Neonatal Medicine

Infant mortality in the United Sates dropped very slightly from 2015 to 2016 and has not changed significantly since 2011, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Overall infant mortality was 5.87 per 1,000 live births in 2016, which was not significantly less than the 2015 rate of 5.90 per 1,000 or the rate of 6.07 per 1,000 recorded in 2011, the NCHS said in a recent Data Brief. The rate for 2016 works out to 3.88 per 1,000 for the neonatal period (0-27 days) and 1.99 per 1,000 during the postneonatal period (28-364 days).

Maternal age had a significant effect on infant mortality in 2016. The rate was lowest for mothers aged 30-34 years (4.86 per 1,000) and highest for those under 20 years (8.69). All overall rates by maternal age were significantly different from each other, except for those of mothers aged 20-24 years (7.13) and those aged 40 years and over (7.27). Neonatal mortality was highest for the under-20 group and the 40-and-over group at 5.32 per 1,000, with the difference between them coming during the postneonatal period: 3.36 for those under 20 and 1.95 for the 40-and-overs, the NCHS investigators reported based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

The leading cause of death during the neonatal period in 2016 was low birth weight at 98 per 1,000 live births, with congenital malformations second at 86 per 1,000. The leading cause of death in the postneonatal period was congenital malformations at 36 per 1,000, followed by sudden infant death syndrome (35 per 1,000), unintentional injuries (27 per 1,000), diseases of the circulatory system (9 per 1,000), and homicide (6 per 1,000), they added.

[email protected]

Infant mortality in the United Sates dropped very slightly from 2015 to 2016 and has not changed significantly since 2011, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Overall infant mortality was 5.87 per 1,000 live births in 2016, which was not significantly less than the 2015 rate of 5.90 per 1,000 or the rate of 6.07 per 1,000 recorded in 2011, the NCHS said in a recent Data Brief. The rate for 2016 works out to 3.88 per 1,000 for the neonatal period (0-27 days) and 1.99 per 1,000 during the postneonatal period (28-364 days).

Maternal age had a significant effect on infant mortality in 2016. The rate was lowest for mothers aged 30-34 years (4.86 per 1,000) and highest for those under 20 years (8.69). All overall rates by maternal age were significantly different from each other, except for those of mothers aged 20-24 years (7.13) and those aged 40 years and over (7.27). Neonatal mortality was highest for the under-20 group and the 40-and-over group at 5.32 per 1,000, with the difference between them coming during the postneonatal period: 3.36 for those under 20 and 1.95 for the 40-and-overs, the NCHS investigators reported based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

The leading cause of death during the neonatal period in 2016 was low birth weight at 98 per 1,000 live births, with congenital malformations second at 86 per 1,000. The leading cause of death in the postneonatal period was congenital malformations at 36 per 1,000, followed by sudden infant death syndrome (35 per 1,000), unintentional injuries (27 per 1,000), diseases of the circulatory system (9 per 1,000), and homicide (6 per 1,000), they added.

[email protected]

Infant mortality in the United Sates dropped very slightly from 2015 to 2016 and has not changed significantly since 2011, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Overall infant mortality was 5.87 per 1,000 live births in 2016, which was not significantly less than the 2015 rate of 5.90 per 1,000 or the rate of 6.07 per 1,000 recorded in 2011, the NCHS said in a recent Data Brief. The rate for 2016 works out to 3.88 per 1,000 for the neonatal period (0-27 days) and 1.99 per 1,000 during the postneonatal period (28-364 days).

Maternal age had a significant effect on infant mortality in 2016. The rate was lowest for mothers aged 30-34 years (4.86 per 1,000) and highest for those under 20 years (8.69). All overall rates by maternal age were significantly different from each other, except for those of mothers aged 20-24 years (7.13) and those aged 40 years and over (7.27). Neonatal mortality was highest for the under-20 group and the 40-and-over group at 5.32 per 1,000, with the difference between them coming during the postneonatal period: 3.36 for those under 20 and 1.95 for the 40-and-overs, the NCHS investigators reported based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

The leading cause of death during the neonatal period in 2016 was low birth weight at 98 per 1,000 live births, with congenital malformations second at 86 per 1,000. The leading cause of death in the postneonatal period was congenital malformations at 36 per 1,000, followed by sudden infant death syndrome (35 per 1,000), unintentional injuries (27 per 1,000), diseases of the circulatory system (9 per 1,000), and homicide (6 per 1,000), they added.

[email protected]

Early-onset sepsis requires different management strategies in preterm and term neonates, according to a pair of clinical reports published in Pediatrics.

herjua/Thinkstock

Early-onset sepsis usually begins during labor in term infants, but in preterm infants, “the pathogenesis of preterm EOS likely begins before the onset of labor in many cases of preterm labor and/or PROM [premature rupture of membranes],” wrote Karen M. Puopolo, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and her colleagues.

In the report on preterm infants, the researchers noted that EOS risk assessment using gestational age can be useful for term infants, but not for preterm infants. Instead, they advised categorizing preterm infants as low risk based on birth circumstances. Low-risk preterm infants were defined as those born by cesarean delivery because of maternal noninfectious illness or placental insufficiency in the absence of labor, attempts to induce labor, or rupture of membranes before delivery. Consider the risk/benefit balance of performing an EOS laboratory evaluation and empirical antibiotics, depending on the neonate’s clinical condition, the researchers said.

Preterm infants at high risk for EOS are those born preterm because of maternal cervical incompetence, preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, clinical concerns for intra-amniotic infection, or acute onset of “unexplained nonreassuring fetal status,” Dr. Puopolo and her associates said. These infants should be managed with a blood culture and empirical antibiotics.

“The combination of ampicillin and gentamicin is the most appropriate empirical antibiotic regimen for infants at risk for EOS,” they noted. “Empirical administration of additional broad-spectrum antibiotics may be indicated in preterm infants who are severely ill and at a high risk for EOS, particularly after prolonged antepartum maternal antibiotic treatment,” they said. Antibiotics should be discontinued by 36-48 hours of incubation unless the infant shows signs of site-specific infection.

In the second report, again with Dr. Puopolo as the primary author, management of EOS was addressed for full-term infants, defined as those born at 35 weeks’ gestation or later.

Infants born at 35 weeks’ gestation or later can be stratified for EOS risk based on algorithms for intrapartum risk factors as well as risk assessments based on these risk factors and infant examinations, the researchers said.

There are a variety of acceptable approaches to risk stratification: categorical algorithms with threshold values for intrapartum risk factors; multivariate risk assessment based on both intrapartum risk factors (such as maternal chorioamnionitis, group B streptococcus colonization, adequacy of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and duration of ROM); and serial infant examination to detect clinical signs of illness after birth, Dr. Puopolo and her associates wrote.

They recommended that birth centers choose which type of EOS risk assessment to use and tailor it to their own situation. Once local guidelines are developed, ongoing surveillance is suggested.

The same recommendations apply to term infants as preterm infants regarding first-choice use of ampicillin and gentamicin when necessary, to be discontinued when blood cultures are sterile at 36-48 hours of incubation in the absence of site-specific infection, they said.

The reports do “not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate,” Dr. Puopolo and her associates noted.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, and there was no external funding.

SOURCE: Puopolo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Nov. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2896; Puopolo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Nov. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2894.

Early-onset sepsis requires different management strategies in preterm and term neonates, according to a pair of clinical reports published in Pediatrics.

herjua/Thinkstock

Early-onset sepsis usually begins during labor in term infants, but in preterm infants, “the pathogenesis of preterm EOS likely begins before the onset of labor in many cases of preterm labor and/or PROM [premature rupture of membranes],” wrote Karen M. Puopolo, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and her colleagues.

In the report on preterm infants, the researchers noted that EOS risk assessment using gestational age can be useful for term infants, but not for preterm infants. Instead, they advised categorizing preterm infants as low risk based on birth circumstances. Low-risk preterm infants were defined as those born by cesarean delivery because of maternal noninfectious illness or placental insufficiency in the absence of labor, attempts to induce labor, or rupture of membranes before delivery. Consider the risk/benefit balance of performing an EOS laboratory evaluation and empirical antibiotics, depending on the neonate’s clinical condition, the researchers said.

Preterm infants at high risk for EOS are those born preterm because of maternal cervical incompetence, preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, clinical concerns for intra-amniotic infection, or acute onset of “unexplained nonreassuring fetal status,” Dr. Puopolo and her associates said. These infants should be managed with a blood culture and empirical antibiotics.

“The combination of ampicillin and gentamicin is the most appropriate empirical antibiotic regimen for infants at risk for EOS,” they noted. “Empirical administration of additional broad-spectrum antibiotics may be indicated in preterm infants who are severely ill and at a high risk for EOS, particularly after prolonged antepartum maternal antibiotic treatment,” they said. Antibiotics should be discontinued by 36-48 hours of incubation unless the infant shows signs of site-specific infection.

In the second report, again with Dr. Puopolo as the primary author, management of EOS was addressed for full-term infants, defined as those born at 35 weeks’ gestation or later.

Infants born at 35 weeks’ gestation or later can be stratified for EOS risk based on algorithms for intrapartum risk factors as well as risk assessments based on these risk factors and infant examinations, the researchers said.

