Neonatal Medicine

Incubators save the lives of many babies, but new data suggest that the ambient noise associated with the incubator experience could put babies’ hearing and language development skills at risk.

Previous studies have shown that the neonatal intensive care unit is a noisy environment, but specific data on levels of sound inside and outside incubators are limited, wrote Christoph Reuter, MA, a musicology professor at the University of Vienna, and colleagues.

“By the age of 3 years, deficits in language acquisition are detectable in nearly 50% of very preterm infants,” and high levels of NICU noise have been cited as possible contributors to this increased risk, the researchers say.

In a study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, the researchers aimed to compare real-life NICU noise with previously reported levels to describe the sound characteristics and to identify resonance characteristics inside an incubator.

The study was conducted at the Pediatric Simulation Center at the Medical University of Vienna. The researchers placed a simulation mannequin with an ear microphone inside an incubator. They also placed microphones outside the incubator to collect measures of outside noise and activity involved in NICU care.

Data regarding sound were collected for 11 environmental noises and 12 incubator handlings using weighted and unweighted decibel levels. Specific environmental noises included starting the incubator engine; environmental noise with incubator off; environmental noise with incubator on; normal conversation; light conversation; laughter; telephone sounds; the infusion pump alarm; the monitor alarm (anomaly); the monitor alarm (emergency); and blood pressure measurement.

The 12 incubator handling noises included those associated with water flap, water pouring into the incubator, incubator doors opening properly, incubators doors closing properly, incubator doors closing improperly, hatch closing, hatch opening, incubator drawer, neighbor incubator doors closing (1.82 m distance), taking a stethoscope from the incubator wall, putting a stethoscope on the incubator, and suctioning tube. Noise from six levels of respiratory support was also measured.

The researchers reported that the incubator tended to dampen most sounds but also that some sounds resonated inside the incubator, which raised the interior noise level by as much as 28 decibels.

Most of the measures using both A-weighted decibels (dBA) and sound pressure level decibels (dBSPL) were above the 45-decibel level for neonatal sound exposure recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The measurements (dBA) versus unweighted (dBSPL) are limited in that they are designed to measure low levels of sound and therefore might underestimate proportions of high and low frequencies at stronger levels, the researchers acknowledge.

Overall, most measures were clustered in the 55-75 decibel range, although some sound levels for incubator handling, while below levels previously reported in the literature, reached approximately 100 decibels.

The noise involved inside the incubator was not perceived as loud by those working with the incubator, the researchers note.

As for resonance inside the incubator, the researchers measured a low-frequency main resonance of 97 Hz, but they write that this resonance can be hard to capture in weighted measurements. However, the resonance means that “noises from the outside sound more tonal inside the incubator, booming and muffled as well as less rough or noisy,” and sounds inside the incubator are similarly affected, the researchers say.

“Most of the noise situations described in this manuscript far exceed not only the recommendation of the AAP but also international guidelines provided by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” which recommend, respectively, maximum dBA levels of 35 dBA and 45 dBA for daytime and 30 dBA and 35 dBA for night, the researchers indicate.

Potential long-term implications are that babies who spend time in the NICU are at risk for hearing impairment, which could lead to delays in language acquisition, they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variance among the incubators, which prevents generalizability, the researchers note. Other limitations include the use of a simulation room rather than everyday conditions, in which the environmental sounds would likely be even louder.

However, the results provide insights into the specifics of incubator and NICU noise and suggest that sound be a consideration in the development and promotion of incubators to help protect the hearing of the infants inside them, the researchers conclude.
 

A generalist’s take

“This is an interesting study looking at the level and character of the sound experienced by preterm infants inside an incubator and how it may compare to sounds experienced within the mother’s womb,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

In society at large, “there has been more focus lately on the general environment and its effect on health, and this study is a unique take on this concept,” he said. “Although in general the incubators work to dampen external sounds, low-frequency sounds may actually resonate more inside the incubators, and taps on the outside or inside of the incubator itself are amplified within the incubator,” he noted. “It is sad but not surprising that the decibel levels experienced by the infants in the incubators exceed the recommended levels recommended by AAP.”

As for additional research, “it would be interesting to see the results of trials looking at various short- or long-term outcomes experienced by infants exposed to a lower-level noise compared to the current levels,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.
 

A neonatologist’s perspective

“As the field of neonatology advances, we are caring for an ever-growing number of extremely preterm infants,” said Caitlin M. Drumm, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“These infants will spend the first few months of their lives within an incubator in the neonatal intensive care unit, so it is important to understand the potential long-term implications of environmental effects on these vulnerable patients,” she said.

“As in prior studies, it was not surprising that essentially every environmental, handling, or respiratory intervention led to noise levels higher than the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Dr. Drumm said. “What was surprising was just how high above the 45-dB recommended noise limit many environmental stimuli are. For example, the authors cite respiratory flow rates of 8 L/min or higher as risky for hearing health at 84.72 dBSPL, “ she said.

The key message for clinicians is to be aware of noise levels in the NICU, Dr. Drumm said. “Environmental stimuli as simple as putting a stethoscope on the incubator lead to noise levels well above the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The entire NICU care team has a role to play in minimizing environmental sound hazards for our most critically ill patients.”

Looking ahead, “future research should focus on providing more information correlating neonatal environmental sound exposure to long-term hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Joos serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Drumm has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incubators save the lives of many babies, but new data suggest that the ambient noise associated with the incubator experience could put babies’ hearing and language development skills at risk.

Previous studies have shown that the neonatal intensive care unit is a noisy environment, but specific data on levels of sound inside and outside incubators are limited, wrote Christoph Reuter, MA, a musicology professor at the University of Vienna, and colleagues.

“By the age of 3 years, deficits in language acquisition are detectable in nearly 50% of very preterm infants,” and high levels of NICU noise have been cited as possible contributors to this increased risk, the researchers say.

In a study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, the researchers aimed to compare real-life NICU noise with previously reported levels to describe the sound characteristics and to identify resonance characteristics inside an incubator.

The study was conducted at the Pediatric Simulation Center at the Medical University of Vienna. The researchers placed a simulation mannequin with an ear microphone inside an incubator. They also placed microphones outside the incubator to collect measures of outside noise and activity involved in NICU care.

Data regarding sound were collected for 11 environmental noises and 12 incubator handlings using weighted and unweighted decibel levels. Specific environmental noises included starting the incubator engine; environmental noise with incubator off; environmental noise with incubator on; normal conversation; light conversation; laughter; telephone sounds; the infusion pump alarm; the monitor alarm (anomaly); the monitor alarm (emergency); and blood pressure measurement.

The 12 incubator handling noises included those associated with water flap, water pouring into the incubator, incubator doors opening properly, incubators doors closing properly, incubator doors closing improperly, hatch closing, hatch opening, incubator drawer, neighbor incubator doors closing (1.82 m distance), taking a stethoscope from the incubator wall, putting a stethoscope on the incubator, and suctioning tube. Noise from six levels of respiratory support was also measured.

The researchers reported that the incubator tended to dampen most sounds but also that some sounds resonated inside the incubator, which raised the interior noise level by as much as 28 decibels.

Most of the measures using both A-weighted decibels (dBA) and sound pressure level decibels (dBSPL) were above the 45-decibel level for neonatal sound exposure recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The measurements (dBA) versus unweighted (dBSPL) are limited in that they are designed to measure low levels of sound and therefore might underestimate proportions of high and low frequencies at stronger levels, the researchers acknowledge.

Overall, most measures were clustered in the 55-75 decibel range, although some sound levels for incubator handling, while below levels previously reported in the literature, reached approximately 100 decibels.

The noise involved inside the incubator was not perceived as loud by those working with the incubator, the researchers note.

As for resonance inside the incubator, the researchers measured a low-frequency main resonance of 97 Hz, but they write that this resonance can be hard to capture in weighted measurements. However, the resonance means that “noises from the outside sound more tonal inside the incubator, booming and muffled as well as less rough or noisy,” and sounds inside the incubator are similarly affected, the researchers say.

“Most of the noise situations described in this manuscript far exceed not only the recommendation of the AAP but also international guidelines provided by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” which recommend, respectively, maximum dBA levels of 35 dBA and 45 dBA for daytime and 30 dBA and 35 dBA for night, the researchers indicate.

Potential long-term implications are that babies who spend time in the NICU are at risk for hearing impairment, which could lead to delays in language acquisition, they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variance among the incubators, which prevents generalizability, the researchers note. Other limitations include the use of a simulation room rather than everyday conditions, in which the environmental sounds would likely be even louder.

However, the results provide insights into the specifics of incubator and NICU noise and suggest that sound be a consideration in the development and promotion of incubators to help protect the hearing of the infants inside them, the researchers conclude.
 

A generalist’s take

“This is an interesting study looking at the level and character of the sound experienced by preterm infants inside an incubator and how it may compare to sounds experienced within the mother’s womb,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

In society at large, “there has been more focus lately on the general environment and its effect on health, and this study is a unique take on this concept,” he said. “Although in general the incubators work to dampen external sounds, low-frequency sounds may actually resonate more inside the incubators, and taps on the outside or inside of the incubator itself are amplified within the incubator,” he noted. “It is sad but not surprising that the decibel levels experienced by the infants in the incubators exceed the recommended levels recommended by AAP.”

As for additional research, “it would be interesting to see the results of trials looking at various short- or long-term outcomes experienced by infants exposed to a lower-level noise compared to the current levels,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.
 

A neonatologist’s perspective

“As the field of neonatology advances, we are caring for an ever-growing number of extremely preterm infants,” said Caitlin M. Drumm, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“These infants will spend the first few months of their lives within an incubator in the neonatal intensive care unit, so it is important to understand the potential long-term implications of environmental effects on these vulnerable patients,” she said.

“As in prior studies, it was not surprising that essentially every environmental, handling, or respiratory intervention led to noise levels higher than the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Dr. Drumm said. “What was surprising was just how high above the 45-dB recommended noise limit many environmental stimuli are. For example, the authors cite respiratory flow rates of 8 L/min or higher as risky for hearing health at 84.72 dBSPL, “ she said.

The key message for clinicians is to be aware of noise levels in the NICU, Dr. Drumm said. “Environmental stimuli as simple as putting a stethoscope on the incubator lead to noise levels well above the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The entire NICU care team has a role to play in minimizing environmental sound hazards for our most critically ill patients.”

Looking ahead, “future research should focus on providing more information correlating neonatal environmental sound exposure to long-term hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Joos serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Drumm has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incubators save the lives of many babies, but new data suggest that the ambient noise associated with the incubator experience could put babies’ hearing and language development skills at risk.

Previous studies have shown that the neonatal intensive care unit is a noisy environment, but specific data on levels of sound inside and outside incubators are limited, wrote Christoph Reuter, MA, a musicology professor at the University of Vienna, and colleagues.

“By the age of 3 years, deficits in language acquisition are detectable in nearly 50% of very preterm infants,” and high levels of NICU noise have been cited as possible contributors to this increased risk, the researchers say.

In a study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, the researchers aimed to compare real-life NICU noise with previously reported levels to describe the sound characteristics and to identify resonance characteristics inside an incubator.

The study was conducted at the Pediatric Simulation Center at the Medical University of Vienna. The researchers placed a simulation mannequin with an ear microphone inside an incubator. They also placed microphones outside the incubator to collect measures of outside noise and activity involved in NICU care.

Data regarding sound were collected for 11 environmental noises and 12 incubator handlings using weighted and unweighted decibel levels. Specific environmental noises included starting the incubator engine; environmental noise with incubator off; environmental noise with incubator on; normal conversation; light conversation; laughter; telephone sounds; the infusion pump alarm; the monitor alarm (anomaly); the monitor alarm (emergency); and blood pressure measurement.

The 12 incubator handling noises included those associated with water flap, water pouring into the incubator, incubator doors opening properly, incubators doors closing properly, incubator doors closing improperly, hatch closing, hatch opening, incubator drawer, neighbor incubator doors closing (1.82 m distance), taking a stethoscope from the incubator wall, putting a stethoscope on the incubator, and suctioning tube. Noise from six levels of respiratory support was also measured.

The researchers reported that the incubator tended to dampen most sounds but also that some sounds resonated inside the incubator, which raised the interior noise level by as much as 28 decibels.

Most of the measures using both A-weighted decibels (dBA) and sound pressure level decibels (dBSPL) were above the 45-decibel level for neonatal sound exposure recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The measurements (dBA) versus unweighted (dBSPL) are limited in that they are designed to measure low levels of sound and therefore might underestimate proportions of high and low frequencies at stronger levels, the researchers acknowledge.

Overall, most measures were clustered in the 55-75 decibel range, although some sound levels for incubator handling, while below levels previously reported in the literature, reached approximately 100 decibels.

The noise involved inside the incubator was not perceived as loud by those working with the incubator, the researchers note.

As for resonance inside the incubator, the researchers measured a low-frequency main resonance of 97 Hz, but they write that this resonance can be hard to capture in weighted measurements. However, the resonance means that “noises from the outside sound more tonal inside the incubator, booming and muffled as well as less rough or noisy,” and sounds inside the incubator are similarly affected, the researchers say.

“Most of the noise situations described in this manuscript far exceed not only the recommendation of the AAP but also international guidelines provided by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” which recommend, respectively, maximum dBA levels of 35 dBA and 45 dBA for daytime and 30 dBA and 35 dBA for night, the researchers indicate.

Potential long-term implications are that babies who spend time in the NICU are at risk for hearing impairment, which could lead to delays in language acquisition, they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variance among the incubators, which prevents generalizability, the researchers note. Other limitations include the use of a simulation room rather than everyday conditions, in which the environmental sounds would likely be even louder.

However, the results provide insights into the specifics of incubator and NICU noise and suggest that sound be a consideration in the development and promotion of incubators to help protect the hearing of the infants inside them, the researchers conclude.
 

A generalist’s take

“This is an interesting study looking at the level and character of the sound experienced by preterm infants inside an incubator and how it may compare to sounds experienced within the mother’s womb,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

In society at large, “there has been more focus lately on the general environment and its effect on health, and this study is a unique take on this concept,” he said. “Although in general the incubators work to dampen external sounds, low-frequency sounds may actually resonate more inside the incubators, and taps on the outside or inside of the incubator itself are amplified within the incubator,” he noted. “It is sad but not surprising that the decibel levels experienced by the infants in the incubators exceed the recommended levels recommended by AAP.”

As for additional research, “it would be interesting to see the results of trials looking at various short- or long-term outcomes experienced by infants exposed to a lower-level noise compared to the current levels,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.
 

A neonatologist’s perspective

“As the field of neonatology advances, we are caring for an ever-growing number of extremely preterm infants,” said Caitlin M. Drumm, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“These infants will spend the first few months of their lives within an incubator in the neonatal intensive care unit, so it is important to understand the potential long-term implications of environmental effects on these vulnerable patients,” she said.

