Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Having 5 Babies: The Challenge of Pregnancy With Quintuplets
When Meryl Ferraro was on bed rest for two months, awaiting the birth of her quintuplets in an Arizona hospital, the Olympics were on television almost constantly during the first three weeks of her stay. As her belly grew (somewhat lopsided, by the way), she said he began to see making her pregnancy last 34 weeks as her own sort of Olympic challenge.
'It's just determination,' Ferraro said. 'If you decide this is what you want, you've got to give it all you have.'
Most quintuplets are born between 24 and 28 weeks into pregnancy, sometimes causing them to be born with underdeveloped lungs, cerebral palsy, and sight and hearing deficiencies. So it was crucial for Ferraro to keep her babies inside as long as possible to give their tiny bodies more time to grow. Full-term pregnancy is typically about 38 weeks.
Early on, doctors told her to reduce the number of fetuses she was carrying, but Ferraro and her husband, John, decided they couldn't bear to choose which babies would live and which would die. After John read a chapter in a book about multiple births written by Dr. John Elliott, they found out he lived 45 minutes from their California home and gave him a call.
Elliott specialized in high-risk pregnancies. He delivered his first quadruplets in 1984, and has delivered 99 sets in all. He'd also delivered 12 sets of quintuplets when Ferraro met him.
And this month, he delivered two more sets of quints: one to Meryl and one to Carmen Matthews, who met Meryl in July and gave birth a few weeks before Meryl did. Both families temporarily moved to Arizona to keep Elliott as their doctor when he relocated to Banner Desert Medical Center in July. (John actually took all the seats out of his van and put a mattress in back when Meryl was 23 weeks pregnant, so he could drive her from their home in Southern California to Mesa, Ariz.)
Both moms were nurses; both sought fertility treatment; and both gave birth to five babies with September birthdays.
Once Matthews gave birth, Meryl was even more uncomfortable -- both ready to hold her babies in her arms and desperate to keep them inside just a few weeks longer. Quoting her husband, Meryl said giving birth to quints at 32 weeks instead of 28 weeks was like the difference between a 'fender-bender and a front-end collision.' She'd take the fender-bender.
Her water broke at 5:15 a.m. Wednesday morning, when she was 32 weeks and five days pregnant. All five babies were born via Caesarean section between 11:01 and 11:04 a.m. There was a team of 24 people in the operating room and another 50 in recovery.
When she went into labor and knew she wouldn't make it to 34 weeks, Meryl said the first thing she felt was anger. In the Olympic challenge she dreamed up, 33 weeks was only worth a sliver metal, and she wanted to reach the 34-week mark she'd imagined as gold.
'I was so mad because I had this goal, and, to me, I didn't reach it,' she said.
But in the days since delivering, she's gotten to know the three girls and two boys she felt nudge her from the inside for so long. She already knows Gabby can sleep through anything, Addy (the smallest) is a fighter, and Riley (the biggest) is kind of lazy, she said. She calls Riley 'my chubber.'
Meryl Ferraro, 39, and 5-day-old daughter Addy, a quintuplet.
Although Meryl says her stomach feels as sore as if she's done '1,000 crunches,' and she's getting used to walking again after two months in bed, she can go home to her temporary apartment in Arizona today. The quints will stay in the NICU until they're ready to leave, too.
Always a step ahead, Carmen Matthews, who gave birth on Sept. 6, is waiting for just one more baby to leave the NICU before she and her family can go home to North Carolina.
'I'm definitely glad that we did what we did,' Matthews said. 'We couldn't have asked for better outcomes. It was a lot of sacrifice for all of us, but it was totally worth it.'
As Matthews spoke into the phone, a few of her new babies cooed in the background.
Elliott said having a plan and keeping a positive attitude plays an important role in his patients' outcomes. For the Ferraros and the Matthews, it was a comfort to have each other.
'I think it helped both of these families to have somebody else going through the same thing, same fears, same questions,' Elliot said. 'It was special. It just doesn't happen.'
Elliott said he's able to get his patients to carry their high risk pregnancies between four and six weeks longer than average because he uses magnesium sulfate to prolong pregnancies longer than most doctors. Once he puts the mother on the drug, she's often uncomfortable -- with chest pain, muscle weakness, blurred vision and headaches -- but those symptoms usually go away after about three days, and the medication can extend the gestation period for months.
