Pediatrics

I have become obsessed with the reality that the unprecedented national shortage of formula is keeping some families from adequately feeding their infants and young children. I am deeply concerned, both as a family medicine physician and a new mother, about the heartbreaking stories that I’ve heard from parents of all socioeconomic backgrounds. New mothers, unable to breastfeed for a multitude of reasons, find themselves standing in front of empty store shelves, in tears.

In recent months, many health care providers have had patients disclose that they are diluting ready-to-feed formula or mixing powdered formula with more water than instructed to make it go further. Some parents are giving cow’s milk to their children at too young an age because they can’t find formula. Others are foregoing milk altogether and feeding their children beverages such as juice or soda. All of these practices can threaten a child’s life, growth, and development.
 

When breastfeeding isn’t possible

We all know that human milk is the optimal, most nutritionally complete food source for newborn babies and infants. It can improve dental health and neurodevelopmental outcomes, as well as reduce the risk for asthma, eczema, diabetes, and obesity. An added benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic has been providing newborn infants with a boost of immunity before they are able to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But lactation and breastfeeding aren’t possible for everyone. Earlier this year, when my daughter was born more than a month prematurely, I worried that I would be unable to breastfeed her. The complications of prematurity can interfere with establishing lactation, and my daughter spent some time in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), requiring frequent feedings to treat hypoglycemia. She also lacked the muscle strength or coordination to latch on to the breast, so she was fed my colostrum and donor breast milk by bottle.

Not knowing when my mature milk would come in, my family scoured the retail stores for formula while I was still recovering from delivery. My daughter needed a specific type of high-calorie formula for premature infants. Eventually, my mother found one can of this powdered formula. The hospital also sent us home with 16 oz of ready-to-feed samples and enough donor breastmilk to last 24 hours at home. We considered ourselves lucky. The fear and anxiety about being able to feed my baby still stands out in my mind.
 

Pumping and sharing

Over the next few months, out of necessity, I became an “exclusively pumping” mother. My daughter, unable to latch, drank my pumped milk from a bottle. My body started to produce more milk than she needed in a day. In an effort to pay it forward and to put my extra milk to use, I became a human-milk donor. I underwent rigorous screening, including testing for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. I was approved to donate to our local hospital’s milk bank, helping other families in the NICU feed their babies. Through informal connections on the internet, I also provide expressed milk to another mother in the community who is unable to lactate. To date, I’ve donated more than 1,500 oz of human milk (and counting).

The practice of human-milk donation dates back millennia with wet-nursing, when children were breastfed by someone other than their biological mothers: relatives, friends, or even strangers. The first milk bank in the United States opened in Boston in the early 20th century. In 1980, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund released a joint statement supporting the use of human-donor milk as the first alternative if the biological mother is unable to breastfeed. Donor milk is a safe option for families who cannot provide their own human milk to their children.
 

Human-milk banks

More than 30 nonprofit milk banks now operate in the United States. Because their mission is primarily to meet the needs of sick and hospitalized children rather than the general public, these milk banks are an impractical solution to the national formula shortage. Although families with healthy children can purchase donor milk with a prescription, supplies are scarce, and insurance doesn’t cover the cost.

Milk provided by formal human-milk banks is considered safe. Certain infections such as HIV and hepatitis can be transmitted through human milk. However, milk banks screen their donors and safely pasteurize and store donated breastmilk, following standard protocols. The risk of contracting an illness from banked donor milk is very low. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends accepting donor milk only from a milk bank.
 

Informal human-milk donation

An increasingly popular alternative to formal human-milk banks is informal human-milk sharing. But many people, including health care professionals, hold misconceptions about how informal milk donation works. Today’s informal milk donation looks very different from age-old wet-nursing: Moms in support groups, often via social media, are requesting pumped milk from one another. (Note that this definition of “informal human-milk donation” does not include selling or purchasing human milk.)

Although the safety of sharing pumped human milk this way cannot be guaranteed, a harm-reduction approach is warranted, especially in view of the current formula scarcity.

I believe that medical professionals have a responsibility to raise awareness and dispel myths about donor breast milk. Many physicians acknowledge that informal milk sharing is common but rarely recommend it to patients. Whether they are donors or recipients, families who choose to participate need to be educated about how to go about the process as safely as possible.

Patients who are considering accepting informally donated human milk should ask key questions of the donor to gauge the risk of pathogens or other harmful substances being passed to their babies:

• What medications do you take?
• What supplements do you take?
• What recreational drugs do you take?
• Any recent travel?
• Any tattoos and if so, how recent?
• How much alcohol do you drink and how often?
• Have you been diagnosed with any infections?
• Any recent illness?
• How do you pump your breast milk?
• How do you store your breast milk?
• When was the available milk pumped?

We can help families by offering our medical expertise, allowing them to make an informed decision about whether to accept donated human milk. Clinicians can encourage patients and their families to use resources like the Infant Risk Center, which provides evidence-based information about medication safety and breast milk.

If your lactating patient is considering donating milk through informal channels to a family in need, encourage them to be open and honest about their medical history and lifestyle habits. If they cannot be transparent, they should not donate. A mutual level of respect and honesty can ensure the safety of those they hope to help. It is also important to counsel prospective milk donors to notify their milk recipients of any new illnesses, substance use, medications, travel, tattoos, or changes to their medical history.

Finally, encourage lactating patients who are able to do so to donate their extra milk to local nonprofit milk banks to increase the availability of screened, pasteurized breast milk in the community.

As a physician and mother, I hope that U.S. families will be less vulnerable to future formula shortages. Human milk is an ideal food source, but not everyone can lactate. Though not perfect, human milk donated outside of formal milk banks offers a safer alternative to diluting formula or feeding other unsuitable beverages to infants and children. As health care professionals, we need to counsel our patients about how to engage in this practice safely.

Dr. Mieses Malchuk is assistant professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a board-certified family physician and attending physician at UNC Health in Chapel Hill. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I have become obsessed with the reality that the unprecedented national shortage of formula is keeping some families from adequately feeding their infants and young children. I am deeply concerned, both as a family medicine physician and a new mother, about the heartbreaking stories that I’ve heard from parents of all socioeconomic backgrounds. New mothers, unable to breastfeed for a multitude of reasons, find themselves standing in front of empty store shelves, in tears.

In recent months, many health care providers have had patients disclose that they are diluting ready-to-feed formula or mixing powdered formula with more water than instructed to make it go further. Some parents are giving cow’s milk to their children at too young an age because they can’t find formula. Others are foregoing milk altogether and feeding their children beverages such as juice or soda. All of these practices can threaten a child’s life, growth, and development.
 

When breastfeeding isn’t possible

We all know that human milk is the optimal, most nutritionally complete food source for newborn babies and infants. It can improve dental health and neurodevelopmental outcomes, as well as reduce the risk for asthma, eczema, diabetes, and obesity. An added benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic has been providing newborn infants with a boost of immunity before they are able to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But lactation and breastfeeding aren’t possible for everyone. Earlier this year, when my daughter was born more than a month prematurely, I worried that I would be unable to breastfeed her. The complications of prematurity can interfere with establishing lactation, and my daughter spent some time in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), requiring frequent feedings to treat hypoglycemia. She also lacked the muscle strength or coordination to latch on to the breast, so she was fed my colostrum and donor breast milk by bottle.

Not knowing when my mature milk would come in, my family scoured the retail stores for formula while I was still recovering from delivery. My daughter needed a specific type of high-calorie formula for premature infants. Eventually, my mother found one can of this powdered formula. The hospital also sent us home with 16 oz of ready-to-feed samples and enough donor breastmilk to last 24 hours at home. We considered ourselves lucky. The fear and anxiety about being able to feed my baby still stands out in my mind.
 

Pumping and sharing

Over the next few months, out of necessity, I became an “exclusively pumping” mother. My daughter, unable to latch, drank my pumped milk from a bottle. My body started to produce more milk than she needed in a day. In an effort to pay it forward and to put my extra milk to use, I became a human-milk donor. I underwent rigorous screening, including testing for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. I was approved to donate to our local hospital’s milk bank, helping other families in the NICU feed their babies. Through informal connections on the internet, I also provide expressed milk to another mother in the community who is unable to lactate. To date, I’ve donated more than 1,500 oz of human milk (and counting).

The practice of human-milk donation dates back millennia with wet-nursing, when children were breastfed by someone other than their biological mothers: relatives, friends, or even strangers. The first milk bank in the United States opened in Boston in the early 20th century. In 1980, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund released a joint statement supporting the use of human-donor milk as the first alternative if the biological mother is unable to breastfeed. Donor milk is a safe option for families who cannot provide their own human milk to their children.
 

Human-milk banks

More than 30 nonprofit milk banks now operate in the United States. Because their mission is primarily to meet the needs of sick and hospitalized children rather than the general public, these milk banks are an impractical solution to the national formula shortage. Although families with healthy children can purchase donor milk with a prescription, supplies are scarce, and insurance doesn’t cover the cost.

Milk provided by formal human-milk banks is considered safe. Certain infections such as HIV and hepatitis can be transmitted through human milk. However, milk banks screen their donors and safely pasteurize and store donated breastmilk, following standard protocols. The risk of contracting an illness from banked donor milk is very low. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends accepting donor milk only from a milk bank.
 

Informal human-milk donation

An increasingly popular alternative to formal human-milk banks is informal human-milk sharing. But many people, including health care professionals, hold misconceptions about how informal milk donation works. Today’s informal milk donation looks very different from age-old wet-nursing: Moms in support groups, often via social media, are requesting pumped milk from one another. (Note that this definition of “informal human-milk donation” does not include selling or purchasing human milk.)

Although the safety of sharing pumped human milk this way cannot be guaranteed, a harm-reduction approach is warranted, especially in view of the current formula scarcity.

I believe that medical professionals have a responsibility to raise awareness and dispel myths about donor breast milk. Many physicians acknowledge that informal milk sharing is common but rarely recommend it to patients. Whether they are donors or recipients, families who choose to participate need to be educated about how to go about the process as safely as possible.

Patients who are considering accepting informally donated human milk should ask key questions of the donor to gauge the risk of pathogens or other harmful substances being passed to their babies:

• What medications do you take?
• What supplements do you take?
• What recreational drugs do you take?
• Any recent travel?
• Any tattoos and if so, how recent?
• How much alcohol do you drink and how often?
• Have you been diagnosed with any infections?
• Any recent illness?
• How do you pump your breast milk?
• How do you store your breast milk?
• When was the available milk pumped?

We can help families by offering our medical expertise, allowing them to make an informed decision about whether to accept donated human milk. Clinicians can encourage patients and their families to use resources like the Infant Risk Center, which provides evidence-based information about medication safety and breast milk.