“As in prior studies, it was not surprising that essentially every environmental, handling, or respiratory intervention led to noise levels higher than the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Dr. Drumm said. “What was surprising was just how high above the 45-dB recommended noise limit many environmental stimuli are. For example, the authors cite respiratory flow rates of 8 L/min or higher as risky for hearing health at 84.72 dBSPL, “ she said.

The key message for clinicians is to be aware of noise levels in the NICU, Dr. Drumm said. “Environmental stimuli as simple as putting a stethoscope on the incubator lead to noise levels well above the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The entire NICU care team has a role to play in minimizing environmental sound hazards for our most critically ill patients.”

Looking ahead, “future research should focus on providing more information correlating neonatal environmental sound exposure to long-term hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Joos serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Drumm has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have found for the first time that COVID infection has crossed the placenta and caused brain damage in two newborns, according to a study published online today in Pediatrics .

One of the infants died at 13 months and the other remained in hospice care at time of manuscript submission.

Lead author Merline Benny, MD, with the division of neonatology, department of pediatrics at University of Miami, and colleagues briefed reporters today ahead of the release.

Zelda Calvert

“This is a first,” said senior author Shahnaz Duara, MD, medical director of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Holtz Children’s Hospital, Miami, explaining it is the first study to confirm cross-placental SARS-CoV-2 transmission leading to brain injury in a newborn.
 

Both infants negative for the virus at birth

The two infants were admitted in the early days of the pandemic in the Delta wave to the neonatal ICU at Holtz Children’s Hospital at University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center.

Both infants tested negative for the virus at birth, but had significantly elevated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in their blood, indicating that either antibodies crossed the placenta, or the virus crossed and the immune response was the baby’s.

Dr. Benny explained that the researchers have seen, to this point, more than 700 mother/infant pairs in whom the mother tested positive for COVID in Jackson hospital.

Most who tested positive for COVID were asymptomatic and most of the mothers and infants left the hospital without complications.

“However, (these) two babies had a very unusual clinical picture,” Dr. Benny said.

Those infants were born to mothers who became COVID positive in the second trimester and delivered a few weeks later.

Seizures started on day 1 of life

The babies began to seize from the first day of life. They had profound low tone (hypotonia) in their clinical exam, Dr. Benny explained.

“We had absolutely no good explanation for the early seizures and the degree of brain injury we saw,” Dr. Duara said.

Dr. Benny said that as their bodies grew, they had very small head circumference. Unlike some babies born with the Zika virus, these babies were not microcephalic at birth. Brain imaging on the two babies indicated significant brain atrophy, and neurodevelopment exams showed significant delay.

Discussions began with the center’s multidisciplinary team including neurologists, pathologists, neuroradiologists, and obstetricians who cared for both the mothers and the babies.

The experts examined the placentas and found some characteristic COVID changes and presence of the COVID virus. This was accompanied by increased markers for inflammation and a severe reduction in a hormone critical for placental health and brain development.

Examining the infant’s autopsy findings further raised suspicions of maternal transmission, something that had not been documented before.

Coauthor Ali G. Saad, MD, pediatric and perinatal pathology director at Miami, said, “I have seen literally thousands of brains in autopsies over the last 14 years, and this was the most dramatic case of leukoencephalopathy or loss of white matter in a patient with no significant reason. That’s what triggered the investigation.”
 

Mothers had very different presentations

Coauthor Michael J. Paidas, MD, with the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Miami, pointed out that the circumstances of the two mothers, who were in their 20s, were very different.

One mother delivered at 32 weeks and had a very severe COVID presentation and spent a month in the intensive care unit. The team decided to deliver the child to save the mother, Dr. Paidas said.

In contrast, the other mother had asymptomatic COVID infection in the second trimester and delivered at full term.

He said one of the early suspicions in the babies’ presentations was hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. “But it wasn’t lack of blood flow to the placenta that caused this,” he said. “As best we can tell, it was the viral infection.”
 

Instances are rare

The researchers emphasized that these instances are rare and have not been seen before or since the period of this study to their knowledge.

Dr. Duara said, “This is something we want to alert the medical community to more than the general public. We do not want the lay public to be panicked. We’re trying to understand what made these two pregnancies different, so we can direct research towards protecting vulnerable babies.”

Previous data have indicated a relatively benign status in infants who test negative for the COVID virus after birth. Dr. Benny added that COVID vaccination has been found safe in pregnancy and both vaccination and breastfeeding can help passage of antibodies to the infant and help protect the baby. Because these cases happened in the early days of the pandemic, no vaccines were available.

Dr. Paidas received funding from BioIncept to study hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy with Preimplantation Factor, is a scientific advisory board member, and has stock options. Dr. Paidas and coauthor Dr. Jayakumar are coinventors of SPIKENET, University of Miami, patent pending 2023. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Researchers have found for the first time that COVID infection has crossed the placenta and caused brain damage in two newborns, according to a study published online today in Pediatrics .

One of the infants died at 13 months and the other remained in hospice care at time of manuscript submission.

Lead author Merline Benny, MD, with the division of neonatology, department of pediatrics at University of Miami, and colleagues briefed reporters today ahead of the release.

Zelda Calvert

“This is a first,” said senior author Shahnaz Duara, MD, medical director of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Holtz Children’s Hospital, Miami, explaining it is the first study to confirm cross-placental SARS-CoV-2 transmission leading to brain injury in a newborn.
 

Both infants negative for the virus at birth

The two infants were admitted in the early days of the pandemic in the Delta wave to the neonatal ICU at Holtz Children’s Hospital at University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center.

Both infants tested negative for the virus at birth, but had significantly elevated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in their blood, indicating that either antibodies crossed the placenta, or the virus crossed and the immune response was the baby’s.

Dr. Benny explained that the researchers have seen, to this point, more than 700 mother/infant pairs in whom the mother tested positive for COVID in Jackson hospital.

Most who tested positive for COVID were asymptomatic and most of the mothers and infants left the hospital without complications.

“However, (these) two babies had a very unusual clinical picture,” Dr. Benny said.

Those infants were born to mothers who became COVID positive in the second trimester and delivered a few weeks later.

Seizures started on day 1 of life

The babies began to seize from the first day of life. They had profound low tone (hypotonia) in their clinical exam, Dr. Benny explained.

“We had absolutely no good explanation for the early seizures and the degree of brain injury we saw,” Dr. Duara said.

Dr. Benny said that as their bodies grew, they had very small head circumference. Unlike some babies born with the Zika virus, these babies were not microcephalic at birth. Brain imaging on the two babies indicated significant brain atrophy, and neurodevelopment exams showed significant delay.

Discussions began with the center’s multidisciplinary team including neurologists, pathologists, neuroradiologists, and obstetricians who cared for both the mothers and the babies.

The experts examined the placentas and found some characteristic COVID changes and presence of the COVID virus. This was accompanied by increased markers for inflammation and a severe reduction in a hormone critical for placental health and brain development.

Examining the infant’s autopsy findings further raised suspicions of maternal transmission, something that had not been documented before.

Coauthor Ali G. Saad, MD, pediatric and perinatal pathology director at Miami, said, “I have seen literally thousands of brains in autopsies over the last 14 years, and this was the most dramatic case of leukoencephalopathy or loss of white matter in a patient with no significant reason. That’s what triggered the investigation.”
 

Mothers had very different presentations

Coauthor Michael J. Paidas, MD, with the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Miami, pointed out that the circumstances of the two mothers, who were in their 20s, were very different.

One mother delivered at 32 weeks and had a very severe COVID presentation and spent a month in the intensive care unit. The team decided to deliver the child to save the mother, Dr. Paidas said.

In contrast, the other mother had asymptomatic COVID infection in the second trimester and delivered at full term.

He said one of the early suspicions in the babies’ presentations was hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. “But it wasn’t lack of blood flow to the placenta that caused this,” he said. “As best we can tell, it was the viral infection.”
 

Instances are rare

The researchers emphasized that these instances are rare and have not been seen before or since the period of this study to their knowledge.

Dr. Duara said, “This is something we want to alert the medical community to more than the general public. We do not want the lay public to be panicked. We’re trying to understand what made these two pregnancies different, so we can direct research towards protecting vulnerable babies.”

Previous data have indicated a relatively benign status in infants who test negative for the COVID virus after birth. Dr. Benny added that COVID vaccination has been found safe in pregnancy and both vaccination and breastfeeding can help passage of antibodies to the infant and help protect the baby. Because these cases happened in the early days of the pandemic, no vaccines were available.

Dr. Paidas received funding from BioIncept to study hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy with Preimplantation Factor, is a scientific advisory board member, and has stock options. Dr. Paidas and coauthor Dr. Jayakumar are coinventors of SPIKENET, University of Miami, patent pending 2023. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Researchers have found for the first time that COVID infection has crossed the placenta and caused brain damage in two newborns, according to a study published online today in Pediatrics .

One of the infants died at 13 months and the other remained in hospice care at time of manuscript submission.

Lead author Merline Benny, MD, with the division of neonatology, department of pediatrics at University of Miami, and colleagues briefed reporters today ahead of the release.

Zelda Calvert

“This is a first,” said senior author Shahnaz Duara, MD, medical director of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Holtz Children’s Hospital, Miami, explaining it is the first study to confirm cross-placental SARS-CoV-2 transmission leading to brain injury in a newborn.
 

Both infants negative for the virus at birth

The two infants were admitted in the early days of the pandemic in the Delta wave to the neonatal ICU at Holtz Children’s Hospital at University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center.

Both infants tested negative for the virus at birth, but had significantly elevated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in their blood, indicating that either antibodies crossed the placenta, or the virus crossed and the immune response was the baby’s.

Dr. Benny explained that the researchers have seen, to this point, more than 700 mother/infant pairs in whom the mother tested positive for COVID in Jackson hospital.

Most who tested positive for COVID were asymptomatic and most of the mothers and infants left the hospital without complications.

“However, (these) two babies had a very unusual clinical picture,” Dr. Benny said.

Those infants were born to mothers who became COVID positive in the second trimester and delivered a few weeks later.

Seizures started on day 1 of life

The babies began to seize from the first day of life. They had profound low tone (hypotonia) in their clinical exam, Dr. Benny explained.

“We had absolutely no good explanation for the early seizures and the degree of brain injury we saw,” Dr. Duara said.

Dr. Benny said that as their bodies grew, they had very small head circumference. Unlike some babies born with the Zika virus, these babies were not microcephalic at birth. Brain imaging on the two babies indicated significant brain atrophy, and neurodevelopment exams showed significant delay.

Discussions began with the center’s multidisciplinary team including neurologists, pathologists, neuroradiologists, and obstetricians who cared for both the mothers and the babies.

The experts examined the placentas and found some characteristic COVID changes and presence of the COVID virus. This was accompanied by increased markers for inflammation and a severe reduction in a hormone critical for placental health and brain development.

Examining the infant’s autopsy findings further raised suspicions of maternal transmission, something that had not been documented before.

Coauthor Ali G. Saad, MD, pediatric and perinatal pathology director at Miami, said, “I have seen literally thousands of brains in autopsies over the last 14 years, and this was the most dramatic case of leukoencephalopathy or loss of white matter in a patient with no significant reason. That’s what triggered the investigation.”
 

Mothers had very different presentations

Coauthor Michael J. Paidas, MD, with the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Miami, pointed out that the circumstances of the two mothers, who were in their 20s, were very different.

One mother delivered at 32 weeks and had a very severe COVID presentation and spent a month in the intensive care unit. The team decided to deliver the child to save the mother, Dr. Paidas said.

In contrast, the other mother had asymptomatic COVID infection in the second trimester and delivered at full term.

He said one of the early suspicions in the babies’ presentations was hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. “But it wasn’t lack of blood flow to the placenta that caused this,” he said. “As best we can tell, it was the viral infection.”
 

Instances are rare

The researchers emphasized that these instances are rare and have not been seen before or since the period of this study to their knowledge.

Dr. Duara said, “This is something we want to alert the medical community to more than the general public. We do not want the lay public to be panicked. We’re trying to understand what made these two pregnancies different, so we can direct research towards protecting vulnerable babies.”

Previous data have indicated a relatively benign status in infants who test negative for the COVID virus after birth. Dr. Benny added that COVID vaccination has been found safe in pregnancy and both vaccination and breastfeeding can help passage of antibodies to the infant and help protect the baby. Because these cases happened in the early days of the pandemic, no vaccines were available.

Dr. Paidas received funding from BioIncept to study hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy with Preimplantation Factor, is a scientific advisory board member, and has stock options. Dr. Paidas and coauthor Dr. Jayakumar are coinventors of SPIKENET, University of Miami, patent pending 2023. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

An intervention tailored for Black first-time mothers helped increase their infants’ sleep time, researchers have found, a notable result as many studies have shown Black infants get less sleep on average than White infants.

Less sleep has historically put Black children at higher risk for negative outcomes including obesity and poorer social-emotional functioning and cognitive development. These disparities persist into adulthood, the researchers note, as previous studies have shown.

Justin A. Lavner, PhD, with the department of psychology at the University of Georgia in Athens, led this post hoc secondary analysis of the Sleep SAAF (Strong African American Families) study, a randomized clinical trial of 234 participants comparing a responsive parenting (RP) intervention with a safety control group over the first 16 weeks post partum. The original analysis studied the effects of the intervention on rapid weight gain.

In the original analysis, the authors write that “From birth to 2, the prevalence of high weight for length (above the 95th percentile) is 25% higher among African American children compared to White children. From age 2 to 19, the rate of obesity is more than 50% higher among African American children compared to White children. Similar disparities persist into adulthood: rates of obesity are approximately 25% higher among African American adults compared to White adults.”

The differences in early rapid weight gain may be driving the disparities, the authors write.

Elements of the intervention

The intervention in the current analysis included materials delivered at the 3- and 8-week home visits focused on soothing and crying, feeding, and interactive play in the babies’ first months. Families were recruited from Augusta University Medical Center in Augusta, Ga., and had home visits at 1, 3, 8, and 16 weeks post partum.

Mothers got a packet of handouts and facilitators walked through the information with them. The measures involved hands-on activities, discussion, and videos, all tailored for Black families, the authors state.

Mothers were taught about responding appropriately at night when their baby cries, including giving the baby a couple of minutes to fall back to sleep independently and by using calming messages, such as shushing or white noise, before picking the baby up.
 

Babies learn to fall asleep on their own

They also learned to put infants to bed early (ideally by 8 p.m.) so the babies would be calm but awake and could learn to fall asleep on their own.

The control group’s guidance was matched for intensity and session length but focused on sleep and home safety, such as reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), keeping the baby’s sleep area close to, but away from, the mother’s bed, and preventing shaken baby syndrome.

In both groups, the 3-week visit session lasted about 90-120 minutes and the 8-week visit lasted about 45-60 minutes.
 