'Most people don't know that because they're afraid to go three to four days,' he said. 'If you don't know how to treat it in an aggressive way, you're going to fail.'
Although the babies are doing well, Dr. James Goldfarb, who directs the University Hospital's fertility center in Cleveland, said having more than one baby as a result of fertility treatments is something to be avoided because of the associated health risks. He said fertility specialists' goals should not just be to get their patients pregnant; it should be to help them have healthy families. He said even triplets are 20 times more likely to be born with cerebral palsy than single babies.
Goldfarb said doctors and patients need to be conservative about administering fertility shots. He recommended that they implant only one embryo at a time. He said doctors also need to be mindful that some patients can't reduce their number of embryos for moral or religious reasons.
'Patients come to us desperate t get pregnant, and the last thing they're concerned about is being too pregnant,' Goldfarb said.
Also Read
This news article is brought to you by MUSIC UNITED 1 - where latest news are our top priority.
'It's just determination,' Ferraro said. 'If you decide this is what you want, you've got to give it all you have.'
Most quintuplets are born between 24 and 28 weeks into pregnancy, sometimes causing them to be born with underdeveloped lungs, cerebral palsy, and sight and hearing deficiencies. So it was crucial for Ferraro to keep her babies inside as long as possible to give their tiny bodies more time to grow. Full-term pregnancy is typically about 38 weeks.
Early on, doctors told her to reduce the number of fetuses she was carrying, but Ferraro and her husband, John, decided they couldn't bear to choose which babies would live and which would die. After John read a chapter in a book about multiple births written by Dr. John Elliott, they found out he lived 45 minutes from their California home and gave him a call.
Elliott specialized in high-risk pregnancies. He delivered his first quadruplets in 1984, and has delivered 99 sets in all. He'd also delivered 12 sets of quintuplets when Ferraro met him.
And this month, he delivered two more sets of quints: one to Meryl and one to Carmen Matthews, who met Meryl in July and gave birth a few weeks before Meryl did. Both families temporarily moved to Arizona to keep Elliott as their doctor when he relocated to Banner Desert Medical Center in July. (John actually took all the seats out of his van and put a mattress in back when Meryl was 23 weeks pregnant, so he could drive her from their home in Southern California to Mesa, Ariz.)
Both moms were nurses; both sought fertility treatment; and both gave birth to five babies with September birthdays.
Once Matthews gave birth, Meryl was even more uncomfortable -- both ready to hold her babies in her arms and desperate to keep them inside just a few weeks longer. Quoting her husband, Meryl said giving birth to quints at 32 weeks instead of 28 weeks was like the difference between a 'fender-bender and a front-end collision.' She'd take the fender-bender.
Her water broke at 5:15 a.m. Wednesday morning, when she was 32 weeks and five days pregnant. All five babies were born via Caesarean section between 11:01 and 11:04 a.m. There was a team of 24 people in the operating room and another 50 in recovery.
When she went into labor and knew she wouldn't make it to 34 weeks, Meryl said the first thing she felt was anger. In the Olympic challenge she dreamed up, 33 weeks was only worth a sliver metal, and she wanted to reach the 34-week mark she'd imagined as gold.
'I was so mad because I had this goal, and, to me, I didn't reach it,' she said.
But in the days since delivering, she's gotten to know the three girls and two boys she felt nudge her from the inside for so long. She already knows Gabby can sleep through anything, Addy (the smallest) is a fighter, and Riley (the biggest) is kind of lazy, she said. She calls Riley 'my chubber.'
Meryl Ferraro, 39, and 5-day-old daughter Addy, a quintuplet.
Although Meryl says her stomach feels as sore as if she's done '1,000 crunches,' and she's getting used to walking again after two months in bed, she can go home to her temporary apartment in Arizona today. The quints will stay in the NICU until they're ready to leave, too.
Always a step ahead, Carmen Matthews, who gave birth on Sept. 6, is waiting for just one more baby to leave the NICU before she and her family can go home to North Carolina.
'I'm definitely glad that we did what we did,' Matthews said. 'We couldn't have asked for better outcomes. It was a lot of sacrifice for all of us, but it was totally worth it.'
As Matthews spoke into the phone, a few of her new babies cooed in the background.
Elliott said having a plan and keeping a positive attitude plays an important role in his patients' outcomes. For the Ferraros and the Matthews, it was a comfort to have each other.
'I think it helped both of these families to have somebody else going through the same thing, same fears, same questions,' Elliot said. 'It was special. It just doesn't happen.'
