Category Archives: studies

Study says: Breastfeeding problems aren’t serious. And are probably your fault, anyway.

Posted on by
18

One of the most interesting interviews I did in my research for Bottled Up was with a physician who had studied breastfeeding-related neonatal hypernatremia (severe dehydration leading to electrolyte imbalance). We discussed the fact that these days, this condition is typically caught early and can be treated successfully. But the doctor also cautioned that while the prognosis wasn’t usually dire in terms of long-term health (thanks to modern medicine), we shouldn’t forget about the emotional and financial effects on the parents. He worried about a first time mom, trying to do the best for her child, who ends up seeing that baby hospitalized – sometimes for weeks- due to what she might perceive as her own failure to nourish him adequately.

I’ve been thinking about this interview since I read several articles yesterday, detailing a new study about the same condition. According to the Guardian (“Breastfeeding problems rarely lead to serious illness, study says“), a new paper on neonatal hypernatraemia found that “Very few babies become dehydrated and seriously ill because they are not getting enough milk from breastfeeding…Dr Sam Oddie and colleagues found only 62 cases from May 2009 to June 2010, a prevalence of seven in every 100,000 live births… the babies were admitted to hospital, mostly because of weight loss, and some were intravenously fed…However, all were discharged within two days to two weeks having gained weight and none had long-term damage.”

Seem like good news, right? Put on the Def Leopard, because we’re about to start headbanging.

Source: http://www.yaindie.com/2012/12/banging-your-head-against-wall-is-it.html

Banging-my-head-against-the-wall Problem #1: 

Okay. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but having a 2-week-old newborn in the hospital hooked up to an IV for a week or two isn’t considered serious? And as for long-term effects – these babies were born between 2009-2010. The study is not available online, so I don’t know what the details are in terms of how the researchers followed up with the subjects… but considering studies on breastfeeding and intelligence have tested kids at the age of 8, I think one could fairly say the jury is still out on this sample of 4 and 5-year-old kids. And how were they assessed in terms of long-term effects? Psychological? Emotional? Physical?

With all the focus on mother-child interaction in the first days, and the effect of fatty acids on brain development, the superiority of breastmilk in the first weeks… doesn’t it seem a little ironic that we’re so quick to dismiss a condition which a) separates parents from babies through NICU stays and b) starves/dehydrates a child in those same “fundamental” weeks?

I understand that we’re talking small numbers here – 7 in every 100, 000 is admittedly a reassuring statistic. But while we’re talking about that figure… what exactly does it mean?

Banging-my-head-against-the-wall Problem #2:

First, without access to the study, I can’t tell you if this statistic means 7 in 100,000 of ALL LIVE BIRTHS – meaning EBF, formula-fed and mixed-fed infants, inclusive. The UK has lower breastfeeding rates than many countries, so if this was the number of babies in all live births, it doesn’t mean anything substantial. What we need to know is the number of babies admitted who were exclusively breastfed before we can start making statements about breastfeeding, milk supply, and what needs to happen to avoid this risk.

Banging-my-head-against-the-wall Problem #3: 

Even if this study did look only at EBF babies, there are major limitations in what we can fairly assess from the data.  We can’t know how many women can adequately produce milk so that their babies aren’t at risk, because most people would supplement before it got to the point of hospitalization. What the researchers did discover is that the babies hospitalized could nearly all breastfeed successfully:

Almost every baby is capable of breastfeeding, Oddie said. “In only a few cases were there special features of the baby that made it likely that there would be a severe feeding problem. [One of the babies, for instance, was found to have a cleft palate.] Normally all babies can get established with breastfeeding with the right support.”

Again, I’m a little confused. If there were only a few cases of this condition, what exactly is a “few” of a few? Of the seven babies hospitalized in a group of 100,000, does that mean one of them had a “special feature” which created a feeding problem? Was it a statistically significant number?

Then, the Deputy Manager of UNICEF’s Baby Friendly Initiative weighed in:

Anne Woods, deputy programme manager for Unicef’s Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI)…said the number of babies who could not feed was negligible and only a very small percentage – about 1% – of women would struggle to make enough milk. “The numbers who breastfeed in this country do not reflect the numbers who could breastfeed if they had effective support,” she said.

Where there are problems, she added, “it fundamentally boils down to the fact that the baby is not attached to the breast effectively. The whole of the baby’s mouth has to make contact and draw the breast tissue into the mouth.”

