Digestive Health

Intermittent fasting (IF), defined as fasting for more than eight hours at a time, is a trend that is growing in popularity. Yet new research shows it may be linked to eating disorder (ED) behaviors.

Researchers from the University of Toronto analyzed data from more than 2700 adolescents and young adults from the Canadian Study of Adolescent Health Behaviors, and found that for women, IF was significantly associated with overeating, binge eating, vomiting, laxative use, and compulsive exercise.

IF in women was also associated with higher scores on the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q), which was used to determine ED psychopathology.

Study investigator Kyle Ganson, PhD, assistant professor in the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto, said in an interview that evidence on the effectiveness of IF for weight loss and disease prevention is mixed, and that it’s important to understand the potential harms of IF – even if there are benefits for some.

“If anything, this study shines light on the fact that engagement in IF may be connected with problematic ED behaviors, requiring health care professionals to be very aware of this contemporary and popular dietary trend, despite proponents on social media touting the effectiveness and benefits,” he said.

The study was published online in Eating Behaviors.
 

Touted for health benefits

The practice of IF has been gaining popularity partly because of reputable medical experts touting its health benefits. Johns Hopkins Medicine, for instance, cited evidence that IF boosts working memory, improves blood pressure, enhances physical performance, and prevents obesity. Yet there has been little research on its harms.

As part of the Canadian Study of Adolescent Health Behaviors, Dr. Ganson and associates analyzed data on 2,700 adolescents and young adults aged 16-30 recruited from social media ads in November and December 2021. The sample included women, men, and transgender or gender-nonconforming individuals.

Study participants answered questions about weight perception, current weight change behavior, engagement in IF, and participation in eating disorder behaviors. They were also administered the EDE-Q, which measures eating disorder psychopathology.

In total, 47% of women (n = 1,470), 38% of men (n = 1,060), and 52% transgender or gender-nonconforming individuals (n = 225) reported engaging in IF during the past year.

Dr. Ganson and associates found that, for women, IF in the past 12 months and past 30 days were significantly associated with all eating disorder behaviors, including overeating, loss of control, binge eating, vomiting, laxative use, compulsive exercise, and fasting – as well as higher overall EDE-Q global scores.

For men, IF in the past 12 months was significantly associated with compulsive exercise, and higher overall EDE-Q global scores.

The team found that for TGNC participants, IF was positively associated with higher EDE-Q global scores.

The investigators acknowledged some limitations with the study – the method of recruiting, which involved ads placed on social media, could cause selection bias. In addition to this, data collection methods relied heavily on participants’ self-reporting, which could also be susceptible to bias.

“Certainly, there needs to be more investigation on this dietary practice,” said Dr. Ganson. “If anything, this study shines light on the fact that engagement in IF may be connected with problematic ED behaviors requiring healthcare professionals to be very aware of this contemporary and popular dietary trend – despite proponents on social media touting the effectiveness and benefits.”
 

Screening warranted

Dr. Ganson noted that additional research is needed to support the findings from his study, and to further illuminate the potential harms of IF.

Health care professionals “need to be aware of common, contemporary dietary trends that young people engage in and are commonly discussed on social media, such as IF,” he noted. In addition, he’d like to see health care professionals assess their patients for IF who are dieting and to follow-up with assessments for ED-related attitudes and behaviors.

“Additionally, there are likely bidirectional relationships between IF and ED attitudes and behaviors, so professionals should be aware the ways in which ED behaviors are masked as IF engagement,” Dr. Ganson said.
 

More research needed

Commenting on the findings, Angela Guarda, MD, professor of eating disorders at Johns Hopkins University and director of the eating disorders program at Johns Hopkins Hospital, both in Baltimore, said more research is needed on outcomes for IF.

“We lack a definitive answer. The reality is that IF may help some and harm others and is most likely not healthy for all,” she said, noting that the study results “support what many in the eating disorders field believe, namely that IF for someone who is at risk for an eating disorder is likely to be ill advised.”

She added that “continued research is needed to establish its safety, and for whom it may be a therapeutic versus an iatrogenic recommendation.”

The study was funded by the Connaught New Researcher Award. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IF), defined as fasting for more than eight hours at a time, is a trend that is growing in popularity. Yet new research shows it may be linked to eating disorder (ED) behaviors.

Researchers from the University of Toronto analyzed data from more than 2700 adolescents and young adults from the Canadian Study of Adolescent Health Behaviors, and found that for women, IF was significantly associated with overeating, binge eating, vomiting, laxative use, and compulsive exercise.

IF in women was also associated with higher scores on the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q), which was used to determine ED psychopathology.

Study investigator Kyle Ganson, PhD, assistant professor in the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto, said in an interview that evidence on the effectiveness of IF for weight loss and disease prevention is mixed, and that it’s important to understand the potential harms of IF – even if there are benefits for some.

“If anything, this study shines light on the fact that engagement in IF may be connected with problematic ED behaviors, requiring health care professionals to be very aware of this contemporary and popular dietary trend, despite proponents on social media touting the effectiveness and benefits,” he said.

The study was published online in Eating Behaviors.
 

Touted for health benefits

The practice of IF has been gaining popularity partly because of reputable medical experts touting its health benefits. Johns Hopkins Medicine, for instance, cited evidence that IF boosts working memory, improves blood pressure, enhances physical performance, and prevents obesity. Yet there has been little research on its harms.

As part of the Canadian Study of Adolescent Health Behaviors, Dr. Ganson and associates analyzed data on 2,700 adolescents and young adults aged 16-30 recruited from social media ads in November and December 2021. The sample included women, men, and transgender or gender-nonconforming individuals.

Study participants answered questions about weight perception, current weight change behavior, engagement in IF, and participation in eating disorder behaviors. They were also administered the EDE-Q, which measures eating disorder psychopathology.

In total, 47% of women (n = 1,470), 38% of men (n = 1,060), and 52% transgender or gender-nonconforming individuals (n = 225) reported engaging in IF during the past year.

Dr. Ganson and associates found that, for women, IF in the past 12 months and past 30 days were significantly associated with all eating disorder behaviors, including overeating, loss of control, binge eating, vomiting, laxative use, compulsive exercise, and fasting – as well as higher overall EDE-Q global scores.

For men, IF in the past 12 months was significantly associated with compulsive exercise, and higher overall EDE-Q global scores.

The team found that for TGNC participants, IF was positively associated with higher EDE-Q global scores.

The investigators acknowledged some limitations with the study – the method of recruiting, which involved ads placed on social media, could cause selection bias. In addition to this, data collection methods relied heavily on participants’ self-reporting, which could also be susceptible to bias.

“Certainly, there needs to be more investigation on this dietary practice,” said Dr. Ganson. “If anything, this study shines light on the fact that engagement in IF may be connected with problematic ED behaviors requiring healthcare professionals to be very aware of this contemporary and popular dietary trend – despite proponents on social media touting the effectiveness and benefits.”
 

Screening warranted

Dr. Ganson noted that additional research is needed to support the findings from his study, and to further illuminate the potential harms of IF.

Health care professionals “need to be aware of common, contemporary dietary trends that young people engage in and are commonly discussed on social media, such as IF,” he noted. In addition, he’d like to see health care professionals assess their patients for IF who are dieting and to follow-up with assessments for ED-related attitudes and behaviors.

“Additionally, there are likely bidirectional relationships between IF and ED attitudes and behaviors, so professionals should be aware the ways in which ED behaviors are masked as IF engagement,” Dr. Ganson said.
 

More research needed

Commenting on the findings, Angela Guarda, MD, professor of eating disorders at Johns Hopkins University and director of the eating disorders program at Johns Hopkins Hospital, both in Baltimore, said more research is needed on outcomes for IF.

“We lack a definitive answer. The reality is that IF may help some and harm others and is most likely not healthy for all,” she said, noting that the study results “support what many in the eating disorders field believe, namely that IF for someone who is at risk for an eating disorder is likely to be ill advised.”

She added that “continued research is needed to establish its safety, and for whom it may be a therapeutic versus an iatrogenic recommendation.”

The study was funded by the Connaught New Researcher Award. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IF), defined as fasting for more than eight hours at a time, is a trend that is growing in popularity. Yet new research shows it may be linked to eating disorder (ED) behaviors.

Researchers from the University of Toronto analyzed data from more than 2700 adolescents and young adults from the Canadian Study of Adolescent Health Behaviors, and found that for women, IF was significantly associated with overeating, binge eating, vomiting, laxative use, and compulsive exercise.

IF in women was also associated with higher scores on the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q), which was used to determine ED psychopathology.

Study investigator Kyle Ganson, PhD, assistant professor in the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto, said in an interview that evidence on the effectiveness of IF for weight loss and disease prevention is mixed, and that it’s important to understand the potential harms of IF – even if there are benefits for some.

“If anything, this study shines light on the fact that engagement in IF may be connected with problematic ED behaviors, requiring health care professionals to be very aware of this contemporary and popular dietary trend, despite proponents on social media touting the effectiveness and benefits,” he said.

The study was published online in Eating Behaviors.
 

Touted for health benefits

The practice of IF has been gaining popularity partly because of reputable medical experts touting its health benefits. Johns Hopkins Medicine, for instance, cited evidence that IF boosts working memory, improves blood pressure, enhances physical performance, and prevents obesity. Yet there has been little research on its harms.

As part of the Canadian Study of Adolescent Health Behaviors, Dr. Ganson and associates analyzed data on 2,700 adolescents and young adults aged 16-30 recruited from social media ads in November and December 2021. The sample included women, men, and transgender or gender-nonconforming individuals.

Study participants answered questions about weight perception, current weight change behavior, engagement in IF, and participation in eating disorder behaviors. They were also administered the EDE-Q, which measures eating disorder psychopathology.

In total, 47% of women (n = 1,470), 38% of men (n = 1,060), and 52% transgender or gender-nonconforming individuals (n = 225) reported engaging in IF during the past year.

Dr. Ganson and associates found that, for women, IF in the past 12 months and past 30 days were significantly associated with all eating disorder behaviors, including overeating, loss of control, binge eating, vomiting, laxative use, compulsive exercise, and fasting – as well as higher overall EDE-Q global scores.

For men, IF in the past 12 months was significantly associated with compulsive exercise, and higher overall EDE-Q global scores.

The team found that for TGNC participants, IF was positively associated with higher EDE-Q global scores.

The investigators acknowledged some limitations with the study – the method of recruiting, which involved ads placed on social media, could cause selection bias. In addition to this, data collection methods relied heavily on participants’ self-reporting, which could also be susceptible to bias.

“Certainly, there needs to be more investigation on this dietary practice,” said Dr. Ganson. “If anything, this study shines light on the fact that engagement in IF may be connected with problematic ED behaviors requiring healthcare professionals to be very aware of this contemporary and popular dietary trend – despite proponents on social media touting the effectiveness and benefits.”
 

Screening warranted

Dr. Ganson noted that additional research is needed to support the findings from his study, and to further illuminate the potential harms of IF.

Health care professionals “need to be aware of common, contemporary dietary trends that young people engage in and are commonly discussed on social media, such as IF,” he noted. In addition, he’d like to see health care professionals assess their patients for IF who are dieting and to follow-up with assessments for ED-related attitudes and behaviors.

“Additionally, there are likely bidirectional relationships between IF and ED attitudes and behaviors, so professionals should be aware the ways in which ED behaviors are masked as IF engagement,” Dr. Ganson said.
 

More research needed

Commenting on the findings, Angela Guarda, MD, professor of eating disorders at Johns Hopkins University and director of the eating disorders program at Johns Hopkins Hospital, both in Baltimore, said more research is needed on outcomes for IF.

