Increasing exclusive breastfeeding rates is an established public health strategy to reduce chronic disease and protect infants from illness. The role of breastfeeding in addressing health disparities takes on new significance as the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted some communities in Hawai'i, and those with chronic conditions face increased risk of hospitalization and death. However, there are myriad policy, systemic, and environmental barriers that make it difficult for parents to breastfeed, some of which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This editorial discusses the importance of breastfeeding in reducing chronic disease, reviews the status of breastfeeding in Hawai'i, explores the challenges parents face in breastfeeding their infants, especially in the time of COVID-19, and presents opportunities for improved access to lactation care to reduce health disparities.
BACKGROUND: Asthma is a respiratory (airway) condition that affects an estimated 300 million people worldwide and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits free serum immunoglobulin E (IgE). It is called an 'anti-IgE' drug. IgE is an immune mediator involved in clinical manifestations of asthma. A recent update of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance in 2013 recommends omalizumab for use as add-on therapy in adults and children over six years of age with inadequately controlled severe persistent allergic IgE-mediated asthma who require continuous or frequent treatment with oral corticosteroids.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of omalizumab versus placebo or conventional therapy for asthma in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials for potentially relevant studies. The most recent search was performed in June 2013. We also checked the reference lists of included trials and searched online trial registries and drug company websites.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials examining anti-IgE administered in any manner for any duration. Trials with co-interventions were included, as long as they were the same in each arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted and entered data. Three modes of administration were identified from the published literature: inhaled, intravenous and subcutaneous injection. The main focus of the updated review is subcutaneous administration, as this route is currently used in clinical practice. Subgroup analysis was performed by asthma severity. Data were extracted from published and unpublished sources.
MAIN RESULTS: In all, 25 trials were included in the review, including 11 new studies since the last update, for a total of 19 that considered the efficacy of subcutaneous anti-IgE treatment as an adjunct to treatment with corticosteroids.
For participants with moderate or severe asthma who were receiving background inhaled corticosteroid steroid (ICS) therapy, a significant advantage favoured subcutaneous omalizumab with regard to experiencing an asthma exacerbation (odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.60; ten studies, 3261 participants). This represents an absolute reduction from 26% for participants suffering an exacerbation on placebo to 16% on omalizumab, over 16 to 60 weeks. A significant benefit was noted for subcutaneous omalizumab versus placebo with regard to reducing hospitalisations (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; four studies, 1824 participants), representing an absolute reduction in risk from 3% with placebo to 0.5% with omalizumab over 28 to 60 weeks. No separate data on hospitalisations were available for the severe asthma subgroup, and all of these data were reported for participants with the diagnosis of moderate to severe asthma. Participants treated with subcutaneous omalizumab were also significantly more likely to be able to withdraw their ICS completely than those treated with placebo (OR 2.50, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.13), and a small but statistically significant reduction in daily inhaled steroid dose was reported for omalizumab-treated participants compared with those given placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -118 mcg beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalent per day, 95% CI -154 to -84). However, no significant difference between omalizumab and placebo treatment groups was seen in the number of participants who were able to withdraw from oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.63).
Participants treated with subcutaneous omalizumab as an adjunct to treatment with corticosteroids required a small but significant reduction in rescue beta2-agonist medication compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.39 puffs per day, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.24; nine studies, 3524 participants). This benefit was observed in both the moderate to severe (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.31) and severe (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.10) asthma subgroups on a background therapy of inhaled corticosteroids; however, no significant difference between subcutaneous omalizumab and placebo was noted for this outcome in participants with severe asthma who were receiving a background therapy of inhaled plus oral corticosteroids. Significantly fewer serious adverse events were reported in participants assigned to subcutaneous omalizumab than in those receiving placebo (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 15 studies, 5713 participants), but more injection site reactions were observed (from 5.6% with placebo to 9.1% with omalizumab).