Longer sleep with the intervention

A total of 212 Black mothers, average age 22.7, were randomized – 108 to the RP group and 104 to the control group. Answers on questionnaires were analyzed and at 16 weeks post partum, infants in the RP group (relative to controls) had:

• Longer reported nighttime sleep (mean difference, 40 minutes [95% confidence interval, 3-77]).
• Longer total sleep duration (mean difference, 73 minutes [95% CI, 14-131]).
• Fewer nighttime wakings (mean difference, −0.4 wakings [95% CI, −0.6 to −0.1]).
• Greater likelihood of meeting guidelines of at least 12 hours of sleep per day (risk ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8]) than controls.

Findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

Additionally, mothers in the RP group more frequently reported they engaged in practices such as letting babies have a few minutes to fall back to sleep on their own (RR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.0-2.6]) and being less likely to feed their infant just before the baby’s bedtime (RR, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.3-0.8]).

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sarah M. Honaker, PhD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and Alicia Chung, EdD, Center for Early Childhood Health and Development at New York University, write that though the added average sleep duration is one of the most significant findings, there is a possibility of desirability bias because it was reported by the mothers after specific guidance by the facilitators.

“Nonetheless,” the editorialists write, “even if the true effect were half as small, this additional sleep duration could yield notable benefits in infant development if the effect persisted over time. The difference in night wakings between the intervention and control groups (1.8 vs 1.5 per night) at 16 weeks postpartum was statistically significant, though it is unclear whether this difference is clinically meaningful to families.”

They note that it is unclear from the study how the intervention was culturally adapted and how the adaptation might have affected outcomes.

Sleep intervention trials have focused on White families

The editorialists write that much is known about the benefits of behavioral sleep intervention in controlled trials and general population settings, and no adverse effects on infant attachment or cortisol levels have been linked to the interventions.

However, they add, “Unfortunately, this substantial progress in our understanding of infant BSI [behavioral sleep intervention] comes with a caveat, in that most previous studies have been performed with White families from mid-to-high socioeconomic backgrounds.”

Dr. Honaker and Dr. Chung write, “[I]t is important to note that much work remains to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of infant BSI in other groups that have been historically marginalized.”

Dr. Lavner and colleagues point out that before their study, there had been little emphasis on interventions to encourage better sleep in general for Black infants, “as most early sleep interventions for this population have focused on SIDS prevention.”

The study by Dr. Lavner et al. was funded by the National Institutes of Health, a Harrington Faculty Fellowship from the University of Texas, and an award from the Penn State Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Editorialist Dr. Honaker reported receiving grants from Nationwide Children’s Hospital (parent grant, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to evaluate the acceptability of infant behavioral sleep intervention in Black families.

An intervention tailored for Black first-time mothers helped increase their infants’ sleep time, researchers have found, a notable result as many studies have shown Black infants get less sleep on average than White infants.

Less sleep has historically put Black children at higher risk for negative outcomes including obesity and poorer social-emotional functioning and cognitive development. These disparities persist into adulthood, the researchers note, as previous studies have shown.

Justin A. Lavner, PhD, with the department of psychology at the University of Georgia in Athens, led this post hoc secondary analysis of the Sleep SAAF (Strong African American Families) study, a randomized clinical trial of 234 participants comparing a responsive parenting (RP) intervention with a safety control group over the first 16 weeks post partum. The original analysis studied the effects of the intervention on rapid weight gain.

In the original analysis, the authors write that “From birth to 2, the prevalence of high weight for length (above the 95th percentile) is 25% higher among African American children compared to White children. From age 2 to 19, the rate of obesity is more than 50% higher among African American children compared to White children. Similar disparities persist into adulthood: rates of obesity are approximately 25% higher among African American adults compared to White adults.”

The differences in early rapid weight gain may be driving the disparities, the authors write.

Elements of the intervention

The intervention in the current analysis included materials delivered at the 3- and 8-week home visits focused on soothing and crying, feeding, and interactive play in the babies’ first months. Families were recruited from Augusta University Medical Center in Augusta, Ga., and had home visits at 1, 3, 8, and 16 weeks post partum.

Mothers got a packet of handouts and facilitators walked through the information with them. The measures involved hands-on activities, discussion, and videos, all tailored for Black families, the authors state.

Mothers were taught about responding appropriately at night when their baby cries, including giving the baby a couple of minutes to fall back to sleep independently and by using calming messages, such as shushing or white noise, before picking the baby up.
 

Babies learn to fall asleep on their own

They also learned to put infants to bed early (ideally by 8 p.m.) so the babies would be calm but awake and could learn to fall asleep on their own.

The control group’s guidance was matched for intensity and session length but focused on sleep and home safety, such as reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), keeping the baby’s sleep area close to, but away from, the mother’s bed, and preventing shaken baby syndrome.

In both groups, the 3-week visit session lasted about 90-120 minutes and the 8-week visit lasted about 45-60 minutes.
 

Longer sleep with the intervention

A total of 212 Black mothers, average age 22.7, were randomized – 108 to the RP group and 104 to the control group. Answers on questionnaires were analyzed and at 16 weeks post partum, infants in the RP group (relative to controls) had:

• Longer reported nighttime sleep (mean difference, 40 minutes [95% confidence interval, 3-77]).
• Longer total sleep duration (mean difference, 73 minutes [95% CI, 14-131]).
• Fewer nighttime wakings (mean difference, −0.4 wakings [95% CI, −0.6 to −0.1]).
• Greater likelihood of meeting guidelines of at least 12 hours of sleep per day (risk ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8]) than controls.

Findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

Additionally, mothers in the RP group more frequently reported they engaged in practices such as letting babies have a few minutes to fall back to sleep on their own (RR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.0-2.6]) and being less likely to feed their infant just before the baby’s bedtime (RR, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.3-0.8]).

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sarah M. Honaker, PhD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and Alicia Chung, EdD, Center for Early Childhood Health and Development at New York University, write that though the added average sleep duration is one of the most significant findings, there is a possibility of desirability bias because it was reported by the mothers after specific guidance by the facilitators.

“Nonetheless,” the editorialists write, “even if the true effect were half as small, this additional sleep duration could yield notable benefits in infant development if the effect persisted over time. The difference in night wakings between the intervention and control groups (1.8 vs 1.5 per night) at 16 weeks postpartum was statistically significant, though it is unclear whether this difference is clinically meaningful to families.”

They note that it is unclear from the study how the intervention was culturally adapted and how the adaptation might have affected outcomes.

Sleep intervention trials have focused on White families

The editorialists write that much is known about the benefits of behavioral sleep intervention in controlled trials and general population settings, and no adverse effects on infant attachment or cortisol levels have been linked to the interventions.

However, they add, “Unfortunately, this substantial progress in our understanding of infant BSI [behavioral sleep intervention] comes with a caveat, in that most previous studies have been performed with White families from mid-to-high socioeconomic backgrounds.”

Dr. Honaker and Dr. Chung write, “[I]t is important to note that much work remains to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of infant BSI in other groups that have been historically marginalized.”

Dr. Lavner and colleagues point out that before their study, there had been little emphasis on interventions to encourage better sleep in general for Black infants, “as most early sleep interventions for this population have focused on SIDS prevention.”

The study by Dr. Lavner et al. was funded by the National Institutes of Health, a Harrington Faculty Fellowship from the University of Texas, and an award from the Penn State Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Editorialist Dr. Honaker reported receiving grants from Nationwide Children’s Hospital (parent grant, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to evaluate the acceptability of infant behavioral sleep intervention in Black families.

An intervention tailored for Black first-time mothers helped increase their infants’ sleep time, researchers have found, a notable result as many studies have shown Black infants get less sleep on average than White infants.

Less sleep has historically put Black children at higher risk for negative outcomes including obesity and poorer social-emotional functioning and cognitive development. These disparities persist into adulthood, the researchers note, as previous studies have shown.

Justin A. Lavner, PhD, with the department of psychology at the University of Georgia in Athens, led this post hoc secondary analysis of the Sleep SAAF (Strong African American Families) study, a randomized clinical trial of 234 participants comparing a responsive parenting (RP) intervention with a safety control group over the first 16 weeks post partum. The original analysis studied the effects of the intervention on rapid weight gain.

In the original analysis, the authors write that “From birth to 2, the prevalence of high weight for length (above the 95th percentile) is 25% higher among African American children compared to White children. From age 2 to 19, the rate of obesity is more than 50% higher among African American children compared to White children. Similar disparities persist into adulthood: rates of obesity are approximately 25% higher among African American adults compared to White adults.”

The differences in early rapid weight gain may be driving the disparities, the authors write.

Elements of the intervention

The intervention in the current analysis included materials delivered at the 3- and 8-week home visits focused on soothing and crying, feeding, and interactive play in the babies’ first months. Families were recruited from Augusta University Medical Center in Augusta, Ga., and had home visits at 1, 3, 8, and 16 weeks post partum.

Mothers got a packet of handouts and facilitators walked through the information with them. The measures involved hands-on activities, discussion, and videos, all tailored for Black families, the authors state.

Mothers were taught about responding appropriately at night when their baby cries, including giving the baby a couple of minutes to fall back to sleep independently and by using calming messages, such as shushing or white noise, before picking the baby up.
 

Babies learn to fall asleep on their own

They also learned to put infants to bed early (ideally by 8 p.m.) so the babies would be calm but awake and could learn to fall asleep on their own.

The control group’s guidance was matched for intensity and session length but focused on sleep and home safety, such as reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), keeping the baby’s sleep area close to, but away from, the mother’s bed, and preventing shaken baby syndrome.

In both groups, the 3-week visit session lasted about 90-120 minutes and the 8-week visit lasted about 45-60 minutes.
 

Longer sleep with the intervention

A total of 212 Black mothers, average age 22.7, were randomized – 108 to the RP group and 104 to the control group. Answers on questionnaires were analyzed and at 16 weeks post partum, infants in the RP group (relative to controls) had:

• Longer reported nighttime sleep (mean difference, 40 minutes [95% confidence interval, 3-77]).
• Longer total sleep duration (mean difference, 73 minutes [95% CI, 14-131]).
• Fewer nighttime wakings (mean difference, −0.4 wakings [95% CI, −0.6 to −0.1]).
• Greater likelihood of meeting guidelines of at least 12 hours of sleep per day (risk ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8]) than controls.

Findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

Additionally, mothers in the RP group more frequently reported they engaged in practices such as letting babies have a few minutes to fall back to sleep on their own (RR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.0-2.6]) and being less likely to feed their infant just before the baby’s bedtime (RR, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.3-0.8]).

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sarah M. Honaker, PhD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and Alicia Chung, EdD, Center for Early Childhood Health and Development at New York University, write that though the added average sleep duration is one of the most significant findings, there is a possibility of desirability bias because it was reported by the mothers after specific guidance by the facilitators.

“Nonetheless,” the editorialists write, “even if the true effect were half as small, this additional sleep duration could yield notable benefits in infant development if the effect persisted over time. The difference in night wakings between the intervention and control groups (1.8 vs 1.5 per night) at 16 weeks postpartum was statistically significant, though it is unclear whether this difference is clinically meaningful to families.”

They note that it is unclear from the study how the intervention was culturally adapted and how the adaptation might have affected outcomes.

Sleep intervention trials have focused on White families

The editorialists write that much is known about the benefits of behavioral sleep intervention in controlled trials and general population settings, and no adverse effects on infant attachment or cortisol levels have been linked to the interventions.

However, they add, “Unfortunately, this substantial progress in our understanding of infant BSI [behavioral sleep intervention] comes with a caveat, in that most previous studies have been performed with White families from mid-to-high socioeconomic backgrounds.”

Dr. Honaker and Dr. Chung write, “[I]t is important to note that much work remains to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of infant BSI in other groups that have been historically marginalized.”

Dr. Lavner and colleagues point out that before their study, there had been little emphasis on interventions to encourage better sleep in general for Black infants, “as most early sleep interventions for this population have focused on SIDS prevention.”

The study by Dr. Lavner et al. was funded by the National Institutes of Health, a Harrington Faculty Fellowship from the University of Texas, and an award from the Penn State Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Editorialist Dr. Honaker reported receiving grants from Nationwide Children’s Hospital (parent grant, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to evaluate the acceptability of infant behavioral sleep intervention in Black families.

Despite their convenience and low cost, handheld point-of-care (POC) devices lack precision for measuring neonatal bilirubin and need refinement in order to tailor jaundice management in newborns, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports in JAMA Pediatrics. Lauren E.H. Westenberg, MD, of the division of neonatology at Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues reported that POC meters tended to underestimate neonatal bilirubin levels, compared with conventional laboratory-based quantification.

A.H. Westenberg

Furthermore, pooled estimates from 10 studies found these devices to be too imprecise overall, with substantial outer-confidence bounds. On the plus side, Dr. Westenberg’s group said POC bilirubin testing was as much as 60 times faster than lab measurement, and used 40-60 times less blood. “Conventional laboratory-based bilirubin quantification usually requires up to 500 mcL, but sometimes even 1,500 mcL, while POC tests require up to 50 mcL, which means less stress for the baby,” Dr. Westenberg said in an interview. “Especially when infants are cared for at home, it usually takes a few hours between deciding to quantify bilirubin and obtaining the test result. Meanwhile, bilirubin levels may rise unnoticed.”

On the positive side, POC devices are useful where laboratories in low-resource areas may be remote, poorly equipped, and not always able to provide an accurate bilirubin level. “As a result, the diagnosis of jaundice relies mainly on visual inspection, which is known to be unreliable,” she said. POC devices, however, need near-perfect conditions for optimal use, and results can be affected by humidity, preanalytic conditions such as test strip saturation, and hematocrit.

Yet results from these devices have recently proven to have acceptable accuracy, resulting, for example, in the same clinical decisions as the reference standard in 90.7% of times according to a 2022 study in a hospital in Malawi.

Nevertheless, the authors concluded that the devices’ imprecision limits their widespread use in neonatal jaundice management, especially when accurate lab-based bilirubin quantification is available. Results from these POC tests should be interpreted with caution, Dr. Westenberg said. In terms of clinical decision-making, POC devices entail a risk of missing neonates with jaundice who need phototherapy or, in the case of overestimation, of starting phototherapy too early.

The study

The meta-analysis included nine cross-sectional and one prospective cohort study representing 3,122 neonates in Europe, Africa, and East and Southeast Asia. Two tests with 30-minute turnaround times were evaluated in neonates 0-28 days old. The Bilistick device was evaluated in eight studies and the BiliSpec (now called BiliDX) in just two studies. Three of the studies had a high risk of bias.

A total of 3,122 measurements paired with lab quantification showed a pooled mean difference in total bilirubin levels for the POC devices of –14 micromol/L, with pooled 95% confidence bounds (CBs) of –106 to 78 micromol/L. For the Bilistick, the pooled mean difference was –17 micromol/L (95% CBs, –114 to 80 micromol/L). Of the two devices, the Bilistick was more likely to have a failed quantification against the reference standard.
 

Context for POC devices

Commenting on the meta-analysis but not involved in it, Rebecca Richards-Kortum, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at Rice University in Houston, noted that both devices were developed specifically to address needs in low-resource settings. “I don’t think the meta-analysis acknowledges this rationale sufficiently,” she said. “It feels like this paper is comparing apples to oranges and then criticizing the apples for not being oranges,” said Dr. Richards-Kortum, who helped develop the BiliSpec test.