“We lack a definitive answer. The reality is that IF may help some and harm others and is most likely not healthy for all,” she said, noting that the study results “support what many in the eating disorders field believe, namely that IF for someone who is at risk for an eating disorder is likely to be ill advised.”

She added that “continued research is needed to establish its safety, and for whom it may be a therapeutic versus an iatrogenic recommendation.”

The study was funded by the Connaught New Researcher Award. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Managing children’s cow’s milk allergy is costly to families and to health care systems, largely owing to costs of prescriptions, according to an industry-sponsored study based on data from the United Kingdom.

“This large cohort study provides novel evidence of a significant health economic burden of cow’s milk allergy in children,” Abbie L. Cawood, PhD, RNutr, MICR, head of scientific affairs at Nutricia Ltd in Trowbridge, England, and colleagues wrote in Clinical and Translational Allergy.

“Management of cow’s milk allergy necessitates the exclusion of cow’s milk protein from the diet. Whilst breastmilk remains the ideal nutrient source in infants with cow’s milk allergy, infants who are not exclusively breastfed require a hypoallergenic formula,” added Dr. Cawood, a visiting research fellow at University of Southampton, and her coauthors.

Cow’s milk allergy, an immune‐mediated response to one or more proteins in cow’s milk, is one of the most common childhood food allergies and affects 2%-5% of infants in Europe. Management involves avoiding cow’s milk protein and treating possible related gastrointestinal, skin, respiratory, and other allergic conditions, the authors explained.

In their retrospective matched cohort study, Dr. Cawood and colleagues turned to The Health Improvement Network (THIN), a Cegedim Rx proprietary database of 2.9 million anonymized active patient records. They extracted data from nearly 7,000 case records covering 5 years (2015-2020).

They examined medication prescriptions and health care professional contacts based on diagnosis read-codes and hypoallergenic formula prescriptions and compared health care costs for children with cow’s milk allergy with the costs for those without.

They matched 3,499 children aged 1 year or younger who had confirmed or suspected cow’s milk allergy with the same number of children without cow’s milk allergy. Around half of the participants were boys, and the mean observation period was 4.2 years.
 

Children with cow’s milk allergy need more, costly health care

The researchers found:

• Medications were prescribed to significantly more children with cow’s milk allergy (CMA), at a higher rate, than to those without CMA. In particular, prescriptions for antireflux medication increased by almost 500%.
• Children with CMA needed significantly more health care contacts and at a higher rate than those without CMA.
• CMA was linked with additional potential health care costs of £1381.53 per person per year. Assuming a 2.5% prevalence from the estimated 2%-5% CMA prevalence range and extrapolating to the UK infant population, CMA may have added more than £25.7 million in annual health care costs nationwide.

“Several conditions in infancy necessitate the elimination of cow milk–based formulas and require extensively hydrolyzed or amino acid formulas or, if preferred or able, exclusive breast milk,” Kara E. Coffey, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, said by email.

“This study shows that, regardless of the reason for cow milk–based avoidance, these infants require more healthcare service utilizations (clinic visits, nutritional assessments, prescriptions) than [do] their peers, which is certainly a commitment of a lot of time and money for their families to ensure their ability to grow and thrive,” added Dr. Coffey, who was not involved in the study.

Jodi A. Shroba, MSN, APRN, CPNP, the coordinator for the Food Allergy Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., did not find these numbers surprising.

“Children with food allergies typically have other atopic comorbidities that require more visits to primary care physicians and specialists and more prescriptions,” Ms. Shroba, who was not involved in the study, said by email.

“An intriguing statement is that the U.K. guidelines recommend the involvement of a dietitian for children with cow’s milk allergy,” she noted. “In the United States, having a dietitian involved would be a wonderful addition to care, as avoidance of cow’s milk can cause nutritional and growth deficiencies. But not all healthcare practices have those resources available.

“The higher rate of antibiotic use and the almost 500% increase of antireflux prescriptions by the children with cow’s milk allergy warrant additional research,” she added.

Nutricia Ltd. funded the study. Dr. Cawood and one coauthor are employed by Nutricia, and all other coauthors have been employees of or have other financial relationships with Nutricia. One coauthor is employed by Cegedim Rx, which was funded for this research by Nutricia. Ms. Shroba and Dr. Coffey report no conflicts of interest with the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Managing children’s cow’s milk allergy is costly to families and to health care systems, largely owing to costs of prescriptions, according to an industry-sponsored study based on data from the United Kingdom.

“This large cohort study provides novel evidence of a significant health economic burden of cow’s milk allergy in children,” Abbie L. Cawood, PhD, RNutr, MICR, head of scientific affairs at Nutricia Ltd in Trowbridge, England, and colleagues wrote in Clinical and Translational Allergy.

“Management of cow’s milk allergy necessitates the exclusion of cow’s milk protein from the diet. Whilst breastmilk remains the ideal nutrient source in infants with cow’s milk allergy, infants who are not exclusively breastfed require a hypoallergenic formula,” added Dr. Cawood, a visiting research fellow at University of Southampton, and her coauthors.

Cow’s milk allergy, an immune‐mediated response to one or more proteins in cow’s milk, is one of the most common childhood food allergies and affects 2%-5% of infants in Europe. Management involves avoiding cow’s milk protein and treating possible related gastrointestinal, skin, respiratory, and other allergic conditions, the authors explained.

In their retrospective matched cohort study, Dr. Cawood and colleagues turned to The Health Improvement Network (THIN), a Cegedim Rx proprietary database of 2.9 million anonymized active patient records. They extracted data from nearly 7,000 case records covering 5 years (2015-2020).

They examined medication prescriptions and health care professional contacts based on diagnosis read-codes and hypoallergenic formula prescriptions and compared health care costs for children with cow’s milk allergy with the costs for those without.

They matched 3,499 children aged 1 year or younger who had confirmed or suspected cow’s milk allergy with the same number of children without cow’s milk allergy. Around half of the participants were boys, and the mean observation period was 4.2 years.
 

Children with cow’s milk allergy need more, costly health care

The researchers found:

• Medications were prescribed to significantly more children with cow’s milk allergy (CMA), at a higher rate, than to those without CMA. In particular, prescriptions for antireflux medication increased by almost 500%.
• Children with CMA needed significantly more health care contacts and at a higher rate than those without CMA.
• CMA was linked with additional potential health care costs of £1381.53 per person per year. Assuming a 2.5% prevalence from the estimated 2%-5% CMA prevalence range and extrapolating to the UK infant population, CMA may have added more than £25.7 million in annual health care costs nationwide.

“Several conditions in infancy necessitate the elimination of cow milk–based formulas and require extensively hydrolyzed or amino acid formulas or, if preferred or able, exclusive breast milk,” Kara E. Coffey, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, said by email.

“This study shows that, regardless of the reason for cow milk–based avoidance, these infants require more healthcare service utilizations (clinic visits, nutritional assessments, prescriptions) than [do] their peers, which is certainly a commitment of a lot of time and money for their families to ensure their ability to grow and thrive,” added Dr. Coffey, who was not involved in the study.

Jodi A. Shroba, MSN, APRN, CPNP, the coordinator for the Food Allergy Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., did not find these numbers surprising.

“Children with food allergies typically have other atopic comorbidities that require more visits to primary care physicians and specialists and more prescriptions,” Ms. Shroba, who was not involved in the study, said by email.

“An intriguing statement is that the U.K. guidelines recommend the involvement of a dietitian for children with cow’s milk allergy,” she noted. “In the United States, having a dietitian involved would be a wonderful addition to care, as avoidance of cow’s milk can cause nutritional and growth deficiencies. But not all healthcare practices have those resources available.

“The higher rate of antibiotic use and the almost 500% increase of antireflux prescriptions by the children with cow’s milk allergy warrant additional research,” she added.

Nutricia Ltd. funded the study. Dr. Cawood and one coauthor are employed by Nutricia, and all other coauthors have been employees of or have other financial relationships with Nutricia. One coauthor is employed by Cegedim Rx, which was funded for this research by Nutricia. Ms. Shroba and Dr. Coffey report no conflicts of interest with the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Managing children’s cow’s milk allergy is costly to families and to health care systems, largely owing to costs of prescriptions, according to an industry-sponsored study based on data from the United Kingdom.

“This large cohort study provides novel evidence of a significant health economic burden of cow’s milk allergy in children,” Abbie L. Cawood, PhD, RNutr, MICR, head of scientific affairs at Nutricia Ltd in Trowbridge, England, and colleagues wrote in Clinical and Translational Allergy.

“Management of cow’s milk allergy necessitates the exclusion of cow’s milk protein from the diet. Whilst breastmilk remains the ideal nutrient source in infants with cow’s milk allergy, infants who are not exclusively breastfed require a hypoallergenic formula,” added Dr. Cawood, a visiting research fellow at University of Southampton, and her coauthors.

Cow’s milk allergy, an immune‐mediated response to one or more proteins in cow’s milk, is one of the most common childhood food allergies and affects 2%-5% of infants in Europe. Management involves avoiding cow’s milk protein and treating possible related gastrointestinal, skin, respiratory, and other allergic conditions, the authors explained.

In their retrospective matched cohort study, Dr. Cawood and colleagues turned to The Health Improvement Network (THIN), a Cegedim Rx proprietary database of 2.9 million anonymized active patient records. They extracted data from nearly 7,000 case records covering 5 years (2015-2020).

They examined medication prescriptions and health care professional contacts based on diagnosis read-codes and hypoallergenic formula prescriptions and compared health care costs for children with cow’s milk allergy with the costs for those without.

They matched 3,499 children aged 1 year or younger who had confirmed or suspected cow’s milk allergy with the same number of children without cow’s milk allergy. Around half of the participants were boys, and the mean observation period was 4.2 years.
 

Children with cow’s milk allergy need more, costly health care

The researchers found:

• Medications were prescribed to significantly more children with cow’s milk allergy (CMA), at a higher rate, than to those without CMA. In particular, prescriptions for antireflux medication increased by almost 500%.
• Children with CMA needed significantly more health care contacts and at a higher rate than those without CMA.
• CMA was linked with additional potential health care costs of £1381.53 per person per year. Assuming a 2.5% prevalence from the estimated 2%-5% CMA prevalence range and extrapolating to the UK infant population, CMA may have added more than £25.7 million in annual health care costs nationwide.

“Several conditions in infancy necessitate the elimination of cow milk–based formulas and require extensively hydrolyzed or amino acid formulas or, if preferred or able, exclusive breast milk,” Kara E. Coffey, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, said by email.

“This study shows that, regardless of the reason for cow milk–based avoidance, these infants require more healthcare service utilizations (clinic visits, nutritional assessments, prescriptions) than [do] their peers, which is certainly a commitment of a lot of time and money for their families to ensure their ability to grow and thrive,” added Dr. Coffey, who was not involved in the study.

Jodi A. Shroba, MSN, APRN, CPNP, the coordinator for the Food Allergy Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., did not find these numbers surprising.

“Children with food allergies typically have other atopic comorbidities that require more visits to primary care physicians and specialists and more prescriptions,” Ms. Shroba, who was not involved in the study, said by email.

“An intriguing statement is that the U.K. guidelines recommend the involvement of a dietitian for children with cow’s milk allergy,” she noted. “In the United States, having a dietitian involved would be a wonderful addition to care, as avoidance of cow’s milk can cause nutritional and growth deficiencies. But not all healthcare practices have those resources available.

“The higher rate of antibiotic use and the almost 500% increase of antireflux prescriptions by the children with cow’s milk allergy warrant additional research,” she added.

