Disparities in being able to donate human milk impacts upon maternal wellbeing: Lessons for scaling up milk bank service provision.

Receiving donor human milk for a baby can have a protective effect upon parental wellbeing. A growing body of research also finds that being able to donate milk to a milk bank, particularly after infant loss, can also boost maternal wellbeing through feelings of altruism and purpose. However, most studies are qualitative, with small sample sizes outside the United Kingdom, and often do not include the experiences of those who have been unable to donate. Our aim was therefore to examine the impact of being able to donate milk, as well as the impact of not being able to do so, using a survey containing open and closed questions in a large UK sample. Overall, 1149 women completed the survey, 417 (36.3%) who donated their milk and 732 (63.7%) who did not. Most women who donated found it had a positive impact upon their wellbeing, feeling proud, useful and that they had achieved something important. Conversely, those unable to donate often felt rejected, frustrated, and excluded, especially if they received no response or felt that restrictions were unfair. Thematic analysis found that being able to donate could help women heal from experiences such as birth trauma, difficult breastfeeding experiences, neonatal unit stays, and infant loss; however, being unable to donate could exacerbate negative emotions arising from similar experiences. A minority of women who donated experienced raised anxiety over following guidelines. These findings further extend the impacts of milk banking services beyond infant health and development and support expanded service delivery.

Receiving screened donor human milk as part of a community-based lactation support programme reduces parental symptoms of anxiety and depression.

Infant feeding decisions and maternal mental health are closely tied. Donor human milk (DHM) protects premature infant health and development and can reduce hospital stays. Recent qualitative research has highlighted that having the option for an infant to receive DHM can also support parental wellbeing through reducing concerns about infant health and supporting feeding preferences. However, no quantitative study has examined this relationship. In this study, anxiety and depression scores were measured before and after receiving DHM using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for 80 parents (77 mothers, 3 fathers) who had sought DHM from a community-facing milk bank. Reasons for seeking DHM included maternal cancer, maternal and infant health complications, insufficient glandular tissue, and low milk supply. Open-ended questions explored the experience of receiving milk. Milk bank records were used to match details of milk given (volume, duration, exclusivity, lactation support given) with survey responses. Both anxiety and depression scores significantly reduced after receiving milk. Although greater lactation support and longer duration of milk predicted a greater decrease in scores, in a regression analysis, only volume of milk given remained a significant predictor. Almost all parents agreed that being able to access DHM supported their wellbeing predominantly through reducing anxieties around infant health but also through feeding choices being respected and the support given at difficult times. The findings add important considerations to the literature considering when and for whom DHM should be used and the complex interplay between infant feeding and mental health.

Donation barriers, enablers, patterns and predictors of milk bank donors in the United States and United Kingdom.

Pasteurised donor human milk is recommended for very low birthweight infants who do not have access to their mother's milk. Although the use of donor milk continues to increase, little is known about the donation experiences of milk bank donors. We aimed to describe and compare enablers, barriers and patterns of human milk donation and identify factors predicting donation volume in a convenience sample of approved milk bank donors in the United Kingdom and the United States. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from August 2022 to December 2022. Approved milk bank donors (n = 556) from three milk banks in the United States (n = 369, Mothers' Milk Bank of Florida, Mother's Milk Bank of North Texas and Northwest Mothers Milk Bank) and one milk bank in the United Kingdom (n = 187, Hearts Milk Bank) completed the survey. A substantial portion of donors in both settings reported participating in other forms of milk exchange (51% of U.S. donors vs. 39% of UK donors, p = 0.009). Top donation barriers reported in both settings were completing the serological screening and having enough space to store collected milk. Most donors started donating when their infant was 3 months old or older and reported donating mature milk. The most common source of information related to milk banking in each setting was the internet (United Kingdom-70% vs. United States - 63%, p = 0.112). Variables that predicted lifetime donation volume differed between the United States and the United Kingdom, highlighting the importance of setting-specific milk banking research.

Comparison between the for-profit human milk industry and nonprofit human milk banking: Time for regulation?

