Pediatrics

AUSTIN, TEX. – A first look at the timing of neonatal deaths showed an association with weekend deliveries in one Texas county. However, birth weight and ethnicity attenuated the association, according to a recent study. Higher hospital volumes were associated with lower risk of neonatal deaths.

The retrospective, population-based cohort study, presented during the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, used data from birth certificates and infant death certificates in the state of Texas. The investigators, said Elizabeth Restrepo, PhD, chose to examine data from Tarrant County, Tex., which has historically had persistently high infant mortality rates; in 2013, she said, the infant mortality rate in that county was 7.11/1,000 births – the highest in the state for that year.

The first question Dr. Restrepo and her colleagues at Texas Women’s University, Denton, wanted to answer was whether there was an association between the risk of neonatal mortality and the day of the week of the birth. For this and the study’s other research questions, she and her colleagues looked at 2012 data, matching 32,140 birth certificate records with 92 infant death certificates.

The investigators found an independent association between the risk of neonatal death and whether the birth happened on a weekday (Monday at 7:00 a.m. through Friday at 6:59 p.m.), or on a weekend (Friday at 7:00 p.m. through Monday at 6:59 a.m.). However, once birth weight and ethnicity were controlled in the statistical analysis, the association was not statistically significant despite an odds ratio of 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.911-2.27; P = .119).

“Births in the 12 hospitals studied appear to have been organized to take place more frequently on the working weekday rather than weekend days,” wrote Dr. Restrepo and her colleagues in the poster accompanying the presentation. Although the study wasn’t designed to answer this particular question, Dr. Restrepo said in discussion during the poster session that planned deliveries, such as inductions and cesarean deliveries, are likely to happen during the week, while the case mix is wider on weekends. Patient characteristics, as well as staffing patterns, may come into play.

The researchers also asked whether birth volume at a given institution increases the odds of neonatal death on weekends. Here, they found a significant inverse relationship between hospital birth volume and neonatal deaths (r = –0.021; P less than .001). With each additional increase of 1% in the weekday birth rate, the odds of neonatal death dropped by approximately 7.4%.

Examining the Tarrant County data further, Dr. Restrepo and her colleagues found that the hospitals with higher birth volumes had a more even distribution of births across the days of the week, with resulting lower concentrations of births during the week (r = –.394; P less than .001).

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Restrepo E et al. ACOG 2018, Abstract 22R.

AUSTIN, TEX. – A first look at the timing of neonatal deaths showed an association with weekend deliveries in one Texas county. However, birth weight and ethnicity attenuated the association, according to a recent study. Higher hospital volumes were associated with lower risk of neonatal deaths.

The retrospective, population-based cohort study, presented during the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, used data from birth certificates and infant death certificates in the state of Texas. The investigators, said Elizabeth Restrepo, PhD, chose to examine data from Tarrant County, Tex., which has historically had persistently high infant mortality rates; in 2013, she said, the infant mortality rate in that county was 7.11/1,000 births – the highest in the state for that year.

The first question Dr. Restrepo and her colleagues at Texas Women’s University, Denton, wanted to answer was whether there was an association between the risk of neonatal mortality and the day of the week of the birth. For this and the study’s other research questions, she and her colleagues looked at 2012 data, matching 32,140 birth certificate records with 92 infant death certificates.

The investigators found an independent association between the risk of neonatal death and whether the birth happened on a weekday (Monday at 7:00 a.m. through Friday at 6:59 p.m.), or on a weekend (Friday at 7:00 p.m. through Monday at 6:59 a.m.). However, once birth weight and ethnicity were controlled in the statistical analysis, the association was not statistically significant despite an odds ratio of 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.911-2.27; P = .119).

“Births in the 12 hospitals studied appear to have been organized to take place more frequently on the working weekday rather than weekend days,” wrote Dr. Restrepo and her colleagues in the poster accompanying the presentation. Although the study wasn’t designed to answer this particular question, Dr. Restrepo said in discussion during the poster session that planned deliveries, such as inductions and cesarean deliveries, are likely to happen during the week, while the case mix is wider on weekends. Patient characteristics, as well as staffing patterns, may come into play.

The researchers also asked whether birth volume at a given institution increases the odds of neonatal death on weekends. Here, they found a significant inverse relationship between hospital birth volume and neonatal deaths (r = –0.021; P less than .001). With each additional increase of 1% in the weekday birth rate, the odds of neonatal death dropped by approximately 7.4%.

Examining the Tarrant County data further, Dr. Restrepo and her colleagues found that the hospitals with higher birth volumes had a more even distribution of births across the days of the week, with resulting lower concentrations of births during the week (r = –.394; P less than .001).

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Restrepo E et al. ACOG 2018, Abstract 22R.

AUSTIN, TEX. – A first look at the timing of neonatal deaths showed an association with weekend deliveries in one Texas county. However, birth weight and ethnicity attenuated the association, according to a recent study. Higher hospital volumes were associated with lower risk of neonatal deaths.

The retrospective, population-based cohort study, presented during the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, used data from birth certificates and infant death certificates in the state of Texas. The investigators, said Elizabeth Restrepo, PhD, chose to examine data from Tarrant County, Tex., which has historically had persistently high infant mortality rates; in 2013, she said, the infant mortality rate in that county was 7.11/1,000 births – the highest in the state for that year.

The first question Dr. Restrepo and her colleagues at Texas Women’s University, Denton, wanted to answer was whether there was an association between the risk of neonatal mortality and the day of the week of the birth. For this and the study’s other research questions, she and her colleagues looked at 2012 data, matching 32,140 birth certificate records with 92 infant death certificates.

The investigators found an independent association between the risk of neonatal death and whether the birth happened on a weekday (Monday at 7:00 a.m. through Friday at 6:59 p.m.), or on a weekend (Friday at 7:00 p.m. through Monday at 6:59 a.m.). However, once birth weight and ethnicity were controlled in the statistical analysis, the association was not statistically significant despite an odds ratio of 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.911-2.27; P = .119).

“Births in the 12 hospitals studied appear to have been organized to take place more frequently on the working weekday rather than weekend days,” wrote Dr. Restrepo and her colleagues in the poster accompanying the presentation. Although the study wasn’t designed to answer this particular question, Dr. Restrepo said in discussion during the poster session that planned deliveries, such as inductions and cesarean deliveries, are likely to happen during the week, while the case mix is wider on weekends. Patient characteristics, as well as staffing patterns, may come into play.

The researchers also asked whether birth volume at a given institution increases the odds of neonatal death on weekends. Here, they found a significant inverse relationship between hospital birth volume and neonatal deaths (r = –0.021; P less than .001). With each additional increase of 1% in the weekday birth rate, the odds of neonatal death dropped by approximately 7.4%.

Examining the Tarrant County data further, Dr. Restrepo and her colleagues found that the hospitals with higher birth volumes had a more even distribution of births across the days of the week, with resulting lower concentrations of births during the week (r = –.394; P less than .001).

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Restrepo E et al. ACOG 2018, Abstract 22R.

The benefits of breastfeeding for infants have long been touted as numerous and supported by overwhelming evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and American Academy of Family Physicians all strongly recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, citing numerous health benefits for child and mother. These groups recommend that some breastfeeding be continued through the first 12 months of life, or longer, as desired (the WHO extends the recommendation to 2 years).^1-4 In 2000, the Surgeon General of the United States released a strategic plan to increase rates of breastfeeding,⁵ setting goals (by 2010) of:

• 75% of mothers leaving the hospital breastfeeding
• 50% of babies breastfeeding at 6 months
• 25% of babies breastfeeding at 1 year.

Massive public health campaigns citing data for the many benefits of breastfeeding have been launched with the goal of increasing the breastfeeding rate. In 2014, statistics offered a testament to the success of these campaigns⁶:

• 82.5% of infants had been breastfed “ever”
• 55.3% were breastfed “some”
• 24.9% were breastfed exclusively through 6 months of age
• 33.7% were breastfed “some” at 12 months.

Breastfeeding advocacy has become clouded

In recent years, an increasing number of researchers, physicians, and authors have begun to question whether, in the United States, the benefits of breastfeeding children are exaggerated and the emphasis on breastfeeding might be leading to feelings of inadequacy, guilt, and anxiety among mothers.^7-13 In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) amended its recommendation to “promote and support breastfeeding” to simply “support breastfeeding”—a change that created substantial debate and prompted the Task Force to clarify its stance in changing the language: In its response to public comment, the USPSTF said that its position regarding promotion had not changed, but the language in the original statement had been revised to “ensure that the autonomy of women is respected.” ^2,14-16

In contrast, others suggest counseling women on the risks of formula feeding rather than on the benefits of breastfeeding, citing substantial health outcome distinctions.¹⁷ Indeed, wide-ranging conclusions have been drawn from the same data on the topic, potentially creating uncertainty for physicians on how best to counsel women on their choice of how to feed their infant.

An increasing number of researchers and physicians have begun to question whether the benefits of breastfeeding are exaggerated.

In this article, we address this uncertainty by utilizing the most recent and comprehensive data to examine infant health outcomes. When possible, the number needed to treat (NNT) for a given outcome has been calculated or approximated, allowing the reader to estimate the likelihood of benefit for an individual mother–infant dyad. Exercise caution when interpreting the NNT, however: The numbers suggest causality that cannot be definitively established using the observational data on which those numbers are based.

Continue to: Infectious disease

 

 

Infectious disease

Acute otitis media. Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is associated with a 43% reduction in the risk of acute otitis media (AOM) by 2 years of age (odds ratio [OR]=0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.75). Beyond 2 years of age, or when comparing “ever” and “never” breastfeeding, the effect disappears. All studies in this meta-analysis had serious limitations.¹⁸

Nearly half of children will have at least one case of AOM by one year of age; 80%, by 2 years.^19,20 Since the introduction of the heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, the rate of AOM at 2 years has fallen by as much as 20%.²¹ Assuming an incidence of 60% to 80% of AOM by 2 years, only 2 or 3 infants need to be exclusively breastfed for 6 months to prevent a single case of AOM.¹⁸ Prevention of AOM through breastfeeding may be related to head position during feeding, antibacterial effects of breast milk, protective oral microbiome in the breastfed infant pharynx, and/or prevention of primary viral upper respiratory infection (URI), which nearly always precedes AOM.^18,19

Upper and lower respiratory tract infections. Infants who are exclusively breastfed for 4 months and partially breastfed after 4 months have a lower risk of URI (OR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83) and of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI; OR=0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.72).²²

The effect is stronger for URI among infants exclusively breastfed for at least 6 months (OR=0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.74), but is no longer significant by that time for LRTI (OR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.40). Importantly, AOM was included in the URI group, and, as previously discussed, AOM has independently been shown to have an inverse relationship with breastfeeding duration.

At 7 to 12 months of age, no association was seen between breastfeeding and the incidence of URI. Curiously, an association with LRTI was again detected for infants breastfed exclusively for 4 months and partially thereafter, but was not detected with exclusive breastfeeding for at least 6 months (OR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.69). In this study, in the first 6 months of life, 40% of infants had a URI and 8% had an LRTI. The findings in this cohort suggest an NNT of 6 or 7 for prevention of URI and an NNT of 25 for prevention of LRTI in the first 6 months of life.²²

Continue to: Children younger than 2 years are...

Children younger than 2 years are estimated to have approximately 6 bouts of the common cold a year, and essentially 100% have at least one bout—perhaps lowering the NNT for URI if applied widely. However, these data are not divided into 6-month intervals, making accurate extrapolation difficult.²³

Gastrointestinal infection. The rate of diarrheal illness in the first year of life is lower in infants who are exclusively breastfed for at least 4 months and partially breastfed after.

Both the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT; a clinical trial in which infants were randomized to a breastfeeding education intervention or standard care) and a 2010 prospective cohort study in the Netherlands of more than 3400 infants found a reduction in the risk of one or more gastrointestinal (GI) infections at a similar rate.^22,24

• In PROBIT, 9.1% of infants in the intervention group, compared to 13.2% in the standard care group (OR=0.60; 95% CI, 0.40-0.91), had one or more GI infections at 12 months of age.²⁴
• In the 2010 Netherlands cohort, 8% of infants had a GI infection by 6 months of age. Infants breastfed exclusively for at least 4 or 6 months had a decreased risk for GI infection (respectively: adjusted OR=0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.64 and adjusted OR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.14-1.59). No such association was found for any feeding group 7 to 12 months of age.²²

These studies are notable for the low incidence of GI infection, which is frequently cited as 1.3 to 2.3 episodes per child per year in children younger than 3 years in the United States.²⁵ However, that high incidence has likely declined significantly since the introduction of rotavirus vaccine in 2006. In the years following the introduction of the vaccine, infant visits for gastroenteritis decreased by >90% in all care settings in the South, Northeast, and Midwest regions of the United States and by 53% to 63% in the West region.²⁶ Recent accurate epidemiologic information, in an era of significantly higher vaccination rates, is lacking.

Assuming the low incidence of GI infection reported in PROBIT and the Netherlands trials, about 25 to 30 infants need to be exclusively breastfed for 4 to 6 months to prevent a single GI infection during the first 6 to 12 months of life.^22,24 Assuming a 60% incidence by age 12 months before introduction of the rotavirus vaccine, the NNT would be approximately 4.²⁴ The true number is likely somewhere between those 2 NNTs.

Continue to: Hospitalization

 

 

Hospitalization

Risk of infection is decreased. A large cohort study in Scotland, involving more than 500,000 children, found an association between exclusive breastfeeding for 6 to 8 weeks and decreased risk of hospitalization within the first 6 months of life. Formula-fed and mixed-fed infants had an increased hazard ratio (HR) for hospitalization for common childhood illness (HR=1.40; 95% CI, 1.35-1.45 for formula-fed infants and HR=1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.25 for mixed-fed infants).²⁷ The study also found increased rates of hospitalization for conditions for which other meta-analyses have failed to show a protective effect from breastfeeding—leading to suspicion of residual confounding in the study. Another United Kingdom cohort demonstrated lower rates of hospitalization for GI infection (NNT=171) and LRTI (NNT=115) among exclusively breastfed infants by 8 months of age.²⁸

Risk of neonatal readmission is increased. Late preterm infants who are exclusively breastfed are nearly twice as likely to be hospitalized as breastfed term or non-breastfed preterm infants, primarily due to dehydration, failure to thrive, weight loss, and hyperbilirubinemia. In fact, exclusive breastfeeding at discharge from the hospital is likely the single greatest risk factor for hospital readmission in newborns.^29,30 Term infants who are exclusively breastfed are more likely to be hospitalized compared to formula-fed or mixed-fed infants, due to hyperbilirubinemia, dehydration, hypernatremia, and weight loss (number needed to harm (NNH)=71).^30-32 For weight loss >10% of birth weight with or without hospitalization, the NNH for breastfed infants is 13.³²

Many of these hospitalizations and events could be avoided with appropriate monitoring and medically indicated supplementation; the likelihood of long-term harm is low. Formula supplementation is often avoided if possible in hospitals to promote exclusive breastfeeding; however, several small randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that limited formula supplementation in breastfed infants does not affect the breastfeeding continuation rate at 3 and 6 months, and, therefore, might be a way to decrease infant rehospitalization.^33,34

Necrotizing enterocolitis

Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is associated with a 43% reduction in the risk of acute otitis media by 2 years of age.