But because we have a bottle-feeding culture in the UK, she said, some women do not realise this and “try to bottle-feed with their breast”, so the baby takes only the nipple and does not get enough milk.

The other problem is when babies do not feed often enough. After a difficult labour or pain relief, the baby may be sleepy. There is also an expectation she said, that a baby will feed and then sleep.

Ah, right. It’s the mom’s fault. Who cares that this study proves – hell, even suggests – nothing about the true incidence of physiological lactation failure. The researchers are talking about the baby’s ability to feed, not the mother’s ability to produce milk. That doesn’t stop Anne Woods from hurling the 1% (the lowest number bandied about regarding lactation failure, by the way – she could’ve at least given us a break and used the higher end of the oft-cited 1-5% assumption figure) statistic at moms who’re already feeling like failures for landing their babies in the hospital. And of course, the mom probably can’t be bothered to feed as frequently as needed – not that it’s entirely her fault, since the formula companies have convinced her that her breast is actually…wait for it… a bottle!

Banging-my-head-against-the-wall Problem #4: 

I know, I’m being snarky. And I do appreciate that the lead researcher of this study, Sam Oddie, emphasized the need for better breastfeeding management and support. I’m fully on board with that. But I’m also concerned about what Dr. Oddie was saying back in 2009, when he embarked on his study:

Dr Sam Oddie, a consultant in the neonatal unit at Bradford Royal Infirmary, who is leading the study, said: ‘Once we understand the scale of the problem we can work out what to do about it – how to spot it, and how to act on it. But as far as I’m concerned the answer isn’t more formula feeding, but increased support for breastfeeding from the outset in the form of counsellors.” (Marie Claire, 2009).

I don’t disagree with him, necessarily, but going in to a study on hypernatraemia with a strong desire to avoid formula supplementation – even if that ended up being the best course of treatment – implies a certain degree of bias.

One could argue that there’s no harm in a study like this making the news; it will bring attention to those experiencing early breastfeeding problems and perhaps make medical professionals take them more seriously. But as we’ve seen so many times, these studies have a way of creeping into the breastfeeding canon and being misused as “truth” to back up future claims. I can already see Dr. Oddie’s quotes as being taken out of context, being used as “proof” that “all babies can breastfeed” and that the risk of inadequate feeding isn’t all that serious (so there’s never a need to supplement, even if your formula-pushing pediatrician tells you that there is).

Still think I’m overreacting? Here are the headlines from the other two major news sources covering the study:

Most mothers who struggle to breastfeed WILL be providing enough milk for their babies, say experts (The Daily Mail)

Dehydration risks from breastfeeding are ‘negligible’, study finds (The Telegraph)

Would you like me to move over and make a little space for you on the wall? Come on over. Bring some Metallica, and wear a helmet.

 

Read more about neonatal hypernatraemia:

http://fn.bmj.com/content/87/3/F158.full http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/3/e343.full

 

 

Breastfeeding might not protect kids from obesity. So what?

Posted on by
9

The past few days have produced a flurry of articles on how breastfeeding may not protect against obesity. You’d think I’d be shouting an obnoxiously loud DUH or TOLD YOU SO. Instead, I want to poke my eyes out and claw at my ears until they bleed. That’s maybe slightly dramatic, but seriously – I’m at my wit’s end, here.

The truth is, there have been quite a few studies and reviews that showed negligible or conflicting results regarding the effect of infant feeding practice on later obesity (ie, this one, this one, or this one). That hasn’t stopped numerous government or health organization from urging us to support breastfeeding because it will solve the obesity epidemic, opting to focus on this convoluted claim rather than the myriad of health benefits that have been repeated consistently over metastudies and reviews (i.e., lower risk of gastrointestinal infection, lower risk of ear infections, hell, even the IQ thing is more soundly supported by the research).

I get why there’s more attention being paid to this finding – it comes from the PROBIT study, which is the closest thing we have to a randomized, controlled experiment in the infant feeding world (other than sibling studies, of which there have been exactly two- at least that I’ve been able to unearth). For those who don’t spend their free time reading the canon of breastfeeding research, let me give you the Cliff’s Notes: PROBIT was a study undertaken in Belarus, which had low breastfeeding rates at the time. They took a cohort of pregnant moms and gave one randomized group more intensive prenatal breastfeeding education and baby-friendly hospital etiquette when they delivered; the other group got the status quo by way of breastfeeding support. The thought was, the group that got better education and support would breastfeed more exclusively and for longer; the other group probably wouldn’t.