Human milk (HM) is a highly evolutionary selected, complex biofluid, which provides tailored nutrition, immune system support and developmental cues that are unique to each maternal-infant dyad. In the absence of maternal milk, the World Health Organisation recommends vulnerable infants should be fed with screened donor HM (DHM) from a HM bank (HMB) ideally embedded in local or regional lactation support services. However, demand for HM products has arisen from an increasing awareness of the developmental and health impacts of the early introduction of formula and a lack of prioritisation into government-funded and nonprofit milk banking and innovation. This survey of global nonprofit milk bank leaders aimed to outline the trends, commonalities and differences between nonprofit and for-profit HM banking, examine strategies regarding the marketing and placement of products to hospital and public customers and outline the key social, ethical and human rights concerns. The survey captured information from 59 milk bank leaders in 30 countries from every populated continent. In total, five companies are currently trading HM products with several early-stage private milk companies (PMCs). Products tended to be more expensive from PMC than HMB, milk providers were financially remunerated and lactation support for milk providers and recipients was not a core function of PMCs. Current regulatory frameworks for HM vary widely, with the majority of countries lacking any framework, and most others placing HM within food legislation, which does not include the support and care of milk donors and recipient prioritisation. Regulation as a Medical Product of Human Origin was only in place to prevent the sale of HM in four countries; export and import of HM was banned in two countries. This paper discusses the safety and ethical concerns raised by the commodification of HM and the opportunities policymakers have globally and country-level to limit the potential for exploitation and the undermining of breastfeeding.

Comparison of Breastfeeding and Pumping Experiences of Milk Bank Donors in the United States and United Kingdom.

Background/Objective: As human milk banking services expand, information about lifestyle characteristics and infant feeding experiences of milk bank donors is relatively limited. Our goal was to describe and compare milk bank donors' demographic, clinical, and lifestyle characteristics, and breastfeeding experiences in a variety of geographic settings. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from August 2022 to December 2022 with approved donors from three milk banks in the United States (n = 369), and one milk bank in United Kingdom (n = 187). Results: Donors in all settings were predominantly in their early 30s, White, married, educated, and identified as female. U.K. donors reported more frequently being on maternity leave (33% versus 5%, p < 0.001), predominantly feeding directly at the breast in the first 3 months postpartum (51% versus 28%, p < 0.001), and breastfeeding a single child longer (21.2 versus 13.3 months, p < 0.001) than U.S. donors. Significantly more U.S. donors reported pumping due to work (34% versus 11%, p < 0.001) and pumping multiple times per day (57% versus 36%, p < 0.001). Most donors reported receiving information about breastfeeding from a health care provider (94% United States and 88% United Kingdom, p = 0.022), while the internet was the most popular source of information about pumping (65% United States and 64% United Kingdom, p = 0.751). Conclusion: Factors not directly related to milk banking (e.g., maternity leave, sources of breastfeeding/pumping assistance) may have an impact on how donors feed their children and ultimately on their milk donation pattern. The impact of donor characteristics and feeding practices on donation patterns warrants further investigation.

Understanding the current and future usage of donor human milk in hospitals: An online survey of UK neonatal units.

The use of donor human milk (DHM) where there is a shortfall of maternal milk can benefit both infant and maternal outcomes but DHM supply is not always assured. This study aimed to understand current DHM usage in UK neonatal units and potential future demand to inform service planning. An online survey was disseminated to all UK neonatal units using Smart Survey or by telephone between February and April 2022 after development alongside neonatal unit teams. Surveys were completed by 55.4% of units (108/195) from all 13 Operational Delivery Networks. Only four units reported not using DHM, and another two units only if infants are transferred on DHM feeds. There was marked diversity in DHM implementation and usage and unit protocols varied greatly. Five of six units with their own milk bank had needed to source milk from an external milk bank in the last year. Ninety units (84.9%) considered DHM was sometimes (n = 35) or always (n = 55) supportive of maternal breastfeeding, and three units (2.9%) responded that DHM was rarely supportive of breastfeeding. Usage was predicted to increase by 37 units (34.9%), and this drive was principally a result of parental preference, clinical trials and improved evidence. These findings support the assumption that UK hospital DHM demand will increase after updated recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. These data will assist service delivery planning, underpinned by an ongoing programme of implementation science and training development, to ensure future equity of access to DHM nationally.