Elliott said he's able to get his patients to carry their high risk pregnancies between four and six weeks longer than average because he uses magnesium sulfate to prolong pregnancies longer than most doctors. Once he puts the mother on the drug, she's often uncomfortable -- with chest pain, muscle weakness, blurred vision and headaches -- but those symptoms usually go away after about three days, and the medication can extend the gestation period for months.
'Most people don't know that because they're afraid to go three to four days,' he said. 'If you don't know how to treat it in an aggressive way, you're going to fail.'
Although the babies are doing well, Dr. James Goldfarb, who directs the University Hospital's fertility center in Cleveland, said having more than one baby as a result of fertility treatments is something to be avoided because of the associated health risks. He said fertility specialists' goals should not just be to get their patients pregnant; it should be to help them have healthy families. He said even triplets are 20 times more likely to be born with cerebral palsy than single babies.
Goldfarb said doctors and patients need to be conservative about administering fertility shots. He recommended that they implant only one embryo at a time. He said doctors also need to be mindful that some patients can't reduce their number of embryos for moral or religious reasons.
'Patients come to us desperate t get pregnant, and the last thing they're concerned about is being too pregnant,' Goldfarb said.
Also Read
This news article is brought to you by MUSIC UNITED 1 - where latest news are our top priority.
Monday, October 1, 2012
'Active' video games get some kids off the couch
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Kids may spend too much time in front of the TV, but 'active' video games are getting some of them on their feet and moving, according to a study out Monday.
Of more than 1,200 Canadian high schoolers researchers surveyed, one-quarter said they played 'exergames.' And on average, that translated to almost an hour of exercise on two days out of the week.
That, researchers say, gets kids part-way to the exercise dose experts recommend: an hour of moderate to vigorous activity on most days of the week.
Active video games - like Nintendo's Wii Fit, Dance Dance Revolution, and Sony EyeToy exergames - get kids off the couch and dancing, boxing, doing yoga and playing sports in their living rooms.
Some small studies have found that they can help kids burn calories and possibly shed a little weight.
But it hasn't been clear how often kids use the games in the 'real world.'
Erin K. O'Loughlin, the lead researcher on the new study, said she was surprised that so many kids use the games.
'And they're exercising at levels that may help them meet guidelines,' said O'Loughlin, of the University of Montreal in Quebec, Canada.
'I would never say this should replace regular physical activity,' O'Loughlin added. 'Kids should still be going outside and playing and getting exercise.'
But the reality is that many are not, she said. So if exergames help some kids get off the couch and sweat, that's better than being completely sedentary.
And, O'Loughlin said, the games may help some kids gain confidence in their sports skills - possibly enough that they'll want to start playing sports the old-fashioned way.
MORE LIKELY STRESSED ABOUT WEIGHT
The findings, reported in the journal Pediatrics, are based on a survey of 1,241 Montreal high school students. The kids answered questions on their weight and lifestyle habits, including exergaming.
Overall, girls were more likely to play exergames: 29 percent did, versus 16 percent of boys.
Exergamers were also more likely than other kids to be stressed about their weight, or to spend more than two hours a day watching TV.
O'Loughlin said the games may be especially appealing to some kids who are insecure about their weight and exercise abilities - especially girls.
Video games cost money, of course, and that could be a barrier, O'Loughlin said.
The games themselves run $15 to $20 or more. And the console systems generally range between $100 and $300.
But, O'Loughlin noted, surveys show that most U.S. kids already have video game systems at home. And if parents buy active games instead of traditional sedentary ones, the costs could be minimal.
'If you notice that your kid is spending a lot of time in front of the screen, this might be something you'd want to try,' O'Loughlin said.
In general, experts recommend that kids get no more than two hours of 'screen time' - TV and computers - each day. So active games would ideally need to replace, not add to, kids' screen time.
In the past, one criticism of active video games has been that kids could advance through them without ever getting on their feet. But newer motion-tracking technology has changed that, O'Loughlin noted.
'You have to actually move to win the game,' she said.
The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec. None of the researchers reports any financial interests in the work.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/U1lyw0 Pediatrics, online October 1, 2012.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
Of more than 1,200 Canadian high schoolers researchers surveyed, one-quarter said they played 'exergames.' And on average, that translated to almost an hour of exercise on two days out of the week.