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Similarly, Anne S. Lee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and not a participant in the meta-analysis, also stressed that POC devices are designed for scenarios where lab-based results are not widely available. “In a broad sense, the devices fill an important gap, both in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in the U.S. when laboratory capacity is not readily available,” said Dr. Lee. She was involved the development of the Bili-ruler icterometer, which proved to be diagnostically accurate in Bangladeshi newborns.

“Access to this technology is a critical way to address health disparities even in the U.S.,” Dr. Lee continued. “We have heard of the need for this technology from the Indian health services and Alaskan health services, where decisions are made to airlift a child based on a visual inspection alone.”

More broadly, however, cautioned Dr. Westenberg, the total allowable error and the permissible limits of uncertainty in neonatal bilirubin quantification need to be defined – irrespective of the method used. “Accurate measurement of bilirubin is difficult as has been demonstrated in so-called external quality assessment (EQA) programs that exist for laboratory-based bilirubin methods,” she said. “EQA programs for POC bilirubin devices that include a reference method as a gold standard may contribute to adaptation of the device and improving POC test imprecision.”

This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Richards-Kortum and Dr. Lee have both been involved in the development of POC devices for assessing neonatal bilirubin levels.
 

Despite their convenience and low cost, handheld point-of-care (POC) devices lack precision for measuring neonatal bilirubin and need refinement in order to tailor jaundice management in newborns, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports in JAMA Pediatrics. Lauren E.H. Westenberg, MD, of the division of neonatology at Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues reported that POC meters tended to underestimate neonatal bilirubin levels, compared with conventional laboratory-based quantification.

A.H. Westenberg

Furthermore, pooled estimates from 10 studies found these devices to be too imprecise overall, with substantial outer-confidence bounds. On the plus side, Dr. Westenberg’s group said POC bilirubin testing was as much as 60 times faster than lab measurement, and used 40-60 times less blood. “Conventional laboratory-based bilirubin quantification usually requires up to 500 mcL, but sometimes even 1,500 mcL, while POC tests require up to 50 mcL, which means less stress for the baby,” Dr. Westenberg said in an interview. “Especially when infants are cared for at home, it usually takes a few hours between deciding to quantify bilirubin and obtaining the test result. Meanwhile, bilirubin levels may rise unnoticed.”

On the positive side, POC devices are useful where laboratories in low-resource areas may be remote, poorly equipped, and not always able to provide an accurate bilirubin level. “As a result, the diagnosis of jaundice relies mainly on visual inspection, which is known to be unreliable,” she said. POC devices, however, need near-perfect conditions for optimal use, and results can be affected by humidity, preanalytic conditions such as test strip saturation, and hematocrit.

Yet results from these devices have recently proven to have acceptable accuracy, resulting, for example, in the same clinical decisions as the reference standard in 90.7% of times according to a 2022 study in a hospital in Malawi.

Nevertheless, the authors concluded that the devices’ imprecision limits their widespread use in neonatal jaundice management, especially when accurate lab-based bilirubin quantification is available. Results from these POC tests should be interpreted with caution, Dr. Westenberg said. In terms of clinical decision-making, POC devices entail a risk of missing neonates with jaundice who need phototherapy or, in the case of overestimation, of starting phototherapy too early.

The study

The meta-analysis included nine cross-sectional and one prospective cohort study representing 3,122 neonates in Europe, Africa, and East and Southeast Asia. Two tests with 30-minute turnaround times were evaluated in neonates 0-28 days old. The Bilistick device was evaluated in eight studies and the BiliSpec (now called BiliDX) in just two studies. Three of the studies had a high risk of bias.

A total of 3,122 measurements paired with lab quantification showed a pooled mean difference in total bilirubin levels for the POC devices of –14 micromol/L, with pooled 95% confidence bounds (CBs) of –106 to 78 micromol/L. For the Bilistick, the pooled mean difference was –17 micromol/L (95% CBs, –114 to 80 micromol/L). Of the two devices, the Bilistick was more likely to have a failed quantification against the reference standard.
 

Context for POC devices

Commenting on the meta-analysis but not involved in it, Rebecca Richards-Kortum, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at Rice University in Houston, noted that both devices were developed specifically to address needs in low-resource settings. “I don’t think the meta-analysis acknowledges this rationale sufficiently,” she said. “It feels like this paper is comparing apples to oranges and then criticizing the apples for not being oranges,” said Dr. Richards-Kortum, who helped develop the BiliSpec test.

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Similarly, Anne S. Lee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and not a participant in the meta-analysis, also stressed that POC devices are designed for scenarios where lab-based results are not widely available. “In a broad sense, the devices fill an important gap, both in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in the U.S. when laboratory capacity is not readily available,” said Dr. Lee. She was involved the development of the Bili-ruler icterometer, which proved to be diagnostically accurate in Bangladeshi newborns.

“Access to this technology is a critical way to address health disparities even in the U.S.,” Dr. Lee continued. “We have heard of the need for this technology from the Indian health services and Alaskan health services, where decisions are made to airlift a child based on a visual inspection alone.”

More broadly, however, cautioned Dr. Westenberg, the total allowable error and the permissible limits of uncertainty in neonatal bilirubin quantification need to be defined – irrespective of the method used. “Accurate measurement of bilirubin is difficult as has been demonstrated in so-called external quality assessment (EQA) programs that exist for laboratory-based bilirubin methods,” she said. “EQA programs for POC bilirubin devices that include a reference method as a gold standard may contribute to adaptation of the device and improving POC test imprecision.”

This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Richards-Kortum and Dr. Lee have both been involved in the development of POC devices for assessing neonatal bilirubin levels.
 

Despite their convenience and low cost, handheld point-of-care (POC) devices lack precision for measuring neonatal bilirubin and need refinement in order to tailor jaundice management in newborns, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports in JAMA Pediatrics. Lauren E.H. Westenberg, MD, of the division of neonatology at Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues reported that POC meters tended to underestimate neonatal bilirubin levels, compared with conventional laboratory-based quantification.

A.H. Westenberg

Furthermore, pooled estimates from 10 studies found these devices to be too imprecise overall, with substantial outer-confidence bounds. On the plus side, Dr. Westenberg’s group said POC bilirubin testing was as much as 60 times faster than lab measurement, and used 40-60 times less blood. “Conventional laboratory-based bilirubin quantification usually requires up to 500 mcL, but sometimes even 1,500 mcL, while POC tests require up to 50 mcL, which means less stress for the baby,” Dr. Westenberg said in an interview. “Especially when infants are cared for at home, it usually takes a few hours between deciding to quantify bilirubin and obtaining the test result. Meanwhile, bilirubin levels may rise unnoticed.”

On the positive side, POC devices are useful where laboratories in low-resource areas may be remote, poorly equipped, and not always able to provide an accurate bilirubin level. “As a result, the diagnosis of jaundice relies mainly on visual inspection, which is known to be unreliable,” she said. POC devices, however, need near-perfect conditions for optimal use, and results can be affected by humidity, preanalytic conditions such as test strip saturation, and hematocrit.

Yet results from these devices have recently proven to have acceptable accuracy, resulting, for example, in the same clinical decisions as the reference standard in 90.7% of times according to a 2022 study in a hospital in Malawi.

Nevertheless, the authors concluded that the devices’ imprecision limits their widespread use in neonatal jaundice management, especially when accurate lab-based bilirubin quantification is available. Results from these POC tests should be interpreted with caution, Dr. Westenberg said. In terms of clinical decision-making, POC devices entail a risk of missing neonates with jaundice who need phototherapy or, in the case of overestimation, of starting phototherapy too early.

The study

The meta-analysis included nine cross-sectional and one prospective cohort study representing 3,122 neonates in Europe, Africa, and East and Southeast Asia. Two tests with 30-minute turnaround times were evaluated in neonates 0-28 days old. The Bilistick device was evaluated in eight studies and the BiliSpec (now called BiliDX) in just two studies. Three of the studies had a high risk of bias.

A total of 3,122 measurements paired with lab quantification showed a pooled mean difference in total bilirubin levels for the POC devices of –14 micromol/L, with pooled 95% confidence bounds (CBs) of –106 to 78 micromol/L. For the Bilistick, the pooled mean difference was –17 micromol/L (95% CBs, –114 to 80 micromol/L). Of the two devices, the Bilistick was more likely to have a failed quantification against the reference standard.
 

Context for POC devices

Commenting on the meta-analysis but not involved in it, Rebecca Richards-Kortum, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at Rice University in Houston, noted that both devices were developed specifically to address needs in low-resource settings. “I don’t think the meta-analysis acknowledges this rationale sufficiently,” she said. “It feels like this paper is comparing apples to oranges and then criticizing the apples for not being oranges,” said Dr. Richards-Kortum, who helped develop the BiliSpec test.

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Similarly, Anne S. Lee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and not a participant in the meta-analysis, also stressed that POC devices are designed for scenarios where lab-based results are not widely available. “In a broad sense, the devices fill an important gap, both in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in the U.S. when laboratory capacity is not readily available,” said Dr. Lee. She was involved the development of the Bili-ruler icterometer, which proved to be diagnostically accurate in Bangladeshi newborns.

“Access to this technology is a critical way to address health disparities even in the U.S.,” Dr. Lee continued. “We have heard of the need for this technology from the Indian health services and Alaskan health services, where decisions are made to airlift a child based on a visual inspection alone.”

More broadly, however, cautioned Dr. Westenberg, the total allowable error and the permissible limits of uncertainty in neonatal bilirubin quantification need to be defined – irrespective of the method used. “Accurate measurement of bilirubin is difficult as has been demonstrated in so-called external quality assessment (EQA) programs that exist for laboratory-based bilirubin methods,” she said. “EQA programs for POC bilirubin devices that include a reference method as a gold standard may contribute to adaptation of the device and improving POC test imprecision.”

This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Richards-Kortum and Dr. Lee have both been involved in the development of POC devices for assessing neonatal bilirubin levels.
 

Use of asthma medication by pregnant women was not associated with an increased risk of autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or Tourette syndrome for their children, a new study shows.

The drugs included in the study were leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs), which are often used to treat allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis.

“Over the years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has monitored post-marketing data about the potential harm of neuropsychiatric events (NEs) associated with montelukast, the first type of LTRAs, and issued boxed warnings about serious mental health side effects for montelukast in 2020,” said corresponding author Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, in an interview.

However, evidence of a link between NEs and LTRA use has been inconsistent, according to Dr. Yao and colleagues.

“To date, it remains totally unknown whether the exposure to LTRAs during pregnancy is associated with the risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring,” said Dr. Yao.

To address this question, the researchers used data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify pregnant women and their offspring from 2009 to 2019. The initial study population included 576,157 mother-offspring pairs, including 1,995 LTRA-exposed and 574,162 nonexposed children.

The women had a diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis; multiple births and children with congenital malformations were excluded. LTRA exposure was defined as any dispensed prescription for LTRAs during pregnancy. Approximately two-thirds of the mothers were aged 30-40 years at the time of delivery.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

In the study population at large, the incidence of the three neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette syndrome was not significantly different between those children exposed to LTRAs and those not exposed to LTRAs in utero (1.25% vs. 1.32%; 3.31% vs. 4.36%; and 0.45% vs. 0.83%, respectively).

After propensity score matching, the study population included 1,988 LTRA-exposed children and 19,863 nonexposed children. In this group, no significant associations appeared between prenatal LTRA exposure and the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03), autism spectrum disorder (AHR, 1.01), and Tourette syndrome (AHR, 0.63).

Neither duration nor cumulative dose of LTRA use during pregnancy showed an association with ADHD, ASD, or Tourette syndrome in offspring. Duration of LTRA use was categorized as shorter or longer periods of 1-4 weeks vs. more than 4 weeks; cumulative dose was categorized as 1-170 mg vs. 170 mg or higher.

The findings were limited by the lack of randomization, inability to detect long-term risk, and potential lack of generalizability to non-Asian populations, and more research is needed to replicate the results, the researchers noted. However, the current findings were strengthened by the large study population, and suggest that LTRA use in pregnancy does not present a significant risk for NEs in children, which should be reassuring to clinicians and patients, they concluded.

The current study is the first to use the whole of Taiwan population data and extends previous studies by examining the association between LTRA use during pregnancy and risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring, Dr. Yao said in an interview. “The possibly surprising, but reassuring, finding is that prenatal LTRA exposure did not increase risk of ADHD, ASD, and Tourette syndrome in offspring,” he said.

“Clinicians prescribing LTRAs such as montelukast (Singulair and generics) to pregnant women with asthma or allergic rhinitis may be reassured by our findings,” Dr. Yao added. The results offer real-world evidence to help inform decision-making about the use of LTRAs during pregnancy, although additional research is needed to replicate the study findings in other populations, he said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and the Chang Gung Medical Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of asthma medication by pregnant women was not associated with an increased risk of autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or Tourette syndrome for their children, a new study shows.

The drugs included in the study were leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs), which are often used to treat allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis.

“Over the years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has monitored post-marketing data about the potential harm of neuropsychiatric events (NEs) associated with montelukast, the first type of LTRAs, and issued boxed warnings about serious mental health side effects for montelukast in 2020,” said corresponding author Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, in an interview.

However, evidence of a link between NEs and LTRA use has been inconsistent, according to Dr. Yao and colleagues.

“To date, it remains totally unknown whether the exposure to LTRAs during pregnancy is associated with the risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring,” said Dr. Yao.

To address this question, the researchers used data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify pregnant women and their offspring from 2009 to 2019. The initial study population included 576,157 mother-offspring pairs, including 1,995 LTRA-exposed and 574,162 nonexposed children.

The women had a diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis; multiple births and children with congenital malformations were excluded. LTRA exposure was defined as any dispensed prescription for LTRAs during pregnancy. Approximately two-thirds of the mothers were aged 30-40 years at the time of delivery.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

In the study population at large, the incidence of the three neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette syndrome was not significantly different between those children exposed to LTRAs and those not exposed to LTRAs in utero (1.25% vs. 1.32%; 3.31% vs. 4.36%; and 0.45% vs. 0.83%, respectively).

After propensity score matching, the study population included 1,988 LTRA-exposed children and 19,863 nonexposed children. In this group, no significant associations appeared between prenatal LTRA exposure and the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03), autism spectrum disorder (AHR, 1.01), and Tourette syndrome (AHR, 0.63).

Neither duration nor cumulative dose of LTRA use during pregnancy showed an association with ADHD, ASD, or Tourette syndrome in offspring. Duration of LTRA use was categorized as shorter or longer periods of 1-4 weeks vs. more than 4 weeks; cumulative dose was categorized as 1-170 mg vs. 170 mg or higher.

The findings were limited by the lack of randomization, inability to detect long-term risk, and potential lack of generalizability to non-Asian populations, and more research is needed to replicate the results, the researchers noted. However, the current findings were strengthened by the large study population, and suggest that LTRA use in pregnancy does not present a significant risk for NEs in children, which should be reassuring to clinicians and patients, they concluded.

