20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recommendations for the Establishment and Operation of Human Milk Banks in Europe: A Consensus Statement From the European Milk Bank Association (EMBA)

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives: To develop recommendations from the European Milk Bank Association (EMBA) for the establishment and operation of human milk banks (HMB) in Europe.

          Method: A working group comprising members of the EMBA was convened in 2015 to develop Europe-wide recommendations for milk banks. Each member had experience of guideline development and/or milk banking operations. An initial survey was agreed using collated published global recommendations. A total of 108 potential recommendations were included in the survey; responders noted which were included in their national guidelines. The responses were collated, compared, and discussed and the group determined where there was consensus and where substantial or minor differences were identified. Where there was consensus or robust published evidence on which to base recommendations these were included. When there was no consensus and no clear evidence base, a statement of explanation based on collective expert opinion was agreed.

          Results: Published, internationally available guidelines with recommendations for human milk banks from France, Italy, and the UK, together with guidelines from Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland were included as source materials. These covered: General recommendations; Donor recruitment and screening; Expression, handling, and storage of donor human milk (DHM); Pooling of DHM; Milk screening; Milk treatment (pasteurization); Delivery of DHM to recipients.

          Conclusions: Evidence based recommendations and consensus statements from the EMBA will now be published on the EMBA website to assist in the safe establishment and operation of HMBs throughout Europe. These have also been used to inform the chapter on human milk to be included in the 2019 edition of the Guide to the quality and safety of tissues and cells for human application, published by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM).

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants

          When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non‐nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. To determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants. We used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (until 8 June 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed‐effect model in meta‐analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) methods. Eleven trials, in which 1809 infants participated in total, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and seven compared nutrient‐enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the four most recent trials used nutrient‐fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials. Formula‐fed infants had higher in‐hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). We did not find evidence of an effect on long‐term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.06). The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all‐cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision). In preterm and LBW infants, feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all‐cause mortality, or on long‐term growth or neurodevelopment. Review question When a mother's own breast milk is not available, does feeding preterm or low birth weight infants with formula rather than donor breast milk affect digestion and growth and the risk of severe bowel problems? Background Preterm infants often find artificial formula more difficult to digest than human milk, and concerns exist that formula could increase the risk of severe bowel problems. If preterm infants are fed with donor breast milk (when a mother's own breast milk is insufficient or unavailable), rather than an artificial formula, this might reduce the risk of these problems. Donor breast milk, however, is more expensive than many formulas, and may not contain sufficient amounts of key nutrients to ensure optimal growth for preterm or low birth weight infants. Given these concerns, we have reviewed all of the available evidence from clinical trials that compared formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants. Study characteristics In searches up to June 2017, we found 11 completed trials (including more than 1800 infants). Most trials, particularly those trials conducted more recently, used reliable methods. Key results The combined analysis of data from these trials shows that feeding with formula increases rates of growth during the hospital stay, but is associated with a higher risk of developing the severe gut disorder called 'necrotising enterocolitis'. There is no evidence of an effect on survival or longer‐term growth and development. Conclusions The currently available evidence suggests that feeding preterm infants with artificial formula (rather than donor breast milk when mother's own breast milk is not available) is associated with faster rates of growth, but with a near‐doubling of the risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. Further, larger trials could provide stronger and more precise evidence to help clinicians and families make informed choices about this issue. Currently, five such trials (including more than 1200 infants) are ongoing internationally, and we plan to include the data from these trials in this review when these become available.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of Donor Milk Availability on Breast Milk Use and Necrotizing Enterocolitis Rates.

            To examine the availability of donor human milk (DHM) in a population-based cohort and assess whether the availability of DHM was associated with rates of breast milk feeding at NICU discharge and rates of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Guidelines for the establishment and operation of a donor human milk bank.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Pediatr
                Front Pediatr
                Front. Pediatr.
                Frontiers in Pediatrics
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2360
                04 March 2019
                2019
                : 7
                : 53
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Human Milk Foundation Harpenden, United Kingdom
                [2] 2Neonatal Unit of Turin University City of Health and Science of Turin, Turin, Italy
                [3] 3Abteilung Neonatologie Klinik und Poliklinik für Kinder und Jugendliche Leipzig, Germany
                [4] 4Neonatal Unit Milk Bank, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                [5] 5First Serbian Milk Bank Institute of Neonatology, Belgrade, Serbia
                [6] 6Division of Neonatology Department of Pediatrics, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey
                [7] 7Greater Glasgow and Clyde Donor Milk Bank Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow, United Kingdom
                [8] 8PhAN Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Université de Nantes, CRNH-Ouest, Nantes, France
                [9] 9Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Hopital de la Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
                [10] 10Banc de Teixit F. Banc de Sang i Teixits de les Illes Balears, Institut d'Investigacio Sanitaria Illes Balears (IdISBa), Barcelona, Spain
                [11] 11Italian Association of Human Milk Banks (AIBLUD) Milan, Italy
                [12] 12Department of Neonatology Faculty of Health Science, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
                [13] 13Laboratory of Human Milk and Lactation Research Holy Family Hospital Regional Human Milk Bank, Warsaw, Poland
                [14] 14CarMeN Unit INSERM U1060, INRA U1397, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Pierre Bénite, France
                Author notes

                Edited by: Christoph Bührer, Charité Medical University of Berlin, Germany

                Reviewed by: Fernando Cabañas, Hospital Universitario Quirónsalud Madrid, Spain; María Gormaz, Agencia Valenciana de Salud, Spain

                *Correspondence: Gillian Weaver gillian.weaver@ 123456yahoo.com

                This article was submitted to Neonatology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Pediatrics

                Article
                10.3389/fped.2019.00053
                6409313
                30886837
                2c701be7-7e8b-4ea8-8a8f-23b655adaaf4
                Copyright © 2019 Weaver, Bertino, Gebauer, Grovslien, Mileusnic-Milenovic, Arslanoglu, Barnett, Boquien, Buffin, Gaya, Moro, Wesolowska and Picaud.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 31 August 2018
                : 08 February 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 24, Pages: 8, Words: 6068
                Categories
                Pediatrics
                Review

                donor human milk (dhm),human milk bank (hmb),breastfeeding,pasteurization,donor screening,bacteriology testing

                Comments

                Comment on this article