If your lactating patient is considering donating milk through informal channels to a family in need, encourage them to be open and honest about their medical history and lifestyle habits. If they cannot be transparent, they should not donate. A mutual level of respect and honesty can ensure the safety of those they hope to help. It is also important to counsel prospective milk donors to notify their milk recipients of any new illnesses, substance use, medications, travel, tattoos, or changes to their medical history.

Finally, encourage lactating patients who are able to do so to donate their extra milk to local nonprofit milk banks to increase the availability of screened, pasteurized breast milk in the community.

As a physician and mother, I hope that U.S. families will be less vulnerable to future formula shortages. Human milk is an ideal food source, but not everyone can lactate. Though not perfect, human milk donated outside of formal milk banks offers a safer alternative to diluting formula or feeding other unsuitable beverages to infants and children. As health care professionals, we need to counsel our patients about how to engage in this practice safely.

Dr. Mieses Malchuk is assistant professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a board-certified family physician and attending physician at UNC Health in Chapel Hill. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I have become obsessed with the reality that the unprecedented national shortage of formula is keeping some families from adequately feeding their infants and young children. I am deeply concerned, both as a family medicine physician and a new mother, about the heartbreaking stories that I’ve heard from parents of all socioeconomic backgrounds. New mothers, unable to breastfeed for a multitude of reasons, find themselves standing in front of empty store shelves, in tears.

In recent months, many health care providers have had patients disclose that they are diluting ready-to-feed formula or mixing powdered formula with more water than instructed to make it go further. Some parents are giving cow’s milk to their children at too young an age because they can’t find formula. Others are foregoing milk altogether and feeding their children beverages such as juice or soda. All of these practices can threaten a child’s life, growth, and development.
 

When breastfeeding isn’t possible

We all know that human milk is the optimal, most nutritionally complete food source for newborn babies and infants. It can improve dental health and neurodevelopmental outcomes, as well as reduce the risk for asthma, eczema, diabetes, and obesity. An added benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic has been providing newborn infants with a boost of immunity before they are able to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But lactation and breastfeeding aren’t possible for everyone. Earlier this year, when my daughter was born more than a month prematurely, I worried that I would be unable to breastfeed her. The complications of prematurity can interfere with establishing lactation, and my daughter spent some time in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), requiring frequent feedings to treat hypoglycemia. She also lacked the muscle strength or coordination to latch on to the breast, so she was fed my colostrum and donor breast milk by bottle.

Not knowing when my mature milk would come in, my family scoured the retail stores for formula while I was still recovering from delivery. My daughter needed a specific type of high-calorie formula for premature infants. Eventually, my mother found one can of this powdered formula. The hospital also sent us home with 16 oz of ready-to-feed samples and enough donor breastmilk to last 24 hours at home. We considered ourselves lucky. The fear and anxiety about being able to feed my baby still stands out in my mind.
 

Pumping and sharing

Over the next few months, out of necessity, I became an “exclusively pumping” mother. My daughter, unable to latch, drank my pumped milk from a bottle. My body started to produce more milk than she needed in a day. In an effort to pay it forward and to put my extra milk to use, I became a human-milk donor. I underwent rigorous screening, including testing for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. I was approved to donate to our local hospital’s milk bank, helping other families in the NICU feed their babies. Through informal connections on the internet, I also provide expressed milk to another mother in the community who is unable to lactate. To date, I’ve donated more than 1,500 oz of human milk (and counting).

The practice of human-milk donation dates back millennia with wet-nursing, when children were breastfed by someone other than their biological mothers: relatives, friends, or even strangers. The first milk bank in the United States opened in Boston in the early 20th century. In 1980, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund released a joint statement supporting the use of human-donor milk as the first alternative if the biological mother is unable to breastfeed. Donor milk is a safe option for families who cannot provide their own human milk to their children.
 

Human-milk banks

More than 30 nonprofit milk banks now operate in the United States. Because their mission is primarily to meet the needs of sick and hospitalized children rather than the general public, these milk banks are an impractical solution to the national formula shortage. Although families with healthy children can purchase donor milk with a prescription, supplies are scarce, and insurance doesn’t cover the cost.

Milk provided by formal human-milk banks is considered safe. Certain infections such as HIV and hepatitis can be transmitted through human milk. However, milk banks screen their donors and safely pasteurize and store donated breastmilk, following standard protocols. The risk of contracting an illness from banked donor milk is very low. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends accepting donor milk only from a milk bank.
 

Informal human-milk donation

An increasingly popular alternative to formal human-milk banks is informal human-milk sharing. But many people, including health care professionals, hold misconceptions about how informal milk donation works. Today’s informal milk donation looks very different from age-old wet-nursing: Moms in support groups, often via social media, are requesting pumped milk from one another. (Note that this definition of “informal human-milk donation” does not include selling or purchasing human milk.)

Although the safety of sharing pumped human milk this way cannot be guaranteed, a harm-reduction approach is warranted, especially in view of the current formula scarcity.

I believe that medical professionals have a responsibility to raise awareness and dispel myths about donor breast milk. Many physicians acknowledge that informal milk sharing is common but rarely recommend it to patients. Whether they are donors or recipients, families who choose to participate need to be educated about how to go about the process as safely as possible.

Patients who are considering accepting informally donated human milk should ask key questions of the donor to gauge the risk of pathogens or other harmful substances being passed to their babies:

• What medications do you take?
• What supplements do you take?
• What recreational drugs do you take?
• Any recent travel?
• Any tattoos and if so, how recent?
• How much alcohol do you drink and how often?
• Have you been diagnosed with any infections?
• Any recent illness?
• How do you pump your breast milk?
• How do you store your breast milk?
• When was the available milk pumped?

We can help families by offering our medical expertise, allowing them to make an informed decision about whether to accept donated human milk. Clinicians can encourage patients and their families to use resources like the Infant Risk Center, which provides evidence-based information about medication safety and breast milk.

If your lactating patient is considering donating milk through informal channels to a family in need, encourage them to be open and honest about their medical history and lifestyle habits. If they cannot be transparent, they should not donate. A mutual level of respect and honesty can ensure the safety of those they hope to help. It is also important to counsel prospective milk donors to notify their milk recipients of any new illnesses, substance use, medications, travel, tattoos, or changes to their medical history.

Finally, encourage lactating patients who are able to do so to donate their extra milk to local nonprofit milk banks to increase the availability of screened, pasteurized breast milk in the community.

As a physician and mother, I hope that U.S. families will be less vulnerable to future formula shortages. Human milk is an ideal food source, but not everyone can lactate. Though not perfect, human milk donated outside of formal milk banks offers a safer alternative to diluting formula or feeding other unsuitable beverages to infants and children. As health care professionals, we need to counsel our patients about how to engage in this practice safely.

Dr. Mieses Malchuk is assistant professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a board-certified family physician and attending physician at UNC Health in Chapel Hill. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The 2022 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting included an excellent session on the acute and delayed effects of COVID-19 on children’s hearts. Data on the risk for cardiac injury during acute COVID-19, return-to-play guidelines after COVID-19–related heart injury, and post–vaccine-associated myocarditis were reviewed.

COVID-induced cardiac injury

The risk for COVID-induced cardiac injury is directly associated with age. Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data revealed a “myocarditis or pericarditis” rate in the range of 12-17 cases per 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 infections among male children aged 5-11 years (lower rates for females); the rate jumps to 50-65 cases per 100,000 infections among male children aged 12-17 years. So cardiac injury caused by acute COVID-19 appears rare, but the risk is clearly associated with male sex and adolescent age.

Return to play after COVID-19

Clinicians may be pressed by patients and parents for advice on return to play after illness with COVID-19. In July 2020, the American College of Cardiology published an algorithm that has been adjusted over time, most recently in 2022 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. These algorithms stratify recommendations by degree of illness. One rule of thumb: Patients with severe COVID-19 (ICU care or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C]) have only one box on the algorithm, and that is to rest for 3-6 months and only return to usual activity after cardiac clearance. Moderate disease (defined as ≥ 4 days of fever > 100.4 °F; ≥ 1 week of myalgia, chills, lethargy, or any non-ICU hospital stay; and no evidence of MIS-C) require undergoing an ECG to look for cardiac dysfunction, followed by at least 10 days of rest if the ECG is negative or referral for cardiac evaluation if either ECG or exam by a pediatric cardiologist is abnormal.

Clinicians can perhaps be more permissible with patients who are younger or who have had less severe disease. For example, if a patient aged younger than 12 years is asymptomatic with routine activity at the time of evaluation, an ECG is not indicated. For patients aged 12-15 years who are asymptomatic at the time of evaluation but participate in a high-intensity sport, clinicians might consider obtaining an ECG. As few as 3 days of rest might be enough for select patients who are asymptomatic at presentation. For other patients, clinicians should work with parents to introduce activity gradually and make it clear to parents that any activity intolerance requires quick reevaluation. On existing athlete registries, no deaths that are attributable to post–COVID-19 cardiac effects have been confirmed in children; however, all data presented during the session were from prior to the Omicron variant surge in early 2022, so more information may be forthcoming.
 

Considerations for MIS-C

Among children experiencing MIS-C, 35% had ECG changes, 40% exhibited left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction, and 30% had mitral regurgitation, meaning that a large percentage of patients with MIS-C show some degree of cardiac dysfunction. Unfortunately, we are still in the data-gathering phase for long-term outcomes. Functional parameters tend to improve within a week, and most patients will return to normal cardiac function by 3-4 months.

Return to play after MIS-C is quite different from that for acute COVID-19. Patients with MIS-C should be treated much like other patients with myocarditis with an expected return to play in 3-6 months and only after cardiac follow-up. Another good-to-remember recommendation is to delay COVID-19 vaccination for at least 90 days after an episode of MIS-C.
 

Vaccine-related myocarditis

Once again, older age appears to be a risk factor because most patients with postvaccine myocarditis have been in their mid-teens to early 20s, with events more likely after the second vaccine dose and also more likely in male children (4:1 ratio to female children). No deaths have occurred from postvaccination myocarditis in patients younger than 30 years. Still, many individuals have exhibited residual MRI enhancement in the cardiac tissue for some time after experiencing postvaccination myocarditis; it’s currently unclear whether that has clinical implications. By comparison, CDC data demonstrates convincingly that the risk for cardiac effects is much greater after acute COVID-19 than after COVID-19 vaccination, with risk ratios often higher than 20, depending on age and condition (for example, myocarditis vs. pericarditis). Data are still insufficient to determine whether clinicians should recommend or avoid COVID-19 vaccination in children with congenital heart disease.