In preterm infants, breastfeeding has been associated with a lower rate of necrotizing enterocolitis. In the 2007 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality report, the association was found to be only marginally statistically significant, and the authors warned that, first, evidence is old and heterogeneous and, second, present preterm formula is much different than the formula used in earlier studies of preterm infant nutrition and necrotizing enterocolitis.³⁵ A 2012 Cochrane review included newer studies in its analysis but reached the same conclusion on the quality and heterogeneity of available evidence, with a NNT of 25.³⁶

Continue to: Sudden infant death syndrome

 

 

Sudden infant death syndrome

There is a statistically significant association between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and feeding method. Infants whose cause of death is SIDS are approximately one half as likely to have been breastfed as matched controls.^35,37

In 2005, AAP did not recommend breastfeeding as a means to reduce the risk of SIDS because available evidence was mixed, and studies at the time were poorly controlled.³⁸ Since that time, case-control meta-analyses have shed additional light on the association between SIDS and feeding method.^35,37

The protective effect exists for any amount of breastfeeding and is stronger for exclusive breastfeeding, suggesting a protective role—not simply an association. Caution should be employed with this conclusion, however, because the studies included in the meta-analysis used univariate analysis primarily and did not control sufficiently for known confounders. In addition, the authors warn that publication bias might overestimate the association.³⁸

Exclusive breastfeeding is likely the single greatest risk factor for hospital readmission in newborns.

Potential mechanisms of a protective role include decreased risk of infection and greater arousability from sleep in breastfed infants. Assuming a protective role, available data suggest that more than 3500 infants need to be breastfed to prevent one case of SIDS.³⁹

Continue to: Allergic disease

Allergic disease

Asthma. There is evidence of a small protective effect of breastfeeding “ever” on asthma at 5 to 18 years of age in high-income countries (OR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97). A family history of asthma or atopy did not affect this finding. The authors note there is some evidence of publication bias in this review, which is the largest and most comprehensive on the topic.⁴⁰

With a lifetime prevalence of asthma in the United States of approximately 13.2%, this association would confer an NNT of roughly 76.⁴¹ Earlier, the literature demonstrated mixed and conflicting evidence, and some experts suggested an effect only when there is a family history of asthma or atopy.³⁶

Eczema. For children younger than 2 years, there is low-grade- and very-low-grade-quality evidence that exclusive breastfeeding longer than 3 to 4 months is associated with a reduced risk of eczema (OR=0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97).⁴⁰

Previously, data suggested that this association existed only in children who had a family history of atopy.³⁵ The protective association, however, exists regardless of family history and does not persist beyond 2 years of age. The authors noted evidence of publication bias, reverse causation, and misdiagnosis of early childhood rashes as eczema as limitations of their findings.⁴⁰

Continue to: Reliable epidemiologic evidence...

Reliable epidemiologic evidence on the incidence of eczema in infants in the United States is limited, but the prevalence in the United States in children younger than 17 years is approximately 10.7% (with wide regional variation). Extrapolating these data generously, the NNT to prevent eczema in the first 2 years of life could be estimated at approximately 36.⁴²

Allergic rhinitis. There is low-grade- and very-low-grade-quality evidence that more breastfeeding, compared to less breastfeeding, is associated with a lower risk of allergic rhinitis in children younger than 5 years (OR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98). The association exists regardless of family history and disappears after 5 years of age. The differentiation of allergic rhinitis from rhinovirus infection (for which there is higher-quality evidence of a protective effect with breastfeeding) must be considered when interpreting these data.⁴⁰

Reliable epidemiologic evidence on allergic rhinitis in children younger than 5 years is lacking, and incidence varies by region. A rough estimate, using data from 6- and 7-year-olds, indicates an NNT of 54 to 70.⁴³

Food allergy. There is no evidence to suggest an association between breastfeeding and food allergy, either as protective or as a risk factor, and studies are limited.⁴⁰ Interestingly, as data accumulate associating early exposure to foods with protection, some authors have proposed reexamining the recommendation from WHO and US health organizations for exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life.^7,44

Continue to: Dental health

 

 

Dental health

Dental caries. There is consistent evidence that breastfeeding beyond 12 months of age is associated with the development of dental caries of deciduous teeth to 6 years of age (OR=2.90; 95% CI, 2.33-3.60). Many of the studies that showed this association did not control for the introduction of sugary foods and drinks, and there was a trend toward publication bias showing the association.⁴⁵

Dental malocclusion. There is consistent evidence for approximately a two-thirds reduction in malocclusions in deciduous teeth in breastfed infants (OR=0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.40). Although the large majority of these data come from low-income and middle-income countries, the incidence of malocclusion is not thought to be associated with socioeconomic status, as so many other breastfeeding outcomes are.⁴⁶

Childhood leukemia

In the largest meta-analysis available, a statistically significant inverse relationship between any breastfeeding for >6 months and childhood leukemia is evident in developed countries (OR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91), although significant heterogeneity among studies and lack of control for confounding variables are significant limitations. In particular, an association has been demonstrated with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) but not with acute myelogenous leukemia.⁴⁷ Given the rarity of childhood ALL, approximately 12,500 infants would need to be breastfed to prevent one case.⁴⁸

Continue to: Long-term outcomes

 

 

Long-term outcomes

Cognitive development. Several studies conducted in developed countries have linked breastfeeding to positive cognitive outcomes in children, including higher intelligence quotient (IQ).^35,49-52

These effects are conflicting, however, in studies that include sibling analysis and ones that control for maternal IQ.^{8,35,43,52-54} In the 2013 WHO meta-analysis, breastfeeding was associated with an increase of 2.2 points on normalized testing when only high-quality studies were included.⁵¹ A 2015 meta-analysis identified 4 high-quality studies with a large sample size and recall time <3 years, which demonstrated a mean difference of 1.76 points in IQ (95% CI, 0.25-3.26) in childhood and adolescence.⁵² Although statistically significant, this modest increase is of questionable clinical benefit and of unknown duration.

Obesity. The relationship between breastfeeding and obesity later in life is debatable. A large, systematic 2014 review of 15 cohort and 10 cross-sectional studies found a significantly reduced risk of childhood obesity among children who were breastfed (adjusted OR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81).⁵⁵ However, the review included studies that controlled for different confounders, and smaller effects were found in studies in which more confounders were taken into account.

Available data suggest that more than 3500 infants need to be breastfed to prevent one case of SIDS.

The 2013 WHO meta-analysis found a small (approximately 10%) reduction in the prevalence of overweight or obese children, but cautioned that residual confounding and publication bias were likely.⁵¹ At 6.5 and 11.5 years of follow-up, PROBIT failed to demonstrate a protective effect for exclusively or “ever” breastfed infants.⁵⁶ Sibling analysis similarly fails to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship.⁸

Continue to: A 2015 meta-analysis of 23 high-quality studies...

A 2015 meta-analysis of 23 high-quality studies with a sample size >1500 children and controlled for important confounders showed a pooled reduction in the prevalence of overweight or obesity of 13% (95% CI, 6-19).⁵⁷ The protection in this meta-analysis showed a dilution of the effect as the participants aged and an inverse relationship of the effect with sample size.

Breastfeeding is, therefore, unlikely to play a significant, if any, role in combatting the obesity epidemic.

Hypertension. A meta-analysis of high-quality trials demonstrates a <1 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure and no significant difference in diastolic pressure in breastfed infants.⁵⁷ Similarly, no significant effect of breastfeeding on blood pressure has been demonstrated in trials of preterm infants.⁵¹

Type 2 diabetes. Available data are limited and heterogeneous for the association between breastfeeding and later development of type 2 diabetes. Only 2 high-quality trials were identified in the 2013 WHO meta-analysis, and their results conflict.⁵¹ A 2015 meta-analysis identified only 3 high-quality studies, without a statistically significant relationship.⁵⁷

Dyslipidemia. Although earlier data suggested an association between breastfeeding and reduced cholesterol levels later in life, the 2013 WHO meta-analysis and a 2015 meta-analysis concluded that no association exists. The limited data available for preterm infants conflict.^51,57

Growth. There is no evidence that feeding method has a short- or long-term effect on weight gain or length gain in preterm or term infants.^35,36,58

Death. No clear association has been found between mortality and breastfeeding status in developed countries, except for the association with SIDS.³⁵

Continue to: What issues frame and guide counseling on breastfeeding?

What issues frame and guide counseling on breastfeeding?

There is that “problem” with the evidence. The evidence for infant breastfeeding status and its association with health outcomes faces significant limitations; the great majority of those limitations tend to overestimate the benefits of breastfeeding. Nearly all evidence is based on observational studies, in which causality cannot be determined and self-selection bias, recall bias, and residual confounding limit the value or strength of the findings.

The use of pacifiers before last sleep is more protective against SIDS than breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding rates are strongly socially patterned alongside socioeconomic status, race, and education level, all of which are simultaneously strongly tied to short- and long-term health outcomes.⁶ Other factors limiting the strength of the data set include varying definitions of infant feeding practices in different studies, varying definitions of outcomes and diseases, reverse causation, and evidence of publication bias in many meta-analyses. Given these shortcomings, the NNTs in this article probably represent a best-case scenario for breastfeeding outcomes for infants in the United States (TABLE 1^{18,22-24,28,36,39-43,47,48}).

Data need to be put into context. The NNTs for many breastfeeding outcomes (TABLE) compare favorably with other recommended interventions, particularly for other preventive care measures. Two examples: 81 mg/d aspirin for a 50-year-old man has an NNT of 35 to 45 for preventing nonfatal myocardial infarction, and the number needed to invite to screen with mammography to prevent one breast cancer death for a 50-year-old woman is 1339.^59,60

In both of these examples, >95% of patients will not benefit from the intervention, yet these preventive measures are routinely recommended and have a significant impact at the public health level. Notably, these outcomes are more serious than most breastfeeding outcomes; have a longer-lasting effect, better-quality data, and better data for potential harms; are causally linked to the intervention; and require much less effort and commitment of time than breastfeeding.

The question must be reckoned with: Can advocacy be harmful?

In recent years, a growing number of concerns have been raised about:

• the potential harms of breastfeeding advocacy
• exaggeration of the benefits of breastfeeding
• promotion of breastfeeding at the expense of evidence-based medicine.

The “Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding” program of the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI; launched by UNICEF and WHO) has come under scrutiny because of an increasing number of reports of sudden unexpected postnatal collapse; fall injuries; modeling and encouragement of unsafe sleep practices; an overly rigid resistance to the use of formula supplementation; and the ban on pacifier use.^61,62 The BFHI, promoted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is increasingly being adopted by hospitals with the expressed goal of increasing the breastfeeding rate from birth to discharge.

Continue to: Some of the "Ten Steps"...

Some of the “Ten Steps,” such as the call for skin-to-skin care and 24-hour rooming-in, have well-established benefit yet, when performed without supervision, can have the rare but serious unintended consequences of sudden unexpected postnatal collapse (the incidence of which may be higher than that of SIDS) and unsafe sleeping practices.^62,63

Furthermore, despite evidence that early formula supplementation, when medically necessary, does not adversely impact the breastfeeding rate, the “Ten Steps” program advises that giving formula before breast milk comes in might “lead to failure to breastfeed.”^33,34,61,63

Similarly, the ban on pacifiers is contrary to available evidence. The use of pacifiers before last sleep is more protective against SIDS than breastfeeding (NNT=2733), and there is evidence at one hospital that BFHI-inspired pacifier restriction is associated with a decrease in the rate of breastfeeding.^64,65

Other harms of advocacy are even more poorly studied. Most of the evidence for harm comes from the psychology and social science literature—not the medical literature, perhaps because the prevailing opinion in the medical community is that breastfeeding has overwhelming evidence for benefit. In fact, in the USPSTF’s 2008 recommendation, the evidence review of breastfeeding promotion practices in primary care did not identify a single study that measured harm; in the 2016 update of that recommendation, only 2 such studies were identified.^15,66

The literature that does investigate harm consistently finds that women who have difficulty breastfeeding or choose formula feeding report feelings of inadequacy, guilt, loss of agency, anxiety, and physical pain during breastfeeding that interferes with 1) their ability to bond or otherwise care for their infant and 2) competing work obligations.^11-13,67-69 Given the lack of attention paid to these variables in the medical literature, it is the individual mother who is best positioned to weigh these factors against the benefits of breastfeeding.

Continue to: Shared decision-making is best—for mother and baby

 

 

Shared decision-making is best—for mother and baby

Breastfeeding might prevent certain infections in as many as 50% of infants, but a mother unable to breastfeed can take solace in the fact that >95% of breastfed infants will not realize any benefit from the preventive potential of breastfeeding in regard to hospitalization or allergic disease, and >99% will not realize benefit from either the prevention of SIDS or ALL, or from improvement in long-term health measures (except for, perhaps, a slightly higher IQ). The “breast is best” mantra is likely true at a public-health level; for the individual mother–infant dyad, however, where there is a need to balance personal, social, family, and financial factors, that mantra is an oversimplification.

The "breast is best" mantra is likely true at a public- health level; for the individual mother-infant dyad, however, that mantra is oversimplified.

Regrettably, there is a paucity of data on the risks of breastfeeding promotion—an area that deserves more study. Balancing the abundant, but often limited-quality, data on the benefits of breastfeeding and the sheer lack of data regarding the risks of advocacy represents a clinical and an ethical challenge for physicians. It is a challenge that can only be resolved through individualization of care and shared decision-making, in which the physician is expert on the benefits of breastfeeding, and the mother is expert on the personal circumstances to be weighed against those benefits.

CORRESPONDENCE
Joseph Lane Wilson, MD, ECU Brody School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; wilsonjo@ecu.edu.

