The best chance of “reeling-in” an unmarried father and building the foundations for a stable family life are the critical months of pregnancy, says new research from the University of Maryland. Marriage itself is no guarantee, the study adds.

“Unmarried dads are less likely to drift away if they are involved during this vital period when a family can begin to bond,” says University of Maryland human development professor Natasha Cabrera, the principal investigator and a researcher at the school’s Maryland Population Research Center.

The study, published in the December Journal of Marriage and Family, is the first to examine the importance of the pre-natal period in the formation of non-traditional family patterns.

The researchers analyzed data drawn from an ongoing project – the Fragile Families Child Well Being Study – of mostly unmarried couples, a total of 1,686 couples in all.

In their analysis, Cabrera and her colleague, Jay Fagan at Temple University, found that fathers involved during pregnancy were significantly more likely to remain involved in raising their child at age three.

“The unmarried father is much more likely either to maintain or move into a more committed relationship if he’s involved before the birth, and that’s the critical difference,” Cabrera says. “As you might expect, research has consistently shown that creating a stable home life predicts whether a father will be an active participant in raising the child, but what we’ve learned here is that the pre-natal months are when that kind of family structure is most likely to coalesce.”

The study found that marital status is not a critical predictor of a father’s involvement. “It is the decision that couples make to strengthen commitment and move in together that is important, rather than marital status per se,” Cabrera said. “You don’t need much imagination to see that a live-in dad is likely to be more involved in child care and family life. It’s the personal investment in the child’s and the mother’s future that counts the most, not the paperwork.”

###

MARYLAND POPULATION RESEARCH CENTER

The Maryland Population Research Center brings together population researchers from a broad range of disciplines, including economics, sociology, criminology, family science, and public policy. The Center is funded by the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland and by an infrastructure grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. popcenter.umd.edu/

Source: Neil Tickner

University of Maryland

Patrick Welsh — an English teacher at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Va. — writes in a Washington Post outlook piece that he is “amazed and concerned” about the “apparently nonchalant” attitude in the U.S. toward teen pregnancy, which “is still a major concern in this country.” Although teen pregnancy “has been bright on American radar screens for the past year” with high-profile teen pregnancies such as actress Jamie Lynn Spears and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R) daughter Bristol making headlines, Welsh writes that he has “been observing the phenomenon up close for a couple of years,” adding that “the picture I see is more troubling than any of those high-profile pregnancies make it seem.” According to Welsh, “teenage mothers are less likely to finish school and more likely to live in poverty; their children are more likely to have difficulties in school and with the law; and on and on.”

Since 1990, teen birth rates declined by 36% until 2006, when rates increased by 3%, the first rise in 15 years, Welsh writes. According to Welsh, “most of the rise is due to pregnancies among Hispanic girls.” He adds that Sarah Brown, director of the National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, has said that Hispanics have the highest teen pregnancy rates and teen birth rates of any racial or ethnic groups in the U.S. According to the Virginia Department of Health, 204 pregnancies occurred among teens in Alexandria in 2006, resulting in 102 births and 99 abortions, Welsh writes, adding that teen pregnancy rates among Hispanics “were the highest of any group.” He writes that “almost every adult involved” in assisting pregnant teens at T.C. Williams “seems to be at a loss, especially in the face of the rising birth rate among Hispanics.”

According to Welsh, few of the teenage mothers at T.C. Williams have health insurance, and many participate in free and reduced school lunch programs. Therefore, “when they get pregnant, a whole tax-supported industry kicks into action,” he writes. According to Welsh, teen mothers ages 13 and older in Virginia can access no-cost reproductive services, an assigned nurse from the state Health Department, transportation assistance from Resource Mothers, day care services from the Campagna Center and help from a school dietitian. In addition, the federal Women, Infants and Children program provides no-cost formula and groceries for teen mothers and their children. According to Welsh, the National Campaign reports that teen pregnancy in the U.S. cost taxpayers $9.1 billion in 2004. Of that sum, teens ages 17 and younger accounted for $8.6 billion, or an average of $4,080 per teen mother each year, Welsh writes. According to Brown, school sex education programs are varied across the country and include everything from education about HIV/AIDS to peer counseling to abstinence-only education, Welsh writes, adding “No one really knows what’s working where.”

