SIDS is still a tragic mystery, despite claims that the ’cause’ has been found


Image for article titled SIDS is still a tragic mystery, despite 'cause' claims Found

Photo: Andrew Wang (Getty Images)

Last week, multiple headlines and social media posts claimed that scientists had finally found the “cause” of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Unfortunately, the reality is a bit more complicated. While the research could one day lead to important discoveries in predicting or treating this devastating syndrome, the results are not game-changing as they originally were, at least not yet.

The study was published earlier this month in the journal eBioMedicine. Australian researchers compared infants suspected of having died of SIDS with control groups of living infants and infants who died of other causes, using blood samples taken from newborns as part of a screening. SIDS is characterized by the unexplained death of a child under the age of one, often while sleeping. The team looked at total protein levels as well as an enzyme called butyrylcholinesterase (BChE).

Among other things, BChE plays a role in regulating the autonomic nervous system, the nerves that unconsciously drive many bodily functions, including breathing and heart rate. Many researchers, these authors included, theorize that autonomic dysfunction may be an underlying cause of SIDS. If so, they further speculate that subnormal BChE levels could be a sign, or even a possible trigger, of this dysfunction. And sure enough, the team found that children who died of SIDS had significantly lower levels of BChE soon after birth than controls.

Early media headlines about the study announcement as having identified the “reason why infants die of SIDS”. Soon, Twitter users described the study as finding the real cause of SIDS. But while this finding is important, its findings have been overstated and poorly characterized, according to Jonathan Marron, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School. Marron is not specifically an SIDS expert, but he is also a clinical pediatrician and researcher.

“Science progresses gradually. This study is an interesting and promising development for a devastating and poorly understood entity, SIDS. It’s not a magic bullet, however, nor can we say today that we’ve found the cure for SIDS,” Marron told Gizmodo in an email.

Every study has its limitations, and this one is no exception. For one, the sample size is very small, with only 26 infants who died of SIDS included in the study. SIDS is fortunately a rare disease, so the numbers are understandable, but that means any findings should be viewed with extra caution until they are validated by further research. The study also only found an association between BChE levels and SIDS, not an established cause and effect relationship. Low BChE may very well be a signal or trigger for SIDS risk, but this research alone cannot tell us. And even if this connection is just as crucial as we hope, it would still take years to harness it, such as finding a safe treatment that could increase BChE levels or prevent SIDS.

Marron notes that the study authors, while understandably enthusiastic about their work, were more cautious about the implications of their research than the early headlines and subsequent social media discussions surrounding it.

“I’m not sure what caused this – this could be an example of those who write the media reports not understanding the work and its limitations, but it could also be a representation of the fact that sensational stories and headlines sensational clicks,” Maron said. Subsequent articles have since been more open about the study. warningsand at least one of the first articles has since been update as well.

It probably wasn’t just sensationalism or a weak science literacy that drove the initial coverage of this research. SIDS has always involved a lot of stigma, with parents, especially mothers, often being blamed for the deaths of their children. Other times, life-saving interventions like childhood vaccines have been scapegoat by antivaxxers and supportive or gullible media. In many of the tweets discussing the research, there was a common theme among readers who hoped that this stigma would eventually die down, since the “real cause” turned out to be something completely beyond anyone’s control.

“We are uncomfortable with uncertainty, perhaps even more so when it comes to something as important and heartbreaking as the death of a child. Finding a single cause, a single response, because then that’s appealing,” Marron said. “It’s understandable that people are thrilled to hear that scientists have found the cause of SIDS.”

Another compelling part of the story is that the study’s lead author, Carmel Harrington, lost her own child to SIDS. And it was this tragic loss that motivated his research. (Gizmodo has reached out to Harrington for comment, but has not yet received a response.)

The work of Harrington and his team could yet be as monumental as early headlines proclaimed, one day. Even if we found a clear cause of SIDS, it wouldn’t necessarily change the advice that new parents regularly receive on how to reduce the risk of SIDS for their children. Importantly, research has shown that safe sleep practices, such as keeping infants on their backs and avoiding overheating, can reduce the risk of SIDS. And following public health campaigns emphasizing these practices and other advice beginning in the 1990s, rates of SIDS in the United States and elsewhere have continued to decline over time.

Of course, it’s not the first science to be overhyped by journalists or misunderstood by readers. While no one is ever completely immune to bias, this episode should remind people to keep a skeptical eye out for the science news headlines and make sure they get the broader context of the research. in question. Journalists should always be careful about what they broadcast to the world, notes Marron.

“I hope journalists will recognize the responsibility they have and the influence they can have on the public,” he said.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.