There are a variety of acceptable approaches to risk stratification: categorical algorithms with threshold values for intrapartum risk factors; multivariate risk assessment based on both intrapartum risk factors (such as maternal chorioamnionitis, group B streptococcus colonization, adequacy of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and duration of ROM); and serial infant examination to detect clinical signs of illness after birth, Dr. Puopolo and her associates wrote.

They recommended that birth centers choose which type of EOS risk assessment to use and tailor it to their own situation. Once local guidelines are developed, ongoing surveillance is suggested.

The same recommendations apply to term infants as preterm infants regarding first-choice use of ampicillin and gentamicin when necessary, to be discontinued when blood cultures are sterile at 36-48 hours of incubation in the absence of site-specific infection, they said.

The reports do “not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate,” Dr. Puopolo and her associates noted.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, and there was no external funding.

SOURCE: Puopolo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Nov. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2896; Puopolo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Nov. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2894.

Early-onset sepsis requires different management strategies in preterm and term neonates, according to a pair of clinical reports published in Pediatrics.

herjua/Thinkstock

Early-onset sepsis usually begins during labor in term infants, but in preterm infants, “the pathogenesis of preterm EOS likely begins before the onset of labor in many cases of preterm labor and/or PROM [premature rupture of membranes],” wrote Karen M. Puopolo, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and her colleagues.

In the report on preterm infants, the researchers noted that EOS risk assessment using gestational age can be useful for term infants, but not for preterm infants. Instead, they advised categorizing preterm infants as low risk based on birth circumstances. Low-risk preterm infants were defined as those born by cesarean delivery because of maternal noninfectious illness or placental insufficiency in the absence of labor, attempts to induce labor, or rupture of membranes before delivery. Consider the risk/benefit balance of performing an EOS laboratory evaluation and empirical antibiotics, depending on the neonate’s clinical condition, the researchers said.

Preterm infants at high risk for EOS are those born preterm because of maternal cervical incompetence, preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, clinical concerns for intra-amniotic infection, or acute onset of “unexplained nonreassuring fetal status,” Dr. Puopolo and her associates said. These infants should be managed with a blood culture and empirical antibiotics.

“The combination of ampicillin and gentamicin is the most appropriate empirical antibiotic regimen for infants at risk for EOS,” they noted. “Empirical administration of additional broad-spectrum antibiotics may be indicated in preterm infants who are severely ill and at a high risk for EOS, particularly after prolonged antepartum maternal antibiotic treatment,” they said. Antibiotics should be discontinued by 36-48 hours of incubation unless the infant shows signs of site-specific infection.

In the second report, again with Dr. Puopolo as the primary author, management of EOS was addressed for full-term infants, defined as those born at 35 weeks’ gestation or later.

Infants born at 35 weeks’ gestation or later can be stratified for EOS risk based on algorithms for intrapartum risk factors as well as risk assessments based on these risk factors and infant examinations, the researchers said.

There are a variety of acceptable approaches to risk stratification: categorical algorithms with threshold values for intrapartum risk factors; multivariate risk assessment based on both intrapartum risk factors (such as maternal chorioamnionitis, group B streptococcus colonization, adequacy of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and duration of ROM); and serial infant examination to detect clinical signs of illness after birth, Dr. Puopolo and her associates wrote.

They recommended that birth centers choose which type of EOS risk assessment to use and tailor it to their own situation. Once local guidelines are developed, ongoing surveillance is suggested.

The same recommendations apply to term infants as preterm infants regarding first-choice use of ampicillin and gentamicin when necessary, to be discontinued when blood cultures are sterile at 36-48 hours of incubation in the absence of site-specific infection, they said.

The reports do “not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate,” Dr. Puopolo and her associates noted.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, and there was no external funding.

SOURCE: Puopolo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Nov. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2896; Puopolo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Nov. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2894.

Researchers found no significant differences in infant growth, changes in breastfeeding initiation or breastfeeding continuation at 3-month and 6-month follow-up among women who received a levonorgestrel contraception implant very soon after delivery, compared with women who waited to receive the implant.

SelectStock/Getty Images

“These findings are consistent with the preponderance of literature supporting the hypothesis that progestin-containing contraceptives do not compromise a woman’s ability to initiate or sustain breastfeeding and do not adversely affect infant growth,” Sarah Averbach, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues wrote in their study published in Contraception.

Dr. Averbach and her colleagues randomized 96 women to receive a two-rod levonorgestrel (LNG)–releasing subdermal contraceptive implant within 5 days of delivery (mean time, 36 hours post delivery) and 87 women to delay the implant to between 6 and 8 weeks at a postpartum follow-up visit (mean time, 68 days). The women were a minimum of 18 years old with a recent vaginal or cesarean section delivery at a Ugandan hospital; 55% of the women had at least three children, and 73% said they had prior experience breastfeeding. The researchers then examined infant weight change and infant head circumference change at 6 months from birth, time to lactogenesis, and whether mothers continued to breastfeed at 3 months and 6 months after birth.

Infant weight was similar in the immediate-implant group (4,632 g), compared with the delayed-implant group (4,407 g; P = .26); infant head circumference was similar between both groups (9.3 cm vs. 9.5 cm; P = .70) at 6 months as well. The time to lactogenesis was not significantly different in the immediate-implant (65 hours) and delayed-implant (63 hours; P = .84) groups. At 3 months, 74% of immediate-implant participants and 71% of delayed-implant participants said they were breastfeeding exclusively (P = .74); at 6 months, 48% of immediate implant participants and 52% of delayed implant participants reported exclusive breastfeeding (P equals .58).

Limitations of the study included follow-up to only 6 months and selection of participants with previous breastfeeding experience. Researchers also noted better measurements of infant and maternal breast milk intake also could be used and limit generalization of the results.

This study was funded by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund. Dr. Averbach is supported by an award from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. The other authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Averbach S et al. Contraception. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.10.008.

Researchers found no significant differences in infant growth, changes in breastfeeding initiation or breastfeeding continuation at 3-month and 6-month follow-up among women who received a levonorgestrel contraception implant very soon after delivery, compared with women who waited to receive the implant.

SelectStock/Getty Images

“These findings are consistent with the preponderance of literature supporting the hypothesis that progestin-containing contraceptives do not compromise a woman’s ability to initiate or sustain breastfeeding and do not adversely affect infant growth,” Sarah Averbach, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues wrote in their study published in Contraception.

Dr. Averbach and her colleagues randomized 96 women to receive a two-rod levonorgestrel (LNG)–releasing subdermal contraceptive implant within 5 days of delivery (mean time, 36 hours post delivery) and 87 women to delay the implant to between 6 and 8 weeks at a postpartum follow-up visit (mean time, 68 days). The women were a minimum of 18 years old with a recent vaginal or cesarean section delivery at a Ugandan hospital; 55% of the women had at least three children, and 73% said they had prior experience breastfeeding. The researchers then examined infant weight change and infant head circumference change at 6 months from birth, time to lactogenesis, and whether mothers continued to breastfeed at 3 months and 6 months after birth.

Infant weight was similar in the immediate-implant group (4,632 g), compared with the delayed-implant group (4,407 g; P = .26); infant head circumference was similar between both groups (9.3 cm vs. 9.5 cm; P = .70) at 6 months as well. The time to lactogenesis was not significantly different in the immediate-implant (65 hours) and delayed-implant (63 hours; P = .84) groups. At 3 months, 74% of immediate-implant participants and 71% of delayed-implant participants said they were breastfeeding exclusively (P = .74); at 6 months, 48% of immediate implant participants and 52% of delayed implant participants reported exclusive breastfeeding (P equals .58).

Limitations of the study included follow-up to only 6 months and selection of participants with previous breastfeeding experience. Researchers also noted better measurements of infant and maternal breast milk intake also could be used and limit generalization of the results.

This study was funded by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund. Dr. Averbach is supported by an award from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. The other authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Averbach S et al. Contraception. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.10.008.

Researchers found no significant differences in infant growth, changes in breastfeeding initiation or breastfeeding continuation at 3-month and 6-month follow-up among women who received a levonorgestrel contraception implant very soon after delivery, compared with women who waited to receive the implant.

SelectStock/Getty Images

“These findings are consistent with the preponderance of literature supporting the hypothesis that progestin-containing contraceptives do not compromise a woman’s ability to initiate or sustain breastfeeding and do not adversely affect infant growth,” Sarah Averbach, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues wrote in their study published in Contraception.

Dr. Averbach and her colleagues randomized 96 women to receive a two-rod levonorgestrel (LNG)–releasing subdermal contraceptive implant within 5 days of delivery (mean time, 36 hours post delivery) and 87 women to delay the implant to between 6 and 8 weeks at a postpartum follow-up visit (mean time, 68 days). The women were a minimum of 18 years old with a recent vaginal or cesarean section delivery at a Ugandan hospital; 55% of the women had at least three children, and 73% said they had prior experience breastfeeding. The researchers then examined infant weight change and infant head circumference change at 6 months from birth, time to lactogenesis, and whether mothers continued to breastfeed at 3 months and 6 months after birth.

Infant weight was similar in the immediate-implant group (4,632 g), compared with the delayed-implant group (4,407 g; P = .26); infant head circumference was similar between both groups (9.3 cm vs. 9.5 cm; P = .70) at 6 months as well. The time to lactogenesis was not significantly different in the immediate-implant (65 hours) and delayed-implant (63 hours; P = .84) groups. At 3 months, 74% of immediate-implant participants and 71% of delayed-implant participants said they were breastfeeding exclusively (P = .74); at 6 months, 48% of immediate implant participants and 52% of delayed implant participants reported exclusive breastfeeding (P equals .58).