“On the surface, Alexandria seems to be striving to stem teen pregnancy” with sex education courses, workshops and clinics providing birth control, Welsh writes, adding, “But none of this coalesces to hit teens with the message that getting pregnant is a disaster.” According to Welsh, when a teen girl becomes pregnant, “the school leaps in to do everything for her,” such as providing access to a day care center and referrals for further assistance. However, Welsh asks, “Is it possible that all this assistance — with little or no comment about the kids’ actions — has the unintended effect of actually encouraging them to get pregnant?” He adds, “Are we making it easier for girls to make a bad choice and helping them avoid the truth about the consequences?” Nancy Runton, school nurse at T.C. Williams, said there is a “myth” that teen pregnancies are accidental, but “many of them aren’t.” According to Runton, teen pregnancy can be “a status thing,” and some girls make “pregnancy pacts” in which they agree to become pregnant together. Robert Wolverton, medical director of a local teen health clinic, said that many girls and their families do not see a problem with being unmarried and having a child at age 16 or 17. However, Welsh writes, “[a]s upset as I get at the recklessness I see in some of the girls and their boyfriends, I can’t begrudge” a teenage mother the “help she needs” to raise her children (Welsh, Washington Post, 12/14).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Two newspapers on Saturday examined a new Roman Catholic Church document, released Friday, that condemns efforts by infertile couples to adopt or implant frozen embryos, saying that such methods are as immoral as destroying embryos for stem cell research. The document, titled “Dignitas Personae (Human Dignity): On Certain Bioethical Questions,” states, “The desire for a child cannot justify the ‘production’ of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived.” It adds that diagnosing embryos for diseases or genetic flaws before implantation is “shameful and reprehensible” and that such techniques, like prescribing or using contraception that prevents implantation, lead to “the sin of abortion.” The document does not offer a clear solution for what to do with currently frozen embryos, which it says “represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved” (Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 12/12).

~ New York Times: There was “little new” information in the document, but some of the information, such as the church’s ban on IVF, might “come as a surprise,” the Times reports (Goldstein/Povoledo, New York Times, 12/13).

~ Washington Post: The document “triggered intense debate” about “some of the most contentious issues in modern biological research, including stem cells, designer babies, cloning and a host of techniques widely used to prevent pregnancy and to help infertile couples have children,” the Post reports. According to the Post, the document reflects the church’s “desire to focus attention on ethical questions raised by a new generation of technologies that are becoming increasingly common.” Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the document “makes very clear that the church is very closely watching scientific progress and favors that progress but wants ethics to be part of that” (Boorstein/Stein, Washington Post, 12/13).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

FDA is urging the White House to approve revised recommendations that would encourage greater seafood intake for pregnant women, women of childbearing age, women who are breastfeeding, infants and children, saying that the benefits of eating seafood outweigh the risk of mercury exposure from fish, the Washington Post reports. FDA’s recommendation would reverse the government’s current policy which advises that individuals in these populations to limit consumption of mercury-contaminated fish and avoid certain high-mercury species altogether, including swordfish, shark, tilefish and king mackerel. The metal is known to damage neurological development of fetuses and infants and might also pose cardiovascular risks for adults, according to the Post. In a draft report of the new recommendations submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, FDA states that the nutrients in fish — including omega-3 fatty acids and selenium — could boost a child’s IQ by three points. In addition, it said that the greatest benefits would come from consuming more than the current 12 ounce limit recommended for pregnant women, women of childbearing years, women who are breastfeeding, infants and children.

The Environmental Protection Agency — which has a joint role with FDA in protecting the public from mercury contamination — criticized the new recommendations in internal memos, calling the policy “scientifically flawed and inadequate” and short of the “scientific rigor routinely demonstrated by EPA.” The Post reports that EPA sources said that FDA did not consult the agency on its proposal for the revisions until the draft nearly was complete. Kathryn Mahaffey — former top mercury scientist for EPA — said that FDA used an “oversimplified approach” that could increase the public’s exposure to mercury. However, a spokesperson for the National Fisheries Institute praised FDA’s efforts and said the agency used “a science-based approach” (Layton, Washington Post, 12/12).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Being diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy or while breastfeeding is not associated with increased risk of cancer-related death – with the exception of breast and ovarian cancer diagnosed during lactation, according to a study of women in Norway.

