infants receiving probiotics in the United States and Canada is steadily increasing,” wrote Brenda Poindexter, MD, FAAP, chief of neonatology at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, and members of the AAP’s Committee on Fetus and Newborn.
Analyses of U.S. collaborative databases indicate that approximately 10% of neonates of extremely low gestational age receive a probiotic preparation in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The use of these preparations varies widely across institutions.
“NEC is a devastating morbidity of prematurity, and it’s multifactorial. Some babies only given mother’s milk still get NEC, and the decision to use these products is a very nuanced one,” Dr. Poindexter said in an interview. “I suspect some people will disagree with the report, and we tried to give folks some wiggle room.”
Evidence from other countries suggests that probiotics can be protective against NEC, she added, “so not to have a reliable product in this country is very frustrating.”
Dr. Poindexter and colleagues pointed to a 2015 study that found that only 1 of 16 commercial products tested contained the exact organisms listed on their labels. One product contained none of the species listed on the label.
In light of increasing use, the AAP emphasizes the need for development of pharmaceutical-grade probiotics that would be rigorously evaluated for safety and efficacy.
The infant microbiome
Over the past decade, the gut microbiome has been increasingly recognized as a factor relevant to health and disease in preterm infants, the authors noted. Differences in the intestinal microbiota between full-term and preterm infants are substantial. The microbiome of preterm infants tends to include fewer bacterial species and greater proportions of potentially pathogenic strains.
Evidence of benefit from probiotics has been mixed. Some studies and pooled systematic analyses suggest a significant benefit. However, Dr. Poindexter and colleagues noted that some researchers express concerns about the study methods used, such as pooling results from trials that tested different probiotic strains or that had few infants in the highest risk category.
Whereas the potential for probiotic-related infection appears low, there does seem to be some risk for sepsis associated with colonization by a strain in a given product or from contamination with a pathogen during manufacturing, the report explains.
At least one trial found that a third of infants randomly assigned to receive placebo showed evidence of the probiotic strain.
“However, it may be difficult to distinguish the change in the infant from the change in the resident flora of the NICU,” the AAP panel wrote.
In addition, there have recently been several recalls of dietary supplement–grade probiotics for contamination, which have raised concerns. Pathogens include Salmonella, Rhizopus, and Penicillium species. Fatal gastrointestinal mucormycosis has also been reported in a preterm infant who received ABC Dophilus powder that was contaminated with the microfungus Rhizopus oryzae.
Other safety considerations, according to the authors, are the unknown longer-term effect of probiotics on preterm infants and the unknown impact of microorganisms on the microbiome over time.
Last year, the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition published a position paper with a conditional recommendation for selected probiotics to reduce NEC rates. “These guidelines would be applicable in the U.S. if we had products manufactured in a way that could guarantee that what’s on the label is in the bottle,” Dr. Poindexter said.
Asked for her perspective on the AAP clinical report, Erica Wymore, MD, assistant professor of neonatal and perinatal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called it “an excellent review of the current literature” that shows the inadequacy of data on the composition, dosage, timing, duration, and use of single-strain vs. multiple-strain probiotics to reduce NEC. Her clinical center, Children’s Hospital Colorado, does not administer probiotics to preterm babies.
Although guidelines can improve outcomes, said Dr. Wymore, who was not involved in the AAP report, improvement observed with probiotics results from more stringent care in centers that experience high NEC rates. “It’s hard to know if it’s due to the probiotics if they already have a high rate of NEC,” Dr. Wymore said.
She echoed the AAP’s position and stressed the need for extreme caution in giving these products to vulnerable infants with immature immune systems. Before that can be safely done, she said, “we need more FDA oversight of product composition [and] pharmaceutical-grade products, and more studies to determine efficacy.”
Added Dr. Poindexter: “Hopefully, this report will inform clinicians of the risks of using non–pharmaceutical-grade products and encourage industry to actually develop probiotics for neonates that we can feel comfortable using.”
The report received no external funding. Dr. Poindexter and Dr. Wymore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends against the routine administration of probiotics to preterm infants, particularly the most vulnerable (those whose birth weight is <1,000 g), for the treatment or prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and late-onset sepsis.
Although probiotics are increasingly given to preterm infants, the AAP notes that the data on their safety and efficacy are inconsistent. In addition, the supplements are not subject to approval by the Food and Drug Administration.
Therefore, the academy advises clinicians to use extreme caution in selecting preterm neonates to receive these microorganisms and recommends obtaining informed consent from parents after carefully discussing the risks. It also recommends that centers using probiotics conduct surveillance, inasmuch as probiotics can alter a center’s flora, potentially affecting all patients. Such centers should also carefully document outcomes, adverse events, and safety.
The AAP’s clinical report, published online May 24 in Pediatrics, highlights wide differences between commercially available formulations and a lack of regulatory standards in this country.
Absent FDA-approved drug labeling, these nutritional supplements cannot be marketed as treatment or prophylaxis, but that has scarcely stopped their use. “Despite lack of availability of a pharmaceutical-grade product, the number of preterm infants receiving probiotics in the United States and Canada is steadily increasing,” wrote Brenda Poindexter, MD, FAAP, chief of neonatology at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, and members of the AAP’s Committee on Fetus and Newborn.
Analyses of U.S. collaborative databases indicate that approximately 10% of neonates of extremely low gestational age receive a probiotic preparation in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The use of these preparations varies widely across institutions.
“NEC is a devastating morbidity of prematurity, and it’s multifactorial. Some babies only given mother’s milk still get NEC, and the decision to use these products is a very nuanced one,” Dr. Poindexter said in an interview. “I suspect some people will disagree with the report, and we tried to give folks some wiggle room.”
Evidence from other countries suggests that probiotics can be protective against NEC, she added, “so not to have a reliable product in this country is very frustrating.”
Dr. Poindexter and colleagues pointed to a 2015 study that found that only 1 of 16 commercial products tested contained the exact organisms listed on their labels. One product contained none of the species listed on the label.
In light of increasing use, the AAP emphasizes the need for development of pharmaceutical-grade probiotics that would be rigorously evaluated for safety and efficacy.
The infant microbiome
Over the past decade, the gut microbiome has been increasingly recognized as a factor relevant to health and disease in preterm infants, the authors noted. Differences in the intestinal microbiota between full-term and preterm infants are substantial. The microbiome of preterm infants tends to include fewer bacterial species and greater proportions of potentially pathogenic strains.
Evidence of benefit from probiotics has been mixed. Some studies and pooled systematic analyses suggest a significant benefit. However, Dr. Poindexter and colleagues noted that some researchers express concerns about the study methods used, such as pooling results from trials that tested different probiotic strains or that had few infants in the highest risk category.
Whereas the potential for probiotic-related infection appears low, there does seem to be some risk for sepsis associated with colonization by a strain in a given product or from contamination with a pathogen during manufacturing, the report explains.
At least one trial found that a third of infants randomly assigned to receive placebo showed evidence of the probiotic strain.
“However, it may be difficult to distinguish the change in the infant from the change in the resident flora of the NICU,” the AAP panel wrote.
In addition, there have recently been several recalls of dietary supplement–grade probiotics for contamination, which have raised concerns. Pathogens include Salmonella, Rhizopus, and Penicillium species. Fatal gastrointestinal mucormycosis has also been reported in a preterm infant who received ABC Dophilus powder that was contaminated with the microfungus Rhizopus oryzae.
Other safety considerations, according to the authors, are the unknown longer-term effect of probiotics on preterm infants and the unknown impact of microorganisms on the microbiome over time.
Last year, the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition published a position paper with a conditional recommendation for selected probiotics to reduce NEC rates. “These guidelines would be applicable in the U.S. if we had products manufactured in a way that could guarantee that what’s on the label is in the bottle,” Dr. Poindexter said.
Asked for her perspective on the AAP clinical report, Erica Wymore, MD, assistant professor of neonatal and perinatal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called it “an excellent review of the current literature” that shows the inadequacy of data on the composition, dosage, timing, duration, and use of single-strain vs. multiple-strain probiotics to reduce NEC. Her clinical center, Children’s Hospital Colorado, does not administer probiotics to preterm babies.
Although guidelines can improve outcomes, said Dr. Wymore, who was not involved in the AAP report, improvement observed with probiotics results from more stringent care in centers that experience high NEC rates. “It’s hard to know if it’s due to the probiotics if they already have a high rate of NEC,” Dr. Wymore said.
She echoed the AAP’s position and stressed the need for extreme caution in giving these products to vulnerable infants with immature immune systems. Before that can be safely done, she said, “we need more FDA oversight of product composition [and] pharmaceutical-grade products, and more studies to determine efficacy.”
Added Dr. Poindexter: “Hopefully, this report will inform clinicians of the risks of using non–pharmaceutical-grade products and encourage industry to actually develop probiotics for neonates that we can feel comfortable using.”