Nutricia Ltd. funded the study. Dr. Cawood and one coauthor are employed by Nutricia, and all other coauthors have been employees of or have other financial relationships with Nutricia. One coauthor is employed by Cegedim Rx, which was funded for this research by Nutricia. Ms. Shroba and Dr. Coffey report no conflicts of interest with the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Formulas for toddlers are a burgeoning business in the United States: Sales of the drinks more than doubled in recent years as companies convinced parents that their little ones needed the liquid boost. But many experts warn that these products, designed for children ages 1-3, fill no nutritional needs beyond what is available in a typical toddler diet, are subject to less regulation than infant formula, and are expensive.

In addition, some parents feed the toddler versions to infants even though they do not meet federal standards for infant formula and may not provide babies with adequate nutrients to sustain their growth.

Pediatricians and federal health officials say that when most children turn 1, they can begin drinking cow milk or an unsweetened plant-based milk substitute. In a 2019 “consensus” statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health and nutrition organizations recommended against using toddler formulas, saying “they offer no unique nutritional value beyond what could be obtained with healthy foods; furthermore, they may contribute added sugars to the diet.” The toddler formulas often contain sweeteners and fats that add calories.

Some of the same companies that produce infant formula – including Enfamil, Gerber, and Similac – also make toddler formulas, as do some smaller, boutique brands that advertise that they have organic or other special qualities. Toddler formulas are available nearly everywhere infant formulas are sold and are marketed as providing extra nutrients to help children’s brain, immune system, and eye development, among other benefits. They are different from medical formulas prescribed for children with specific needs.

A 2020 study found that sales of toddler formula in the United States rose to $92 million in 2015 from $39 million in 2006.

Parents are often confused by the marketing for the formulas, according to a study led by Jennifer Harris, PhD, a marketing and public health researcher at the University of Connecticut, Hartford. She found that 60% of caregivers falsely believed toddler formulas have nutrients that toddlers can’t get from other foods.

Anthony Porto, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist and pediatrics professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said he is concerned these products could be giving toddlers more nutrients and calories than they need. Unlike what’s designed for infants, toddler formula has no nutritional regulations: Experts say standardizing a supplement to toddlers’ diets is impossible because no two children are alike.

In focus groups, Dr. Harris said, parents report feeding their children toddler formula to fill nutritional gaps when a child isn’t eating enough, a common concern among parents.

“Infants are often voracious eaters,” said Stephen Daniels, MD, chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. But at around a year of age, children’s growth plateaus, he said, and “they’re suddenly not hungry in the way they used to be anymore.” That can worry parents, he added, but “it’s a completely normal phenomenon.”

If parents have concerns about their children’s diet, Dr. Daniels said, they should consult a pediatrician or family doctor.

Blanche Lincoln, president of the Infant Nutrition Council of America, which represents the makers of Enfamil, Gerber, Similac, and store brands, said in an email that the toddler formulas can be helpful because they can fill “nutritional gaps during this period of transition to table foods.” Ms. Lincoln, a former U.S. senator from Arkansas, said the drinks “help contribute to the specific nutritional needs of toddlers by providing energy and important nutrients, as well as essential vitamins and minerals during this important period of growth and development.”

But toddler formula isn’t being ingested by toddlers alone – it’s also being fed to infants. In a recent study, Dr. Porto and colleagues found that 5% of infants’ parents reported giving their babies drinks marketed for the older age group. And Dr. Harris’ research indicated that 22% of parents of infants older than 6 months had fed their babies toddler formula in the previous month. Both studies were conducted before the recent infant formula shortage, which may have exacerbated the problem.

“Infant formulas and toddler formulas tend to be next to each other in the supermarket,” Dr. Harris said. “They look similar, but the toddler formulas are cheaper than the infant formulas. So people confuse them, and they grab the wrong one. Or they think: ‘Oh, this one is less expensive. I’ll get this one instead.’ ”

According to an email from Food and Drug Administration spokesperson Lindsay Haake, toddler drinks do not meet the definition of infant formula, so they are not subject to the same requirements. That means they do not have to undergo the clinical trials and pathogen safety testing that the infant versions do. “Unlike infant formulas, toddler formulas are not necessary to meet the nutritional needs of their intended consumers,” Ms. Haake said.

In a statement to KHN, the Infant Nutrition Council of America said: “Toddler drinks have a distinctive use and nutritional makeup from infant formula; the two are not interchangeable. The labeling of toddler nutritional drinks explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.”

However, several expensive toddler formula brands made by smaller companies – often advertised as being made from goat milk, A2 whole milk (which lacks one common milk protein), or vegan ingredients that aren’t soy – do meet nutritional requirements for infants, and some advertise that.

Dr. Harris argued that this confuses parents, too, and shouldn’t be allowed. Just because a toddler formula has the nutritional ingredients required by the FDA for infant formula doesn’t mean it has met the other tests required of infant formula.

Federal regulators have not forced any of the companies to withdraw those products. In an email, FDA spokesperson Marianna Naum said: “The FDA does not comment on potential compliance actions.”

One company, Nature’s One, whose toddler formulas are named “Baby’s Only,” received warning letters a decade ago from the FDA about marketing them for infants. That case was closed in 2016. The company’s website says that Baby’s Only formula “meets nutrient requirements for infant” and that “Baby’s Only Organic® can be served up to 3 years of age.” Critics say that language implies the formula is fine for babies younger than 1. The company’s website and its Instagram account feature customer testimonials from parents who report feeding the formula to their infants, as well as pictures of infants drinking it.

Jay Highman, CEO and president of Nature’s One, said that Baby’s Only is clearly labeled as a toddler formula and that the back of the can states that “Baby’s Only is intended for a toddler 1 year of age or older OR when directed by a health care professional.” He also said that since the company launched in 1999, its formulas have met all the nutritional, manufacturing, and safety standards required of infant formula even though they don’t have to. “We behaved like we are an infant formula, but we were selling it as a toddler formula.”

He said that the clinical trials required by the FDA are a huge barrier to bringing a new infant formula to market and that many other countries don’t require a clinical trial. Baby’s Only recently completed a clinical trial, and the company expects to be able to sell it as an infant formula soon.

Yet pediatricians and nutritional experts continue to caution parents about using the toddler drinks. “There’s no question that infant formula is very important in the first year of life,” Dr. Daniels said. But he doesn’t recommend the toddler version “because it’s not that useful, because it’s confusing, because it’s expensive.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Formulas for toddlers are a burgeoning business in the United States: Sales of the drinks more than doubled in recent years as companies convinced parents that their little ones needed the liquid boost. But many experts warn that these products, designed for children ages 1-3, fill no nutritional needs beyond what is available in a typical toddler diet, are subject to less regulation than infant formula, and are expensive.

In addition, some parents feed the toddler versions to infants even though they do not meet federal standards for infant formula and may not provide babies with adequate nutrients to sustain their growth.

Pediatricians and federal health officials say that when most children turn 1, they can begin drinking cow milk or an unsweetened plant-based milk substitute. In a 2019 “consensus” statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health and nutrition organizations recommended against using toddler formulas, saying “they offer no unique nutritional value beyond what could be obtained with healthy foods; furthermore, they may contribute added sugars to the diet.” The toddler formulas often contain sweeteners and fats that add calories.

Some of the same companies that produce infant formula – including Enfamil, Gerber, and Similac – also make toddler formulas, as do some smaller, boutique brands that advertise that they have organic or other special qualities. Toddler formulas are available nearly everywhere infant formulas are sold and are marketed as providing extra nutrients to help children’s brain, immune system, and eye development, among other benefits. They are different from medical formulas prescribed for children with specific needs.

A 2020 study found that sales of toddler formula in the United States rose to $92 million in 2015 from $39 million in 2006.

Parents are often confused by the marketing for the formulas, according to a study led by Jennifer Harris, PhD, a marketing and public health researcher at the University of Connecticut, Hartford. She found that 60% of caregivers falsely believed toddler formulas have nutrients that toddlers can’t get from other foods.

Anthony Porto, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist and pediatrics professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said he is concerned these products could be giving toddlers more nutrients and calories than they need. Unlike what’s designed for infants, toddler formula has no nutritional regulations: Experts say standardizing a supplement to toddlers’ diets is impossible because no two children are alike.

In focus groups, Dr. Harris said, parents report feeding their children toddler formula to fill nutritional gaps when a child isn’t eating enough, a common concern among parents.

“Infants are often voracious eaters,” said Stephen Daniels, MD, chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. But at around a year of age, children’s growth plateaus, he said, and “they’re suddenly not hungry in the way they used to be anymore.” That can worry parents, he added, but “it’s a completely normal phenomenon.”

If parents have concerns about their children’s diet, Dr. Daniels said, they should consult a pediatrician or family doctor.

Blanche Lincoln, president of the Infant Nutrition Council of America, which represents the makers of Enfamil, Gerber, Similac, and store brands, said in an email that the toddler formulas can be helpful because they can fill “nutritional gaps during this period of transition to table foods.” Ms. Lincoln, a former U.S. senator from Arkansas, said the drinks “help contribute to the specific nutritional needs of toddlers by providing energy and important nutrients, as well as essential vitamins and minerals during this important period of growth and development.”

But toddler formula isn’t being ingested by toddlers alone – it’s also being fed to infants. In a recent study, Dr. Porto and colleagues found that 5% of infants’ parents reported giving their babies drinks marketed for the older age group. And Dr. Harris’ research indicated that 22% of parents of infants older than 6 months had fed their babies toddler formula in the previous month. Both studies were conducted before the recent infant formula shortage, which may have exacerbated the problem.

“Infant formulas and toddler formulas tend to be next to each other in the supermarket,” Dr. Harris said. “They look similar, but the toddler formulas are cheaper than the infant formulas. So people confuse them, and they grab the wrong one. Or they think: ‘Oh, this one is less expensive. I’ll get this one instead.’ ”

According to an email from Food and Drug Administration spokesperson Lindsay Haake, toddler drinks do not meet the definition of infant formula, so they are not subject to the same requirements. That means they do not have to undergo the clinical trials and pathogen safety testing that the infant versions do. “Unlike infant formulas, toddler formulas are not necessary to meet the nutritional needs of their intended consumers,” Ms. Haake said.

In a statement to KHN, the Infant Nutrition Council of America said: “Toddler drinks have a distinctive use and nutritional makeup from infant formula; the two are not interchangeable. The labeling of toddler nutritional drinks explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.”

However, several expensive toddler formula brands made by smaller companies – often advertised as being made from goat milk, A2 whole milk (which lacks one common milk protein), or vegan ingredients that aren’t soy – do meet nutritional requirements for infants, and some advertise that.

Dr. Harris argued that this confuses parents, too, and shouldn’t be allowed. Just because a toddler formula has the nutritional ingredients required by the FDA for infant formula doesn’t mean it has met the other tests required of infant formula.

Federal regulators have not forced any of the companies to withdraw those products. In an email, FDA spokesperson Marianna Naum said: “The FDA does not comment on potential compliance actions.”

One company, Nature’s One, whose toddler formulas are named “Baby’s Only,” received warning letters a decade ago from the FDA about marketing them for infants. That case was closed in 2016. The company’s website says that Baby’s Only formula “meets nutrient requirements for infant” and that “Baby’s Only Organic® can be served up to 3 years of age.” Critics say that language implies the formula is fine for babies younger than 1. The company’s website and its Instagram account feature customer testimonials from parents who report feeding the formula to their infants, as well as pictures of infants drinking it.