The question of how pregnancy affects cancer has been debated for decades. Historically, it was thought that higher levels of the female hormone oestrogen, which occur during pregnancy, might increase the aggressiveness of cancers that can be hormone-dependent, such as breast and ovarian cancer, and also malignant melanoma. Other changes that occur during pregnancy, including suppression of the immune system and increased vascularisation, might also have adverse effects on tumour development.

Some previous studies have suggested decreased survival in women with breast cancer or malignant melanoma diagnosed during, or shortly after, pregnancy. However, results have been contradictory.

To explore the issue more carefully, researchers analysed survival in all women aged 16 to 49 years in Norway diagnosed with cancer between 1967 and 2002. They compared survival in women who were pregnant or breastfeeding when diagnosed with the most common cancers in this age group – including breast, cervical, ovarian and thyroid cancers, malignant melanoma, brain tumours, malignant lymphoma and leukaemia – with those who were not.

The impact of pregnancy and lactation on survival from cancer is becoming increasingly important as women have children at an older age, and cancer incidence also increases with age. In Norway, more than half of all pregnancies now occur in women aged 30 to 49 years, compared with 24% in 1967. The rate of cancer in this age group is also increasing – so there are growing numbers of women who are diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy or lactation.

The retrospective, population-based cohort study analysed data on 42,511 women from the Cancer Registry and the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Results for all cancers combined showed no effect of being diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86 to 1.22) or during lactation (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22) on survival.

In contrast, women with breast cancer diagnosed during lactation were nearly twice as likely to die from their breast cancer as women who were not breastfeeding (HR 1.95; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.78; p

The researchers, led by Hanne Stensheim, from the Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, said: “For all sites combined, we found no increased risk of cause-specific death in 1,047 women with their first cancer diagnosed during pregnancy or lactation. However, in the subgroups of lactating women diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer, the risk of cause-specific deaths was doubled. The risk was also slightly elevated in women diagnosed with malignant melanoma during pregnancy.”

They advised: “Detection of breast cancer or ovarian cancer during lactation and malignant melanoma during pregnancy requires particular awareness by health care professionals.”

The worse outcomes for breast cancer in women who are breastfeeding may be due to delay in diagnosis and treatment, the researchers suggested, because changes or lumps in the breast during lactation may be regarded as normal by both women and doctors. Mammograms are also difficult to interpret during these stages of a woman’s life.

A negative effect of oestrogen on tumours seemed unlikely, the researchers suggested, because poorer survival was seen only in women diagnosed with cancers during lactation but not in those diagnosed while pregnant.

The researchers discovered a ‘healthy mother effect,’ in which women diagnosed with cancer after a pregnancy had a reduced risk of dying from their cancer, for all cancers combined (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.59). Compared with women without a subsequent pregnancy, women with postcancer pregnancies and a diagnosis of cervical cancer, lymphoma or leukaemia, had approximately 80% lower risk of cause-specific death. The researchers explained that this implied self-selection among women who had undergone cancer treatment, whether they choose to get pregnant afterward or not.

One limitation of the study was that the numbers of women diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy or lactation were small. Just over one in every hundred cancers included in the study were in pregnant women (n=516; 1.2%) and in lactating women (n=531; 1.2%). Tracking the incidence of cancers diagnosed during pregnancy and lactation over time showed a slight increase during the study period (annual increase of 2.5% and 1.6%, respectively).

Commenting on the study, Fedro Alessandro Peccatori, Director of the Unit of Allogeneic Transplantation, Milan, Italy, noted: “Most data about pregnancy associated cancer prognosis derive from retrospective case-control studies or from prospective cohort studies of selected countries or regions. Not everywhere is able to cross link data on the whole population for cancer diagnosis and childbirth, nor is it feasible to follow women throughout their lives with specific and reliable information about the cause of death. However, this was possible in Norway, a country with less than five million inhabitants with a 55-year-old cancer registry and a birth registry established in 1967.”

He considered that the most important finding of the study was that, overall, cancers occurring during pregnancy or lactation do not have a worse prognosis compared to cancers diagnosed at other times, when adjusted for age, diagnostic period and initial disease extent.

