Vitamin D Status among 4-Month-Old Infants in New England: A Prospective Cohort Study
Division of General Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02118, USA. Journal of Human Lactation
(Impact Factor: 1.99).
05/2012; 28(2):159-66. DOI: 10.1177/0890334411434802
Concerns over vitamin D deficiency in infants and children recently prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend increased supplementation. Few studies have examined vitamin D status in the same infants over time. Also, while many researchers label "breastfeeding" as a risk factor for vitamin D deficiency, few differentiate between any breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, and supplemented or unsupplemented breastfeeders.
To determine predictors of 25(OH)D deficiency at 4 months in a group of children previously tested at birth.
We enrolled newborns from 2005 to 2007 at an urban Boston hospital. Maternal and infant blood samples were collected within 72 hours of birth. At 4 months, we obtained a second infant blood sample.
At 4 months, 11.9% of the 177 infants were vitamin D deficient compared to 37.5% at birth (25(OH)D <20 ng/mL). Median 25(OH)D was 35.2 ng/mL (range, 5-100.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 32.8-37.6). At 4 months, 40% of unsupplemented infants were deficient. Lack of supplementation was significantly associated with increased risk of deficiency (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 19.3; 95% CI, 4.80-77.2). Being outside at least 10 minutes a day, once per week, was protective (AOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.66), as was increasing gestational age (AOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69). In 48.4% of patients, physicians failed to prescribe vitamin D at 2 months.
Despite inconsistent supplementation, a smaller proportion of infants were vitamin D deficient at 4 months than at birth. While supplemented breastfed infants were not at risk of deficiency, unsupplemented exclusively breastfed infants were at high risk of severe deficiency.
Available from: Katrina J Allen
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 02/2012; 129(2):AB141. DOI:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.12.474 · 11.48 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Parents are most responsible for nutritional education of children, and pediatricians must advise and help them with their doubts. The purpose of this study was to know the relevance of nutritional topics in daily practice and the main nutritional problems perceived by pediatricians in children under 3 years of age.
Descriptive, cross-sectional study performed in 2 stages. First stage consisted on discussion meetings with 30 random-selected pediatricians from Madrid and Barcelona. Results were used to design the on-line questionnaire of the second stage (76 questions related to nutrition in children under 3 years). A random and representative sample of Spanish pediatricians was selected for this stage.
One hundred and fifty one pediatricians, among 258 sampled, completed the questionnaire. They referred to see a mean of 588 patients/month. The main perceived nutritional problems in the first year of life were iron and vitamin deficiencies and poor weight gain. In the next months, excess in carbohydrates and lipid intake and overweight were the main problems perceived. Parents were considered the main actors regarding their children's nutritional health, but their concern in these questions significantly reduced with children's age (p < 0,0001). Factors considered to have the greatest relevance in the acquisition of good nutritional habits were to provide a diet adjusted for children's requirements and to observe the appropriate sleeping hours. The proportion of children who receive nutritional counseling varied from 88% (0-6 months) to 61% (24-36 months).
Despite of the relevance given by pediatricians, educational intervention regarding nutritional health is not ideal. Nutritional problems perceived by pediatricians varied with children's age.
Nutricion hospitalaria: organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Nutricion Parenteral y Enteral 12/2012; 27(6):2028-47. DOI:10.3305/nh.2012.27.6.6026 · 1.04 Impact Factor
Available from: George Fuchs
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The follow-up formula (FUF) standard of Codex Alimentarius adopted in 1987 does not correspond to the recently updated Codex infant formula (IF) standard and current scientific knowledge. New Zealand proposed a revision of the FUF Codex standard and asked the non-profit Early Nutrition Academy, in collaboration with the Federation of International Societies for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (FISPGHAN), for a consultation with paediatric nutrition experts to provide scientific guidance. This global expert group strongly supports breastfeeding. FUF are considered dispensable because IF can substitute for breastfeeding throughout infancy, but FUF are widely used and thus the outdated current FUF standard should be revised. Like IF, FUF serve as breast milk substitutes; hence their marketing should respect appropriate standards. The compositional requirements for FUF for infants from 6 months onwards presented here were unanimously agreed upon. For some nutrients, the compositional requirements for FUF differ from those of IF due to differing needs with infant maturation as well as a rising contribution of an increasingly diversified diet with advancing age. FUF should be fed with adequate complementary feeding that is also appropriate for partially breastfed infants. FUF could be fed also after the age of 1 year without safety concerns, but different compositional requirements should be applied for optimal, age-adapted milk-based formulations for young children used only after the age of 1 year. This has not been considered as part of this review and should be the subject of further consideration.
Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 12/2012; 62(1):44-54. DOI:10.1159/000345906 · 2.62 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.