That, researchers say, gets kids part-way to the exercise dose experts recommend: an hour of moderate to vigorous activity on most days of the week.
Active video games - like Nintendo's Wii Fit, Dance Dance Revolution, and Sony EyeToy exergames - get kids off the couch and dancing, boxing, doing yoga and playing sports in their living rooms.
Some small studies have found that they can help kids burn calories and possibly shed a little weight.
But it hasn't been clear how often kids use the games in the 'real world.'
Erin K. O'Loughlin, the lead researcher on the new study, said she was surprised that so many kids use the games.
'And they're exercising at levels that may help them meet guidelines,' said O'Loughlin, of the University of Montreal in Quebec, Canada.
'I would never say this should replace regular physical activity,' O'Loughlin added. 'Kids should still be going outside and playing and getting exercise.'
But the reality is that many are not, she said. So if exergames help some kids get off the couch and sweat, that's better than being completely sedentary.
And, O'Loughlin said, the games may help some kids gain confidence in their sports skills - possibly enough that they'll want to start playing sports the old-fashioned way.
MORE LIKELY STRESSED ABOUT WEIGHT
The findings, reported in the journal Pediatrics, are based on a survey of 1,241 Montreal high school students. The kids answered questions on their weight and lifestyle habits, including exergaming.
Overall, girls were more likely to play exergames: 29 percent did, versus 16 percent of boys.
Exergamers were also more likely than other kids to be stressed about their weight, or to spend more than two hours a day watching TV.
O'Loughlin said the games may be especially appealing to some kids who are insecure about their weight and exercise abilities - especially girls.
Video games cost money, of course, and that could be a barrier, O'Loughlin said.
The games themselves run $15 to $20 or more. And the console systems generally range between $100 and $300.
But, O'Loughlin noted, surveys show that most U.S. kids already have video game systems at home. And if parents buy active games instead of traditional sedentary ones, the costs could be minimal.
'If you notice that your kid is spending a lot of time in front of the screen, this might be something you'd want to try,' O'Loughlin said.
In general, experts recommend that kids get no more than two hours of 'screen time' - TV and computers - each day. So active games would ideally need to replace, not add to, kids' screen time.
In the past, one criticism of active video games has been that kids could advance through them without ever getting on their feet. But newer motion-tracking technology has changed that, O'Loughlin noted.
'You have to actually move to win the game,' she said.
The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec. None of the researchers reports any financial interests in the work.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/U1lyw0 Pediatrics, online October 1, 2012.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Background TV a threat to U.S. kids, researchers say
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - That clamor in the background? It's probably the TV, and it might be taking a toll on your toddler's development, researchers say.
According to the first national estimate of background television exposure, children in the U.S. spend nearly as much time around a switched-on television as they do in school.
Between the age of eight months and eight years, kids spend an average of 232 minutes a day with the TV droning on in the background, researchers found. Add to that the 80 minutes of active watching that previous studies have found, and you land at just over five hours of daily interaction with the electronic babysitter.
'It's quite an alarming study,' said Dr. Victor Strasburger, a pediatrician who has studied media use in youngsters, but was not involved in the new survey.
'This is a clear warning signal to parents that if they are not watching TV, they ought to turn it off, and a reminder that parents should be avoiding screen time in infants under two,' added Strasburger, of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.
The results are based on nationally representative telephone interviews with close to 1,500 parents, who reported their child's activities over the past 24 hours and whether there was a TV on in the background.
The effects of screen time on developing brains and minds are not well understood, but researchers say concerning findings are emerging.
For instance, children spend less time playing with friends and interacting with parents when a TV is clamoring in the background than when there is no such distraction, said Matthew Lapierre of the University of North Carolina Wilmington, who led the new survey.
'We definitely need to rethink this sort of exposure,' he told Reuters Health. 'You have learned how to deal with this, but what does it mean for a very young child?'
Lapierre and his colleagues found that the younger children were, the more background TV they were exposed to. Toddlers under two, for example, spent 5.5 hours around the screen daily.
Kids with a TV in the bedroom and African Americans also had more exposure, according to the report, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting media time for kids to less than two hours per day, keeping the TV set and Internet out of the bedroom and avoiding screen time for kids under two.
Surfing the Web or watching TV before bedtime has been linked to sleep problems and drowsiness during the day in kids. Researchers also worry that screen time may lead youth to snack more and to pick up bad habits, such as smoking and drinking in excess.