In summary, administering COVID-19 vaccines requires a great deal of shared decision-making with parents, and the clinician’s role is to educate parents about all potential risks related to both the vaccine and COVID-19 illness. Research has consistently shown that acute COVID-19 myocarditis and myocarditis associated with MIS-C are much more likely to occur in unvaccinated youth and more likely than postvaccination myocarditis, regardless of age.

William T. Basco, Jr., MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

The 2022 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting included an excellent session on the acute and delayed effects of COVID-19 on children’s hearts. Data on the risk for cardiac injury during acute COVID-19, return-to-play guidelines after COVID-19–related heart injury, and post–vaccine-associated myocarditis were reviewed.

COVID-induced cardiac injury

The risk for COVID-induced cardiac injury is directly associated with age. Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data revealed a “myocarditis or pericarditis” rate in the range of 12-17 cases per 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 infections among male children aged 5-11 years (lower rates for females); the rate jumps to 50-65 cases per 100,000 infections among male children aged 12-17 years. So cardiac injury caused by acute COVID-19 appears rare, but the risk is clearly associated with male sex and adolescent age.

Return to play after COVID-19

Clinicians may be pressed by patients and parents for advice on return to play after illness with COVID-19. In July 2020, the American College of Cardiology published an algorithm that has been adjusted over time, most recently in 2022 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. These algorithms stratify recommendations by degree of illness. One rule of thumb: Patients with severe COVID-19 (ICU care or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C]) have only one box on the algorithm, and that is to rest for 3-6 months and only return to usual activity after cardiac clearance. Moderate disease (defined as ≥ 4 days of fever > 100.4 °F; ≥ 1 week of myalgia, chills, lethargy, or any non-ICU hospital stay; and no evidence of MIS-C) require undergoing an ECG to look for cardiac dysfunction, followed by at least 10 days of rest if the ECG is negative or referral for cardiac evaluation if either ECG or exam by a pediatric cardiologist is abnormal.

Clinicians can perhaps be more permissible with patients who are younger or who have had less severe disease. For example, if a patient aged younger than 12 years is asymptomatic with routine activity at the time of evaluation, an ECG is not indicated. For patients aged 12-15 years who are asymptomatic at the time of evaluation but participate in a high-intensity sport, clinicians might consider obtaining an ECG. As few as 3 days of rest might be enough for select patients who are asymptomatic at presentation. For other patients, clinicians should work with parents to introduce activity gradually and make it clear to parents that any activity intolerance requires quick reevaluation. On existing athlete registries, no deaths that are attributable to post–COVID-19 cardiac effects have been confirmed in children; however, all data presented during the session were from prior to the Omicron variant surge in early 2022, so more information may be forthcoming.
 

Considerations for MIS-C

Among children experiencing MIS-C, 35% had ECG changes, 40% exhibited left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction, and 30% had mitral regurgitation, meaning that a large percentage of patients with MIS-C show some degree of cardiac dysfunction. Unfortunately, we are still in the data-gathering phase for long-term outcomes. Functional parameters tend to improve within a week, and most patients will return to normal cardiac function by 3-4 months.

Return to play after MIS-C is quite different from that for acute COVID-19. Patients with MIS-C should be treated much like other patients with myocarditis with an expected return to play in 3-6 months and only after cardiac follow-up. Another good-to-remember recommendation is to delay COVID-19 vaccination for at least 90 days after an episode of MIS-C.
 

Vaccine-related myocarditis

Once again, older age appears to be a risk factor because most patients with postvaccine myocarditis have been in their mid-teens to early 20s, with events more likely after the second vaccine dose and also more likely in male children (4:1 ratio to female children). No deaths have occurred from postvaccination myocarditis in patients younger than 30 years. Still, many individuals have exhibited residual MRI enhancement in the cardiac tissue for some time after experiencing postvaccination myocarditis; it’s currently unclear whether that has clinical implications. By comparison, CDC data demonstrates convincingly that the risk for cardiac effects is much greater after acute COVID-19 than after COVID-19 vaccination, with risk ratios often higher than 20, depending on age and condition (for example, myocarditis vs. pericarditis). Data are still insufficient to determine whether clinicians should recommend or avoid COVID-19 vaccination in children with congenital heart disease.

In summary, administering COVID-19 vaccines requires a great deal of shared decision-making with parents, and the clinician’s role is to educate parents about all potential risks related to both the vaccine and COVID-19 illness. Research has consistently shown that acute COVID-19 myocarditis and myocarditis associated with MIS-C are much more likely to occur in unvaccinated youth and more likely than postvaccination myocarditis, regardless of age.

William T. Basco, Jr., MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

The 2022 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting included an excellent session on the acute and delayed effects of COVID-19 on children’s hearts. Data on the risk for cardiac injury during acute COVID-19, return-to-play guidelines after COVID-19–related heart injury, and post–vaccine-associated myocarditis were reviewed.

COVID-induced cardiac injury

The risk for COVID-induced cardiac injury is directly associated with age. Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data revealed a “myocarditis or pericarditis” rate in the range of 12-17 cases per 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 infections among male children aged 5-11 years (lower rates for females); the rate jumps to 50-65 cases per 100,000 infections among male children aged 12-17 years. So cardiac injury caused by acute COVID-19 appears rare, but the risk is clearly associated with male sex and adolescent age.

Return to play after COVID-19

Clinicians may be pressed by patients and parents for advice on return to play after illness with COVID-19. In July 2020, the American College of Cardiology published an algorithm that has been adjusted over time, most recently in 2022 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. These algorithms stratify recommendations by degree of illness. One rule of thumb: Patients with severe COVID-19 (ICU care or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C]) have only one box on the algorithm, and that is to rest for 3-6 months and only return to usual activity after cardiac clearance. Moderate disease (defined as ≥ 4 days of fever > 100.4 °F; ≥ 1 week of myalgia, chills, lethargy, or any non-ICU hospital stay; and no evidence of MIS-C) require undergoing an ECG to look for cardiac dysfunction, followed by at least 10 days of rest if the ECG is negative or referral for cardiac evaluation if either ECG or exam by a pediatric cardiologist is abnormal.

Clinicians can perhaps be more permissible with patients who are younger or who have had less severe disease. For example, if a patient aged younger than 12 years is asymptomatic with routine activity at the time of evaluation, an ECG is not indicated. For patients aged 12-15 years who are asymptomatic at the time of evaluation but participate in a high-intensity sport, clinicians might consider obtaining an ECG. As few as 3 days of rest might be enough for select patients who are asymptomatic at presentation. For other patients, clinicians should work with parents to introduce activity gradually and make it clear to parents that any activity intolerance requires quick reevaluation. On existing athlete registries, no deaths that are attributable to post–COVID-19 cardiac effects have been confirmed in children; however, all data presented during the session were from prior to the Omicron variant surge in early 2022, so more information may be forthcoming.
 

Considerations for MIS-C

Among children experiencing MIS-C, 35% had ECG changes, 40% exhibited left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction, and 30% had mitral regurgitation, meaning that a large percentage of patients with MIS-C show some degree of cardiac dysfunction. Unfortunately, we are still in the data-gathering phase for long-term outcomes. Functional parameters tend to improve within a week, and most patients will return to normal cardiac function by 3-4 months.

Return to play after MIS-C is quite different from that for acute COVID-19. Patients with MIS-C should be treated much like other patients with myocarditis with an expected return to play in 3-6 months and only after cardiac follow-up. Another good-to-remember recommendation is to delay COVID-19 vaccination for at least 90 days after an episode of MIS-C.
 

Vaccine-related myocarditis

Once again, older age appears to be a risk factor because most patients with postvaccine myocarditis have been in their mid-teens to early 20s, with events more likely after the second vaccine dose and also more likely in male children (4:1 ratio to female children). No deaths have occurred from postvaccination myocarditis in patients younger than 30 years. Still, many individuals have exhibited residual MRI enhancement in the cardiac tissue for some time after experiencing postvaccination myocarditis; it’s currently unclear whether that has clinical implications. By comparison, CDC data demonstrates convincingly that the risk for cardiac effects is much greater after acute COVID-19 than after COVID-19 vaccination, with risk ratios often higher than 20, depending on age and condition (for example, myocarditis vs. pericarditis). Data are still insufficient to determine whether clinicians should recommend or avoid COVID-19 vaccination in children with congenital heart disease.

In summary, administering COVID-19 vaccines requires a great deal of shared decision-making with parents, and the clinician’s role is to educate parents about all potential risks related to both the vaccine and COVID-19 illness. Research has consistently shown that acute COVID-19 myocarditis and myocarditis associated with MIS-C are much more likely to occur in unvaccinated youth and more likely than postvaccination myocarditis, regardless of age.

William T. Basco, Jr., MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

New cases of COVID-19 in children climbed for the seventh consecutive week, but the latest increase was the smallest of the seven, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were 112,496 new child COVID cases reported during the week of May 20-26, an increase of 5.0% from the previous week. Since the weekly total bottomed out at just under 26,000 in early April, the new-case count has risen by 28.0%, 11.8%, 43.5%, 17.4%, 50%, 14.6%, and 5.0%, based on data from the AAP/CHA weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is almost 13.4 million since the pandemic began, and those infected children represent 18.9% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said based on data from 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

That 18.9% is noteworthy because it marks the first decline in that particular measure since the AAP and CHA started keeping track in April of 2020. Children’s share of the overall COVID burden had been holding at 19.0% for 14 straight weeks, the AAP/CHA data show.

Regionally, new cases were up in the South and the West, where recent rising trends continued, and down in the Midwest and Northeast, where the recent rising trends were reversed for the first time. At the state/territory level, Puerto Rico had the largest percent increase over the last 2 weeks, followed by Maryland and Delaware, the organizations noted in their joint report.

Hospital admissions in children aged 0-17 have changed little in the last week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting rates of 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 23 and 0.25 per 100,000 on May 29, the latest date available. There was, however, a move up to 0.26 per 100,000 from May 24 to May 28, and the CDC acknowledges a possible reporting delay over the most recent 7-day period.

Emergency department visits have dipped slightly in recent days, with children aged 0-11 years at a 7-day average of 2.0% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on May 28, down from a 5-day stretch at 2.2% from May 19 to May 23. Children aged 12-15 years were at 1.8% on May 28, compared with 2.0% on May 23-24, and 15- to 17-year-olds were at 2.0% on May 28, down from the 2.1% reached over the previous 2 days, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children climbed for the seventh consecutive week, but the latest increase was the smallest of the seven, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were 112,496 new child COVID cases reported during the week of May 20-26, an increase of 5.0% from the previous week. Since the weekly total bottomed out at just under 26,000 in early April, the new-case count has risen by 28.0%, 11.8%, 43.5%, 17.4%, 50%, 14.6%, and 5.0%, based on data from the AAP/CHA weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is almost 13.4 million since the pandemic began, and those infected children represent 18.9% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said based on data from 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

That 18.9% is noteworthy because it marks the first decline in that particular measure since the AAP and CHA started keeping track in April of 2020. Children’s share of the overall COVID burden had been holding at 19.0% for 14 straight weeks, the AAP/CHA data show.

