Domperidone: The Forbidden Fruit

Efficacy and Safety of Domperidone and Metoclopramide in Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of domperidone and metoclopramide used by breastfeeding women. Methods: A systematic literature search retrieved citations from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Medline, EBSCO, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov (from inception to January, 2021) and bibliographies of known articles. Randomized controlled trials exploring the effects of domperidone and metoclopramide in breastfeeding women with term and preterm infants experiencing adequate or low milk supply were identified. Human milk volume and maternal side effects were presented as mean difference (MD) or relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Sixteen trials involving 729 women were included in the qualitative analysis and 14 trials involving 607 women were included in the meta-analysis. In mothers of preterm infants with low milk supply, domperidone demonstrated a significant increase in daily human milk volume (MD = 90.53 mL/day, 95% CI [65.42 to 115.64], I² = 9%). However, metoclopramide did not show significant difference in daily human milk volume in women with preterm infants (MD = -1.14 mL/day, 95% CI [-31.42 to 29.14], I² = 0%). No differences in maternal side effects were noted with domperidone (RR = 1.20, 95% CI [0.74 to 1.97], I² = 0%) or metoclopramide (RR = 1.05, 95% CI [0.52 to 2.11], I² = 27%) in women with preterm infants. Regarding the women with term infants, there were insufficient data in the current review. Conclusions: Domperidone can be used to treat low milk supply in women with preterm infants without significant side effects based on the current review. More evidence exploring the efficacy and safety of domperidone and metoclopramide are still needed for breastfeeding women in the future.

Oral galactagogues (natural therapies or drugs) for increasing breast milk production in mothers of non-hospitalised term infants

BACKGROUND

Many women express concern about their ability to produce enough milk, and insufficient milk is frequently cited as the reason for supplementation and early termination of breastfeeding. When addressing this concern, it is important first to consider the influence of maternal and neonatal health, infant suck, proper latch, and feeding frequency on milk production, and that steps be taken to correct or compensate for any contributing issues. Oral galactagogues are substances that stimulate milk production. They may be pharmacological or non-pharmacological (natural). Natural galactagogues are usually botanical or other food agents. The choice between pharmacological or natural galactagogues is often influenced by familiarity and local customs. Evidence for the possible benefits and harms of galactagogues is important for making an informed decision on their use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of oral galactagogues for increasing milk production in non-hospitalised breastfeeding mother-term infant pairs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Health Research and Development Network - Phillippines (HERDIN), Natural Products Alert (Napralert), the personal reference collection of author LM, and reference lists of retrieved studies (4 November 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including published abstracts) comparing oral galactagogues with placebo, no treatment, or another oral galactagogue in mothers breastfeeding healthy term infants. We also included cluster-randomised trials but excluded cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two to four review authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data for analysis and checked accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted the study authors for clarification.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one RCTs involving 3005 mothers and 3006 infants from at least 17 countries met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted either in hospitals immediately postpartum or in the community. There was considerable variation in mothers, particularly in parity and whether or not they had lactation insufficiency. Infants' ages at commencement of the studies ranged from newborn to 6 months. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low because of high risk of biases (mainly due to lack of blinding), substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity, and imprecision of measurements. Pharmacological galactagogues Nine studies compared a pharmacological galactagogue (domperidone, metoclopramide, sulpiride, thyrotropin-releasing hormone) with placebo or no treatment. The primary outcome of proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months was not reported. Only one study (metoclopramide) reported on the outcome of infant weight, finding little or no difference (mean difference (MD) 23.0 grams, 95% confidence interval (CI) -47.71 to 93.71; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies (metoclopramide, domperidone, sulpiride) reported on milk volume, finding pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume (MD 63.82 mL, 95% CI 25.91 to 101.72; I² = 34%; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicates there may be increased milk volume with each drug, but with varying CIs. There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints, such as tiredness, nausea, headache and dry mouth (very low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported for infants. Natural galactagogues Twenty-seven studies compared natural oral galactagogues (banana flower, fennel, fenugreek, ginger, ixbut, levant cotton, moringa, palm dates, pork knuckle, shatavari, silymarin, torbangun leaves or other natural mixtures) with placebo or no treatment. One study (Mother's Milk Tea) reported breastfeeding rates at six months with a concluding statement of "no significant difference" (no data and no measure of significance provided, 60 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (fennel, fenugreek, moringa, mixed botanical tea) reported infant weight but could not be meta-analysed due to substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I² = 60%, 275 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis shows we are very uncertain whether fennel or fenugreek improves infant weight, whereas moringa and mixed botanical tea may increase infant weight compared to placebo. Thirteen studies (Bu Xue Sheng Ru, Chanbao, Cui Ru, banana flower, fenugreek, ginger, moringa, fenugreek, ginger and turmeric mix, ixbut, mixed botanical tea, Sheng Ru He Ji, silymarin, Xian Tong Ru, palm dates; 962 participants) reported on milk volume, but meta-analysis was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 99%). The subgroup analysis for each intervention suggested either benefit or little or no difference (very low-certainty evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints such as mothers with urine that smelled like maple syrup and urticaria in infants (very low-certainty evidence). Galactagogue versus galactagogue Eight studies (Chanbao; Bue Xue Sheng Ru, domperidone, moringa, fenugreek, palm dates, torbangun, moloco, Mu Er Wu You, Kun Yuan Tong Ru) compared one oral galactagogue with another. We were unable to perform meta-analysis because there was only one small study for each match-up, so we do not know if one galactagogue is better than another for any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to extremely limited, very low certainty evidence, we do not know whether galactagogues have any effect on proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months. There is low-certainty evidence that pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume. There is some evidence from subgroup analyses that natural galactagogues may benefit infant weight and milk volume in mothers with healthy, term infants, but due to substantial heterogeneity of the studies, imprecision of measurements and incomplete reporting, we are very uncertain about the magnitude of the effect. We are also uncertain if one galactagogue performs better than another. With limited data on adverse effects, we are uncertain if there are any concerning adverse effects with any particular galactagogue; those reported were minor complaints. High-quality RCTs on the efficacy and safety of galactagogues are urgently needed. A set of core outcomes to standardise infant weight and milk volume measurement is also needed, as well as a strong basis for the dose and dosage form used.

Drugs in Lactation

One impediment to breastfeeding is the lack of information on the use of many drugs during lactation, especially newer ones. The principles of drug passage into breastmilk are well established, but have often not been optimally applied prospectively. Commonly used preclinical rodent models for determining drug excretion into milk are very unreliable because of marked differences in milk composition and transporters compared to those of humans. Measurement of drug concentrations in humans remains the gold standard, but computer modeling is promising. New FDA labeling requirements present an opportunity to apply modeling to preclinical drug development in place of conventional animal testing for drug excretion into breastmilk, which should improve the use of medications in nursing mothers.