Jay Highman, CEO and president of Nature’s One, said that Baby’s Only is clearly labeled as a toddler formula and that the back of the can states that “Baby’s Only is intended for a toddler 1 year of age or older OR when directed by a health care professional.” He also said that since the company launched in 1999, its formulas have met all the nutritional, manufacturing, and safety standards required of infant formula even though they don’t have to. “We behaved like we are an infant formula, but we were selling it as a toddler formula.”

He said that the clinical trials required by the FDA are a huge barrier to bringing a new infant formula to market and that many other countries don’t require a clinical trial. Baby’s Only recently completed a clinical trial, and the company expects to be able to sell it as an infant formula soon.

Yet pediatricians and nutritional experts continue to caution parents about using the toddler drinks. “There’s no question that infant formula is very important in the first year of life,” Dr. Daniels said. But he doesn’t recommend the toddler version “because it’s not that useful, because it’s confusing, because it’s expensive.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Formulas for toddlers are a burgeoning business in the United States: Sales of the drinks more than doubled in recent years as companies convinced parents that their little ones needed the liquid boost. But many experts warn that these products, designed for children ages 1-3, fill no nutritional needs beyond what is available in a typical toddler diet, are subject to less regulation than infant formula, and are expensive.

In addition, some parents feed the toddler versions to infants even though they do not meet federal standards for infant formula and may not provide babies with adequate nutrients to sustain their growth.

Pediatricians and federal health officials say that when most children turn 1, they can begin drinking cow milk or an unsweetened plant-based milk substitute. In a 2019 “consensus” statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health and nutrition organizations recommended against using toddler formulas, saying “they offer no unique nutritional value beyond what could be obtained with healthy foods; furthermore, they may contribute added sugars to the diet.” The toddler formulas often contain sweeteners and fats that add calories.

Some of the same companies that produce infant formula – including Enfamil, Gerber, and Similac – also make toddler formulas, as do some smaller, boutique brands that advertise that they have organic or other special qualities. Toddler formulas are available nearly everywhere infant formulas are sold and are marketed as providing extra nutrients to help children’s brain, immune system, and eye development, among other benefits. They are different from medical formulas prescribed for children with specific needs.

A 2020 study found that sales of toddler formula in the United States rose to $92 million in 2015 from $39 million in 2006.

Parents are often confused by the marketing for the formulas, according to a study led by Jennifer Harris, PhD, a marketing and public health researcher at the University of Connecticut, Hartford. She found that 60% of caregivers falsely believed toddler formulas have nutrients that toddlers can’t get from other foods.

Anthony Porto, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist and pediatrics professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said he is concerned these products could be giving toddlers more nutrients and calories than they need. Unlike what’s designed for infants, toddler formula has no nutritional regulations: Experts say standardizing a supplement to toddlers’ diets is impossible because no two children are alike.

In focus groups, Dr. Harris said, parents report feeding their children toddler formula to fill nutritional gaps when a child isn’t eating enough, a common concern among parents.

“Infants are often voracious eaters,” said Stephen Daniels, MD, chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. But at around a year of age, children’s growth plateaus, he said, and “they’re suddenly not hungry in the way they used to be anymore.” That can worry parents, he added, but “it’s a completely normal phenomenon.”

If parents have concerns about their children’s diet, Dr. Daniels said, they should consult a pediatrician or family doctor.

Blanche Lincoln, president of the Infant Nutrition Council of America, which represents the makers of Enfamil, Gerber, Similac, and store brands, said in an email that the toddler formulas can be helpful because they can fill “nutritional gaps during this period of transition to table foods.” Ms. Lincoln, a former U.S. senator from Arkansas, said the drinks “help contribute to the specific nutritional needs of toddlers by providing energy and important nutrients, as well as essential vitamins and minerals during this important period of growth and development.”

But toddler formula isn’t being ingested by toddlers alone – it’s also being fed to infants. In a recent study, Dr. Porto and colleagues found that 5% of infants’ parents reported giving their babies drinks marketed for the older age group. And Dr. Harris’ research indicated that 22% of parents of infants older than 6 months had fed their babies toddler formula in the previous month. Both studies were conducted before the recent infant formula shortage, which may have exacerbated the problem.

“Infant formulas and toddler formulas tend to be next to each other in the supermarket,” Dr. Harris said. “They look similar, but the toddler formulas are cheaper than the infant formulas. So people confuse them, and they grab the wrong one. Or they think: ‘Oh, this one is less expensive. I’ll get this one instead.’ ”

According to an email from Food and Drug Administration spokesperson Lindsay Haake, toddler drinks do not meet the definition of infant formula, so they are not subject to the same requirements. That means they do not have to undergo the clinical trials and pathogen safety testing that the infant versions do. “Unlike infant formulas, toddler formulas are not necessary to meet the nutritional needs of their intended consumers,” Ms. Haake said.

In a statement to KHN, the Infant Nutrition Council of America said: “Toddler drinks have a distinctive use and nutritional makeup from infant formula; the two are not interchangeable. The labeling of toddler nutritional drinks explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.”

However, several expensive toddler formula brands made by smaller companies – often advertised as being made from goat milk, A2 whole milk (which lacks one common milk protein), or vegan ingredients that aren’t soy – do meet nutritional requirements for infants, and some advertise that.

Dr. Harris argued that this confuses parents, too, and shouldn’t be allowed. Just because a toddler formula has the nutritional ingredients required by the FDA for infant formula doesn’t mean it has met the other tests required of infant formula.

Federal regulators have not forced any of the companies to withdraw those products. In an email, FDA spokesperson Marianna Naum said: “The FDA does not comment on potential compliance actions.”

One company, Nature’s One, whose toddler formulas are named “Baby’s Only,” received warning letters a decade ago from the FDA about marketing them for infants. That case was closed in 2016. The company’s website says that Baby’s Only formula “meets nutrient requirements for infant” and that “Baby’s Only Organic® can be served up to 3 years of age.” Critics say that language implies the formula is fine for babies younger than 1. The company’s website and its Instagram account feature customer testimonials from parents who report feeding the formula to their infants, as well as pictures of infants drinking it.

Jay Highman, CEO and president of Nature’s One, said that Baby’s Only is clearly labeled as a toddler formula and that the back of the can states that “Baby’s Only is intended for a toddler 1 year of age or older OR when directed by a health care professional.” He also said that since the company launched in 1999, its formulas have met all the nutritional, manufacturing, and safety standards required of infant formula even though they don’t have to. “We behaved like we are an infant formula, but we were selling it as a toddler formula.”

He said that the clinical trials required by the FDA are a huge barrier to bringing a new infant formula to market and that many other countries don’t require a clinical trial. Baby’s Only recently completed a clinical trial, and the company expects to be able to sell it as an infant formula soon.

Yet pediatricians and nutritional experts continue to caution parents about using the toddler drinks. “There’s no question that infant formula is very important in the first year of life,” Dr. Daniels said. But he doesn’t recommend the toddler version “because it’s not that useful, because it’s confusing, because it’s expensive.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Infants who were introduced to a low-protein diet – high in fruit, vegetables, and roots – ate more fruits and vegetables at 12 and 18 months of age, compared with those who ate a conventional diet, in a new study.

The “Nordic diet” has shown health benefits in children and adults, but has not been studied in infants, said Ulrica Johansson, MD, of Umeå (Sweden) University, in a presentation on the study at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.

A healthy and sustainable diet early in life could have a significant impact on future health, Dr. Johansson said in an interview.

Dr. Johansson and colleagues aimed to investigate the effect of a Nordic diet in infants aged 4-18 months in the OTIS trial. All infants were breastfed or formula-fed at baseline.
 

Study methods and results

A total of 250 infants aged 4-6 months were randomized to consuming a Nordic diet or a conventional diet. Those in the Nordic group received exposures to Nordic foods and flavors, including Nordic fruit, berries, vegetables, and roots. Those in the conventional group received baby food products that followed the current Swedish dietary recommendations for infants. The researchers collected data on dietary intake, biomarkers, and growth from baseline up to 18 months of age.

Notably, acceptance of all the flavors in the Nordic diet was high, including those with sour or bitter taste, such as cranberry and white radish, Dr. Johansson said in her presentation. Food refusals were few, and did not differ among the Nordic food offerings.

At both 12- and 18-month follow-ups, infants in the Nordic group consumed 42%-45% more fruits and vegetables compared with those in the conventional group (P < .001). Plasma folate levels also were significantly higher in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months (P < .001 and P < .003, respectively).

The daily mean protein intake ranged from 17% to 29% lower in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months. The intake of protein in terms of g/kg of body weight was significantly lower in the Nordic group, at both time points. Lower protein intake was confirmed by blood urea nitrogen measurements.

The protein intake in the Nordic group still fell within the safe level recommended for healthy growth in young children by the World Health Organization, noted Dr. Johansson, and no significant differences were observed in growth between the groups. Total energy intake, iron status, and duration of breastfeeding also remained similar between the groups throughout the study period.

Parents received support from research nurses via social media and monthly clinic visits, which she believes contributed to the success of the intervention, she said.
 

Nordic diet offers feasible encouragement of healthy eating

The key message for clinicians, and for parents of young children, is that “the protein-reduced, Nordic diet is both feasible and safe for infants’ growth, nutritional requirements, and development during the complementary feeding period,” Dr. Johansson said in an interview. “Thus, it may serve as a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet alternative for infants and their parents in the future.”

“Nordic foods are feasible to use when exposing infants to a variety of flavors so that healthy food preferences can be established early in life; Nordic berries and some root vegetables are preferable when introducing bitter and sour tastes during the sensitive period,” she added.

“Multicomponent interventions with long-term follow-up are required to advance the field of child nutrition research,” Dr. Johansson emphasized. Home-based interventions are lacking, and “more studies are needed to bridge the gap in research between the transfer period from baby food to family food at 1-2 years of age.”

Large, randomized controlled studies of Nordic diet during infancy and later childhood are needed as well, said Dr. Johansson. “The long-term effects of the Nordic diet during this highly dynamic period of childhood need continued follow-up to school age to give indications of any lasting health effects,” and the researchers plan to follow the current study population at 7 years of age.

Findings reinforce need for better nutrition

Previous research documents concern for childhood obesity associated with higher intake of protein, fats and overall calories in infancy, said Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., in an interview. “The inclusion of high-calorie, high-fat foods contributes to obesity in all children, so focusing on intake of fruits and vegetables is extremely important early in life,” she said.

A key barrier to the widespread use of a Nordic-type diet is that and vegetables tend to be more expensive than other foods and may not be readily available to all families, especially lower income families, Dr. Haut added.

However, for primary care clinicians, the current study reinforces the need to encourage the intake of fruits and vegetables at all ages, beginning in infancy, she said.

Looking ahead, “there is still limited information in the literature about the ideal recommended daily protein, except for increased amounts needed for preterm infants, early infancy, and during periods of healing,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Some controls for this study were not included in the abstract, such as monitoring what foods were given to the infants in the conventional group. Parent and caregiver interpretation of recommendations can be highly variable,” she noted. Also, “The activity levels of late infancy and toddlers can vary in terms of energy usage, especially when crawling, walking, running and other exercise-related activities begin. These factors were not readily available in the abstract/study,” she said.  

The OTIS trial was sponsored by Semper. Dr. Johansson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Infants who were introduced to a low-protein diet – high in fruit, vegetables, and roots – ate more fruits and vegetables at 12 and 18 months of age, compared with those who ate a conventional diet, in a new study.

The “Nordic diet” has shown health benefits in children and adults, but has not been studied in infants, said Ulrica Johansson, MD, of Umeå (Sweden) University, in a presentation on the study at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.