The report received no external funding. Dr. Poindexter and Dr. Wymore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends against the routine administration of probiotics to preterm infants, particularly the most vulnerable (those whose birth weight is <1,000 g), for the treatment or prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and late-onset sepsis.
Although probiotics are increasingly given to preterm infants, the AAP notes that the data on their safety and efficacy are inconsistent. In addition, the supplements are not subject to approval by the Food and Drug Administration.
Therefore, the academy advises clinicians to use extreme caution in selecting preterm neonates to receive these microorganisms and recommends obtaining informed consent from parents after carefully discussing the risks. It also recommends that centers using probiotics conduct surveillance, inasmuch as probiotics can alter a center’s flora, potentially affecting all patients. Such centers should also carefully document outcomes, adverse events, and safety.
The AAP’s clinical report, published online May 24 in Pediatrics, highlights wide differences between commercially available formulations and a lack of regulatory standards in this country.
Absent FDA-approved drug labeling, these nutritional supplements cannot be marketed as treatment or prophylaxis, but that has scarcely stopped their use. “Despite lack of availability of a pharmaceutical-grade product, the number of preterm infants receiving probiotics in the United States and Canada is steadily increasing,” wrote Brenda Poindexter, MD, FAAP, chief of neonatology at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, and members of the AAP’s Committee on Fetus and Newborn.
Analyses of U.S. collaborative databases indicate that approximately 10% of neonates of extremely low gestational age receive a probiotic preparation in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The use of these preparations varies widely across institutions.
“NEC is a devastating morbidity of prematurity, and it’s multifactorial. Some babies only given mother’s milk still get NEC, and the decision to use these products is a very nuanced one,” Dr. Poindexter said in an interview. “I suspect some people will disagree with the report, and we tried to give folks some wiggle room.”
Evidence from other countries suggests that probiotics can be protective against NEC, she added, “so not to have a reliable product in this country is very frustrating.”
Dr. Poindexter and colleagues pointed to a 2015 study that found that only 1 of 16 commercial products tested contained the exact organisms listed on their labels. One product contained none of the species listed on the label.
In light of increasing use, the AAP emphasizes the need for development of pharmaceutical-grade probiotics that would be rigorously evaluated for safety and efficacy.
The infant microbiome
Over the past decade, the gut microbiome has been increasingly recognized as a factor relevant to health and disease in preterm infants, the authors noted. Differences in the intestinal microbiota between full-term and preterm infants are substantial. The microbiome of preterm infants tends to include fewer bacterial species and greater proportions of potentially pathogenic strains.
Evidence of benefit from probiotics has been mixed. Some studies and pooled systematic analyses suggest a significant benefit. However, Dr. Poindexter and colleagues noted that some researchers express concerns about the study methods used, such as pooling results from trials that tested different probiotic strains or that had few infants in the highest risk category.
Whereas the potential for probiotic-related infection appears low, there does seem to be some risk for sepsis associated with colonization by a strain in a given product or from contamination with a pathogen during manufacturing, the report explains.
At least one trial found that a third of infants randomly assigned to receive placebo showed evidence of the probiotic strain.
“However, it may be difficult to distinguish the change in the infant from the change in the resident flora of the NICU,” the AAP panel wrote.
In addition, there have recently been several recalls of dietary supplement–grade probiotics for contamination, which have raised concerns. Pathogens include Salmonella, Rhizopus, and Penicillium species. Fatal gastrointestinal mucormycosis has also been reported in a preterm infant who received ABC Dophilus powder that was contaminated with the microfungus Rhizopus oryzae.
Other safety considerations, according to the authors, are the unknown longer-term effect of probiotics on preterm infants and the unknown impact of microorganisms on the microbiome over time.
Last year, the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition published a position paper with a conditional recommendation for selected probiotics to reduce NEC rates. “These guidelines would be applicable in the U.S. if we had products manufactured in a way that could guarantee that what’s on the label is in the bottle,” Dr. Poindexter said.
Asked for her perspective on the AAP clinical report, Erica Wymore, MD, assistant professor of neonatal and perinatal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called it “an excellent review of the current literature” that shows the inadequacy of data on the composition, dosage, timing, duration, and use of single-strain vs. multiple-strain probiotics to reduce NEC. Her clinical center, Children’s Hospital Colorado, does not administer probiotics to preterm babies.
Although guidelines can improve outcomes, said Dr. Wymore, who was not involved in the AAP report, improvement observed with probiotics results from more stringent care in centers that experience high NEC rates. “It’s hard to know if it’s due to the probiotics if they already have a high rate of NEC,” Dr. Wymore said.
She echoed the AAP’s position and stressed the need for extreme caution in giving these products to vulnerable infants with immature immune systems. Before that can be safely done, she said, “we need more FDA oversight of product composition [and] pharmaceutical-grade products, and more studies to determine efficacy.”
Added Dr. Poindexter: “Hopefully, this report will inform clinicians of the risks of using non–pharmaceutical-grade products and encourage industry to actually develop probiotics for neonates that we can feel comfortable using.”
The report received no external funding. Dr. Poindexter and Dr. Wymore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mother-to-infant COVID-19 transmission is unlikely
Mothers with a history of COVID-19 exposure during pregnancy are not likely to transmit the infection to their newborns, based on data from more than 2,000 women.
“Uncertainty at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to varying postnatal care recommendations for newborns exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero,” said Margaret H. Kyle, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.
The Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an early epicenter of the pandemic, allowed rooming-in and encouraged direct breastfeeding between infected mothers and their newborns while adopting extensive safety measures, the researchers said.
In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies (Poster 141), the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of all newborns born at the medical center from March 22, 2020, through August 7, 2020. The study was part of Columbia University’s ongoing COVID-19 Mother Baby Outcomes (COMBO) initiative to “describe the health and well-being of mother-infant dyads with and without prenatal SARS-CoV-2 infections,” according to the researchers.
During the study period, the researchers identified newborns of 327 women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any point during pregnancy and compared them to newborns of 2,125 unexposed women. Demographics were similar between the groups.
Overall, the total test positivity was 0.7% for exposed newborns; 1.0% tested positive on an initial test, and 0% were positive on retest. During the newborn hospital stay and a 2-week follow-up, 0% of all newborns showed clinical evidence of infection.
No significant differences were noted between exposed and unexposed newborns in clinical outcomes including gestational age, mode of delivery, 5-minute Apgar score, heart rate, respiratory rate, or temperature. Although more infants of COVID-19–exposed mothers compared with unexposed mothers had an emergency department visit within the first 14 days of life (6% vs. 3%, P = .002), none of the infants was diagnosed with COVID-19 during these visits. Cough, fever, congestion, or bilirubin were more frequent reasons for emergency department visits in the exposed infants compared with unexposed infants, but these differences were not significant.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the limited follow-up period to only the first 2 weeks of life, the researchers noted. In addition, perinatal transmission rates were available only for the 202 newborns who were followed up in the hospital system, they said. However, the results suggest that the risk of mother-to-newborn vertical transmission of COVID-19 remains low, even when mothers are breastfeeding and infants are rooming in, they concluded.
Study supports safety of rooming in
The study is important because of the value of mother and infant bonding, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. “We know maternal and infant bonding and breastfeeding are extremely important in the first few days of life,” she said. “Initially, COVID-positive moms were separated from their babies during this important time.” Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised by the study findings, as they reflect other research that newborns have not been getting infected with COVID-19 from their mothers.
Consequently, the take-home message is that newborns can room in with their mothers in the hospital setting, and they are at low risk for COVID-19 regardless of the mother’s exposure history, said Dr. Kinsella. Looking ahead, future areas of research could include examining SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in newborns, she noted.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.
Mothers with a history of COVID-19 exposure during pregnancy are not likely to transmit the infection to their newborns, based on data from more than 2,000 women.
“Uncertainty at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to varying postnatal care recommendations for newborns exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero,” said Margaret H. Kyle, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.
The Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an early epicenter of the pandemic, allowed rooming-in and encouraged direct breastfeeding between infected mothers and their newborns while adopting extensive safety measures, the researchers said.
In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies (Poster 141), the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of all newborns born at the medical center from March 22, 2020, through August 7, 2020. The study was part of Columbia University’s ongoing COVID-19 Mother Baby Outcomes (COMBO) initiative to “describe the health and well-being of mother-infant dyads with and without prenatal SARS-CoV-2 infections,” according to the researchers.
During the study period, the researchers identified newborns of 327 women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any point during pregnancy and compared them to newborns of 2,125 unexposed women. Demographics were similar between the groups.
Overall, the total test positivity was 0.7% for exposed newborns; 1.0% tested positive on an initial test, and 0% were positive on retest. During the newborn hospital stay and a 2-week follow-up, 0% of all newborns showed clinical evidence of infection.