When the results were categorised by histology, Doctor Peccatori noted that breast cancer diagnosed after a recent childbirth had a significantly worse prognosis. “These data are in line with recent reports1 and can be explained by a higher incidence of oestrogen receptor negative and lymph node positive tumour2.”

Having a pregnancy after cancer diagnosis (the median time from diagnosis to subsequent pregnancy in this study was 3.5 years) does not increase the risk of death, which is halved overall, he said. “This is coherent with previous studies and confirms the ‘healthy mother effect’, i.e. that women who have pregnancies after cancer are self selected for better prognosis.”

Doctor Peccatori considered it interesting that only a few women (5.7%) had pregnancies after cancer diagnosis, even though the follow-up was quite long (15.2 years). The data also showed large variations according to tumour type: 21% of women gave birth after having thyroid cancer or melanoma, while only 138 of 13,073 women (1%) gave birth after having had breast cancer. “This may reflect the gonadal toxicity of the treatments administered for breast cancer, but also the misleading information given to patients that a subsequent pregnancy after breast cancer may negatively influence survival,” he said. “On the contrary, all the published data (including the present study) do not describe an increased risk of mortality for these patients3.”

“This paper gives physicians treating pregnancy-associated cancers and women who wish to conceive after cancer diagnosis precious information and reassurance,” Doctor Peccatori considered. “The prognosis for most tumours diagnosed during pregnancy is no worse than for cancers diagnosed outside pregnancy, but awareness about the possibility that pregnancy and lactation can be complicated by cancer is warranted,” he suggested. “Unfortunately, too many cancers are still diagnosed during pregnancy and lactation in advanced stages, with overall worse prognosis.”

Reference

Stensheim H, Moller B, van Dijk T, and Fossa SD. Cause-specific survival for women diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy or lactation: a registry-based cohort study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008; jco.ascopubs/cgi/doi/10.1200/JCO.2008.17.4110

References cited in the research summary

Olson SH, Zauber AG, Tang J, et al. Relation of time since last birth and parity to survival of young women with breast cancer. Epidemiology 1998; 9: 669-671

Phillips K-A, Milne RL, Friedlander ML, et al. Prognosis of Premenopausal Breast Cancer and Childbirth Prior to Diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2004; 22:699-705

Peccatori F, Cinieri S, Orlando L, Bellettini G. Subsequent pregnancy after breast cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2008;178: 57-67

This Summary was prepared by the Cancer Media Service (CMS). The CMS is resource for journalists operated by the European School of Oncology (ESO) in collaboration with Nature Clinical Practice Oncology.

Cancer Research Summaries are short digests of important clinical research findings that have been reported recently in leading cancer pubblications. They are sent out to interested journalists and Club ESO members every 2 weeks.

“This summary is provided operated by The European School of Oncology’s Cancer media service cancerworld/mediaservice “

Cancer Media Service

Some economists predict that the U.S. birth rate could decline as a result of the economic crisis, as many couples decide to postpone or not have children because of financial difficulties, the Los Angeles Times reports.

According to the Times, declines in the U.S. fertility rate have followed economic recessions for about 75 years. Demographers say it is too early in the recession to predict the extent of its effect on birth rates; however, the current recession is expected to become one of the most serious since the Great Depression, when the birth rate fell dramatically, the Times reports. Demographers do not expect the birth rate to fall below the replacement level, the level at which each couple reproduces two children.

Many obstetricians expect to see a drop in pregnancies, especially among middle-class families experiencing financial strain. Khalil Tabsh, chief of obstetrics at the University of California- Los Angeles who expects to see a drop in pregnancies, said, “If you can’t pay your mortgage, the last thing on your mind is to have another child.”

Some economists believe the dwindling economy could lead to more births. Gary Becker, a University of Chicago economist and sociologist, said some women might use a job loss as an opportunity to have children, while some women in the workforce might choose to stop working to raise their children. Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau said that the economy’s effect on the birth rate will be clearer in about nine months (Guynn, Los Angeles Times, 12/10).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded nearly $3 million to support Rush University Medical Center’s study analyzing how human breast milk impacts the health outcomes and health care cost savings for very low birth weight infants – babies less than 1500 grams.

The grant will enable researchers at Rush to conduct a five-year study involving the largest prospective cohort of 600 very low birth weight infants born to racially and economically diverse mothers. The study will have a representative number of African American and low income women enrolled in this study.