A healthy and sustainable diet early in life could have a significant impact on future health, Dr. Johansson said in an interview.

Dr. Johansson and colleagues aimed to investigate the effect of a Nordic diet in infants aged 4-18 months in the OTIS trial. All infants were breastfed or formula-fed at baseline.
 

Study methods and results

A total of 250 infants aged 4-6 months were randomized to consuming a Nordic diet or a conventional diet. Those in the Nordic group received exposures to Nordic foods and flavors, including Nordic fruit, berries, vegetables, and roots. Those in the conventional group received baby food products that followed the current Swedish dietary recommendations for infants. The researchers collected data on dietary intake, biomarkers, and growth from baseline up to 18 months of age.

Notably, acceptance of all the flavors in the Nordic diet was high, including those with sour or bitter taste, such as cranberry and white radish, Dr. Johansson said in her presentation. Food refusals were few, and did not differ among the Nordic food offerings.

At both 12- and 18-month follow-ups, infants in the Nordic group consumed 42%-45% more fruits and vegetables compared with those in the conventional group (P < .001). Plasma folate levels also were significantly higher in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months (P < .001 and P < .003, respectively).

The daily mean protein intake ranged from 17% to 29% lower in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months. The intake of protein in terms of g/kg of body weight was significantly lower in the Nordic group, at both time points. Lower protein intake was confirmed by blood urea nitrogen measurements.

The protein intake in the Nordic group still fell within the safe level recommended for healthy growth in young children by the World Health Organization, noted Dr. Johansson, and no significant differences were observed in growth between the groups. Total energy intake, iron status, and duration of breastfeeding also remained similar between the groups throughout the study period.

Parents received support from research nurses via social media and monthly clinic visits, which she believes contributed to the success of the intervention, she said.
 

Nordic diet offers feasible encouragement of healthy eating

The key message for clinicians, and for parents of young children, is that “the protein-reduced, Nordic diet is both feasible and safe for infants’ growth, nutritional requirements, and development during the complementary feeding period,” Dr. Johansson said in an interview. “Thus, it may serve as a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet alternative for infants and their parents in the future.”

“Nordic foods are feasible to use when exposing infants to a variety of flavors so that healthy food preferences can be established early in life; Nordic berries and some root vegetables are preferable when introducing bitter and sour tastes during the sensitive period,” she added.

“Multicomponent interventions with long-term follow-up are required to advance the field of child nutrition research,” Dr. Johansson emphasized. Home-based interventions are lacking, and “more studies are needed to bridge the gap in research between the transfer period from baby food to family food at 1-2 years of age.”

Large, randomized controlled studies of Nordic diet during infancy and later childhood are needed as well, said Dr. Johansson. “The long-term effects of the Nordic diet during this highly dynamic period of childhood need continued follow-up to school age to give indications of any lasting health effects,” and the researchers plan to follow the current study population at 7 years of age.

Findings reinforce need for better nutrition

Previous research documents concern for childhood obesity associated with higher intake of protein, fats and overall calories in infancy, said Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., in an interview. “The inclusion of high-calorie, high-fat foods contributes to obesity in all children, so focusing on intake of fruits and vegetables is extremely important early in life,” she said.

A key barrier to the widespread use of a Nordic-type diet is that and vegetables tend to be more expensive than other foods and may not be readily available to all families, especially lower income families, Dr. Haut added.

However, for primary care clinicians, the current study reinforces the need to encourage the intake of fruits and vegetables at all ages, beginning in infancy, she said.

Looking ahead, “there is still limited information in the literature about the ideal recommended daily protein, except for increased amounts needed for preterm infants, early infancy, and during periods of healing,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Some controls for this study were not included in the abstract, such as monitoring what foods were given to the infants in the conventional group. Parent and caregiver interpretation of recommendations can be highly variable,” she noted. Also, “The activity levels of late infancy and toddlers can vary in terms of energy usage, especially when crawling, walking, running and other exercise-related activities begin. These factors were not readily available in the abstract/study,” she said.  

The OTIS trial was sponsored by Semper. Dr. Johansson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Infants who were introduced to a low-protein diet – high in fruit, vegetables, and roots – ate more fruits and vegetables at 12 and 18 months of age, compared with those who ate a conventional diet, in a new study.

The “Nordic diet” has shown health benefits in children and adults, but has not been studied in infants, said Ulrica Johansson, MD, of Umeå (Sweden) University, in a presentation on the study at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.

A healthy and sustainable diet early in life could have a significant impact on future health, Dr. Johansson said in an interview.

Dr. Johansson and colleagues aimed to investigate the effect of a Nordic diet in infants aged 4-18 months in the OTIS trial. All infants were breastfed or formula-fed at baseline.
 

Study methods and results

A total of 250 infants aged 4-6 months were randomized to consuming a Nordic diet or a conventional diet. Those in the Nordic group received exposures to Nordic foods and flavors, including Nordic fruit, berries, vegetables, and roots. Those in the conventional group received baby food products that followed the current Swedish dietary recommendations for infants. The researchers collected data on dietary intake, biomarkers, and growth from baseline up to 18 months of age.

Notably, acceptance of all the flavors in the Nordic diet was high, including those with sour or bitter taste, such as cranberry and white radish, Dr. Johansson said in her presentation. Food refusals were few, and did not differ among the Nordic food offerings.

At both 12- and 18-month follow-ups, infants in the Nordic group consumed 42%-45% more fruits and vegetables compared with those in the conventional group (P < .001). Plasma folate levels also were significantly higher in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months (P < .001 and P < .003, respectively).

The daily mean protein intake ranged from 17% to 29% lower in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months. The intake of protein in terms of g/kg of body weight was significantly lower in the Nordic group, at both time points. Lower protein intake was confirmed by blood urea nitrogen measurements.

The protein intake in the Nordic group still fell within the safe level recommended for healthy growth in young children by the World Health Organization, noted Dr. Johansson, and no significant differences were observed in growth between the groups. Total energy intake, iron status, and duration of breastfeeding also remained similar between the groups throughout the study period.

Parents received support from research nurses via social media and monthly clinic visits, which she believes contributed to the success of the intervention, she said.
 

Nordic diet offers feasible encouragement of healthy eating

The key message for clinicians, and for parents of young children, is that “the protein-reduced, Nordic diet is both feasible and safe for infants’ growth, nutritional requirements, and development during the complementary feeding period,” Dr. Johansson said in an interview. “Thus, it may serve as a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet alternative for infants and their parents in the future.”

“Nordic foods are feasible to use when exposing infants to a variety of flavors so that healthy food preferences can be established early in life; Nordic berries and some root vegetables are preferable when introducing bitter and sour tastes during the sensitive period,” she added.

“Multicomponent interventions with long-term follow-up are required to advance the field of child nutrition research,” Dr. Johansson emphasized. Home-based interventions are lacking, and “more studies are needed to bridge the gap in research between the transfer period from baby food to family food at 1-2 years of age.”

Large, randomized controlled studies of Nordic diet during infancy and later childhood are needed as well, said Dr. Johansson. “The long-term effects of the Nordic diet during this highly dynamic period of childhood need continued follow-up to school age to give indications of any lasting health effects,” and the researchers plan to follow the current study population at 7 years of age.

Findings reinforce need for better nutrition

Previous research documents concern for childhood obesity associated with higher intake of protein, fats and overall calories in infancy, said Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., in an interview. “The inclusion of high-calorie, high-fat foods contributes to obesity in all children, so focusing on intake of fruits and vegetables is extremely important early in life,” she said.

A key barrier to the widespread use of a Nordic-type diet is that and vegetables tend to be more expensive than other foods and may not be readily available to all families, especially lower income families, Dr. Haut added.

However, for primary care clinicians, the current study reinforces the need to encourage the intake of fruits and vegetables at all ages, beginning in infancy, she said.

Looking ahead, “there is still limited information in the literature about the ideal recommended daily protein, except for increased amounts needed for preterm infants, early infancy, and during periods of healing,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Some controls for this study were not included in the abstract, such as monitoring what foods were given to the infants in the conventional group. Parent and caregiver interpretation of recommendations can be highly variable,” she noted. Also, “The activity levels of late infancy and toddlers can vary in terms of energy usage, especially when crawling, walking, running and other exercise-related activities begin. These factors were not readily available in the abstract/study,” she said.  

The OTIS trial was sponsored by Semper. Dr. Johansson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a consensus study, many infants in some countries are misdiagnosed with allergy to cow, sheep, or goat milk, and they’re prescribed specialized formulas they don’t need.

“Milk allergy overdiagnosis is common in some regions and can potentially harm mothers and infants,” the authors write in Clinical & Experimental Allergy. “These new consensus recommendations on the safe detection and management of milk allergy in children under 2 years aim to reduce harms associated with milk allergy overdiagnosis.”

“This guidance, developed by experts without commercial ties to the formula industry, aims to reduce milk allergy overdiagnosis and [to] support ... breastfeeding and less use of specialized formula, compared with current guidelines,” they add.

Up to 1% of European infants 2 years of age and younger are considered allergic to cow’s milk. Prescriptions for specialized formula for bottle-fed infants allergic to cow’s milk in Australia, England, and Norway have grown to over 10 times the expected volumes.

Lead study author Hilary I. Allen, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and her colleagues on several continents developed practical guidance for providers on safely detecting and managing milk allergy in infants.

Due to lack of high-certainty research evidence in this area, they used the Delphi consensus method.

The study involved two rounds of anonymous consensus-building surveys and one formal meeting in 2021.

The team identified experts from diverse geographic and cultural settings by searching medical databases for the term “milk hypersensitivity.” They asked those experts to recommend colleagues. The researchers also contacted experts with ties to international professional organizations, such as the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners, as well as societies associated with the World Allergy Organization.

The 17 study participants included clinicians and researchers in general practice, health visiting, lactation support, midwifery, nutrition, and relevant areas of pediatrics from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, and North America. Experts with recent conflicts of interest with the breastmilk substitute (formula) industry were excluded from the study. Five authors of earlier milk allergy guidelines and seven parents contributed feedback.

In each survey round, participants used a nine-point scale to rank the importance of each proposed statement that addressed prevention of overdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, support of breastfeeding women, and the role of specialized formula products.

Based on the number of total points participants assigned, each statement was classified as “essential,” “recommended,” “no consensus,” or “excluded” due to lack of relevance.

The experts agreed on 38 essential statements in several categories, including:

• Maternal dietary restriction is often not necessary to manage milk allergy
• In infants with chronic symptoms who are exclusively breastfed, milk allergy diagnosis should be considered only in specific, rare circumstances
• Milk allergy diagnosis does not usually need to be considered for stool changes, aversive feeding, or occasional spots of blood in stool, if not related in time with milk protein ingestion

The consensus recommendations provide more restrictive criteria than earlier guidelines for detecting milk allergy, fewer maternal dietary exclusions, and less use of specialized formula.
 

During an infant formula shortage in the U.S., a timely study

Jodi A. Shroba, MSN, APRN, CPNP, coordinator for the Food Allergy Program, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Missouri, welcomed the study’s engagement of specialists in various fields and avoidance of bias from formula companies.

“Food allergies have received a lot of attention, especially through websites and social media,” Ms. Shroba, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization in an email. “Unfortunately, a lot of that information is incorrect and can lead to misunderstanding and misdiagnosis.”

“This article helps guide practitioners through identifying the concerning symptoms of milk allergy versus normal infant symptoms,” she said. “It can help providers discern when testing, elimination diets, and changes in formula are warranted.