No significant differences were noted between exposed and unexposed newborns in clinical outcomes including gestational age, mode of delivery, 5-minute Apgar score, heart rate, respiratory rate, or temperature. Although more infants of COVID-19–exposed mothers compared with unexposed mothers had an emergency department visit within the first 14 days of life (6% vs. 3%, P = .002), none of the infants was diagnosed with COVID-19 during these visits. Cough, fever, congestion, or bilirubin were more frequent reasons for emergency department visits in the exposed infants compared with unexposed infants, but these differences were not significant.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the limited follow-up period to only the first 2 weeks of life, the researchers noted. In addition, perinatal transmission rates were available only for the 202 newborns who were followed up in the hospital system, they said. However, the results suggest that the risk of mother-to-newborn vertical transmission of COVID-19 remains low, even when mothers are breastfeeding and infants are rooming in, they concluded.
Study supports safety of rooming in
The study is important because of the value of mother and infant bonding, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. “We know maternal and infant bonding and breastfeeding are extremely important in the first few days of life,” she said. “Initially, COVID-positive moms were separated from their babies during this important time.” Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised by the study findings, as they reflect other research that newborns have not been getting infected with COVID-19 from their mothers.
Consequently, the take-home message is that newborns can room in with their mothers in the hospital setting, and they are at low risk for COVID-19 regardless of the mother’s exposure history, said Dr. Kinsella. Looking ahead, future areas of research could include examining SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in newborns, she noted.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.
Mothers with a history of COVID-19 exposure during pregnancy are not likely to transmit the infection to their newborns, based on data from more than 2,000 women.
“Uncertainty at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to varying postnatal care recommendations for newborns exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero,” said Margaret H. Kyle, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.
The Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an early epicenter of the pandemic, allowed rooming-in and encouraged direct breastfeeding between infected mothers and their newborns while adopting extensive safety measures, the researchers said.
In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies (Poster 141), the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of all newborns born at the medical center from March 22, 2020, through August 7, 2020. The study was part of Columbia University’s ongoing COVID-19 Mother Baby Outcomes (COMBO) initiative to “describe the health and well-being of mother-infant dyads with and without prenatal SARS-CoV-2 infections,” according to the researchers.
During the study period, the researchers identified newborns of 327 women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any point during pregnancy and compared them to newborns of 2,125 unexposed women. Demographics were similar between the groups.
Overall, the total test positivity was 0.7% for exposed newborns; 1.0% tested positive on an initial test, and 0% were positive on retest. During the newborn hospital stay and a 2-week follow-up, 0% of all newborns showed clinical evidence of infection.
No significant differences were noted between exposed and unexposed newborns in clinical outcomes including gestational age, mode of delivery, 5-minute Apgar score, heart rate, respiratory rate, or temperature. Although more infants of COVID-19–exposed mothers compared with unexposed mothers had an emergency department visit within the first 14 days of life (6% vs. 3%, P = .002), none of the infants was diagnosed with COVID-19 during these visits. Cough, fever, congestion, or bilirubin were more frequent reasons for emergency department visits in the exposed infants compared with unexposed infants, but these differences were not significant.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the limited follow-up period to only the first 2 weeks of life, the researchers noted. In addition, perinatal transmission rates were available only for the 202 newborns who were followed up in the hospital system, they said. However, the results suggest that the risk of mother-to-newborn vertical transmission of COVID-19 remains low, even when mothers are breastfeeding and infants are rooming in, they concluded.
Study supports safety of rooming in
The study is important because of the value of mother and infant bonding, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. “We know maternal and infant bonding and breastfeeding are extremely important in the first few days of life,” she said. “Initially, COVID-positive moms were separated from their babies during this important time.” Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised by the study findings, as they reflect other research that newborns have not been getting infected with COVID-19 from their mothers.
Consequently, the take-home message is that newborns can room in with their mothers in the hospital setting, and they are at low risk for COVID-19 regardless of the mother’s exposure history, said Dr. Kinsella. Looking ahead, future areas of research could include examining SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in newborns, she noted.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.
FROM PAS 2021
Perinatal depression and the pediatrician’s role
Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common and treatable problem affecting over 10% of all pregnant women. Without routine use of a screening questionnaire, many women go undiagnosed and without treatment. The risks of untreated PPD in a new mother are the risks of depression tripled: to her health and to the health of her new infant and their whole family. Although pediatricians treat children, they take care of the whole family. They appreciate their role in offering support and guidance to new parents, and in the case of PPD, they are in a unique position. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognized this when they issued their policy statement, “Incorporating Recognition and Management of Perinatal Depression into Pediatric Practice,” in January 2019. By screening, tracking, and connecting affected mothers to care and services, you can truly provide “two-generational care” for your youngest patients.
PPD affects an estimated one in seven women (13%) globally. In one large retrospective study that looked at the 39 weeks before and after delivery, 15.4% of mothers received a diagnosis of PPD and a second study indicated that 22% of new mothers had depressive symptoms that were persistent for 6 months.1 The pathways to PPD include prior personal or family history of depression, stressors in the family (connected to social determinants of health), previous miscarriage or serious complications in a previous pregnancy, and sensitivity to hormonal changes. Indeed, PPD is the most common complication of childbirth.2 Although as many as half of all women eventually diagnosed with PPD had symptoms during their pregnancy, the misperception that PPD is only post partum leads to it being mistaken for the normal process of adjustment to parenthood. PPD is particularly insidious as new mothers are likely to be silent if they feel shame for not enjoying what they have been told will be a special and happy time, and those around them may mistake symptoms for the normal “baby blues” that will resolve quickly and with routine supports.
Untreated PPD, creates risks for mother, infant, and family as she manages needless suffering during a critical period for her new baby. While depression may remit over months without treatment, suicide is a real risk, and accounts for 20% of postpartum deaths.3 Infants face serious developmental consequences when their mothers are withdrawn and disconnected from them during the first months of life, including impaired social development, physical growth, and cognitive development. This impairment persists. Exposure to maternal depression during infancy is associated with lower IQ, attentional problems, and special educational needs by elementary school,4 and is a risk factor for psychiatric illnesses in childhood and adolescence.5,6 PPD has a broad range of severity, including psychosis that may include paranoia with the rare risk of infanticide. And maternal depression can add to the strains in a vulnerable caregiver relationship that can raise the risk for neglect or abuse of the mother, children, or both.
It is important to note that anxiety is often the presenting problem in perinatal mood disorders, with mothers experiencing intense morbid worries about their infant’s safety and health, and fear of inadequacy, criticism, and even infant removal. These fears may reinforce silence and isolation. But pediatricians are one group that these mothers are most likely to share their anxieties with as they look for reassurance. It can be challenging to distinguish PPD from obsessive-compulsive disorder or PTSD. The critical work of the pediatrician is not specific diagnosis and treatment. Instead, your task is to provide screening and support, to create a safe place to overcome silence and shame.
There are many reliable and valid screening instruments available for depression, but the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EDPS) has been specially developed for and tested in this population. It is a 10-item scale that is easy to complete and to score. Scores range from 0 to 30 and a score of 10 is considered a cutoff for depression. It can be used to track symptoms and is free and widely available online and in multiple languages. Ideally, this scale can be administered as part of a previsit, automatically entered into an electronic medical record and given at regular intervals during the infant’s first year of primary care. Some new mothers, especially if they are suffering from depression, may feel anxious about filling this out. It is important that your staff tell them that you screen all new mothers in your practice, and that PPD is common and treatable and the pediatrician’s office is committed to the health of the whole family.
If a new mother screens positive, you might consider yourself to have three tasks: Reassure her that she is a wonderful mother and this is a treatable illness, not a cause for guilt, shame, or alarm; expand her support and decrease her isolation by helping her to communicate with her family; and identify treatment resources for her. Start by being curious about some of her specific worries or feelings, her energy level, feelings of isolation or trouble with sleep. Offer compassion and validation around the pain of these experiences in the midst of so much transition. Only after hearing a little detail about her experience, then you may offer that such feelings are common, but when they are persistent or severe, they often indicate PPD, and that her screening test suggests they do for her. Offer that this form of depression is very treatable, with both pharmacologic and psychotherapy interventions. And if she is resistant, gently offer that treatment will be very protective of her new infant’s physical, social, and cognitive growth and development. Hearing this from a pediatrician is powerful for a new mother, even if depressed. Finally, ask if you might help her bring other important adults in her family into an understanding of this. Could she tell her spouse? Her sister? Her best friend? Perhaps she could bring one of them to the next weekly visit, so you can all speak together. This intervention greatly improves the likelihood of her engaging in treatment, and strong interpersonal connections are therapeutic in and of themselves.