For infants and toddlers, studies suggest the din from a TV may slow down language development, according to Strasburger.
'Think about it,' he said. 'It's confusing for babies who are trying to get their language together to have indistinguishable voices in the background.'
Strasburger said young infants distinguish between people on TV and flesh-and-blood humans, and they learn better from the latter. When he walks into an examination room, the pediatrician added, he can tell which toddlers are watching TV and which ones have parents reading to them.
'The babies that are being read to are just chattering away, and the babies that sit in front of a TV are silent,' he said. 'It means their language development is threatened - they may catch up, but it's a concern.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/cxXOG Pediatrics, online October 1, 2012.
This news article is brought to you by GLOBAL WEATHER NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
According to the first national estimate of background television exposure, children in the U.S. spend nearly as much time around a switched-on television as they do in school.
Between the age of eight months and eight years, kids spend an average of 232 minutes a day with the TV droning on in the background, researchers found. Add to that the 80 minutes of active watching that previous studies have found, and you land at just over five hours of daily interaction with the electronic babysitter.
'It's quite an alarming study,' said Dr. Victor Strasburger, a pediatrician who has studied media use in youngsters, but was not involved in the new survey.
'This is a clear warning signal to parents that if they are not watching TV, they ought to turn it off, and a reminder that parents should be avoiding screen time in infants under two,' added Strasburger, of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.
The results are based on nationally representative telephone interviews with close to 1,500 parents, who reported their child's activities over the past 24 hours and whether there was a TV on in the background.
The effects of screen time on developing brains and minds are not well understood, but researchers say concerning findings are emerging.
For instance, children spend less time playing with friends and interacting with parents when a TV is clamoring in the background than when there is no such distraction, said Matthew Lapierre of the University of North Carolina Wilmington, who led the new survey.
'We definitely need to rethink this sort of exposure,' he told Reuters Health. 'You have learned how to deal with this, but what does it mean for a very young child?'
Lapierre and his colleagues found that the younger children were, the more background TV they were exposed to. Toddlers under two, for example, spent 5.5 hours around the screen daily.
Kids with a TV in the bedroom and African Americans also had more exposure, according to the report, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting media time for kids to less than two hours per day, keeping the TV set and Internet out of the bedroom and avoiding screen time for kids under two.
Surfing the Web or watching TV before bedtime has been linked to sleep problems and drowsiness during the day in kids. Researchers also worry that screen time may lead youth to snack more and to pick up bad habits, such as smoking and drinking in excess.
For infants and toddlers, studies suggest the din from a TV may slow down language development, according to Strasburger.
'Think about it,' he said. 'It's confusing for babies who are trying to get their language together to have indistinguishable voices in the background.'
Strasburger said young infants distinguish between people on TV and flesh-and-blood humans, and they learn better from the latter. When he walks into an examination room, the pediatrician added, he can tell which toddlers are watching TV and which ones have parents reading to them.
'The babies that are being read to are just chattering away, and the babies that sit in front of a TV are silent,' he said. 'It means their language development is threatened - they may catch up, but it's a concern.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/cxXOG Pediatrics, online October 1, 2012.
This news article is brought to you by GLOBAL WEATHER NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Study finds birth defects down among IVF babies
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Though assisted-reproduction techniques (ART) are known to come with a higher risk for birth defects, a new review of defect rates in Western Australia shows major birth defects becoming less common over the course of a decade among babies born through ART.
It's unclear why there have been fewer birth defects in more recent years.
'Changes to clinical practice may be largely responsible with improved (laboratory techniques) leading to the transfer of 'healthier' embryos,' suggested Michele Hansen, the lead author of the study and a researcher at the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in Subiaco, Western Australia.
It's also not known why babies conceived through ART are likelier to have an increased risk of birth defects in the first place.
A recent estimate, based on the results of several dozen studies, found that ART is linked with a 37 percent increase in the risk of being born with a birth defect (see Reuters Health story of April 19, 2012).
Hansen said she and her colleagues wanted to get an update on those rates using a database of all births in Western Australia.
They collected information on more than 207,000 births, including babies conceived through two common techniques, 1,328 by in vitro fertilization and 633 by intracytoplasmic sperm injection, from 1994 to 2002.
The data also included pregnancies terminated due to a defect in the fetus.
Overall, major birth defects, including cleft lip, hip dysplasia and malformations of the heart, abdominal wall and genitals, affected about eight percent of singleton babies conceived by ART, compared to about five percent of babies conceived without assistance.