The benefits of breastfeeding for infants have long been touted as numerous and supported by overwhelming evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and American Academy of Family Physicians all strongly recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, citing numerous health benefits for child and mother. These groups recommend that some breastfeeding be continued through the first 12 months of life, or longer, as desired (the WHO extends the recommendation to 2 years).^1-4 In 2000, the Surgeon General of the United States released a strategic plan to increase rates of breastfeeding,⁵ setting goals (by 2010) of:

• 75% of mothers leaving the hospital breastfeeding
• 50% of babies breastfeeding at 6 months
• 25% of babies breastfeeding at 1 year.

Massive public health campaigns citing data for the many benefits of breastfeeding have been launched with the goal of increasing the breastfeeding rate. In 2014, statistics offered a testament to the success of these campaigns⁶:

• 82.5% of infants had been breastfed “ever”
• 55.3% were breastfed “some”
• 24.9% were breastfed exclusively through 6 months of age
• 33.7% were breastfed “some” at 12 months.

Breastfeeding advocacy has become clouded

In recent years, an increasing number of researchers, physicians, and authors have begun to question whether, in the United States, the benefits of breastfeeding children are exaggerated and the emphasis on breastfeeding might be leading to feelings of inadequacy, guilt, and anxiety among mothers.^7-13 In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) amended its recommendation to “promote and support breastfeeding” to simply “support breastfeeding”—a change that created substantial debate and prompted the Task Force to clarify its stance in changing the language: In its response to public comment, the USPSTF said that its position regarding promotion had not changed, but the language in the original statement had been revised to “ensure that the autonomy of women is respected.” ^2,14-16

In contrast, others suggest counseling women on the risks of formula feeding rather than on the benefits of breastfeeding, citing substantial health outcome distinctions.¹⁷ Indeed, wide-ranging conclusions have been drawn from the same data on the topic, potentially creating uncertainty for physicians on how best to counsel women on their choice of how to feed their infant.

An increasing number of researchers and physicians have begun to question whether the benefits of breastfeeding are exaggerated.

In this article, we address this uncertainty by utilizing the most recent and comprehensive data to examine infant health outcomes. When possible, the number needed to treat (NNT) for a given outcome has been calculated or approximated, allowing the reader to estimate the likelihood of benefit for an individual mother–infant dyad. Exercise caution when interpreting the NNT, however: The numbers suggest causality that cannot be definitively established using the observational data on which those numbers are based.

Continue to: Infectious disease

 

 

Infectious disease

Acute otitis media. Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is associated with a 43% reduction in the risk of acute otitis media (AOM) by 2 years of age (odds ratio [OR]=0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.75). Beyond 2 years of age, or when comparing “ever” and “never” breastfeeding, the effect disappears. All studies in this meta-analysis had serious limitations.¹⁸

Nearly half of children will have at least one case of AOM by one year of age; 80%, by 2 years.^19,20 Since the introduction of the heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, the rate of AOM at 2 years has fallen by as much as 20%.²¹ Assuming an incidence of 60% to 80% of AOM by 2 years, only 2 or 3 infants need to be exclusively breastfed for 6 months to prevent a single case of AOM.¹⁸ Prevention of AOM through breastfeeding may be related to head position during feeding, antibacterial effects of breast milk, protective oral microbiome in the breastfed infant pharynx, and/or prevention of primary viral upper respiratory infection (URI), which nearly always precedes AOM.^18,19

Upper and lower respiratory tract infections. Infants who are exclusively breastfed for 4 months and partially breastfed after 4 months have a lower risk of URI (OR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83) and of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI; OR=0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.72).²²

The effect is stronger for URI among infants exclusively breastfed for at least 6 months (OR=0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.74), but is no longer significant by that time for LRTI (OR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.40). Importantly, AOM was included in the URI group, and, as previously discussed, AOM has independently been shown to have an inverse relationship with breastfeeding duration.

At 7 to 12 months of age, no association was seen between breastfeeding and the incidence of URI. Curiously, an association with LRTI was again detected for infants breastfed exclusively for 4 months and partially thereafter, but was not detected with exclusive breastfeeding for at least 6 months (OR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.69). In this study, in the first 6 months of life, 40% of infants had a URI and 8% had an LRTI. The findings in this cohort suggest an NNT of 6 or 7 for prevention of URI and an NNT of 25 for prevention of LRTI in the first 6 months of life.²²

Continue to: Children younger than 2 years are...

Children younger than 2 years are estimated to have approximately 6 bouts of the common cold a year, and essentially 100% have at least one bout—perhaps lowering the NNT for URI if applied widely. However, these data are not divided into 6-month intervals, making accurate extrapolation difficult.²³

Gastrointestinal infection. The rate of diarrheal illness in the first year of life is lower in infants who are exclusively breastfed for at least 4 months and partially breastfed after.

Both the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT; a clinical trial in which infants were randomized to a breastfeeding education intervention or standard care) and a 2010 prospective cohort study in the Netherlands of more than 3400 infants found a reduction in the risk of one or more gastrointestinal (GI) infections at a similar rate.^22,24

• In PROBIT, 9.1% of infants in the intervention group, compared to 13.2% in the standard care group (OR=0.60; 95% CI, 0.40-0.91), had one or more GI infections at 12 months of age.²⁴
• In the 2010 Netherlands cohort, 8% of infants had a GI infection by 6 months of age. Infants breastfed exclusively for at least 4 or 6 months had a decreased risk for GI infection (respectively: adjusted OR=0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.64 and adjusted OR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.14-1.59). No such association was found for any feeding group 7 to 12 months of age.²²

These studies are notable for the low incidence of GI infection, which is frequently cited as 1.3 to 2.3 episodes per child per year in children younger than 3 years in the United States.²⁵ However, that high incidence has likely declined significantly since the introduction of rotavirus vaccine in 2006. In the years following the introduction of the vaccine, infant visits for gastroenteritis decreased by >90% in all care settings in the South, Northeast, and Midwest regions of the United States and by 53% to 63% in the West region.²⁶ Recent accurate epidemiologic information, in an era of significantly higher vaccination rates, is lacking.

Assuming the low incidence of GI infection reported in PROBIT and the Netherlands trials, about 25 to 30 infants need to be exclusively breastfed for 4 to 6 months to prevent a single GI infection during the first 6 to 12 months of life.^22,24 Assuming a 60% incidence by age 12 months before introduction of the rotavirus vaccine, the NNT would be approximately 4.²⁴ The true number is likely somewhere between those 2 NNTs.

Continue to: Hospitalization

 

 

Hospitalization

Risk of infection is decreased. A large cohort study in Scotland, involving more than 500,000 children, found an association between exclusive breastfeeding for 6 to 8 weeks and decreased risk of hospitalization within the first 6 months of life. Formula-fed and mixed-fed infants had an increased hazard ratio (HR) for hospitalization for common childhood illness (HR=1.40; 95% CI, 1.35-1.45 for formula-fed infants and HR=1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.25 for mixed-fed infants).²⁷ The study also found increased rates of hospitalization for conditions for which other meta-analyses have failed to show a protective effect from breastfeeding—leading to suspicion of residual confounding in the study. Another United Kingdom cohort demonstrated lower rates of hospitalization for GI infection (NNT=171) and LRTI (NNT=115) among exclusively breastfed infants by 8 months of age.²⁸

Risk of neonatal readmission is increased. Late preterm infants who are exclusively breastfed are nearly twice as likely to be hospitalized as breastfed term or non-breastfed preterm infants, primarily due to dehydration, failure to thrive, weight loss, and hyperbilirubinemia. In fact, exclusive breastfeeding at discharge from the hospital is likely the single greatest risk factor for hospital readmission in newborns.^29,30 Term infants who are exclusively breastfed are more likely to be hospitalized compared to formula-fed or mixed-fed infants, due to hyperbilirubinemia, dehydration, hypernatremia, and weight loss (number needed to harm (NNH)=71).^30-32 For weight loss >10% of birth weight with or without hospitalization, the NNH for breastfed infants is 13.³²

Many of these hospitalizations and events could be avoided with appropriate monitoring and medically indicated supplementation; the likelihood of long-term harm is low. Formula supplementation is often avoided if possible in hospitals to promote exclusive breastfeeding; however, several small randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that limited formula supplementation in breastfed infants does not affect the breastfeeding continuation rate at 3 and 6 months, and, therefore, might be a way to decrease infant rehospitalization.^33,34

Necrotizing enterocolitis

Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is associated with a 43% reduction in the risk of acute otitis media by 2 years of age.

In preterm infants, breastfeeding has been associated with a lower rate of necrotizing enterocolitis. In the 2007 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality report, the association was found to be only marginally statistically significant, and the authors warned that, first, evidence is old and heterogeneous and, second, present preterm formula is much different than the formula used in earlier studies of preterm infant nutrition and necrotizing enterocolitis.³⁵ A 2012 Cochrane review included newer studies in its analysis but reached the same conclusion on the quality and heterogeneity of available evidence, with a NNT of 25.³⁶

Continue to: Sudden infant death syndrome

 

 

Sudden infant death syndrome

There is a statistically significant association between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and feeding method. Infants whose cause of death is SIDS are approximately one half as likely to have been breastfed as matched controls.^35,37

In 2005, AAP did not recommend breastfeeding as a means to reduce the risk of SIDS because available evidence was mixed, and studies at the time were poorly controlled.³⁸ Since that time, case-control meta-analyses have shed additional light on the association between SIDS and feeding method.^35,37

The protective effect exists for any amount of breastfeeding and is stronger for exclusive breastfeeding, suggesting a protective role—not simply an association. Caution should be employed with this conclusion, however, because the studies included in the meta-analysis used univariate analysis primarily and did not control sufficiently for known confounders. In addition, the authors warn that publication bias might overestimate the association.³⁸

Exclusive breastfeeding is likely the single greatest risk factor for hospital readmission in newborns.

Potential mechanisms of a protective role include decreased risk of infection and greater arousability from sleep in breastfed infants. Assuming a protective role, available data suggest that more than 3500 infants need to be breastfed to prevent one case of SIDS.³⁹

Continue to: Allergic disease

Allergic disease

Asthma. There is evidence of a small protective effect of breastfeeding “ever” on asthma at 5 to 18 years of age in high-income countries (OR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97). A family history of asthma or atopy did not affect this finding. The authors note there is some evidence of publication bias in this review, which is the largest and most comprehensive on the topic.⁴⁰

With a lifetime prevalence of asthma in the United States of approximately 13.2%, this association would confer an NNT of roughly 76.⁴¹ Earlier, the literature demonstrated mixed and conflicting evidence, and some experts suggested an effect only when there is a family history of asthma or atopy.³⁶

Eczema. For children younger than 2 years, there is low-grade- and very-low-grade-quality evidence that exclusive breastfeeding longer than 3 to 4 months is associated with a reduced risk of eczema (OR=0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97).⁴⁰

Previously, data suggested that this association existed only in children who had a family history of atopy.³⁵ The protective association, however, exists regardless of family history and does not persist beyond 2 years of age. The authors noted evidence of publication bias, reverse causation, and misdiagnosis of early childhood rashes as eczema as limitations of their findings.⁴⁰

Continue to: Reliable epidemiologic evidence...

Reliable epidemiologic evidence on the incidence of eczema in infants in the United States is limited, but the prevalence in the United States in children younger than 17 years is approximately 10.7% (with wide regional variation). Extrapolating these data generously, the NNT to prevent eczema in the first 2 years of life could be estimated at approximately 36.⁴²

Allergic rhinitis. There is low-grade- and very-low-grade-quality evidence that more breastfeeding, compared to less breastfeeding, is associated with a lower risk of allergic rhinitis in children younger than 5 years (OR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98). The association exists regardless of family history and disappears after 5 years of age. The differentiation of allergic rhinitis from rhinovirus infection (for which there is higher-quality evidence of a protective effect with breastfeeding) must be considered when interpreting these data.⁴⁰

Reliable epidemiologic evidence on allergic rhinitis in children younger than 5 years is lacking, and incidence varies by region. A rough estimate, using data from 6- and 7-year-olds, indicates an NNT of 54 to 70.⁴³

Food allergy. There is no evidence to suggest an association between breastfeeding and food allergy, either as protective or as a risk factor, and studies are limited.⁴⁰ Interestingly, as data accumulate associating early exposure to foods with protection, some authors have proposed reexamining the recommendation from WHO and US health organizations for exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life.^7,44

Continue to: Dental health

 

 

Dental health

Dental caries. There is consistent evidence that breastfeeding beyond 12 months of age is associated with the development of dental caries of deciduous teeth to 6 years of age (OR=2.90; 95% CI, 2.33-3.60). Many of the studies that showed this association did not control for the introduction of sugary foods and drinks, and there was a trend toward publication bias showing the association.⁴⁵

Dental malocclusion. There is consistent evidence for approximately a two-thirds reduction in malocclusions in deciduous teeth in breastfed infants (OR=0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.40). Although the large majority of these data come from low-income and middle-income countries, the incidence of malocclusion is not thought to be associated with socioeconomic status, as so many other breastfeeding outcomes are.⁴⁶

Childhood leukemia

In the largest meta-analysis available, a statistically significant inverse relationship between any breastfeeding for >6 months and childhood leukemia is evident in developed countries (OR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91), although significant heterogeneity among studies and lack of control for confounding variables are significant limitations. In particular, an association has been demonstrated with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) but not with acute myelogenous leukemia.⁴⁷ Given the rarity of childhood ALL, approximately 12,500 infants would need to be breastfed to prevent one case.⁴⁸

Continue to: Long-term outcomes

 

 

Long-term outcomes

Cognitive development. Several studies conducted in developed countries have linked breastfeeding to positive cognitive outcomes in children, including higher intelligence quotient (IQ).^35,49-52

These effects are conflicting, however, in studies that include sibling analysis and ones that control for maternal IQ.^{8,35,43,52-54} In the 2013 WHO meta-analysis, breastfeeding was associated with an increase of 2.2 points on normalized testing when only high-quality studies were included.⁵¹ A 2015 meta-analysis identified 4 high-quality studies with a large sample size and recall time <3 years, which demonstrated a mean difference of 1.76 points in IQ (95% CI, 0.25-3.26) in childhood and adolescence.⁵² Although statistically significant, this modest increase is of questionable clinical benefit and of unknown duration.

Obesity. The relationship between breastfeeding and obesity later in life is debatable. A large, systematic 2014 review of 15 cohort and 10 cross-sectional studies found a significantly reduced risk of childhood obesity among children who were breastfed (adjusted OR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81).⁵⁵ However, the review included studies that controlled for different confounders, and smaller effects were found in studies in which more confounders were taken into account.

