A Survey to Identify the Current Management of Cow's Milk Disorders and the Role of Goat Milk-Based Formulas in the Middle East and North Africa Region.
Middle East and North Africa
cow’s milk allergy
cow’s milk intolerance
goat milk-based formulas
Journal
Nutrients
ISSN: 2072-6643
Titre abrégé: Nutrients
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101521595
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Mar 2022
03 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
12
12
2021
revised:
18
01
2022
accepted:
20
01
2022
entrez:
10
3
2022
pubmed:
11
3
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cow's milk allergy (CMA) and cow's milk intolerance (CMI) are the major cow's milk disorders observed in infants and young children. This study investigates, for the first time, physician knowledge regarding CMA and CMI prevalence, diagnosis, and management in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. In addition, we explore the role of goat milk-based formula as an alternative in infants suffering from CMI. This cross-sectional survey was conducted from December 2020 to February 2021. A convenience sample of 2500 MENA-based physicians received the questionnaire, developed by a working group of pediatric experts. 1868 physicians completed the questionnaire, including pediatric specialists (80.8%), training physicians (0.2%), dermatologists (0.1%), family/general physicians (12.9%), neonatologists (3.6%), neurosurgeons (0.2%), allergy nurse specialists (0.3%), pharmacists (2.1%), and public health workers (0.1%). Differentiation between CMA and CMI was recognized by the majority of respondents (80.7%), for which the majority of respondents (35.4%) identified that the elimination and challenge test was the best test to differentiate CMA from CMI, whereas 30.7% and 5.4% preferred the immunoglobulin E (IgE) test and skin prick test, respectively. In addition, 28.5% of respondents reported that there is no confirmatory test to differentiate CMA from CMI. The majority of respondents (47.3%) reported that amino acid-based formula (AAF)/ extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) is the cornerstone for the management of CMA. However, most respondents (33.7%) reported that lactose avoidance was best for the management of CMI. Overall, 65% of the respondents were aware of nutritionally adapted goat's milk formula as an alternative to cow's milk products and 37% would recommend its routine use in infants (≤2 years of age). The results of this survey demonstrate that the majority of physicians are aware of the underlying pathophysiology and management of CMA and CMI. However, a significant proportion of physicians do not follow the clinical guidelines concerning CMA/CMI diagnosis and management. Notably, this survey identified that goat's milk formulas may offer a suitable alternative to AAF/EHF in infants with CMI as they contain β-casein protein which is easily digestible. In addition, goat's milk formulas contain higher levels of oligosaccharides and medium-chained fatty acids compared with standard cow's milk formulas, yet further clinical trials are warranted to support the inclusion of goat's milk formulas in clinical guidelines.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cow's milk allergy (CMA) and cow's milk intolerance (CMI) are the major cow's milk disorders observed in infants and young children. This study investigates, for the first time, physician knowledge regarding CMA and CMI prevalence, diagnosis, and management in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. In addition, we explore the role of goat milk-based formula as an alternative in infants suffering from CMI.
METHOD
METHODS
This cross-sectional survey was conducted from December 2020 to February 2021. A convenience sample of 2500 MENA-based physicians received the questionnaire, developed by a working group of pediatric experts.