Are you confused? You should be. The thing that puzzles me (and hopefully you as well) is that while this plan might have convinced more women to initiate breastfeeding, the same pitfalls that plague all breastfeeding research still remain. Some of the women in the “breastfeeding friendly” group still – presumably – could not breastfeed for physical reasons, others may have chosen not to. All this study can really show us, after all the necessary confounders are accounted for, is whether this type of breastfeeding promotion and support can increase breastfeeding rates. Otherwise, it’s basically more of the same. There are still fundamental differences in the women who were able to breastfeed and those that couldn’t/didn’t.

But, for whatever reason (desperation?) the medical and advocacy communities have grasped onto PROBIT as the Holy Grail of irrefutable breastfeeding science. So, if PROBIT shows that breastfeeding confers no protective effect against obesity, that means something. (Incidentally, as the babies involved in PROBIT get older, I’m sure we will see a lot of headlines on the long-term effects of breastfeeding… so if you’re interested in this stuff, try and familiarize yourself with it now. Here’s some good literature on it, to get you started.)

While I believe, based on my reading of additional research into the obesity link (more on this in Bottled Up, not that I’m plugging my book or anything. I mean why would I have to, book sales being as horrible great as they are?), that there truly is little to no advantage to breastfeeding in regards to later obesity, there’s no excuse for bad science or bad reporting. And this, my friends, is a both. We are taking ONE finding from ONE study – a well-designed one, to be sure, but far from perfect or immune from the problems plaguing most infant feeding research- and proclaiming its results as absolute truth. The sad thing is, some of the biggest breastfeeding advocates are just as guilty of this as the knee-jerking media: Dr. Ruth Lawrence, one of the founders of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, even admitted that she was “disappointed” about the result (although as someone so wisely pointed out on our FFF Facebook page, how freaking ridiculous is it that she is “disappointed” to find out that the vast majority of Western babies – being that they are nearly all at least partially bottle fed – are not doomed to a life of morbid obesity just because their mothers were “suboptimal” breastfeeders?? And what does this suggest about the inherent bias of breastfeeding researchers?).

The near-hysteria surrounding this finding is just further evidence of how warped our thinking is around infant feeding. Why is it such a big deal that breastfeeding doesn’t solve the obesity epidemic? Because we’ve made it a big deal. We’ve built a house of cards on top of this one health claim: it’s the basis of the First Lady’s push to support breastfeeding; Mike Bloomberg has used it to justify locking up formula in NYC hospitals; pretty much every article about breastfeeding in the past year has suggested that formula fed babies better start saving up for Lap Band surgery. The grotesque amount of fat-hating aside (because if you think formula feeders have it bad, you should see how awfully we treat overweight people in our public health discourse), it’s ridiculous that we’ve focused so much attention on this supposed benefit of breastfeeding when common sense says that our nation’s growing waistlines are due to a multitude of factors – genetics, cultural differences, lack of clean air/safe streets/room to move in our cities, processed food, sedentary lifestyles, the time we waste on the (ahem) internet….

My hope is that breastfeeding advocates and health officials might learn from this; that they might take a step back and reassess the way they are promoting something that should be a basic human right as a medical necessity. But at the very least, I hope this will be a cautionary tale for those of us who strive for critical thinking to remain skeptical of absolutism, in both science and in life.

 

The two headed chimera of infant feeding studies

Posted on by
10

It’s been a crazy week here, and I was really hoping to pull some pithy, short post out of the exhausted recesses of my brain. So when a study came across the wire touting extended formula feeding as a risk factor for a certain kind of childhood leukemia, I stuck my fingers in my ears. (Well, I posted about it on the Facebook page, but that’s kind of like the passive aggressive form of social media, isn’t it?) And a day or two later, when the Interwebz started buzzing about the British version of the infamous Burden of Suboptimal Breastfeeding “study”, I shoved a pillow over my head and sang the soundtrack of Beauty and the Beast really loudly (that’s what’s popular with the Fearless Children these days. It’s a great soundtrack and all, but seriously, how many times can a person hear Be Our Guest without going nuts? Although I did recently discover this YouTube gem, which has given Little Town – or, as Fearlette calls it, “Belle Sahwng” – a whole new meaning…).

One is named “Twitter”, the other “Parenting Science”

Unfortunately, I’m realizing that there is far too much inaccuracy and fear mongering going around to ignore. I don’t think I have the mental capacity to write a whole long diatribe, but I do want to address a few memes that are spreading like a California wildfire.

