4.5 Review

Long-term consequences of breastfeeding on cholesterol, obesity, systolic blood pressure and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
Volume 104, Issue -, Pages 30-37

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/apa.13133

Keywords

Blood lipids; blood pressure; breastfeeding; meta-analysis; obesity; systematic review; type 2 diabetes

Categories

Funding

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimTo systematically review the evidence on the associations between breastfeeding and overweight/obesity, blood pressure, total cholesterol and type 2 diabetes. MethodsTwo independent literature searches were carried out using the MEDLINE, LILACS, SCIELO and Web of Science databases. Studies restricted to infants and those without an internal comparison group were excluded. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to pool the estimates. ResultsBreastfed subjects were less likely to be considered obese/overweight [pooled odds ratio: 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70; 0.78)] (n=113). Among the 11 high-quality studies, the association was smaller [pooled odds ratio: 0.87 (95%CI: 0.76; 0.99)]. Total cholesterol (n=46) was independent of breastfeeding [pooled mean difference: -0.01mmol/L (95%CI: -0.05; 0.02)]. Systolic blood pressure (n=43) was lower among breastfed subjects [mean difference: -0.80 (95%CI: -1.17; -0.43)], but no association was observed among larger studies, and for diastolic blood pressure (n=38) [mean difference: -0.24 (95%CI: -0.50; 0.02)]. For type 2 diabetes (n=11), the odds ratio was lower among those subjects who had been breastfed [pooled odds ratio: 0.65 (95%CI: 0.49; 0.86)]. ConclusionBreastfeeding decreased the odds of type 2 diabetes and based on high-quality studies, decreased by 13% the odds of overweight/obesity. No associations were found for total cholesterol or blood pressure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available