1.
Oral galactagogues (natural therapies or drugs) for increasing breast milk production in mothers of non-hospitalised term infants.
Foong, SC, Tan, ML, Foong, WC, Marasco, LA, Ho, JJ, Ong, JH
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(5):CD011505
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many women express concern about their ability to produce enough milk, and insufficient milk is frequently cited as the reason for supplementation and early termination of breastfeeding. When addressing this concern, it is important first to consider the influence of maternal and neonatal health, infant suck, proper latch, and feeding frequency on milk production, and that steps be taken to correct or compensate for any contributing issues. Oral galactagogues are substances that stimulate milk production. They may be pharmacological or non-pharmacological (natural). Natural galactagogues are usually botanical or other food agents. The choice between pharmacological or natural galactagogues is often influenced by familiarity and local customs. Evidence for the possible benefits and harms of galactagogues is important for making an informed decision on their use. OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of oral galactagogues for increasing milk production in non-hospitalised breastfeeding mother-term infant pairs. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Health Research and Development Network - Phillippines (HERDIN), Natural Products Alert (Napralert), the personal reference collection of author LM, and reference lists of retrieved studies (4 November 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including published abstracts) comparing oral galactagogues with placebo, no treatment, or another oral galactagogue in mothers breastfeeding healthy term infants. We also included cluster-randomised trials but excluded cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two to four review authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data for analysis and checked accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted the study authors for clarification. MAIN RESULTS Forty-one RCTs involving 3005 mothers and 3006 infants from at least 17 countries met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted either in hospitals immediately postpartum or in the community. There was considerable variation in mothers, particularly in parity and whether or not they had lactation insufficiency. Infants' ages at commencement of the studies ranged from newborn to 6 months. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low because of high risk of biases (mainly due to lack of blinding), substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity, and imprecision of measurements. Pharmacological galactagogues Nine studies compared a pharmacological galactagogue (domperidone, metoclopramide, sulpiride, thyrotropin-releasing hormone) with placebo or no treatment. The primary outcome of proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months was not reported. Only one study (metoclopramide) reported on the outcome of infant weight, finding little or no difference (mean difference (MD) 23.0 grams, 95% confidence interval (CI) -47.71 to 93.71; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies (metoclopramide, domperidone, sulpiride) reported on milk volume, finding pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume (MD 63.82 mL, 95% CI 25.91 to 101.72; I² = 34%; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicates there may be increased milk volume with each drug, but with varying CIs. There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints, such as tiredness, nausea, headache and dry mouth (very low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported for infants. Natural galactagogues Twenty-seven studies compared natural oral galactagogues (banana flower, fennel, fenugreek, ginger, ixbut, levant cotton, moringa, palm dates, pork knuckle, shatavari, silymarin, torbangun leaves or other natural mixtures) with placebo or no treatment. One study (Mother's Milk Tea) reported breastfeeding rates at six months with a concluding statement of "no significant difference" (no data and no measure of significance provided, 60 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (fennel, fenugreek, moringa, mixed botanical tea) reported infant weight but could not be meta-analysed due to substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 60%, 275 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis shows we are very uncertain whether fennel or fenugreek improves infant weight, whereas moringa and mixed botanical tea may increase infant weight compared to placebo. Thirteen studies (Bu Xue Sheng Ru, Chanbao, Cui Ru, banana flower, fenugreek, ginger, moringa, fenugreek, ginger and turmeric mix, ixbut, mixed botanical tea, Sheng Ru He Ji, silymarin, Xian Tong Ru, palm dates; 962 participants) reported on milk volume, but meta-analysis was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The subgroup analysis for each intervention suggested either benefit or little or no difference (very low-certainty evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints such as mothers with urine that smelled like maple syrup and urticaria in infants (very low-certainty evidence). Galactagogue versus galactagogue Eight studies (Chanbao; Bue Xue Sheng Ru, domperidone, moringa, fenugreek, palm dates, torbangun, moloco, Mu Er Wu You, Kun Yuan Tong Ru) compared one oral galactagogue with another. We were unable to perform meta-analysis because there was only one small study for each match-up, so we do not know if one galactagogue is better than another for any outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Due to extremely limited, very low certainty evidence, we do not know whether galactagogues have any effect on proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months. There is low-certainty evidence that pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume. There is some evidence from subgroup analyses that natural galactagogues may benefit infant weight and milk volume in mothers with healthy, term infants, but due to substantial heterogeneity of the studies, imprecision of measurements and incomplete reporting, we are very uncertain about the magnitude of the effect. We are also uncertain if one galactagogue performs better than another. With limited data on adverse effects, we are uncertain if there are any concerning adverse effects with any particular galactagogue; those reported were minor complaints. High-quality RCTs on the efficacy and safety of galactagogues are urgently needed. A set of core outcomes to standardise infant weight and milk volume measurement is also needed, as well as a strong basis for the dose and dosage form used.
2.
Duration of Lactation and Maternal Risk of Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Tørris, C, Bjørnnes, AK
Nutrients. 2020;(9)
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death of women across all ages, and targeting modifiable risk factors, such as those comprised in metabolic syndrome (MetS) (e.g., waist circumference, lipid profile, blood pressure, and blood glucose), is of great importance. An inverse association between lactation and CVD has been suggested, and lactation may decrease the risk of MetS. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined how lactation may affect the development and prevalence of MetS in women. A literature search was performed using Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. A total of 1286 citations were identified, and finally, ten studies (two prospective and eight cross-sectional) were included. Seven studies (two prospective and five cross-sectional) revealed associations between lactation and MetS, suggesting that breastfeeding might prevent or improve metabolic health and have a protective role in MetS prevention. This protective role might be related to the duration of lactation; however, a lack of controlling for potential confounders, such as parity, might inflict the results. The pooled effect was non-conclusive. Additional research is required to further explore the duration of lactation and its potential role in improving or reversing MetS and its components.
3.
Combined hormonal versus nonhormonal versus progestin-only contraception in lactation.
Lopez, LM, Grey, TW, Stuebe, AM, Chen, M, Truitt, ST, Gallo, MF
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;(3):CD003988
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postpartum contraception improves the health of mothers and children by lengthening birth intervals. For lactating women, contraception choices are limited by concerns about hormonal effects on milk quality and quantity and passage of hormones to the infant. Ideally, the contraceptive chosen should not interfere with lactation or infant growth. Timing of contraception initiation is also important. Immediately postpartum, most women have contact with a health professional, but many do not return for follow-up contraceptive counseling. However, immediate initiation of hormonal methods may disrupt the onset of milk production. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects of hormonal contraceptives on lactation and infant growth SEARCH METHODS We searched for eligible trials until 2 March 2015. Sources included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, POPLINE, Web of Science, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We also examined review articles and contacted investigators. SELECTION CRITERIA We sought randomized controlled trials in any language that compared hormonal contraception versus another form of hormonal contraception, nonhormonal contraception, or placebo during lactation. Hormonal contraception includes combined or progestin-only oral contraceptives, injectable contraceptives, implants, and intrauterine devices.Trials had to have one of our primary outcomes: breast milk quantity or biochemical composition; lactation initiation, maintenance, or duration; infant growth; or timing of contraception initiation and effect on lactation. Secondary outcomes included contraceptive efficacy while breastfeeding and birth interval. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS For continuous variables, we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we computed the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Due to differing interventions and outcome measures, we did not aggregate the data in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS In 2014, we added seven trials for a new total of 11. Five reports were published before 1985 and six from 2005 to 2014. They included 1482 women. Four trials examined combined oral contraceptives (COCs), and three studied a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). We found two trials of progestin-only pills (POPs) and two of the etonogestrel-releasing implant. Older studies often lacked quantified results. Most trials did not report significant differences between the study arms in breastfeeding duration, breast milk composition, or infant growth. Exceptions were seen mainly in older studies with limited information.For breastfeeding duration, two of eight trials indicated a negative effect on lactation. A COC study reported a negative effect on lactation duration compared to placebo but did not quantify results. Another trial showed a lower percentage of the LNG-IUS group breastfeeding at 75 days versus the nonhormonal IUD group (reported P < 0.05) but no significant difference at one year.For breast milk volume, two older studies indicated lower volume for the COC group versus the placebo group. One trial did not quantify results. The other showed lower means (mL) for the COC group, e.g. at 16 weeks (MD -24.00, 95% CI -34.53 to -13.47) and at 24 weeks (MD -24.90, 95% CI -36.01 to -13.79). Another four trials did not report any significant difference between the study groups in milk volume or composition with two POPs, a COC, or the etonogestrel implant.Seven trials studied infant growth; one showed greater weight gain (grams) for the etonogestrel implant versus no method for six weeks (MD 426.00, 95% CI 58.94 to 793.06) but less compared with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) from 6 to 12 weeks (MD -271.00, 95% CI -355.10 to -186.90). The others studied POPs, COCs versus POPs, or an LNG-IUS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Results were not consistent across the 11 trials. The evidence was limited for any particular hormonal method. The quality of evidence was moderate overall and low for three of four placebo-controlled trials of COCs or POPs. The sensitivity analysis included six trials with moderate quality evidence and sufficient outcome data. Five trials indicated no significant difference between groups in breastfeeding duration (etonogestrel implant insertion times, COC versus POP, and LNG-IUS). For breast milk volume or composition, a COC study showed a negative effect, while an implant trial showed no significant difference. Of four trials that assessed infant growth, three indicated no significant difference between groups. One showed greater weight gain in the etonogestrel implant group versus no method but less versus DMPA.
4.
Energy requirements during pregnancy and lactation.
Butte, NF, King, JC
Public health nutrition. 2005;(7A):1010-27
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate the energy requirements of pregnant and lactating women consistent with optimal pregnancy outcome and adequate milk production. DESIGN Total energy cost of pregnancy was estimated using the factorial approach from pregnancy-induced increments in basal metabolic rate measured by respiratory calorimetry or from increments in total energy expenditure measured by the doubly labelled water method, plus energy deposition attributed to protein and fat accretion during pregnancy. SETTING Database on changes in basal metabolic rate and total energy expenditure during pregnancy, and increments in protein based on measurements of total body potassium, and fat derived from multi-compartment body composition models was compiled. Energy requirements during lactation were derived from rates of milk production, energy density of human milk, and energy mobilisation from tissues. SUBJECTS Healthy pregnant and lactating women. RESULTS The estimated total cost of pregnancy for women with a mean gestational weight gain of 12.0 kg, was 321 or 325 MJ, distributed as 375, 1200, 1950 kJ day(-1), for the first, second and third trimesters, respectively. For exclusive breastfeeding, the energy cost of lactation was 2.62 MJ day(-1) based on a mean milk production of 749 g day(-1), energy density of milk of 2.8 kJ g(-1), and energetic efficiency of 0.80. In well-nourished women, this may be subsidised by energy mobilisation from tissues on the order of 0.72 MJ day(-1), resulting in a net increment of 1.9 MJ day(-1) over non-pregnant, non-lactating energy requirements. CONCLUSIONS Recommendations for energy intake of pregnant and lactating women should be updated based on recently available data.
5.
Pooled analysis of antidepressant levels in lactating mothers, breast milk, and nursing infants.
Weissman, AM, Levy, BT, Hartz, AJ, Bentler, S, Donohue, M, Ellingrod, VL, Wisner, KL
The American journal of psychiatry. 2004;(6):1066-78
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The available data on antidepressant levels in nursing infants were analyzed in order to calculate average infant drug levels and determine what factors influence plasma drug levels in breast-feeding infants of mothers treated with antidepressants. METHOD Electronic searches of MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, and PsycINFO from 1966 through July 2002 followed by bibliographic searches identified 67 relevant studies (two unpublished). By consensus the authors identified 57 studies of maternal plasma, breast milk, and/or infant plasma antidepressant levels from nursing mother-infant pairs, measured by liquid chromatography. RESULTS Infants with recent prenatal exposure and symptomatic infants included in case reports were analyzed separately. Infant plasma levels were standardized against the average maternal level for each drug. The average infant-maternal plasma ratio was calculated for each drug, and correlations of infant plasma level to maternal dose, maternal plasma level, and breast milk level were calculated. Nortriptyline, paroxetine, and sertraline usually produce undetectable infant levels. Of drugs currently used, fluoxetine produces the highest proportion (22%) of infant levels that are elevated above 10% of the average maternal level. Based on smaller numbers, the data on citalopram indicate that it produces elevated levels in 17% of infants. The milk-to-plasma ratios for 11 antidepressants had a statistically significant negative association with the percentage of the drug bound to protein. CONCLUSIONS Nortriptyline, paroxetine, and sertraline may be preferred choices in breast-feeding women. Minimizing the maternal dose may be helpful with citalopram. Current data do not support monitoring breast milk levels in individual patients. Future researchers should report maternal, breast milk, and infant antidepressant levels along with other appropriate variables.