Courtesy of the UNICEF “Preventing disease, saving resources” report, I recently saw a discussion of how in the UK, only 1% of women are breastfeeding exclusively at 6 months. The consensus was that since formula feeders are so obviously in the majority, there is no need for them to feel marginalized.

I was shocked at that 1% statistic, and when I first heard it I was seriously blown away. But let’s look a bit closer at what the report actually says:

“….the proportion of women still breastfeeding at six weeks after birth increased by only a few percentage points between 2000 and 2005 – to just under 50% (Bolling et al, 2007). Rates of exclusive breastfeeding are much lower – only 45% of women reported that they were breastfeeding exclusively at one week after birth; fewer than 1% were still doing so at six months (Bolling et al, 2007). The rapid discontinuation of breastfeeding in the early days and weeks after birth, seen consistently since national surveys began in 1975, has only marginally improved to date, demonstrating that women who start to breastfeed often encounter problems, whether socio-cultural or clinical in nature, and stop. Ninety per cent of women who stop breastfeeding in the first six weeks report that they discontinue breastfeeding before they want to (Bolling et al, 2007). As a consequence, women can feel that they have failed their babies (Lee, 2007), and the great majority of babies in the UK are fed with formula in full or in part at some time during the first six months of life, and by five months of age, 75% of babies in the UK receive no breastmilk at all.” (p. 35)

First things first: notice the amount of 2007s in that paragraph. Yup, the stats they are citing are from a 2007 report, which offered statistics gleaned from a 2005 infant feeding survey. 

Aw, come off it FFF, 2005 wasn’t that long ago.  Things can’t have changed all that much in 7.5 years. 

Well, let me just say this: I want to see statistics from at least 2010. (They have them, but these 2010 survey results do not include information on duration, just initiation.) I have a gut feeling, from my reading of the research and observations I’ve made from the sheer number of emails I get from our UK sisters, that things have changed. In a Twitter conversation tonight, someone with an adolescent son mused that if social media had been around when she was a new mom, her postpartum experience would have been markedly different. The advent of social media has changed the infant feeding world – yes, it may only be on a sociological level, and we may not yet be seeing huge statistical jumps in breastfeeding rates, but both breastfeeding awareness and pressure have increased since new mothers began spending more time on Twitter and Facebook than in mommy-and-me groups, or with their sisters, friends, or mothers.

Additionally, the last sentence of the paragraph – perhaps the most jarring- carries no citation. If we don’t know what they are basing this on, it’s hard to say if it’s hard fact, or merely an assumption by the authors. (Oh- and that reference to women feeling like they have “failed their babies” rather diminishes its citation, Ellie Lee’s landmark 2007 paper about how morality plays into the infant feeding debate. From what I gathered from her work, these women do feel they failed their babies when they switch to formula because they are MADE to feel that way by society- not because they have an innate sense of wrong-doing. I think this allusion ignores a large piece of the puzzle, and allows the authors to pay lip service to formula feeders while simultaneously perpetuating the cycle of shame. Then again, I’m already ornery, so maybe I’m over-analyzing this.)

What strikes me as odd is that I recently saw this press release, also from Unicef, applauding NHS for achieving a landmark: 8 out of 10 British babies are now breastfed, thanks to the Baby Friendly Initiative. Obviously, this is referring to initiation rates, not duration, so it’s apples and oranges. Any yet, the difference in tone confuses me – if the rates are going up, and it’s a cause for celebration, why the pessimism in this new UNICEF report?

I don’t doubt that UK breastfeeding rates are lower than most Western nations. That’s been the case for awhile. But even in Norway, exclusive breastfeeding rates at 6 months are pretty abysmal. That’s because… wait for it… most babies have received some solids by then. Even before the 6-month “ready for solids” party line started being questioned, most moms were letting their babies try a bit of rice cereal or some veggies between 5-6 months. Exclusive breastfeeding means exactly that – exclusive. As in NOTHING BUT BREASTMILK. This 99% of women not exclusively breastfeeding at 6 months back in 2007 was not necessarily a group of supplementers or early weaners – they could just as well have been people who cheated a bit on the 6-month rule for solids. (And more power to them if they did, considering some experts – and many moms- believe that when to start solids should be an individual thing, and based on a baby’s readiness anytime between 4-6 months).