For treatment, the easier your office can make it, the more likely she is to follow up. Identify local resources, perhaps through connected community organizations such as Jewish Family and Children’s Services or through a public program like California’s First Five. Connect with the local obstetric practice, which may already have a referral process in place. If you can connect with her primary care provider, they may take on the referral process or may even have integrated capacity for treatment. Identify strategies that may support her restful sleep, including realistic daily exercise, sharing infant care, and being cautious with caffeine and screen time. Identify ways for her to meet other new mothers or reconnect with friends. Reassure her that easy attachment activities, such as reading a book or singing to her baby can be good for both of them without requiring much energy. This may sound like a daunting task, but the conversation will only take a few minutes. Helping an isolated new parent recognize that their feelings of fear, inadequacy, and guilt are not facts, offering some simple immediate strategies and facilitating a referral can be lifesaving.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]
References
1. Dietz PM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(10):1515-20.
2. Hanusa BH et al. J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 2008;17(4):585-96.
3. Lindahl V et al. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2005;8(2):77-87.
4. Hay DF et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42(7):871-89.
5. Tully EC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2008:165(9):1148-54.
6. Maternal depression and child development. Paediatr. Child Health 2004;9(8):575-98.
Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common and treatable problem affecting over 10% of all pregnant women. Without routine use of a screening questionnaire, many women go undiagnosed and without treatment. The risks of untreated PPD in a new mother are the risks of depression tripled: to her health and to the health of her new infant and their whole family. Although pediatricians treat children, they take care of the whole family. They appreciate their role in offering support and guidance to new parents, and in the case of PPD, they are in a unique position. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognized this when they issued their policy statement, “Incorporating Recognition and Management of Perinatal Depression into Pediatric Practice,” in January 2019. By screening, tracking, and connecting affected mothers to care and services, you can truly provide “two-generational care” for your youngest patients.
PPD affects an estimated one in seven women (13%) globally. In one large retrospective study that looked at the 39 weeks before and after delivery, 15.4% of mothers received a diagnosis of PPD and a second study indicated that 22% of new mothers had depressive symptoms that were persistent for 6 months.1 The pathways to PPD include prior personal or family history of depression, stressors in the family (connected to social determinants of health), previous miscarriage or serious complications in a previous pregnancy, and sensitivity to hormonal changes. Indeed, PPD is the most common complication of childbirth.2 Although as many as half of all women eventually diagnosed with PPD had symptoms during their pregnancy, the misperception that PPD is only post partum leads to it being mistaken for the normal process of adjustment to parenthood. PPD is particularly insidious as new mothers are likely to be silent if they feel shame for not enjoying what they have been told will be a special and happy time, and those around them may mistake symptoms for the normal “baby blues” that will resolve quickly and with routine supports.
Untreated PPD, creates risks for mother, infant, and family as she manages needless suffering during a critical period for her new baby. While depression may remit over months without treatment, suicide is a real risk, and accounts for 20% of postpartum deaths.3 Infants face serious developmental consequences when their mothers are withdrawn and disconnected from them during the first months of life, including impaired social development, physical growth, and cognitive development. This impairment persists. Exposure to maternal depression during infancy is associated with lower IQ, attentional problems, and special educational needs by elementary school,4 and is a risk factor for psychiatric illnesses in childhood and adolescence.5,6 PPD has a broad range of severity, including psychosis that may include paranoia with the rare risk of infanticide. And maternal depression can add to the strains in a vulnerable caregiver relationship that can raise the risk for neglect or abuse of the mother, children, or both.
It is important to note that anxiety is often the presenting problem in perinatal mood disorders, with mothers experiencing intense morbid worries about their infant’s safety and health, and fear of inadequacy, criticism, and even infant removal. These fears may reinforce silence and isolation. But pediatricians are one group that these mothers are most likely to share their anxieties with as they look for reassurance. It can be challenging to distinguish PPD from obsessive-compulsive disorder or PTSD. The critical work of the pediatrician is not specific diagnosis and treatment. Instead, your task is to provide screening and support, to create a safe place to overcome silence and shame.
There are many reliable and valid screening instruments available for depression, but the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EDPS) has been specially developed for and tested in this population. It is a 10-item scale that is easy to complete and to score. Scores range from 0 to 30 and a score of 10 is considered a cutoff for depression. It can be used to track symptoms and is free and widely available online and in multiple languages. Ideally, this scale can be administered as part of a previsit, automatically entered into an electronic medical record and given at regular intervals during the infant’s first year of primary care. Some new mothers, especially if they are suffering from depression, may feel anxious about filling this out. It is important that your staff tell them that you screen all new mothers in your practice, and that PPD is common and treatable and the pediatrician’s office is committed to the health of the whole family.
If a new mother screens positive, you might consider yourself to have three tasks: Reassure her that she is a wonderful mother and this is a treatable illness, not a cause for guilt, shame, or alarm; expand her support and decrease her isolation by helping her to communicate with her family; and identify treatment resources for her. Start by being curious about some of her specific worries or feelings, her energy level, feelings of isolation or trouble with sleep. Offer compassion and validation around the pain of these experiences in the midst of so much transition. Only after hearing a little detail about her experience, then you may offer that such feelings are common, but when they are persistent or severe, they often indicate PPD, and that her screening test suggests they do for her. Offer that this form of depression is very treatable, with both pharmacologic and psychotherapy interventions. And if she is resistant, gently offer that treatment will be very protective of her new infant’s physical, social, and cognitive growth and development. Hearing this from a pediatrician is powerful for a new mother, even if depressed. Finally, ask if you might help her bring other important adults in her family into an understanding of this. Could she tell her spouse? Her sister? Her best friend? Perhaps she could bring one of them to the next weekly visit, so you can all speak together. This intervention greatly improves the likelihood of her engaging in treatment, and strong interpersonal connections are therapeutic in and of themselves.
For treatment, the easier your office can make it, the more likely she is to follow up. Identify local resources, perhaps through connected community organizations such as Jewish Family and Children’s Services or through a public program like California’s First Five. Connect with the local obstetric practice, which may already have a referral process in place. If you can connect with her primary care provider, they may take on the referral process or may even have integrated capacity for treatment. Identify strategies that may support her restful sleep, including realistic daily exercise, sharing infant care, and being cautious with caffeine and screen time. Identify ways for her to meet other new mothers or reconnect with friends. Reassure her that easy attachment activities, such as reading a book or singing to her baby can be good for both of them without requiring much energy. This may sound like a daunting task, but the conversation will only take a few minutes. Helping an isolated new parent recognize that their feelings of fear, inadequacy, and guilt are not facts, offering some simple immediate strategies and facilitating a referral can be lifesaving.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]
References
1. Dietz PM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(10):1515-20.
2. Hanusa BH et al. J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 2008;17(4):585-96.
3. Lindahl V et al. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2005;8(2):77-87.
4. Hay DF et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42(7):871-89.
5. Tully EC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2008:165(9):1148-54.
6. Maternal depression and child development. Paediatr. Child Health 2004;9(8):575-98.
Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common and treatable problem affecting over 10% of all pregnant women. Without routine use of a screening questionnaire, many women go undiagnosed and without treatment. The risks of untreated PPD in a new mother are the risks of depression tripled: to her health and to the health of her new infant and their whole family. Although pediatricians treat children, they take care of the whole family. They appreciate their role in offering support and guidance to new parents, and in the case of PPD, they are in a unique position. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognized this when they issued their policy statement, “Incorporating Recognition and Management of Perinatal Depression into Pediatric Practice,” in January 2019. By screening, tracking, and connecting affected mothers to care and services, you can truly provide “two-generational care” for your youngest patients.
PPD affects an estimated one in seven women (13%) globally. In one large retrospective study that looked at the 39 weeks before and after delivery, 15.4% of mothers received a diagnosis of PPD and a second study indicated that 22% of new mothers had depressive symptoms that were persistent for 6 months.1 The pathways to PPD include prior personal or family history of depression, stressors in the family (connected to social determinants of health), previous miscarriage or serious complications in a previous pregnancy, and sensitivity to hormonal changes. Indeed, PPD is the most common complication of childbirth.2 Although as many as half of all women eventually diagnosed with PPD had symptoms during their pregnancy, the misperception that PPD is only post partum leads to it being mistaken for the normal process of adjustment to parenthood. PPD is particularly insidious as new mothers are likely to be silent if they feel shame for not enjoying what they have been told will be a special and happy time, and those around them may mistake symptoms for the normal “baby blues” that will resolve quickly and with routine supports.
Untreated PPD, creates risks for mother, infant, and family as she manages needless suffering during a critical period for her new baby. While depression may remit over months without treatment, suicide is a real risk, and accounts for 20% of postpartum deaths.3 Infants face serious developmental consequences when their mothers are withdrawn and disconnected from them during the first months of life, including impaired social development, physical growth, and cognitive development. This impairment persists. Exposure to maternal depression during infancy is associated with lower IQ, attentional problems, and special educational needs by elementary school,4 and is a risk factor for psychiatric illnesses in childhood and adolescence.5,6 PPD has a broad range of severity, including psychosis that may include paranoia with the rare risk of infanticide. And maternal depression can add to the strains in a vulnerable caregiver relationship that can raise the risk for neglect or abuse of the mother, children, or both.