Available data suggest that more than 3500 infants need to be breastfed to prevent one case of SIDS.

The 2013 WHO meta-analysis found a small (approximately 10%) reduction in the prevalence of overweight or obese children, but cautioned that residual confounding and publication bias were likely.⁵¹ At 6.5 and 11.5 years of follow-up, PROBIT failed to demonstrate a protective effect for exclusively or “ever” breastfed infants.⁵⁶ Sibling analysis similarly fails to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship.⁸

Continue to: A 2015 meta-analysis of 23 high-quality studies...

A 2015 meta-analysis of 23 high-quality studies with a sample size >1500 children and controlled for important confounders showed a pooled reduction in the prevalence of overweight or obesity of 13% (95% CI, 6-19).⁵⁷ The protection in this meta-analysis showed a dilution of the effect as the participants aged and an inverse relationship of the effect with sample size.

Breastfeeding is, therefore, unlikely to play a significant, if any, role in combatting the obesity epidemic.

Hypertension. A meta-analysis of high-quality trials demonstrates a <1 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure and no significant difference in diastolic pressure in breastfed infants.⁵⁷ Similarly, no significant effect of breastfeeding on blood pressure has been demonstrated in trials of preterm infants.⁵¹

Type 2 diabetes. Available data are limited and heterogeneous for the association between breastfeeding and later development of type 2 diabetes. Only 2 high-quality trials were identified in the 2013 WHO meta-analysis, and their results conflict.⁵¹ A 2015 meta-analysis identified only 3 high-quality studies, without a statistically significant relationship.⁵⁷

Dyslipidemia. Although earlier data suggested an association between breastfeeding and reduced cholesterol levels later in life, the 2013 WHO meta-analysis and a 2015 meta-analysis concluded that no association exists. The limited data available for preterm infants conflict.^51,57

Growth. There is no evidence that feeding method has a short- or long-term effect on weight gain or length gain in preterm or term infants.^35,36,58

Death. No clear association has been found between mortality and breastfeeding status in developed countries, except for the association with SIDS.³⁵

Continue to: What issues frame and guide counseling on breastfeeding?

What issues frame and guide counseling on breastfeeding?

There is that “problem” with the evidence. The evidence for infant breastfeeding status and its association with health outcomes faces significant limitations; the great majority of those limitations tend to overestimate the benefits of breastfeeding. Nearly all evidence is based on observational studies, in which causality cannot be determined and self-selection bias, recall bias, and residual confounding limit the value or strength of the findings.

The use of pacifiers before last sleep is more protective against SIDS than breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding rates are strongly socially patterned alongside socioeconomic status, race, and education level, all of which are simultaneously strongly tied to short- and long-term health outcomes.⁶ Other factors limiting the strength of the data set include varying definitions of infant feeding practices in different studies, varying definitions of outcomes and diseases, reverse causation, and evidence of publication bias in many meta-analyses. Given these shortcomings, the NNTs in this article probably represent a best-case scenario for breastfeeding outcomes for infants in the United States (TABLE 1^{18,22-24,28,36,39-43,47,48}).

Data need to be put into context. The NNTs for many breastfeeding outcomes (TABLE) compare favorably with other recommended interventions, particularly for other preventive care measures. Two examples: 81 mg/d aspirin for a 50-year-old man has an NNT of 35 to 45 for preventing nonfatal myocardial infarction, and the number needed to invite to screen with mammography to prevent one breast cancer death for a 50-year-old woman is 1339.^59,60

In both of these examples, >95% of patients will not benefit from the intervention, yet these preventive measures are routinely recommended and have a significant impact at the public health level. Notably, these outcomes are more serious than most breastfeeding outcomes; have a longer-lasting effect, better-quality data, and better data for potential harms; are causally linked to the intervention; and require much less effort and commitment of time than breastfeeding.

The question must be reckoned with: Can advocacy be harmful?

In recent years, a growing number of concerns have been raised about:

• the potential harms of breastfeeding advocacy
• exaggeration of the benefits of breastfeeding
• promotion of breastfeeding at the expense of evidence-based medicine.

The “Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding” program of the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI; launched by UNICEF and WHO) has come under scrutiny because of an increasing number of reports of sudden unexpected postnatal collapse; fall injuries; modeling and encouragement of unsafe sleep practices; an overly rigid resistance to the use of formula supplementation; and the ban on pacifier use.^61,62 The BFHI, promoted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is increasingly being adopted by hospitals with the expressed goal of increasing the breastfeeding rate from birth to discharge.

Continue to: Some of the "Ten Steps"...

Some of the “Ten Steps,” such as the call for skin-to-skin care and 24-hour rooming-in, have well-established benefit yet, when performed without supervision, can have the rare but serious unintended consequences of sudden unexpected postnatal collapse (the incidence of which may be higher than that of SIDS) and unsafe sleeping practices.^62,63

Furthermore, despite evidence that early formula supplementation, when medically necessary, does not adversely impact the breastfeeding rate, the “Ten Steps” program advises that giving formula before breast milk comes in might “lead to failure to breastfeed.”^33,34,61,63

Similarly, the ban on pacifiers is contrary to available evidence. The use of pacifiers before last sleep is more protective against SIDS than breastfeeding (NNT=2733), and there is evidence at one hospital that BFHI-inspired pacifier restriction is associated with a decrease in the rate of breastfeeding.^64,65

Other harms of advocacy are even more poorly studied. Most of the evidence for harm comes from the psychology and social science literature—not the medical literature, perhaps because the prevailing opinion in the medical community is that breastfeeding has overwhelming evidence for benefit. In fact, in the USPSTF’s 2008 recommendation, the evidence review of breastfeeding promotion practices in primary care did not identify a single study that measured harm; in the 2016 update of that recommendation, only 2 such studies were identified.^15,66

The literature that does investigate harm consistently finds that women who have difficulty breastfeeding or choose formula feeding report feelings of inadequacy, guilt, loss of agency, anxiety, and physical pain during breastfeeding that interferes with 1) their ability to bond or otherwise care for their infant and 2) competing work obligations.^11-13,67-69 Given the lack of attention paid to these variables in the medical literature, it is the individual mother who is best positioned to weigh these factors against the benefits of breastfeeding.

Continue to: Shared decision-making is best—for mother and baby

 

 

Shared decision-making is best—for mother and baby

Breastfeeding might prevent certain infections in as many as 50% of infants, but a mother unable to breastfeed can take solace in the fact that >95% of breastfed infants will not realize any benefit from the preventive potential of breastfeeding in regard to hospitalization or allergic disease, and >99% will not realize benefit from either the prevention of SIDS or ALL, or from improvement in long-term health measures (except for, perhaps, a slightly higher IQ). The “breast is best” mantra is likely true at a public-health level; for the individual mother–infant dyad, however, where there is a need to balance personal, social, family, and financial factors, that mantra is an oversimplification.

The "breast is best" mantra is likely true at a public- health level; for the individual mother-infant dyad, however, that mantra is oversimplified.

Regrettably, there is a paucity of data on the risks of breastfeeding promotion—an area that deserves more study. Balancing the abundant, but often limited-quality, data on the benefits of breastfeeding and the sheer lack of data regarding the risks of advocacy represents a clinical and an ethical challenge for physicians. It is a challenge that can only be resolved through individualization of care and shared decision-making, in which the physician is expert on the benefits of breastfeeding, and the mother is expert on the personal circumstances to be weighed against those benefits.

CORRESPONDENCE
Joseph Lane Wilson, MD, ECU Brody School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; wilsonjo@ecu.edu.

The benefits of breastfeeding for infants have long been touted as numerous and supported by overwhelming evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and American Academy of Family Physicians all strongly recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, citing numerous health benefits for child and mother. These groups recommend that some breastfeeding be continued through the first 12 months of life, or longer, as desired (the WHO extends the recommendation to 2 years).^1-4 In 2000, the Surgeon General of the United States released a strategic plan to increase rates of breastfeeding,⁵ setting goals (by 2010) of:

• 75% of mothers leaving the hospital breastfeeding
• 50% of babies breastfeeding at 6 months
• 25% of babies breastfeeding at 1 year.

Massive public health campaigns citing data for the many benefits of breastfeeding have been launched with the goal of increasing the breastfeeding rate. In 2014, statistics offered a testament to the success of these campaigns⁶:

• 82.5% of infants had been breastfed “ever”
• 55.3% were breastfed “some”
• 24.9% were breastfed exclusively through 6 months of age
• 33.7% were breastfed “some” at 12 months.

Breastfeeding advocacy has become clouded

In recent years, an increasing number of researchers, physicians, and authors have begun to question whether, in the United States, the benefits of breastfeeding children are exaggerated and the emphasis on breastfeeding might be leading to feelings of inadequacy, guilt, and anxiety among mothers.^7-13 In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) amended its recommendation to “promote and support breastfeeding” to simply “support breastfeeding”—a change that created substantial debate and prompted the Task Force to clarify its stance in changing the language: In its response to public comment, the USPSTF said that its position regarding promotion had not changed, but the language in the original statement had been revised to “ensure that the autonomy of women is respected.” ^2,14-16

In contrast, others suggest counseling women on the risks of formula feeding rather than on the benefits of breastfeeding, citing substantial health outcome distinctions.¹⁷ Indeed, wide-ranging conclusions have been drawn from the same data on the topic, potentially creating uncertainty for physicians on how best to counsel women on their choice of how to feed their infant.

An increasing number of researchers and physicians have begun to question whether the benefits of breastfeeding are exaggerated.

In this article, we address this uncertainty by utilizing the most recent and comprehensive data to examine infant health outcomes. When possible, the number needed to treat (NNT) for a given outcome has been calculated or approximated, allowing the reader to estimate the likelihood of benefit for an individual mother–infant dyad. Exercise caution when interpreting the NNT, however: The numbers suggest causality that cannot be definitively established using the observational data on which those numbers are based.

Continue to: Infectious disease

 

 

Infectious disease

Acute otitis media. Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is associated with a 43% reduction in the risk of acute otitis media (AOM) by 2 years of age (odds ratio [OR]=0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.75). Beyond 2 years of age, or when comparing “ever” and “never” breastfeeding, the effect disappears. All studies in this meta-analysis had serious limitations.¹⁸

Nearly half of children will have at least one case of AOM by one year of age; 80%, by 2 years.^19,20 Since the introduction of the heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, the rate of AOM at 2 years has fallen by as much as 20%.²¹ Assuming an incidence of 60% to 80% of AOM by 2 years, only 2 or 3 infants need to be exclusively breastfed for 6 months to prevent a single case of AOM.¹⁸ Prevention of AOM through breastfeeding may be related to head position during feeding, antibacterial effects of breast milk, protective oral microbiome in the breastfed infant pharynx, and/or prevention of primary viral upper respiratory infection (URI), which nearly always precedes AOM.^18,19

Upper and lower respiratory tract infections. Infants who are exclusively breastfed for 4 months and partially breastfed after 4 months have a lower risk of URI (OR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83) and of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI; OR=0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.72).²²

The effect is stronger for URI among infants exclusively breastfed for at least 6 months (OR=0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.74), but is no longer significant by that time for LRTI (OR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.40). Importantly, AOM was included in the URI group, and, as previously discussed, AOM has independently been shown to have an inverse relationship with breastfeeding duration.

At 7 to 12 months of age, no association was seen between breastfeeding and the incidence of URI. Curiously, an association with LRTI was again detected for infants breastfed exclusively for 4 months and partially thereafter, but was not detected with exclusive breastfeeding for at least 6 months (OR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.69). In this study, in the first 6 months of life, 40% of infants had a URI and 8% had an LRTI. The findings in this cohort suggest an NNT of 6 or 7 for prevention of URI and an NNT of 25 for prevention of LRTI in the first 6 months of life.²²

Continue to: Children younger than 2 years are...

Children younger than 2 years are estimated to have approximately 6 bouts of the common cold a year, and essentially 100% have at least one bout—perhaps lowering the NNT for URI if applied widely. However, these data are not divided into 6-month intervals, making accurate extrapolation difficult.²³

Gastrointestinal infection. The rate of diarrheal illness in the first year of life is lower in infants who are exclusively breastfed for at least 4 months and partially breastfed after.

Both the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT; a clinical trial in which infants were randomized to a breastfeeding education intervention or standard care) and a 2010 prospective cohort study in the Netherlands of more than 3400 infants found a reduction in the risk of one or more gastrointestinal (GI) infections at a similar rate.^22,24

• In PROBIT, 9.1% of infants in the intervention group, compared to 13.2% in the standard care group (OR=0.60; 95% CI, 0.40-0.91), had one or more GI infections at 12 months of age.²⁴
• In the 2010 Netherlands cohort, 8% of infants had a GI infection by 6 months of age. Infants breastfed exclusively for at least 4 or 6 months had a decreased risk for GI infection (respectively: adjusted OR=0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.64 and adjusted OR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.14-1.59). No such association was found for any feeding group 7 to 12 months of age.²²

These studies are notable for the low incidence of GI infection, which is frequently cited as 1.3 to 2.3 episodes per child per year in children younger than 3 years in the United States.²⁵ However, that high incidence has likely declined significantly since the introduction of rotavirus vaccine in 2006. In the years following the introduction of the vaccine, infant visits for gastroenteritis decreased by >90% in all care settings in the South, Northeast, and Midwest regions of the United States and by 53% to 63% in the West region.²⁶ Recent accurate epidemiologic information, in an era of significantly higher vaccination rates, is lacking.

Assuming the low incidence of GI infection reported in PROBIT and the Netherlands trials, about 25 to 30 infants need to be exclusively breastfed for 4 to 6 months to prevent a single GI infection during the first 6 to 12 months of life.^22,24 Assuming a 60% incidence by age 12 months before introduction of the rotavirus vaccine, the NNT would be approximately 4.²⁴ The true number is likely somewhere between those 2 NNTs.

