Pride Angel

“Mothers who drink in early pregnancy are ‘more likely to have unruly children’,” reported the Daily Mail. The newspaper says that a study has found a three-fold risk of antisocial behaviour among 16 year olds whose mothers drank as little as one alcoholic drink per day during early pregnancy.

The US study assessed the possible association between drinking during the first trimester of pregnancy and the risk of a psychiatric condition known as ‘conduct disorder’ in adolescents up to 16 years of age. The disorder can lead to a persistent, marked pattern of repetitive antisocial behaviour that is beyond simply being unruly.

Although the study found an association between conduct disorder and maternal pregnancy, it should be remembered that it is a relatively uncommon condition, and that only 67 adolescents (about 12% of the study population) had experienced it. Therefore further research is needed to reliably assess the influence of prenatal alcohol exposure on the risk of developing the condition.

Current advice is that women trying to conceive and pregnant women, particularly those in the first three months of pregnancy, should refrain from consuming alcohol altogether.

Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from The University of Pittsburgh. It was funded by grants from the US National Institute of Alcohol and Alcoholism and the US National Institute of Drug Abuse.

The study was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Academy Child Adolescent Psychiatry.

This research was covered by the Daily Mail, which reported that alcohol consumption during pregnancy was associated with “unruly behaviour”. It should be emphasised that Conduct Disorder is a specific psychiatric condition diagnosed by a persistent, marked pattern of repetitive antisocial behaviour. It is not clear from this study how alcohol consumption during pregnancy affects minor or short-term symptoms of unruly behaviour.

What kind of research was this?
This was a prospective cohort study, which investigated whether a mother’s alcohol consumption during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of their child having conduct disorder.

What did the research involve?
The researchers used data from two longitudinal studies which had looked at the effects of substance exposure during pregnancy. One had focused on alcohol consumption and one had focused on marijuana use. But as their study designs were identical, the researchers combined the data. In total, these studies provided data on 829 women who had been recruited from antenatal clinics. The study began in 1982.

The researchers recorded data on the amount and frequency of alcohol consumption over the three pregnancy trimesters. The researchers had also collected data on drug and tobacco use.

From the original cohort the researchers were able to gather data on 763 live singleton births (some of the mothers moved from the area or did not participate in follow-up). The children were followed from birth for 22 years. At the age of 16 years, 572 of them completed a psychiatric interview to assess psychiatric disorders, both current and during their lifetime. The mothers and adolescents were interviewed separately about their own symptoms. The researchers focused on whether the adolescents had conduct disorder, a psychiatric condition that may cause people to be repeatedly aggressive or destructive and to behave outside of social norms.

Additionally, the children and mothers were assessed at birth, and at the ages of 8 months, 18 months, and 3, 6, 10 and 14 years. During these visits various aspects of the children’s home life was assessed, such as whether their biological father or another male adult was involved in their life; how strict they thought their parenting was, whether they regularly ate meals with their family, participated in family activities and performed chores. They were also asked about their participation in sports, their interests and their hobbies.

The researchers also recorded whether the children had experienced a number of specific positive and negative life events, as well as data on the families’ socioeconomic status, the mother’s marital status, the child’s IQ and education.

The researchers restricted their analysis to the reported volume of alcohol drunk during the first three and last three months of pregnancy.

How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers said that “prenatal alcohol exposure above the level of one drink per day predicts a three-fold increase in the rate of conduct disorder in exposed offspring at 16 years of age”. They say that prenatal alcohol exposure should be considered as another risk factor for conduct disorder.

Conclusion
While this study has demonstrated an increased risk of conduct disorder with drinking one or more alcoholic drinks per day in the first trimester, there are several limitations to this study that should be taken into account when interpreting these results.

This study benefited from a long follow-up of children whose mothers had consumed alcohol during pregnancy. But owing to the small size of the study, further research is needed to assess how drinking alcohol during pregnancy is associated with conduct disorder. Regardless, it is recommended that women avoid drinking alcohol during pregnancy for a number of other health reasons.

Article: 22nd March 2011 www.nhs.uk source: www.dailymail.co.uk

Read more about nutrition and fertility at www.prideangel.com

High stress levels can damage a woman's chances of getting pregnant, researchers warn. Those who are anxious are 12 per cent less likely to conceive during their fertile time than those who stay calm. It is the first proof that stress makes it less likely a woman will fall pregnant, despite long-standing anecdotal evidence that being relaxed can improve the chances.