The current study is the first to use the whole of Taiwan population data and extends previous studies by examining the association between LTRA use during pregnancy and risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring, Dr. Yao said in an interview. “The possibly surprising, but reassuring, finding is that prenatal LTRA exposure did not increase risk of ADHD, ASD, and Tourette syndrome in offspring,” he said.

“Clinicians prescribing LTRAs such as montelukast (Singulair and generics) to pregnant women with asthma or allergic rhinitis may be reassured by our findings,” Dr. Yao added. The results offer real-world evidence to help inform decision-making about the use of LTRAs during pregnancy, although additional research is needed to replicate the study findings in other populations, he said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and the Chang Gung Medical Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of asthma medication by pregnant women was not associated with an increased risk of autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or Tourette syndrome for their children, a new study shows.

The drugs included in the study were leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs), which are often used to treat allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis.

“Over the years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has monitored post-marketing data about the potential harm of neuropsychiatric events (NEs) associated with montelukast, the first type of LTRAs, and issued boxed warnings about serious mental health side effects for montelukast in 2020,” said corresponding author Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, in an interview.

However, evidence of a link between NEs and LTRA use has been inconsistent, according to Dr. Yao and colleagues.

“To date, it remains totally unknown whether the exposure to LTRAs during pregnancy is associated with the risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring,” said Dr. Yao.

To address this question, the researchers used data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify pregnant women and their offspring from 2009 to 2019. The initial study population included 576,157 mother-offspring pairs, including 1,995 LTRA-exposed and 574,162 nonexposed children.

The women had a diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis; multiple births and children with congenital malformations were excluded. LTRA exposure was defined as any dispensed prescription for LTRAs during pregnancy. Approximately two-thirds of the mothers were aged 30-40 years at the time of delivery.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

In the study population at large, the incidence of the three neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette syndrome was not significantly different between those children exposed to LTRAs and those not exposed to LTRAs in utero (1.25% vs. 1.32%; 3.31% vs. 4.36%; and 0.45% vs. 0.83%, respectively).

After propensity score matching, the study population included 1,988 LTRA-exposed children and 19,863 nonexposed children. In this group, no significant associations appeared between prenatal LTRA exposure and the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03), autism spectrum disorder (AHR, 1.01), and Tourette syndrome (AHR, 0.63).

Neither duration nor cumulative dose of LTRA use during pregnancy showed an association with ADHD, ASD, or Tourette syndrome in offspring. Duration of LTRA use was categorized as shorter or longer periods of 1-4 weeks vs. more than 4 weeks; cumulative dose was categorized as 1-170 mg vs. 170 mg or higher.

The findings were limited by the lack of randomization, inability to detect long-term risk, and potential lack of generalizability to non-Asian populations, and more research is needed to replicate the results, the researchers noted. However, the current findings were strengthened by the large study population, and suggest that LTRA use in pregnancy does not present a significant risk for NEs in children, which should be reassuring to clinicians and patients, they concluded.

The current study is the first to use the whole of Taiwan population data and extends previous studies by examining the association between LTRA use during pregnancy and risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring, Dr. Yao said in an interview. “The possibly surprising, but reassuring, finding is that prenatal LTRA exposure did not increase risk of ADHD, ASD, and Tourette syndrome in offspring,” he said.

“Clinicians prescribing LTRAs such as montelukast (Singulair and generics) to pregnant women with asthma or allergic rhinitis may be reassured by our findings,” Dr. Yao added. The results offer real-world evidence to help inform decision-making about the use of LTRAs during pregnancy, although additional research is needed to replicate the study findings in other populations, he said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and the Chang Gung Medical Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

No significant differences emerged in gut microbial diversity in preterm infants who exclusively received human milk products, compared with those receiving bovine milk formula or fortifiers, a randomized controlled trial found. Nor were any differences noted in the secondary endpoint of clinical outcomes in the U.K. study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

Newcastle University

The finding was unanticipated, according to lead author Nicholas D. Embleton, MBBS, MD, a professor of neonatal medicine at Newcastle University in England. “Over the last 10 years we’ve focused particularly on the role of the microbiome to better understand causal mechanisms of necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC,” he said in an interview. “We anticipated that an exclusive human milk diet would have measurable impacts on microbiome diversity as a potential mechanism [in] disease modulation as part of the mechanism by which exclusive human milk diets benefit preterm infants.”

Shortfalls in a mother’s own milk supply often necessitate the use of bovine formula or pasteurized human milk from donor milk banks or commercial suppliers.

The effect of an exclusive human milk diet versus one containing bovine products on vulnerable preterm infants is unclear, but some studies have shown lower rates of key neonatal morbidities, possibly mediated by the gut microbiome. In two randomized controlled trials, for example, one showed a lower rate of NEC with donated human milk while the other showed no difference.

Neither, however, was powered to detect a clinically important difference in surgical NEC.
 

Milk and the microbiome

The current study’s primary endpoint was the effect of an exclusive human milk diet on gut bacterial richness and diversity, as well as the proportions of specific microbial taxa in preterm infants from enrollment to 34 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

Conducted at four neonatal intensive care units in the United Kingdom from 2017 to 2020, the study recruited 126 infants born at less than 30 weeks’ gestation and fed exclusively with their own mother’s milk before 72 hours of age. With a median gestational age of 27 weeks and a median birth weight of just over 900 grams, the babies were randomized 1:1 either to their own mother’s milk plus a pasteurized ready-to-feed human milk product or to their mother’s milk plus a standard preterm formula (controls). Stool samples were collected to analyze intestinal microbiota.

In terms of clinical outcomes, four infants died in the standard-care control group and eight in the intervention group at a median postnatal age of 25 days and 15 days, respectively, but none died primarily of NEC. Formula and ready-to-feed human milk both represented less than 1% of all fluid intake, respectively.

Although there were no effects on overall measures of gut bacterial diversity, there were some insignificant effects on specific bacterial taxa previously associated with human milk feeding. “These findings suggest that the clinical impact of human milk-derived products is not modulated via microbiomic mechanisms,” the authors wrote.

Human milk could benefit, however, via components such as specific oligosaccharides, which act largely by modulating the growth of friendly Bifidobacteria and other species, Dr. Embleton said. “However, it’s possible these oligosaccharides might also directly interact via the gut epithelium as a signaling molecule. And, of course, there are many other components that might also act directly on the gut without changing the microbiome.”

*Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Brenda L. Poindexter, MD, MS, chief of the division of neonatology at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Emory University, called it “incredibly important,” especially in the context of the claims of superiority made by the manufacturers of human-milk-based fortifiers. “These findings convincingly debunk the notion that the use of bovine-derived fortifiers increases risk of morbidities such as NEC through the mechanism of alterations in the microbiome, Dr. Poindexter said.

 “They refute that claim as there was no difference in NEC between the groups and, interestingly, no impact on the microbiome. One of the hypothesized mechanisms for those who purport that bovine fortifiers are ‘bad’ is that they alter the microbiome, which increases risk of NEC,” she said. “The only limitation is that the study was not powered to detect a difference in NEC, but it is incredibly important nonetheless.”

The current findings differ somewhat from those of a similar trial from 2022 showing lower microbial diversity and higher relative abundances of Enterobacteriaceae and lower abundances of Clostridium sensu stricto in preterm infants receiving an exclusive human milk diet. “These results highlight how nutrient fortifiers impact the microbiota of very-low-birth-weight infants during a critical developmental window,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Embleton conceded that his group’s study set the bar deliberately high to avoid finding too many differences purely due to chance, and it therefore might have missed bacterial changes present in low proportions. “Also, the technique we used, 16s rRNA, doesn’t explore the microbiome at the strain level, so there may have been changes we didn’t detect.”

He added that the study populations also had a relatively high usage of mother’s own milk and findings may differ in other populations and settings where the use of mother’s own milk is much lower. Furthermore, the differences reported by individual hospitals in the babies’ gut microbiomes were more significant than most feeding interventions.

So can mothers needing to use nonhuman supplements be reassured by the results? “It is difficult to know how parents may interpret our findings. We need more studies powered to detect differences in functional outcomes before we can draw conclusions and share those findings in a way parents can understand,” Dr. Embleton said. “At present, there is perhaps a too simplistic message that cow milk formula is ‘harmful.’ ”

Most babies exposed to cow’s milk fortifier or formula do not develop NEC, and many with NEC have only ever received their own mother’s milk or donor milk, he added. “It could be that with advances in pasteurization or other similar techniques the quality and therefore the functional benefits of human milk can be better preserved.”

More research is needed on the mechanisms of preterm feeding interventions, including donor human milk, fortifiers, and probiotics, Dr. Embleton said. “The gut microbiome in preterm infants is complex and very different from that in term infants.”

The study was sponsored by Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and funded by Prolacta Biosciences, which provided human milk formula and fortifier. Dr. Embleton reported financial ties to Danone Early Life Nutrition, Nestlé Nutrition Institute Lecture, Astarte Lecture, and NeoKare outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported similar ties to multiple private companies and various research funding bodies. Dr. Poindexter has no conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on March 3, 2023.

No significant differences emerged in gut microbial diversity in preterm infants who exclusively received human milk products, compared with those receiving bovine milk formula or fortifiers, a randomized controlled trial found. Nor were any differences noted in the secondary endpoint of clinical outcomes in the U.K. study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

Newcastle University

The finding was unanticipated, according to lead author Nicholas D. Embleton, MBBS, MD, a professor of neonatal medicine at Newcastle University in England. “Over the last 10 years we’ve focused particularly on the role of the microbiome to better understand causal mechanisms of necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC,” he said in an interview. “We anticipated that an exclusive human milk diet would have measurable impacts on microbiome diversity as a potential mechanism [in] disease modulation as part of the mechanism by which exclusive human milk diets benefit preterm infants.”

Shortfalls in a mother’s own milk supply often necessitate the use of bovine formula or pasteurized human milk from donor milk banks or commercial suppliers.

The effect of an exclusive human milk diet versus one containing bovine products on vulnerable preterm infants is unclear, but some studies have shown lower rates of key neonatal morbidities, possibly mediated by the gut microbiome. In two randomized controlled trials, for example, one showed a lower rate of NEC with donated human milk while the other showed no difference.

Neither, however, was powered to detect a clinically important difference in surgical NEC.
 

Milk and the microbiome

The current study’s primary endpoint was the effect of an exclusive human milk diet on gut bacterial richness and diversity, as well as the proportions of specific microbial taxa in preterm infants from enrollment to 34 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

Conducted at four neonatal intensive care units in the United Kingdom from 2017 to 2020, the study recruited 126 infants born at less than 30 weeks’ gestation and fed exclusively with their own mother’s milk before 72 hours of age. With a median gestational age of 27 weeks and a median birth weight of just over 900 grams, the babies were randomized 1:1 either to their own mother’s milk plus a pasteurized ready-to-feed human milk product or to their mother’s milk plus a standard preterm formula (controls). Stool samples were collected to analyze intestinal microbiota.

In terms of clinical outcomes, four infants died in the standard-care control group and eight in the intervention group at a median postnatal age of 25 days and 15 days, respectively, but none died primarily of NEC. Formula and ready-to-feed human milk both represented less than 1% of all fluid intake, respectively.

Although there were no effects on overall measures of gut bacterial diversity, there were some insignificant effects on specific bacterial taxa previously associated with human milk feeding. “These findings suggest that the clinical impact of human milk-derived products is not modulated via microbiomic mechanisms,” the authors wrote.

Human milk could benefit, however, via components such as specific oligosaccharides, which act largely by modulating the growth of friendly Bifidobacteria and other species, Dr. Embleton said. “However, it’s possible these oligosaccharides might also directly interact via the gut epithelium as a signaling molecule. And, of course, there are many other components that might also act directly on the gut without changing the microbiome.”

*Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Brenda L. Poindexter, MD, MS, chief of the division of neonatology at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Emory University, called it “incredibly important,” especially in the context of the claims of superiority made by the manufacturers of human-milk-based fortifiers. “These findings convincingly debunk the notion that the use of bovine-derived fortifiers increases risk of morbidities such as NEC through the mechanism of alterations in the microbiome, Dr. Poindexter said.

 “They refute that claim as there was no difference in NEC between the groups and, interestingly, no impact on the microbiome. One of the hypothesized mechanisms for those who purport that bovine fortifiers are ‘bad’ is that they alter the microbiome, which increases risk of NEC,” she said. “The only limitation is that the study was not powered to detect a difference in NEC, but it is incredibly important nonetheless.”

The current findings differ somewhat from those of a similar trial from 2022 showing lower microbial diversity and higher relative abundances of Enterobacteriaceae and lower abundances of Clostridium sensu stricto in preterm infants receiving an exclusive human milk diet. “These results highlight how nutrient fortifiers impact the microbiota of very-low-birth-weight infants during a critical developmental window,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Embleton conceded that his group’s study set the bar deliberately high to avoid finding too many differences purely due to chance, and it therefore might have missed bacterial changes present in low proportions. “Also, the technique we used, 16s rRNA, doesn’t explore the microbiome at the strain level, so there may have been changes we didn’t detect.”

He added that the study populations also had a relatively high usage of mother’s own milk and findings may differ in other populations and settings where the use of mother’s own milk is much lower. Furthermore, the differences reported by individual hospitals in the babies’ gut microbiomes were more significant than most feeding interventions.

So can mothers needing to use nonhuman supplements be reassured by the results? “It is difficult to know how parents may interpret our findings. We need more studies powered to detect differences in functional outcomes before we can draw conclusions and share those findings in a way parents can understand,” Dr. Embleton said. “At present, there is perhaps a too simplistic message that cow milk formula is ‘harmful.’ ”

Most babies exposed to cow’s milk fortifier or formula do not develop NEC, and many with NEC have only ever received their own mother’s milk or donor milk, he added. “It could be that with advances in pasteurization or other similar techniques the quality and therefore the functional benefits of human milk can be better preserved.”

More research is needed on the mechanisms of preterm feeding interventions, including donor human milk, fortifiers, and probiotics, Dr. Embleton said. “The gut microbiome in preterm infants is complex and very different from that in term infants.”

The study was sponsored by Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and funded by Prolacta Biosciences, which provided human milk formula and fortifier. Dr. Embleton reported financial ties to Danone Early Life Nutrition, Nestlé Nutrition Institute Lecture, Astarte Lecture, and NeoKare outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported similar ties to multiple private companies and various research funding bodies. Dr. Poindexter has no conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on March 3, 2023.

No significant differences emerged in gut microbial diversity in preterm infants who exclusively received human milk products, compared with those receiving bovine milk formula or fortifiers, a randomized controlled trial found. Nor were any differences noted in the secondary endpoint of clinical outcomes in the U.K. study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

Newcastle University

The finding was unanticipated, according to lead author Nicholas D. Embleton, MBBS, MD, a professor of neonatal medicine at Newcastle University in England. “Over the last 10 years we’ve focused particularly on the role of the microbiome to better understand causal mechanisms of necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC,” he said in an interview. “We anticipated that an exclusive human milk diet would have measurable impacts on microbiome diversity as a potential mechanism [in] disease modulation as part of the mechanism by which exclusive human milk diets benefit preterm infants.”