Regionally, new cases were up in the South and the West, where recent rising trends continued, and down in the Midwest and Northeast, where the recent rising trends were reversed for the first time. At the state/territory level, Puerto Rico had the largest percent increase over the last 2 weeks, followed by Maryland and Delaware, the organizations noted in their joint report.

Hospital admissions in children aged 0-17 have changed little in the last week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting rates of 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 23 and 0.25 per 100,000 on May 29, the latest date available. There was, however, a move up to 0.26 per 100,000 from May 24 to May 28, and the CDC acknowledges a possible reporting delay over the most recent 7-day period.

Emergency department visits have dipped slightly in recent days, with children aged 0-11 years at a 7-day average of 2.0% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on May 28, down from a 5-day stretch at 2.2% from May 19 to May 23. Children aged 12-15 years were at 1.8% on May 28, compared with 2.0% on May 23-24, and 15- to 17-year-olds were at 2.0% on May 28, down from the 2.1% reached over the previous 2 days, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children climbed for the seventh consecutive week, but the latest increase was the smallest of the seven, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were 112,496 new child COVID cases reported during the week of May 20-26, an increase of 5.0% from the previous week. Since the weekly total bottomed out at just under 26,000 in early April, the new-case count has risen by 28.0%, 11.8%, 43.5%, 17.4%, 50%, 14.6%, and 5.0%, based on data from the AAP/CHA weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is almost 13.4 million since the pandemic began, and those infected children represent 18.9% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said based on data from 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

That 18.9% is noteworthy because it marks the first decline in that particular measure since the AAP and CHA started keeping track in April of 2020. Children’s share of the overall COVID burden had been holding at 19.0% for 14 straight weeks, the AAP/CHA data show.

Regionally, new cases were up in the South and the West, where recent rising trends continued, and down in the Midwest and Northeast, where the recent rising trends were reversed for the first time. At the state/territory level, Puerto Rico had the largest percent increase over the last 2 weeks, followed by Maryland and Delaware, the organizations noted in their joint report.

Hospital admissions in children aged 0-17 have changed little in the last week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting rates of 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 23 and 0.25 per 100,000 on May 29, the latest date available. There was, however, a move up to 0.26 per 100,000 from May 24 to May 28, and the CDC acknowledges a possible reporting delay over the most recent 7-day period.

Emergency department visits have dipped slightly in recent days, with children aged 0-11 years at a 7-day average of 2.0% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on May 28, down from a 5-day stretch at 2.2% from May 19 to May 23. Children aged 12-15 years were at 1.8% on May 28, compared with 2.0% on May 23-24, and 15- to 17-year-olds were at 2.0% on May 28, down from the 2.1% reached over the previous 2 days, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a label extension for oral risdiplam (Evrysdi, Genentech) to include presymptomatic infants younger than 2 months old with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

As previously reported, the FDA first approved oral risdiplam for SMA in children older than age 2 years in 2020.

The FDA expanded the indication for risdiplam to include babies younger than 2 months old because of interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing RAINBOWFISH study. It includes 25 babies from birth to 6 weeks of age at first dose, all of whom have genetically diagnosed SMA but are not yet presenting with symptoms.

After 12 months of risdiplam treatment, the majority of presymptomatic infants with SMA reached key motor milestones, Genentech said in a news release.

Of the six babies with two or three copies of the SMN2 gene, all were able to sit after 1 year of active treatment, roughly two-thirds could stand, and half could walk independently.

All babies were alive at 12 months without permanent ventilation.

“The approval of Evrysdi for presymptomatic babies is particularly important, as early treatment of SMA, before symptoms start to arise, can help babies to achieve motor milestones,” Richard Finkel, MD, principal investigator of the trial, said in the release.

“With the inclusion of SMA in newborn screening programs, this approval provides the opportunity to start treating at home with Evrysdi soon after the diagnosis is confirmed,” added Dr. Finkel, who is director of the experimental neuroscience program, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis.
 

From newborns to older adults?

SMA is a rare and often fatal genetic disease that causes muscle weakness and progressive loss of movement.

SMA, which affects about 1 in 10,000 babies, is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene. The gene encodes the SMN protein, which is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.

Risdiplam is an orally administered, centrally and peripherally distributed small molecule that modulates survival motor neuron 2 (SMN2) premessenger RNA splicing to increase SMN protein levels.

As part of the label extension, the prescribing information for risdiplam has also been updated to include 2-year pooled data from parts 1 and 2 of the FIREFISH study, which demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in symptomatic infants with Type 1 SMA, the company noted.

“Because of its efficacy in multiple settings, Evrysdi is now available for people with SMA, from presymptomatic newborns to older adults,” Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, chief medical officer and head of global product development at Genentech, said in the release. 

“We are proud of this achievement, which has the potential to make a real difference to those living with SMA and their caregivers,” Dr. Garraway added.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a label extension for oral risdiplam (Evrysdi, Genentech) to include presymptomatic infants younger than 2 months old with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

As previously reported, the FDA first approved oral risdiplam for SMA in children older than age 2 years in 2020.

The FDA expanded the indication for risdiplam to include babies younger than 2 months old because of interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing RAINBOWFISH study. It includes 25 babies from birth to 6 weeks of age at first dose, all of whom have genetically diagnosed SMA but are not yet presenting with symptoms.

After 12 months of risdiplam treatment, the majority of presymptomatic infants with SMA reached key motor milestones, Genentech said in a news release.

Of the six babies with two or three copies of the SMN2 gene, all were able to sit after 1 year of active treatment, roughly two-thirds could stand, and half could walk independently.

All babies were alive at 12 months without permanent ventilation.

“The approval of Evrysdi for presymptomatic babies is particularly important, as early treatment of SMA, before symptoms start to arise, can help babies to achieve motor milestones,” Richard Finkel, MD, principal investigator of the trial, said in the release.

“With the inclusion of SMA in newborn screening programs, this approval provides the opportunity to start treating at home with Evrysdi soon after the diagnosis is confirmed,” added Dr. Finkel, who is director of the experimental neuroscience program, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis.
 

From newborns to older adults?

SMA is a rare and often fatal genetic disease that causes muscle weakness and progressive loss of movement.

SMA, which affects about 1 in 10,000 babies, is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene. The gene encodes the SMN protein, which is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.

Risdiplam is an orally administered, centrally and peripherally distributed small molecule that modulates survival motor neuron 2 (SMN2) premessenger RNA splicing to increase SMN protein levels.

As part of the label extension, the prescribing information for risdiplam has also been updated to include 2-year pooled data from parts 1 and 2 of the FIREFISH study, which demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in symptomatic infants with Type 1 SMA, the company noted.

“Because of its efficacy in multiple settings, Evrysdi is now available for people with SMA, from presymptomatic newborns to older adults,” Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, chief medical officer and head of global product development at Genentech, said in the release. 

“We are proud of this achievement, which has the potential to make a real difference to those living with SMA and their caregivers,” Dr. Garraway added.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a label extension for oral risdiplam (Evrysdi, Genentech) to include presymptomatic infants younger than 2 months old with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

As previously reported, the FDA first approved oral risdiplam for SMA in children older than age 2 years in 2020.

The FDA expanded the indication for risdiplam to include babies younger than 2 months old because of interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing RAINBOWFISH study. It includes 25 babies from birth to 6 weeks of age at first dose, all of whom have genetically diagnosed SMA but are not yet presenting with symptoms.

After 12 months of risdiplam treatment, the majority of presymptomatic infants with SMA reached key motor milestones, Genentech said in a news release.

Of the six babies with two or three copies of the SMN2 gene, all were able to sit after 1 year of active treatment, roughly two-thirds could stand, and half could walk independently.

All babies were alive at 12 months without permanent ventilation.

“The approval of Evrysdi for presymptomatic babies is particularly important, as early treatment of SMA, before symptoms start to arise, can help babies to achieve motor milestones,” Richard Finkel, MD, principal investigator of the trial, said in the release.

“With the inclusion of SMA in newborn screening programs, this approval provides the opportunity to start treating at home with Evrysdi soon after the diagnosis is confirmed,” added Dr. Finkel, who is director of the experimental neuroscience program, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis.
 

From newborns to older adults?

SMA is a rare and often fatal genetic disease that causes muscle weakness and progressive loss of movement.

SMA, which affects about 1 in 10,000 babies, is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene. The gene encodes the SMN protein, which is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.

Risdiplam is an orally administered, centrally and peripherally distributed small molecule that modulates survival motor neuron 2 (SMN2) premessenger RNA splicing to increase SMN protein levels.

As part of the label extension, the prescribing information for risdiplam has also been updated to include 2-year pooled data from parts 1 and 2 of the FIREFISH study, which demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in symptomatic infants with Type 1 SMA, the company noted.

“Because of its efficacy in multiple settings, Evrysdi is now available for people with SMA, from presymptomatic newborns to older adults,” Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, chief medical officer and head of global product development at Genentech, said in the release. 

“We are proud of this achievement, which has the potential to make a real difference to those living with SMA and their caregivers,” Dr. Garraway added.

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

Babies of mothers who experience significant psychological distress during pregnancy showed evidence of altered brain development in utero and reduced cognitive outcomes at 18 months, based on data from a pair of studies including approximately 300 women.

In a longitudinal study published in JAMA Network Open, Yao Wu, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues recruited 97 healthy mother-infant dyads between January 2016 and October 2020 at a single center. Of these, 87 underwent two fetal brain imaging studies each, and 10 completed the first MRI visit, for a total of 184 fetal MRIs.

Neurodevelopment and social-emotional development for infants at 18 months of age was measured using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment. The mean age of the mothers was 35 years; maternal distress was assessed between 24 and 40 weeks’ gestation using validated self-report questionnaires. Parenting stress was assessed at the 18-month infant testing using the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form.

Overall, prenatal maternal stress was negatively associated with infant cognitive performance (P = .01) at 18 months, mediated by fetal left hippocampal volume.

In addition, increased fetal cortical local gyrification index and sulcal depth measured during reported times of prenatal maternal distress were associated with significantly poorer social-emotional scores and competence scores at age 18 months. The beta coefficients for local gyrification index and sulcal depth were –54.62 and –14.22, respectively, for social-emotional and competence scores, –24.01 and –7.53, respectively; P values were P < .001, P < .002, P = .003, P < .001, respectively.