Limitations of the study included follow-up to only 6 months and selection of participants with previous breastfeeding experience. Researchers also noted better measurements of infant and maternal breast milk intake also could be used and limit generalization of the results.

This study was funded by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund. Dr. Averbach is supported by an award from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. The other authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Averbach S et al. Contraception. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.10.008.

Just over half of infants get 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep at 12 months of age, an analysis of findings from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.

It also found that whether an infant sleeps through night has no significant associated with any variations in mental or psychomotor development.

However, the rate of breastfeeding was significantly higher among infants who did not sleep through the night, investigators said in their report on the analysis, published in Pediatrics.

Being informed about the normal development of the sleep-wake cycle could be reassuring for parents, according to the authors, who said that new mothers tend to be “greatly surprised” by the sleep disturbance and exhaustion they experience.

“Keeping in mind the wide variability in the age when an infant starts to sleep through the night, expectations for early sleep consolidation could be moderated,” said Marie-Hélène Pennestri, PhD, of the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology at McGill University, Montreal, and her coauthors.

Dr. Pennestri and colleagues reported on 388 mother-infant dyads in a longitudinal birth cohort study called Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability, and Neurodevelopment (MAVAN). Pregnant mothers were recruited from obstetric clinics in Canada. When their infants reached the age of 6 and 12 months, the mothers responded to questionnaires about sleep habits.

At 6 months, 62.4% of infants attained at least 6 hours of uninterrupted sleep, mothers reported, while 43.0% had reached 8 hours, the mothers reported. By 12 months of age, 72.1% of the infants attained 6 hours, and 56.6% attained 8 hours.

There were no associations between sleeping through the night and concurrent mental or psychomotor development, as measured by the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II at both 6 or 12 months of age, with P values greater than 0.05, investigators reported.

A similar lack of association between uninterrupted sleep and development or maternal mood was seen in a follow-up measurement at 36 months of age.

Sleeping through the night was likewise not associated with maternal mood, assessed using a depression scale with items that reflected symptom frequency in the previous week. “This is noteworthy because maternal sleep deprivation is often invoked to support the introduction of early behavioral interventions,” investigators said in a discussion of the results.

By contrast, sleeping through the night was linked to lower rates of breastfeeding as reported by mothers on retrospective questionnaires administered at both 6 and 12 months. At 12 months of age, 22.1% of infants sleeping through the night were breastfed, compared to 47.1% of infants not sleeping through the night (P less than 0.0001), Dr. Pennestri and colleagues reported.

However, that breastfeeding observation needs to be further investigated, according to the authors.

“The results of our study do not allow for the drawing of any causality between not sleeping through the night and breastfeeding,” they wrote.

Dr. Pennestri and coauthors said they had no financial relationships or potential conflicts of interest to disclose relevant to their report. They reported funding from the Ludmer Center for Neuroinformatics and Mental Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and several other research institutions.

SOURCE: Pennestri MH, et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(6):e20174330.

Just over half of infants get 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep at 12 months of age, an analysis of findings from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.

It also found that whether an infant sleeps through night has no significant associated with any variations in mental or psychomotor development.

However, the rate of breastfeeding was significantly higher among infants who did not sleep through the night, investigators said in their report on the analysis, published in Pediatrics.

Being informed about the normal development of the sleep-wake cycle could be reassuring for parents, according to the authors, who said that new mothers tend to be “greatly surprised” by the sleep disturbance and exhaustion they experience.

“Keeping in mind the wide variability in the age when an infant starts to sleep through the night, expectations for early sleep consolidation could be moderated,” said Marie-Hélène Pennestri, PhD, of the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology at McGill University, Montreal, and her coauthors.

Dr. Pennestri and colleagues reported on 388 mother-infant dyads in a longitudinal birth cohort study called Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability, and Neurodevelopment (MAVAN). Pregnant mothers were recruited from obstetric clinics in Canada. When their infants reached the age of 6 and 12 months, the mothers responded to questionnaires about sleep habits.

At 6 months, 62.4% of infants attained at least 6 hours of uninterrupted sleep, mothers reported, while 43.0% had reached 8 hours, the mothers reported. By 12 months of age, 72.1% of the infants attained 6 hours, and 56.6% attained 8 hours.

There were no associations between sleeping through the night and concurrent mental or psychomotor development, as measured by the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II at both 6 or 12 months of age, with P values greater than 0.05, investigators reported.

A similar lack of association between uninterrupted sleep and development or maternal mood was seen in a follow-up measurement at 36 months of age.

Sleeping through the night was likewise not associated with maternal mood, assessed using a depression scale with items that reflected symptom frequency in the previous week. “This is noteworthy because maternal sleep deprivation is often invoked to support the introduction of early behavioral interventions,” investigators said in a discussion of the results.

By contrast, sleeping through the night was linked to lower rates of breastfeeding as reported by mothers on retrospective questionnaires administered at both 6 and 12 months. At 12 months of age, 22.1% of infants sleeping through the night were breastfed, compared to 47.1% of infants not sleeping through the night (P less than 0.0001), Dr. Pennestri and colleagues reported.

However, that breastfeeding observation needs to be further investigated, according to the authors.

“The results of our study do not allow for the drawing of any causality between not sleeping through the night and breastfeeding,” they wrote.

Dr. Pennestri and coauthors said they had no financial relationships or potential conflicts of interest to disclose relevant to their report. They reported funding from the Ludmer Center for Neuroinformatics and Mental Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and several other research institutions.

SOURCE: Pennestri MH, et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(6):e20174330.

Just over half of infants get 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep at 12 months of age, an analysis of findings from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.

It also found that whether an infant sleeps through night has no significant associated with any variations in mental or psychomotor development.

However, the rate of breastfeeding was significantly higher among infants who did not sleep through the night, investigators said in their report on the analysis, published in Pediatrics.

Being informed about the normal development of the sleep-wake cycle could be reassuring for parents, according to the authors, who said that new mothers tend to be “greatly surprised” by the sleep disturbance and exhaustion they experience.

“Keeping in mind the wide variability in the age when an infant starts to sleep through the night, expectations for early sleep consolidation could be moderated,” said Marie-Hélène Pennestri, PhD, of the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology at McGill University, Montreal, and her coauthors.

Dr. Pennestri and colleagues reported on 388 mother-infant dyads in a longitudinal birth cohort study called Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability, and Neurodevelopment (MAVAN). Pregnant mothers were recruited from obstetric clinics in Canada. When their infants reached the age of 6 and 12 months, the mothers responded to questionnaires about sleep habits.

At 6 months, 62.4% of infants attained at least 6 hours of uninterrupted sleep, mothers reported, while 43.0% had reached 8 hours, the mothers reported. By 12 months of age, 72.1% of the infants attained 6 hours, and 56.6% attained 8 hours.

There were no associations between sleeping through the night and concurrent mental or psychomotor development, as measured by the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II at both 6 or 12 months of age, with P values greater than 0.05, investigators reported.

A similar lack of association between uninterrupted sleep and development or maternal mood was seen in a follow-up measurement at 36 months of age.

Sleeping through the night was likewise not associated with maternal mood, assessed using a depression scale with items that reflected symptom frequency in the previous week. “This is noteworthy because maternal sleep deprivation is often invoked to support the introduction of early behavioral interventions,” investigators said in a discussion of the results.

By contrast, sleeping through the night was linked to lower rates of breastfeeding as reported by mothers on retrospective questionnaires administered at both 6 and 12 months. At 12 months of age, 22.1% of infants sleeping through the night were breastfed, compared to 47.1% of infants not sleeping through the night (P less than 0.0001), Dr. Pennestri and colleagues reported.

However, that breastfeeding observation needs to be further investigated, according to the authors.

“The results of our study do not allow for the drawing of any causality between not sleeping through the night and breastfeeding,” they wrote.

Dr. Pennestri and coauthors said they had no financial relationships or potential conflicts of interest to disclose relevant to their report. They reported funding from the Ludmer Center for Neuroinformatics and Mental Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and several other research institutions.

SOURCE: Pennestri MH, et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(6):e20174330.

A lower threshold for platelet transfusions in preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia is associated with significantly lower incidence of death and major bleeding, compared with a higher threshold, a new study suggests.

Fuse/Thinkstock

A new major bleeding episode or death occurred in 26% of infants in the high-threshold group, compared with 19% in the low-threshold group, representing a 57% higher risk of poor outcomes even after researchers adjusted for gestational age and intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio, 1.57; P = .02).

Researchers reported the results of a trial in 660 infants with a mean gestational age of 26.6 weeks, who were randomized to a platelet infusion either at a high platelet–count threshold of 50,000/mm³ or a low threshold of 25,000/mm³.

“Although retrospective studies have suggested that platelet transfusions may cause harm in neonates independently of the disease process, data from randomized controlled trials to support this are lacking,” Anna Curley, MD, of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin and her coauthors reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The rates of minor or worse bleeding were similar between the two groups, and the percentage of infants surviving with bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks of corrected age was higher in the high-threshold group (63% vs. 54%; OR, 1.54).

The rates of serious adverse events, not including major bleeding, were similar between the high- and low-threshold groups.

The outcomes of transfusions were not influenced by other factors such as intrauterine growth restriction, gestational age, or postnatal age at randomization.