“Unlike other institutions with the same demographics, the mothers that give birth at Rush elect to provide breast milk because they are encouraged to think of their milk as ‘medicine’ for their babies,” said Paula Meier, director of clinical research and lactation in the Rush neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and principal investigator of the study.

More than 95 percent of very low birth weight infants in Rush’s NICU receive their mothers’ breast milk and will be enrolled into the study.

The trial will examine the relationship between the amount, the duration, and the timing of human milk feedings and improved health outcomes for very low birth weight babies hospitalized in the NICU.

Past research indicates that human milk protects very low birth weight infants from prematurity-specific complications that predispose these infants to short-and long-term health problems and increase cost of health care.

“However, no one has conclusively linked the amount and length of time these infants need to be fed human milk in order to lower their health risks and tie it back to cost of care,” said Meier.

“For this patient population, human milk is much more important for its therapeutic and medicinal properties rather than nutrition,” said Meier. “While these infants are in the NICU, we have a critical window to decrease morbidity rates and risks of severe complications.”

The study will follow very low birth weight infants in the Rush NICU to see what effect higher doses of human breast milk and longer periods of exposure during critical periods of hospitalization have on length of stay, infant growth, as well as lowering total NICU costs.

Infants enrolled in the study will receive different amounts of human breast milk during their NICU stay. Data on the variables of dose and exposure period of human breast milk feeding will be collected throughout the infant’s entire NICU stay. Researchers also will collect data on short-term costs of providing breast milk such as breast pump rental, total number of storage containers needed and access to lactation experts.

“The findings from this study will be easily translated into health policy that we hope will help shape protocol standards for NICUs and providing care for this vulnerable patient population,” said Meier.

About the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Rush

The Rush NICU provides the full spectrum of medical and surgical care for infants born at Rush or transferred from other hospitals. The 57-bed NICU is housed adjacent to the labor/delivery services, allowing neonatal medicine specialist immediate access during high-risk deliveries. The NICU provides neonatal specialty care including high frequency ventilation and nitric oxide therapy.

Rush Children’s Hospital is one of two hospitals in the area that has a board-certified neonatologist in-house 24-hours-a-day with immediate availability for consultations and referrals.

All high-risk deliveries, including all pregnancies less than 32 weeks gestation, are attended by a board-certified neonatologist. All critical clinical decisions are made at the bedside by the board-certified neonatologist 24 hours a day.

The NICU receives full subspecialty support from pediatric medical subspecialists, pediatric surgery and other surgical subspecialties. In addition, Rush Children’s Hospital is the only hospital with complete neonatal nurse practitioner coverage on all extremely low birth weight infants. These two factors have been associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates.

The unit staff includes neonatologists, neonatal nurses, nurse practitioners and respiratory therapists. Also available are pediatric medical subspecialists, pediatric surgeons and other surgical subspecialties as needed to care for infants in the unit.

Rush University Medical Center is an academic medical center that encompasses the more than 600 staffed-bed hospital (including Rush Children’s Hospital), the Johnston R. Bowman Health Center and Rush University. Rush University, with more than 1,270 students, is home to one of the first medical schools in the Midwest, and one of the nation’s top-ranked nursing colleges. Rush University also offers graduate programs in allied health and the basic sciences. Rush is noted for bringing together clinical care and research to address major health problems, including arthritis and orthopedic disorders, cancer, heart disease, mental illness, neurological disorders and diseases associated with aging.

Rush University Medical Center

Children of mothers who took acid-suppressive drugs during pregnancy had a 1.5 times higher incidence of asthma when compared to children who were not exposed to the drugs in utero, finds a large population-based study by researchers at Children’s Hospital Boston. The findings, accompanied by an editorial, appear online this week in “Early View” in the journal Clinical and Experimental Allergy. (They will be formally published online on January 19, 2009 and will appear in the journal’s February print edition.)

Lead researchers Elizabeth Hait, MD,MPH and Edda Fiebiger, PhD and first author Eleonora Dehlink, MD PhD, of the Division of Gastroenterology/Nutrition at Children’s, examined mother-child allergy relationships using national health registers in Sweden, which contain records of all hospitalizations and drug prescriptions. By linking data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register with the Hospital Discharge Register and the Prescribed Drug Register, the team was able to identify mothers who took acid-blocking medicines during pregnancy. “We also used the registries to identify children who were hospitalized for allergic disorders or received a prescription for allergies, and then traced them back to their mothers,” says Hait.