“Increased cortical gyrification has been suggested in children with dyslexia and autism, and sulcal depth has been associated with the severity of impaired performance on working memory and executive function in adults with schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The current study “extends our previous findings and suggests a critical role for disturbances in emerging fetal cerebral cortical folding development in mediating the association between prenatal maternal distress and neurodevelopmental problems that later manifest in infancy,” they explained.

The researchers also found that prenatal maternal anxiety, stress, and depression were positively associated with all measures of parenting stress at the 18-month testing visit.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports for both maternal distress and infant social-emotional assessment, despite the use of validated questionnaires, and the fact that assessment of maternal distress at specific times may not reflect the entire pregnancy, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included the inability to use some MRI data because of fetal movement and the homogenous population of relatively highly educated women with access to health care that may not reflect other areas, they said.

“Identifying early brain developmental biomarkers may help improve the identification of infants at risk for later neurodevelopmental impairment who might benefit from early targeted interventions,” the researchers concluded.
 

Technology enhances health and disease models

The effect of the prenatal period on future well-being is recognized, but the current study makes “substantial contributions to prenatal programming science, with implications for ways to transform the prenatal care ecosystem for two-generation impact,” Catherine Monk, PhD, and Cristina R. Fernández, MD, both of Columbia University, New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

John Abbott/Columbia University

The developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) conceptual model introduced by Dr. David Barker in 1995 were later applied to show that maternal stress, depression, and anxiety affected child prenatal and future development, they said. However, the current study uses cutting-edge neuroscience to directly assess developing fetal brains. The finding of reduced cognitive functioning at 18 months associated with maternal stress is consistent with other findings, they noted.

“Finding an association between maternal prenatal stress and infant cognitive outcomes in the setting of what may be modest stress relative to that of a low-resourced or historically marginalized sample underscores the importance of this research; presumably, with higher stress, and greater social determinants of health burden, the effect sizes would be even greater and of greater concern,” they said.

However, studies such as the current one “have the potential to transform the prenatal and postpartum care ecosystems,” by encouraging a whole-person approach to the care of pregnant women, including attention to mental well-being and quality of life, they emphasized.
 

COVID-19 stress considerations

In a separate study published in Communications Medicine, Yuan-Chiao Lu, MD, also of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, and colleagues found a similar effect of maternal stress on fetal brain development.

The researchers imaged the brains of fetuses before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and interviewed mothers about any distress they experienced during pregnancy.

The study population included 65 women with known COVID-19 exposures who underwent 92 fetal MRIs and 137 prepandemic controls who underwent 182 fetal MRIs. Maternal distress was measured via the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

Overall, scores on measures of stress and depression were significantly higher for women in the pandemic group compared with controls. Of the 173 women for whom maternal distress measures were available, 28% of the prepandemic group and 52% of the pandemic group met criteria for elevated maternal psychological distress, defined as above the threshold for distress on any one of the four measures.

After the researchers controlled for maternal distress, MRI data showed decreases in fetal white matter and in hippocampal and cerebellar volumes in fetuses in the pandemic group compared with controls.

Other signs of impaired brain development were similar to those seen in the JAMA Network Open study, including decreased cortical surface area and local gyrification index, as well as reduced sulcal depth in multiple brain lobes, indicating delayed cerebral cortical gyrification.

The second study was limited by a lack of data on other lifestyle changes during the pandemic that might influence maternal health and fetal development, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the possible lack of generalizability to a range of racial and ethnic populations and geographic areas outside of Washington, and the inability to control for unknown COVID-19 exposures or subclinical infections in controls, they said.

However, the results support findings from previous studies, and provide a unique opportunity to study the effect of prenatal stress on early development, as well as a chance to implement “novel and timely interventions,” the researchers wrote.

“Monitoring the COVID generation of infants for long-term cognitive and health outcomes after birth is warranted and currently underway,” and continued research may inform preventive strategies for pregnant women experiencing multiple stressors beyond the pandemic, they concluded.


 

Interpret pandemic effect with caution

“Research studies, as well as our own daily experiences, have made it abundantly clear that stress is on the rise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic,” said editorial author Dr. Monk, who commented on the second study in an interview. “This is an important public health question: Early identification of pandemic effects on child development can help garner the necessary resources to intervene early, dramatically increasing the likelihood of improving that child’s developmental trajectory,” she said.

“The pandemic is an unprecedented experience that has widespread impact on people’s lives, how could it not also alter gestational biology and the developing brain? That being said, we need to be cautious in that we do not yet know the functional implications of these brain changes for longer-term development,” Dr. Monk said. “Also, we do not know what aspects of women’s pandemic-affected lives had an influence on fetal brain development. The authors found higher stress in pandemic versus nonpandemic women, but not evidence that distress was the mediating variable relating pregnancy during the pandemic to altered brain development,” she explained.

The take-home message for clinicians is to “provide your patients with realistic avenues for neurodevelopmental assessments of their children if they, or you, have concerns,” Dr. Monk said. “However, do not prejudge ‘pandemic babies,’ as not all children will be affected by these potential pandemic effects,” she emphasized. “It is possible to misjudge normal variation in children’s development and unnecessarily raise parents’ anxiety levels. Importantly, this period of brain plasticity means any needed intervention likely can have a big, ameliorating impact,” she added.

“We need follow-up studies looking at pandemic effects on prenatal and postnatal development and what factors protect the fetus and birthing person from the negative influences,” she said.

The JAMA study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. The study in Communications Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. None of the researchers in either study disclosed conflicts of interest. Dr. Monk disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Bezos Family Foundation, and the Robin Hood Foundation outside the submitted work.

Babies of mothers who experience significant psychological distress during pregnancy showed evidence of altered brain development in utero and reduced cognitive outcomes at 18 months, based on data from a pair of studies including approximately 300 women.

In a longitudinal study published in JAMA Network Open, Yao Wu, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues recruited 97 healthy mother-infant dyads between January 2016 and October 2020 at a single center. Of these, 87 underwent two fetal brain imaging studies each, and 10 completed the first MRI visit, for a total of 184 fetal MRIs.

Neurodevelopment and social-emotional development for infants at 18 months of age was measured using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment. The mean age of the mothers was 35 years; maternal distress was assessed between 24 and 40 weeks’ gestation using validated self-report questionnaires. Parenting stress was assessed at the 18-month infant testing using the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form.

Overall, prenatal maternal stress was negatively associated with infant cognitive performance (P = .01) at 18 months, mediated by fetal left hippocampal volume.

In addition, increased fetal cortical local gyrification index and sulcal depth measured during reported times of prenatal maternal distress were associated with significantly poorer social-emotional scores and competence scores at age 18 months. The beta coefficients for local gyrification index and sulcal depth were –54.62 and –14.22, respectively, for social-emotional and competence scores, –24.01 and –7.53, respectively; P values were P < .001, P < .002, P = .003, P < .001, respectively.

“Increased cortical gyrification has been suggested in children with dyslexia and autism, and sulcal depth has been associated with the severity of impaired performance on working memory and executive function in adults with schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The current study “extends our previous findings and suggests a critical role for disturbances in emerging fetal cerebral cortical folding development in mediating the association between prenatal maternal distress and neurodevelopmental problems that later manifest in infancy,” they explained.

The researchers also found that prenatal maternal anxiety, stress, and depression were positively associated with all measures of parenting stress at the 18-month testing visit.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports for both maternal distress and infant social-emotional assessment, despite the use of validated questionnaires, and the fact that assessment of maternal distress at specific times may not reflect the entire pregnancy, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included the inability to use some MRI data because of fetal movement and the homogenous population of relatively highly educated women with access to health care that may not reflect other areas, they said.

“Identifying early brain developmental biomarkers may help improve the identification of infants at risk for later neurodevelopmental impairment who might benefit from early targeted interventions,” the researchers concluded.
 

Technology enhances health and disease models

The effect of the prenatal period on future well-being is recognized, but the current study makes “substantial contributions to prenatal programming science, with implications for ways to transform the prenatal care ecosystem for two-generation impact,” Catherine Monk, PhD, and Cristina R. Fernández, MD, both of Columbia University, New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

John Abbott/Columbia University

The developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) conceptual model introduced by Dr. David Barker in 1995 were later applied to show that maternal stress, depression, and anxiety affected child prenatal and future development, they said. However, the current study uses cutting-edge neuroscience to directly assess developing fetal brains. The finding of reduced cognitive functioning at 18 months associated with maternal stress is consistent with other findings, they noted.

“Finding an association between maternal prenatal stress and infant cognitive outcomes in the setting of what may be modest stress relative to that of a low-resourced or historically marginalized sample underscores the importance of this research; presumably, with higher stress, and greater social determinants of health burden, the effect sizes would be even greater and of greater concern,” they said.

However, studies such as the current one “have the potential to transform the prenatal and postpartum care ecosystems,” by encouraging a whole-person approach to the care of pregnant women, including attention to mental well-being and quality of life, they emphasized.
 

COVID-19 stress considerations

In a separate study published in Communications Medicine, Yuan-Chiao Lu, MD, also of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, and colleagues found a similar effect of maternal stress on fetal brain development.

The researchers imaged the brains of fetuses before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and interviewed mothers about any distress they experienced during pregnancy.

The study population included 65 women with known COVID-19 exposures who underwent 92 fetal MRIs and 137 prepandemic controls who underwent 182 fetal MRIs. Maternal distress was measured via the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

Overall, scores on measures of stress and depression were significantly higher for women in the pandemic group compared with controls. Of the 173 women for whom maternal distress measures were available, 28% of the prepandemic group and 52% of the pandemic group met criteria for elevated maternal psychological distress, defined as above the threshold for distress on any one of the four measures.

After the researchers controlled for maternal distress, MRI data showed decreases in fetal white matter and in hippocampal and cerebellar volumes in fetuses in the pandemic group compared with controls.

Other signs of impaired brain development were similar to those seen in the JAMA Network Open study, including decreased cortical surface area and local gyrification index, as well as reduced sulcal depth in multiple brain lobes, indicating delayed cerebral cortical gyrification.

The second study was limited by a lack of data on other lifestyle changes during the pandemic that might influence maternal health and fetal development, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the possible lack of generalizability to a range of racial and ethnic populations and geographic areas outside of Washington, and the inability to control for unknown COVID-19 exposures or subclinical infections in controls, they said.

However, the results support findings from previous studies, and provide a unique opportunity to study the effect of prenatal stress on early development, as well as a chance to implement “novel and timely interventions,” the researchers wrote.

“Monitoring the COVID generation of infants for long-term cognitive and health outcomes after birth is warranted and currently underway,” and continued research may inform preventive strategies for pregnant women experiencing multiple stressors beyond the pandemic, they concluded.