Shortfalls in a mother’s own milk supply often necessitate the use of bovine formula or pasteurized human milk from donor milk banks or commercial suppliers.

The effect of an exclusive human milk diet versus one containing bovine products on vulnerable preterm infants is unclear, but some studies have shown lower rates of key neonatal morbidities, possibly mediated by the gut microbiome. In two randomized controlled trials, for example, one showed a lower rate of NEC with donated human milk while the other showed no difference.

Neither, however, was powered to detect a clinically important difference in surgical NEC.
 

Milk and the microbiome

The current study’s primary endpoint was the effect of an exclusive human milk diet on gut bacterial richness and diversity, as well as the proportions of specific microbial taxa in preterm infants from enrollment to 34 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

Conducted at four neonatal intensive care units in the United Kingdom from 2017 to 2020, the study recruited 126 infants born at less than 30 weeks’ gestation and fed exclusively with their own mother’s milk before 72 hours of age. With a median gestational age of 27 weeks and a median birth weight of just over 900 grams, the babies were randomized 1:1 either to their own mother’s milk plus a pasteurized ready-to-feed human milk product or to their mother’s milk plus a standard preterm formula (controls). Stool samples were collected to analyze intestinal microbiota.

In terms of clinical outcomes, four infants died in the standard-care control group and eight in the intervention group at a median postnatal age of 25 days and 15 days, respectively, but none died primarily of NEC. Formula and ready-to-feed human milk both represented less than 1% of all fluid intake, respectively.

Although there were no effects on overall measures of gut bacterial diversity, there were some insignificant effects on specific bacterial taxa previously associated with human milk feeding. “These findings suggest that the clinical impact of human milk-derived products is not modulated via microbiomic mechanisms,” the authors wrote.

Human milk could benefit, however, via components such as specific oligosaccharides, which act largely by modulating the growth of friendly Bifidobacteria and other species, Dr. Embleton said. “However, it’s possible these oligosaccharides might also directly interact via the gut epithelium as a signaling molecule. And, of course, there are many other components that might also act directly on the gut without changing the microbiome.”

*Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Brenda L. Poindexter, MD, MS, chief of the division of neonatology at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Emory University, called it “incredibly important,” especially in the context of the claims of superiority made by the manufacturers of human-milk-based fortifiers. “These findings convincingly debunk the notion that the use of bovine-derived fortifiers increases risk of morbidities such as NEC through the mechanism of alterations in the microbiome, Dr. Poindexter said.

 “They refute that claim as there was no difference in NEC between the groups and, interestingly, no impact on the microbiome. One of the hypothesized mechanisms for those who purport that bovine fortifiers are ‘bad’ is that they alter the microbiome, which increases risk of NEC,” she said. “The only limitation is that the study was not powered to detect a difference in NEC, but it is incredibly important nonetheless.”

The current findings differ somewhat from those of a similar trial from 2022 showing lower microbial diversity and higher relative abundances of Enterobacteriaceae and lower abundances of Clostridium sensu stricto in preterm infants receiving an exclusive human milk diet. “These results highlight how nutrient fortifiers impact the microbiota of very-low-birth-weight infants during a critical developmental window,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Embleton conceded that his group’s study set the bar deliberately high to avoid finding too many differences purely due to chance, and it therefore might have missed bacterial changes present in low proportions. “Also, the technique we used, 16s rRNA, doesn’t explore the microbiome at the strain level, so there may have been changes we didn’t detect.”

He added that the study populations also had a relatively high usage of mother’s own milk and findings may differ in other populations and settings where the use of mother’s own milk is much lower. Furthermore, the differences reported by individual hospitals in the babies’ gut microbiomes were more significant than most feeding interventions.

So can mothers needing to use nonhuman supplements be reassured by the results? “It is difficult to know how parents may interpret our findings. We need more studies powered to detect differences in functional outcomes before we can draw conclusions and share those findings in a way parents can understand,” Dr. Embleton said. “At present, there is perhaps a too simplistic message that cow milk formula is ‘harmful.’ ”

Most babies exposed to cow’s milk fortifier or formula do not develop NEC, and many with NEC have only ever received their own mother’s milk or donor milk, he added. “It could be that with advances in pasteurization or other similar techniques the quality and therefore the functional benefits of human milk can be better preserved.”

More research is needed on the mechanisms of preterm feeding interventions, including donor human milk, fortifiers, and probiotics, Dr. Embleton said. “The gut microbiome in preterm infants is complex and very different from that in term infants.”

The study was sponsored by Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and funded by Prolacta Biosciences, which provided human milk formula and fortifier. Dr. Embleton reported financial ties to Danone Early Life Nutrition, Nestlé Nutrition Institute Lecture, Astarte Lecture, and NeoKare outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported similar ties to multiple private companies and various research funding bodies. Dr. Poindexter has no conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on March 3, 2023.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Mindi Rosen met Seuli Brill, MD, at just the right time. 

Ms. Rosen’s firstborn son was in the neointensive natal unit at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and she didn’t have a pediatrician picked out yet for the baby. Nor did she have a primary care physician who could help her manage the gestational diabetes she developed during her pregnancy.

Dr. Brill, a clinical associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at Ohio State, suggested Ms. Rosen visit her at the new clinic she was piloting in Columbus. There, she provided pediatric care for newborns and primary care for mothers who had developed gestational diabetes.  

“I looked at my husband, my husband looked at me, and I said: ‘Why not?’ “ Ms. Rosen, 38, recalled of that 2019 meeting. “I’m so glad she walked in at that moment.”

The mother of two is still part of the rapidly growing program at the medical facility that provides care for more than 200 mothers and babies.

Launched in 2018, the clinic – called the Multi-Modal Maternal Infant Perinatal Outpatient Delivery System, or “Momi Pods,” started with a focus  on helping women with gestational diabetes, which occurs in up to 10% of pregnancies.

The program allows moms to book regular checkups for their baby, and then a follow-up appointment immediately after for themselves. Women are seen for the first 1,000 days (just under 3 years) after giving birth.

The idea was simple. Dr. Brill wanted to develop a more formalized program for the work she was already doing as a primary care physician and pediatrician. At the time, she was fielding referrals from specialists for young women who didn’t have a physician. She’d often develop a relationship with the patient over the years, go on to help oversee their care during pregnancy, then new mothers would select her as their newborn’s pediatrician.

“I would have a relationship with the mom when they did have the newborn, and then I would see the baby because I’m a pediatrician,” Dr. Brill said.

Dr. Brill was serving on the Ohio Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Collaborative, a state-backed program that aims to raise awareness about the condition and encourage more preventative care for patients. She presented her proposal to launch the program to the Ohio Department of Medicaid, which helped to fund the pilot.

The idea, she hoped, would improve postpartum follow-up care for mothers diagnosed with the condition. 

Follow-up care is especially important for women who develop gestational diabetes because the condition raises their lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes up to 10-fold. 

Yet most of those mothers don’t get the appropriate follow-up care during the crucial postpartum period, said Maya Subbalakshmi Venkataramani, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who has researched parental care. 

“Things get very busy after you have a child. There’s just the general logistics of a mom having to take care of a newborn and thinking about themselves,” Dr. Venkataramani, a primary care clinician and pediatrician, said. “A lot of parents in general may not put a lot of emphasis on their own health.”

Seeking care may be especially difficult for low-income mothers who might not have consistent health care coverage, she added.

In fact, only half of women who developed gestational diabetes received primary follow-up care, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open. The study, which examined more than 280,000 insurance claims between 2015 and 2018, found only 36% of women with gestational diabetes received the recommended blood glucose testing in the first 12 weeks of the postpartum period.

In the Momi Pods program, Dr. Brill checked in on Ms. Rosen’s gestational diabetes regularly during pediatric office visits for her newborn’s care. Ms. Rosen said whenever she brought her baby in for a visit during the postpartum period, Dr. Brill measured her blood sugar. 

Dr. Brill and her team also asked how Ms. Rosen was doing physically and mentally during each visit. The screenings helped to catch a bout of postpartum depression Ms. Rosen experienced after the birth of her first son.

“I thought it was great, because honestly as a new mom I wouldn’t have followed up with myself so much,” Ms. Rosen said. “Every time you went into the doctor appointments, they’d ask you how you are doing. As a new mom, it’s so much easier to do it at the same time.”

Those who participate in the program are also more likely to complete postpartum visits with their ob.gyn. (95% vs. 58%, respectively; P < .001) than those who don’t participate, according to research Dr. Brill and colleagues published.

Dr. Brill began expanding the program’s reach nearly 2 years after its launch, targeting the services for women who are at risk for poor postpartum outcomes, including those with a history of depression, preterm labor, diabetes and congenital heart disease. Ob.gyns. in Ohio State’s network can refer their patients to the program, which now has 43 doctors trained to provide primary and pediatric care through Momi Pods. Soon-to-be moms can be referred to the program as early as the second trimester, Dr. Brill said.

Many of the mothers referred to the program don’t have a primary care clinician when they talk to Paola Beamon, RN, at Ohio State. Ms. Beamon reaches out to each referred patient over voicemail, a MyChart message, and even regular mail in hopes of helping them navigate the postpartum period. She also provides education on what a primary care clinician can offer new moms.

“Really, we’re pursuing these moms and doing everything we can so there’s less of a burden for them,” Ms. Beamon said. “A lot of them don’t even know what a primary care office does.”

One of the biggest perks to the program for new moms is that they don’t have to spend time and money traveling to a different doctor’s office, take time off work, or secure childcare in order to schedule a separate appointment for themselves, she said.

The program, which receives funding from the university and the state, even helps women get bus passes to a doctor’s appointment if needed.

Dyad programs targeting women with substance abuse disorders or mental health conditions have existed for many years. But catering to women with gestational diabetes or other medical conditions appears to be new. In part, Dr. Venkataramani said, because scheduling and space can be big hurdles to launch such a program, as well as finding doctors who can care for both baby and mother.

“There are logistical challenges to even doing this that makes it less common,” she said.

Dr. Brill said she is not aware of any other programs that are structured like the tandem care clinic at Ohio State. She hopes, however, that the program can be a model for other hospital systems to consider, and she is working to expand the program regionally. Her team is collecting data – including on the best way to schedule patients – to help other clinics develop something similar. 

“We really want to leverage that expertise to make it easier for moms to get care with their infants and remove barriers to care,” she said.

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

Mindi Rosen met Seuli Brill, MD, at just the right time. 

Ms. Rosen’s firstborn son was in the neointensive natal unit at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and she didn’t have a pediatrician picked out yet for the baby. Nor did she have a primary care physician who could help her manage the gestational diabetes she developed during her pregnancy.

Dr. Brill, a clinical associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at Ohio State, suggested Ms. Rosen visit her at the new clinic she was piloting in Columbus. There, she provided pediatric care for newborns and primary care for mothers who had developed gestational diabetes.  

“I looked at my husband, my husband looked at me, and I said: ‘Why not?’ “ Ms. Rosen, 38, recalled of that 2019 meeting. “I’m so glad she walked in at that moment.”

The mother of two is still part of the rapidly growing program at the medical facility that provides care for more than 200 mothers and babies.

Launched in 2018, the clinic – called the Multi-Modal Maternal Infant Perinatal Outpatient Delivery System, or “Momi Pods,” started with a focus  on helping women with gestational diabetes, which occurs in up to 10% of pregnancies.

The program allows moms to book regular checkups for their baby, and then a follow-up appointment immediately after for themselves. Women are seen for the first 1,000 days (just under 3 years) after giving birth.

The idea was simple. Dr. Brill wanted to develop a more formalized program for the work she was already doing as a primary care physician and pediatrician. At the time, she was fielding referrals from specialists for young women who didn’t have a physician. She’d often develop a relationship with the patient over the years, go on to help oversee their care during pregnancy, then new mothers would select her as their newborn’s pediatrician.

“I would have a relationship with the mom when they did have the newborn, and then I would see the baby because I’m a pediatrician,” Dr. Brill said.

Dr. Brill was serving on the Ohio Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Collaborative, a state-backed program that aims to raise awareness about the condition and encourage more preventative care for patients. She presented her proposal to launch the program to the Ohio Department of Medicaid, which helped to fund the pilot.

The idea, she hoped, would improve postpartum follow-up care for mothers diagnosed with the condition. 

Follow-up care is especially important for women who develop gestational diabetes because the condition raises their lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes up to 10-fold. 

Yet most of those mothers don’t get the appropriate follow-up care during the crucial postpartum period, said Maya Subbalakshmi Venkataramani, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who has researched parental care. 

“Things get very busy after you have a child. There’s just the general logistics of a mom having to take care of a newborn and thinking about themselves,” Dr. Venkataramani, a primary care clinician and pediatrician, said. “A lot of parents in general may not put a lot of emphasis on their own health.”

Seeking care may be especially difficult for low-income mothers who might not have consistent health care coverage, she added.

In fact, only half of women who developed gestational diabetes received primary follow-up care, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open. The study, which examined more than 280,000 insurance claims between 2015 and 2018, found only 36% of women with gestational diabetes received the recommended blood glucose testing in the first 12 weeks of the postpartum period.

In the Momi Pods program, Dr. Brill checked in on Ms. Rosen’s gestational diabetes regularly during pediatric office visits for her newborn’s care. Ms. Rosen said whenever she brought her baby in for a visit during the postpartum period, Dr. Brill measured her blood sugar. 

Dr. Brill and her team also asked how Ms. Rosen was doing physically and mentally during each visit. The screenings helped to catch a bout of postpartum depression Ms. Rosen experienced after the birth of her first son.

“I thought it was great, because honestly as a new mom I wouldn’t have followed up with myself so much,” Ms. Rosen said. “Every time you went into the doctor appointments, they’d ask you how you are doing. As a new mom, it’s so much easier to do it at the same time.”

Those who participate in the program are also more likely to complete postpartum visits with their ob.gyn. (95% vs. 58%, respectively; P < .001) than those who don’t participate, according to research Dr. Brill and colleagues published.

Dr. Brill began expanding the program’s reach nearly 2 years after its launch, targeting the services for women who are at risk for poor postpartum outcomes, including those with a history of depression, preterm labor, diabetes and congenital heart disease. Ob.gyns. in Ohio State’s network can refer their patients to the program, which now has 43 doctors trained to provide primary and pediatric care through Momi Pods. Soon-to-be moms can be referred to the program as early as the second trimester, Dr. Brill said.

Many of the mothers referred to the program don’t have a primary care clinician when they talk to Paola Beamon, RN, at Ohio State. Ms. Beamon reaches out to each referred patient over voicemail, a MyChart message, and even regular mail in hopes of helping them navigate the postpartum period. She also provides education on what a primary care clinician can offer new moms.

