BackgroundThe age at which allergenic foods should be introduced into the diet of breast-fed infants is uncertain. We evaluated whether the early introduction of allergenic foods in the diet of breast-fed infants would protect against the development of food allergy. MethodsWe recruited, from the general population, 1303 exclusively breast-fed infants who were 3 months of age and randomly assigned them to the early introduction of six allergenic foods (peanut, cooked egg, cow’s milk, sesame, whitefish, and wheat; early-introduction group) or to the current practice recommended in the United Kingdom of exclusive breast-feeding to approximately 6 months of age (standard-introduction group). The primary outcome was food allergy to one or more of the six foods between 1 year and 3 years of age. ResultsIn the intention-to-treat analysis, food allergy to one or more of the six intervention foods developed in 7.1% of the participants in the standard-introduction group (42 of 595 participants) and in 5.6% of thos...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1514210

Randomized Trial of Introduction of Allergenic Foods in Breast-Fed Infants

BACKGROUND: There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: To describe forms of breastfeeding support which have been evaluated in controlled studies, the timing of the interventions and the settings in which they have been used.To examine the effectiveness of different modes of offering similar supportive interventions (for example, whether the support offered was proactive or reactive, face-to-face or over the telephone), and whether interventions containing both antenatal and postnatal elements were more effective than those taking place in the postnatal period alone.To examine the effectiveness of different care providers and (where information was available) training.To explore the interaction between background breastfeeding rates and effectiveness of support. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (29 February 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 100 trials involving more than 83,246 mother-infant pairs of which 73 studies contribute data (58 individually-randomised trials and 15 cluster-randomised trials). We considered that the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Of the 31 new studies included in this update, 21 provided data for one or more of the primary outcomes. The total number of mother-infant pairs in the 73 studies that contributed data to this review is 74,656 (this total was 56,451 in the previous version of this review). The 73 studies were conducted in 29 countries. Results of the analyses continue to confirm that all forms of extra support analyzed together showed a decrease in cessation of 'any breastfeeding', which includes partial and exclusive breastfeeding (average risk ratio (RR) for stopping any breastfeeding before six months 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 51 studies) and for stopping breastfeeding before four to six weeks (average RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 33 studies). All forms of extra support together also showed a decrease in cessation of exclusive breastfeeding at six months (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence, 46 studies) and at four to six weeks (average RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; moderate quality, 32 studies). We downgraded evidence to moderate-quality due to very high heterogeneity.We investigated substantial heterogeneity for all four outcomes with subgroup analyses for the following covariates: who delivered care, type of support, timing of support, background breastfeeding rate and number of postnatal contacts. Covariates were not able to explain heterogeneity in general. Though the interaction tests were significant for some analyses, we advise caution in the interpretation of results for subgroups due to the heterogeneity. Extra support by both lay and professionals had a positive impact on breastfeeding outcomes. Several factors may have also improved results for women practising exclusive breastfeeding, such as interventions delivered with a face-to-face component, high background initiation rates of breastfeeding, lay support, and a specific schedule of four to eight contacts. However, because within-group heterogeneity remained high for all of these analyses, we advise caution when making specific conclusions based on subgroup results. We noted no evidence for subgroup differences for the any breastfeeding outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When breastfeeding support is offered to women, the duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding is increased. Characteristics of effective support include: that it is offered as standard by trained personnel during antenatal or postnatal care, that it includes ongoing scheduled visits so that women can predict when support will be available, and that it is tailored to the setting and the needs of the population group. Support is likely to be more effective in settings with high initiation rates. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Strategies that rely mainly on face-to-face support are more likely to succeed with women practising exclusive breastfeeding.

/pdf/support-for-healthy-breastfeeding-mothers-with-healthy-term-86haal9ddb.pdf

Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(11)60064-0.pdf

Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries.

Arachidonic acid (ARA, 20:4n-6) is an n-6 polyunsaturated 20-carbon fatty acid formed by the biosynthesis from linoleic acid (LA, 18:2n-6). This review considers the essential role that ARA plays in infant development. ARA is always present in human milk at a relatively fixed level and is accumulated in tissues throughout the body where it serves several important functions. Without the provision of preformed ARA in human milk or infant formula the growing infant cannot maintain ARA levels from synthetic pathways alone that are sufficient to meet metabolic demand. During late infancy and early childhood the amount of dietary ARA provided by solid foods is low. ARA serves as a precursor to leukotrienes, prostaglandins, and thromboxanes, collectively known as eicosanoids which are important for immunity and immune response. There is strong evidence based on animal and human studies that ARA is critical for infant growth, brain development, and health. These studies also demonstrate the importance of balancing the amounts of ARA and DHA as too much DHA may suppress the benefits provided by ARA. Both ARA and DHA have been added to infant formulas and follow-on formulas for more than two decades. The amounts and ratios of ARA and DHA needed in infant formula are discussed based on an in depth review of the available scientific evidence.

/pdf/the-essentiality-of-arachidonic-acid-in-infant-development-1qw4e02id5.pdf

The Essentiality of Arachidonic Acid in Infant Development

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown and social distancing led to changes to breastfeeding support available to women in the United Kingdom. Face-to-face professional support was reduced, and face-to-face peer support was cancelled. Anecdotal media accounts highlighted practices separating some mothers and babies in hospitals, alongside inaccurate stories of the safety of breastfeeding circulating. Meanwhile, new families were confined to their homes, separated from families and support networks. Given that we know breastfeeding is best supported by practices that keep mother and baby together, high-quality professional and peer-to-peer support, and positive maternal well-being, it is important to understand the impact of the pandemic upon the ability to breastfeed. To explore this, we conducted an online survey with 1219 breastfeeding mothers in the United Kingdom with a baby 0-12 months old to understand the impact of the pandemic upon breastfeeding duration, experiences and support. The results highlighted two very different experiences: 41.8% of mothers felt that breastfeeding was protected due to lockdown, but 27.0% of mothers struggled to get support and had numerous barriers stemming from lockdown with some stopped breastfeeding before they were ready. Mothers with a lower education, with more challenging living circumstances and from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to find the impact of lockdown challenging and stop breastfeeding. The findings are vital in understanding how we now support those women who may be grieving their loss of breastfeeding and are affected by their negative experiences and how we can learn from those with a positive experience to make sure all breastfeeding women are better supported if similar future events arise.

/pdf/experiences-of-breastfeeding-during-covid-19-lessons-for-40xhycvxpr.pdf

Jane Thompson

Papers

Infant Feeding Survey 2010

Translation process in a nutshell