 

Interpret pandemic effect with caution

“Research studies, as well as our own daily experiences, have made it abundantly clear that stress is on the rise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic,” said editorial author Dr. Monk, who commented on the second study in an interview. “This is an important public health question: Early identification of pandemic effects on child development can help garner the necessary resources to intervene early, dramatically increasing the likelihood of improving that child’s developmental trajectory,” she said.

“The pandemic is an unprecedented experience that has widespread impact on people’s lives, how could it not also alter gestational biology and the developing brain? That being said, we need to be cautious in that we do not yet know the functional implications of these brain changes for longer-term development,” Dr. Monk said. “Also, we do not know what aspects of women’s pandemic-affected lives had an influence on fetal brain development. The authors found higher stress in pandemic versus nonpandemic women, but not evidence that distress was the mediating variable relating pregnancy during the pandemic to altered brain development,” she explained.

The take-home message for clinicians is to “provide your patients with realistic avenues for neurodevelopmental assessments of their children if they, or you, have concerns,” Dr. Monk said. “However, do not prejudge ‘pandemic babies,’ as not all children will be affected by these potential pandemic effects,” she emphasized. “It is possible to misjudge normal variation in children’s development and unnecessarily raise parents’ anxiety levels. Importantly, this period of brain plasticity means any needed intervention likely can have a big, ameliorating impact,” she added.

“We need follow-up studies looking at pandemic effects on prenatal and postnatal development and what factors protect the fetus and birthing person from the negative influences,” she said.

The JAMA study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. The study in Communications Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. None of the researchers in either study disclosed conflicts of interest. Dr. Monk disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Bezos Family Foundation, and the Robin Hood Foundation outside the submitted work.

Babies of mothers who experience significant psychological distress during pregnancy showed evidence of altered brain development in utero and reduced cognitive outcomes at 18 months, based on data from a pair of studies including approximately 300 women.

In a longitudinal study published in JAMA Network Open, Yao Wu, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues recruited 97 healthy mother-infant dyads between January 2016 and October 2020 at a single center. Of these, 87 underwent two fetal brain imaging studies each, and 10 completed the first MRI visit, for a total of 184 fetal MRIs.

Neurodevelopment and social-emotional development for infants at 18 months of age was measured using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development and Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment. The mean age of the mothers was 35 years; maternal distress was assessed between 24 and 40 weeks’ gestation using validated self-report questionnaires. Parenting stress was assessed at the 18-month infant testing using the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form.

Overall, prenatal maternal stress was negatively associated with infant cognitive performance (P = .01) at 18 months, mediated by fetal left hippocampal volume.

In addition, increased fetal cortical local gyrification index and sulcal depth measured during reported times of prenatal maternal distress were associated with significantly poorer social-emotional scores and competence scores at age 18 months. The beta coefficients for local gyrification index and sulcal depth were –54.62 and –14.22, respectively, for social-emotional and competence scores, –24.01 and –7.53, respectively; P values were P < .001, P < .002, P = .003, P < .001, respectively.

“Increased cortical gyrification has been suggested in children with dyslexia and autism, and sulcal depth has been associated with the severity of impaired performance on working memory and executive function in adults with schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The current study “extends our previous findings and suggests a critical role for disturbances in emerging fetal cerebral cortical folding development in mediating the association between prenatal maternal distress and neurodevelopmental problems that later manifest in infancy,” they explained.

The researchers also found that prenatal maternal anxiety, stress, and depression were positively associated with all measures of parenting stress at the 18-month testing visit.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports for both maternal distress and infant social-emotional assessment, despite the use of validated questionnaires, and the fact that assessment of maternal distress at specific times may not reflect the entire pregnancy, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included the inability to use some MRI data because of fetal movement and the homogenous population of relatively highly educated women with access to health care that may not reflect other areas, they said.

“Identifying early brain developmental biomarkers may help improve the identification of infants at risk for later neurodevelopmental impairment who might benefit from early targeted interventions,” the researchers concluded.
 

Technology enhances health and disease models

The effect of the prenatal period on future well-being is recognized, but the current study makes “substantial contributions to prenatal programming science, with implications for ways to transform the prenatal care ecosystem for two-generation impact,” Catherine Monk, PhD, and Cristina R. Fernández, MD, both of Columbia University, New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

John Abbott/Columbia University

The developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) conceptual model introduced by Dr. David Barker in 1995 were later applied to show that maternal stress, depression, and anxiety affected child prenatal and future development, they said. However, the current study uses cutting-edge neuroscience to directly assess developing fetal brains. The finding of reduced cognitive functioning at 18 months associated with maternal stress is consistent with other findings, they noted.

“Finding an association between maternal prenatal stress and infant cognitive outcomes in the setting of what may be modest stress relative to that of a low-resourced or historically marginalized sample underscores the importance of this research; presumably, with higher stress, and greater social determinants of health burden, the effect sizes would be even greater and of greater concern,” they said.

However, studies such as the current one “have the potential to transform the prenatal and postpartum care ecosystems,” by encouraging a whole-person approach to the care of pregnant women, including attention to mental well-being and quality of life, they emphasized.
 

COVID-19 stress considerations

In a separate study published in Communications Medicine, Yuan-Chiao Lu, MD, also of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, and colleagues found a similar effect of maternal stress on fetal brain development.

The researchers imaged the brains of fetuses before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and interviewed mothers about any distress they experienced during pregnancy.

The study population included 65 women with known COVID-19 exposures who underwent 92 fetal MRIs and 137 prepandemic controls who underwent 182 fetal MRIs. Maternal distress was measured via the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

Overall, scores on measures of stress and depression were significantly higher for women in the pandemic group compared with controls. Of the 173 women for whom maternal distress measures were available, 28% of the prepandemic group and 52% of the pandemic group met criteria for elevated maternal psychological distress, defined as above the threshold for distress on any one of the four measures.

After the researchers controlled for maternal distress, MRI data showed decreases in fetal white matter and in hippocampal and cerebellar volumes in fetuses in the pandemic group compared with controls.

Other signs of impaired brain development were similar to those seen in the JAMA Network Open study, including decreased cortical surface area and local gyrification index, as well as reduced sulcal depth in multiple brain lobes, indicating delayed cerebral cortical gyrification.

The second study was limited by a lack of data on other lifestyle changes during the pandemic that might influence maternal health and fetal development, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the possible lack of generalizability to a range of racial and ethnic populations and geographic areas outside of Washington, and the inability to control for unknown COVID-19 exposures or subclinical infections in controls, they said.

However, the results support findings from previous studies, and provide a unique opportunity to study the effect of prenatal stress on early development, as well as a chance to implement “novel and timely interventions,” the researchers wrote.

“Monitoring the COVID generation of infants for long-term cognitive and health outcomes after birth is warranted and currently underway,” and continued research may inform preventive strategies for pregnant women experiencing multiple stressors beyond the pandemic, they concluded.


 

Interpret pandemic effect with caution

“Research studies, as well as our own daily experiences, have made it abundantly clear that stress is on the rise as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic,” said editorial author Dr. Monk, who commented on the second study in an interview. “This is an important public health question: Early identification of pandemic effects on child development can help garner the necessary resources to intervene early, dramatically increasing the likelihood of improving that child’s developmental trajectory,” she said.

“The pandemic is an unprecedented experience that has widespread impact on people’s lives, how could it not also alter gestational biology and the developing brain? That being said, we need to be cautious in that we do not yet know the functional implications of these brain changes for longer-term development,” Dr. Monk said. “Also, we do not know what aspects of women’s pandemic-affected lives had an influence on fetal brain development. The authors found higher stress in pandemic versus nonpandemic women, but not evidence that distress was the mediating variable relating pregnancy during the pandemic to altered brain development,” she explained.

The take-home message for clinicians is to “provide your patients with realistic avenues for neurodevelopmental assessments of their children if they, or you, have concerns,” Dr. Monk said. “However, do not prejudge ‘pandemic babies,’ as not all children will be affected by these potential pandemic effects,” she emphasized. “It is possible to misjudge normal variation in children’s development and unnecessarily raise parents’ anxiety levels. Importantly, this period of brain plasticity means any needed intervention likely can have a big, ameliorating impact,” she added.

“We need follow-up studies looking at pandemic effects on prenatal and postnatal development and what factors protect the fetus and birthing person from the negative influences,” she said.

The JAMA study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. The study in Communications Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, and the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation. None of the researchers in either study disclosed conflicts of interest. Dr. Monk disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Bezos Family Foundation, and the Robin Hood Foundation outside the submitted work.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Here we go again, and again, and again.

There just aren’t enough tears, and before the bodies of 19 small children are identified, the political noise starts up. Mass shootings are a part of the American landscape, but when they happen at schools, we all feel a distinct sense of violation and gaping grief. Those children are so innocent, so deserving of a right to live their lives, hold their place with their families, create their own legacies, and die of natural causes at a ripe old age. And those children could have been our children. There was nothing special about them; they were just sent to school that day like every child who is sent to school every day.

Here is how the politics goes: The Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Is Rachel Maddow at fault, or is it Tucker Carlson? Social media accounts blamed both of them for the racially motivated mass murder in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14.

Mass murders were previously defined as a shooting where four or more victims are killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place that is not related to the commission of another crime. In 2012, the definition was changed to include events with three victims. This definition excludes gang violence and the murder of family members.

When it comes to explaining mass murder, the camps divide: They are the result of some combination of mental illness, easy access to firearms, and terrorism and hate. For psychiatry, there is a unique place in the argument – half of all mass shooters have exhibited signs or symptoms of psychiatric illness, and for those who want to deflect the issue away from issues related to the regulation of firearms, it becomes easy to blame “mental illness,” as though that explains it all. Either the gunman “snapped” in such a way that no one could have predicted, or the mental health system is at fault for not preventing it.

There are many ways to be emotionally disturbed; mental illness is only one of them, and there is no psychiatric diagnosis that includes the symptom of shooting strangers, or shooting children. The vast majority of people, including nearly all psychiatrists, will never know someone who perpetrates a mass shooting. 

Can mental illness give us any insight into these senseless killings? Sometimes, but rarely. Take John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan as a means to impress actress Jodie Foster. Sometimes these killings are motivated by delusional beliefs. But the planning and preparation that goes into most mass shootings involves a degree of organization and forethought that we don’t typically see in those with severe psychotic disorders.

The other psychological explanation that satisfies some of a nonmedical population is that these killers “just snap.” This, too, is a term that is not included in our diagnostic vocabulary, but it remains a way for some to explain that which can’t be explained. If mental illness, however, is the cause of mass murders, then more stringent gun control is unnecessary. Every state already has a mechanism to prevent those with criminal and specified psychiatric histories from buying legal firearms, and it may be inevitable that these screens are not perfect. 