To reflect current clinical practice, discussion of the results is limited to subcutaneous use, and trials involving intravenous and inhaled routes have been archived.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab was effective in reducing asthma exacerbations and hospitalisations as an adjunctive therapy to inhaled steroids and during steroid tapering phases of clinical trials. Omalizumab was significantly more effective than placebo in increasing the numbers of participants who were able to reduce or withdraw their inhaled steroids. Omalizumab was generally well tolerated, although more injection site reactions were seen with omalizumab. Further assessment in paediatric populations is necessary, as is direct double-dummy comparison with ICS. Although subgroup analyses suggest that participants receiving prednisolone had better asthma control when they received omalizumab, it remains to be tested prospectively whether the addition of omalizumab has a prednisolone-sparing effect. It is also not clear whether there is a threshold level of baseline serum IgE for optimum efficacy of omalizumab. Given the high cost of the drug, identification of biomarkers predictive of response is of major importance for future research.
BACKGROUND: Anti-leukotrienes (5-lipoxygenase inhibitors and leukotriene receptors antagonists) serve as alternative monotherapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and efficacy of anti-leukotrienes compared to inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy in adults and children with asthma and to provide better insight into the influence of patient and treatment characteristics on the magnitude of effects.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1966 to Dec 2010), EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2010), CINAHL (1982 to Dec 2010), the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Dec 2010), abstract books, and reference lists of review articles and trials. We contacted colleagues and the international headquarters of anti-leukotrienes producers.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that compared anti-leukotrienes with inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy for a minimum period of four weeks in patients with asthma aged two years and older.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of trials and extracted data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission, lung function tests, indices of chronic asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and biological inflammatory markers.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-five trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Fifty-six trials (19 paediatric trials) contributed data (representing total of 10,005 adults and 3,333 children); 21 trials were of high methodological quality; 44 were published in full-text. All trials pertained to patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma. Trial durations varied from four to 52 weeks. The median dose of inhaled corticosteroids was quite homogeneous at 200 µg/day of microfine hydrofluoroalkane-propelled beclomethasone or equivalent (HFA-BDP eq). Patients treated with anti-leukotrienes were more likely to suffer an exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (N = 6077 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 1.96). For every 28 (95% CI 15 to 82) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional patient with an exacerbation requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. The magnitude of effect was significantly greater in patients with moderate compared with those with mild airway obstruction (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.41, 2.91 versus RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97, 1.61), but was not significantly influenced by age group (children representing 23% of the weight versus adults), anti-leukotriene used, duration of intervention, methodological quality, and funding source. Significant group differences favouring inhaled corticosteroids were noted in most secondary outcomes including patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission (N = 2715 participants; RR 3.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 10.94), the change from baseline FEV1 (N = 7128 participants; mean group difference (MD) 110 mL, 95% CI 140 to 80) as well as other lung function parameters, asthma symptoms, nocturnal awakenings, rescue medication use, symptom-free days, the quality of life, parents' and physicians' satisfaction. Anti-leukotriene therapy was associated with increased risk of withdrawals due to poor asthma control (N = 7669 participants; RR 2.56; 95% CI 2.01 to 3.27). For every thirty one (95% CI 22 to 47) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional withdrawal due to poor control. Risk of side effects was not significantly different between both groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroids display superior efficacy to anti-leukotrienes in adults and children with persistent asthma; the superiority is particularly marked in patients with moderate airway obstruction. On the basis of efficacy, the results support the current guidelines' recommendation that inhaled corticosteroids remain the preferred monotherapy. 
BACKGROUND: Some breastfed infants with atopic eczema benefit from elimination of cow milk, egg, or other antigens from their mother's diet. Maternal dietary antigens are also known to cross the placenta.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prescribing an antigen avoidance diet during pregnancy or lactation, or both, on maternal and infant nutrition and on the prevention or treatment of atopic disease in the child.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 July 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized or quasi-randomized comparisons of maternal dietary antigen avoidance prescribed to pregnant or lactating women. We excluded trials of multimodal interventions that included manipulation of the infant's diet other than breast milk or of non-dietary aspects of the infant's environment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data from published reports, supplemented by additional information received from the trialists we contacted.