Continue to: Hospitalization

 

 

Hospitalization

Risk of infection is decreased. A large cohort study in Scotland, involving more than 500,000 children, found an association between exclusive breastfeeding for 6 to 8 weeks and decreased risk of hospitalization within the first 6 months of life. Formula-fed and mixed-fed infants had an increased hazard ratio (HR) for hospitalization for common childhood illness (HR=1.40; 95% CI, 1.35-1.45 for formula-fed infants and HR=1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.25 for mixed-fed infants).²⁷ The study also found increased rates of hospitalization for conditions for which other meta-analyses have failed to show a protective effect from breastfeeding—leading to suspicion of residual confounding in the study. Another United Kingdom cohort demonstrated lower rates of hospitalization for GI infection (NNT=171) and LRTI (NNT=115) among exclusively breastfed infants by 8 months of age.²⁸

Risk of neonatal readmission is increased. Late preterm infants who are exclusively breastfed are nearly twice as likely to be hospitalized as breastfed term or non-breastfed preterm infants, primarily due to dehydration, failure to thrive, weight loss, and hyperbilirubinemia. In fact, exclusive breastfeeding at discharge from the hospital is likely the single greatest risk factor for hospital readmission in newborns.^29,30 Term infants who are exclusively breastfed are more likely to be hospitalized compared to formula-fed or mixed-fed infants, due to hyperbilirubinemia, dehydration, hypernatremia, and weight loss (number needed to harm (NNH)=71).^30-32 For weight loss >10% of birth weight with or without hospitalization, the NNH for breastfed infants is 13.³²

Many of these hospitalizations and events could be avoided with appropriate monitoring and medically indicated supplementation; the likelihood of long-term harm is low. Formula supplementation is often avoided if possible in hospitals to promote exclusive breastfeeding; however, several small randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that limited formula supplementation in breastfed infants does not affect the breastfeeding continuation rate at 3 and 6 months, and, therefore, might be a way to decrease infant rehospitalization.^33,34

Necrotizing enterocolitis

Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is associated with a 43% reduction in the risk of acute otitis media by 2 years of age.

In preterm infants, breastfeeding has been associated with a lower rate of necrotizing enterocolitis. In the 2007 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality report, the association was found to be only marginally statistically significant, and the authors warned that, first, evidence is old and heterogeneous and, second, present preterm formula is much different than the formula used in earlier studies of preterm infant nutrition and necrotizing enterocolitis.³⁵ A 2012 Cochrane review included newer studies in its analysis but reached the same conclusion on the quality and heterogeneity of available evidence, with a NNT of 25.³⁶

Continue to: Sudden infant death syndrome

 

 

Sudden infant death syndrome

There is a statistically significant association between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and feeding method. Infants whose cause of death is SIDS are approximately one half as likely to have been breastfed as matched controls.^35,37

In 2005, AAP did not recommend breastfeeding as a means to reduce the risk of SIDS because available evidence was mixed, and studies at the time were poorly controlled.³⁸ Since that time, case-control meta-analyses have shed additional light on the association between SIDS and feeding method.^35,37

The protective effect exists for any amount of breastfeeding and is stronger for exclusive breastfeeding, suggesting a protective role—not simply an association. Caution should be employed with this conclusion, however, because the studies included in the meta-analysis used univariate analysis primarily and did not control sufficiently for known confounders. In addition, the authors warn that publication bias might overestimate the association.³⁸

Exclusive breastfeeding is likely the single greatest risk factor for hospital readmission in newborns.

Potential mechanisms of a protective role include decreased risk of infection and greater arousability from sleep in breastfed infants. Assuming a protective role, available data suggest that more than 3500 infants need to be breastfed to prevent one case of SIDS.³⁹

Continue to: Allergic disease

Allergic disease

Asthma. There is evidence of a small protective effect of breastfeeding “ever” on asthma at 5 to 18 years of age in high-income countries (OR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97). A family history of asthma or atopy did not affect this finding. The authors note there is some evidence of publication bias in this review, which is the largest and most comprehensive on the topic.⁴⁰

With a lifetime prevalence of asthma in the United States of approximately 13.2%, this association would confer an NNT of roughly 76.⁴¹ Earlier, the literature demonstrated mixed and conflicting evidence, and some experts suggested an effect only when there is a family history of asthma or atopy.³⁶

Eczema. For children younger than 2 years, there is low-grade- and very-low-grade-quality evidence that exclusive breastfeeding longer than 3 to 4 months is associated with a reduced risk of eczema (OR=0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97).⁴⁰

Previously, data suggested that this association existed only in children who had a family history of atopy.³⁵ The protective association, however, exists regardless of family history and does not persist beyond 2 years of age. The authors noted evidence of publication bias, reverse causation, and misdiagnosis of early childhood rashes as eczema as limitations of their findings.⁴⁰

Continue to: Reliable epidemiologic evidence...

Reliable epidemiologic evidence on the incidence of eczema in infants in the United States is limited, but the prevalence in the United States in children younger than 17 years is approximately 10.7% (with wide regional variation). Extrapolating these data generously, the NNT to prevent eczema in the first 2 years of life could be estimated at approximately 36.⁴²

Allergic rhinitis. There is low-grade- and very-low-grade-quality evidence that more breastfeeding, compared to less breastfeeding, is associated with a lower risk of allergic rhinitis in children younger than 5 years (OR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98). The association exists regardless of family history and disappears after 5 years of age. The differentiation of allergic rhinitis from rhinovirus infection (for which there is higher-quality evidence of a protective effect with breastfeeding) must be considered when interpreting these data.⁴⁰

Reliable epidemiologic evidence on allergic rhinitis in children younger than 5 years is lacking, and incidence varies by region. A rough estimate, using data from 6- and 7-year-olds, indicates an NNT of 54 to 70.⁴³

Food allergy. There is no evidence to suggest an association between breastfeeding and food allergy, either as protective or as a risk factor, and studies are limited.⁴⁰ Interestingly, as data accumulate associating early exposure to foods with protection, some authors have proposed reexamining the recommendation from WHO and US health organizations for exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life.^7,44

Continue to: Dental health

 

 

Dental health

Dental caries. There is consistent evidence that breastfeeding beyond 12 months of age is associated with the development of dental caries of deciduous teeth to 6 years of age (OR=2.90; 95% CI, 2.33-3.60). Many of the studies that showed this association did not control for the introduction of sugary foods and drinks, and there was a trend toward publication bias showing the association.⁴⁵

Dental malocclusion. There is consistent evidence for approximately a two-thirds reduction in malocclusions in deciduous teeth in breastfed infants (OR=0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.40). Although the large majority of these data come from low-income and middle-income countries, the incidence of malocclusion is not thought to be associated with socioeconomic status, as so many other breastfeeding outcomes are.⁴⁶

Childhood leukemia

In the largest meta-analysis available, a statistically significant inverse relationship between any breastfeeding for >6 months and childhood leukemia is evident in developed countries (OR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91), although significant heterogeneity among studies and lack of control for confounding variables are significant limitations. In particular, an association has been demonstrated with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) but not with acute myelogenous leukemia.⁴⁷ Given the rarity of childhood ALL, approximately 12,500 infants would need to be breastfed to prevent one case.⁴⁸

Continue to: Long-term outcomes

 

 

Long-term outcomes

Cognitive development. Several studies conducted in developed countries have linked breastfeeding to positive cognitive outcomes in children, including higher intelligence quotient (IQ).^35,49-52

These effects are conflicting, however, in studies that include sibling analysis and ones that control for maternal IQ.^{8,35,43,52-54} In the 2013 WHO meta-analysis, breastfeeding was associated with an increase of 2.2 points on normalized testing when only high-quality studies were included.⁵¹ A 2015 meta-analysis identified 4 high-quality studies with a large sample size and recall time <3 years, which demonstrated a mean difference of 1.76 points in IQ (95% CI, 0.25-3.26) in childhood and adolescence.⁵² Although statistically significant, this modest increase is of questionable clinical benefit and of unknown duration.

Obesity. The relationship between breastfeeding and obesity later in life is debatable. A large, systematic 2014 review of 15 cohort and 10 cross-sectional studies found a significantly reduced risk of childhood obesity among children who were breastfed (adjusted OR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81).⁵⁵ However, the review included studies that controlled for different confounders, and smaller effects were found in studies in which more confounders were taken into account.

Available data suggest that more than 3500 infants need to be breastfed to prevent one case of SIDS.

The 2013 WHO meta-analysis found a small (approximately 10%) reduction in the prevalence of overweight or obese children, but cautioned that residual confounding and publication bias were likely.⁵¹ At 6.5 and 11.5 years of follow-up, PROBIT failed to demonstrate a protective effect for exclusively or “ever” breastfed infants.⁵⁶ Sibling analysis similarly fails to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship.⁸

Continue to: A 2015 meta-analysis of 23 high-quality studies...

A 2015 meta-analysis of 23 high-quality studies with a sample size >1500 children and controlled for important confounders showed a pooled reduction in the prevalence of overweight or obesity of 13% (95% CI, 6-19).⁵⁷ The protection in this meta-analysis showed a dilution of the effect as the participants aged and an inverse relationship of the effect with sample size.

Breastfeeding is, therefore, unlikely to play a significant, if any, role in combatting the obesity epidemic.

Hypertension. A meta-analysis of high-quality trials demonstrates a <1 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure and no significant difference in diastolic pressure in breastfed infants.⁵⁷ Similarly, no significant effect of breastfeeding on blood pressure has been demonstrated in trials of preterm infants.⁵¹

Type 2 diabetes. Available data are limited and heterogeneous for the association between breastfeeding and later development of type 2 diabetes. Only 2 high-quality trials were identified in the 2013 WHO meta-analysis, and their results conflict.⁵¹ A 2015 meta-analysis identified only 3 high-quality studies, without a statistically significant relationship.⁵⁷

Dyslipidemia. Although earlier data suggested an association between breastfeeding and reduced cholesterol levels later in life, the 2013 WHO meta-analysis and a 2015 meta-analysis concluded that no association exists. The limited data available for preterm infants conflict.^51,57

Growth. There is no evidence that feeding method has a short- or long-term effect on weight gain or length gain in preterm or term infants.^35,36,58

Death. No clear association has been found between mortality and breastfeeding status in developed countries, except for the association with SIDS.³⁵

Continue to: What issues frame and guide counseling on breastfeeding?

What issues frame and guide counseling on breastfeeding?

There is that “problem” with the evidence. The evidence for infant breastfeeding status and its association with health outcomes faces significant limitations; the great majority of those limitations tend to overestimate the benefits of breastfeeding. Nearly all evidence is based on observational studies, in which causality cannot be determined and self-selection bias, recall bias, and residual confounding limit the value or strength of the findings.

The use of pacifiers before last sleep is more protective against SIDS than breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding rates are strongly socially patterned alongside socioeconomic status, race, and education level, all of which are simultaneously strongly tied to short- and long-term health outcomes.⁶ Other factors limiting the strength of the data set include varying definitions of infant feeding practices in different studies, varying definitions of outcomes and diseases, reverse causation, and evidence of publication bias in many meta-analyses. Given these shortcomings, the NNTs in this article probably represent a best-case scenario for breastfeeding outcomes for infants in the United States (TABLE 1^{18,22-24,28,36,39-43,47,48}).

Data need to be put into context. The NNTs for many breastfeeding outcomes (TABLE) compare favorably with other recommended interventions, particularly for other preventive care measures. Two examples: 81 mg/d aspirin for a 50-year-old man has an NNT of 35 to 45 for preventing nonfatal myocardial infarction, and the number needed to invite to screen with mammography to prevent one breast cancer death for a 50-year-old woman is 1339.^59,60

In both of these examples, >95% of patients will not benefit from the intervention, yet these preventive measures are routinely recommended and have a significant impact at the public health level. Notably, these outcomes are more serious than most breastfeeding outcomes; have a longer-lasting effect, better-quality data, and better data for potential harms; are causally linked to the intervention; and require much less effort and commitment of time than breastfeeding.

The question must be reckoned with: Can advocacy be harmful?

In recent years, a growing number of concerns have been raised about:

• the potential harms of breastfeeding advocacy
• exaggeration of the benefits of breastfeeding
• promotion of breastfeeding at the expense of evidence-based medicine.

The “Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding” program of the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI; launched by UNICEF and WHO) has come under scrutiny because of an increasing number of reports of sudden unexpected postnatal collapse; fall injuries; modeling and encouragement of unsafe sleep practices; an overly rigid resistance to the use of formula supplementation; and the ban on pacifier use.^61,62 The BFHI, promoted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is increasingly being adopted by hospitals with the expressed goal of increasing the breastfeeding rate from birth to discharge.

Continue to: Some of the "Ten Steps"...

Some of the “Ten Steps,” such as the call for skin-to-skin care and 24-hour rooming-in, have well-established benefit yet, when performed without supervision, can have the rare but serious unintended consequences of sudden unexpected postnatal collapse (the incidence of which may be higher than that of SIDS) and unsafe sleeping practices.^62,63

Furthermore, despite evidence that early formula supplementation, when medically necessary, does not adversely impact the breastfeeding rate, the “Ten Steps” program advises that giving formula before breast milk comes in might “lead to failure to breastfeed.”^33,34,61,63

Similarly, the ban on pacifiers is contrary to available evidence. The use of pacifiers before last sleep is more protective against SIDS than breastfeeding (NNT=2733), and there is evidence at one hospital that BFHI-inspired pacifier restriction is associated with a decrease in the rate of breastfeeding.^64,65

Other harms of advocacy are even more poorly studied. Most of the evidence for harm comes from the psychology and social science literature—not the medical literature, perhaps because the prevailing opinion in the medical community is that breastfeeding has overwhelming evidence for benefit. In fact, in the USPSTF’s 2008 recommendation, the evidence review of breastfeeding promotion practices in primary care did not identify a single study that measured harm; in the 2016 update of that recommendation, only 2 such studies were identified.^15,66

The literature that does investigate harm consistently finds that women who have difficulty breastfeeding or choose formula feeding report feelings of inadequacy, guilt, loss of agency, anxiety, and physical pain during breastfeeding that interferes with 1) their ability to bond or otherwise care for their infant and 2) competing work obligations.^11-13,67-69 Given the lack of attention paid to these variables in the medical literature, it is the individual mother who is best positioned to weigh these factors against the benefits of breastfeeding.

Continue to: Shared decision-making is best—for mother and baby

 

 

Shared decision-making is best—for mother and baby

Breastfeeding might prevent certain infections in as many as 50% of infants, but a mother unable to breastfeed can take solace in the fact that >95% of breastfed infants will not realize any benefit from the preventive potential of breastfeeding in regard to hospitalization or allergic disease, and >99% will not realize benefit from either the prevention of SIDS or ALL, or from improvement in long-term health measures (except for, perhaps, a slightly higher IQ). The “breast is best” mantra is likely true at a public-health level; for the individual mother–infant dyad, however, where there is a need to balance personal, social, family, and financial factors, that mantra is an oversimplification.

The "breast is best" mantra is likely true at a public- health level; for the individual mother-infant dyad, however, that mantra is oversimplified.