“Really, we’re pursuing these moms and doing everything we can so there’s less of a burden for them,” Ms. Beamon said. “A lot of them don’t even know what a primary care office does.”

One of the biggest perks to the program for new moms is that they don’t have to spend time and money traveling to a different doctor’s office, take time off work, or secure childcare in order to schedule a separate appointment for themselves, she said.

The program, which receives funding from the university and the state, even helps women get bus passes to a doctor’s appointment if needed.

Dyad programs targeting women with substance abuse disorders or mental health conditions have existed for many years. But catering to women with gestational diabetes or other medical conditions appears to be new. In part, Dr. Venkataramani said, because scheduling and space can be big hurdles to launch such a program, as well as finding doctors who can care for both baby and mother.

“There are logistical challenges to even doing this that makes it less common,” she said.

Dr. Brill said she is not aware of any other programs that are structured like the tandem care clinic at Ohio State. She hopes, however, that the program can be a model for other hospital systems to consider, and she is working to expand the program regionally. Her team is collecting data – including on the best way to schedule patients – to help other clinics develop something similar. 

“We really want to leverage that expertise to make it easier for moms to get care with their infants and remove barriers to care,” she said.

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

Mindi Rosen met Seuli Brill, MD, at just the right time. 

Ms. Rosen’s firstborn son was in the neointensive natal unit at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and she didn’t have a pediatrician picked out yet for the baby. Nor did she have a primary care physician who could help her manage the gestational diabetes she developed during her pregnancy.

Dr. Brill, a clinical associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at Ohio State, suggested Ms. Rosen visit her at the new clinic she was piloting in Columbus. There, she provided pediatric care for newborns and primary care for mothers who had developed gestational diabetes.  

“I looked at my husband, my husband looked at me, and I said: ‘Why not?’ “ Ms. Rosen, 38, recalled of that 2019 meeting. “I’m so glad she walked in at that moment.”

The mother of two is still part of the rapidly growing program at the medical facility that provides care for more than 200 mothers and babies.

Launched in 2018, the clinic – called the Multi-Modal Maternal Infant Perinatal Outpatient Delivery System, or “Momi Pods,” started with a focus  on helping women with gestational diabetes, which occurs in up to 10% of pregnancies.

The program allows moms to book regular checkups for their baby, and then a follow-up appointment immediately after for themselves. Women are seen for the first 1,000 days (just under 3 years) after giving birth.

The idea was simple. Dr. Brill wanted to develop a more formalized program for the work she was already doing as a primary care physician and pediatrician. At the time, she was fielding referrals from specialists for young women who didn’t have a physician. She’d often develop a relationship with the patient over the years, go on to help oversee their care during pregnancy, then new mothers would select her as their newborn’s pediatrician.

“I would have a relationship with the mom when they did have the newborn, and then I would see the baby because I’m a pediatrician,” Dr. Brill said.

Dr. Brill was serving on the Ohio Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Collaborative, a state-backed program that aims to raise awareness about the condition and encourage more preventative care for patients. She presented her proposal to launch the program to the Ohio Department of Medicaid, which helped to fund the pilot.

The idea, she hoped, would improve postpartum follow-up care for mothers diagnosed with the condition. 

Follow-up care is especially important for women who develop gestational diabetes because the condition raises their lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes up to 10-fold. 

Yet most of those mothers don’t get the appropriate follow-up care during the crucial postpartum period, said Maya Subbalakshmi Venkataramani, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who has researched parental care. 

“Things get very busy after you have a child. There’s just the general logistics of a mom having to take care of a newborn and thinking about themselves,” Dr. Venkataramani, a primary care clinician and pediatrician, said. “A lot of parents in general may not put a lot of emphasis on their own health.”

Seeking care may be especially difficult for low-income mothers who might not have consistent health care coverage, she added.

In fact, only half of women who developed gestational diabetes received primary follow-up care, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open. The study, which examined more than 280,000 insurance claims between 2015 and 2018, found only 36% of women with gestational diabetes received the recommended blood glucose testing in the first 12 weeks of the postpartum period.

In the Momi Pods program, Dr. Brill checked in on Ms. Rosen’s gestational diabetes regularly during pediatric office visits for her newborn’s care. Ms. Rosen said whenever she brought her baby in for a visit during the postpartum period, Dr. Brill measured her blood sugar. 

Dr. Brill and her team also asked how Ms. Rosen was doing physically and mentally during each visit. The screenings helped to catch a bout of postpartum depression Ms. Rosen experienced after the birth of her first son.

“I thought it was great, because honestly as a new mom I wouldn’t have followed up with myself so much,” Ms. Rosen said. “Every time you went into the doctor appointments, they’d ask you how you are doing. As a new mom, it’s so much easier to do it at the same time.”

Those who participate in the program are also more likely to complete postpartum visits with their ob.gyn. (95% vs. 58%, respectively; P < .001) than those who don’t participate, according to research Dr. Brill and colleagues published.

Dr. Brill began expanding the program’s reach nearly 2 years after its launch, targeting the services for women who are at risk for poor postpartum outcomes, including those with a history of depression, preterm labor, diabetes and congenital heart disease. Ob.gyns. in Ohio State’s network can refer their patients to the program, which now has 43 doctors trained to provide primary and pediatric care through Momi Pods. Soon-to-be moms can be referred to the program as early as the second trimester, Dr. Brill said.

Many of the mothers referred to the program don’t have a primary care clinician when they talk to Paola Beamon, RN, at Ohio State. Ms. Beamon reaches out to each referred patient over voicemail, a MyChart message, and even regular mail in hopes of helping them navigate the postpartum period. She also provides education on what a primary care clinician can offer new moms.

“Really, we’re pursuing these moms and doing everything we can so there’s less of a burden for them,” Ms. Beamon said. “A lot of them don’t even know what a primary care office does.”

One of the biggest perks to the program for new moms is that they don’t have to spend time and money traveling to a different doctor’s office, take time off work, or secure childcare in order to schedule a separate appointment for themselves, she said.

The program, which receives funding from the university and the state, even helps women get bus passes to a doctor’s appointment if needed.

Dyad programs targeting women with substance abuse disorders or mental health conditions have existed for many years. But catering to women with gestational diabetes or other medical conditions appears to be new. In part, Dr. Venkataramani said, because scheduling and space can be big hurdles to launch such a program, as well as finding doctors who can care for both baby and mother.

“There are logistical challenges to even doing this that makes it less common,” she said.

Dr. Brill said she is not aware of any other programs that are structured like the tandem care clinic at Ohio State. She hopes, however, that the program can be a model for other hospital systems to consider, and she is working to expand the program regionally. Her team is collecting data – including on the best way to schedule patients – to help other clinics develop something similar. 

“We really want to leverage that expertise to make it easier for moms to get care with their infants and remove barriers to care,” she said.

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

Giving corticosteroids to pregnant women at risk for preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestational age has been the standard of care since the 1990s, but a few scenarios for their use remain up for debate. Two studies presented this week at the 2023 meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine provided some fresh insight into the practice that could help clinicians better manage pregnant patients.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in late preterm

First, should antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) be given to mothers who present with late preterm labor, defined as 34-36 weeks’ gestational age?

A landmark randomized clinical trial published in 2016 demonstrated that use of ACS in mothers in late preterm labor reduced severe respiratory complications. That practice has largely been adopted by clinicians. The only downside, according to the researchers, was that infants whose mothers received steroid therapy were more likely to develop hypoglycemia. The condition is self-limiting, but studies have raised concern about the potential long-term risk of neurocognitive or psychological outcomes in infants with hypoglycemia.

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MSc, endowed chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, led the 2016 study. Her team was unable to secure funding for their originally planned follow-up study of the infants 2 years later. But once the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the practice and more women received ACS in the late preterm period, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and her colleagues felt the need to “follow up the infants just to see what the outcomes are from a neurodevelopmental standpoint,” she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and colleagues recruited children older than age 6 from the original trial whose parents were willing to have them participate in a follow-up study. A total of 949 from the initial 2,831 cohort completed cognitive testing and received assessments for cerebral palsy, social impairment within the autism spectrum, and behavioral and emotional problems.

At the SMFM conference, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported no differences in the primary outcome of cognitive function between those whose mothers had received a single course of betamethasone and those who did not, or any differences in rates of the other outcomes.

Kathy Zhang-Rutledge, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who practices with Obstetrix Maternal Fetal Medicine Group of Houston, part of Pediatrix Medical Group, said she was glad to see a study that addressed the potential long-term adverse events associated with ACS in the late preterm period.

“Having this pretty large study – with really good neurological testing results – should help reassure clinicians that this is something they should consider adopting in their practice,” Dr. Zhang-Rutledge said.
 

Are boosters better?

The second unresolved question was if a repeat course of ACS should be administered when a woman at risk for preterm birth receives a course of steroids but does not deliver in the following 7 days.

Any benefits to the initial course of ACS wear off after a week. As a result, clinicians often give booster courses 7 days after the first dose if the infant is likely to be delivered in the following week. A 2009 study showed this approach may protect infants from respiratory problems, but data on long-term outcomes have been weak.

ACOG guidelines say to “consider” a booster dose in women who are less than 34 weeks’ gestation at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days.

The exception is when the mother already has experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), because ACS may increase the risk for infection for both mother and child. ACOG doesn’t take a stand on use of booster doses for PPROM, citing a lack of data to show that potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of this approach.

A recent multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial attempted to fill that void in knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, 194 women with PPROM and gestational age less than 32 weeks who had received an initial ACS course at least 7 days prior to randomization received a booster course of ACS or saline placebo.

“Our primary outcome was designed to be like the prior rescue study (in 2009) that we did with patients with intact membranes,” said Andrew Combs, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Pediatrix Medical Group in Sunrise, Fla., who participated in the earlier study. “It was a composite of neonatal morbidity that was any one of a variety of outcomes including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal death.”

The primary outcome occurred in 64% of women who received booster ACS and 66% with placebo (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.57), according to Dr. Combs, who presented the findings at SMFM.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in specific outcomes, the rate of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the ACS group, suggesting that ACS may be safe if membranes have ruptured, the researchers reported. But because the booster course of ACS did not prevent respiratory morbidity, clinicians may wonder what to do with the findings.

Niraj Chavan, MD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University, said he was unsure how the study would affect clinical practice.

The relatively small sample number of patients prevented analysis of specific outcomes and subgroup analyses of important variables such as race, ethnicity, gestational age, and other comorbid conditions in the mothers, he said. So clinicians still must weigh potential risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

“You have to think about it in buckets,” he said, “One is conditions that would increase the risk for neonatal morbidity. The other is the risk for infection, both for the mom and the baby.”

But for Dr. Combs, the interpretation of the findings was simpler: “We concluded that there’s no indication to give a booster course of steroids after a week has elapsed in patients with ruptured membranes.”

The study presented by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study presented by Dr. Combs was funded by MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, and Quality, which in 2022 was renamed Pediatrix Center for Research, Education,and Quality. Dr. Combs is an employee of Pediatrix Medical Group but has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, Dr. Zhang-Rutledge, and Dr. Chavan report no relevant financial relationships.

Ann Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist in Portland, Ore.

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

Giving corticosteroids to pregnant women at risk for preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestational age has been the standard of care since the 1990s, but a few scenarios for their use remain up for debate. Two studies presented this week at the 2023 meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine provided some fresh insight into the practice that could help clinicians better manage pregnant patients.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in late preterm

First, should antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) be given to mothers who present with late preterm labor, defined as 34-36 weeks’ gestational age?

A landmark randomized clinical trial published in 2016 demonstrated that use of ACS in mothers in late preterm labor reduced severe respiratory complications. That practice has largely been adopted by clinicians. The only downside, according to the researchers, was that infants whose mothers received steroid therapy were more likely to develop hypoglycemia. The condition is self-limiting, but studies have raised concern about the potential long-term risk of neurocognitive or psychological outcomes in infants with hypoglycemia.

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MSc, endowed chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, led the 2016 study. Her team was unable to secure funding for their originally planned follow-up study of the infants 2 years later. But once the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the practice and more women received ACS in the late preterm period, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and her colleagues felt the need to “follow up the infants just to see what the outcomes are from a neurodevelopmental standpoint,” she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and colleagues recruited children older than age 6 from the original trial whose parents were willing to have them participate in a follow-up study. A total of 949 from the initial 2,831 cohort completed cognitive testing and received assessments for cerebral palsy, social impairment within the autism spectrum, and behavioral and emotional problems.

At the SMFM conference, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported no differences in the primary outcome of cognitive function between those whose mothers had received a single course of betamethasone and those who did not, or any differences in rates of the other outcomes.

Kathy Zhang-Rutledge, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who practices with Obstetrix Maternal Fetal Medicine Group of Houston, part of Pediatrix Medical Group, said she was glad to see a study that addressed the potential long-term adverse events associated with ACS in the late preterm period.

“Having this pretty large study – with really good neurological testing results – should help reassure clinicians that this is something they should consider adopting in their practice,” Dr. Zhang-Rutledge said.
 

Are boosters better?

The second unresolved question was if a repeat course of ACS should be administered when a woman at risk for preterm birth receives a course of steroids but does not deliver in the following 7 days.

Any benefits to the initial course of ACS wear off after a week. As a result, clinicians often give booster courses 7 days after the first dose if the infant is likely to be delivered in the following week. A 2009 study showed this approach may protect infants from respiratory problems, but data on long-term outcomes have been weak.

ACOG guidelines say to “consider” a booster dose in women who are less than 34 weeks’ gestation at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days.

The exception is when the mother already has experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), because ACS may increase the risk for infection for both mother and child. ACOG doesn’t take a stand on use of booster doses for PPROM, citing a lack of data to show that potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of this approach.

A recent multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial attempted to fill that void in knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, 194 women with PPROM and gestational age less than 32 weeks who had received an initial ACS course at least 7 days prior to randomization received a booster course of ACS or saline placebo.

“Our primary outcome was designed to be like the prior rescue study (in 2009) that we did with patients with intact membranes,” said Andrew Combs, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Pediatrix Medical Group in Sunrise, Fla., who participated in the earlier study. “It was a composite of neonatal morbidity that was any one of a variety of outcomes including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal death.”

The primary outcome occurred in 64% of women who received booster ACS and 66% with placebo (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.57), according to Dr. Combs, who presented the findings at SMFM.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in specific outcomes, the rate of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the ACS group, suggesting that ACS may be safe if membranes have ruptured, the researchers reported. But because the booster course of ACS did not prevent respiratory morbidity, clinicians may wonder what to do with the findings.

Niraj Chavan, MD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University, said he was unsure how the study would affect clinical practice.

The relatively small sample number of patients prevented analysis of specific outcomes and subgroup analyses of important variables such as race, ethnicity, gestational age, and other comorbid conditions in the mothers, he said. So clinicians still must weigh potential risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

“You have to think about it in buckets,” he said, “One is conditions that would increase the risk for neonatal morbidity. The other is the risk for infection, both for the mom and the baby.”