It is important to note that anxiety is often the presenting problem in perinatal mood disorders, with mothers experiencing intense morbid worries about their infant’s safety and health, and fear of inadequacy, criticism, and even infant removal. These fears may reinforce silence and isolation. But pediatricians are one group that these mothers are most likely to share their anxieties with as they look for reassurance. It can be challenging to distinguish PPD from obsessive-compulsive disorder or PTSD. The critical work of the pediatrician is not specific diagnosis and treatment. Instead, your task is to provide screening and support, to create a safe place to overcome silence and shame.
There are many reliable and valid screening instruments available for depression, but the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EDPS) has been specially developed for and tested in this population. It is a 10-item scale that is easy to complete and to score. Scores range from 0 to 30 and a score of 10 is considered a cutoff for depression. It can be used to track symptoms and is free and widely available online and in multiple languages. Ideally, this scale can be administered as part of a previsit, automatically entered into an electronic medical record and given at regular intervals during the infant’s first year of primary care. Some new mothers, especially if they are suffering from depression, may feel anxious about filling this out. It is important that your staff tell them that you screen all new mothers in your practice, and that PPD is common and treatable and the pediatrician’s office is committed to the health of the whole family.
If a new mother screens positive, you might consider yourself to have three tasks: Reassure her that she is a wonderful mother and this is a treatable illness, not a cause for guilt, shame, or alarm; expand her support and decrease her isolation by helping her to communicate with her family; and identify treatment resources for her. Start by being curious about some of her specific worries or feelings, her energy level, feelings of isolation or trouble with sleep. Offer compassion and validation around the pain of these experiences in the midst of so much transition. Only after hearing a little detail about her experience, then you may offer that such feelings are common, but when they are persistent or severe, they often indicate PPD, and that her screening test suggests they do for her. Offer that this form of depression is very treatable, with both pharmacologic and psychotherapy interventions. And if she is resistant, gently offer that treatment will be very protective of her new infant’s physical, social, and cognitive growth and development. Hearing this from a pediatrician is powerful for a new mother, even if depressed. Finally, ask if you might help her bring other important adults in her family into an understanding of this. Could she tell her spouse? Her sister? Her best friend? Perhaps she could bring one of them to the next weekly visit, so you can all speak together. This intervention greatly improves the likelihood of her engaging in treatment, and strong interpersonal connections are therapeutic in and of themselves.
For treatment, the easier your office can make it, the more likely she is to follow up. Identify local resources, perhaps through connected community organizations such as Jewish Family and Children’s Services or through a public program like California’s First Five. Connect with the local obstetric practice, which may already have a referral process in place. If you can connect with her primary care provider, they may take on the referral process or may even have integrated capacity for treatment. Identify strategies that may support her restful sleep, including realistic daily exercise, sharing infant care, and being cautious with caffeine and screen time. Identify ways for her to meet other new mothers or reconnect with friends. Reassure her that easy attachment activities, such as reading a book or singing to her baby can be good for both of them without requiring much energy. This may sound like a daunting task, but the conversation will only take a few minutes. Helping an isolated new parent recognize that their feelings of fear, inadequacy, and guilt are not facts, offering some simple immediate strategies and facilitating a referral can be lifesaving.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]
References
1. Dietz PM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(10):1515-20.
2. Hanusa BH et al. J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 2008;17(4):585-96.
3. Lindahl V et al. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2005;8(2):77-87.
4. Hay DF et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42(7):871-89.
5. Tully EC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2008:165(9):1148-54.
6. Maternal depression and child development. Paediatr. Child Health 2004;9(8):575-98.
Low-risk preterm infants may not need antibiotics
Selective use of antibiotics based on birth circumstances may reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure for preterm infants at risk of early-onset sepsis, based on data from 340 preterm infants at a single center.
Preterm infants born because of preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, and/or intraamniotic infection (IAI) are considered at increased risk for early-onset sepsis, and current management strategies include a blood culture and initiation of empirical antibiotics, said Kirtan Patel, MD, of Texas A&M University, Dallas, and colleagues in a poster (# 1720) presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
However, this blanket approach “may increase the unnecessary early antibiotic exposure in preterm infants possibly leading to future adverse health outcomes,” and physicians are advised to review the risks and benefits, Dr. Patel said.
Data from previous studies suggest that preterm infants born as a result of preterm labor and/or premature rupture of membranes with adequate Group B Streptococcus (GBS) intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis and no indication of IAI may be managed without empiric antibiotics because the early-onset sepsis risk in these infants is much lower than the ones born through IAI and inadequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.
To better identify preterm birth circumstances in which antibiotics might be avoided, the researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of preterm infants born at 28-34 weeks’ gestation during the period from Jan. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. These infants were in the low-risk category of preterm birth because of preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes, with no IAI and adequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and no signs of cardiovascular or respiratory instability after birth. Of these, 157 (46.2%) received empiric antibiotics soon after birth and 183 infants (53.8%) did not receive empiric antibiotics.
The mean gestational age and birth weight were significantly lower in the empiric antibiotic group, but after correcting for these variables, the factors with the greatest influence on the initiation of antibiotics were maternal intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (odds ratio, 3.13); premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.75); use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the delivery room (OR, 1.84); CPAP on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (OR, 1.94); drawing a blood culture (OR, 13.72); and a complete blood count with immature to total neutrophil ratio greater than 0.2 (OR, 3.84).
Three infants (2%) in the antibiotics group had culture-positive early-onset sepsis with Escherichia coli, compared with no infants in the no-antibiotics group. No differences in short-term hospital outcomes appeared between the two groups. The study was limited in part by the retrospective design and sample size, the researchers noted.
However, the results support a selective approach to antibiotics for preterm infants, taking various birth circumstances into account, they said.
Further risk factor identification could curb antibiotic use
In this study, empiric antibiotics were cast as a wide net to avoid missing serious infections in a few patients, said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.
“It is interesting in this retrospective review of 340 preterm infants that the three newborns that did have serious bacterial infection were correctly given empiric antibiotics from the start,” Dr. Joos noted. “The authors were very effective at elucidating the possible factors that go into starting or not starting empiric antibiotics, although there may be other factors in the clinician’s judgment that are being missed. … More studies are needed on this topic,” Dr. Joos said. “Further research examining how the septic newborns differ from the nonseptic ones could help to even further narrow the use of empiric antibiotics,” he added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.
Selective use of antibiotics based on birth circumstances may reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure for preterm infants at risk of early-onset sepsis, based on data from 340 preterm infants at a single center.
Preterm infants born because of preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, and/or intraamniotic infection (IAI) are considered at increased risk for early-onset sepsis, and current management strategies include a blood culture and initiation of empirical antibiotics, said Kirtan Patel, MD, of Texas A&M University, Dallas, and colleagues in a poster (# 1720) presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
However, this blanket approach “may increase the unnecessary early antibiotic exposure in preterm infants possibly leading to future adverse health outcomes,” and physicians are advised to review the risks and benefits, Dr. Patel said.
Data from previous studies suggest that preterm infants born as a result of preterm labor and/or premature rupture of membranes with adequate Group B Streptococcus (GBS) intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis and no indication of IAI may be managed without empiric antibiotics because the early-onset sepsis risk in these infants is much lower than the ones born through IAI and inadequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.
To better identify preterm birth circumstances in which antibiotics might be avoided, the researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of preterm infants born at 28-34 weeks’ gestation during the period from Jan. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. These infants were in the low-risk category of preterm birth because of preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes, with no IAI and adequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and no signs of cardiovascular or respiratory instability after birth. Of these, 157 (46.2%) received empiric antibiotics soon after birth and 183 infants (53.8%) did not receive empiric antibiotics.
The mean gestational age and birth weight were significantly lower in the empiric antibiotic group, but after correcting for these variables, the factors with the greatest influence on the initiation of antibiotics were maternal intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (odds ratio, 3.13); premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.75); use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the delivery room (OR, 1.84); CPAP on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (OR, 1.94); drawing a blood culture (OR, 13.72); and a complete blood count with immature to total neutrophil ratio greater than 0.2 (OR, 3.84).
Three infants (2%) in the antibiotics group had culture-positive early-onset sepsis with Escherichia coli, compared with no infants in the no-antibiotics group. No differences in short-term hospital outcomes appeared between the two groups. The study was limited in part by the retrospective design and sample size, the researchers noted.
However, the results support a selective approach to antibiotics for preterm infants, taking various birth circumstances into account, they said.
Further risk factor identification could curb antibiotic use
In this study, empiric antibiotics were cast as a wide net to avoid missing serious infections in a few patients, said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.
“It is interesting in this retrospective review of 340 preterm infants that the three newborns that did have serious bacterial infection were correctly given empiric antibiotics from the start,” Dr. Joos noted. “The authors were very effective at elucidating the possible factors that go into starting or not starting empiric antibiotics, although there may be other factors in the clinician’s judgment that are being missed. … More studies are needed on this topic,” Dr. Joos said. “Further research examining how the septic newborns differ from the nonseptic ones could help to even further narrow the use of empiric antibiotics,” he added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.