Regrettably, there is a paucity of data on the risks of breastfeeding promotion—an area that deserves more study. Balancing the abundant, but often limited-quality, data on the benefits of breastfeeding and the sheer lack of data regarding the risks of advocacy represents a clinical and an ethical challenge for physicians. It is a challenge that can only be resolved through individualization of care and shared decision-making, in which the physician is expert on the benefits of breastfeeding, and the mother is expert on the personal circumstances to be weighed against those benefits.

CORRESPONDENCE
Joseph Lane Wilson, MD, ECU Brody School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; wilsonjo@ecu.edu.

Here are 4 articles from the June issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Dermatology Practice Gaps: Missed Diagnoses

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IhaxSm
Expires February 11, 2019

2. When to Worry About Congenital Melanocytic Nevi

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IhMOBC
Expires March 2, 2019

3. Unscheduled Visits for Pain After Hernia Surgery Common, Costly

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GbfWIV
Expires February 15, 2019

4. Melanoma Incidence Increased in Older Non-Hispanic Whites

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2wOkVzZ
Expires February 9, 2019

Here are 4 articles from the June issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Dermatology Practice Gaps: Missed Diagnoses

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IhaxSm
Expires February 11, 2019

2. When to Worry About Congenital Melanocytic Nevi

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IhMOBC
Expires March 2, 2019

3. Unscheduled Visits for Pain After Hernia Surgery Common, Costly

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GbfWIV
Expires February 15, 2019

4. Melanoma Incidence Increased in Older Non-Hispanic Whites

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2wOkVzZ
Expires February 9, 2019

Here are 4 articles from the June issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Dermatology Practice Gaps: Missed Diagnoses

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IhaxSm
Expires February 11, 2019

2. When to Worry About Congenital Melanocytic Nevi

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IhMOBC
Expires March 2, 2019

3. Unscheduled Visits for Pain After Hernia Surgery Common, Costly

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GbfWIV
Expires February 15, 2019

4. Melanoma Incidence Increased in Older Non-Hispanic Whites

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2wOkVzZ
Expires February 9, 2019

MALMO, SWEDEN – The neonatal intensive care unit often represents a lost opportunity to bring an infant fully up to date for recommended age-appropriate immunizations – but it needn’t be that way, Raymond C. Stetson, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

copyright Metin Kiyak/Thinkstock

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stetson R. E-Poster Discussion Session 04.

MALMO, SWEDEN – The neonatal intensive care unit often represents a lost opportunity to bring an infant fully up to date for recommended age-appropriate immunizations – but it needn’t be that way, Raymond C. Stetson, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

copyright Metin Kiyak/Thinkstock

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stetson R. E-Poster Discussion Session 04.

MALMO, SWEDEN – The neonatal intensive care unit often represents a lost opportunity to bring an infant fully up to date for recommended age-appropriate immunizations – but it needn’t be that way, Raymond C. Stetson, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

copyright Metin Kiyak/Thinkstock

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stetson R. E-Poster Discussion Session 04.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Pediatric multiple sclerosis is a confirmed clinical entity, which virtually always presents as relapsing-remitting disease, Brenda Banwell, MD, said at the at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“MS in children is the same disease as MS in adults,” said Dr. Banwell, chief of neurology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Grace R. Loeb Endowed Chair in Neurosciences there. And although she is unaware of a single case of childhood MS presenting as primary progressive disease, the impact of relapsing-remitting childhood MS may ultimately be progressive damage.

Pediatric MS is also quite rare, a characteristic that makes therapeutic progress challenging. Recruiting sufficient patients for a definitive phase 3 trial is incredibly difficult, especially when multiple trials are commencing simultaneously, not only in the United States but around the world.

Nevertheless, there has been excellent news, Dr. Banwell said in a video interview. Fingolimod (Gilenya), the immunomodulator approved for adult relapsing-remitting MS, gained a pediatric approval under the breakthrough therapy designation on May 11, 2018, on the basis of the successful phase 3 PARADIGMS study.

Compared with intramuscular interferon beta-1a, fingolimod cut the annualized relapse rate by 82%. It also was associated with a 53% annualized reduction in new or newly enlarged T2 lesions and 66% decrease in gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions.

This big win is prompting researchers and clinicians to rethink the pediatric MS treatment paradigm, Dr. Banwell said. Traditional thinking falls along a dose-escalation pattern that follows relapses. However, “we may take a cue from our rheumatology colleagues, who have seen the benefit of starting with more aggressive treatment and higher doses, getting disease control, and then slowly tapering off.”

Whether this option could actually modify disease progression, as it seems to do in some other inflammatory disorders, is an intriguing – but unproven – possibility, she said.

Dr. Banwell disclosed that she received financial remuneration as a central MRI reviewer for the Novartis-sponsored PARADIGMS study.

msullivan@mdedge.com

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Pediatric multiple sclerosis is a confirmed clinical entity, which virtually always presents as relapsing-remitting disease, Brenda Banwell, MD, said at the at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“MS in children is the same disease as MS in adults,” said Dr. Banwell, chief of neurology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Grace R. Loeb Endowed Chair in Neurosciences there. And although she is unaware of a single case of childhood MS presenting as primary progressive disease, the impact of relapsing-remitting childhood MS may ultimately be progressive damage.

Pediatric MS is also quite rare, a characteristic that makes therapeutic progress challenging. Recruiting sufficient patients for a definitive phase 3 trial is incredibly difficult, especially when multiple trials are commencing simultaneously, not only in the United States but around the world.

Nevertheless, there has been excellent news, Dr. Banwell said in a video interview. Fingolimod (Gilenya), the immunomodulator approved for adult relapsing-remitting MS, gained a pediatric approval under the breakthrough therapy designation on May 11, 2018, on the basis of the successful phase 3 PARADIGMS study.

Compared with intramuscular interferon beta-1a, fingolimod cut the annualized relapse rate by 82%. It also was associated with a 53% annualized reduction in new or newly enlarged T2 lesions and 66% decrease in gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions.

This big win is prompting researchers and clinicians to rethink the pediatric MS treatment paradigm, Dr. Banwell said. Traditional thinking falls along a dose-escalation pattern that follows relapses. However, “we may take a cue from our rheumatology colleagues, who have seen the benefit of starting with more aggressive treatment and higher doses, getting disease control, and then slowly tapering off.”

Whether this option could actually modify disease progression, as it seems to do in some other inflammatory disorders, is an intriguing – but unproven – possibility, she said.

Dr. Banwell disclosed that she received financial remuneration as a central MRI reviewer for the Novartis-sponsored PARADIGMS study.

msullivan@mdedge.com

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Pediatric multiple sclerosis is a confirmed clinical entity, which virtually always presents as relapsing-remitting disease, Brenda Banwell, MD, said at the at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“MS in children is the same disease as MS in adults,” said Dr. Banwell, chief of neurology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Grace R. Loeb Endowed Chair in Neurosciences there. And although she is unaware of a single case of childhood MS presenting as primary progressive disease, the impact of relapsing-remitting childhood MS may ultimately be progressive damage.

Pediatric MS is also quite rare, a characteristic that makes therapeutic progress challenging. Recruiting sufficient patients for a definitive phase 3 trial is incredibly difficult, especially when multiple trials are commencing simultaneously, not only in the United States but around the world.

Nevertheless, there has been excellent news, Dr. Banwell said in a video interview. Fingolimod (Gilenya), the immunomodulator approved for adult relapsing-remitting MS, gained a pediatric approval under the breakthrough therapy designation on May 11, 2018, on the basis of the successful phase 3 PARADIGMS study.

Compared with intramuscular interferon beta-1a, fingolimod cut the annualized relapse rate by 82%. It also was associated with a 53% annualized reduction in new or newly enlarged T2 lesions and 66% decrease in gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions.

This big win is prompting researchers and clinicians to rethink the pediatric MS treatment paradigm, Dr. Banwell said. Traditional thinking falls along a dose-escalation pattern that follows relapses. However, “we may take a cue from our rheumatology colleagues, who have seen the benefit of starting with more aggressive treatment and higher doses, getting disease control, and then slowly tapering off.”

Whether this option could actually modify disease progression, as it seems to do in some other inflammatory disorders, is an intriguing – but unproven – possibility, she said.

Dr. Banwell disclosed that she received financial remuneration as a central MRI reviewer for the Novartis-sponsored PARADIGMS study.

msullivan@mdedge.com

While most of the parents you will see in your office will be thoughtful, engaged, and even anxious, occasionally you will encounter parents who seem detached from their children. Spending just a few extra minutes to understand this detachment could mean an enormous difference in the psychological health and developmental well-being of your patient.

It is striking when you see it: Flat affect, little eye contact, no questions or comments. If the parents seem unconnected to their children, it is worth being curious about it. Whether they are constantly on their phones or just disengaged, you should start by directing a question straight to them. Perhaps a question about the child’s sleep, appetite, or school performance is a good place to start. You would like to assess their knowledge of the child’s development, performance at school, friendships, and interests, to ensure that they are up to date and paying attention.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

Depression

Ask about how they are sleeping. If the child is very young or the parents have a difficult work schedule, they might simply be sleep deprived, which you might help them address. Difficulty sleeping also can be a symptom of depression. Have they noticed any changes in their appetite or energy? Is it harder to concentrate? Have they felt more tearful, sad, or irritable? Have they noticed that they don’t get as much pleasure from things that usually bring them joy? Do they worry about being a burden to others? Major depressive disorder is relatively common, affecting as many as one in five women in the postpartum period and one in ten women generally.

Men experience depression at about half that rate, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a condition that can cause feelings of guilt and shame, so many suffer silently, missing the chance for treatment and raising the risk for suicide. Infants of depressed mothers often appear listless and may be fussier about sleeping and eating, which can exacerbate poor attachment with their parents, and lead to problems in later years, including anxiety, mood, or behavioral problems. A parent’s depression, particularly in the postpartum period, represents a serious threat to the child’s healthy development and well-being.

Tell the parents that what they have described to you sounds like it could be a depressive episode and that depression has a serious impact on the whole family. Offer that their primary care physicians can evaluate and treat depression, or learn about other resources in your community that you can refer them to for accessible care.

 

 

Overwhelming stress

Is the newborn or special needs child feeling like more responsibility than the parents can handle? Where do the parents find support? Has there been a recent job loss or has there been a financial setback for the family? Is a spouse ill, or are they also caring for an aging parent? Has there been a separation from the spouse? Many adults face multiple significant stresses at the same time. It is not uncommon for working parents to be in “soldiering on” mode, just surviving. But this takes a toll on being present and engaged with the children, and puts them at risk for depression and substance abuse.

Traumatic stress

Have they recently experienced a crime or accident, the unexpected loss of a loved one, or threats or abuse at home? They may be grieving, or may be experiencing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder that lead them to appear distant and detached. Grief will improve with time, but they may benefit from extra support or from assistance with their responsibilities (a leave from work or more child care). If they have experienced a traumatic stress, they will need a clinical evaluation for potential treatment options. If they are being threatened or abused at home, you need to find out if their children have witnessed the abuse or may be victims as well. You can offer these parents resources for survivors of domestic abuse and speak with them about your obligation to file with your state’s agency responsible for children’s welfare. It is critical that you listen to any concerns they may have about this filing, from losing their children to enraging their abusers.

Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com

While most of the parents you will see in your office will be thoughtful, engaged, and even anxious, occasionally you will encounter parents who seem detached from their children. Spending just a few extra minutes to understand this detachment could mean an enormous difference in the psychological health and developmental well-being of your patient.

It is striking when you see it: Flat affect, little eye contact, no questions or comments. If the parents seem unconnected to their children, it is worth being curious about it. Whether they are constantly on their phones or just disengaged, you should start by directing a question straight to them. Perhaps a question about the child’s sleep, appetite, or school performance is a good place to start. You would like to assess their knowledge of the child’s development, performance at school, friendships, and interests, to ensure that they are up to date and paying attention.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

Depression

Ask about how they are sleeping. If the child is very young or the parents have a difficult work schedule, they might simply be sleep deprived, which you might help them address. Difficulty sleeping also can be a symptom of depression. Have they noticed any changes in their appetite or energy? Is it harder to concentrate? Have they felt more tearful, sad, or irritable? Have they noticed that they don’t get as much pleasure from things that usually bring them joy? Do they worry about being a burden to others? Major depressive disorder is relatively common, affecting as many as one in five women in the postpartum period and one in ten women generally.

Men experience depression at about half that rate, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a condition that can cause feelings of guilt and shame, so many suffer silently, missing the chance for treatment and raising the risk for suicide. Infants of depressed mothers often appear listless and may be fussier about sleeping and eating, which can exacerbate poor attachment with their parents, and lead to problems in later years, including anxiety, mood, or behavioral problems. A parent’s depression, particularly in the postpartum period, represents a serious threat to the child’s healthy development and well-being.

Tell the parents that what they have described to you sounds like it could be a depressive episode and that depression has a serious impact on the whole family. Offer that their primary care physicians can evaluate and treat depression, or learn about other resources in your community that you can refer them to for accessible care.

 

 

Overwhelming stress

Is the newborn or special needs child feeling like more responsibility than the parents can handle? Where do the parents find support? Has there been a recent job loss or has there been a financial setback for the family? Is a spouse ill, or are they also caring for an aging parent? Has there been a separation from the spouse? Many adults face multiple significant stresses at the same time. It is not uncommon for working parents to be in “soldiering on” mode, just surviving. But this takes a toll on being present and engaged with the children, and puts them at risk for depression and substance abuse.

Traumatic stress

Have they recently experienced a crime or accident, the unexpected loss of a loved one, or threats or abuse at home? They may be grieving, or may be experiencing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder that lead them to appear distant and detached. Grief will improve with time, but they may benefit from extra support or from assistance with their responsibilities (a leave from work or more child care). If they have experienced a traumatic stress, they will need a clinical evaluation for potential treatment options. If they are being threatened or abused at home, you need to find out if their children have witnessed the abuse or may be victims as well. You can offer these parents resources for survivors of domestic abuse and speak with them about your obligation to file with your state’s agency responsible for children’s welfare. It is critical that you listen to any concerns they may have about this filing, from losing their children to enraging their abusers.

Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com

While most of the parents you will see in your office will be thoughtful, engaged, and even anxious, occasionally you will encounter parents who seem detached from their children. Spending just a few extra minutes to understand this detachment could mean an enormous difference in the psychological health and developmental well-being of your patient.

