Dietary supplementation with Bifidobacterium lactis NCC2818 from weaning reduces local immunoglobulin production in lymphoid-associated tissues but increases systemic antibodies in healthy neonates

Weaning is associated with a major shift in the microbial community of the intestine, and this instability may make it more acquiescent than the adult microbiota to long-term changes. Modulation achieved through dietary interventions may have potentially beneficial effects on the developing immune system, which is driven primarily by the microbiota. The specific aim of the present study was to determine whether immune development could be modified by dietary supplementation with the human probiotic Bifidobacterium lactis NCC2818 in a tractable model of weaning in infants. Piglets were reared by their mothers before being weaned onto a solid diet supplemented with B. lactis NCC2818, while sibling controls did not receive supplementation. Probiotic supplementation resulted in a reduction in IgA (P,0·0005) and IgM (P,0·009) production by mucosal tissues but had no effect on IgG production (P.0·05). Probiotic- supplemented pigs had more mast cells than unsupplemented littermates (P,0·0001), although numbers in both groups were low. In addition, the supplemented piglets made stronger serum IgG responses to fed and injected antigens (P,0·05). The present findings are consistent with B. lactis NCC2818 reducing intestinal permeability induced by weaning, and suggest that the piglet is a valuable intermediate between rodent models and human infants. The results also strongly suggest that measures of the effect of probiotic supplementation on the immune system need to be interpreted carefully as proxy measures of health benefit. However, they are useful in developing an understanding of the mechanism of action of probiotic strains, an important factor in predicting favourable health outcomes of nutritional intervention.

Parents' experiences of their children's presence in discussions with physicians about leukemia

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine parents' views regarding their preadolescent child's presence during discussions about serious illnesses. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews with parents of children receiving treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia were conducted. Parents were sampled from 6 UK treatment centers. Analysis was informed by the constant comparative method and content analysis. RESULTS: We report on interviews with 53 parents (33 mothers, 20 fathers). Parents acknowledged the benefits of communicating openly with children, but few thought that their child's presence in discussions was straightforwardly desirable. They described how their child's presence restricted their own communication with physicians, made concentrating difficult, and interfered with their efforts to care for their child emotionally. Children's presence was particularly difficult when significant issues were being discussed, including prognoses, adverse results, and certain medical procedures. Parents felt that such discussions posed a potential threat to their child, particularly when they had not first had an opportunity to discuss information with the physician separately from the child. In contrast, separate meetings enabled parents to absorb information and to convey it to their child at an appropriate time and in a reassuring way. Some parents experienced difficulties in accessing separate meetings with physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The difficulties parents described could potentially be addressed by extending, beyond the diagnosis period, the practice of sequencing significant information so that it is communicated to parents in separate meetings before being communicated to the child and by periodically exploring with parents what information would be in each child's interests.

Faith and protection: the construction of hope by parents of children with leukemia and their oncologists

Background. Oncologists are criticized for fostering unrealistic hope in patients and families, but criticisms reflect a perspective that is oversimplified and “expert” guidance that is ambiguous or impractical. Our aim was to understand how pediatric oncologists manage parents' hope in practice and to evaluate how they address parents' needs. Methods. Participants were 53 parents and 12 oncologists whom they consulted across six U.K. centers. We audio recorded consultations approximately 1–2, 6, and 12 months after diagnosis. Parents were interviewed after each consultation to elicit their perspectives on the consultation and clinical relationship. Transcripts of consultations and interviews were analyzed qualitatively. Results. Parents needed hope in order to function effectively in the face of despair, and all wanted the oncologists to help them be hopeful. Most parents focused hope on the short term. They therefore needed oncologists to be authoritative in taking responsibility for the child's long-term survival while cushioning parents from information about longer-term uncertainties and being positive in providing information about short-term progress. A few parents who could not fully trust their oncologist were unable to hope. Conclusion. Oncologists' pivotal role in sustaining hope was one that parents gave them. Most parents' “faith” in the oncologist allowed them to set aside, rather than deny, their fears about survival while investing their hopes in short-term milestones. Oncologists' behavior generally matched parents' needs, contradicting common criticisms of oncologists. Nevertheless, oncologists need to identify and address the difficulty that some parents have in fully trusting the oncologist and, consequently, being hopeful.