The thing that scares me is that this paragraph – oh bloody hell, this whole report – is based on the assumption that no journalist or policy maker is going to take the time to dig up every cited study, or to pay attention to where the statistics are coming from. I would say the majority of people (shall we say 99%?) are going to assume that this paragraph translates to only 1% of women nowadays, in 2012, are making it to 6 months without using formula and that, my friends, is simply not the case.

Stupid thing to obsess about, right? Well, it might be, except this kind of confusing rhetoric is used throughout the report. They make a big stink about only using “quality” evidence, stating that the costs to British society would be far greater if they were able to use the plethora of less-conclusive scientific literature which links “not breastfeeding” (the word “not” is italicized every time it appears in this context. Kinda weird…) with things like ovarian cancer, SIDS, adult obesity, and Celiac disease. As it stands, they have calculated the health care costs of treating diseases primarily seen in non-breastfed babies: ear infections, gastrointestinal infections, respiratory disease, and necrotising enterocolitis, as well as breast cancer in mothers.

But what exactly does this “robust evidence” consist of? The authors thoroughly vetted the studies they used to determine the rates of specific diseases – so much so, that the outcomes were often based on one or two studies (like in the case of ear infection), as well as a few used for “corroborative evidence”. This report was not trying to determine the quality of breastfeeding research, nor does it purport to offer new evidence for the correlations they site. Rather, they are simply going through, deciding which studies to use based on specific criteria, and using those outcomes to determine economic savings.

(FYI, the authors admit that they leaned heavily on the Burden of Suboptimal Breastfeeding methodology to calculate their own costs. Please refer to our friend Polly over at MommaData for a good breakdown of why this method is inherently flawed.)

The report, which was distributed to and covered by every major media outlet in the UK, is lengthy and exhaustive – great for researchers, not so great for journalists. I doubt many who reported on this study read all 104 pages, including citations; I doubt many understood that the goal of the report was not to determine whether any of these conditions are actually caused by not breastfeeding versus being a matter of correlation too muddled by confounding factors, but rather it went under the assumption that these diseases/conditions were in fact PROVEN to be directly influenced by suboptimal breastfeeding. Get it? Report= economic case for breastfeeding. This is not a study proving anything new.

I admit that this report is far more palatable than its Yankee counterpart. There is legitimate attention paid to why women aren’t breastfeeding, and it even references studies and literature about the guilt and feelings of failure which occur when women cannot breastfeed (if somewhat incorrectly – see above reference to Ellie Lee). I appreciate that. But just as I worried (justifiably, it seems) with the Burden of Suboptimal Breastfeeding, I fear that this will be adopted into the infant feeding canon, and used incorrectly to support a myriad of other studies. This is how it works, unfortunately.

I also want to mention that the lead author of this study is Mary Renfrew, who has been quoted as saying that “women are born to breastfeed”. To me, this rings of bias, which can easily lead to confirmation bias. And when you’re basing a report on the opinions of a few key people as to what is considered “quality” evidence… I wonder if a neutral party would have given this study more gravitas. Good luck finding a neutral party in this field, though…

Moving on. The next hot new thing on my Twitter feed is a study which links childhood leukemia with a longer duration of formula feeding. This study may very well be credible. I have no idea, and neither does anyone else commenting on it – because it isn’t published. It isn’t even peer reviewed. And yet it is flying through the airwaves, causing squeals of “formula feeding causes cancer!!” in a manner that echoes with thinly veiled I-told-you-so’s.

But that’s not even the interesting part. Let’s go under the assumption that this study will come out and be stellar and scientifically sound (because we can’t really do anything in terms of dissecting it until we can see the damn thing, anyway). According to the study, do you know what also carries a comparable risk of childhood cancer development? Later introduction of solids, regardless of infant feeding method. Breastfeeding alone did not have a significant effect, but rather the length of time using formula, and the length of time the child went without solids in their diet.

I haven’t seen one freaking tweet about the solids thing. Not ONE.

I may well be a Defensive Formula Feeder, as one beloved lactivist blogger has knighted me, but here’s what I don’t get: one of these (assumed) correlations supports advocating for an act which often involves major social, emotional, physical, and economical sacrifice on the part of women. (It shouldn’t, but right now, in our society, it often does.) The other correlation just implies that you need to start giving Junior a daily dose of butternut squash around 6 months of age. Why are we so focused on the one that is complicated by socio-biological factors, and not one the one which would be easy for most parents to incorporate into their child-rearing?