It is striking when you see it: Flat affect, little eye contact, no questions or comments. If the parents seem unconnected to their children, it is worth being curious about it. Whether they are constantly on their phones or just disengaged, you should start by directing a question straight to them. Perhaps a question about the child’s sleep, appetite, or school performance is a good place to start. You would like to assess their knowledge of the child’s development, performance at school, friendships, and interests, to ensure that they are up to date and paying attention.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

Depression

Ask about how they are sleeping. If the child is very young or the parents have a difficult work schedule, they might simply be sleep deprived, which you might help them address. Difficulty sleeping also can be a symptom of depression. Have they noticed any changes in their appetite or energy? Is it harder to concentrate? Have they felt more tearful, sad, or irritable? Have they noticed that they don’t get as much pleasure from things that usually bring them joy? Do they worry about being a burden to others? Major depressive disorder is relatively common, affecting as many as one in five women in the postpartum period and one in ten women generally.

Men experience depression at about half that rate, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a condition that can cause feelings of guilt and shame, so many suffer silently, missing the chance for treatment and raising the risk for suicide. Infants of depressed mothers often appear listless and may be fussier about sleeping and eating, which can exacerbate poor attachment with their parents, and lead to problems in later years, including anxiety, mood, or behavioral problems. A parent’s depression, particularly in the postpartum period, represents a serious threat to the child’s healthy development and well-being.

Tell the parents that what they have described to you sounds like it could be a depressive episode and that depression has a serious impact on the whole family. Offer that their primary care physicians can evaluate and treat depression, or learn about other resources in your community that you can refer them to for accessible care.

 

 

Overwhelming stress

Is the newborn or special needs child feeling like more responsibility than the parents can handle? Where do the parents find support? Has there been a recent job loss or has there been a financial setback for the family? Is a spouse ill, or are they also caring for an aging parent? Has there been a separation from the spouse? Many adults face multiple significant stresses at the same time. It is not uncommon for working parents to be in “soldiering on” mode, just surviving. But this takes a toll on being present and engaged with the children, and puts them at risk for depression and substance abuse.

Traumatic stress

Have they recently experienced a crime or accident, the unexpected loss of a loved one, or threats or abuse at home? They may be grieving, or may be experiencing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder that lead them to appear distant and detached. Grief will improve with time, but they may benefit from extra support or from assistance with their responsibilities (a leave from work or more child care). If they have experienced a traumatic stress, they will need a clinical evaluation for potential treatment options. If they are being threatened or abused at home, you need to find out if their children have witnessed the abuse or may be victims as well. You can offer these parents resources for survivors of domestic abuse and speak with them about your obligation to file with your state’s agency responsible for children’s welfare. It is critical that you listen to any concerns they may have about this filing, from losing their children to enraging their abusers.

Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com

TORONTO – A brief stress management intervention left a lasting effect on adolescents referred for mental health–related complaints, significantly reducing perceived distress, and heart rate variability. The majority of recipients expressed interest in additional training at follow-up.

“This model can be easily implemented in a primary health care clinic to better reach adolescents who are unable or unwilling to seek mental health care,” Elizabeth B. Mason, MD, and her colleagues from Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, reported in a poster presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

TORONTO – A brief stress management intervention left a lasting effect on adolescents referred for mental health–related complaints, significantly reducing perceived distress, and heart rate variability. The majority of recipients expressed interest in additional training at follow-up.

“This model can be easily implemented in a primary health care clinic to better reach adolescents who are unable or unwilling to seek mental health care,” Elizabeth B. Mason, MD, and her colleagues from Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, reported in a poster presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

TORONTO – A brief stress management intervention left a lasting effect on adolescents referred for mental health–related complaints, significantly reducing perceived distress, and heart rate variability. The majority of recipients expressed interest in additional training at follow-up.

“This model can be easily implemented in a primary health care clinic to better reach adolescents who are unable or unwilling to seek mental health care,” Elizabeth B. Mason, MD, and her colleagues from Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, reported in a poster presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

TORONTO – Implementation of a simple screening tool improved the influenza vaccination status of hospitalized children, results from a single-center study showed.

“When we looked at the immunization status of children in New York City, we found that one of the vaccines most commonly missed was influenza vaccine, especially from 2011 through 2014,” one of the study authors, Anmol Goyal, MD, of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Given this year’s epidemic of influenza and the increasing deaths, we decided to look back on interventions we had done in the past to see if any can be reimplemented to help improve the vaccination status for these children,” he said. “The national goal is 80%, but if we look at the recent trend, even though we have been able to improve vaccination status, it is still below the national goal.” For example, he said, according to New York Department of Health data, the 2012-2013 influenza vaccination rates in New York City were 65% among children 6 months to 5 years old, 47% among those 5-8 years old, and 31% among those 9-18 years old, which were well below the national goal.

In an effort to improve influenza vaccine access, lead author Stephan Kohlhoff, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the medical center, and his associates, implemented a simple vaccine screening tool to use in the inpatient setting as an opportunity to improve vaccination rates among children in New York City. It consisted of nursing staff assessing the patient’s influenza immunization status on admission and conducting source verification using the citywide immunization registry, or with vaccine cards brought by parents or guardians during admission. Influenza vaccine was administered as a standing order before discharge, unless refused by the parents or guardians. The study population comprised 602 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years who were admitted to the inpatient unit during 2 months of the influenza season (November and December) from 2011 to 2013.

Dr. Goyal, a second-year pediatric resident at the medical center, reported that the influenza vaccination status on admission was positive in only 31% of children in 2011, 30% in 2012, and 34% in 2013. The vaccine screening tool was implemented in 64% of admitted children in 2012 and 70% in 2013. Following implementation, the researchers observed a 5% increase in immunization rates in 2012 and an 11% increase in 2013, with an overall increase of 8% over 2 years (P less than .001). He was quick to point out that the influenza rate could have been improved by an additional 22% had 77% of patients not refused vaccination.

“Unfortunately, as our primary objective was to assess the utility of our screening tool in improving inpatient immunization status, we had very limited data points toward refusal of vaccine,” Dr. Goyal said. “Some of the reasons for refusal that were gathered during screening included preferred vaccination by their primary care provider after discharge. Or, maybe they don’t want the vaccine because they feel that the vaccine will make their kids sick. We don’t have enough data to point to any particular reason. This study provides information on acceptance rate of inpatient immunization, which may be useful for implementing additional educational initiatives to overcome potential barriers and help us reach our national goal.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

TORONTO – Implementation of a simple screening tool improved the influenza vaccination status of hospitalized children, results from a single-center study showed.

“When we looked at the immunization status of children in New York City, we found that one of the vaccines most commonly missed was influenza vaccine, especially from 2011 through 2014,” one of the study authors, Anmol Goyal, MD, of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Given this year’s epidemic of influenza and the increasing deaths, we decided to look back on interventions we had done in the past to see if any can be reimplemented to help improve the vaccination status for these children,” he said. “The national goal is 80%, but if we look at the recent trend, even though we have been able to improve vaccination status, it is still below the national goal.” For example, he said, according to New York Department of Health data, the 2012-2013 influenza vaccination rates in New York City were 65% among children 6 months to 5 years old, 47% among those 5-8 years old, and 31% among those 9-18 years old, which were well below the national goal.

In an effort to improve influenza vaccine access, lead author Stephan Kohlhoff, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the medical center, and his associates, implemented a simple vaccine screening tool to use in the inpatient setting as an opportunity to improve vaccination rates among children in New York City. It consisted of nursing staff assessing the patient’s influenza immunization status on admission and conducting source verification using the citywide immunization registry, or with vaccine cards brought by parents or guardians during admission. Influenza vaccine was administered as a standing order before discharge, unless refused by the parents or guardians. The study population comprised 602 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years who were admitted to the inpatient unit during 2 months of the influenza season (November and December) from 2011 to 2013.

Dr. Goyal, a second-year pediatric resident at the medical center, reported that the influenza vaccination status on admission was positive in only 31% of children in 2011, 30% in 2012, and 34% in 2013. The vaccine screening tool was implemented in 64% of admitted children in 2012 and 70% in 2013. Following implementation, the researchers observed a 5% increase in immunization rates in 2012 and an 11% increase in 2013, with an overall increase of 8% over 2 years (P less than .001). He was quick to point out that the influenza rate could have been improved by an additional 22% had 77% of patients not refused vaccination.

“Unfortunately, as our primary objective was to assess the utility of our screening tool in improving inpatient immunization status, we had very limited data points toward refusal of vaccine,” Dr. Goyal said. “Some of the reasons for refusal that were gathered during screening included preferred vaccination by their primary care provider after discharge. Or, maybe they don’t want the vaccine because they feel that the vaccine will make their kids sick. We don’t have enough data to point to any particular reason. This study provides information on acceptance rate of inpatient immunization, which may be useful for implementing additional educational initiatives to overcome potential barriers and help us reach our national goal.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

TORONTO – Implementation of a simple screening tool improved the influenza vaccination status of hospitalized children, results from a single-center study showed.

“When we looked at the immunization status of children in New York City, we found that one of the vaccines most commonly missed was influenza vaccine, especially from 2011 through 2014,” one of the study authors, Anmol Goyal, MD, of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Given this year’s epidemic of influenza and the increasing deaths, we decided to look back on interventions we had done in the past to see if any can be reimplemented to help improve the vaccination status for these children,” he said. “The national goal is 80%, but if we look at the recent trend, even though we have been able to improve vaccination status, it is still below the national goal.” For example, he said, according to New York Department of Health data, the 2012-2013 influenza vaccination rates in New York City were 65% among children 6 months to 5 years old, 47% among those 5-8 years old, and 31% among those 9-18 years old, which were well below the national goal.

In an effort to improve influenza vaccine access, lead author Stephan Kohlhoff, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the medical center, and his associates, implemented a simple vaccine screening tool to use in the inpatient setting as an opportunity to improve vaccination rates among children in New York City. It consisted of nursing staff assessing the patient’s influenza immunization status on admission and conducting source verification using the citywide immunization registry, or with vaccine cards brought by parents or guardians during admission. Influenza vaccine was administered as a standing order before discharge, unless refused by the parents or guardians. The study population comprised 602 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years who were admitted to the inpatient unit during 2 months of the influenza season (November and December) from 2011 to 2013.

Dr. Goyal, a second-year pediatric resident at the medical center, reported that the influenza vaccination status on admission was positive in only 31% of children in 2011, 30% in 2012, and 34% in 2013. The vaccine screening tool was implemented in 64% of admitted children in 2012 and 70% in 2013. Following implementation, the researchers observed a 5% increase in immunization rates in 2012 and an 11% increase in 2013, with an overall increase of 8% over 2 years (P less than .001). He was quick to point out that the influenza rate could have been improved by an additional 22% had 77% of patients not refused vaccination.

“Unfortunately, as our primary objective was to assess the utility of our screening tool in improving inpatient immunization status, we had very limited data points toward refusal of vaccine,” Dr. Goyal said. “Some of the reasons for refusal that were gathered during screening included preferred vaccination by their primary care provider after discharge. Or, maybe they don’t want the vaccine because they feel that the vaccine will make their kids sick. We don’t have enough data to point to any particular reason. This study provides information on acceptance rate of inpatient immunization, which may be useful for implementing additional educational initiatives to overcome potential barriers and help us reach our national goal.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Credit: Anatomography

A 6-year prospective study from the Canadian STOPP investigators revealed that following treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), approximately 1 out of 3 children experiences vertebral fractures (VF) and 1 out of 5 children shows non-VF.

Glucocorticoid use and vertebral fractures at diagnosis emerged as significant predictive factors.

Investigators reported a cumulative incidence of 32.5% for vertebral fractures (VF) following treatment and 23.0% for non-VF after 6 years.

Thirty-nine percent of children with VF were asymptomatic.

“The osteotoxicity of leukemia and its treatment are underscored by the observation that the non-VF incidence was more than 2.5 times higher than the general pediatric population,” the study authors wrote, “whereas the VF incidence was increased more than 2000 times.”

The STOPP investigators—the Steroid-Associated Osteoporosis in the Pediatric Population Consortium—published their findings in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

To document the incidence and predictors of fractures and profile who is at greatest risk, the STOPP investigators enrolled 186 children who were diagnosed and treated at 10 children’s hospitals across Canada between 2005 and 2007.

Median age at diagnosis was 5.3 years, median duration of follow-up was 6 years, and 38.1% were boys.

Approximately 4 out of 5 children were treated with Children’s Oncology Group protocols and 1 out of 5 was treated with the Dana-Farber protocols.

In girls, glucocorticoid exposure was 7.0 g/m² and in boys it was 8.9 g/m².

The entire cohort received 54.3% of the total cumulative glucocorticoid dose in the first year and 83.1% in the second year.

For VF, incidence at baseline was 15.1%. Skeletal fractures at any site were reported in 36% of the children over the 6-year period, 71% occurring during the first 2 years. No VF was reported in the sixth year.

Of 38 children with VF, 32 sustained at least 1 VF in the first 2 years and 77% occurred while on therapy or within 6 months of the last glucocorticoid dose. None of the children had disease relapse.

Non-VF were reported in 1.6% of children at baseline; incidence peaked at years 2 (5.4%) and 5 (4.8%) and none occurred in the sixth year.

Thirty-one non-VFs were reported in 26 children; 18 occurred in the first 2 years and 23 occurred on therapy or within 6 months of the last glucocorticoid dose.

The STOPP investigators showed that glucocorticoid exposure, VF, and low spine bone mineral density Z-scores at baseline were significant predictors for risk of VF.

“[This] observation suggests the importance of baseline spine phenotype (both VF and low lumbar spine bone mineral density) in signaling the potential for future bone morbidity,” the STOPP investigators note.

“In revealing that vertebral fractures are frequent in children with ALL on chemotherapy, and that older children and those with more severe collapse are at risk for residual vertebral deformities, strategies to prevent vertebral fractures in those at greatest risk for permanent sequelae now merit further study,” said lead author Leanne Ward, MD, of the University of Ottawa, Canada, in a statement.

The study was primarily supported by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) with additional funding from a CIHR New Investigator Award, a Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Career Enhancement Award, a University of Ottawa Research Chair Award, a Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute Capacity Building Award, and the CHEO Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery. This work was also supported by the University of Alberta Women and Children’s Health Research Institute. 

Credit: Anatomography

A 6-year prospective study from the Canadian STOPP investigators revealed that following treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), approximately 1 out of 3 children experiences vertebral fractures (VF) and 1 out of 5 children shows non-VF.

Glucocorticoid use and vertebral fractures at diagnosis emerged as significant predictive factors.