“Our trial highlights the importance of trials of platelet transfusion involving patients with conditions other than haematological malignancies,” the authors wrote.

However they acknowledged that the reasons for the differences in mortality and outcomes between the two study groups were unknown.

“Platelets have recognized immunological and inflammatory effects, outside of effects on hemostasis,” they wrote. “The effect of transfusing adult platelets to a delicately balance neonatal hemostatic system with relatively hypofunctional platelets is also poorly understood.”

The study was supported by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and other foundations. Authors reported financial disclosures related to Sanquin and Cerus.

SOURCE: Curley A et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1807320.

A lower threshold for platelet transfusions in preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia is associated with significantly lower incidence of death and major bleeding, compared with a higher threshold, a new study suggests.

Fuse/Thinkstock

A new major bleeding episode or death occurred in 26% of infants in the high-threshold group, compared with 19% in the low-threshold group, representing a 57% higher risk of poor outcomes even after researchers adjusted for gestational age and intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio, 1.57; P = .02).

Researchers reported the results of a trial in 660 infants with a mean gestational age of 26.6 weeks, who were randomized to a platelet infusion either at a high platelet–count threshold of 50,000/mm³ or a low threshold of 25,000/mm³.

“Although retrospective studies have suggested that platelet transfusions may cause harm in neonates independently of the disease process, data from randomized controlled trials to support this are lacking,” Anna Curley, MD, of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin and her coauthors reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The rates of minor or worse bleeding were similar between the two groups, and the percentage of infants surviving with bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks of corrected age was higher in the high-threshold group (63% vs. 54%; OR, 1.54).

The rates of serious adverse events, not including major bleeding, were similar between the high- and low-threshold groups.

The outcomes of transfusions were not influenced by other factors such as intrauterine growth restriction, gestational age, or postnatal age at randomization.

“Our trial highlights the importance of trials of platelet transfusion involving patients with conditions other than haematological malignancies,” the authors wrote.

However they acknowledged that the reasons for the differences in mortality and outcomes between the two study groups were unknown.

“Platelets have recognized immunological and inflammatory effects, outside of effects on hemostasis,” they wrote. “The effect of transfusing adult platelets to a delicately balance neonatal hemostatic system with relatively hypofunctional platelets is also poorly understood.”

The study was supported by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and other foundations. Authors reported financial disclosures related to Sanquin and Cerus.

SOURCE: Curley A et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1807320.

A lower threshold for platelet transfusions in preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia is associated with significantly lower incidence of death and major bleeding, compared with a higher threshold, a new study suggests.

Fuse/Thinkstock

A new major bleeding episode or death occurred in 26% of infants in the high-threshold group, compared with 19% in the low-threshold group, representing a 57% higher risk of poor outcomes even after researchers adjusted for gestational age and intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio, 1.57; P = .02).

Researchers reported the results of a trial in 660 infants with a mean gestational age of 26.6 weeks, who were randomized to a platelet infusion either at a high platelet–count threshold of 50,000/mm³ or a low threshold of 25,000/mm³.

“Although retrospective studies have suggested that platelet transfusions may cause harm in neonates independently of the disease process, data from randomized controlled trials to support this are lacking,” Anna Curley, MD, of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin and her coauthors reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The rates of minor or worse bleeding were similar between the two groups, and the percentage of infants surviving with bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks of corrected age was higher in the high-threshold group (63% vs. 54%; OR, 1.54).

The rates of serious adverse events, not including major bleeding, were similar between the high- and low-threshold groups.

The outcomes of transfusions were not influenced by other factors such as intrauterine growth restriction, gestational age, or postnatal age at randomization.

“Our trial highlights the importance of trials of platelet transfusion involving patients with conditions other than haematological malignancies,” the authors wrote.

However they acknowledged that the reasons for the differences in mortality and outcomes between the two study groups were unknown.

“Platelets have recognized immunological and inflammatory effects, outside of effects on hemostasis,” they wrote. “The effect of transfusing adult platelets to a delicately balance neonatal hemostatic system with relatively hypofunctional platelets is also poorly understood.”

The study was supported by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and other foundations. Authors reported financial disclosures related to Sanquin and Cerus.

SOURCE: Curley A et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1807320.

SAN DIEGO – Underweight people don’t get much attention amid the obesity epidemic. But a new analysis of worldwide data finds that underweight pediatric ICU patients worldwide face a higher risk of death within 28 days than all their counterparts, even the overweight and obese.

While the report suggests that underweight patients weren’t sicker than the other children and young adults, they also faced a higher risk of fluid accumulation and all-stage acute kidney injury, compared with overweight children, study lead author Rajit K. Basu, MD, MS, of Emory University and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said in an interview. His team’s findings were released at Kidney Week 2018, sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

“Obesity gets the lion’s share of the spotlight, but there is a large and likely growing population of children who, for reasons left to be fully parsed out, are underweight,” Dr. Basu said. “These patients have increased attributable risks for poor outcome.”

The new report is a follow-up analysis of a 2017 prospective study by the same team that tracked acute kidney injury and mortality in 4,683 pediatric ICU patients at 32 clinics in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. The patients, aged from 3 months to 25 years, were recruited over 3 months in 2014 (N Engl J Med 2017;376:11-20).

The researchers launched the study to better understand the risk facing underweight pediatric patients. “There is a paucity of data linking mortality to weight classification in children,” Dr. Basu said. “There are only a few reports, and there is a suggestion that the ‘obesity paradox’ – protection from morbidity and mortality because of excessive weight – exists.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 3,719 patients: 29% were underweight, 44% had normal weight, 11% were overweight, and 16% were obese.

The 28-day mortality rate was 4% overall and highest in the underweight patients at 6%, compared with normal (3%), overweight (2%), and obese patients (2%) (P less than .0001). Underweight patients had a higher adjusted risk of mortality, compared with normal-weight patients (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.8).

Herjua/Thinkstock

Underweight patients also had “a higher risk of fluid accumulation and a higher incidence of all-stage acute kidney injury, compared to overweight children,” Dr. Basu said.

The study authors also examined mortality rates in the 14% of patients (n = 542) who had sepsis. Again, underweight patients had the highest risk of 28-day mortality (15%), compared with normal weight (7%), overweight (4%), and obese patients (5%) (P = 0.003).

Who are the underweight children? “Analysis of the comorbidities reveals that nearly one-third of these children had some neuromuscular and/or pulmonary comorbidities, implying that these children were most likely static cerebral palsy children or had neuromuscular developmental disorder,” Dr. Basu said. “The demographic data also interestingly pointed out that the underweight population was predominantly Eastern Asian in origin.”

But there wasn’t a sign of increased illness in the underweight patients. “We can say that these kids were no sicker compared to the overweight kids as assessed by objective severity-of-illness scoring tools used in the critically ill population,” he said.

Is there a link between fluid overload and higher mortality numbers in underweight children? “There is a preponderance of data now, particularly in children, associating excessive fluid accumulation and poor outcome,” Dr. Basu said, who pointed to a 2018 systematic review and analysis that linked fluid overload to a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 3.01-6.26) (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172[3]:257-68).

Fluid accumulation disrupts organs “via hydrostatic pressure overregulation, causing an imbalance in local mediators of hormonal homeostasis and through vascular congestion,” he said. However, best practices regarding fluid are not yet clear.

“Fluid accumulation does occur frequently,” he said, “and it is likely a very important and relevant part of practice for bedside providers to be mindful on a multiple-times-a-day basis of what is happening with net fluid balance and how that relates to end-organ function, particularly the lungs and the kidneys.”

The National Institutes of Health provided partial funding for the study. One of the authors received fellowship funding from Gambro/Baxter Healthcare.

SAN DIEGO – Underweight people don’t get much attention amid the obesity epidemic. But a new analysis of worldwide data finds that underweight pediatric ICU patients worldwide face a higher risk of death within 28 days than all their counterparts, even the overweight and obese.

While the report suggests that underweight patients weren’t sicker than the other children and young adults, they also faced a higher risk of fluid accumulation and all-stage acute kidney injury, compared with overweight children, study lead author Rajit K. Basu, MD, MS, of Emory University and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said in an interview. His team’s findings were released at Kidney Week 2018, sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

“Obesity gets the lion’s share of the spotlight, but there is a large and likely growing population of children who, for reasons left to be fully parsed out, are underweight,” Dr. Basu said. “These patients have increased attributable risks for poor outcome.”

The new report is a follow-up analysis of a 2017 prospective study by the same team that tracked acute kidney injury and mortality in 4,683 pediatric ICU patients at 32 clinics in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. The patients, aged from 3 months to 25 years, were recruited over 3 months in 2014 (N Engl J Med 2017;376:11-20).

The researchers launched the study to better understand the risk facing underweight pediatric patients. “There is a paucity of data linking mortality to weight classification in children,” Dr. Basu said. “There are only a few reports, and there is a suggestion that the ‘obesity paradox’ – protection from morbidity and mortality because of excessive weight – exists.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 3,719 patients: 29% were underweight, 44% had normal weight, 11% were overweight, and 16% were obese.

The 28-day mortality rate was 4% overall and highest in the underweight patients at 6%, compared with normal (3%), overweight (2%), and obese patients (2%) (P less than .0001). Underweight patients had a higher adjusted risk of mortality, compared with normal-weight patients (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.8).