The team analyzed data from over 585,000 children, born between 1995 and 2004. Overall, about 5,600 children (just under 1 percent) had been exposed to acid suppression therapy during pregnancy, and more than 29,000 (5 percent) had a discharge diagnosis of allergy or prescriptions for allergy medications by 2006. Maternal use of acid-suppressive medicines was associated with a 43 percent greater likelihood that a child would be hospitalized or receive prescriptions for allergic conditions. Asthma was the most commonly reported condition; maternal use of acid-suppressive medications increased its likelihood by 51 percent.

The team then repeated their analyses to factor in maternal history of allergy, a known strong risk factor for allergy in children. “We found that if a mother is allergic, antacids don’t seem to increase the risk of allergies significantly, because the risk of her child having allergies is already very high,” says Fiebiger. “But if a mother is non-allergic, it does increase the risk.” The increase in childhood allergic disease associated with acid-suppressive drugs was 43 percent when the mother was non-allergic, versus 25 percent for children of allergic mothers (the latter was not statistically different from chance).

Acid-suppressing medication is commonly used for acid reflux, or heartburn. Reflux occurs in up to 85 percent of pregnancies, as high levels of estrogen are thought to weaken the lower esophageal sphincter, allowing stomach acid to splash up.

There have already been studies showing that acid-suppressing drugs result in allergic sensitization in adults. “One function of stomach acid is to break down food proteins,” explains Hait. “If the protein isn’t being broken down completely, the immune system can potentially recognize the proteins as allergens.” And mouse studies have shown that the offspring of pregnant mice exposed to acid-blocking medications during pregnancy have higher levels of the immune cells that are predominant in allergic conditions.

“Our study is the first to look at mother-child transfer of allergies in humans,” says Fiebiger, whose laboratory researches the immune mechanisms of food allergy.

Hait says that there are many non-drug ways a patient can help relieve acid reflux, such as eating smaller meals and avoiding caffeine, spicy foods and peppermint, which all promote acid reflux.

However, the researchers aren’t suggesting that all pregnant women stop taking acid suppressive medication.

“Some pregnant women have such severe acid reflux they can’t eat because they are in so much pain,” says Hait. “That is obviously not good for the baby either. So each pregnant woman suffering from acid reflux, with the guidance of her physician, should weigh the potential risks and benefits of taking acid-suppressive medication,” says Hait. “If it is deemed necessary, they should certainly proceed with taking the medication, but dietary and lifestyle modifications should be attempted first.”

An accompanying editorial, by Professor Andrew S. Kemp of Department of Allergy and Immunology at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead (Sydney, Australia), reviews proposed explanations for a relationship between gastric acid suppression and childhood allergic disease. He concludes that acid suppression isn’t ready to be added to the list of potential influences on the development of allergic disease in children. “However,” he writes, “it is an issue that requires further research in view of the widespread use in infancy of drugs that suppress gastric acidity and the continuing increase in food allergy in early childhood.”

This study was supported by grants from the Children’s Hospital Boston Office of Faculty Development, the Gerber Foundation and the APART Program of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

To access the article online, follow this link and click on Early View under Issue Navigation (appears just before the Table of Contents): www3.interscience.wiley/journal/117999818/home

Children’s Hospital Boston is home to the world’s largest research enterprise based at a pediatric medical center, where its discoveries have benefited both children and adults since 1869. More than 500 scientists, including eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, 11 members of the Institute of Medicine and 13 members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute comprise Children’s research community. Founded as a 20-bed hospital for children, Children’s Hospital Boston today is a 397-bed comprehensive center for pediatric and adolescent health care grounded in the values of excellence in patient care and sensitivity to the complex needs and diversity of children and families. Children’s also is the primary pediatric teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. For more information about the hospital and its research visit: childrenshospital

Children’s Hospital Boston

Once believed to be important only for bone health, vitamin D is now seen as having a critical function in maintaining the immune system throughout life. The newly recognized disease risks associated with vitamin D deficiency are clearly documented in a report in the December issue (Volume 3, Number 4) of Breastfeeding Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (liebertpub), and the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (bfmed). The paper is available free online at liebertpub/bfm

Vitamin D deficiency is common across populations and particularly among people with darker skin. Nutritional rickets among nursing infants whose mothers have insufficient levels of vitamin D is an increasingly common, yet preventable disorder.