“This guidance emphasizes the reproducibility and specificity of symptoms, which are key elements of a food allergy diagnosis,” she explained. “By eliminating unnecessary milk allergy labeling, we can keep infants on appropriate diets for their age, such as breastfeeding or milk-based formulas. Proper diagnosis can also reduce unnecessary financial strain of specialty formulas, stress to the family regarding feedings, and a restrictive diet for the breastfeeding mother.”

The study will be useful to a wide range of health care providers, Jennifer Anne Dantzer, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an email.

“With the current formula shortage, there has perhaps never been a more important time to do this study and provide additional guidance on who does or does not need special formula,” noted Dr. Dantzer, who also was not involved in the study. “A milk allergy diagnosis impacts the child and the family, so it is very important to avoid overdiagnosis and to support the breastfeeding mother.”

“These findings should provide reassurance that dietary exclusions for the breastfeeding mother are not needed for most children with milk allergy,” she said. “If a milk allergy is suspected, the child should be referred to an allergist.”

The authors recommend further related research into the safety and effectiveness of using the guidance in practice.

One coauthor reports financial relationships with a biotech company. Ms. Allen and her remaining coauthors, as well as Ms. Shroba and Dr. Dantzer, report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded through fellowships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a consensus study, many infants in some countries are misdiagnosed with allergy to cow, sheep, or goat milk, and they’re prescribed specialized formulas they don’t need.

“Milk allergy overdiagnosis is common in some regions and can potentially harm mothers and infants,” the authors write in Clinical & Experimental Allergy. “These new consensus recommendations on the safe detection and management of milk allergy in children under 2 years aim to reduce harms associated with milk allergy overdiagnosis.”

“This guidance, developed by experts without commercial ties to the formula industry, aims to reduce milk allergy overdiagnosis and [to] support ... breastfeeding and less use of specialized formula, compared with current guidelines,” they add.

Up to 1% of European infants 2 years of age and younger are considered allergic to cow’s milk. Prescriptions for specialized formula for bottle-fed infants allergic to cow’s milk in Australia, England, and Norway have grown to over 10 times the expected volumes.

Lead study author Hilary I. Allen, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and her colleagues on several continents developed practical guidance for providers on safely detecting and managing milk allergy in infants.

Due to lack of high-certainty research evidence in this area, they used the Delphi consensus method.

The study involved two rounds of anonymous consensus-building surveys and one formal meeting in 2021.

The team identified experts from diverse geographic and cultural settings by searching medical databases for the term “milk hypersensitivity.” They asked those experts to recommend colleagues. The researchers also contacted experts with ties to international professional organizations, such as the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners, as well as societies associated with the World Allergy Organization.

The 17 study participants included clinicians and researchers in general practice, health visiting, lactation support, midwifery, nutrition, and relevant areas of pediatrics from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, and North America. Experts with recent conflicts of interest with the breastmilk substitute (formula) industry were excluded from the study. Five authors of earlier milk allergy guidelines and seven parents contributed feedback.

In each survey round, participants used a nine-point scale to rank the importance of each proposed statement that addressed prevention of overdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, support of breastfeeding women, and the role of specialized formula products.

Based on the number of total points participants assigned, each statement was classified as “essential,” “recommended,” “no consensus,” or “excluded” due to lack of relevance.

The experts agreed on 38 essential statements in several categories, including:

• Maternal dietary restriction is often not necessary to manage milk allergy
• In infants with chronic symptoms who are exclusively breastfed, milk allergy diagnosis should be considered only in specific, rare circumstances
• Milk allergy diagnosis does not usually need to be considered for stool changes, aversive feeding, or occasional spots of blood in stool, if not related in time with milk protein ingestion

The consensus recommendations provide more restrictive criteria than earlier guidelines for detecting milk allergy, fewer maternal dietary exclusions, and less use of specialized formula.
 

During an infant formula shortage in the U.S., a timely study

Jodi A. Shroba, MSN, APRN, CPNP, coordinator for the Food Allergy Program, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Missouri, welcomed the study’s engagement of specialists in various fields and avoidance of bias from formula companies.

“Food allergies have received a lot of attention, especially through websites and social media,” Ms. Shroba, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization in an email. “Unfortunately, a lot of that information is incorrect and can lead to misunderstanding and misdiagnosis.”

“This article helps guide practitioners through identifying the concerning symptoms of milk allergy versus normal infant symptoms,” she said. “It can help providers discern when testing, elimination diets, and changes in formula are warranted.

“This guidance emphasizes the reproducibility and specificity of symptoms, which are key elements of a food allergy diagnosis,” she explained. “By eliminating unnecessary milk allergy labeling, we can keep infants on appropriate diets for their age, such as breastfeeding or milk-based formulas. Proper diagnosis can also reduce unnecessary financial strain of specialty formulas, stress to the family regarding feedings, and a restrictive diet for the breastfeeding mother.”

The study will be useful to a wide range of health care providers, Jennifer Anne Dantzer, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an email.

“With the current formula shortage, there has perhaps never been a more important time to do this study and provide additional guidance on who does or does not need special formula,” noted Dr. Dantzer, who also was not involved in the study. “A milk allergy diagnosis impacts the child and the family, so it is very important to avoid overdiagnosis and to support the breastfeeding mother.”

“These findings should provide reassurance that dietary exclusions for the breastfeeding mother are not needed for most children with milk allergy,” she said. “If a milk allergy is suspected, the child should be referred to an allergist.”

The authors recommend further related research into the safety and effectiveness of using the guidance in practice.

One coauthor reports financial relationships with a biotech company. Ms. Allen and her remaining coauthors, as well as Ms. Shroba and Dr. Dantzer, report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded through fellowships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a consensus study, many infants in some countries are misdiagnosed with allergy to cow, sheep, or goat milk, and they’re prescribed specialized formulas they don’t need.

“Milk allergy overdiagnosis is common in some regions and can potentially harm mothers and infants,” the authors write in Clinical & Experimental Allergy. “These new consensus recommendations on the safe detection and management of milk allergy in children under 2 years aim to reduce harms associated with milk allergy overdiagnosis.”

“This guidance, developed by experts without commercial ties to the formula industry, aims to reduce milk allergy overdiagnosis and [to] support ... breastfeeding and less use of specialized formula, compared with current guidelines,” they add.

Up to 1% of European infants 2 years of age and younger are considered allergic to cow’s milk. Prescriptions for specialized formula for bottle-fed infants allergic to cow’s milk in Australia, England, and Norway have grown to over 10 times the expected volumes.

Lead study author Hilary I. Allen, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and her colleagues on several continents developed practical guidance for providers on safely detecting and managing milk allergy in infants.

Due to lack of high-certainty research evidence in this area, they used the Delphi consensus method.

The study involved two rounds of anonymous consensus-building surveys and one formal meeting in 2021.

The team identified experts from diverse geographic and cultural settings by searching medical databases for the term “milk hypersensitivity.” They asked those experts to recommend colleagues. The researchers also contacted experts with ties to international professional organizations, such as the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners, as well as societies associated with the World Allergy Organization.

The 17 study participants included clinicians and researchers in general practice, health visiting, lactation support, midwifery, nutrition, and relevant areas of pediatrics from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, and North America. Experts with recent conflicts of interest with the breastmilk substitute (formula) industry were excluded from the study. Five authors of earlier milk allergy guidelines and seven parents contributed feedback.

In each survey round, participants used a nine-point scale to rank the importance of each proposed statement that addressed prevention of overdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, support of breastfeeding women, and the role of specialized formula products.

Based on the number of total points participants assigned, each statement was classified as “essential,” “recommended,” “no consensus,” or “excluded” due to lack of relevance.

The experts agreed on 38 essential statements in several categories, including:

• Maternal dietary restriction is often not necessary to manage milk allergy
• In infants with chronic symptoms who are exclusively breastfed, milk allergy diagnosis should be considered only in specific, rare circumstances
• Milk allergy diagnosis does not usually need to be considered for stool changes, aversive feeding, or occasional spots of blood in stool, if not related in time with milk protein ingestion

The consensus recommendations provide more restrictive criteria than earlier guidelines for detecting milk allergy, fewer maternal dietary exclusions, and less use of specialized formula.
 

During an infant formula shortage in the U.S., a timely study

Jodi A. Shroba, MSN, APRN, CPNP, coordinator for the Food Allergy Program, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Missouri, welcomed the study’s engagement of specialists in various fields and avoidance of bias from formula companies.

“Food allergies have received a lot of attention, especially through websites and social media,” Ms. Shroba, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization in an email. “Unfortunately, a lot of that information is incorrect and can lead to misunderstanding and misdiagnosis.”

“This article helps guide practitioners through identifying the concerning symptoms of milk allergy versus normal infant symptoms,” she said. “It can help providers discern when testing, elimination diets, and changes in formula are warranted.

“This guidance emphasizes the reproducibility and specificity of symptoms, which are key elements of a food allergy diagnosis,” she explained. “By eliminating unnecessary milk allergy labeling, we can keep infants on appropriate diets for their age, such as breastfeeding or milk-based formulas. Proper diagnosis can also reduce unnecessary financial strain of specialty formulas, stress to the family regarding feedings, and a restrictive diet for the breastfeeding mother.”

The study will be useful to a wide range of health care providers, Jennifer Anne Dantzer, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an email.

“With the current formula shortage, there has perhaps never been a more important time to do this study and provide additional guidance on who does or does not need special formula,” noted Dr. Dantzer, who also was not involved in the study. “A milk allergy diagnosis impacts the child and the family, so it is very important to avoid overdiagnosis and to support the breastfeeding mother.”

“These findings should provide reassurance that dietary exclusions for the breastfeeding mother are not needed for most children with milk allergy,” she said. “If a milk allergy is suspected, the child should be referred to an allergist.”

The authors recommend further related research into the safety and effectiveness of using the guidance in practice.

One coauthor reports financial relationships with a biotech company. Ms. Allen and her remaining coauthors, as well as Ms. Shroba and Dr. Dantzer, report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded through fellowships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

What would you do if you believed you had a serious health issue, but the best way to find out for sure might kill you?

That’s the reality for patients who wish to confirm or rule out a food allergy, says Sindy Tang, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

And it’s the reason Dr. Tang and her colleagues are developing a food allergy test that’s not only safer, but also more reliable than today’s tests. In a paper in the journal Lab on a Chip, Dr. Tang and her colleagues outline the basis for this future test, which isolates a food allergy marker from the blood using a magnetic field.
 

How today’s food allergy tests fall short

The gold standard for food allergy diagnosis is something called the oral food challenge. That’s when the patient eats gradually increasing amounts of a problem food – say, peanuts – every 15 to 30 minutes to see if symptoms occur. This means highly allergic patients may risk anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that causes inflammation so severe that breathing becomes restricted and blood pressure drops. Because of that, a clinical team must be at the ready with treatments like oxygen, epinephrine, or albuterol.

“The test is very accurate, but it’s also potentially unsafe and even fatal in rare cases,” Dr. Tang says. “That’s led to many sham tests advertised online that claim to use hair samples for food tests, but those are inaccurate and potentially dangerous, since they may give someone a false sense of confidence about a food they should avoid.”

Less risky tests are available, such as skin-prick tests – those involve scratching a small amount of the food into a patient’s arm – as well as blood tests that measure allergen-specific antibodies.

“Unfortunately, both of those are not that accurate and have high false-positive rates,” Dr. Tang says. “The best method is the oral food challenge, which many patients are afraid to do, not surprisingly.”
 

The future of food allergy testing: faster, safer, more reliable

In their study, the Stanford researchers focused on a type of white blood cell known as basophils, which release histamine when triggered by allergens. By using magnetic nanoparticles that bind to some blood cells but not basophils, they were able to separate basophils from the blood with a magnetic field in just 10 minutes.