Exploring Human Milk, Nutrition, Growth, and Breastfeeding Rates at Discharge(HUMMINGBIRD Study): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Mother's own breast milk (MOM) is the optimal nutrition for preterm infants as it reduces the incidence of key neonatal morbidities and improves long-term outcomes. However, MOM shortfall is common and either preterm formula or pasteurised donor human milk (DHM) may be used, although practice varies widely. Limited data suggest that the use of DHM may impact maternal beliefs and behaviours and therefore breastfeeding rates. The aim of this pilot study is to determine if longer duration of DHM exposure increases breastfeeding rates, and if a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design is feasible. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Human Milk, Nutrition, Growth, and Breastfeeding Rates at Discharge (HUMMINGBIRD) Study is a feasibility and pilot, non-blinded RCT with a contemporaneous qualitative evaluation. Babies born less than 33 weeks' gestation or with birth weight <1500 g whose mothers intend to provide MOM are randomly assigned to either control (DHM used to make up shortfall until full feeds and preterm formula thereafter) or intervention (DHM used for shortfall until 36 weeks' corrected age or discharge if sooner). The primary outcome is breast feeding at discharge. Secondary outcomes include growth, neonatal morbidities, length of stay, breastfeeding self-efficacy and postnatal depression using validated questionnaires. Qualitative interviews using a topic guide will explore perceptions around use of DHM and analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee granted approval (IRAS Project ID 281071) and recruitment commenced on 7 June 2021. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57339063.

Diversity and trends of human milk banking: a scoping review from 1946 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: The provision of donor human milk (DHM) through human milk banks is now widely practised globally. The study aimed to describe the current state, identify major topics and map out the emerging trends in human milk banking. METHODS: PubMed was systematically searched for publications related to DHM, with the last update on 14 May 2021, for papers published between 1946 and 2021. Titles and abstracts were screened and indexed into 8 main and 39 subcategories. A top-up search was done in April 2022, but these results have not been incorporated. RESULTS: A total of 1083 publications were identified, and more than a third (41%) were either observational or interventional studies. Predominant topics were milk type and milk composition. Almost half (49%) of the publications in the last decade were funded through government/research councils, and industry funding started shortly after links between formula and necrotising enterocolitis were published. Literature from high-income countries was six times more than publications from low-income or middle-income countries (LMICs). CONCLUSION: The diversity and trends of publications included in this scoping review ranged from descriptive studies comparing biological and compositional differences of mother's own milk, DHM and/or formula. Very few studies have investigated associations of different milk types with infant outcomes. Evidence on breastfeeding and recipient psychological health outcomes is limited. Further research should identify the appropriateness of different funding sources. Future collaborations between academics, clinicians and milk banks in LMICs should be fostered to bridge the gap that exists between DHM and access.

Human Milk from Tandem Feeding Dyads Does Not Differ in Metabolite and Metataxonomic Features When Compared to Single Nursling Dyads under Six Months of Age.

Given the long-term advantages of exclusive breastfeeding to infants and their mothers, there is both an individual and public health benefit to its promotion and support. Data on the composition of human milk over the course of a full period of lactation for a single nursling is sparse, but data on human milk composition during tandem feeding (feeding children of different ages from different pregnancies) is almost entirely absent. This leaves an important knowledge gap that potentially endangers the ability of parents to make a fully informed choice on infant feeding. We compared the metataxonomic and metabolite fingerprints of human milk samples from 15 tandem feeding dyads to that collected from ten exclusively breastfeeding single nursling dyads where the nursling is under six months of age. Uniquely, our cohort also included three tandem feeding nursling dyads where each child showed a preferential side for feeding-allowing a direct comparison between human milk compositions for different aged nurslings. Across our analysis of volume, total fat, estimation of total microbial load, metabolite fingerprinting, and metataxonomics, we showed no statistically significant differences between tandem feeding and single nursling dyads. This included comparisons of preferential side nurslings of different ages. Together, our findings support the practice of tandem feeding of nurslings, even when feeding an infant under six months.

