Research Article| October 01 2017 Got Eggs? AAP Grand Rounds (2017) 38 (4): 42. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.38-4-42 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Got Eggs?. AAP Grand Rounds October 2017; 38 (4): 42. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.38-4-42 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All PublicationsAll JournalsAAP Grand RoundsPediatricsHospital PediatricsPediatrics In ReviewNeoReviewsAAP NewsAll AAP Sites Search Advanced Search Topics: eggs Source: Iannotti LL, Lutter CK, Stewart CP, et al. Eggs in early complementary feeding and child growth: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2017; 140(1): e20163459; doi: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3459Google Scholar Investigators from multiple institutions in the United States and Ecuador conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of early introduction of eggs on growth parameters in infants and toddlers. Healthy infants 6–9 months old who resided in Co-topaxi Providence, Ecuador, were enrolled in the study. During the 6-month study period, 1 medium-sized egg per day was provided on a weekly basis to infants randomized to the intervention group. Anthropometric measurement was performed in all study infants at baseline and at the end of the study period; daily egg consumption was also assessed. For the analysis, anthropometric measures were converted into z scores, including length-for-age (LAZ), weight-forage (WAZ), weight-for-length (WLZ), and body mass index (BMIz). Stunting was defined as an LAZ less than −2, and being underweight was defined as WAZ less than −2. Primary study outcomes were measures at the end of the 6-month study period. Regression analyses were used to compare outcomes in study infants who received eggs daily and those in the control group. Baseline anthropometric measures and other confounding variables (age at enrollment and sex) were included in the analyses. A total of 163 infants were enrolled in the study; outcome data were analyzed in 148 (91% of those enrolled), including 75 randomized to the intervention group and 73 in the control group. Overall, 84% of enrolled infants came from households engaged in food production, and 84% lived in households in which animals were raised for food and income. The mean education level of the mothers of enrolled infants was 9.0 years. At baseline, the mean LAZ of study infants was −1.9. The prevalence of stunting at baseline was 38%, including 47% of those in the intervention group and 32% of infants in the control group. Over the 6-month study period, egg consumption increased in both groups; however, at the end of the study period, egg intake was significantly higher among those in the intervention group. After adjusting for baseline measurements, LAZ, WAZ, WLZ, and BMIz were all significantly better among those who received eggs daily than those in the control group. At the end of the study period, the prevalence of stunting was 28% in the intervention group and 40% among control infants (P = .001), and the prevalence of underweight infants was 5% and 7%, respectively (P = .008 after controlling for baseline underweight status). The authors conclude that, in this population of young infants, early introduction of eggs significantly improved growth. Dr Dubik has disclosed no financial relationship relevant to this commentary. This commentary does not contain a discussion of an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device. Stunting reflects the cumulative effects of poor maternal and early childhood nutrition and repeated childhood infections. Its long-term consequences include impaired neurodevelopment and... You do not currently have access to this content.
Read full abstract