Once isolated, the basophils are exposed to potential allergens. If they react, that’s a sign of an allergy.

Basophils have been isolated in labs before but not nearly this quickly and efficiently, Dr. Tang says.

“For true basophil activation, you need the blood to be fresh, which is challenging when you have to send it to a lab,” Dr. Tang says. “Being able to do this kind of test within a clinic or an in-house lab would be a big step forward.”
 

Next steps

While this represents a breakthrough in basophil activation testing, more research is needed to fully develop the system for clinical use. It must be standardized, automated, and miniaturized, the researchers say.

That said, the results give hope to those with food allergies that tomorrow’s gold-standard test will require only a blood sample without an emergency team standing by.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

What would you do if you believed you had a serious health issue, but the best way to find out for sure might kill you?

That’s the reality for patients who wish to confirm or rule out a food allergy, says Sindy Tang, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

And it’s the reason Dr. Tang and her colleagues are developing a food allergy test that’s not only safer, but also more reliable than today’s tests. In a paper in the journal Lab on a Chip, Dr. Tang and her colleagues outline the basis for this future test, which isolates a food allergy marker from the blood using a magnetic field.
 

How today’s food allergy tests fall short

The gold standard for food allergy diagnosis is something called the oral food challenge. That’s when the patient eats gradually increasing amounts of a problem food – say, peanuts – every 15 to 30 minutes to see if symptoms occur. This means highly allergic patients may risk anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that causes inflammation so severe that breathing becomes restricted and blood pressure drops. Because of that, a clinical team must be at the ready with treatments like oxygen, epinephrine, or albuterol.

“The test is very accurate, but it’s also potentially unsafe and even fatal in rare cases,” Dr. Tang says. “That’s led to many sham tests advertised online that claim to use hair samples for food tests, but those are inaccurate and potentially dangerous, since they may give someone a false sense of confidence about a food they should avoid.”

Less risky tests are available, such as skin-prick tests – those involve scratching a small amount of the food into a patient’s arm – as well as blood tests that measure allergen-specific antibodies.

“Unfortunately, both of those are not that accurate and have high false-positive rates,” Dr. Tang says. “The best method is the oral food challenge, which many patients are afraid to do, not surprisingly.”
 

The future of food allergy testing: faster, safer, more reliable

In their study, the Stanford researchers focused on a type of white blood cell known as basophils, which release histamine when triggered by allergens. By using magnetic nanoparticles that bind to some blood cells but not basophils, they were able to separate basophils from the blood with a magnetic field in just 10 minutes.

Once isolated, the basophils are exposed to potential allergens. If they react, that’s a sign of an allergy.

Basophils have been isolated in labs before but not nearly this quickly and efficiently, Dr. Tang says.

“For true basophil activation, you need the blood to be fresh, which is challenging when you have to send it to a lab,” Dr. Tang says. “Being able to do this kind of test within a clinic or an in-house lab would be a big step forward.”
 

Next steps

While this represents a breakthrough in basophil activation testing, more research is needed to fully develop the system for clinical use. It must be standardized, automated, and miniaturized, the researchers say.

That said, the results give hope to those with food allergies that tomorrow’s gold-standard test will require only a blood sample without an emergency team standing by.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

What would you do if you believed you had a serious health issue, but the best way to find out for sure might kill you?

That’s the reality for patients who wish to confirm or rule out a food allergy, says Sindy Tang, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

And it’s the reason Dr. Tang and her colleagues are developing a food allergy test that’s not only safer, but also more reliable than today’s tests. In a paper in the journal Lab on a Chip, Dr. Tang and her colleagues outline the basis for this future test, which isolates a food allergy marker from the blood using a magnetic field.
 

How today’s food allergy tests fall short

The gold standard for food allergy diagnosis is something called the oral food challenge. That’s when the patient eats gradually increasing amounts of a problem food – say, peanuts – every 15 to 30 minutes to see if symptoms occur. This means highly allergic patients may risk anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that causes inflammation so severe that breathing becomes restricted and blood pressure drops. Because of that, a clinical team must be at the ready with treatments like oxygen, epinephrine, or albuterol.

“The test is very accurate, but it’s also potentially unsafe and even fatal in rare cases,” Dr. Tang says. “That’s led to many sham tests advertised online that claim to use hair samples for food tests, but those are inaccurate and potentially dangerous, since they may give someone a false sense of confidence about a food they should avoid.”

Less risky tests are available, such as skin-prick tests – those involve scratching a small amount of the food into a patient’s arm – as well as blood tests that measure allergen-specific antibodies.

“Unfortunately, both of those are not that accurate and have high false-positive rates,” Dr. Tang says. “The best method is the oral food challenge, which many patients are afraid to do, not surprisingly.”
 

The future of food allergy testing: faster, safer, more reliable

In their study, the Stanford researchers focused on a type of white blood cell known as basophils, which release histamine when triggered by allergens. By using magnetic nanoparticles that bind to some blood cells but not basophils, they were able to separate basophils from the blood with a magnetic field in just 10 minutes.

Once isolated, the basophils are exposed to potential allergens. If they react, that’s a sign of an allergy.

Basophils have been isolated in labs before but not nearly this quickly and efficiently, Dr. Tang says.

“For true basophil activation, you need the blood to be fresh, which is challenging when you have to send it to a lab,” Dr. Tang says. “Being able to do this kind of test within a clinic or an in-house lab would be a big step forward.”
 

Next steps

While this represents a breakthrough in basophil activation testing, more research is needed to fully develop the system for clinical use. It must be standardized, automated, and miniaturized, the researchers say.

That said, the results give hope to those with food allergies that tomorrow’s gold-standard test will require only a blood sample without an emergency team standing by.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

I have become obsessed with the reality that the unprecedented national shortage of formula is keeping some families from adequately feeding their infants and young children. I am deeply concerned, both as a family medicine physician and a new mother, about the heartbreaking stories that I’ve heard from parents of all socioeconomic backgrounds. New mothers, unable to breastfeed for a multitude of reasons, find themselves standing in front of empty store shelves, in tears.

In recent months, many health care providers have had patients disclose that they are diluting ready-to-feed formula or mixing powdered formula with more water than instructed to make it go further. Some parents are giving cow’s milk to their children at too young an age because they can’t find formula. Others are foregoing milk altogether and feeding their children beverages such as juice or soda. All of these practices can threaten a child’s life, growth, and development.
 

When breastfeeding isn’t possible

We all know that human milk is the optimal, most nutritionally complete food source for newborn babies and infants. It can improve dental health and neurodevelopmental outcomes, as well as reduce the risk for asthma, eczema, diabetes, and obesity. An added benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic has been providing newborn infants with a boost of immunity before they are able to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But lactation and breastfeeding aren’t possible for everyone. Earlier this year, when my daughter was born more than a month prematurely, I worried that I would be unable to breastfeed her. The complications of prematurity can interfere with establishing lactation, and my daughter spent some time in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), requiring frequent feedings to treat hypoglycemia. She also lacked the muscle strength or coordination to latch on to the breast, so she was fed my colostrum and donor breast milk by bottle.

Not knowing when my mature milk would come in, my family scoured the retail stores for formula while I was still recovering from delivery. My daughter needed a specific type of high-calorie formula for premature infants. Eventually, my mother found one can of this powdered formula. The hospital also sent us home with 16 oz of ready-to-feed samples and enough donor breastmilk to last 24 hours at home. We considered ourselves lucky. The fear and anxiety about being able to feed my baby still stands out in my mind.
 

Pumping and sharing

Over the next few months, out of necessity, I became an “exclusively pumping” mother. My daughter, unable to latch, drank my pumped milk from a bottle. My body started to produce more milk than she needed in a day. In an effort to pay it forward and to put my extra milk to use, I became a human-milk donor. I underwent rigorous screening, including testing for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. I was approved to donate to our local hospital’s milk bank, helping other families in the NICU feed their babies. Through informal connections on the internet, I also provide expressed milk to another mother in the community who is unable to lactate. To date, I’ve donated more than 1,500 oz of human milk (and counting).

The practice of human-milk donation dates back millennia with wet-nursing, when children were breastfed by someone other than their biological mothers: relatives, friends, or even strangers. The first milk bank in the United States opened in Boston in the early 20th century. In 1980, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund released a joint statement supporting the use of human-donor milk as the first alternative if the biological mother is unable to breastfeed. Donor milk is a safe option for families who cannot provide their own human milk to their children.
 

Human-milk banks

More than 30 nonprofit milk banks now operate in the United States. Because their mission is primarily to meet the needs of sick and hospitalized children rather than the general public, these milk banks are an impractical solution to the national formula shortage. Although families with healthy children can purchase donor milk with a prescription, supplies are scarce, and insurance doesn’t cover the cost.

Milk provided by formal human-milk banks is considered safe. Certain infections such as HIV and hepatitis can be transmitted through human milk. However, milk banks screen their donors and safely pasteurize and store donated breastmilk, following standard protocols. The risk of contracting an illness from banked donor milk is very low. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends accepting donor milk only from a milk bank.
 

Informal human-milk donation

An increasingly popular alternative to formal human-milk banks is informal human-milk sharing. But many people, including health care professionals, hold misconceptions about how informal milk donation works. Today’s informal milk donation looks very different from age-old wet-nursing: Moms in support groups, often via social media, are requesting pumped milk from one another. (Note that this definition of “informal human-milk donation” does not include selling or purchasing human milk.)

Although the safety of sharing pumped human milk this way cannot be guaranteed, a harm-reduction approach is warranted, especially in view of the current formula scarcity.

I believe that medical professionals have a responsibility to raise awareness and dispel myths about donor breast milk. Many physicians acknowledge that informal milk sharing is common but rarely recommend it to patients. Whether they are donors or recipients, families who choose to participate need to be educated about how to go about the process as safely as possible.

Patients who are considering accepting informally donated human milk should ask key questions of the donor to gauge the risk of pathogens or other harmful substances being passed to their babies:

• What medications do you take?
• What supplements do you take?
• What recreational drugs do you take?
• Any recent travel?
• Any tattoos and if so, how recent?
• How much alcohol do you drink and how often?
• Have you been diagnosed with any infections?
• Any recent illness?
• How do you pump your breast milk?
• How do you store your breast milk?
• When was the available milk pumped?

We can help families by offering our medical expertise, allowing them to make an informed decision about whether to accept donated human milk. Clinicians can encourage patients and their families to use resources like the Infant Risk Center, which provides evidence-based information about medication safety and breast milk.

If your lactating patient is considering donating milk through informal channels to a family in need, encourage them to be open and honest about their medical history and lifestyle habits. If they cannot be transparent, they should not donate. A mutual level of respect and honesty can ensure the safety of those they hope to help. It is also important to counsel prospective milk donors to notify their milk recipients of any new illnesses, substance use, medications, travel, tattoos, or changes to their medical history.

Finally, encourage lactating patients who are able to do so to donate their extra milk to local nonprofit milk banks to increase the availability of screened, pasteurized breast milk in the community.

As a physician and mother, I hope that U.S. families will be less vulnerable to future formula shortages. Human milk is an ideal food source, but not everyone can lactate. Though not perfect, human milk donated outside of formal milk banks offers a safer alternative to diluting formula or feeding other unsuitable beverages to infants and children. As health care professionals, we need to counsel our patients about how to engage in this practice safely.