Selective use of antibiotics based on birth circumstances may reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure for preterm infants at risk of early-onset sepsis, based on data from 340 preterm infants at a single center.
Preterm infants born because of preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, and/or intraamniotic infection (IAI) are considered at increased risk for early-onset sepsis, and current management strategies include a blood culture and initiation of empirical antibiotics, said Kirtan Patel, MD, of Texas A&M University, Dallas, and colleagues in a poster (# 1720) presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
However, this blanket approach “may increase the unnecessary early antibiotic exposure in preterm infants possibly leading to future adverse health outcomes,” and physicians are advised to review the risks and benefits, Dr. Patel said.
Data from previous studies suggest that preterm infants born as a result of preterm labor and/or premature rupture of membranes with adequate Group B Streptococcus (GBS) intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis and no indication of IAI may be managed without empiric antibiotics because the early-onset sepsis risk in these infants is much lower than the ones born through IAI and inadequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.
To better identify preterm birth circumstances in which antibiotics might be avoided, the researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of preterm infants born at 28-34 weeks’ gestation during the period from Jan. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. These infants were in the low-risk category of preterm birth because of preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes, with no IAI and adequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and no signs of cardiovascular or respiratory instability after birth. Of these, 157 (46.2%) received empiric antibiotics soon after birth and 183 infants (53.8%) did not receive empiric antibiotics.
The mean gestational age and birth weight were significantly lower in the empiric antibiotic group, but after correcting for these variables, the factors with the greatest influence on the initiation of antibiotics were maternal intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (odds ratio, 3.13); premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.75); use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the delivery room (OR, 1.84); CPAP on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (OR, 1.94); drawing a blood culture (OR, 13.72); and a complete blood count with immature to total neutrophil ratio greater than 0.2 (OR, 3.84).
Three infants (2%) in the antibiotics group had culture-positive early-onset sepsis with Escherichia coli, compared with no infants in the no-antibiotics group. No differences in short-term hospital outcomes appeared between the two groups. The study was limited in part by the retrospective design and sample size, the researchers noted.
However, the results support a selective approach to antibiotics for preterm infants, taking various birth circumstances into account, they said.
Further risk factor identification could curb antibiotic use
In this study, empiric antibiotics were cast as a wide net to avoid missing serious infections in a few patients, said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.
“It is interesting in this retrospective review of 340 preterm infants that the three newborns that did have serious bacterial infection were correctly given empiric antibiotics from the start,” Dr. Joos noted. “The authors were very effective at elucidating the possible factors that go into starting or not starting empiric antibiotics, although there may be other factors in the clinician’s judgment that are being missed. … More studies are needed on this topic,” Dr. Joos said. “Further research examining how the septic newborns differ from the nonseptic ones could help to even further narrow the use of empiric antibiotics,” he added.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.
FROM PAS 2021
Epidural use shows no association with autism spectrum disorder in children
Exposure to epidural analgesia during labor did not show a link to a later diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a population-based cohort study published April 19 in JAMA Pediatrics.
Though the initial analysis showed an association, adjustment for a wide range of demographic, medical, and birth factors eliminated the link. The authors note that their findings contrast with those of a cohort study in California published in the same journal last year.
“It is possible that residual confounding explains this positive association because key perinatal variables, including induction of labor, labor dystocia, and fetal distress, were not included as confounders in that study,” write Elizabeth Wall-Wieler, PhD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg and her colleagues. “To limit potential bias from unmeasured confounders, we included the aforementioned variables within a wide set of potential confounders.”
The researchers analyzed linked datasets from all singleton infants born in a hospital from 2005 to 2016 in Manitoba, Canada, to compare use of epidurals during birth with diagnoses of ASD before 18 months of age. The four data sources included the Statistics Canada, Manitoba Education, Manitoba Families, and Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living, which includes the Manitoba Health Insurance Registry, Medical Services, Hospital Abstracts, and Drug Program Information Network. The researchers excluded women with cesarean deliveries because it was not possible to differentiate between scheduled and unscheduled cesarean deliveries.
Among 123,175 children born to mothers with an average age of 28 years, 38.2% had been exposed to epidural analgesia during their labor. Autism diagnoses occurred among 2.1% of those exposed to epidurals and 1.7% of those not exposed to epidurals. After the researchers controlled for a range of potential confounders, the difference became nonsignificant (hazard ratio, 1.08).
The adjusted analysis accounted for mother’s age; high school degree; marital status; neighborhood socioeconomic status; receipt of public assistance during pregnancy; and presence of diabetes, hypertension, anxiety, or depression in the year before the birth. Other covariates included in the adjustment included the following pregnancy factors: “parity, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, self-reported and diagnosed drug use, smoking, alcohol use, premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, infection of the amniotic sac and membrane, urogenital infection, antenatal mental health hospitalization, hypothyroidism, benzodiazepine use, antidepressant use, and antiepileptic use.” The researchers also included birth year, labor induction or augmentation, labor dystocia, fetal distress or macrosomia, gestational age at birth, the infant’s sex, and hospital type.
“There were substantial differences in maternal sociodemographic, preexisting, pregnancy-related, and birth-specific covariates between births who were exposed vs. nonexposed to epidural labor analgesia,” the authors report. “For example, births exposed to epidural labor analgesia were more likely to be nulliparous, have premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, induction of labor, augmentation of labor, and fetal distress.”
To take family history of ASD into account, the researchers also compared siblings who were and were not exposed to an epidural during labor: 80,459 children in the cohort had at least one sibling in it as well. The researchers still found no association between use of an epidural and a subsequent autism diagnosis (HR, 0.97). The authors conducted several sensitivity analyses for first-born children, those with two or more diagnostic codes for ASD on different days, and women with missing data on high school completion or marital status who delivered at 37 weeks of gestation or later; these results consistently showed no association between epidurals and ASD.
The findings are important but unsurprising, said Scott M. Myers, MD, a neurodevelopmental pediatrician and associate professor at the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine’s Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute in Scranton, Pa. Dr. Myers, who was not involved in the study, said it was strengthened by the inclusion of a wide range of covariates and multiple sensitivity analyses.
“It confirms the suspicion of many experts who were skeptical of the association reported previously, that the small increase in ASD in offspring of mothers who had epidural labor analgesia was likely attributable to other factors that differed substantially between the exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Myers said in an interview. “The plausibility of exposure to epidural analgesia in labor having a large effect on ASD risk and accounting for changes in ASD prevalence over time is low.”
It’s possible to hypothesize about subgroups that are genetically susceptible to certain environmental risk factors, including epidurals, but such an association should show up in epidemiological research if the subgroup is large enough.
“For example, epidural labor analgesia can prolong labor, and if it were a significant risk factor for ASD, one might expect that longer labor would have been demonstrated to be associated with increased ASD risk, but this has been examined and is not the case,” he said. He also noted that other perinatal factors previously linked to ASD, such as cesarean delivery, may result from a shared factor that affects risk of both ASD and cesarean delivery.
“Although there haven’t been enough systematic postmortem brain studies to be certain that the findings are generalizable, the most consistent neuropathological findings associated with ASD clearly arise long before birth,”Dr. Myers said. “The information I would provide to a concerned pregnant mother is that the current weight of the evidence does not suggest an association between epidural analgesia in labor and increased likelihood of ASD in offspring, much less a causal association.”
Clay Jones, MD, a hospitalist specializing in neonatal-perinatal medicine at Newton (Mass.)–Wellesley Hospital, was not involved in the research and offered a similar assessment of the findings.
“Our understanding of autism is that it is more of a genetic condition which interferes with the organization of brain architecture, so the evidence for any environmental cause would need to be robust for it to change medical practice or our recommendations to the general public,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. Compared to the previous California study, “this new research is larger and better accounts for confounding variables that might increase the risk of a child eventually being diagnosed with autism,” he said.
While recognizing the value in conducting studies to uncover any potential environmental factors contributing to autism diagnoses, Dr. Jones also addressed science communication challenges related to this research.
“While many of these studies are valid early efforts at honing in on potential risk factors, they can be overhyped and lead to increased patient anxiety and potentially harmful changes in behavior,” Dr. Jones said. “There is already a significant amount of pressure for many women to avoid certain safe and effective pain reduction strategies during labor, such as epidural labor analgesia. This pressure is often based on misunderstandings of the risks, pseudoscientific beliefs regarding the benefits of so-called ‘natural childbirth,’ and blatant misogyny. I hope that this new study helps to reassure women that it is okay to request to be more comfortable during their labor experience with the help of epidural labor analgesia.”
The authors of the study also noted the benefits of epidural use during labor.
“It is recognized as the most effective method of providing labor analgesia,” they write. In addition, “the presence of an indwelling epidural catheter allows epidural anesthesia to be administered for an unplanned (intrapartum) cesarean delivery, thus secondarily avoiding any maternal complications or fetal exposure from general anesthesia.”