RESULTS
RESULTS
1868 physicians completed the questionnaire, including pediatric specialists (80.8%), training physicians (0.2%), dermatologists (0.1%), family/general physicians (12.9%), neonatologists (3.6%), neurosurgeons (0.2%), allergy nurse specialists (0.3%), pharmacists (2.1%), and public health workers (0.1%). Differentiation between CMA and CMI was recognized by the majority of respondents (80.7%), for which the majority of respondents (35.4%) identified that the elimination and challenge test was the best test to differentiate CMA from CMI, whereas 30.7% and 5.4% preferred the immunoglobulin E (IgE) test and skin prick test, respectively. In addition, 28.5% of respondents reported that there is no confirmatory test to differentiate CMA from CMI. The majority of respondents (47.3%) reported that amino acid-based formula (AAF)/ extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) is the cornerstone for the management of CMA. However, most respondents (33.7%) reported that lactose avoidance was best for the management of CMI. Overall, 65% of the respondents were aware of nutritionally adapted goat's milk formula as an alternative to cow's milk products and 37% would recommend its routine use in infants (≤2 years of age).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this survey demonstrate that the majority of physicians are aware of the underlying pathophysiology and management of CMA and CMI. However, a significant proportion of physicians do not follow the clinical guidelines concerning CMA/CMI diagnosis and management. Notably, this survey identified that goat's milk formulas may offer a suitable alternative to AAF/EHF in infants with CMI as they contain β-casein protein which is easily digestible. In addition, goat's milk formulas contain higher levels of oligosaccharides and medium-chained fatty acids compared with standard cow's milk formulas, yet further clinical trials are warranted to support the inclusion of goat's milk formulas in clinical guidelines.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35268042
pii: nu14051067
doi: 10.3390/nu14051067
pmc: PMC8912394
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
J Paediatr Child Health. 2005 Nov;41(11):564-8
pubmed: 16398838
Nutrients. 2019 Jul 27;11(8):
pubmed: 31357608
Nutr J. 2016 Apr 02;15:35
pubmed: 27039383
J Appl Genet. 2007;48(3):189-98
pubmed: 17666771
Nutrients. 2018 Nov 09;10(11):
pubmed: 30423934
World Allergy Organ J. 2016 Nov 15;9(1):35
pubmed: 27895813
Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2022 Feb;73(1):28-38
pubmed: 33957845
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012 Aug;55(2):221-9
pubmed: 22569527
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 May;117(5):1118-24
pubmed: 16675341
Can Fam Physician. 2021 Mar;67(3):180-182
pubmed: 33727377
Clin Exp Allergy. 2014;44(5):642-72
pubmed: 24588904
Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets. 2014 Mar;14(1):16-26
pubmed: 24450454
Microbiologyopen. 2021 Jun;10(3):e1187
pubmed: 34180592
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011 Feb;22(1 Pt 2):e133-8
pubmed: 21342278
Saudi Med J. 2000 Jan;21(1):81-7
pubmed: 11533756
Eur J Pediatr. 2015 Feb;174(2):141-50
pubmed: 25257836
Allergy. 2002 Apr;57(4):362-5
pubmed: 11906370
Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2012;5:113-21
pubmed: 22826639
Nutrients. 2015 Aug 31;7(9):7285-97
pubmed: 26404362
Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 2017;37(6):940-947
pubmed: 29725217
Turk J Pediatr. 2016;58(1):1-11
pubmed: 27922230
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2011 May 31;7(1):11
pubmed: 21627816
Food Nutr Res. 2015 Dec 10;59:28613
pubmed: 26652603
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2017 Dec;65(6):661-666
pubmed: 28968291
Nutr J. 2016 Mar 17;15:28
pubmed: 26987690
Adv Nutr. 2017 Sep 15;8(5):739-748
pubmed: 28916574
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002 Dec;89(6 Suppl 1):33-7
pubmed: 12487202
Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr. 2014 Jun;17(2):61-73
pubmed: 25061580
Br J Nutr. 2014 May;111(9):1641-51
pubmed: 24502951
Allergy. 2014 Aug;69(8):1008-25
pubmed: 24909706
Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009 Jun;9(3):251-8
pubmed: 19412090
Saudi J Gastroenterol. 1998 Jan;4(1):25-9
pubmed: 19864783
Nutrients. 2016 May 11;8(5):
pubmed: 27187450
Br J Nutr. 2019 Aug 28;122(4):441-449
pubmed: 31196229
Nutr J. 2017 Oct 25;16(1):72
pubmed: 29070042
J Food Sci. 2021 Feb;86(2):257-265
pubmed: 33438254