When the researchers compared the period between 1994 and 1998 to the years between 1998 and 2002, they saw a decline in birth defects over time among babies whose parents used ART.
In the first period, nearly 11 percent of ART babies had a birth defect diagnosed by age six, compared to about 7.5 percent in the second period.
In the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, Hansen calls the results 'encouraging,' though she can't explain them.
The researchers speculate they could stem from a combination of ART techniques becoming available to a wider swath of the population, and changes in how the techniques themselves are applied.
'It is very difficult to assess the impact of each of these changes on birth defect risk, however, we believe that changes to laboratory practice...changes to the medications used for ovarian stimulation requiring lower doses and shorter stimulation periods; together with a decrease in the number of embryos transferred may all have had a positive impact on the 'health' of embryos transferred in ART treatments,' she told Reuters Health in an email.
'Whilst our study does still show that babies born using Assisted Reproductive Technology remain at a higher risk of birth defects, couples seeking ART treatment can be reassured that the vast majority of ART infants are born healthy and do not have a birth defect,' said Hansen.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/SnGBpA Obstetrics & Gynecology, October, 2012.
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
It's unclear why there have been fewer birth defects in more recent years.
'Changes to clinical practice may be largely responsible with improved (laboratory techniques) leading to the transfer of 'healthier' embryos,' suggested Michele Hansen, the lead author of the study and a researcher at the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in Subiaco, Western Australia.
It's also not known why babies conceived through ART are likelier to have an increased risk of birth defects in the first place.
A recent estimate, based on the results of several dozen studies, found that ART is linked with a 37 percent increase in the risk of being born with a birth defect (see Reuters Health story of April 19, 2012).
Hansen said she and her colleagues wanted to get an update on those rates using a database of all births in Western Australia.
They collected information on more than 207,000 births, including babies conceived through two common techniques, 1,328 by in vitro fertilization and 633 by intracytoplasmic sperm injection, from 1994 to 2002.
The data also included pregnancies terminated due to a defect in the fetus.
Overall, major birth defects, including cleft lip, hip dysplasia and malformations of the heart, abdominal wall and genitals, affected about eight percent of singleton babies conceived by ART, compared to about five percent of babies conceived without assistance.
When the researchers compared the period between 1994 and 1998 to the years between 1998 and 2002, they saw a decline in birth defects over time among babies whose parents used ART.
In the first period, nearly 11 percent of ART babies had a birth defect diagnosed by age six, compared to about 7.5 percent in the second period.
In the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, Hansen calls the results 'encouraging,' though she can't explain them.
The researchers speculate they could stem from a combination of ART techniques becoming available to a wider swath of the population, and changes in how the techniques themselves are applied.
'It is very difficult to assess the impact of each of these changes on birth defect risk, however, we believe that changes to laboratory practice...changes to the medications used for ovarian stimulation requiring lower doses and shorter stimulation periods; together with a decrease in the number of embryos transferred may all have had a positive impact on the 'health' of embryos transferred in ART treatments,' she told Reuters Health in an email.
'Whilst our study does still show that babies born using Assisted Reproductive Technology remain at a higher risk of birth defects, couples seeking ART treatment can be reassured that the vast majority of ART infants are born healthy and do not have a birth defect,' said Hansen.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/SnGBpA Obstetrics & Gynecology, October, 2012.
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
Probiotic for babies may not fight allergies later
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Kindergartners who were given 'good bacteria' supplements as infants were no less likely to suffer from allergies than other kids in a new study from Australia.
The findings, reported in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, add to a mixed bag of results from research into whether probiotics can help ward off kids' allergies.
Based on what's known so far, it may be that only certain probiotics are helpful for certain kids - but even then, the benefit seems 'very modest,' according to Dr. Sonia Michail, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Children's Hospital Los Angeles who was not involved in the work.
The 123 kids in this study, which was led by Marie P. Jensen of the University of Western Australia in Perth, were part of a clinical trial as infants, when researchers randomly assigned half to take a probiotic supplement every day for the first six months of life. The rest of the babies were given a placebo.
All of the babies were considered to be at increased risk of allergies because their mothers suffered from them.
In earlier studies, the researchers found no benefits of the probiotic when the babies were 1 to 2.5 years old.