JAMA Pediatrics editor Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, wrote his second-ever Editor’s Note about this topic after the journal published two similar studies with different conclusions.
“Because there will never be experimental studies of environmental exposures, we are left with imperfect observational studies that are always at risk for residual confounding, especially when observed effect sizes are small,” Dr. Christakis writes. “Science is an imperfect and iterative process, and our responsibility as journal editors is to manage the process as best we can. Publishing two conflicting studies in such a short time frame serves as testament that we recognize the process for what it is.” His personal opinion is that any association has yet to be definitively established but that the journal will publish the study if a more definitive one is done.
In considering potentially contributing environmental risk factors to ASD, Gillian E. Hanley, PhD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and two colleagues write that “meta-analyses have been unable to identify a single perinatal and neonatal factor associated with ASD risk, although some evidence suggested that exposure to a broad class of conditions such as fetal presentation, umbilical-cord complications, fetal distress, or multiple births, reflecting compromised neonatal health, may increase risk.”
Yet, they add, these studies are inconsistent in their effect size, likely because of differences in study methodology, comparison groups, sample size, diagnostic criteria, and exposure assessment.
“Thus, we continue to ask questions about whether biologically plausible associations exist or whether associations reflect residual confounding related to yet-to-be-determined maternal genetic or environmental factors,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues write. They discuss precise differences between the California and Manitoba studies and the inevitability of selection bias since people who choose an epidural will differ in other ways from those who don’t.
“Epidural labor analgesia is an extremely effective approach to obstetric analgesia, and we have a collective responsibility to understand whether it is a safe option that sets a healthy developmental pathway well into childhood,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues conclude. “Women have the right to make a truly informed choice about their pain relief during labor.”
The research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health. One author reported receiving personal fees or grants from Aetion, Alosa Foundation, Lilly, GSK, Pacira, and Takeda. No other authors had disclosures. Dr. Jones, Dr. Myers, and the editorial authors had no disclosures.
Exposure to epidural analgesia during labor did not show a link to a later diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a population-based cohort study published April 19 in JAMA Pediatrics.
Though the initial analysis showed an association, adjustment for a wide range of demographic, medical, and birth factors eliminated the link. The authors note that their findings contrast with those of a cohort study in California published in the same journal last year.
“It is possible that residual confounding explains this positive association because key perinatal variables, including induction of labor, labor dystocia, and fetal distress, were not included as confounders in that study,” write Elizabeth Wall-Wieler, PhD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg and her colleagues. “To limit potential bias from unmeasured confounders, we included the aforementioned variables within a wide set of potential confounders.”
The researchers analyzed linked datasets from all singleton infants born in a hospital from 2005 to 2016 in Manitoba, Canada, to compare use of epidurals during birth with diagnoses of ASD before 18 months of age. The four data sources included the Statistics Canada, Manitoba Education, Manitoba Families, and Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living, which includes the Manitoba Health Insurance Registry, Medical Services, Hospital Abstracts, and Drug Program Information Network. The researchers excluded women with cesarean deliveries because it was not possible to differentiate between scheduled and unscheduled cesarean deliveries.
Among 123,175 children born to mothers with an average age of 28 years, 38.2% had been exposed to epidural analgesia during their labor. Autism diagnoses occurred among 2.1% of those exposed to epidurals and 1.7% of those not exposed to epidurals. After the researchers controlled for a range of potential confounders, the difference became nonsignificant (hazard ratio, 1.08).
The adjusted analysis accounted for mother’s age; high school degree; marital status; neighborhood socioeconomic status; receipt of public assistance during pregnancy; and presence of diabetes, hypertension, anxiety, or depression in the year before the birth. Other covariates included in the adjustment included the following pregnancy factors: “parity, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, self-reported and diagnosed drug use, smoking, alcohol use, premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, infection of the amniotic sac and membrane, urogenital infection, antenatal mental health hospitalization, hypothyroidism, benzodiazepine use, antidepressant use, and antiepileptic use.” The researchers also included birth year, labor induction or augmentation, labor dystocia, fetal distress or macrosomia, gestational age at birth, the infant’s sex, and hospital type.
“There were substantial differences in maternal sociodemographic, preexisting, pregnancy-related, and birth-specific covariates between births who were exposed vs. nonexposed to epidural labor analgesia,” the authors report. “For example, births exposed to epidural labor analgesia were more likely to be nulliparous, have premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, induction of labor, augmentation of labor, and fetal distress.”
To take family history of ASD into account, the researchers also compared siblings who were and were not exposed to an epidural during labor: 80,459 children in the cohort had at least one sibling in it as well. The researchers still found no association between use of an epidural and a subsequent autism diagnosis (HR, 0.97). The authors conducted several sensitivity analyses for first-born children, those with two or more diagnostic codes for ASD on different days, and women with missing data on high school completion or marital status who delivered at 37 weeks of gestation or later; these results consistently showed no association between epidurals and ASD.
The findings are important but unsurprising, said Scott M. Myers, MD, a neurodevelopmental pediatrician and associate professor at the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine’s Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute in Scranton, Pa. Dr. Myers, who was not involved in the study, said it was strengthened by the inclusion of a wide range of covariates and multiple sensitivity analyses.
“It confirms the suspicion of many experts who were skeptical of the association reported previously, that the small increase in ASD in offspring of mothers who had epidural labor analgesia was likely attributable to other factors that differed substantially between the exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Myers said in an interview. “The plausibility of exposure to epidural analgesia in labor having a large effect on ASD risk and accounting for changes in ASD prevalence over time is low.”
It’s possible to hypothesize about subgroups that are genetically susceptible to certain environmental risk factors, including epidurals, but such an association should show up in epidemiological research if the subgroup is large enough.
“For example, epidural labor analgesia can prolong labor, and if it were a significant risk factor for ASD, one might expect that longer labor would have been demonstrated to be associated with increased ASD risk, but this has been examined and is not the case,” he said. He also noted that other perinatal factors previously linked to ASD, such as cesarean delivery, may result from a shared factor that affects risk of both ASD and cesarean delivery.
“Although there haven’t been enough systematic postmortem brain studies to be certain that the findings are generalizable, the most consistent neuropathological findings associated with ASD clearly arise long before birth,”Dr. Myers said. “The information I would provide to a concerned pregnant mother is that the current weight of the evidence does not suggest an association between epidural analgesia in labor and increased likelihood of ASD in offspring, much less a causal association.”
Clay Jones, MD, a hospitalist specializing in neonatal-perinatal medicine at Newton (Mass.)–Wellesley Hospital, was not involved in the research and offered a similar assessment of the findings.
“Our understanding of autism is that it is more of a genetic condition which interferes with the organization of brain architecture, so the evidence for any environmental cause would need to be robust for it to change medical practice or our recommendations to the general public,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. Compared to the previous California study, “this new research is larger and better accounts for confounding variables that might increase the risk of a child eventually being diagnosed with autism,” he said.
While recognizing the value in conducting studies to uncover any potential environmental factors contributing to autism diagnoses, Dr. Jones also addressed science communication challenges related to this research.
“While many of these studies are valid early efforts at honing in on potential risk factors, they can be overhyped and lead to increased patient anxiety and potentially harmful changes in behavior,” Dr. Jones said. “There is already a significant amount of pressure for many women to avoid certain safe and effective pain reduction strategies during labor, such as epidural labor analgesia. This pressure is often based on misunderstandings of the risks, pseudoscientific beliefs regarding the benefits of so-called ‘natural childbirth,’ and blatant misogyny. I hope that this new study helps to reassure women that it is okay to request to be more comfortable during their labor experience with the help of epidural labor analgesia.”
The authors of the study also noted the benefits of epidural use during labor.
“It is recognized as the most effective method of providing labor analgesia,” they write. In addition, “the presence of an indwelling epidural catheter allows epidural anesthesia to be administered for an unplanned (intrapartum) cesarean delivery, thus secondarily avoiding any maternal complications or fetal exposure from general anesthesia.”
JAMA Pediatrics editor Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, wrote his second-ever Editor’s Note about this topic after the journal published two similar studies with different conclusions.
“Because there will never be experimental studies of environmental exposures, we are left with imperfect observational studies that are always at risk for residual confounding, especially when observed effect sizes are small,” Dr. Christakis writes. “Science is an imperfect and iterative process, and our responsibility as journal editors is to manage the process as best we can. Publishing two conflicting studies in such a short time frame serves as testament that we recognize the process for what it is.” His personal opinion is that any association has yet to be definitively established but that the journal will publish the study if a more definitive one is done.
In considering potentially contributing environmental risk factors to ASD, Gillian E. Hanley, PhD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and two colleagues write that “meta-analyses have been unable to identify a single perinatal and neonatal factor associated with ASD risk, although some evidence suggested that exposure to a broad class of conditions such as fetal presentation, umbilical-cord complications, fetal distress, or multiple births, reflecting compromised neonatal health, may increase risk.”