Comparative Profiles of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific Human Milk Antibodies Elicited by mRNA- and Adenovirus-Based COVID-19 Vaccines.

Background: Numerous COVID-19 vaccines are authorized globally. To date, ∼71% of doses comprise the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, and ∼17% the Moderna/NIH vaccine, both of which are messenger RNA (mRNA) based. The chimpanzee Ad-based Oxford/AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine comprises ∼9%, while the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen (J&J) human adenovirus (Ad26) vaccine ranks fourth at ∼2%. No COVID-19 vaccine is yet available for children 0-4. One method to protect this population may be passive immunization through antibodies (Abs) provided in the milk of a lactating vaccinated person. Our early work and other reports have demonstrated that unlike the post-SARS-CoV-2 infection milk Ab profile, which is rich in specific secretory (s)IgA, the vaccine response is highly IgG dominant. Results: In this report, we present a comparative assessment of the milk Ab response elicited by Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, and AZ vaccines. This analysis revealed 86-100% of mRNA vaccine recipient milk exhibited Spike-specific IgG endpoint titers, which were 12- to 28-fold higher than those measured for Ad vaccine recipient milk. Ad-based vaccines elicited Spike-specific milk IgG in only 33-38% of recipients. Specific IgA was measured in 52-71% of mRNA vaccine recipient milk and 17-23% of Ad vaccine recipient milk. J&J recipient milk exhibited significantly lower IgA than Moderna recipients, and AZ recipients exhibited significantly lower IgA titers than Moderna and Pfizer. Less than 50% of milk of any group exhibited specific secretory Ab, with Moderna recipient IgA titers measuring significantly higher than AZ. Moderna appeared to most frequently elicit greater than twofold increases in specific secretory Ab titer relative to prevaccine sample. Conclusion: These data indicate that current Ad-based COVID-19 vaccines poorly elicit Spike-specific Ab in milk compared to mRNA-based vaccines, and that mRNA vaccines are preferred for immunizing the lactating population. This study highlights the need to design vaccines better aimed at eliciting an optimal milk Ab response.

Establishing a novel community-focussed lactation support service: a descriptive case series.

BACKGROUND: Although breastfeeding is widely acknowledged as protecting both infant and maternal health postnatally, a partial or complete shortfall of maternal milk can occur for a range of reasons. In this eventuality, the currently available options for feeding infants are screened donor human milk (DHM), infant formula or unscreened shared human milk. In the UK, DHM has only been widely available in specific clinical contexts for the last 40 years, mainly to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in extremely preterm infants alongside optimal support for maternal lactation and breastfeeding. The Hearts Milk Bank (HMB) was established in 2017 as an independent, non-profit human milk bank that aimed to ensure equitable, assured access to screened DHM for neonatal units. As a result of the generosity of mothers, a surplus of DHM rapidly became available and together with lactation support, has since been provided to families with a healthcare referral. This programme has now been formalised for families facing lactational challenges, and DHM stocks are permanently maintained to meet their needs. CASE SERIES: This case series describes the clinical paths of four families who accessed lactation support and DHM from the HMB, along with a description of the process for community provision. To date, the HMB has supported over 300 families. Working collaboratively with key stakeholders, the HMB team has developed a prioritisation strategy based on utilitarian ethical models, protocols that ensure safe handling and appropriateness of use, broader donor recruitment parameters that maintain safety with a pragmatic approach for full term healthy infants, and a process to ensure parents or carers have access to the knowledge needed to give informed consent and use DHM appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders, including parents, healthcare professionals, and milk banks, will need to discuss priorities for both DHM use and research gaps that can underpin the equitable expansion of services, in partnership with National Health Service (NHS) teams and third-sector organisations that support breastfeeding and maternal mental health.

