OBJECTIVES: To describe the status and predictors of vitamin D status in healthy Nepalese mothers and infants.
METHODS: 500 randomly selected Nepalese mother and infant pairs were included in a cross-sectional study. Plasma 25(OH)D concentrations were measured by LC-MS/MS and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify predictors of vitamin D status.
RESULTS: Among the infants, the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency (25(OH)D <50 nmol/L) and deficiency (<30 nmol/L) were 3.6% and 0.6%, respectively, in contrast to 59.8% and 14.0% among their mothers. Infant 25(OH)D concentrations were negatively associated with infant age and positively associated with maternal vitamin D status and body mass index (BMI), explaining 22% of the variability in 25(OH)D concentration. Global solar radiation, maternal age and BMI predicted maternal 25(OH)D concentration, explaining 9.7% of its variability.
CONCLUSION: Age and maternal vitamin D status are the main predictors of vitamin D status in infants in Bhaktapur, Nepal, who have adequate vitamin D status despite poor vitamin D status in their mothers.
METHODS: A systematic review and Delphi consensus panel (consisting of eight8 international pediatric allergists and gastroenterologists) was conducted to evaluate evidence supporting growth, tolerability, and effectiveness of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants.
RESULTS: None of the studies reviewed identified potential harm of pHF use compared with CMP in non-exclusively breastfed infants. There was an expert consensus that pHF use is likely as safe as intact CMP formula, given studies suggesting these have comparable nutritional parameters. No high-quality studies were identified evaluating the use of pHF to prevent allergic disease in non-exclusively breastfed infants who are not at risk for allergic disease (e.g., lacking a parental history of allergy). Limited data suggest that pHF use in non-exclusively breastfed infants may be associated with improved gastric emptying, decreased colic incidence, and other common functional gastrointestinal symptoms compared with CMP. However, because the data are of insufficient quality, the findings from these studies have to be taken with caution. No studies were identified that directly compared the different types of pHF, but there was an expert consensus that growth, allergenicity, tolerability, effectiveness, and clinical role among such pHF products may differ.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist evaluating routine use of pHFs in non-exclusively breastfed infants, with no contraindications identified in the systematic review. An expert consensus considers pHFs for which data were available to be as safe as CMP formula as growth is normal. The preventive effect on allergy of pHF in infants who are not at risk for allergic disease has been poorly studied. Cost of pHF versus starter formula with intact protein differs from country to country. However, further studies in larger populations are needed to clinically confirm the benefits of routine use of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants. These studies should also address potential consumer preference bias.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out among 684 infants attending goverment health clinics in 2 states in Malaysia. Body weight, length, and clinical assessment were measured on the same day for 9 visits, scheduled every month until 6 months of age and every 2 months until 12 months of age. All of the 3 z-scores for weight for age (WAZ), length for age (HAZ), and weight for length (WHZ) were calculated using WHO Anthro for Personal Computers software.
RESULTS: The average sensitivity and specificity for the visual clinical assessment for the detection of thinness were higher using the WHO 2006 standard as compared with using NCHS 1977. However, the overall sensitivity of the visual clinical assessment for the detection of thin and lean children was lower from 1 month of age until a year as compared with the WHO 2006 standard and NCHS 1977 reference. The positive predictive value (PPV) for the visual clinical assessment versus the WHO 2006 standard was almost doubled as compared with the PPV of visual clinical assessment versus the NCHS 1977 reference. The overall average sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value for the detection of stunting was higher for visual clinical assessment versus the WHO 2006 standard as compared with visual clinical assessment versus the NCHS 1977 reference.
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of visual clinical assessment for the detection of wasting and stunting among infants are better for the WHO 2006 standard than the NCHS 1977 reference.