Herjua/Thinkstock

Underweight patients also had “a higher risk of fluid accumulation and a higher incidence of all-stage acute kidney injury, compared to overweight children,” Dr. Basu said.

The study authors also examined mortality rates in the 14% of patients (n = 542) who had sepsis. Again, underweight patients had the highest risk of 28-day mortality (15%), compared with normal weight (7%), overweight (4%), and obese patients (5%) (P = 0.003).

Who are the underweight children? “Analysis of the comorbidities reveals that nearly one-third of these children had some neuromuscular and/or pulmonary comorbidities, implying that these children were most likely static cerebral palsy children or had neuromuscular developmental disorder,” Dr. Basu said. “The demographic data also interestingly pointed out that the underweight population was predominantly Eastern Asian in origin.”

But there wasn’t a sign of increased illness in the underweight patients. “We can say that these kids were no sicker compared to the overweight kids as assessed by objective severity-of-illness scoring tools used in the critically ill population,” he said.

Is there a link between fluid overload and higher mortality numbers in underweight children? “There is a preponderance of data now, particularly in children, associating excessive fluid accumulation and poor outcome,” Dr. Basu said, who pointed to a 2018 systematic review and analysis that linked fluid overload to a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 3.01-6.26) (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172[3]:257-68).

Fluid accumulation disrupts organs “via hydrostatic pressure overregulation, causing an imbalance in local mediators of hormonal homeostasis and through vascular congestion,” he said. However, best practices regarding fluid are not yet clear.

“Fluid accumulation does occur frequently,” he said, “and it is likely a very important and relevant part of practice for bedside providers to be mindful on a multiple-times-a-day basis of what is happening with net fluid balance and how that relates to end-organ function, particularly the lungs and the kidneys.”

The National Institutes of Health provided partial funding for the study. One of the authors received fellowship funding from Gambro/Baxter Healthcare.

SAN DIEGO – Underweight people don’t get much attention amid the obesity epidemic. But a new analysis of worldwide data finds that underweight pediatric ICU patients worldwide face a higher risk of death within 28 days than all their counterparts, even the overweight and obese.

While the report suggests that underweight patients weren’t sicker than the other children and young adults, they also faced a higher risk of fluid accumulation and all-stage acute kidney injury, compared with overweight children, study lead author Rajit K. Basu, MD, MS, of Emory University and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said in an interview. His team’s findings were released at Kidney Week 2018, sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

“Obesity gets the lion’s share of the spotlight, but there is a large and likely growing population of children who, for reasons left to be fully parsed out, are underweight,” Dr. Basu said. “These patients have increased attributable risks for poor outcome.”

The new report is a follow-up analysis of a 2017 prospective study by the same team that tracked acute kidney injury and mortality in 4,683 pediatric ICU patients at 32 clinics in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. The patients, aged from 3 months to 25 years, were recruited over 3 months in 2014 (N Engl J Med 2017;376:11-20).

The researchers launched the study to better understand the risk facing underweight pediatric patients. “There is a paucity of data linking mortality to weight classification in children,” Dr. Basu said. “There are only a few reports, and there is a suggestion that the ‘obesity paradox’ – protection from morbidity and mortality because of excessive weight – exists.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 3,719 patients: 29% were underweight, 44% had normal weight, 11% were overweight, and 16% were obese.

The 28-day mortality rate was 4% overall and highest in the underweight patients at 6%, compared with normal (3%), overweight (2%), and obese patients (2%) (P less than .0001). Underweight patients had a higher adjusted risk of mortality, compared with normal-weight patients (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.8).

Herjua/Thinkstock

Underweight patients also had “a higher risk of fluid accumulation and a higher incidence of all-stage acute kidney injury, compared to overweight children,” Dr. Basu said.

The study authors also examined mortality rates in the 14% of patients (n = 542) who had sepsis. Again, underweight patients had the highest risk of 28-day mortality (15%), compared with normal weight (7%), overweight (4%), and obese patients (5%) (P = 0.003).

Who are the underweight children? “Analysis of the comorbidities reveals that nearly one-third of these children had some neuromuscular and/or pulmonary comorbidities, implying that these children were most likely static cerebral palsy children or had neuromuscular developmental disorder,” Dr. Basu said. “The demographic data also interestingly pointed out that the underweight population was predominantly Eastern Asian in origin.”

But there wasn’t a sign of increased illness in the underweight patients. “We can say that these kids were no sicker compared to the overweight kids as assessed by objective severity-of-illness scoring tools used in the critically ill population,” he said.

Is there a link between fluid overload and higher mortality numbers in underweight children? “There is a preponderance of data now, particularly in children, associating excessive fluid accumulation and poor outcome,” Dr. Basu said, who pointed to a 2018 systematic review and analysis that linked fluid overload to a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 3.01-6.26) (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172[3]:257-68).

Fluid accumulation disrupts organs “via hydrostatic pressure overregulation, causing an imbalance in local mediators of hormonal homeostasis and through vascular congestion,” he said. However, best practices regarding fluid are not yet clear.

“Fluid accumulation does occur frequently,” he said, “and it is likely a very important and relevant part of practice for bedside providers to be mindful on a multiple-times-a-day basis of what is happening with net fluid balance and how that relates to end-organ function, particularly the lungs and the kidneys.”

The National Institutes of Health provided partial funding for the study. One of the authors received fellowship funding from Gambro/Baxter Healthcare.

Babies evolved to cry to get their needs met and adults evolved to be aroused by the sound. Perfect match, right? But crying/fussing was rated the No. 1 hardest part of parenting for 0- to 3-year-olds in our data from more than 68,000 parents.

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

As clinicians, we become amazingly immune to the crying in our offices, but hopefully not to crying as a concern of parents. Our training directs us to look for pathology such as under- or overfeeding, infection, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), volvulus, a hair tourniquet, or an injury as causes of crying. Having ruled these out, the bigger task is making sure that parents learn to read their infants’ crying and find ways to console them. Learning to handle crying can be tense, frustrating, and upsetting for parents, but success is ultimately satisfying and an important part of the reciprocal interaction that builds attachment for both parent and child.

“Developmental crying” is a great term for explaining crying in the first 3 months to families, as it is age related. The acronym PURPLE was created to teach about this normal crying.
 

• “P” is for peak of crying – babies may cry more each week, most in month 2, then less in months 3-5.
• “U” is for unexpected – crying can come and go without explanation.
• “R” is for resists soothing – babies may not stop crying no matter what is tried.
• “P” is for pain-like face – babies appear to be in pain, even if they are not.
• “L” is for long lasting – crying can last 5 hours a day or more.
• “E” is for evening – the baby might cry more in the late afternoon and evening.

The 1- to 2-week visit is a key time to teach parents about the expected upcoming crying and ways to manage it. I lean on the evidence-based steps for soothing, using the 5 S’s described by Harvey Karp, MD, based on the wisdom of T. Berry Brazelton, MD. These include:

• Swaddling in a wrap that constrains arms and legs.
• Side or stomach holding (but not for sleeping).
• Shushing sounds of voice, radio static, fan, air conditioner, or car ride.
• Swinging gently (point out to never shake a baby).
• Sucking on a pacifier, finger, or hand.

Because babies change state slowly and also respond to high caregiver emotion such as anxiety, it is important for parents to take some deep breaths and give each “S” several minutes to have an effect.

Some of our patients will go beyond typical crying to colic, defined as crying for at least 3 hours per day, at least 3 days per week, starting before 3 months post term. While typically easing by age 3 months, colic can in nightmare cases persist to age 1 year. Needless to say, prolonged crying can be an enormous stress for families. Researchers in the Fussy Baby Network consulting on infant crying have found value in a family prescription for REST: Reassurance, Empathy, Support, and Time away. Reassurance that the child is not ill should be provided after a careful history, including asking why parents think the baby is crying, and a physical exam, even if we think we can tell at a glance that the baby is okay. Remember that every parent’s first concern is whether the baby is okay, and crying indicates otherwise. Parents are counting on us for a thorough exam before we reassure them. Exhausted new parents deserve empathy – acknowledgment of how difficult, scary, and maddening it is to not be able to console their newborns.

While friends are saying “You must be so happy!” after a child is born, ambivalence (What have I done to my life?) is very common, but not easy to admit. We can point out that the typical age at which parents report “loving” their infants is actually more like 6 weeks, when they finally smile! To acknowledge ambivalence, I may say, “When you feel like throwing him out the window, it’s okay to lay him in the crib and put on headphones for a few minutes.” Music, meditation, yoga, or exercise are break activities that also can reduce parent stress.

Support for the parents is one of the most important protections for children at all ages, but can’t be assumed. Unfortunately, crying tends to increase beginning at 2 weeks post term, right when the partner returns to work or relatives leave. It is important to ask, “Who is helping you with the baby?” Just having a partner doesn’t mean that person is taking a turn! Fathers may be afraid of holding a baby, or may have no experience and try to defer. We need to encourage fathers in all aspects of care but especially to “find at least one way to console your baby.” Sometimes mothers “rescue” dads too quickly. While mothers may have both more experience with infants and the magic of breastfeeding for consoling, depriving fathers of working through the struggle of managing crying can result in their developing less confidence in caregiving. It also can cause them to miss out on supporting the mother at this delicate time, a chance to profoundly strengthen the partnership.

