International comparison of guidelines for managing neonates at the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Background The COVID-19 pandemic threatens global newborn health. We describe the current state of national and local protocols for managing neonates born to SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers. Methods Care providers from neonatal intensive care units on six continents exchanged and compared protocols on the management of neonates born to SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers. Data collection was between March 14 and 21, 2020. We focused on central protocol components, including triaging, hygiene precautions, management at delivery, feeding protocols, and visiting policies. Results Data from 20 countries were available. Disease burden varied between countries at the time of analysis. In most countries, asymptomatic infants were allowed to stay with the mother and breastfeed with hygiene precautions. We detected discrepancies between national guidance in particular regarding triaging, use of personal protection equipment, viral testing, and visitor policies. Local protocols deviated from national guidance. Conclusions At the start of the pandemic, lack of evidence-based guidance on the management of neonates born to SARS-CoV-2-positive mothers has led to ad hoc creation of national and local guidance. Compliance between collaborators to share and discuss protocols was excellent and may lead to more consensus on management, but future guidance should be built on high-level evidence, rather than expert consensus. Impact At the rapid onset of the COVID19 pandemic, all countries presented protocols in place for managing infants at risk of COVID19, with a certain degree of variations among regions. A detailed review of ad hoc guidelines is presented, similarities and differences are highlighted. We provide a broad overview of currently applied recommendations highlighting the need for international context-relevant coordination

Challenges in developing a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis.

Sepsis remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the neonatal population, and at present, there is no unified definition of neonatal sepsis. Existing consensus sepsis definitions within paediatrics are not suited for use in the NICU and do not address sepsis in the premature population. Many neonatal research and surveillance networks have criteria for the definition of sepsis within their publications though these vary greatly and there is typically a heavy emphasis on microbiological culture. The concept of organ dysfunction as a diagnostic criterion for sepsis is rarely considered in neonatal literature, and it remains unclear how to most accurately screen neonates for organ dysfunction. Accurately defining and screening for sepsis is important for clinical management, health service design and future research. The progress made by the Sepsis-3 group provides a roadmap of how definitions and screening criteria may be developed. Similar initiatives in neonatology are likely to be more challenging and would need to account for the unique presentation of sepsis in term and premature neonates. The outputs of similar consensus work within neonatology should be twofold: a validated definition of neonatal sepsis and screening criteria to identify at-risk patients earlier in their clinical course. IMPACT: There is currently no consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and the definitions that are currently in use are varied.A consensus definition of neonatal sepsis would benefit clinicians, patients and researchers.Recent progress in adults with publication of Sepsis-3 provides guidance on how a consensus definition and screening criteria for sepsis could be produced in neonatology.We discuss common themes and potential shortcomings in sepsis definitions within neonatology.We highlight the need for a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and the challenges that this task poses

Neonatal sepsis: need for consensus definition, collaboration and core outcomes.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper

Genetic interactions in nonsyndromic orofacial clefts in Europe - EUROCRAN study

Background: Nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (nsCL6P) and nonsyndromic cleft palate (nsCP) are caused by a combination of genetic and environmental risk factors. We investigated gene-environment and gene-gene joint effects in a large multicenter study of caseparent triads. Methods: The nsCL6P or nsCP triads were recruited in 11 European countries between 2001 and 2005. We collected DNA samples from infants and from their mothers and fathers, and mothers completed a questionnaire on exposures, including smoking and folic acid supplement use during pregnancy. We used log-linear regression to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between nsCL6P or nsCP and variants in MTHFR, MTHFD1, TGFA, SATB2, and MSX1, stratifying by environmental or genetic factors. Results: We obtained genotype and exposure data for 728 nsCL±P triads and 292 nsCP triads. In male infants, there was no association between the mother's homozygous MSX1 p(CA)4/4 genotype and nsCL±P (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63-1.54), but this maternal genotype resulted in a doubling of risk for female infants (RR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.13-4.34). There was evidence suggestive of gene-gene joint-effects between MTHFR-TGFA for nsCP but not for nsCL±P. Conclusion: Although we chose the genes and their variants and putative joint effects based on associations previously reported in the literature, we replicated few associations. These results do not provide evidence supporting associations between these genes and oral clefts in European populations, although gene-environment and gene-gene interactions could play a role in oral cleft etiology