This position paper on complementary feeding summarizes evidence for health effects of complementary foods. It focuses on healthy infants in Europe. After reviewing current knowledge and practices, we have formulated these conclusions: Exclusive or full breast-feeding for about 6 months is a desirable goal. Complementary feeding (ie, solid foods and liquids other than breast milk or infant formula and follow-on formula) should not be introduced before 17 weeks and not later than 26 weeks. There is no convincing scientific evidence that avoidance or delayed introduction of potentially allergenic foods, such as fish and eggs, reduces allergies, either in infants considered at increased risk for the development of allergy or in those not considered to be at increased risk. During the complementary feeding period, >90% of the iron requirements of a breast-fed infant must be met by complementary foods, which should provide sufficient bioavailable iron. Cow's milk is a poor source of iron and should not be used as the main drink before 12 months, although small volumes may be added to complementary foods. It is prudent to avoid both early ( or=7 months) introduction of gluten, and to introduce gluten gradually while the infant is still breast-fed, inasmuch as this may reduce the risk of celiac disease, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and wheat allergy. Infants and young children receiving a vegetarian diet should receive a sufficient amount ( approximately 500 mL) of breast milk or formula and dairy products. Infants and young children should not be fed a vegan diet.

/pdf/complementary-feeding-a-commentary-by-the-espghan-committee-1mdc15l0be.pdf

Complementary Feeding: A Commentary by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition

Objectives To identify and appraise empirical studies on publication and related biases published since 1998; to assess methods to deal with publication and related biases; and to examine, in a random sample of published systematic reviews, measures taken to prevent, reduce and detect dissemination bias. Data sources The main literature search, in August 2008, covered the Cochrane Methodology Register Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and CINAHL. In May 2009, PubMed, PsycINFO and OpenSIGLE were also searched. Reference lists of retrieved studies were also examined. Review methods In Part I, studies were classified as evidence or method studies and data were extracted according to types of dissemination bias or methods for dealing with it. Evidence from empirical studies was summarised narratively. In Part II, 300 systematic reviews were randomly selected from MEDLINE and the methods used to deal with publication and related biases were assessed. Results Studies with significant or positive results were more likely to be published than those with non-significant or negative results, thereby confirming findings from a previous HTA report. There was convincing evidence that outcome reporting bias exists and has an impact on the pooled summary in systematic reviews. Studies with significant results tended to be published earlier than studies with non-significant results, and empirical evidence suggests that published studies tended to report a greater treatment effect than those from the grey literature. Exclusion of non-English-language studies appeared to result in a high risk of bias in some areas of research such as complementary and alternative medicine. In a few cases, publication and related biases had a potentially detrimental impact on patients or resource use. Publication bias can be prevented before a literature review (e.g. by prospective registration of trials), or detected during a literature review (e.g. by locating unpublished studies, funnel plot and related tests, sensitivity analysis modelling), or its impact can be minimised after a literature review (e.g. by confirmatory large-scale trials, updating the systematic review). The interpretation of funnel plot and related statistical tests, often used to assess publication bias, was often too simplistic and likely misleading. More sophisticated modelling methods have not been widely used. Compared with systematic reviews published in 1996, recent reviews of health-care interventions were more likely to locate and include non-English-language studies and grey literature or unpublished studies, and to test for publication bias. Conclusions Dissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process, although the actual impact of such bias depends on specific circumstances. The prospective registration of clinical trials and the endorsement of reporting guidelines may reduce research dissemination bias in clinical research. In systematic reviews, measures can be taken to minimise the impact of dissemination bias by systematically searching for and including relevant studies that are difficult to access. Statistical methods can be useful for sensitivity analyses. Further research is needed to develop methods for qualitatively assessing the risk of publication bias in systematic reviews, and to evaluate the effect of prospective registration of studies, open access policy and improved publication guidelines.

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.

SUMMARY Background The number of coeliac disease diagnoses has increased in the recent past and according to screening studies, the total prevalence of the disorder is around 1%. Aim To establish whether the increased number of coeliac disease cases reflects a true rise in disease frequency. Methods

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03502.x

Increasing prevalence of coeliac disease over time.