I’m not pissed about the studies, people. I’m pissed because THIS is how we’ve arrived at this place. This place where women are being pitted against each other; this place where we are made to feel responsible for the wealth and health of the nation, so that our governments can spend a few bucks pressuring women to breastfeed rather than figuring out real ways to enhance socioeconomic disparities; this place where one can’t question the intentions or quality of a research paper without being accused of being anti-breastfeeding or anti-mother or anti-science.

Speaking of Beauty and the Beast…this game of championing-research-which-can-mislead-and-and-scare-new-parents-before-stopping-to-fully-comprehend-it reminds me of The Mob Song (my son’s favorite). As the townspeople march towards the Beast’s castle with fiery torches, they sing: “We don’t like what we don’t understand- in fact it scares us, and this monster is mysterious at least… here we come, fifty strong, and fifty Frenchmen can’t be wrong…”

Imagine those Frenchmen with Twitter and Facebook accounts, multiply them by about 1000, and you have a great explanation of what’s wrong with social media and parenting science, my own personal two-headed Chimera.

 

 

 

Ready-to-feed formula may prevent Cronobacter infection in babies

Posted on by
15

I love when I’m right. I mean, it happens so infrequently (at least according to Fearless Husband).

Even before the Cronobacter scare of 2011, I’d dramatically changed my tune about formula preparation and safety. The research I read surrounding bacterial infection in babies due to formula or bottle use made me see just how piss poor our education on bottle feeding truly is; this is what spurred my interest in starting some sort of pre or post-natal educational workshop/literature for bottle feeders, and also made me suspect that there was an astonishingly simple – albeit prohibitively expensive – solution to the bacteria problem.

Safety, thy name is Ready-To-Feed.

Until now I’ve merely been able to suggest that my personal belief is that ready-to-feed nursettes are the safest bet for newborns, and especially for late pre-term babies or those with any sort of compromised immune system. Now, a study published in Pediatrics gives scientific credit to my completely unscientific gut feeling.

I’d say squeeeand do a little dance of egotistical joy,

but unfortunately I can’t. Because we are talking about infant safety here, and the solution which this study is suggesting is not going to be feasible for many parents due to the cost involved. This is turning my happy ego dance into a sad waltz. Which sucks, because who doesn’t enjoy a good happy ego dance?

The study, Prevention of Invasive Cronobacter Infection in Young Infants Fed Powdered  Infant Formulas, looked at the records of 68 babies infected with invasive cronobacter between 1958-2003, and 30 babies between 2004-2010. A couple of things to note before we get into the nitty-gritty of the study:

1. Invasive Cronobacter infection is extremely rare, and usually affects pre-term babies and very young neonates (all of the infants reflected in these records were under two months old).

2. This study had some significant limitations, considering that it was conducted using records from a variety of international organizations (CDC, USDA, WHO, as well as “personal communications” and “publications”. Definitions might have varied, as well as the quality of the information. This might explain the shocking disparity between the cases reported in the older batch (1958-2003) and the newer batch (2004-2010).

Now that the caveats are out of the way, let’s continue. The study found very different statistics in the two chronological batches. In the older batch, only 24% of the babies were full term; out of the more recent cases, 58% were full term. That’s a radical leap. Plus, while in the 1958-2003 group only 21% became symptomatic at home, that percentage jumped to 52% between 2004-2010. This may have something to do with the fact that there were half the number of cases in the more modern group versus the older one; if bacterial contamination was becoming more rare, then perhaps we’re dealing with a newer or more virulent strain in the new millennium. But I also wonder if part of the disparity between the characteristics of the cases has to do with the lack of formula feeding guidance. The resurgence of breastfeeding since 2000 has led to many fantastic outcomes, but the downside, as we’ve discussed before, is a refusal to address the needs of formula feeding parents. Historically, concerns about bacterial infection were focused on NICUs; the tubing used to deliver food to the tiniest babies could easily become contaminated if the utmost care wasn’t taken, and given the fragile systems of premature or sick infants… well, it wasn’t a great combination of risk factors. But looking at the statistics used in this study, it seems that in the past 12 years, full-term babies in their parent’s care – at home – were equally at risk. I think it merits further reflection, at least, to consider if these cases might have been due to parents being given no guidance or support with formula feeding. We know from our numerous conversations here, and on the FFF Facebook page, that most of us were given ample education on breastfeeding (even if we didn’t get much practical support); very few of us were instructed on how to formula feed safely, sometimes with the excuse from more intolerant healthcare professionals that there was no “safe” way to formula feed.