This latest report finds still no effects at the age of 5. Of 66 kids who had received the probiotic in infancy, 44 percent had some type of allergy - such as nasal allergies, food allergies or asthma. That compared with 38 percent of 57 kids who got the placebo.
Probiotics are live microorganisms, usually bacteria, which are naturally present in the gut, and are often added to certain foods, like yogurt and fermented milk, or sold as supplements.
In theory, probiotics given early in life could help curb kids' allergy risk by ensuring a healthy balance of microbes in the intestines, which promotes normal immune function.
Allergies arise when the immune system overreacts to a normally benign substance.
One of the best known and widely used probiotics is Lactobacillus acidophilus - which is what kids in this study were given.
The findings are somewhat surprising, Michail said in an email, because some studies have found that probiotics may help curb certain kids' long-term risk of the allergic skin condition eczema.
But in those studies, the probiotics were different strains of friendly bacteria (L. rhamnosus GG in one study, and a probiotic mix in the other).
And they were given not only to infants, but to their moms starting about a month before delivery, noted Michail, who has researched the role of gut bacteria in kids' health.
What's more, one study found probiotic benefits only among kids who'd been born by C-section.
'Interestingly, the intestine of a baby just born does not have any bacteria, but this quickly changes and the intestine becomes populated by large numbers of bacteria called 'flora,'' Michail said.
Babies born via C-section are not exposed to their moms' beneficial bacteria in the birth canal, and studies have linked C-section birth to a higher allergy and asthma risk.
The 'different bacterial profile' in babies born by C-section 'may be permissive to the development of allergies,' Michail explained.
But the bottom line is that even in the positive studies, the benefits of probiotics seem small.
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration classifies probiotics as a food or dietary supplement. That means the products don't have to be proven effective before hitting the market, but they cannot be promoted for treating or preventing any specific disease.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/QZYVSG Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, online September 10, 2012.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
The findings, reported in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, add to a mixed bag of results from research into whether probiotics can help ward off kids' allergies.
Based on what's known so far, it may be that only certain probiotics are helpful for certain kids - but even then, the benefit seems 'very modest,' according to Dr. Sonia Michail, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Children's Hospital Los Angeles who was not involved in the work.
The 123 kids in this study, which was led by Marie P. Jensen of the University of Western Australia in Perth, were part of a clinical trial as infants, when researchers randomly assigned half to take a probiotic supplement every day for the first six months of life. The rest of the babies were given a placebo.
All of the babies were considered to be at increased risk of allergies because their mothers suffered from them.
In earlier studies, the researchers found no benefits of the probiotic when the babies were 1 to 2.5 years old.
This latest report finds still no effects at the age of 5. Of 66 kids who had received the probiotic in infancy, 44 percent had some type of allergy - such as nasal allergies, food allergies or asthma. That compared with 38 percent of 57 kids who got the placebo.
Probiotics are live microorganisms, usually bacteria, which are naturally present in the gut, and are often added to certain foods, like yogurt and fermented milk, or sold as supplements.
In theory, probiotics given early in life could help curb kids' allergy risk by ensuring a healthy balance of microbes in the intestines, which promotes normal immune function.
Allergies arise when the immune system overreacts to a normally benign substance.
One of the best known and widely used probiotics is Lactobacillus acidophilus - which is what kids in this study were given.
The findings are somewhat surprising, Michail said in an email, because some studies have found that probiotics may help curb certain kids' long-term risk of the allergic skin condition eczema.
But in those studies, the probiotics were different strains of friendly bacteria (L. rhamnosus GG in one study, and a probiotic mix in the other).
And they were given not only to infants, but to their moms starting about a month before delivery, noted Michail, who has researched the role of gut bacteria in kids' health.
What's more, one study found probiotic benefits only among kids who'd been born by C-section.
'Interestingly, the intestine of a baby just born does not have any bacteria, but this quickly changes and the intestine becomes populated by large numbers of bacteria called 'flora,'' Michail said.
Babies born via C-section are not exposed to their moms' beneficial bacteria in the birth canal, and studies have linked C-section birth to a higher allergy and asthma risk.
The 'different bacterial profile' in babies born by C-section 'may be permissive to the development of allergies,' Michail explained.
But the bottom line is that even in the positive studies, the benefits of probiotics seem small.
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration classifies probiotics as a food or dietary supplement. That means the products don't have to be proven effective before hitting the market, but they cannot be promoted for treating or preventing any specific disease.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/QZYVSG Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, online September 10, 2012.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)