Taking into account the importance for parents of finding ways to console crying babies, getting some “time away” can be helpful, especially if crying goes on for months. Maybe those friends who asked, “What can I do to help?” could come over for an hour in the evening (peak crying time) to hold the baby. This also can be a chance for parent time together, a newly rare commodity.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Babies evolved to cry to get their needs met and adults evolved to be aroused by the sound. Perfect match, right? But crying/fussing was rated the No. 1 hardest part of parenting for 0- to 3-year-olds in our data from more than 68,000 parents.

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

As clinicians, we become amazingly immune to the crying in our offices, but hopefully not to crying as a concern of parents. Our training directs us to look for pathology such as under- or overfeeding, infection, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), volvulus, a hair tourniquet, or an injury as causes of crying. Having ruled these out, the bigger task is making sure that parents learn to read their infants’ crying and find ways to console them. Learning to handle crying can be tense, frustrating, and upsetting for parents, but success is ultimately satisfying and an important part of the reciprocal interaction that builds attachment for both parent and child.

“Developmental crying” is a great term for explaining crying in the first 3 months to families, as it is age related. The acronym PURPLE was created to teach about this normal crying.
 

• “P” is for peak of crying – babies may cry more each week, most in month 2, then less in months 3-5.
• “U” is for unexpected – crying can come and go without explanation.
• “R” is for resists soothing – babies may not stop crying no matter what is tried.
• “P” is for pain-like face – babies appear to be in pain, even if they are not.
• “L” is for long lasting – crying can last 5 hours a day or more.
• “E” is for evening – the baby might cry more in the late afternoon and evening.

The 1- to 2-week visit is a key time to teach parents about the expected upcoming crying and ways to manage it. I lean on the evidence-based steps for soothing, using the 5 S’s described by Harvey Karp, MD, based on the wisdom of T. Berry Brazelton, MD. These include:

• Swaddling in a wrap that constrains arms and legs.
• Side or stomach holding (but not for sleeping).
• Shushing sounds of voice, radio static, fan, air conditioner, or car ride.
• Swinging gently (point out to never shake a baby).
• Sucking on a pacifier, finger, or hand.

Because babies change state slowly and also respond to high caregiver emotion such as anxiety, it is important for parents to take some deep breaths and give each “S” several minutes to have an effect.

Some of our patients will go beyond typical crying to colic, defined as crying for at least 3 hours per day, at least 3 days per week, starting before 3 months post term. While typically easing by age 3 months, colic can in nightmare cases persist to age 1 year. Needless to say, prolonged crying can be an enormous stress for families. Researchers in the Fussy Baby Network consulting on infant crying have found value in a family prescription for REST: Reassurance, Empathy, Support, and Time away. Reassurance that the child is not ill should be provided after a careful history, including asking why parents think the baby is crying, and a physical exam, even if we think we can tell at a glance that the baby is okay. Remember that every parent’s first concern is whether the baby is okay, and crying indicates otherwise. Parents are counting on us for a thorough exam before we reassure them. Exhausted new parents deserve empathy – acknowledgment of how difficult, scary, and maddening it is to not be able to console their newborns.

While friends are saying “You must be so happy!” after a child is born, ambivalence (What have I done to my life?) is very common, but not easy to admit. We can point out that the typical age at which parents report “loving” their infants is actually more like 6 weeks, when they finally smile! To acknowledge ambivalence, I may say, “When you feel like throwing him out the window, it’s okay to lay him in the crib and put on headphones for a few minutes.” Music, meditation, yoga, or exercise are break activities that also can reduce parent stress.

Support for the parents is one of the most important protections for children at all ages, but can’t be assumed. Unfortunately, crying tends to increase beginning at 2 weeks post term, right when the partner returns to work or relatives leave. It is important to ask, “Who is helping you with the baby?” Just having a partner doesn’t mean that person is taking a turn! Fathers may be afraid of holding a baby, or may have no experience and try to defer. We need to encourage fathers in all aspects of care but especially to “find at least one way to console your baby.” Sometimes mothers “rescue” dads too quickly. While mothers may have both more experience with infants and the magic of breastfeeding for consoling, depriving fathers of working through the struggle of managing crying can result in their developing less confidence in caregiving. It also can cause them to miss out on supporting the mother at this delicate time, a chance to profoundly strengthen the partnership.

Taking into account the importance for parents of finding ways to console crying babies, getting some “time away” can be helpful, especially if crying goes on for months. Maybe those friends who asked, “What can I do to help?” could come over for an hour in the evening (peak crying time) to hold the baby. This also can be a chance for parent time together, a newly rare commodity.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Babies evolved to cry to get their needs met and adults evolved to be aroused by the sound. Perfect match, right? But crying/fussing was rated the No. 1 hardest part of parenting for 0- to 3-year-olds in our data from more than 68,000 parents.

Petro Feketa/iStockphoto

As clinicians, we become amazingly immune to the crying in our offices, but hopefully not to crying as a concern of parents. Our training directs us to look for pathology such as under- or overfeeding, infection, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), volvulus, a hair tourniquet, or an injury as causes of crying. Having ruled these out, the bigger task is making sure that parents learn to read their infants’ crying and find ways to console them. Learning to handle crying can be tense, frustrating, and upsetting for parents, but success is ultimately satisfying and an important part of the reciprocal interaction that builds attachment for both parent and child.

“Developmental crying” is a great term for explaining crying in the first 3 months to families, as it is age related. The acronym PURPLE was created to teach about this normal crying.
 

• “P” is for peak of crying – babies may cry more each week, most in month 2, then less in months 3-5.
• “U” is for unexpected – crying can come and go without explanation.
• “R” is for resists soothing – babies may not stop crying no matter what is tried.
• “P” is for pain-like face – babies appear to be in pain, even if they are not.
• “L” is for long lasting – crying can last 5 hours a day or more.
• “E” is for evening – the baby might cry more in the late afternoon and evening.

The 1- to 2-week visit is a key time to teach parents about the expected upcoming crying and ways to manage it. I lean on the evidence-based steps for soothing, using the 5 S’s described by Harvey Karp, MD, based on the wisdom of T. Berry Brazelton, MD. These include:

• Swaddling in a wrap that constrains arms and legs.
• Side or stomach holding (but not for sleeping).
• Shushing sounds of voice, radio static, fan, air conditioner, or car ride.
• Swinging gently (point out to never shake a baby).
• Sucking on a pacifier, finger, or hand.

Because babies change state slowly and also respond to high caregiver emotion such as anxiety, it is important for parents to take some deep breaths and give each “S” several minutes to have an effect.

Some of our patients will go beyond typical crying to colic, defined as crying for at least 3 hours per day, at least 3 days per week, starting before 3 months post term. While typically easing by age 3 months, colic can in nightmare cases persist to age 1 year. Needless to say, prolonged crying can be an enormous stress for families. Researchers in the Fussy Baby Network consulting on infant crying have found value in a family prescription for REST: Reassurance, Empathy, Support, and Time away. Reassurance that the child is not ill should be provided after a careful history, including asking why parents think the baby is crying, and a physical exam, even if we think we can tell at a glance that the baby is okay. Remember that every parent’s first concern is whether the baby is okay, and crying indicates otherwise. Parents are counting on us for a thorough exam before we reassure them. Exhausted new parents deserve empathy – acknowledgment of how difficult, scary, and maddening it is to not be able to console their newborns.

While friends are saying “You must be so happy!” after a child is born, ambivalence (What have I done to my life?) is very common, but not easy to admit. We can point out that the typical age at which parents report “loving” their infants is actually more like 6 weeks, when they finally smile! To acknowledge ambivalence, I may say, “When you feel like throwing him out the window, it’s okay to lay him in the crib and put on headphones for a few minutes.” Music, meditation, yoga, or exercise are break activities that also can reduce parent stress.

Support for the parents is one of the most important protections for children at all ages, but can’t be assumed. Unfortunately, crying tends to increase beginning at 2 weeks post term, right when the partner returns to work or relatives leave. It is important to ask, “Who is helping you with the baby?” Just having a partner doesn’t mean that person is taking a turn! Fathers may be afraid of holding a baby, or may have no experience and try to defer. We need to encourage fathers in all aspects of care but especially to “find at least one way to console your baby.” Sometimes mothers “rescue” dads too quickly. While mothers may have both more experience with infants and the magic of breastfeeding for consoling, depriving fathers of working through the struggle of managing crying can result in their developing less confidence in caregiving. It also can cause them to miss out on supporting the mother at this delicate time, a chance to profoundly strengthen the partnership.

Taking into account the importance for parents of finding ways to console crying babies, getting some “time away” can be helpful, especially if crying goes on for months. Maybe those friends who asked, “What can I do to help?” could come over for an hour in the evening (peak crying time) to hold the baby. This also can be a chance for parent time together, a newly rare commodity.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

New data on neonatal screening, protocols for adults and pregnant women, and approaches to genital reconstruction surgery are key elements of the guidelines on the congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to steroid 21-hydroxylase deficiency recently updated by the Endocrine Society.

The guidelines are an update to the 2010 Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) due to steroid 21-hydroxylase deficiency. They were published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Richard J. Auchus, MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the 2018 guidelines, said many of the guidelines remain the same, such as use of neonatal screening. However, neonatal diagnosis methods should use gestational age and birth weight or liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for secondary screening. The authors also noted that the addition of commercially available serum 21-deoxycortisol measurements, while untested, could potentially help identify CAH carriers.