Regardless, even if we were given better instruction on safe bottle feeding practices, very young infants fed powdered formula are at significantly higher risk of becoming ill from invasive cronobacter. The Pediatrics study found that out of all infected infants studied, 26% had received breastmilk, 23% had received RTF, and 90% had received either powdered infant formula or human milk fortifier (which is another caveat I forgot to mention – powdered human milk also posed a significant risk, not just powdered formula. Apparently Cronobacter loves powder of any sort).

Okay- just so we are crystal clear here – the lowest percentage of infected babies came in the group fed ready-to-feed formula only. It even beat breastmilk (not by much, but I think it should be mentioned, since it would be if it were the opposite). So it’s a no-brainer that the study’s author then recommends the following:

Invasive Cronobacter infection is extremely unusual in infants not fed powdered infant formula/Human Milk Fortifier. RTFs are commercially sterile, require minimal preparation, and are competitively priced. The exclusive use of breastmilk and/or RTF for infants <2 months old should be encouraged.

I’ve been advising that newborns use RTF whenever possible for awhile now, but every time I do I feel like a classist a-hole. Because let’s be honest – the stuff is expensive. Even if you buy the 32-oz containers rather than the more costly (but sterile) nursettes, you’re still talking a major difference in cost for the recommended two months of use. And those first 2 months, there is a lot of wasted formula – babies are erratic, not on a schedule, parents are still figuring out hunger cues… it takes a few months before you know Junior will take exactly 4 oz every 4 hours. Powdered formula is significantly cheaper. And god help you if your baby ends up on a hypoallergenic – buying the RTF version of that stuff will seriously kill your bank account.

The big elephant in the room, of course, is that the formula typically given away in those controversial hospital swag bags is ready to feed – often in the form of sterile nursettes. Not that the amount in the bags would feed a baby for the entire two month window of risk, but the bags I received – generously “supplemented” by the maternity ward nurses since our breastfeeding-friendly hospital didn’t have many formula feeding mothers and there were plenty of leftover bags – gave me enough formula to get us through the first few weeks. Every little bit counts.

Now, I’m not naive enough to believe that the formula companies are giving away RTF out of the kindness of their hearts. But considering that the Ban the Bags movement has grown in popularity, and hospitals are going Baby-Friendly right and left – they are going to need an alternative way to market their products. Why couldn’t we set up a program which would give parents that have chosen to formula feed (or supplement) before leaving the maternity ward to request a “gift” of ready to feed formula? Formula companies could still reap the rewards of brand loyalty, and look somewhat altruistic in the meantime. The parents who receive these samples could be the same ones who already were forced to sign documentation which labeled them as formula feeders, so what would be the harm?

There needs to be a way to provide supplementing and exclusively formula-feeding parents with the safest breastfeeding substitutes possible. In the first two months of life, ready-to-feed formula is the safest commercial alternative. If the formula companies would be wiling to provide at least a few weeks of RTF to take the financial edge off, it might help parents afford RTF for the subsequent 6-7 weeks.

Seems like a no-brainer to me, but then again… you know what Fearless Husband says. I’m hardly ever right.

 

 

Pyloric stenosis and bottle feeding: Vomiting up some logic

Posted on by
3

A study published in Pediatrics is claiming that bottle feeding might be a risk factor for pyloric stenosis (a condition in which the pyloric muscle malfunctions and impedes food (liquid) from going down into the small intestine, causing severe projectile vomiting). Actually, if you read the study, it seems that the authors are suggesting that formula feeding may cause pyloric stenosis; they argue that the rate of the condition went down when breastfeeding rates went up in Denmark, and that babies who were formerly breastfed and then switched to formula developed pyloric stenosis after making this dietary change.

The study itself is somewhat convincing. The authors looked at a Danish cohort of 70,148 babies born between 1996 and 2002. Of these babies, 65 eventually had surgery for pyloric stenosis (PS); 29 of these were bottle-fed.

Looking at these numbers, one might be confused – if 29 out of 65 babies were bottle fed, that means the other 36 were breastfed, right? And obviously, 36 is bigger than 29. (I dropped out of math my senior year in high school, but even I know that). However, the art of statistics makes numbers all irrational and annoyingly misleading, and because the number of breastfed babies in the cohort was so much larger than the number of formula fed babies (Denmark has impressive breastfeeding rates), statistically, the formula fed babies had a much greater chance of having PS. A 4.6-fold higher risk, to be exact. Scary stuff.