Antiviral Properties of Human Milk.

Humans have always coexisted with viruses, with both positive and negative consequences. Evolutionary pressure on mammals has selected intrinsic properties of lactation and milk to support the relatively immunocompromised neonate from environmental pathogens, as well as support the normal development of diverse immune responses. Human milk supports both adaptive and innate immunity, with specific constituents that drive immune learning and maturation, and direct protection against microorganisms. Viruses constitute one of the most ancient pressures on human evolution, and yet there is a lack of awareness by both public and healthcare professionals of the complexity of human milk as an adaptive response beyond the production of maternal antibodies. This review identifies and describes the specific antiviral properties of human milk and describes how maternal support of infants through lactation is protective beyond antibodies.

Maintaining human milk bank services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic: A global response.

If maternal milk is unavailable, the World Health Organization recommends that the first alternative should be pasteurised donor human milk (DHM). Human milk banks (HMBs) screen and recruit milk donors, and DHM principally feeds very low birth weight babies, reducing the risk of complications and supporting maternal breastfeeding where used alongside optimal lactation support. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a range of challenges to HMBs worldwide. This study aimed to understand the impacts of the pandemic on HMB services and develop initial guidance regarding risk limitation. A Virtual Collaborative Network (VCN) comprising over 80 HMB leaders from 36 countries was formed in March 2020 and included academics and nongovernmental organisations. Individual milk banks, national networks and regional associations submitted data regarding the number of HMBs, volume of DHM produced and number of recipients in each global region. Estimates were calculated in the context of missing or incomplete data. Through open-ended questioning, the experiences of milk banks from each country in the first 2 months of the pandemic were collected and major themes identified. According to data collected from 446 individual HMBs, more than 800,000 infants receive DHM worldwide each year. Seven pandemic-related specific vulnerabilities to service provision were identified, including sufficient donors, prescreening disruption, DHM availability, logistics, communication, safe handling and contingency planning, which were highly context-dependent. The VCN now plans a formal consensus approach to the optimal response of HMBs to new pathogens using crowdsourced data, enabling the benchmarking of future strategies to support DHM access and neonatal health in future emergencies.

Use of donor human milk in nonhospitalized infants: An infant growth study.

When mother's own milk (MOM) is unavailable or insufficient, donor human milk (DHM) is recommended as the next best alternative for low birthweight infants. DHM use for healthy, term infants is increasing, but evidence for growth and tolerability is limited. This retrospective study evaluated growth in term infants in the community who received DHM from a UK milk bank. Mothers of infants receiving DHM between 2017 and 2019 were contacted (n = 49), and 31 (63.2%) agreed to participate. Fourteen infants received DHM as a supplement to other feeds (MOM and/or infant formula) and 17 were exclusively fed DHM where breastfeeding was impossible (range: 3-6 weeks). Growth was assessed by deriving z-scores using the WHO standard for infant growth and compared with 200 exclusively breastfed infants. Multivariate regression analysis revealed no feeding method-specific association between z-score and age, nor between weight and age, suggesting that z-scores and growth velocity were not affected by feeding exclusive MOM, supplemental DHM or exclusive DHM. DHM was well-tolerated with no adverse events that led to early cessation. After receiving supplemental DHM group, 63% of infants whose mothers had no physical barrier to breastfeeding (5/8 infants) were exclusively breastfed. This novel study reports adequate growth outcomes of healthy nonhospitalized infants receiving DHM, either as the sole milk source or supplement. Prospective studies are needed to confirm whether DHM is a suitable feeding alternative for term infants in the community, optimal durations, as well as the impact of DHM availability on breastfeeding rates and maternal mental health.

Breastfeeding and the origins of health: Interdisciplinary perspectives and priorities.