Although the fall in success rates appears small, experts claim it can make a big difference to older women trying to have a baby when their fertility is naturally declining because of age.

In a study at Oxford University and the U.S. National Institutes of Health, blood levels of a marker for a stress hormone called alphaamylase were consistently higher in women who had trouble conceiving.

Dr Cecilia Pyper, from the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at Oxford University, said: 'This is the first study to find that a biological measure of stress is associated with a woman's chances of becoming pregnant-that month.

'We found that those women with high levels of a marker for stress were less likely to succeed in conceiving. 'The findings support the idea that couples should aim to stay as relaxed as they can about trying for a baby.

'In some people's cases, it might be relevant to look at relaxation techniques, counselling and even approaches like yoga and meditation. 'Many couples are very keen to know what they should do to improve their chances of conceiving and having a healthy baby, and this will help us provide the best advice.'

The researchers, who published their findings in the journal Fertility and Sterility, carried out saliva tests on 274 women aged 18 and 40 who were all planning pregnancy but not tried for more than three months.

They analysed levels of the stress hormone cortisol and the enzyme alpha-amylase, which is a marker for adrenalin - the 'fight or flight' hormone. Researchers carried out the tests on day six of each woman's menstrual cycle for a total of six cycles or until the woman fell pregnant. They used fertility monitors to identify ovulation and confirmed the pregnancies with testing kits.

The study found no effect from cortisol on the chances of falling pregnant. But women in the group with the highest levels of alpha-amylase had a 12 per cent lower chance of becoming pregnant for each day of their most fertile days than those with the lowest levels of alpha-amylase.

The researchers said: 'Irrespective of the day or frequency of sexual intercourse during the fertile window, women with higher concentrations of alpha-amylse were less likely to conceive than women with lower concentrations.

'Stress significantly reduced the probability of conception each day during the fertile window.' Dr Pyper said it was unclear how the stress hormone affected fertility, although it might reduce blood flow in the fallopian tubes which could affect transportation of the egg or sperm.

She said previous research appears to have focused on the stress hormone cortisol, rather than alpha-amylase, which may explain why it has been difficult to prove a link with fertility chances until now.

'The difference in your chances of getting pregnant could be important to older women in their late 30s trying for a first baby, or even a second or third child, at a time when their fertility is declining because of their age and it all takes longer,' she added. Dr Pyper said women were highly likely to benefit from relaxation techniques, particularly as such therapies had been shown to improve IVF pregnancy rates.

Leading fertility specialist Dr Allan Pacey described the findings as 'intriguing'. 'It's important for women to relax when they are trying to have a baby, but it's easier said than done,' he said. 'My advice to couples is to throw away the fertility charts and don't make trying for a baby a chore - it will stress you both out.'

Article: 12th August 2010 www.dailymail.co.uk

After the trauma of a miscarriage many women take a break to recover before they begin to try again for a baby.

But they may in fact be increasing their risk of having another pregnancy with complications, research has found. Women who conceive within six months of a miscarriage have the best chance of a healthy pregnancy with the lowest likelihood of another miscarriage, according to the British study. The team from Aberdeen University analysed data for almost 31,000 women who had suffered a miscarriage and fallen pregnant again.

Those who conceived within six months after a miscarriage were 44 per cent less likely to have a second one than those who had an interval of six to 12 months before falling pregnant again.

They were also 52 per cent less likely to have an ectopic pregnancy - where the foetus lodges in a fallopian tube and has to be removed - or a termination.

The study found women who conceived within six months were 10 per cent less likely to need a Caesarean or to have a premature baby, and 16 per cent less likely to have a low birthweight baby.

Women with an interval of more than two years were around twice as likely to have an ectopic second pregnancy or a termination. The study, published online in the British Medical Journal, concludes: 'Women who conceive within six months of an initial miscarriage have the best reproductive outcomes and lowest complication rates in a subsequent pregnancy.'

One in five pregnancies ends in miscarriage - around a quarter of a million in the UK each year - mostly before 12 weeks.

