No abstract

Background During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. Objectives The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding prior to infant formula introduction, 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants, and 5) feeding a higher intensity of human milk by bottle versus breast with food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma. Methods The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published between January 1980 and March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. Results The systematic reviews numbered 1–5 above included 44, 35, 1, 0, and 0 articles, respectively. Moderate, mostly observational, evidence suggests that 1) never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of childhood asthma, and 2) among children and adolescents who were fed human milk as infants, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of asthma. Limited evidence does not suggest associations between 1) never versus ever being fed human milk and atopic dermatitis in childhood or 2) the duration of any human milk feeding and allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis in childhood. Conclusions Moderate evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all is associated with higher childhood asthma risk. Evidence on food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis is limited.

No abstract

Background: Pulmonary complications of sickle cell disease (SCD) are diverse and encompass acute and chronic disease. The understanding of the natural history of pulmonary complications of SCD is limited, no specific therapies exist, and these complications are a primary cause of morbidity and mortality. Methods: We gathered a multidisciplinary group of pediatric and adult hematologists, pulmonologists, and emergency medicine physicians with expertise in SCD-related lung disease along with an SCD patient advocate for an American Thoracic Society–sponsored workshop to review the literature and identify key unanswered clinical and research questions. Participants were divided into four subcommittees on the basis of expertise: 1 ) acute chest syndrome, 2 ) lower airways disease and pulmonary function, 3 ) sleep-disordered breathing and hypoxia, and 4 ) pulmonary vascular complications of SCD. Before the workshop, a comprehensive literature review of each subtopic was conducted. Clinically important questions were developed after literature review and were finalized by group discussion and consensus. Results: Current knowledge is based on small, predominantly observational studies, few multicenter longitudinal studies, and even fewer high-quality interventional trials specifically targeting the pulmonary complications of SCD. Each subcommittee identified the three or four most important unanswered questions in their topic area for researchers to direct the next steps of clinical investigation. Conclusions: Important and clinically relevant questions regarding sickle cell lung disease remain unanswered. High-quality, multicenter, longitudinal studies and randomized clinical trials designed and implemented by teams of multidisciplinary clinician-investigators are needed to improve the care of individuals with SCD.

Objective To summarize the available published randomized controlled trial data regarding timing of progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase of patients undergoing ART. Design A systematic review. Setting Not applicable. Patient(s) Undergoing in vitro fertilization. Intervention(s) Different starting times of progesterone for luteal support. Main Outcome Measure(s) Clinical pregnancy and live birth. Results Five randomized controlled trials were identified that met inclusion criteria with a total of 872 patients. A planned meta-analysis was not performed due to a high degree of clinical heterogeneity in regards to the timing, dose, and route of progesterone. Two studies compared progesterone initiated before oocyte retrieval versus the day of oocyte retrieval and pregnancy rates were 5–12% higher when starting progesterone on the day of oocyte retrieval. One study compared starting progesterone on post retrieval day 6 versus day 3, reporting a 16% decrease in pregnancy in the day 6 group. Trials comparing progesterone start times on the day of oocyte retrieval versus two or three days post retrieval showed no significant differences in pregnancy. Conclusions There appears to be a window for progesterone start time between the evening of oocyte retrieval and day 3 after oocyte retrieval. While some studies have suggested a potential benefit in delaying vaginal progesterone start time to 2 days after oocyte retrieval, this review could not find randomized controlled trials to adequately assess this. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to better define progesterone start time for luteal support after ART.

Progesterone luteal phase support is beneficial to patients undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotropins in IUI cycles. The number needed to treat is 11 patients to have one additional live birth. Progesterone support did not benefit patients undergoing ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate or clomiphene plus gonadotropins.

Background Maternal nutrition during pregnancy and lactation has profound effects on the development and lifelong health of the child. Long-chain PUFAs are particularly important for myelination and the development of vision during the perinatal period. Objectives We conducted a systematic review to examine the relationship between supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids during pregnancy and/or lactation and neurodevelopment in children, to inform the Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Methods We identified articles on omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in pregnant and lactating women that included measures of neurodevelopment in their children (0–18 y) by searching PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, and CINAHL Plus. After dual screening articles for inclusion, we qualitatively synthesized and graded the strength of evidence using pre-established criteria for assessing risk of bias, consistency, directness, precision, and generalizability. Results We included 33 articles from 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 prospective cohort study. Of the 8 RCTs that delivered omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements during pregnancy alone (200–2200 mg/d DHA and 0–1100 mg/d EPA for approximately 20 wk), 5 studies reported ≥1 finding that supplementation improved measures of cognitive development in the infant or child by 6%–11% (P < 0.05), but all 8 studies also reported ≥1 nonsignificant (P > 0.05) result. There was inconsistent or insufficient evidence for other outcomes (language, social-emotional, physical, motor, or visual development; academic performance; risks of attention deficit disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, anxiety, or depression) and for supplementation during lactation or both pregnancy and lactation. Populations with a lower socioeconomic status and adolescents were underrepresented and studies lacked racial and ethnic diversity. Conclusions Limited evidence suggests that omega-3 fatty acid supplementation during pregnancy may result in favorable cognitive development in the child. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation during pregnancy and/or lactation on other developmental outcomes.

Objective: To compare live birth and multiple gestation in patients diagnosed with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination after ovarian stimulation (OS-IUI) with oral medications versus gonadotropins. Design: Systemic review and meta-analysis. Setting: Not applicable. Patient(s): Patients undergoing OS-IUI for treatment of unexplained infertility. Intervention(s): Clomiphene, letrozole, or gonadotropins for OS-IUI. Main Outcome Measure(s): Live birth and multiple gestation. Result(s): Eight total trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria and comprised 2,989 patients undergoing 6,590 cycles. One study reported a significant increase in both live births and multiple gestations with the use of gonadotropins, two studies found an increased likelihood of live birth with the use of gonadotropins, and two studies found an increased risk of twins with gonadotropins. The relative risk of live birth in subjects receiving gonadotropins was 1.09. The relative risk of multiple gestation in subjects receiving gonadotropins was 1.06. Clinical pregnancy was higher in protocols with lax cancellation policies or higher gonadotropin doses, with subsequent increased relative risks of multiple gestations of 1.20 and 1.15, respectively. Singleton births per subject were similar between the two groups. The results did not change in per-protocol, per cycle, or fixed-effect model sensitivity analyses. Conclusion(s):For every birth gained with the use of gonadotropins, a similar increased risk of multiple gestation occurs. The randomized data do not support the use of gonadotropin for OS-IUI in women with unexplained infertility.