The next line of political thinking moves to the psychiatric “if only.” If only there were more state hospital beds and if only it were easier to compel people with psychiatric disorders to get treatment against their will, then we could eliminate these crimes. The Virginia tech shooter was mandated to get outpatient psychiatric treatment after a brief hospitalization, yet he never went and there was no mechanism in place to track him.

In cases where a person with a psychotic illness has a history of repeated violent episodes after stopping medications, it does make sense to mandate treatment, not because they are likely to shoot strangers, but because some people do become violent when they are ill and mental illness is believed to play a role in 10% of murders.

Mass murders remain rare, and while advocates for legislation that would make it easier to mandate involuntary care have cited violence prevention as a reason, it is hard to imagine that we would force people to get care because they “might” commit such a crime – unless there was convincing evidence that someone was at risk of committing such a heinous act.

For those who oppose stronger gun control laws, the “what if” may circulate around the need for even more firearms. What if teachers carried guns? What if schools were more heavily policed? What if the criminals were made to be afraid?

We are left with the fact that other countries do not see these numbers of mass shooting events, yet mental illness is ubiquitous. While the presence of psychiatric disorders does little to explain school shootings, we still have no understanding of what motivated the Sandy Hook killer, and it remains to be seen what we will come to understand about the gunman in Uvalde, Texas.

Mental illness is not unique to the United States; however, the number of available firearms is. In a country of 323 million people (including children and people who live in institutions where they have no access to firearms), there are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States, 98% of which are owned by civilians. 

Hate crimes and terrorism are another explanation for mass murders. In these instances, the gunman makes his motive obvious: There are social media announcements, or the site of the shooting is a synagogue, a mosque, or a location where the victims are of a specific race or religion. But hate may come out of a psychotic illness, and easy access to firearms allows for these crimes to continue. 

Firearms are now the No. 1 cause of mortality in children. Very few of these deaths are the result of mass murders. Many more are from accidental deaths, targeted crime, or suicide. Still, school shootings rip at our hearts. Neither the victims nor their grieving families have any role in the act, and suffering leaves its mark on families, communities, and all of us.
 

Are there answers?

In many states, physicians can now request emergency removal of firearms from the home of someone who is both mentally ill and threatening either suicide or homicide. During the era when high-capacity firearms were banned, from 1994 to 2004, mass murders decreased in our country. While most gunmen use legal firearms they have purchased, I would contend that “smart guns” – firearms that allow only the legal owner to operate them based on biometrics – would prevent some mass shootings and many accidents, crimes, and suicides. Universal background checks and tracking gun purchases in the way we monitor controlled medications, or even Sudafed, might allow authorities to predict who might be at risk of committing these heinous acts.

In his newly released book, Trigger Points: Inside the Mission to Stop Mass Murders in America, journalist Mark Follman argues for a proactive community approach using threat assessment methods and providing wraparound services to those who are deemed to be at risk for violent acts. Mr. Follman’s voice is one of the few out there saying that these events are not random and are, in fact, preventable.

In psychiatry, we struggle with school shootings such as the one we just saw in Uvalde. Our own hearts ache as we hold our children close and empathize with the loss of strangers who have been through the unthinkable. We help our patients as they process their emotions. And we wonder whether any of our patients might ever do anything so horrific. The feelings get complicated, the sadness and anger intermingle while the frustration builds, and we are left with our fears and the hope that if that very rare person were to walk through our office door, we would know what to do.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here we go again, and again, and again.

There just aren’t enough tears, and before the bodies of 19 small children are identified, the political noise starts up. Mass shootings are a part of the American landscape, but when they happen at schools, we all feel a distinct sense of violation and gaping grief. Those children are so innocent, so deserving of a right to live their lives, hold their place with their families, create their own legacies, and die of natural causes at a ripe old age. And those children could have been our children. There was nothing special about them; they were just sent to school that day like every child who is sent to school every day.

Here is how the politics goes: The Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Is Rachel Maddow at fault, or is it Tucker Carlson? Social media accounts blamed both of them for the racially motivated mass murder in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14.

Mass murders were previously defined as a shooting where four or more victims are killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place that is not related to the commission of another crime. In 2012, the definition was changed to include events with three victims. This definition excludes gang violence and the murder of family members.

When it comes to explaining mass murder, the camps divide: They are the result of some combination of mental illness, easy access to firearms, and terrorism and hate. For psychiatry, there is a unique place in the argument – half of all mass shooters have exhibited signs or symptoms of psychiatric illness, and for those who want to deflect the issue away from issues related to the regulation of firearms, it becomes easy to blame “mental illness,” as though that explains it all. Either the gunman “snapped” in such a way that no one could have predicted, or the mental health system is at fault for not preventing it.

There are many ways to be emotionally disturbed; mental illness is only one of them, and there is no psychiatric diagnosis that includes the symptom of shooting strangers, or shooting children. The vast majority of people, including nearly all psychiatrists, will never know someone who perpetrates a mass shooting. 

Can mental illness give us any insight into these senseless killings? Sometimes, but rarely. Take John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan as a means to impress actress Jodie Foster. Sometimes these killings are motivated by delusional beliefs. But the planning and preparation that goes into most mass shootings involves a degree of organization and forethought that we don’t typically see in those with severe psychotic disorders.

The other psychological explanation that satisfies some of a nonmedical population is that these killers “just snap.” This, too, is a term that is not included in our diagnostic vocabulary, but it remains a way for some to explain that which can’t be explained. If mental illness, however, is the cause of mass murders, then more stringent gun control is unnecessary. Every state already has a mechanism to prevent those with criminal and specified psychiatric histories from buying legal firearms, and it may be inevitable that these screens are not perfect. 

The next line of political thinking moves to the psychiatric “if only.” If only there were more state hospital beds and if only it were easier to compel people with psychiatric disorders to get treatment against their will, then we could eliminate these crimes. The Virginia tech shooter was mandated to get outpatient psychiatric treatment after a brief hospitalization, yet he never went and there was no mechanism in place to track him.

In cases where a person with a psychotic illness has a history of repeated violent episodes after stopping medications, it does make sense to mandate treatment, not because they are likely to shoot strangers, but because some people do become violent when they are ill and mental illness is believed to play a role in 10% of murders.

Mass murders remain rare, and while advocates for legislation that would make it easier to mandate involuntary care have cited violence prevention as a reason, it is hard to imagine that we would force people to get care because they “might” commit such a crime – unless there was convincing evidence that someone was at risk of committing such a heinous act.

For those who oppose stronger gun control laws, the “what if” may circulate around the need for even more firearms. What if teachers carried guns? What if schools were more heavily policed? What if the criminals were made to be afraid?

We are left with the fact that other countries do not see these numbers of mass shooting events, yet mental illness is ubiquitous. While the presence of psychiatric disorders does little to explain school shootings, we still have no understanding of what motivated the Sandy Hook killer, and it remains to be seen what we will come to understand about the gunman in Uvalde, Texas.

Mental illness is not unique to the United States; however, the number of available firearms is. In a country of 323 million people (including children and people who live in institutions where they have no access to firearms), there are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States, 98% of which are owned by civilians. 

Hate crimes and terrorism are another explanation for mass murders. In these instances, the gunman makes his motive obvious: There are social media announcements, or the site of the shooting is a synagogue, a mosque, or a location where the victims are of a specific race or religion. But hate may come out of a psychotic illness, and easy access to firearms allows for these crimes to continue. 

Firearms are now the No. 1 cause of mortality in children. Very few of these deaths are the result of mass murders. Many more are from accidental deaths, targeted crime, or suicide. Still, school shootings rip at our hearts. Neither the victims nor their grieving families have any role in the act, and suffering leaves its mark on families, communities, and all of us.
 

Are there answers?

In many states, physicians can now request emergency removal of firearms from the home of someone who is both mentally ill and threatening either suicide or homicide. During the era when high-capacity firearms were banned, from 1994 to 2004, mass murders decreased in our country. While most gunmen use legal firearms they have purchased, I would contend that “smart guns” – firearms that allow only the legal owner to operate them based on biometrics – would prevent some mass shootings and many accidents, crimes, and suicides. Universal background checks and tracking gun purchases in the way we monitor controlled medications, or even Sudafed, might allow authorities to predict who might be at risk of committing these heinous acts.

In his newly released book, Trigger Points: Inside the Mission to Stop Mass Murders in America, journalist Mark Follman argues for a proactive community approach using threat assessment methods and providing wraparound services to those who are deemed to be at risk for violent acts. Mr. Follman’s voice is one of the few out there saying that these events are not random and are, in fact, preventable.

In psychiatry, we struggle with school shootings such as the one we just saw in Uvalde. Our own hearts ache as we hold our children close and empathize with the loss of strangers who have been through the unthinkable. We help our patients as they process their emotions. And we wonder whether any of our patients might ever do anything so horrific. The feelings get complicated, the sadness and anger intermingle while the frustration builds, and we are left with our fears and the hope that if that very rare person were to walk through our office door, we would know what to do.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here we go again, and again, and again.

There just aren’t enough tears, and before the bodies of 19 small children are identified, the political noise starts up. Mass shootings are a part of the American landscape, but when they happen at schools, we all feel a distinct sense of violation and gaping grief. Those children are so innocent, so deserving of a right to live their lives, hold their place with their families, create their own legacies, and die of natural causes at a ripe old age. And those children could have been our children. There was nothing special about them; they were just sent to school that day like every child who is sent to school every day.

Here is how the politics goes: The Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Is Rachel Maddow at fault, or is it Tucker Carlson? Social media accounts blamed both of them for the racially motivated mass murder in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14.

Mass murders were previously defined as a shooting where four or more victims are killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place that is not related to the commission of another crime. In 2012, the definition was changed to include events with three victims. This definition excludes gang violence and the murder of family members.

When it comes to explaining mass murder, the camps divide: They are the result of some combination of mental illness, easy access to firearms, and terrorism and hate. For psychiatry, there is a unique place in the argument – half of all mass shooters have exhibited signs or symptoms of psychiatric illness, and for those who want to deflect the issue away from issues related to the regulation of firearms, it becomes easy to blame “mental illness,” as though that explains it all. Either the gunman “snapped” in such a way that no one could have predicted, or the mental health system is at fault for not preventing it.

There are many ways to be emotionally disturbed; mental illness is only one of them, and there is no psychiatric diagnosis that includes the symptom of shooting strangers, or shooting children. The vast majority of people, including nearly all psychiatrists, will never know someone who perpetrates a mass shooting. 