Changes in genital reconstructive surgery were also addressed in the new guidelines, and a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found a “favorable benefit to risk ratio” for both early and late genital reconstructive surgery. Dr. Auchus said the timing of the surgery remains controversial and that there were “downsides of both approaches.”

“I wish there was a straightforward and perfect solution, but I don’t think there is,” he said in an interview.

Dexamethasone for the prenatal treatment of CAH, and prenatal therapy in general is still regarded as experimental and is not recommended, Dr. Auchus said. The authors encouraged pregnant women who are considering prenatal treatment of CAH to go through Institutional Review Board–approved centers that can obtain outcomes. Pregnant women should not receive a glucocorticoid that traverses the placenta, such as dexamethasone.

Classical CAH should be treated with hydrocortisone maintenance therapy, while nonclassic CAH patients should receive glucocorticoid treatment, such as in cases of early onset and rapid progression of pubarche or bone age in children and overt virilization in adolescents.

Dr. Auchus said the new guidelines have been reorganized so information is easier to find, with recommendations beginning at birth before transitioning into recommendations for childhood and adulthood.

“I think the pediatric endocrinologists are familiar with the management of this disease, but I think a lot of the internal medicine endocrinologists don’t get much training in fellowships, and I think it will be easy for them now to find the information,” Dr. Auchus said. “[I]n the previous set of guidelines, it would’ve been difficult for them to find the information that’s scattered throughout.”

However, Dr. Auchus noted, the guidelines were careful to avoid recommendations of specific levels for analyzing biomarkers for monitoring treatment and specific doses. “[W]e gave some general ideas about ranges: that they should be low, they should be normal, they should be not very high, but it’s okay if it’s a little bit high,” he added.

Also, the evidence for the recommendations is limited to best practice guidelines because of a lack of randomized controlled trials, he noted.

“We certainly do need additional long-term data on these patients,” Dr. Auchus said. “[I]t’s our hope that with some of the networks that have been developed for studying adrenal diseases that we can collect that information in a minimally intrusive way for the benefit of all the current and future patients.”

The guidelines were funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health. The authors report various personal and organizational financial interests in the form of paid consultancies, researcher support positions, advisory board memberships and investigator roles. See the full study for a complete list of disclosures.

SOURCE: Speiser PW et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Sep 27. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-01865.

New data on neonatal screening, protocols for adults and pregnant women, and approaches to genital reconstruction surgery are key elements of the guidelines on the congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to steroid 21-hydroxylase deficiency recently updated by the Endocrine Society.

The guidelines are an update to the 2010 Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) due to steroid 21-hydroxylase deficiency. They were published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Richard J. Auchus, MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the 2018 guidelines, said many of the guidelines remain the same, such as use of neonatal screening. However, neonatal diagnosis methods should use gestational age and birth weight or liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for secondary screening. The authors also noted that the addition of commercially available serum 21-deoxycortisol measurements, while untested, could potentially help identify CAH carriers.

Changes in genital reconstructive surgery were also addressed in the new guidelines, and a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found a “favorable benefit to risk ratio” for both early and late genital reconstructive surgery. Dr. Auchus said the timing of the surgery remains controversial and that there were “downsides of both approaches.”

“I wish there was a straightforward and perfect solution, but I don’t think there is,” he said in an interview.

Dexamethasone for the prenatal treatment of CAH, and prenatal therapy in general is still regarded as experimental and is not recommended, Dr. Auchus said. The authors encouraged pregnant women who are considering prenatal treatment of CAH to go through Institutional Review Board–approved centers that can obtain outcomes. Pregnant women should not receive a glucocorticoid that traverses the placenta, such as dexamethasone.

Classical CAH should be treated with hydrocortisone maintenance therapy, while nonclassic CAH patients should receive glucocorticoid treatment, such as in cases of early onset and rapid progression of pubarche or bone age in children and overt virilization in adolescents.

Dr. Auchus said the new guidelines have been reorganized so information is easier to find, with recommendations beginning at birth before transitioning into recommendations for childhood and adulthood.

“I think the pediatric endocrinologists are familiar with the management of this disease, but I think a lot of the internal medicine endocrinologists don’t get much training in fellowships, and I think it will be easy for them now to find the information,” Dr. Auchus said. “[I]n the previous set of guidelines, it would’ve been difficult for them to find the information that’s scattered throughout.”

However, Dr. Auchus noted, the guidelines were careful to avoid recommendations of specific levels for analyzing biomarkers for monitoring treatment and specific doses. “[W]e gave some general ideas about ranges: that they should be low, they should be normal, they should be not very high, but it’s okay if it’s a little bit high,” he added.

Also, the evidence for the recommendations is limited to best practice guidelines because of a lack of randomized controlled trials, he noted.

“We certainly do need additional long-term data on these patients,” Dr. Auchus said. “[I]t’s our hope that with some of the networks that have been developed for studying adrenal diseases that we can collect that information in a minimally intrusive way for the benefit of all the current and future patients.”

The guidelines were funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health. The authors report various personal and organizational financial interests in the form of paid consultancies, researcher support positions, advisory board memberships and investigator roles. See the full study for a complete list of disclosures.

SOURCE: Speiser PW et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Sep 27. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-01865.

New data on neonatal screening, protocols for adults and pregnant women, and approaches to genital reconstruction surgery are key elements of the guidelines on the congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to steroid 21-hydroxylase deficiency recently updated by the Endocrine Society.

The guidelines are an update to the 2010 Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) due to steroid 21-hydroxylase deficiency. They were published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Richard J. Auchus, MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the 2018 guidelines, said many of the guidelines remain the same, such as use of neonatal screening. However, neonatal diagnosis methods should use gestational age and birth weight or liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for secondary screening. The authors also noted that the addition of commercially available serum 21-deoxycortisol measurements, while untested, could potentially help identify CAH carriers.

Changes in genital reconstructive surgery were also addressed in the new guidelines, and a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found a “favorable benefit to risk ratio” for both early and late genital reconstructive surgery. Dr. Auchus said the timing of the surgery remains controversial and that there were “downsides of both approaches.”

“I wish there was a straightforward and perfect solution, but I don’t think there is,” he said in an interview.

Dexamethasone for the prenatal treatment of CAH, and prenatal therapy in general is still regarded as experimental and is not recommended, Dr. Auchus said. The authors encouraged pregnant women who are considering prenatal treatment of CAH to go through Institutional Review Board–approved centers that can obtain outcomes. Pregnant women should not receive a glucocorticoid that traverses the placenta, such as dexamethasone.

Classical CAH should be treated with hydrocortisone maintenance therapy, while nonclassic CAH patients should receive glucocorticoid treatment, such as in cases of early onset and rapid progression of pubarche or bone age in children and overt virilization in adolescents.

Dr. Auchus said the new guidelines have been reorganized so information is easier to find, with recommendations beginning at birth before transitioning into recommendations for childhood and adulthood.

“I think the pediatric endocrinologists are familiar with the management of this disease, but I think a lot of the internal medicine endocrinologists don’t get much training in fellowships, and I think it will be easy for them now to find the information,” Dr. Auchus said. “[I]n the previous set of guidelines, it would’ve been difficult for them to find the information that’s scattered throughout.”

However, Dr. Auchus noted, the guidelines were careful to avoid recommendations of specific levels for analyzing biomarkers for monitoring treatment and specific doses. “[W]e gave some general ideas about ranges: that they should be low, they should be normal, they should be not very high, but it’s okay if it’s a little bit high,” he added.

Also, the evidence for the recommendations is limited to best practice guidelines because of a lack of randomized controlled trials, he noted.

“We certainly do need additional long-term data on these patients,” Dr. Auchus said. “[I]t’s our hope that with some of the networks that have been developed for studying adrenal diseases that we can collect that information in a minimally intrusive way for the benefit of all the current and future patients.”

The guidelines were funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health. The authors report various personal and organizational financial interests in the form of paid consultancies, researcher support positions, advisory board memberships and investigator roles. See the full study for a complete list of disclosures.

SOURCE: Speiser PW et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Sep 27. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-01865.

SAN FRANCISCO – There’s an increasing push in the United States to screen all newborns for congenital cytomegalovirus.

The reason is because most of the time the diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus is missed. Only about 10% of infants infected with the virus present with enlarged livers and other classic signs. Too often, the infection isn’t caught until later, when hearing loss and other neurologic sequelae reveal themselves, according to Fatima Kakkar, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and researcher at the University of Montreal.

There are effective treatments – intravenous ganciclovir for 6 weeks or oral valganciclovir (Valcyte) for 6 months – that control the infection and reverse its effects.

People have tried to address the situation by screening children with hearing loss, in utero HIV exposure, or cytomegalovirus symptoms, but in a study Dr. Kakkar presented at IDWeek, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, such targeted efforts still missed a lot of children.

Many think the answer is universal screening, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are considering it. In a video interview at the meeting, Dr. Kakkar explained the issues, her study, and why universal screening is gaining support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kakkar F et al. IDWeek 2018, Abstract 115.

SAN FRANCISCO – There’s an increasing push in the United States to screen all newborns for congenital cytomegalovirus.

The reason is because most of the time the diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus is missed. Only about 10% of infants infected with the virus present with enlarged livers and other classic signs. Too often, the infection isn’t caught until later, when hearing loss and other neurologic sequelae reveal themselves, according to Fatima Kakkar, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and researcher at the University of Montreal.