Women aged 40 have a 30 per cent chance of miscarriage, which rises to 50 per cent in those aged 45 or more, according to the study.

The researchers said WHO guidance may not be appropriate to Western countries, where many women delay childrearing until after 35 and women should not be discouraged from trying again.

Short intervals also seemed to increase a woman's chance of conceiving again. Of the women in the study, 41 per cent conceived within six months of a first miscarriage, 25 per cent after six to 12 months and 10 per cent after 12 to 18 months.

The authors said it was unclear why fertility declined with a longer interval. Other researchers have suggested a pregnancy may enhance the functional-capacity of the reproductive system, while women who have recently been pregnant may be leading a healthier lifestyle.

Ruth Bender Atik, director of the Miscarriage Association, said: 'It's a really interesting study. 'I think it's going to be reassuring for women, many of whom want to try again soon after a miscarriage but are worried about doing so.' However, doctors stressed that psychological distress was also an important factor when advising a woman to delay trying again for a baby after a miscarriage.

Mervi Jokinen, of the Royal College of Midwives, said: 'Miscarriage can have an emotional, as well as a physical impact on a woman.

The decision for a woman to plan for a subsequent pregnancy is one that we would encourage her to discuss with her midwife and doctor.'

Article: www.dailymail.co.uk 6th August 2010

A lawyer who struggled to have a baby for seven years has now given birth to a healthy little girl after being fitted with a 'bionic' cervix. Janett Walker, 41, suffered four miscarriages and lost a premature baby because her cervix was too weak to support an unborn baby.

Doctors 'clamped' the neck of her uterus using a synthetic material called mersilene, to stop a foetus from falling through.

The operation allowed the lawyer to carry her baby Ainka, meaning 'cherished one' to 37 weeks before she gave birth by Caesarean section in June. Janett, who gave birth at Liverpool Women's Hospital, said: 'I just can't believe it. I wake up in the morning sometimes and think my beautiful baby was a dream, but there she is asleep in her cot.

'If I hadn't been fitted with the bionic cervix, I would never have been able to to have a child.

'The operation didn't signify the end of the road for me, I still suffered two miscarriages afterwards, but then it enabled me to have Ainka. She's wonderful.' Janett, who lives with her husband Graham, 42, in Windermere, Cumbria, now wants other women to know that this operation is available.

She said: 'Although the procedure is common in the US, many doctors in the UK aren't aware of it.

'The operation involves cutting the abdomen and lifting up the bladder to reach the cervix.

'The top of the cervix is tied with synthetic material, called mersilene, to stop the foetus from falling through. 'A tiny gap remains, so that the cervix can perform it's other functions too normally.'

Janett met her husband in 1993 in Hong Kong where she had a job as a youth worker while Graham served in the army.

They came back to the UK, married in 1997 and started trying for a family six years later.

Janett was initially unable to conceive and had three rounds of IVF treatment. These were unsuccessful and she was diagnosed with Asherman's Syndrome, a disorder of the womb.

Janett discovered she had a rare condition which meant that her womb was mysteriously scarred. But after an operation to smooth out the scar tissue she was told she should be able to conceive naturally.

In 2006 she became pregnant with a boy she named Jeremiah, but she lost him at 16 weeks. She conceived again in January 2007, but this pregnancy ended at 18 weeks after her cervix collapsed from the weight of the child.

She said: 'It was such a traumatic miscarriage, the kind that keeps going through your mind for months afterwards.' The couple were taken to Lancaster Hospital where doctors finally realised Janett had a problem with her cervix.

They were referred to Liverpool Women's Hospital where doctors told them about a procedure that could help.

If she were to concieve again at 13 weeks pregnant Janet could have a stitch placed in the lower part of her cervix, enabling it to support the womb.

In late 2007 she became pregnant and at 13 weeks had the stitch, or transvaginal cerclage, she hoped would enable her to carry a baby full term.

But at 16 weeks her cervix began to collapse again and she was confined to bed, with her feet up, in the hope that gravity might keep her baby inside.

At 23 weeks the baby, called Imogen Grace, could hang on no longer. She lived on a life support machine for 20 days before the decision was made to turn it off.