Investigators reported a cumulative incidence of 32.5% for vertebral fractures (VF) following treatment and 23.0% for non-VF after 6 years.

Thirty-nine percent of children with VF were asymptomatic.

“The osteotoxicity of leukemia and its treatment are underscored by the observation that the non-VF incidence was more than 2.5 times higher than the general pediatric population,” the study authors wrote, “whereas the VF incidence was increased more than 2000 times.”

The STOPP investigators—the Steroid-Associated Osteoporosis in the Pediatric Population Consortium—published their findings in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

To document the incidence and predictors of fractures and profile who is at greatest risk, the STOPP investigators enrolled 186 children who were diagnosed and treated at 10 children’s hospitals across Canada between 2005 and 2007.

Median age at diagnosis was 5.3 years, median duration of follow-up was 6 years, and 38.1% were boys.

Approximately 4 out of 5 children were treated with Children’s Oncology Group protocols and 1 out of 5 was treated with the Dana-Farber protocols.

In girls, glucocorticoid exposure was 7.0 g/m² and in boys it was 8.9 g/m².

The entire cohort received 54.3% of the total cumulative glucocorticoid dose in the first year and 83.1% in the second year.

For VF, incidence at baseline was 15.1%. Skeletal fractures at any site were reported in 36% of the children over the 6-year period, 71% occurring during the first 2 years. No VF was reported in the sixth year.

Of 38 children with VF, 32 sustained at least 1 VF in the first 2 years and 77% occurred while on therapy or within 6 months of the last glucocorticoid dose. None of the children had disease relapse.

Non-VF were reported in 1.6% of children at baseline; incidence peaked at years 2 (5.4%) and 5 (4.8%) and none occurred in the sixth year.

Thirty-one non-VFs were reported in 26 children; 18 occurred in the first 2 years and 23 occurred on therapy or within 6 months of the last glucocorticoid dose.

The STOPP investigators showed that glucocorticoid exposure, VF, and low spine bone mineral density Z-scores at baseline were significant predictors for risk of VF.

“[This] observation suggests the importance of baseline spine phenotype (both VF and low lumbar spine bone mineral density) in signaling the potential for future bone morbidity,” the STOPP investigators note.

“In revealing that vertebral fractures are frequent in children with ALL on chemotherapy, and that older children and those with more severe collapse are at risk for residual vertebral deformities, strategies to prevent vertebral fractures in those at greatest risk for permanent sequelae now merit further study,” said lead author Leanne Ward, MD, of the University of Ottawa, Canada, in a statement.

The study was primarily supported by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) with additional funding from a CIHR New Investigator Award, a Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Career Enhancement Award, a University of Ottawa Research Chair Award, a Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute Capacity Building Award, and the CHEO Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery. This work was also supported by the University of Alberta Women and Children’s Health Research Institute. 

Credit: Anatomography

A 6-year prospective study from the Canadian STOPP investigators revealed that following treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), approximately 1 out of 3 children experiences vertebral fractures (VF) and 1 out of 5 children shows non-VF.

Glucocorticoid use and vertebral fractures at diagnosis emerged as significant predictive factors.

Investigators reported a cumulative incidence of 32.5% for vertebral fractures (VF) following treatment and 23.0% for non-VF after 6 years.

Thirty-nine percent of children with VF were asymptomatic.

“The osteotoxicity of leukemia and its treatment are underscored by the observation that the non-VF incidence was more than 2.5 times higher than the general pediatric population,” the study authors wrote, “whereas the VF incidence was increased more than 2000 times.”

The STOPP investigators—the Steroid-Associated Osteoporosis in the Pediatric Population Consortium—published their findings in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

To document the incidence and predictors of fractures and profile who is at greatest risk, the STOPP investigators enrolled 186 children who were diagnosed and treated at 10 children’s hospitals across Canada between 2005 and 2007.

Median age at diagnosis was 5.3 years, median duration of follow-up was 6 years, and 38.1% were boys.

Approximately 4 out of 5 children were treated with Children’s Oncology Group protocols and 1 out of 5 was treated with the Dana-Farber protocols.

In girls, glucocorticoid exposure was 7.0 g/m² and in boys it was 8.9 g/m².

The entire cohort received 54.3% of the total cumulative glucocorticoid dose in the first year and 83.1% in the second year.

For VF, incidence at baseline was 15.1%. Skeletal fractures at any site were reported in 36% of the children over the 6-year period, 71% occurring during the first 2 years. No VF was reported in the sixth year.

Of 38 children with VF, 32 sustained at least 1 VF in the first 2 years and 77% occurred while on therapy or within 6 months of the last glucocorticoid dose. None of the children had disease relapse.

Non-VF were reported in 1.6% of children at baseline; incidence peaked at years 2 (5.4%) and 5 (4.8%) and none occurred in the sixth year.

Thirty-one non-VFs were reported in 26 children; 18 occurred in the first 2 years and 23 occurred on therapy or within 6 months of the last glucocorticoid dose.

The STOPP investigators showed that glucocorticoid exposure, VF, and low spine bone mineral density Z-scores at baseline were significant predictors for risk of VF.

“[This] observation suggests the importance of baseline spine phenotype (both VF and low lumbar spine bone mineral density) in signaling the potential for future bone morbidity,” the STOPP investigators note.

“In revealing that vertebral fractures are frequent in children with ALL on chemotherapy, and that older children and those with more severe collapse are at risk for residual vertebral deformities, strategies to prevent vertebral fractures in those at greatest risk for permanent sequelae now merit further study,” said lead author Leanne Ward, MD, of the University of Ottawa, Canada, in a statement.

The study was primarily supported by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) with additional funding from a CIHR New Investigator Award, a Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Career Enhancement Award, a University of Ottawa Research Chair Award, a Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute Capacity Building Award, and the CHEO Departments of Pediatrics and Surgery. This work was also supported by the University of Alberta Women and Children’s Health Research Institute. 

Most U.S. mainland pediatric practitioners will see only one or two cases of Kawasaki disease (KD) in their careers, but no one wants to miss even one case.

Making the diagnosis as early as possible is important to reduce the chance of sequelae, particularly the coronary artery aneurysms that will eventually lead to 5% of overall acute coronary syndromes in adults. And because there is no “KD test,” we must rely on a constellation of clinical and laboratory findings to develop over a period of days in order to cobble together a diagnosis of KD, or sometimes incomplete KD. And there are some new data that complicate this. Despite the recently updated 2017 guideline,¹ most cases end up being confirmed and managed by regional “experts.” But nearly all of the approximately 6,000 KD cases/year in U.S. children younger than 5 years old start out with one or more primary care, urgent care, or ED visits.

This means that every clinician in the trenches not only needs a high index of suspicion but also needs to be at least a partial expert, too. What raises our index of suspicion? Classic data tell us we need 5 consecutive days of fever plus four or five other principal clinical findings for a KD diagnosis. The principal findings are:

1. Eyes: Bilateral bulbar nonexudative conjunctival injection.

2. Mouth: Erythema of oral/pharyngeal mucosa or cracked lips or strawberry tongue or oral mucositis.

3. Rash.

4. Hands or feet findings: Swelling/erythema or later periungual desquamation.

5. Cervical adenopathy greater than 1.4 cm, usually unilateral.

Other factors that have classically increased suspicion are winter/early spring presentation in North America, male gender (1.5:1 ratio to females), and Asian (particularly Japanese) ancestry. The importance of genetics was initially based on epidemiology (Japan/Asian risk) but lately has been further associated with six gene polymorphisms. However, molecular genetic testing is not currently a practical tool.

Fuzzy KD math

Current guidelines list an exception to the 5-day fever requirement in that only 4 days of fever are needed with four or more principal clinical features, particularly when hand and feet findings exist. Some call this the “4X4 exception.” Then there is a sub-caveat: “Experienced clinicians who have treated many patients with KD may establish the diagnosis with 3 days of fever in rare cases.”¹

Incomplete KD

This is another exception, which seems to be a more frequent diagnosis in the past decade. Incomplete KD requires the 5 days of fever duration plus an elevated C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate. But one needs only two or three of the five principal clinical KD criteria plus three or more of six other laboratory findings (anemia, low albumin, leukocytosis, thrombocytosis, pyuria, or elevated alanine aminotransferase). Incomplete KD can be confirmed by an abnormal echocardiogram – usually not until after 7 days of KD symptoms.¹

New KD nuances

In a recent report on 20 years of data from Japan (n = 1,945 KD cases), more granularity on age, seasonal epidemiology, and outcome were seen.² There was an inverse correlation of male predominance to age, i.e. as age groups got older, there was a gradual shift to female predominance by 7 years of age. The winter/spring predominance (60% of overall cases) did not hold true in younger age groups where summer/fall was the peak season (65% of cases).

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Circulation. 2017 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000484

2. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1804312.

Most U.S. mainland pediatric practitioners will see only one or two cases of Kawasaki disease (KD) in their careers, but no one wants to miss even one case.

Making the diagnosis as early as possible is important to reduce the chance of sequelae, particularly the coronary artery aneurysms that will eventually lead to 5% of overall acute coronary syndromes in adults. And because there is no “KD test,” we must rely on a constellation of clinical and laboratory findings to develop over a period of days in order to cobble together a diagnosis of KD, or sometimes incomplete KD. And there are some new data that complicate this. Despite the recently updated 2017 guideline,¹ most cases end up being confirmed and managed by regional “experts.” But nearly all of the approximately 6,000 KD cases/year in U.S. children younger than 5 years old start out with one or more primary care, urgent care, or ED visits.

This means that every clinician in the trenches not only needs a high index of suspicion but also needs to be at least a partial expert, too. What raises our index of suspicion? Classic data tell us we need 5 consecutive days of fever plus four or five other principal clinical findings for a KD diagnosis. The principal findings are:

1. Eyes: Bilateral bulbar nonexudative conjunctival injection.

2. Mouth: Erythema of oral/pharyngeal mucosa or cracked lips or strawberry tongue or oral mucositis.

3. Rash.

4. Hands or feet findings: Swelling/erythema or later periungual desquamation.

5. Cervical adenopathy greater than 1.4 cm, usually unilateral.

Other factors that have classically increased suspicion are winter/early spring presentation in North America, male gender (1.5:1 ratio to females), and Asian (particularly Japanese) ancestry. The importance of genetics was initially based on epidemiology (Japan/Asian risk) but lately has been further associated with six gene polymorphisms. However, molecular genetic testing is not currently a practical tool.

Fuzzy KD math

Current guidelines list an exception to the 5-day fever requirement in that only 4 days of fever are needed with four or more principal clinical features, particularly when hand and feet findings exist. Some call this the “4X4 exception.” Then there is a sub-caveat: “Experienced clinicians who have treated many patients with KD may establish the diagnosis with 3 days of fever in rare cases.”¹

Incomplete KD

This is another exception, which seems to be a more frequent diagnosis in the past decade. Incomplete KD requires the 5 days of fever duration plus an elevated C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate. But one needs only two or three of the five principal clinical KD criteria plus three or more of six other laboratory findings (anemia, low albumin, leukocytosis, thrombocytosis, pyuria, or elevated alanine aminotransferase). Incomplete KD can be confirmed by an abnormal echocardiogram – usually not until after 7 days of KD symptoms.¹

New KD nuances

In a recent report on 20 years of data from Japan (n = 1,945 KD cases), more granularity on age, seasonal epidemiology, and outcome were seen.² There was an inverse correlation of male predominance to age, i.e. as age groups got older, there was a gradual shift to female predominance by 7 years of age. The winter/spring predominance (60% of overall cases) did not hold true in younger age groups where summer/fall was the peak season (65% of cases).

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Circulation. 2017 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000484

2. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1804312.

Most U.S. mainland pediatric practitioners will see only one or two cases of Kawasaki disease (KD) in their careers, but no one wants to miss even one case.

Making the diagnosis as early as possible is important to reduce the chance of sequelae, particularly the coronary artery aneurysms that will eventually lead to 5% of overall acute coronary syndromes in adults. And because there is no “KD test,” we must rely on a constellation of clinical and laboratory findings to develop over a period of days in order to cobble together a diagnosis of KD, or sometimes incomplete KD. And there are some new data that complicate this. Despite the recently updated 2017 guideline,¹ most cases end up being confirmed and managed by regional “experts.” But nearly all of the approximately 6,000 KD cases/year in U.S. children younger than 5 years old start out with one or more primary care, urgent care, or ED visits.

This means that every clinician in the trenches not only needs a high index of suspicion but also needs to be at least a partial expert, too. What raises our index of suspicion? Classic data tell us we need 5 consecutive days of fever plus four or five other principal clinical findings for a KD diagnosis. The principal findings are:

1. Eyes: Bilateral bulbar nonexudative conjunctival injection.

2. Mouth: Erythema of oral/pharyngeal mucosa or cracked lips or strawberry tongue or oral mucositis.

3. Rash.

4. Hands or feet findings: Swelling/erythema or later periungual desquamation.

5. Cervical adenopathy greater than 1.4 cm, usually unilateral.

Other factors that have classically increased suspicion are winter/early spring presentation in North America, male gender (1.5:1 ratio to females), and Asian (particularly Japanese) ancestry. The importance of genetics was initially based on epidemiology (Japan/Asian risk) but lately has been further associated with six gene polymorphisms. However, molecular genetic testing is not currently a practical tool.

Fuzzy KD math

Current guidelines list an exception to the 5-day fever requirement in that only 4 days of fever are needed with four or more principal clinical features, particularly when hand and feet findings exist. Some call this the “4X4 exception.” Then there is a sub-caveat: “Experienced clinicians who have treated many patients with KD may establish the diagnosis with 3 days of fever in rare cases.”¹

Incomplete KD

This is another exception, which seems to be a more frequent diagnosis in the past decade. Incomplete KD requires the 5 days of fever duration plus an elevated C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate. But one needs only two or three of the five principal clinical KD criteria plus three or more of six other laboratory findings (anemia, low albumin, leukocytosis, thrombocytosis, pyuria, or elevated alanine aminotransferase). Incomplete KD can be confirmed by an abnormal echocardiogram – usually not until after 7 days of KD symptoms.¹

New KD nuances

In a recent report on 20 years of data from Japan (n = 1,945 KD cases), more granularity on age, seasonal epidemiology, and outcome were seen.² There was an inverse correlation of male predominance to age, i.e. as age groups got older, there was a gradual shift to female predominance by 7 years of age. The winter/spring predominance (60% of overall cases) did not hold true in younger age groups where summer/fall was the peak season (65% of cases).

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Circulation. 2017 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000484

2. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1804312.