Carol Wagner, MD, Sarah Taylor, MD, and Bruce Hollis, PhD, from the Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina (Charleston), emphasize the need for clinical studies to determine the dose of vitamin D needed to achieve adequate vitamin D levels in breastfeeding mothers and their infants without toxicity.

In a paper entitled, “Does Vitamin D Make the World Go ‘Round’?” the authors point out that vitamin D is now viewed not simply as a vitamin with a role in promoting bone health, but as a complex hormone that helps to regulate immune system function. Long-term vitamin D deficiency has been linked to immune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, type I diabetes, and cancer.

“Vitamin D is a hormone not a vitamin and it is not just for kids anymore,” writes Ruth A. Lawrence, MD, Editor-in-Chief of Breastfeeding Medicine, from the Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, in an accompanying editorial. “Perhaps the most startling information is that adults are commonly deficit in modern society. Vitamin D is now recognized as a pivotal hormone in the human immune system, a role far beyond the prevention of rickets, as pointed out in the article by Wagner et al in this month’s issue of Breastfeeding Medicine.”

Notes:

Breastfeeding Medicine is an authoritative, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal published quarterly. The Journal publishes original scientific papers, reviews, and case studies on a broad spectrum of topics in lactation medicine. It presents evidence-based research advances and explores the immediate and long-term outcomes of breastfeeding, including the epidemiologic, physiologic, and psychological benefits of breastfeeding.

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative peer-reviewed journals in many promising areas of science and biomedical research, including Journal of Women’s Health, Pediatric Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, and Journal of Gynecologic Surgery. Its biotechnology trade magazine, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN), was the first in its field and is today the industry’s most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm’s 60 journals, books, and newsmagazines is available at liebertpub

Source:
Vicki Cohn
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News
140 Huguenot St., New Rochelle,
NY 10801-5215

A study comparing breastfed and formula fed infants across time showed that the known beneficial effects of breastfeeding are greater than the potential risks associated with infant exposure to chemicals such as dioxins that may be present in breastmilk, according to a report published in the December issue (Volume 3, Number 4) of Breastfeeding Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (liebertpub), and the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (bfmed). The paper is available free online at liebertpub/bfm

This compelling study, entitled “The Heart of the Matter on Breastmilk and Environmental Chemicals: Essential Points for Health Care Providers and New Parents,” encompassed an historical review of the medical literature and included time periods when levels of environmental chemicals were higher than they tend to be at present.

The authors of the report, Judy LaKind, PhD (LaKind Associates, Catonsville, MD), Cheston Berlin, Jr, MD (The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, PA), and CAPT Donald Mattison, MD (National Institutes of Health), advise health care providers to continue to encourage new mothers to breastfeed their babies. In agreement with the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) continuing support of breastfeeding, this study’s findings, based on epidemiologic data, do not downplay the adverse effects of exposure to dioxins and other environmental toxins. However, the authors distinguish between the statistical significance of risk/benefit assessments in an individual compared to population effects.

“When breastmilk was chosen by regulatory agencies as a handy medium for measuring environmental toxins, the public became alarmed that breast milk was contaminated. The authors, eminent authorities on the subject have put these fears to rest,” says Ruth A. Lawrence, MD, Editor-in-Chief of Breastfeeding Medicine, from the Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry.

Notes:

Breastfeeding Medicine is an authoritative, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal published quarterly. The Journal publishes original scientific papers, reviews, and case studies on a broad spectrum of topics in lactation medicine. It presents evidence-based research advances and explores the immediate and long-term outcomes of breastfeeding, including the epidemiologic, physiologic, and psychological benefits of breastfeeding.

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative peer-reviewed journals in many promising areas of science and biomedical research, including Journal of Women’s Health, Pediatric Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, and Journal of Gynecologic Surgery. Its biotechnology trade magazine, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN), was the first in its field and is today the industry’s most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm’s 60 journals, books, and newsmagazines is available at liebertpub

Source:
Vicki Cohn
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News
140 Huguenot St., New Rochelle,
NY 10801-5215