This medical position article by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition summarises the current status of breast-feeding practice, the present knowledge on the composition of human milk, advisable duration of exclusive and partial breast-feeding, growth of the breast-fed infant, health benefits associated with breast-feeding, nutritional supplementation for breast-fed infants, and contraindications to breast-feeding. This article emphasises the important role of paediatricians in the implementation of health policies devised to promote breast-feeding.The European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Committee on Nutrition recognises breast-feeding as the natural and advisable way of supporting the healthy growth and development of young children. This article delineates the health benefits of breast-feeding, reduced risk of infectious diarrhoea and acute otitis media being the best documented. Exclusive breast-feeding for around 6 months is a desirable goal, but partial breast-feeding as well as breast-feeding for shorter periods of time are also valuable. Continuation of breast-feeding after the introduction of complementary feeding is encouraged as long as mutually desired by mother and child.The role of health care workers, including paediatricians, is to protect, promote, and support breast-feeding. Health care workers should be trained in breast-feeding issues and counselling, and they should encourage practices that do not undermine breast-feeding. Societal standards and legal regulations that facilitate breast-feeding should be promoted, such as providing maternity leave for at least 6 months and protecting working mothers.

/pdf/breast-feeding-a-commentary-by-the-espghan-committee-on-3v6abgc058.pdf

Breast-feeding: A commentary by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition

BACKGROUND The relationship between the risk of celiac disease and both the age at which gluten is introduced to a child’s diet and a child’s early dietary pattern is unclear. METHODS We randomly assigned 832 newborns who had a first-degree relative with celiac disease to the introduction of dietary gluten at 6 months (group A) or 12 months (group B). The HLA genotype was determined at 15 months of age, and serologic screening for celiac disease was evaluated at 15, 24, and 36 months and at 5, 8, and 10 years. Patients with positive serologic findings underwent intestinal biopsies. The primary outcome was the prevalence of celiac disease autoimmunity and of overt celiac disease among the children at 5 years of age. RESULTS Of the 707 participants who remained in the trial at 36 months, 553 had a standard-risk or high-risk HLA genotype and completed the study. At 2 years of age, significantly higher proportions of children in group A than in group B had celiac disease autoimmunity (16% vs. 7%, P = 0.002) and overt celiac disease (12% vs. 5%, P = 0.01). At 5 years of age, the between-group differences were no longer significant for autoimmunity (21% in group A and 20% in group B, P = 0.59) or overt disease (16% and 16%, P = 0.78 by the log-rank test). At 10 years, the risk of celiac disease autoimmunity was far higher among children with high-risk HLA than among those with standard-risk HLA (38% vs. 19%, P = 0.001), as was the risk of overt celiac disease (26% vs. 16%, P = 0.05). Other variables, including breast-feeding, were not associated with the development of celiac disease. CONCLUSIONS Neither the delayed introduction of gluten nor breast-feeding modified the risk of celiac disease among at-risk infants, although the later introduction of gluten was associated with a delayed onset of disease. A high-risk HLA genotype was an important predictor of disease. (Funded by the Fondazione Celiachia of the Italian Society for Celiac Disease; CELIPREV ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00639444.)

/pdf/introduction-of-gluten-hla-status-and-the-risk-of-celiac-2i21zdgx6k.pdf

Introduction of Gluten, HLA Status, and the Risk of Celiac Disease in Children

BACKGROUND\nCoeliac disease (CD) is a disorder that may depend on genetic, immunological, and environmental factors. Recent observational studies suggest that breast feeding may prevent the development of CD.\n\n\nAIM\nTo evaluate articles that compared effects of breast feeding on risk of CD.\n\n\nMETHODS\nSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies published between 1966 and June 2004 that examined the association between breast feeding and the development of CD.\n\n\nRESULTS\nSix case-control studies met the inclusion criteria. With the exception of one small study, all the included studies found an association between increasing duration of breast feeding and decreased risk of developing CD. Meta-analysis showed that the risk of CD was significantly reduced in infants who were breast feeding at the time of gluten introduction (pooled odds ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59) compared with infants who were not breast feeding during this period.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nBreast feeding may offer protection against the development of CD. Breast feeding during the introduction of dietary gluten, and increasing duration of breast feeding were associated with reduced risk of developing CD. It is, however, not clear from the primary studies whether breast feeding delays the onset of symptoms or provides a permanent protection against the disease. Long term prospective cohort studies are required to investigate further the relation between breast feeding and CD.

/pdf/effect-of-breast-feeding-on-risk-of-coeliac-disease-a-hr0485pcl8.pdf

AV Ramanan

Papers

Effect of breast-feeding on risk of coeliac disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies: pg1-18