But for Dr. Combs, the interpretation of the findings was simpler: “We concluded that there’s no indication to give a booster course of steroids after a week has elapsed in patients with ruptured membranes.”

The study presented by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study presented by Dr. Combs was funded by MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, and Quality, which in 2022 was renamed Pediatrix Center for Research, Education,and Quality. Dr. Combs is an employee of Pediatrix Medical Group but has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, Dr. Zhang-Rutledge, and Dr. Chavan report no relevant financial relationships.

Ann Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist in Portland, Ore.

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

Giving corticosteroids to pregnant women at risk for preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestational age has been the standard of care since the 1990s, but a few scenarios for their use remain up for debate. Two studies presented this week at the 2023 meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine provided some fresh insight into the practice that could help clinicians better manage pregnant patients.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in late preterm

First, should antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) be given to mothers who present with late preterm labor, defined as 34-36 weeks’ gestational age?

A landmark randomized clinical trial published in 2016 demonstrated that use of ACS in mothers in late preterm labor reduced severe respiratory complications. That practice has largely been adopted by clinicians. The only downside, according to the researchers, was that infants whose mothers received steroid therapy were more likely to develop hypoglycemia. The condition is self-limiting, but studies have raised concern about the potential long-term risk of neurocognitive or psychological outcomes in infants with hypoglycemia.

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MSc, endowed chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, led the 2016 study. Her team was unable to secure funding for their originally planned follow-up study of the infants 2 years later. But once the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the practice and more women received ACS in the late preterm period, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and her colleagues felt the need to “follow up the infants just to see what the outcomes are from a neurodevelopmental standpoint,” she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and colleagues recruited children older than age 6 from the original trial whose parents were willing to have them participate in a follow-up study. A total of 949 from the initial 2,831 cohort completed cognitive testing and received assessments for cerebral palsy, social impairment within the autism spectrum, and behavioral and emotional problems.

At the SMFM conference, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported no differences in the primary outcome of cognitive function between those whose mothers had received a single course of betamethasone and those who did not, or any differences in rates of the other outcomes.

Kathy Zhang-Rutledge, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who practices with Obstetrix Maternal Fetal Medicine Group of Houston, part of Pediatrix Medical Group, said she was glad to see a study that addressed the potential long-term adverse events associated with ACS in the late preterm period.

“Having this pretty large study – with really good neurological testing results – should help reassure clinicians that this is something they should consider adopting in their practice,” Dr. Zhang-Rutledge said.
 

Are boosters better?

The second unresolved question was if a repeat course of ACS should be administered when a woman at risk for preterm birth receives a course of steroids but does not deliver in the following 7 days.

Any benefits to the initial course of ACS wear off after a week. As a result, clinicians often give booster courses 7 days after the first dose if the infant is likely to be delivered in the following week. A 2009 study showed this approach may protect infants from respiratory problems, but data on long-term outcomes have been weak.

ACOG guidelines say to “consider” a booster dose in women who are less than 34 weeks’ gestation at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days.

The exception is when the mother already has experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), because ACS may increase the risk for infection for both mother and child. ACOG doesn’t take a stand on use of booster doses for PPROM, citing a lack of data to show that potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of this approach.

A recent multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial attempted to fill that void in knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, 194 women with PPROM and gestational age less than 32 weeks who had received an initial ACS course at least 7 days prior to randomization received a booster course of ACS or saline placebo.

“Our primary outcome was designed to be like the prior rescue study (in 2009) that we did with patients with intact membranes,” said Andrew Combs, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Pediatrix Medical Group in Sunrise, Fla., who participated in the earlier study. “It was a composite of neonatal morbidity that was any one of a variety of outcomes including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal death.”

The primary outcome occurred in 64% of women who received booster ACS and 66% with placebo (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.57), according to Dr. Combs, who presented the findings at SMFM.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in specific outcomes, the rate of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the ACS group, suggesting that ACS may be safe if membranes have ruptured, the researchers reported. But because the booster course of ACS did not prevent respiratory morbidity, clinicians may wonder what to do with the findings.

Niraj Chavan, MD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University, said he was unsure how the study would affect clinical practice.

The relatively small sample number of patients prevented analysis of specific outcomes and subgroup analyses of important variables such as race, ethnicity, gestational age, and other comorbid conditions in the mothers, he said. So clinicians still must weigh potential risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

“You have to think about it in buckets,” he said, “One is conditions that would increase the risk for neonatal morbidity. The other is the risk for infection, both for the mom and the baby.”

But for Dr. Combs, the interpretation of the findings was simpler: “We concluded that there’s no indication to give a booster course of steroids after a week has elapsed in patients with ruptured membranes.”

The study presented by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study presented by Dr. Combs was funded by MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, and Quality, which in 2022 was renamed Pediatrix Center for Research, Education,and Quality. Dr. Combs is an employee of Pediatrix Medical Group but has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, Dr. Zhang-Rutledge, and Dr. Chavan report no relevant financial relationships.

Ann Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist in Portland, Ore.

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

Infants born to women infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) faced twice the risk of stays in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 2.7 times the risk of low birth weight, a new analysis finds, even when researchers adjusted their data to control for injectable drug use and maternal medical comorbidity.

Clinicians should be “aware that the infants of pregnant people with HCV may have a high rate of need for higher-level pediatric care,” said Brenna L. Hughes, MD, MSc, chief of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. She spoke in an interview about the findings, which were presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

As Dr. Hughes noted, “HCV remains a serious problem in pregnancy because it often goes undiagnosed and/or untreated prior to pregnancy. It can be passed to infants, and this can cause significant health-related outcomes for children as they age.”

For the multicenter U.S. study, researchers identified 249 pregnant mothers with HCV from a 2012-2018 cohort and matched them by gestational age to controls (n = 486). The average age was 28; 71.1% of the cases were non-Hispanic White versus 41.6% of the controls; 8.4% of cases were non-Hispanic Black versus 32.1% of controls (P < .001 for race/ethnicity analysis); and 73% of cases were smokers versus 18% of controls (P < .001). More than 19% of cases reported injectable drug use during pregnancy versus 0.2% of controls (P < .001).

The researchers adjusted their findings for maternal age, body mass index, injectable drug use, and maternal comorbidity.

An earlier analysis of the study data found that 6% of pregnant women with HCV passed it on to their infants, especially those with high levels of virus in their systems. For the new study, researchers focused on various outcomes to test the assumption that “adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with HCV are related to prematurity or to ongoing use of injection drugs,” Dr. Hughes said.

There was no increase in rates of preterm birth or adverse maternal outcomes in the HCV cases. However, infants born to women with HCV were more likely than the controls to require a stay in the NICU (45% vs. 19%; adjusted relative risk, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.58). They were also more likely to have lower birth weights (small for gestational age < 5th percentile) (10.6% vs. 3.1%; ARR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.38-5.34).

No difference in outcomes was seen when HCV cases with viremia (33%) were excluded.

“The most surprising finding was that the need for higher-level pediatric care was so high even though there wasn’t an increased risk of prematurity,” Dr. Hughes said.

She added it’s not clear why NICU stays and low birth weights were more common in infants of women with HCV. “It is possible that the higher risk of need for higher-level pediatric care was related to a need for observation or treatment due to use of opioid replacement therapies with opioid agonists.” As for lower birth weight, “there may be other unmeasured risk factors.”

Tatyana Kushner, MD, MSCE, of the division of liver diseases at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview that the study adds to limited data about HCV in pregnancy. “These findings have been demonstrated in prior studies, and it would be important to tease apart whether [low birth weight] is related to the virus itself or more related to other confounding associated factors such as maternal substance use as well as other associated social determinants of health among women with HCV.”

As for the study’s message, Dr. Kushner said it makes it clear that “hepatitis C adversely impacts outcomes of pregnancy and it is important to identify women of childbearing age for treatment early, ideally prior to pregnancy, in order to improve their pregnancy outcomes. In addition, treatment of hepatitis C during pregnancy should be explored further to determine if treatment during pregnancy can improve outcomes.”

At the moment, she said, “there are ongoing studies to delineate the safety and efficacy of hepatitis C treatment during pregnancy. Given that we are screening for hepatitis C during pregnancy, we need clear recommendations on the use of direct-acting antivirals in people who screen positive.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Kushner disclosed research support (Gilead) and advisory board service (Gilead, AbbVie, Bausch, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eiger).

Infants born to women infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) faced twice the risk of stays in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 2.7 times the risk of low birth weight, a new analysis finds, even when researchers adjusted their data to control for injectable drug use and maternal medical comorbidity.

Clinicians should be “aware that the infants of pregnant people with HCV may have a high rate of need for higher-level pediatric care,” said Brenna L. Hughes, MD, MSc, chief of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. She spoke in an interview about the findings, which were presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

As Dr. Hughes noted, “HCV remains a serious problem in pregnancy because it often goes undiagnosed and/or untreated prior to pregnancy. It can be passed to infants, and this can cause significant health-related outcomes for children as they age.”

For the multicenter U.S. study, researchers identified 249 pregnant mothers with HCV from a 2012-2018 cohort and matched them by gestational age to controls (n = 486). The average age was 28; 71.1% of the cases were non-Hispanic White versus 41.6% of the controls; 8.4% of cases were non-Hispanic Black versus 32.1% of controls (P < .001 for race/ethnicity analysis); and 73% of cases were smokers versus 18% of controls (P < .001). More than 19% of cases reported injectable drug use during pregnancy versus 0.2% of controls (P < .001).

The researchers adjusted their findings for maternal age, body mass index, injectable drug use, and maternal comorbidity.

An earlier analysis of the study data found that 6% of pregnant women with HCV passed it on to their infants, especially those with high levels of virus in their systems. For the new study, researchers focused on various outcomes to test the assumption that “adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with HCV are related to prematurity or to ongoing use of injection drugs,” Dr. Hughes said.

There was no increase in rates of preterm birth or adverse maternal outcomes in the HCV cases. However, infants born to women with HCV were more likely than the controls to require a stay in the NICU (45% vs. 19%; adjusted relative risk, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.58). They were also more likely to have lower birth weights (small for gestational age < 5th percentile) (10.6% vs. 3.1%; ARR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.38-5.34).

No difference in outcomes was seen when HCV cases with viremia (33%) were excluded.

“The most surprising finding was that the need for higher-level pediatric care was so high even though there wasn’t an increased risk of prematurity,” Dr. Hughes said.

She added it’s not clear why NICU stays and low birth weights were more common in infants of women with HCV. “It is possible that the higher risk of need for higher-level pediatric care was related to a need for observation or treatment due to use of opioid replacement therapies with opioid agonists.” As for lower birth weight, “there may be other unmeasured risk factors.”

Tatyana Kushner, MD, MSCE, of the division of liver diseases at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview that the study adds to limited data about HCV in pregnancy. “These findings have been demonstrated in prior studies, and it would be important to tease apart whether [low birth weight] is related to the virus itself or more related to other confounding associated factors such as maternal substance use as well as other associated social determinants of health among women with HCV.”

As for the study’s message, Dr. Kushner said it makes it clear that “hepatitis C adversely impacts outcomes of pregnancy and it is important to identify women of childbearing age for treatment early, ideally prior to pregnancy, in order to improve their pregnancy outcomes. In addition, treatment of hepatitis C during pregnancy should be explored further to determine if treatment during pregnancy can improve outcomes.”

At the moment, she said, “there are ongoing studies to delineate the safety and efficacy of hepatitis C treatment during pregnancy. Given that we are screening for hepatitis C during pregnancy, we need clear recommendations on the use of direct-acting antivirals in people who screen positive.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Kushner disclosed research support (Gilead) and advisory board service (Gilead, AbbVie, Bausch, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eiger).

Infants born to women infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) faced twice the risk of stays in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 2.7 times the risk of low birth weight, a new analysis finds, even when researchers adjusted their data to control for injectable drug use and maternal medical comorbidity.

Clinicians should be “aware that the infants of pregnant people with HCV may have a high rate of need for higher-level pediatric care,” said Brenna L. Hughes, MD, MSc, chief of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. She spoke in an interview about the findings, which were presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

As Dr. Hughes noted, “HCV remains a serious problem in pregnancy because it often goes undiagnosed and/or untreated prior to pregnancy. It can be passed to infants, and this can cause significant health-related outcomes for children as they age.”

For the multicenter U.S. study, researchers identified 249 pregnant mothers with HCV from a 2012-2018 cohort and matched them by gestational age to controls (n = 486). The average age was 28; 71.1% of the cases were non-Hispanic White versus 41.6% of the controls; 8.4% of cases were non-Hispanic Black versus 32.1% of controls (P < .001 for race/ethnicity analysis); and 73% of cases were smokers versus 18% of controls (P < .001). More than 19% of cases reported injectable drug use during pregnancy versus 0.2% of controls (P < .001).

The researchers adjusted their findings for maternal age, body mass index, injectable drug use, and maternal comorbidity.

An earlier analysis of the study data found that 6% of pregnant women with HCV passed it on to their infants, especially those with high levels of virus in their systems. For the new study, researchers focused on various outcomes to test the assumption that “adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with HCV are related to prematurity or to ongoing use of injection drugs,” Dr. Hughes said.

There was no increase in rates of preterm birth or adverse maternal outcomes in the HCV cases. However, infants born to women with HCV were more likely than the controls to require a stay in the NICU (45% vs. 19%; adjusted relative risk, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.58). They were also more likely to have lower birth weights (small for gestational age < 5th percentile) (10.6% vs. 3.1%; ARR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.38-5.34).

No difference in outcomes was seen when HCV cases with viremia (33%) were excluded.

“The most surprising finding was that the need for higher-level pediatric care was so high even though there wasn’t an increased risk of prematurity,” Dr. Hughes said.

She added it’s not clear why NICU stays and low birth weights were more common in infants of women with HCV. “It is possible that the higher risk of need for higher-level pediatric care was related to a need for observation or treatment due to use of opioid replacement therapies with opioid agonists.” As for lower birth weight, “there may be other unmeasured risk factors.”

Tatyana Kushner, MD, MSCE, of the division of liver diseases at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview that the study adds to limited data about HCV in pregnancy. “These findings have been demonstrated in prior studies, and it would be important to tease apart whether [low birth weight] is related to the virus itself or more related to other confounding associated factors such as maternal substance use as well as other associated social determinants of health among women with HCV.”

As for the study’s message, Dr. Kushner said it makes it clear that “hepatitis C adversely impacts outcomes of pregnancy and it is important to identify women of childbearing age for treatment early, ideally prior to pregnancy, in order to improve their pregnancy outcomes. In addition, treatment of hepatitis C during pregnancy should be explored further to determine if treatment during pregnancy can improve outcomes.”

At the moment, she said, “there are ongoing studies to delineate the safety and efficacy of hepatitis C treatment during pregnancy. Given that we are screening for hepatitis C during pregnancy, we need clear recommendations on the use of direct-acting antivirals in people who screen positive.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Kushner disclosed research support (Gilead) and advisory board service (Gilead, AbbVie, Bausch, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eiger).