No need to panic just yet, though. First of all, while the study claims to have controlled for confounding factors, this controlling was based on telephone interviews – some of which were performed retrospectively. This type of data has a bad reputation in the research world, because, in the immortal words of Dr. House, everybody lies. We call it innocuous names like “recall bias”, but it amounts to the same thing. (Think about it: when you fill out those health forms at the doctor, and they ask about alcohol use, do you check “rarely” or “never”? What do those categories even mean? What you might consider “rarely” might be the equivalent of binge drinking to someone else. And don’t even get me started on the questions about smoking. There’s no box that describes “social smoking only when wine was involved in your early 20′s, with the occasional guilty cigarette at times of extreme stress, like once every 3 years”. So I – er, I mean, someone- might lie and say “never”. ) This study was also vulnerable to the same frustrating issues that plague all infant feeding research – it’s impossible to control adequately for everything.

House, MD. Best show ever. RIP.

Even so, there is something suspicious about the fact that when some of the PS babies who were formerly breastfed started formula, that was when they suddenly developed PS. And it’s odd that the babies who were never breastfed had the same risk as those who were combo fed or weaned early. If this weren’t the case, I might argue that it was likely that early symptoms of the PS may have provoked a change to bottle feeding; sometimes parents will end up formula feeding if a baby has trouble eating, or is spitting up a great deal, in the hopes that a gentle formula might do the trick.

What strikes me as problematic about this study, though, is that while the cohort includes a substantial amount of babies, the sample of babies who actually had PS is quite small. I also think there is something to be said for looking at a cohort in a country with high breastfeeding rates – because there must have been a reason that these other moms weren’t breastfeeding. I wonder, for example, if they asked about antidepressant use, or fertility drugs, or other medications that might have been taken during pregnancy and that would also lead a woman to either opt not to, or be unable to, breastfeed? Also, 91% of the babies with PS were male; there must be something either structural, behavioral or genetic in male human babies that predisposes them to this condition. The authors discuss this a bit in the report, and muse that it could be because boys overeat more than girls do (not sure if there is substantial scientific evidence for this claim or not); this would support the hypothesis that it is something in the act of bottle feeding, rather than the milk itself, that is conferring a protective effect.  Lastly, I wish the researchers had thought to ask for reasons why the parents stopped breastfeeding; this might have led to other associations between the PS and feeding issues.

That said, I actually believe that this is one of the better studies I’ve seen regarding infant feeding. The discussion section takes the time to discuss the possible reasons for a protective effect from breastfeeding (or a negative effect from bottle feeding), elaborating on both the milk as a substance (they suggest that babies fed with breastmilk in bottles may be at just as high a risk, and admit that they did not receive adequate info to make a distinction between expressed breastmilk, donor milk, or formula) and on the act of bottle feeding itself. They also state that “formulas have improved over time and now approach the composition of breastmilk” and that this could be “a contributing reason for the decrease in PS incidence.” (And that leads my overtired brain to form more questions… what about the type of formula being given? Were these babies on soy? Formula with or without DHA? Partially hydrolyzed formulas?)

The ultimate consensus of these researchers is that this study “adds to the evidence supporting the advantage of exclusive breastfeeding in the first months after birth”. This is true, but I’m not quite sure it’s helpful, or even that scientifically prudent. If the aim of infant health studies is to improve infant health, wouldn’t it be more substantive to end with something like….

These findings suggest that there may be a protective effect against pyloric stenosis from exclusive breastfeeding, and should encourage further studies to decipher why this may be. Whether the relationship is merely associative, or causal, remains to be seen; further examination of the biological or mechanical  reasons for the reduction in risk might help determine this, and lead to better outcomes no matter what the mother’s choice of feeding may be.

 

And pigs may fly wearing my daughter’s favorite leopard-print tutu.

In sum, this is an interesting study, and certainly leads to some big questions. But considering the total risk for PS was still only 0.1% in the cohort studied, I don’t think it’s something to really worry about as a formula feeding parent. If you have a family history of PS, and your baby is male, you might also want to choose a hydrolyzed protein formula and be extra cautious about over-feeding, as these factors relate to some of the plausible explanations for reduced risk offered by the researchers.

Hope that offers a bit of perspective on a study which associates yet another poor health outcome with formula feeding. Remember, as always, that associations are not causes – and that breastmilk can end up projectile-vomited all over the wall, too.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...