It was at this point that Doctor Roy Farquharson at Liverpool Women's Hospital, suggested fitting Janett with a 'bionic' cervix. She underwent the operation successfully in September 2008 but suffered a further two miscarriages, unrelated to her weak cervix, before she finally gave birth to Ainka via caesarean.

She added: 'It takes doctors a matter of minutes to check if women have a weak cervix which may not be capable of supporting a child for nine months.

'All women should be screened before they try for a baby. And they should be made aware of the operation that could save them unnecessary miscarriages.'

Article: 4th August 2010 www.dailmail.co.uk

Read more about getting pregnant and how to boost fertility

We've all known mothers who can whip out a breast, whip on a baby, and lactate like mad – without effort, embarrassment or, in some cases, embonpoint. For me, breastfeeding was a slog: six months of broken nights, screaming and tears (mine, mostly). But I don't regret a moment.

Breastfeeding – if you can – is the cheapest, cleanest and healthiest way to nurture a baby. That's not just my opinion or that of the World Health Organisation (which recommends breastfeeding for the first six months) – it's common sense, isn't it?

Perhaps, but Breast v Bottle is still one of the most furious debates in modern mothering, fuelled by powerful hormones on one hand, and the billion-pound formula industry on the other. This month, the fire has been fed by two scientific studies suggesting that breastfeeding might not be worth the bother – let alone the guilt and distress if you can't or choose not to.

In the first, Prof Sven Carlsen, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, reviewed more than 50 studies into the relationship between health and breastfeeding. Most concluded that the longer a child was nursed, the healthier it would be. He attributed this, however, to a healthier pregnancy, not breast milk, claiming "baby formula is as good as breast milk".

This week, the second study, from Southampton University found that breastfeeding does not make babies more intelligent. It noted that breastfed infants tended to be brighter simply because their mothers were (and brighter women are more likely to breastfeed). So lactation doesn't make our loved ones brainier or healthier? Can we break out the bottles and book a long night's pain-free sleep then?

Not so fast. For every study that concludes that breast milk is on a par with formula, twice as many conclude it is liquid gold. They find it protects against stomach bugs, and wards off asthma and chest infections. Mothers who breastfeed lower their risk of breast and ovarian cancers, and shed baby weight more easily.

And as every scientist knows, there are different classes of study – some are tiny; some may appear in little-known journals that other professionals do not rate seriously; and some are paid for by organisations that have their own point to prove, such as formula manufacturers.

Formula milk is big business. In Britain, Save the Children reckons that for every £1 spent in 2006-7 on breastfeeding promotion, £10 was spent by manufacturers on advertising and promotion. The market leader, Nestlé, has been subject, off and on, to a worldwide boycott for more than 30 years because of the way it is seen to target mothers in countries where formula feed can be expensive and dangerous to use.

It can be argued that Prof Carlsen's investigation doesn't stand up to scrutiny, although it was funded by the central Norway regional health authority and published in the peer-reviewed, although not well-known, journal Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

And the news that breast milk doesn't boost brainpower can be contradicted by other studies that have found the reverse: a 2001 study concluded that children who were breastfed for fewer than three months were more likely to score below average for mental skills at 13 months, and have lower IQ levels at five years, than those who were breastfed for six months or more.

It is difficult to master science at the best of times – let alone in the fog of exhaustion and hormones caused by giving birth. Had anyone presented me with a research paper three days postpartum, I'd have found a use for it – but not one connected to what went into my child.

The most important boon of lactation cannot be analysed or peer-reviewed. It's something our ancestors knew instinctively: breastfeeding is a chance for mother and baby to connect physically and emotionally. And for mum to put her feet up. Read more :www.telegraph.co.uk

Looking at your Diet can dramatically increase your probability of becoming Pregnant Increase your pregnancy chances by ensuring the following • Eat plenty of unrefined complex carbohydrates like vegetables and whole grains as well as pulses, beans, fruit and veg. Reduce your intake of sugar, white bread and white pasta as these can disrupt blood sugar and hormone balance. • Saturated fats and hydrogenated oils found in margarines, butter, hard cheese and ice cream can disrupt hormone production, so should be avoided. • Protein help to maintain steady blood-sugar levels, which is important for fertility. It also provides amino acids, which the body needs for building and repairing cells, manufacturing hormones and a healthy reproductive system. Limit protein in high saturated fat such as red meat and cheese.