Dr. Mieses Malchuk is assistant professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a board-certified family physician and attending physician at UNC Health in Chapel Hill. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I have become obsessed with the reality that the unprecedented national shortage of formula is keeping some families from adequately feeding their infants and young children. I am deeply concerned, both as a family medicine physician and a new mother, about the heartbreaking stories that I’ve heard from parents of all socioeconomic backgrounds. New mothers, unable to breastfeed for a multitude of reasons, find themselves standing in front of empty store shelves, in tears.

In recent months, many health care providers have had patients disclose that they are diluting ready-to-feed formula or mixing powdered formula with more water than instructed to make it go further. Some parents are giving cow’s milk to their children at too young an age because they can’t find formula. Others are foregoing milk altogether and feeding their children beverages such as juice or soda. All of these practices can threaten a child’s life, growth, and development.
 

When breastfeeding isn’t possible

We all know that human milk is the optimal, most nutritionally complete food source for newborn babies and infants. It can improve dental health and neurodevelopmental outcomes, as well as reduce the risk for asthma, eczema, diabetes, and obesity. An added benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic has been providing newborn infants with a boost of immunity before they are able to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But lactation and breastfeeding aren’t possible for everyone. Earlier this year, when my daughter was born more than a month prematurely, I worried that I would be unable to breastfeed her. The complications of prematurity can interfere with establishing lactation, and my daughter spent some time in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), requiring frequent feedings to treat hypoglycemia. She also lacked the muscle strength or coordination to latch on to the breast, so she was fed my colostrum and donor breast milk by bottle.

Not knowing when my mature milk would come in, my family scoured the retail stores for formula while I was still recovering from delivery. My daughter needed a specific type of high-calorie formula for premature infants. Eventually, my mother found one can of this powdered formula. The hospital also sent us home with 16 oz of ready-to-feed samples and enough donor breastmilk to last 24 hours at home. We considered ourselves lucky. The fear and anxiety about being able to feed my baby still stands out in my mind.
 

Pumping and sharing

Over the next few months, out of necessity, I became an “exclusively pumping” mother. My daughter, unable to latch, drank my pumped milk from a bottle. My body started to produce more milk than she needed in a day. In an effort to pay it forward and to put my extra milk to use, I became a human-milk donor. I underwent rigorous screening, including testing for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. I was approved to donate to our local hospital’s milk bank, helping other families in the NICU feed their babies. Through informal connections on the internet, I also provide expressed milk to another mother in the community who is unable to lactate. To date, I’ve donated more than 1,500 oz of human milk (and counting).

The practice of human-milk donation dates back millennia with wet-nursing, when children were breastfed by someone other than their biological mothers: relatives, friends, or even strangers. The first milk bank in the United States opened in Boston in the early 20th century. In 1980, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund released a joint statement supporting the use of human-donor milk as the first alternative if the biological mother is unable to breastfeed. Donor milk is a safe option for families who cannot provide their own human milk to their children.
 

Human-milk banks

More than 30 nonprofit milk banks now operate in the United States. Because their mission is primarily to meet the needs of sick and hospitalized children rather than the general public, these milk banks are an impractical solution to the national formula shortage. Although families with healthy children can purchase donor milk with a prescription, supplies are scarce, and insurance doesn’t cover the cost.

Milk provided by formal human-milk banks is considered safe. Certain infections such as HIV and hepatitis can be transmitted through human milk. However, milk banks screen their donors and safely pasteurize and store donated breastmilk, following standard protocols. The risk of contracting an illness from banked donor milk is very low. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends accepting donor milk only from a milk bank.
 

Informal human-milk donation

An increasingly popular alternative to formal human-milk banks is informal human-milk sharing. But many people, including health care professionals, hold misconceptions about how informal milk donation works. Today’s informal milk donation looks very different from age-old wet-nursing: Moms in support groups, often via social media, are requesting pumped milk from one another. (Note that this definition of “informal human-milk donation” does not include selling or purchasing human milk.)

Although the safety of sharing pumped human milk this way cannot be guaranteed, a harm-reduction approach is warranted, especially in view of the current formula scarcity.

I believe that medical professionals have a responsibility to raise awareness and dispel myths about donor breast milk. Many physicians acknowledge that informal milk sharing is common but rarely recommend it to patients. Whether they are donors or recipients, families who choose to participate need to be educated about how to go about the process as safely as possible.

Patients who are considering accepting informally donated human milk should ask key questions of the donor to gauge the risk of pathogens or other harmful substances being passed to their babies:

• What medications do you take?
• What supplements do you take?
• What recreational drugs do you take?
• Any recent travel?
• Any tattoos and if so, how recent?
• How much alcohol do you drink and how often?
• Have you been diagnosed with any infections?
• Any recent illness?
• How do you pump your breast milk?
• How do you store your breast milk?
• When was the available milk pumped?

We can help families by offering our medical expertise, allowing them to make an informed decision about whether to accept donated human milk. Clinicians can encourage patients and their families to use resources like the Infant Risk Center, which provides evidence-based information about medication safety and breast milk.

If your lactating patient is considering donating milk through informal channels to a family in need, encourage them to be open and honest about their medical history and lifestyle habits. If they cannot be transparent, they should not donate. A mutual level of respect and honesty can ensure the safety of those they hope to help. It is also important to counsel prospective milk donors to notify their milk recipients of any new illnesses, substance use, medications, travel, tattoos, or changes to their medical history.

Finally, encourage lactating patients who are able to do so to donate their extra milk to local nonprofit milk banks to increase the availability of screened, pasteurized breast milk in the community.

As a physician and mother, I hope that U.S. families will be less vulnerable to future formula shortages. Human milk is an ideal food source, but not everyone can lactate. Though not perfect, human milk donated outside of formal milk banks offers a safer alternative to diluting formula or feeding other unsuitable beverages to infants and children. As health care professionals, we need to counsel our patients about how to engage in this practice safely.

Dr. Mieses Malchuk is assistant professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a board-certified family physician and attending physician at UNC Health in Chapel Hill. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I have become obsessed with the reality that the unprecedented national shortage of formula is keeping some families from adequately feeding their infants and young children. I am deeply concerned, both as a family medicine physician and a new mother, about the heartbreaking stories that I’ve heard from parents of all socioeconomic backgrounds. New mothers, unable to breastfeed for a multitude of reasons, find themselves standing in front of empty store shelves, in tears.

In recent months, many health care providers have had patients disclose that they are diluting ready-to-feed formula or mixing powdered formula with more water than instructed to make it go further. Some parents are giving cow’s milk to their children at too young an age because they can’t find formula. Others are foregoing milk altogether and feeding their children beverages such as juice or soda. All of these practices can threaten a child’s life, growth, and development.
 

When breastfeeding isn’t possible

We all know that human milk is the optimal, most nutritionally complete food source for newborn babies and infants. It can improve dental health and neurodevelopmental outcomes, as well as reduce the risk for asthma, eczema, diabetes, and obesity. An added benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic has been providing newborn infants with a boost of immunity before they are able to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But lactation and breastfeeding aren’t possible for everyone. Earlier this year, when my daughter was born more than a month prematurely, I worried that I would be unable to breastfeed her. The complications of prematurity can interfere with establishing lactation, and my daughter spent some time in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), requiring frequent feedings to treat hypoglycemia. She also lacked the muscle strength or coordination to latch on to the breast, so she was fed my colostrum and donor breast milk by bottle.

Not knowing when my mature milk would come in, my family scoured the retail stores for formula while I was still recovering from delivery. My daughter needed a specific type of high-calorie formula for premature infants. Eventually, my mother found one can of this powdered formula. The hospital also sent us home with 16 oz of ready-to-feed samples and enough donor breastmilk to last 24 hours at home. We considered ourselves lucky. The fear and anxiety about being able to feed my baby still stands out in my mind.
 

Pumping and sharing

Over the next few months, out of necessity, I became an “exclusively pumping” mother. My daughter, unable to latch, drank my pumped milk from a bottle. My body started to produce more milk than she needed in a day. In an effort to pay it forward and to put my extra milk to use, I became a human-milk donor. I underwent rigorous screening, including testing for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. I was approved to donate to our local hospital’s milk bank, helping other families in the NICU feed their babies. Through informal connections on the internet, I also provide expressed milk to another mother in the community who is unable to lactate. To date, I’ve donated more than 1,500 oz of human milk (and counting).

The practice of human-milk donation dates back millennia with wet-nursing, when children were breastfed by someone other than their biological mothers: relatives, friends, or even strangers. The first milk bank in the United States opened in Boston in the early 20th century. In 1980, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund released a joint statement supporting the use of human-donor milk as the first alternative if the biological mother is unable to breastfeed. Donor milk is a safe option for families who cannot provide their own human milk to their children.
 

Human-milk banks

More than 30 nonprofit milk banks now operate in the United States. Because their mission is primarily to meet the needs of sick and hospitalized children rather than the general public, these milk banks are an impractical solution to the national formula shortage. Although families with healthy children can purchase donor milk with a prescription, supplies are scarce, and insurance doesn’t cover the cost.

Milk provided by formal human-milk banks is considered safe. Certain infections such as HIV and hepatitis can be transmitted through human milk. However, milk banks screen their donors and safely pasteurize and store donated breastmilk, following standard protocols. The risk of contracting an illness from banked donor milk is very low. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends accepting donor milk only from a milk bank.
 

Informal human-milk donation

An increasingly popular alternative to formal human-milk banks is informal human-milk sharing. But many people, including health care professionals, hold misconceptions about how informal milk donation works. Today’s informal milk donation looks very different from age-old wet-nursing: Moms in support groups, often via social media, are requesting pumped milk from one another. (Note that this definition of “informal human-milk donation” does not include selling or purchasing human milk.)

Although the safety of sharing pumped human milk this way cannot be guaranteed, a harm-reduction approach is warranted, especially in view of the current formula scarcity.

I believe that medical professionals have a responsibility to raise awareness and dispel myths about donor breast milk. Many physicians acknowledge that informal milk sharing is common but rarely recommend it to patients. Whether they are donors or recipients, families who choose to participate need to be educated about how to go about the process as safely as possible.

Patients who are considering accepting informally donated human milk should ask key questions of the donor to gauge the risk of pathogens or other harmful substances being passed to their babies:

• What medications do you take?
• What supplements do you take?
• What recreational drugs do you take?
• Any recent travel?
• Any tattoos and if so, how recent?
• How much alcohol do you drink and how often?
• Have you been diagnosed with any infections?
• Any recent illness?
• How do you pump your breast milk?
• How do you store your breast milk?
• When was the available milk pumped?

We can help families by offering our medical expertise, allowing them to make an informed decision about whether to accept donated human milk. Clinicians can encourage patients and their families to use resources like the Infant Risk Center, which provides evidence-based information about medication safety and breast milk.

If your lactating patient is considering donating milk through informal channels to a family in need, encourage them to be open and honest about their medical history and lifestyle habits. If they cannot be transparent, they should not donate. A mutual level of respect and honesty can ensure the safety of those they hope to help. It is also important to counsel prospective milk donors to notify their milk recipients of any new illnesses, substance use, medications, travel, tattoos, or changes to their medical history.

Finally, encourage lactating patients who are able to do so to donate their extra milk to local nonprofit milk banks to increase the availability of screened, pasteurized breast milk in the community.

As a physician and mother, I hope that U.S. families will be less vulnerable to future formula shortages. Human milk is an ideal food source, but not everyone can lactate. Though not perfect, human milk donated outside of formal milk banks offers a safer alternative to diluting formula or feeding other unsuitable beverages to infants and children. As health care professionals, we need to counsel our patients about how to engage in this practice safely.

Dr. Mieses Malchuk is assistant professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a board-certified family physician and attending physician at UNC Health in Chapel Hill. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.