There are effective treatments – intravenous ganciclovir for 6 weeks or oral valganciclovir (Valcyte) for 6 months – that control the infection and reverse its effects.

People have tried to address the situation by screening children with hearing loss, in utero HIV exposure, or cytomegalovirus symptoms, but in a study Dr. Kakkar presented at IDWeek, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, such targeted efforts still missed a lot of children.

Many think the answer is universal screening, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are considering it. In a video interview at the meeting, Dr. Kakkar explained the issues, her study, and why universal screening is gaining support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kakkar F et al. IDWeek 2018, Abstract 115.

SAN FRANCISCO – There’s an increasing push in the United States to screen all newborns for congenital cytomegalovirus.

The reason is because most of the time the diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus is missed. Only about 10% of infants infected with the virus present with enlarged livers and other classic signs. Too often, the infection isn’t caught until later, when hearing loss and other neurologic sequelae reveal themselves, according to Fatima Kakkar, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and researcher at the University of Montreal.

There are effective treatments – intravenous ganciclovir for 6 weeks or oral valganciclovir (Valcyte) for 6 months – that control the infection and reverse its effects.

People have tried to address the situation by screening children with hearing loss, in utero HIV exposure, or cytomegalovirus symptoms, but in a study Dr. Kakkar presented at IDWeek, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, such targeted efforts still missed a lot of children.

Many think the answer is universal screening, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are considering it. In a video interview at the meeting, Dr. Kakkar explained the issues, her study, and why universal screening is gaining support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kakkar F et al. IDWeek 2018, Abstract 115.

“Breast Milk From Bottle May Not Be As Beneficial As Feeding Directly From The Breast, Researchers Say.” This was the headline on the AAP Daily Briefing that was sent to American Academy of Pediatrics members on Sept 25, 2018.

©Jaimie Duplass/Fotolia.com

I suspect that this finding doesn’t surprise you. I can imagine a dozen factors that could make bottled breast milk less advantageous for a baby than milk received directly from the mother’s breast. Antibodies might adhere to the glass surface. A few degrees above or below body temperature could interfere with gastric emptying. Or a temptation to focus on the level in the bottle and inadvertently overfeed could inflate the baby’s body mass index at 3 months, as was found in the study published online in the September 2018 issue of Pediatrics (“Infant Feeding and Weight Gain: Separating Breast Milk From Breastfeeding and Formula From Food”).

I agree that the title of the actual paper is rather dry; it’s a scientific research paper. But the distillation chosen by the folks at AAP Daily Briefing seems ill advised. They were not alone. CCN-Health chose “Breastfeeding better for babies’ weight gain than pumping, new study says” (Michael Nedelman, Sept. 24, 2018). HealthDay News headlined its story with “Milk straight from breast best for baby’s weight” (Sept. 24, 2018).

The articles themselves were well balanced and accurately described this research based on more than 2,500 Canadian mother-infant dyads. But not everyone – including mothers who are struggling with or considering breastfeeding – reads beyond the headlines. How many realize that “better for babies’ weight gain” means a slower weight gain? For the mother who has found that, for a variety of reasons, pumping is the only way she can provide her baby the benefits of breast milk, what these headlines suggest is another blow to her already fragile sense of self-worth.

This research article is excellent and should be read by all of us who counsel young families. It suggests that one of the contributors to our epidemic of childhood obesity may be that bottle-feeding discourages the infant’s own self-regulation skills. It should prompt us to ask every parent who is bottle-feeding his or her baby – regardless of what is in the bottle – exactly how they decide how much to put in the bottle and how long a feeding takes. Even if we are comfortable with the infant’s weight gain, we should caution parents to be more aware of the baby’s cues that he or she has had enough. Not every baby provides cues that are obvious, and parents may need our coaching in deciding how much to feed. This research paper also suggests that as long as breastfeeding was continued, introduction of solids as early as 5 months was not associated with an unhealthy BMI trajectory.

Unfortunately, the reporting of this research article is another example of the hazards of the explosive growth of the Internet. There really is no reason to keep the results of well-crafted research from the lay public, particularly if they are explained in common sense language. However, this places a burden of responsibility on the editors of websites to consider the damage that can be done by a poorly chosen headline.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

“Breast Milk From Bottle May Not Be As Beneficial As Feeding Directly From The Breast, Researchers Say.” This was the headline on the AAP Daily Briefing that was sent to American Academy of Pediatrics members on Sept 25, 2018.

©Jaimie Duplass/Fotolia.com

I suspect that this finding doesn’t surprise you. I can imagine a dozen factors that could make bottled breast milk less advantageous for a baby than milk received directly from the mother’s breast. Antibodies might adhere to the glass surface. A few degrees above or below body temperature could interfere with gastric emptying. Or a temptation to focus on the level in the bottle and inadvertently overfeed could inflate the baby’s body mass index at 3 months, as was found in the study published online in the September 2018 issue of Pediatrics (“Infant Feeding and Weight Gain: Separating Breast Milk From Breastfeeding and Formula From Food”).

I agree that the title of the actual paper is rather dry; it’s a scientific research paper. But the distillation chosen by the folks at AAP Daily Briefing seems ill advised. They were not alone. CCN-Health chose “Breastfeeding better for babies’ weight gain than pumping, new study says” (Michael Nedelman, Sept. 24, 2018). HealthDay News headlined its story with “Milk straight from breast best for baby’s weight” (Sept. 24, 2018).

The articles themselves were well balanced and accurately described this research based on more than 2,500 Canadian mother-infant dyads. But not everyone – including mothers who are struggling with or considering breastfeeding – reads beyond the headlines. How many realize that “better for babies’ weight gain” means a slower weight gain? For the mother who has found that, for a variety of reasons, pumping is the only way she can provide her baby the benefits of breast milk, what these headlines suggest is another blow to her already fragile sense of self-worth.

This research article is excellent and should be read by all of us who counsel young families. It suggests that one of the contributors to our epidemic of childhood obesity may be that bottle-feeding discourages the infant’s own self-regulation skills. It should prompt us to ask every parent who is bottle-feeding his or her baby – regardless of what is in the bottle – exactly how they decide how much to put in the bottle and how long a feeding takes. Even if we are comfortable with the infant’s weight gain, we should caution parents to be more aware of the baby’s cues that he or she has had enough. Not every baby provides cues that are obvious, and parents may need our coaching in deciding how much to feed. This research paper also suggests that as long as breastfeeding was continued, introduction of solids as early as 5 months was not associated with an unhealthy BMI trajectory.

Unfortunately, the reporting of this research article is another example of the hazards of the explosive growth of the Internet. There really is no reason to keep the results of well-crafted research from the lay public, particularly if they are explained in common sense language. However, this places a burden of responsibility on the editors of websites to consider the damage that can be done by a poorly chosen headline.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

“Breast Milk From Bottle May Not Be As Beneficial As Feeding Directly From The Breast, Researchers Say.” This was the headline on the AAP Daily Briefing that was sent to American Academy of Pediatrics members on Sept 25, 2018.

©Jaimie Duplass/Fotolia.com

I suspect that this finding doesn’t surprise you. I can imagine a dozen factors that could make bottled breast milk less advantageous for a baby than milk received directly from the mother’s breast. Antibodies might adhere to the glass surface. A few degrees above or below body temperature could interfere with gastric emptying. Or a temptation to focus on the level in the bottle and inadvertently overfeed could inflate the baby’s body mass index at 3 months, as was found in the study published online in the September 2018 issue of Pediatrics (“Infant Feeding and Weight Gain: Separating Breast Milk From Breastfeeding and Formula From Food”).

I agree that the title of the actual paper is rather dry; it’s a scientific research paper. But the distillation chosen by the folks at AAP Daily Briefing seems ill advised. They were not alone. CCN-Health chose “Breastfeeding better for babies’ weight gain than pumping, new study says” (Michael Nedelman, Sept. 24, 2018). HealthDay News headlined its story with “Milk straight from breast best for baby’s weight” (Sept. 24, 2018).

The articles themselves were well balanced and accurately described this research based on more than 2,500 Canadian mother-infant dyads. But not everyone – including mothers who are struggling with or considering breastfeeding – reads beyond the headlines. How many realize that “better for babies’ weight gain” means a slower weight gain? For the mother who has found that, for a variety of reasons, pumping is the only way she can provide her baby the benefits of breast milk, what these headlines suggest is another blow to her already fragile sense of self-worth.

This research article is excellent and should be read by all of us who counsel young families. It suggests that one of the contributors to our epidemic of childhood obesity may be that bottle-feeding discourages the infant’s own self-regulation skills. It should prompt us to ask every parent who is bottle-feeding his or her baby – regardless of what is in the bottle – exactly how they decide how much to put in the bottle and how long a feeding takes. Even if we are comfortable with the infant’s weight gain, we should caution parents to be more aware of the baby’s cues that he or she has had enough. Not every baby provides cues that are obvious, and parents may need our coaching in deciding how much to feed. This research paper also suggests that as long as breastfeeding was continued, introduction of solids as early as 5 months was not associated with an unhealthy BMI trajectory.

Unfortunately, the reporting of this research article is another example of the hazards of the explosive growth of the Internet. There really is no reason to keep the results of well-crafted research from the lay public, particularly if they are explained in common sense language. However, this places a burden of responsibility on the editors of websites to consider the damage that can be done by a poorly chosen headline.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].