Yet, they add, these studies are inconsistent in their effect size, likely because of differences in study methodology, comparison groups, sample size, diagnostic criteria, and exposure assessment.
“Thus, we continue to ask questions about whether biologically plausible associations exist or whether associations reflect residual confounding related to yet-to-be-determined maternal genetic or environmental factors,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues write. They discuss precise differences between the California and Manitoba studies and the inevitability of selection bias since people who choose an epidural will differ in other ways from those who don’t.
“Epidural labor analgesia is an extremely effective approach to obstetric analgesia, and we have a collective responsibility to understand whether it is a safe option that sets a healthy developmental pathway well into childhood,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues conclude. “Women have the right to make a truly informed choice about their pain relief during labor.”
The research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health. One author reported receiving personal fees or grants from Aetion, Alosa Foundation, Lilly, GSK, Pacira, and Takeda. No other authors had disclosures. Dr. Jones, Dr. Myers, and the editorial authors had no disclosures.
Exposure to epidural analgesia during labor did not show a link to a later diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a population-based cohort study published April 19 in JAMA Pediatrics.
Though the initial analysis showed an association, adjustment for a wide range of demographic, medical, and birth factors eliminated the link. The authors note that their findings contrast with those of a cohort study in California published in the same journal last year.
“It is possible that residual confounding explains this positive association because key perinatal variables, including induction of labor, labor dystocia, and fetal distress, were not included as confounders in that study,” write Elizabeth Wall-Wieler, PhD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg and her colleagues. “To limit potential bias from unmeasured confounders, we included the aforementioned variables within a wide set of potential confounders.”
The researchers analyzed linked datasets from all singleton infants born in a hospital from 2005 to 2016 in Manitoba, Canada, to compare use of epidurals during birth with diagnoses of ASD before 18 months of age. The four data sources included the Statistics Canada, Manitoba Education, Manitoba Families, and Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living, which includes the Manitoba Health Insurance Registry, Medical Services, Hospital Abstracts, and Drug Program Information Network. The researchers excluded women with cesarean deliveries because it was not possible to differentiate between scheduled and unscheduled cesarean deliveries.
Among 123,175 children born to mothers with an average age of 28 years, 38.2% had been exposed to epidural analgesia during their labor. Autism diagnoses occurred among 2.1% of those exposed to epidurals and 1.7% of those not exposed to epidurals. After the researchers controlled for a range of potential confounders, the difference became nonsignificant (hazard ratio, 1.08).
The adjusted analysis accounted for mother’s age; high school degree; marital status; neighborhood socioeconomic status; receipt of public assistance during pregnancy; and presence of diabetes, hypertension, anxiety, or depression in the year before the birth. Other covariates included in the adjustment included the following pregnancy factors: “parity, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, self-reported and diagnosed drug use, smoking, alcohol use, premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, infection of the amniotic sac and membrane, urogenital infection, antenatal mental health hospitalization, hypothyroidism, benzodiazepine use, antidepressant use, and antiepileptic use.” The researchers also included birth year, labor induction or augmentation, labor dystocia, fetal distress or macrosomia, gestational age at birth, the infant’s sex, and hospital type.
“There were substantial differences in maternal sociodemographic, preexisting, pregnancy-related, and birth-specific covariates between births who were exposed vs. nonexposed to epidural labor analgesia,” the authors report. “For example, births exposed to epidural labor analgesia were more likely to be nulliparous, have premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, induction of labor, augmentation of labor, and fetal distress.”
To take family history of ASD into account, the researchers also compared siblings who were and were not exposed to an epidural during labor: 80,459 children in the cohort had at least one sibling in it as well. The researchers still found no association between use of an epidural and a subsequent autism diagnosis (HR, 0.97). The authors conducted several sensitivity analyses for first-born children, those with two or more diagnostic codes for ASD on different days, and women with missing data on high school completion or marital status who delivered at 37 weeks of gestation or later; these results consistently showed no association between epidurals and ASD.
The findings are important but unsurprising, said Scott M. Myers, MD, a neurodevelopmental pediatrician and associate professor at the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine’s Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute in Scranton, Pa. Dr. Myers, who was not involved in the study, said it was strengthened by the inclusion of a wide range of covariates and multiple sensitivity analyses.
“It confirms the suspicion of many experts who were skeptical of the association reported previously, that the small increase in ASD in offspring of mothers who had epidural labor analgesia was likely attributable to other factors that differed substantially between the exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Myers said in an interview. “The plausibility of exposure to epidural analgesia in labor having a large effect on ASD risk and accounting for changes in ASD prevalence over time is low.”
It’s possible to hypothesize about subgroups that are genetically susceptible to certain environmental risk factors, including epidurals, but such an association should show up in epidemiological research if the subgroup is large enough.
“For example, epidural labor analgesia can prolong labor, and if it were a significant risk factor for ASD, one might expect that longer labor would have been demonstrated to be associated with increased ASD risk, but this has been examined and is not the case,” he said. He also noted that other perinatal factors previously linked to ASD, such as cesarean delivery, may result from a shared factor that affects risk of both ASD and cesarean delivery.
“Although there haven’t been enough systematic postmortem brain studies to be certain that the findings are generalizable, the most consistent neuropathological findings associated with ASD clearly arise long before birth,”Dr. Myers said. “The information I would provide to a concerned pregnant mother is that the current weight of the evidence does not suggest an association between epidural analgesia in labor and increased likelihood of ASD in offspring, much less a causal association.”
Clay Jones, MD, a hospitalist specializing in neonatal-perinatal medicine at Newton (Mass.)–Wellesley Hospital, was not involved in the research and offered a similar assessment of the findings.
“Our understanding of autism is that it is more of a genetic condition which interferes with the organization of brain architecture, so the evidence for any environmental cause would need to be robust for it to change medical practice or our recommendations to the general public,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. Compared to the previous California study, “this new research is larger and better accounts for confounding variables that might increase the risk of a child eventually being diagnosed with autism,” he said.
While recognizing the value in conducting studies to uncover any potential environmental factors contributing to autism diagnoses, Dr. Jones also addressed science communication challenges related to this research.
“While many of these studies are valid early efforts at honing in on potential risk factors, they can be overhyped and lead to increased patient anxiety and potentially harmful changes in behavior,” Dr. Jones said. “There is already a significant amount of pressure for many women to avoid certain safe and effective pain reduction strategies during labor, such as epidural labor analgesia. This pressure is often based on misunderstandings of the risks, pseudoscientific beliefs regarding the benefits of so-called ‘natural childbirth,’ and blatant misogyny. I hope that this new study helps to reassure women that it is okay to request to be more comfortable during their labor experience with the help of epidural labor analgesia.”
The authors of the study also noted the benefits of epidural use during labor.
“It is recognized as the most effective method of providing labor analgesia,” they write. In addition, “the presence of an indwelling epidural catheter allows epidural anesthesia to be administered for an unplanned (intrapartum) cesarean delivery, thus secondarily avoiding any maternal complications or fetal exposure from general anesthesia.”
JAMA Pediatrics editor Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, wrote his second-ever Editor’s Note about this topic after the journal published two similar studies with different conclusions.
“Because there will never be experimental studies of environmental exposures, we are left with imperfect observational studies that are always at risk for residual confounding, especially when observed effect sizes are small,” Dr. Christakis writes. “Science is an imperfect and iterative process, and our responsibility as journal editors is to manage the process as best we can. Publishing two conflicting studies in such a short time frame serves as testament that we recognize the process for what it is.” His personal opinion is that any association has yet to be definitively established but that the journal will publish the study if a more definitive one is done.
In considering potentially contributing environmental risk factors to ASD, Gillian E. Hanley, PhD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and two colleagues write that “meta-analyses have been unable to identify a single perinatal and neonatal factor associated with ASD risk, although some evidence suggested that exposure to a broad class of conditions such as fetal presentation, umbilical-cord complications, fetal distress, or multiple births, reflecting compromised neonatal health, may increase risk.”
Yet, they add, these studies are inconsistent in their effect size, likely because of differences in study methodology, comparison groups, sample size, diagnostic criteria, and exposure assessment.
“Thus, we continue to ask questions about whether biologically plausible associations exist or whether associations reflect residual confounding related to yet-to-be-determined maternal genetic or environmental factors,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues write. They discuss precise differences between the California and Manitoba studies and the inevitability of selection bias since people who choose an epidural will differ in other ways from those who don’t.
“Epidural labor analgesia is an extremely effective approach to obstetric analgesia, and we have a collective responsibility to understand whether it is a safe option that sets a healthy developmental pathway well into childhood,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues conclude. “Women have the right to make a truly informed choice about their pain relief during labor.”
The research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health. One author reported receiving personal fees or grants from Aetion, Alosa Foundation, Lilly, GSK, Pacira, and Takeda. No other authors had disclosures. Dr. Jones, Dr. Myers, and the editorial authors had no disclosures.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS