MAIN BODY: We argue that broader consideration of lactation, incorporating evolutionary, comparative and anthropological aspects, could provide new insights into breastfeeding practices and problems, enhance research and ultimately help to develop novel approaches to improve initiation and maintenance. Our current focus on breastfeeding as a strategy to improve health outcomes must engage with the evolution of lactation as a flexible trait under selective pressure to maximise reproductive fitness. Poor understanding of the dynamic nature of breastfeeding may partly explain why some women are unwilling or unable to follow recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: We identify three key implications for health professionals, researchers and policymakers. Firstly, breastfeeding is an adaptive process during which, as in other mammals, variability allows adaptation to ecological circumstances and reflects mothers' phenotypic variability. Since these factors vary within and between humans, the likelihood that a 'one size fits all' approach will be appropriate for all mother-infant dyads is counterintuitive; flexibility is expected. From an anthropological perspective, lactation is a period of tension between mother and offspring due to genetic 'conflicts of interest'. This may underlie common breastfeeding 'problems' including perceived milk insufficiency and problematic infant crying. Understanding this - and adopting a more flexible, individualised approach - may allow a more creative approach to solving these problems. Incorporating evolutionary concepts may enhance research investigating mother-infant signalling during breastfeeding; where possible, studies should be experimental to allow identification of causal effects and mechanisms. Finally, the importance of learned behaviour, social and cultural aspects of primate (especially human) lactation may partly explain why, in cultures where breastfeeding has lost cultural primacy, promotion starting in pregnancy may be ineffective. In such settings, educating children and young adults may be important to raise awareness and provide learning opportunities that may be essential in our species, as in other primates.
METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of consecutive adults with biopsy-proven NASH and a NAFLD activity score (NAS) of 4 or more at a tertiary care hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from November 2012 through August 2014. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given silymarin (700 mg; n = 49 patients) or placebo (n = 50 patients) 3 times daily for 48 weeks. After this 48-week period, liver biopsies were repeated. The primary efficacy outcome was a decrease of 30% or more in NAS; findings from 48-week liver biopsies were compared with those from the baseline biopsy. Secondary outcomes included changes in steatosis, lobular inflammation, hepatocyte ballooning, NAS and fibrosis score, and anthropometric measurements, as well as glycemic, lipid, and liver profiles and liver stiffness measurements.
RESULTS: The percentage of patients achieving the primary efficacy outcome did not differ significantly between the groups (32.7% in the silymarin group vs 26.0% in the placebo group; P = .467). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the silymarin group had reductions in fibrosis based on histology (reductions of 1 point or more; 22.4%) than did the placebo group (6.0%; P = .023), and based on liver stiffness measurements (decrease of 30% or more; 24.2%) than did the placebo group (2.3%; P = .002). The silymarin group also had significant reductions in mean aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (reduction of 0.14, P = .011 compared with baseline), fibrosis-4 score (reduction of 0.20, P = .041 compared with baseline), and NAFLD fibrosis score (reduction of 0.30, P < .001 compared with baseline); these changes were not observed in the placebo group (reduction of 0.07, P = .154; increase of 0.18, P = .389; and reduction of 0.05, P = .845, respectively). There was no significant difference between groups in number of adverse events; adverse events that occurred were not attributed to silymarin.
CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of 99 patients, we found that silymarin (700 mg, given 3 times daily for 48 weeks) did not reduce NAS scores by 30% or more in a significantly larger proportion of patients with NASH than placebo. Silymarin may reduce liver fibrosis but this remains to be confirmed in a larger trial. It appears to be safe and well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02006498.