Can mental illness give us any insight into these senseless killings? Sometimes, but rarely. Take John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan as a means to impress actress Jodie Foster. Sometimes these killings are motivated by delusional beliefs. But the planning and preparation that goes into most mass shootings involves a degree of organization and forethought that we don’t typically see in those with severe psychotic disorders.

The other psychological explanation that satisfies some of a nonmedical population is that these killers “just snap.” This, too, is a term that is not included in our diagnostic vocabulary, but it remains a way for some to explain that which can’t be explained. If mental illness, however, is the cause of mass murders, then more stringent gun control is unnecessary. Every state already has a mechanism to prevent those with criminal and specified psychiatric histories from buying legal firearms, and it may be inevitable that these screens are not perfect. 

The next line of political thinking moves to the psychiatric “if only.” If only there were more state hospital beds and if only it were easier to compel people with psychiatric disorders to get treatment against their will, then we could eliminate these crimes. The Virginia tech shooter was mandated to get outpatient psychiatric treatment after a brief hospitalization, yet he never went and there was no mechanism in place to track him.

In cases where a person with a psychotic illness has a history of repeated violent episodes after stopping medications, it does make sense to mandate treatment, not because they are likely to shoot strangers, but because some people do become violent when they are ill and mental illness is believed to play a role in 10% of murders.

Mass murders remain rare, and while advocates for legislation that would make it easier to mandate involuntary care have cited violence prevention as a reason, it is hard to imagine that we would force people to get care because they “might” commit such a crime – unless there was convincing evidence that someone was at risk of committing such a heinous act.

For those who oppose stronger gun control laws, the “what if” may circulate around the need for even more firearms. What if teachers carried guns? What if schools were more heavily policed? What if the criminals were made to be afraid?

We are left with the fact that other countries do not see these numbers of mass shooting events, yet mental illness is ubiquitous. While the presence of psychiatric disorders does little to explain school shootings, we still have no understanding of what motivated the Sandy Hook killer, and it remains to be seen what we will come to understand about the gunman in Uvalde, Texas.

Mental illness is not unique to the United States; however, the number of available firearms is. In a country of 323 million people (including children and people who live in institutions where they have no access to firearms), there are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States, 98% of which are owned by civilians. 

Hate crimes and terrorism are another explanation for mass murders. In these instances, the gunman makes his motive obvious: There are social media announcements, or the site of the shooting is a synagogue, a mosque, or a location where the victims are of a specific race or religion. But hate may come out of a psychotic illness, and easy access to firearms allows for these crimes to continue. 

Firearms are now the No. 1 cause of mortality in children. Very few of these deaths are the result of mass murders. Many more are from accidental deaths, targeted crime, or suicide. Still, school shootings rip at our hearts. Neither the victims nor their grieving families have any role in the act, and suffering leaves its mark on families, communities, and all of us.
 

Are there answers?

In many states, physicians can now request emergency removal of firearms from the home of someone who is both mentally ill and threatening either suicide or homicide. During the era when high-capacity firearms were banned, from 1994 to 2004, mass murders decreased in our country. While most gunmen use legal firearms they have purchased, I would contend that “smart guns” – firearms that allow only the legal owner to operate them based on biometrics – would prevent some mass shootings and many accidents, crimes, and suicides. Universal background checks and tracking gun purchases in the way we monitor controlled medications, or even Sudafed, might allow authorities to predict who might be at risk of committing these heinous acts.

In his newly released book, Trigger Points: Inside the Mission to Stop Mass Murders in America, journalist Mark Follman argues for a proactive community approach using threat assessment methods and providing wraparound services to those who are deemed to be at risk for violent acts. Mr. Follman’s voice is one of the few out there saying that these events are not random and are, in fact, preventable.

In psychiatry, we struggle with school shootings such as the one we just saw in Uvalde. Our own hearts ache as we hold our children close and empathize with the loss of strangers who have been through the unthinkable. We help our patients as they process their emotions. And we wonder whether any of our patients might ever do anything so horrific. The feelings get complicated, the sadness and anger intermingle while the frustration builds, and we are left with our fears and the hope that if that very rare person were to walk through our office door, we would know what to do.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“It must be mental illness. My mind cannot possibly conceive of an alternative. A rational healthy mind cannot be capable of this, Doc.”

These were the opening words of one of many discussions that I had with patients in the wake of yet another gut-wrenching tragedy where we saw innocent children and their teachers murdered in school.

Courtesy of Mena Mirhom

Do any mass shooters have untreated mental illness?

There are data to suggest that of 14,785 murders studied in a database to track death by guns, 1,315 mass shootings were identified. Of these mass shootings, 11% of the shooters had serious mental illness. Could we have diagnosed those cases earlier? Intervened sooner? Offered more effective treatment? Certainly. Would that have explain away the rest of the cases? Unfortunately, no.

What is it, then?

The scary answer is that the people who are capable of doing this are not so far away. They are not the folks that we would image locking up in a “psych ward” and throwing away the key. They are, rather, people who are lonely, neglected, rejected, bullied, and broken down by life. Anger, hatred, racism, and evil may be ailments of the soul, but they are not mental illnesses. The carnage they produce is just as tangible. As a psychiatrist, I must admit to you that I do not have a good medication to treat these manifestations of the human condition.

What do we do as a society?

Gun reform is the first obvious and essential answer, without which little else is truly as impactful. We must advocate for it and fight tirelessly.

But at the time you will read this article, your disgruntled coworker will be able to walk into a local store in a moment of despair, anguish, and hopelessness and purchase a semiautomatic weapon of war.

What if we were to start seeing, as a society, that our lives are interwoven? What if we saw that our health is truly interdependent? The COVID-19 pandemic shattered many things in our lives, but one element in particular is our radical individualism. We saw that the choices you make certainly affect me and vice versa. We saw that public health is just that – a public matter, not a private one. We saw that there are some areas of our lives that force us to come together for our own survival.

Perhaps politicians will not save us here. Perhaps kindness will. Empathy can be as potent as legislation, and compassion as impactful as a Twitter hashtag. We each know a lonely coworker, an isolated neighbor, a bullied student, or someone beaten down by life.

What if some of the prevention is in fact in our hands? Together.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mena Mirhom, MD, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and teaches writing to public psychiatry fellows. He is a board-certified psychiatrist and a consultant for the National Basketball Players Association, treating NBA players and staff.

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

“It must be mental illness. My mind cannot possibly conceive of an alternative. A rational healthy mind cannot be capable of this, Doc.”

These were the opening words of one of many discussions that I had with patients in the wake of yet another gut-wrenching tragedy where we saw innocent children and their teachers murdered in school.

Courtesy of Mena Mirhom

Do any mass shooters have untreated mental illness?

There are data to suggest that of 14,785 murders studied in a database to track death by guns, 1,315 mass shootings were identified. Of these mass shootings, 11% of the shooters had serious mental illness. Could we have diagnosed those cases earlier? Intervened sooner? Offered more effective treatment? Certainly. Would that have explain away the rest of the cases? Unfortunately, no.

What is it, then?

The scary answer is that the people who are capable of doing this are not so far away. They are not the folks that we would image locking up in a “psych ward” and throwing away the key. They are, rather, people who are lonely, neglected, rejected, bullied, and broken down by life. Anger, hatred, racism, and evil may be ailments of the soul, but they are not mental illnesses. The carnage they produce is just as tangible. As a psychiatrist, I must admit to you that I do not have a good medication to treat these manifestations of the human condition.

What do we do as a society?

Gun reform is the first obvious and essential answer, without which little else is truly as impactful. We must advocate for it and fight tirelessly.

But at the time you will read this article, your disgruntled coworker will be able to walk into a local store in a moment of despair, anguish, and hopelessness and purchase a semiautomatic weapon of war.

What if we were to start seeing, as a society, that our lives are interwoven? What if we saw that our health is truly interdependent? The COVID-19 pandemic shattered many things in our lives, but one element in particular is our radical individualism. We saw that the choices you make certainly affect me and vice versa. We saw that public health is just that – a public matter, not a private one. We saw that there are some areas of our lives that force us to come together for our own survival.

Perhaps politicians will not save us here. Perhaps kindness will. Empathy can be as potent as legislation, and compassion as impactful as a Twitter hashtag. We each know a lonely coworker, an isolated neighbor, a bullied student, or someone beaten down by life.

What if some of the prevention is in fact in our hands? Together.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mena Mirhom, MD, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and teaches writing to public psychiatry fellows. He is a board-certified psychiatrist and a consultant for the National Basketball Players Association, treating NBA players and staff.

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

“It must be mental illness. My mind cannot possibly conceive of an alternative. A rational healthy mind cannot be capable of this, Doc.”

These were the opening words of one of many discussions that I had with patients in the wake of yet another gut-wrenching tragedy where we saw innocent children and their teachers murdered in school.

Courtesy of Mena Mirhom

Do any mass shooters have untreated mental illness?

There are data to suggest that of 14,785 murders studied in a database to track death by guns, 1,315 mass shootings were identified. Of these mass shootings, 11% of the shooters had serious mental illness. Could we have diagnosed those cases earlier? Intervened sooner? Offered more effective treatment? Certainly. Would that have explain away the rest of the cases? Unfortunately, no.

What is it, then?

The scary answer is that the people who are capable of doing this are not so far away. They are not the folks that we would image locking up in a “psych ward” and throwing away the key. They are, rather, people who are lonely, neglected, rejected, bullied, and broken down by life. Anger, hatred, racism, and evil may be ailments of the soul, but they are not mental illnesses. The carnage they produce is just as tangible. As a psychiatrist, I must admit to you that I do not have a good medication to treat these manifestations of the human condition.

What do we do as a society?

Gun reform is the first obvious and essential answer, without which little else is truly as impactful. We must advocate for it and fight tirelessly.

But at the time you will read this article, your disgruntled coworker will be able to walk into a local store in a moment of despair, anguish, and hopelessness and purchase a semiautomatic weapon of war.

What if we were to start seeing, as a society, that our lives are interwoven? What if we saw that our health is truly interdependent? The COVID-19 pandemic shattered many things in our lives, but one element in particular is our radical individualism. We saw that the choices you make certainly affect me and vice versa. We saw that public health is just that – a public matter, not a private one. We saw that there are some areas of our lives that force us to come together for our own survival.

Perhaps politicians will not save us here. Perhaps kindness will. Empathy can be as potent as legislation, and compassion as impactful as a Twitter hashtag. We each know a lonely coworker, an isolated neighbor, a bullied student, or someone beaten down by life.

What if some of the prevention is in fact in our hands? Together.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mena Mirhom, MD, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and teaches writing to public psychiatry fellows. He is a board-certified psychiatrist and a consultant for the National Basketball Players Association, treating NBA players and staff.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

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