Breastfeeding and human milk (HM) are critically important to maternal, infant and population health. This paper summarizes the proceedings of a workshop that convened a multidisciplinary panel of researchers to identify key priorities and anticipated breakthroughs in breastfeeding and HM research, discuss perceived barriers and challenges to achieving these breakthroughs and propose a constructive action plan to maximize the impact of future research in this field. Priority research areas identified were as follows: (1) addressing low breastfeeding rates and inequities using mixed methods, community partnerships and implementation science approaches; (2) improving awareness of evidence-based benefits, challenges and complexities of breastfeeding and HM among health practitioners and the public; (3) identifying differential impacts of alternative modes of HM feeding including expressed/pumped milk, donor milk and shared milk; and (4) developing a mechanistic understanding of the health effects of breastfeeding and the contributors to HM composition and variability. Key barriers and challenges included (1) overcoming methodological limitations of epidemiological breastfeeding research and mechanistic HM research; (2) counteracting 'breastfeeding denialism' arising from negative personal breastfeeding experiences; (3) distinguishing and aligning research and advocacy efforts; and (4) managing real and perceived conflicts of interest. To advance research on breastfeeding and HM and maximize the reach and impact of this research, larger investments are needed, interdisciplinary collaboration is essential, and the scientific community must engage families and other stakeholders in research planning and knowledge translation.

Experiences of breastfeeding during COVID-19: Lessons for future practical and emotional support.

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown and social distancing led to changes to breastfeeding support available to women in the United Kingdom. Face-to-face professional support was reduced, and face-to-face peer support was cancelled. Anecdotal media accounts highlighted practices separating some mothers and babies in hospitals, alongside inaccurate stories of the safety of breastfeeding circulating. Meanwhile, new families were confined to their homes, separated from families and support networks. Given that we know breastfeeding is best supported by practices that keep mother and baby together, high-quality professional and peer-to-peer support, and positive maternal well-being, it is important to understand the impact of the pandemic upon the ability to breastfeed. To explore this, we conducted an online survey with 1219 breastfeeding mothers in the United Kingdom with a baby 0-12 months old to understand the impact of the pandemic upon breastfeeding duration, experiences and support. The results highlighted two very different experiences: 41.8% of mothers felt that breastfeeding was protected due to lockdown, but 27.0% of mothers struggled to get support and had numerous barriers stemming from lockdown with some stopped breastfeeding before they were ready. Mothers with a lower education, with more challenging living circumstances and from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to find the impact of lockdown challenging and stop breastfeeding. The findings are vital in understanding how we now support those women who may be grieving their loss of breastfeeding and are affected by their negative experiences and how we can learn from those with a positive experience to make sure all breastfeeding women are better supported if similar future events arise.

Metabolomic and Metataxonomic Fingerprinting of Human Milk Suggests Compositional Stability over a Natural Term of Breastfeeding to 24 Months.

Sparse data exist regarding the normal range of composition of maternal milk beyond the first postnatal weeks. This single timepoint, observational study in collaboration with the 'Parenting Science Gang' citizen science group evaluated the metabolite and bacterial composition of human milk from 62 participants (infants aged 3-48 months), nearly 3 years longer than previous studies. We utilised rapid evaporative ionisation mass spectrometry (REIMS) for metabolic fingerprinting and 16S rRNA gene metataxonomics for microbiome composition analysis. Milk expression volumes were significantly lower beyond 24 months of lactation, but there were no corresponding changes in bacterial load, composition, or whole-scale metabolomic fingerprint. Some individual metabolite features (~14%) showed altered abundances in nursling age groups above 24 months. Neither milk expression method nor nursling sex affected metabolite and metataxonomic fingerprints. Self-reported lifestyle factors, including diet and physical traits, had minimal impact on metabolite and metataxonomic fingerprints. Our findings suggest remarkable consistency in human milk composition over natural-term lactation. The results add to previous studies suggesting that milk donation can continue up to 24 months postnatally. Future longitudinal studies will confirm the inter-individual and temporal nature of compositional variations and the use of donor milk as a personalised therapeutic.