MAIN RESULTS: The evidence from five trials, involving 952 participants, does not suggest a protective effect of maternal dietary antigen avoidance during pregnancy on the incidence of atopic eczema during the first 18 months of life. Data on allergic rhinitis or conjunctivitis, or both, and urticaria are limited to a single trial each and are insufficient to draw meaningful inferences. Longer-term atopic outcomes have not been reported. The restricted diet during pregnancy was associated with a slightly but statistically significantly lower mean gestational weight gain, a non-significantly higher risk of preterm birth, and a non-significant reduction in mean birthweight.
The evidence from two trials, involving 523 participants, did not observe a significant protective effect of maternal antigen avoidance during lactation on the incidence of atopic eczema during the first 18 months or on positive skin-prick tests to cow milk, egg, or peanut antigen at one, two, or seven years.
One crossover trial involving 17 lactating mothers of infants with established atopic eczema found that maternal dietary antigen avoidance was associated with a non-significant reduction in eczema severity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prescription of an antigen avoidance diet to a high-risk woman during pregnancy is unlikely to reduce substantially her child's risk of atopic diseases, and such a diet may adversely affect maternal or fetal nutrition, or both. Prescription of an antigen avoidance diet to a high-risk woman during lactation may reduce her child's risk of developing atopic eczema, but better trials are needed.
Dietary antigen avoidance by lactating mothers of infants with atopic eczema may reduce the severity of the eczema, but larger trials are needed.
BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2001 and previously updated in 2003 and 2007.It is estimated that in developed countries approximately 30% of the general population suffer from one or more allergic disorders, of which allergic rhinitis is particularly common. Perennial rhinitis is most often due to allergy to the house dust mite. In such patients house dust mite avoidance is logical, but there is considerable uncertainty regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce dust mite exposure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefit (and harm) of measures designed to reduce house dust mite exposure in the management of house dust mite sensitive allergic rhinitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Our search included the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2009), MEDLINE and EMBASE. The date of the last search was 31 December 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, in which house dust mite control measures have been evaluated in comparison with placebo or other dust mite avoidance measures, in patients with clinician-diagnosed allergic rhinitis and confirmed allergy to dust mite. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, graded methodological quality using the Cochrane approach and extracted data. Meta-analysis was neither possible nor appropriate due to heterogeneity of the patient groups studied. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials involving 501 participants satisfied the inclusion criteria. Only two studies investigating the effectiveness of mite impermeable bedding covers were of good quality; the remaining seven studies were small and of poor quality. Two trials investigated the efficacy of acaricides, another two trials investigated the role of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. One trial, using a factorial design, investigated the efficacy of both acaricide and house dust mite impermeable bedding covers in isolation and combination; the remaining four trials investigated the efficacy of bedroom environmental control programmes involving use of house dust mite impermeable bedding covers. Seven of the nine trials reported that, when compared with control, the interventions studied resulted in significant reductions in house dust mite load. Of the interventions studied to date, acaricides appear to be the most promising type of intervention, although the findings from these studies need to be interpreted with care because of their methodological limitations. House dust mite impermeable bedding as an isolated intervention is unlikely to offer clinical benefit. No serious adverse effects were reported from any of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials to date have on the whole been small and of poor methodological quality, making it difficult to offer any definitive recommendations on the role, if any, of house dust mite avoidance measures in the management of house dust mite sensitive perennial allergic rhinitis. The results of these studies suggest that use of acaricides and extensive bedroom-based environmental control programmes may be of some benefit in reducing rhinitis symptoms and, if considered appropriate, these should be the interventions of choice. Isolated use of house dust mite impermeable bedding is unlikely to prove effective.
BACKGROUND: The major allergen in house dust comes from mites. Chemical, physical and combined methods of reducing mite allergen levels are intended to reduce asthma symptoms in people who are sensitive to house dust mites.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of reducing exposure to house dust mite antigens in the homes of people with mite-sensitive asthma.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Airways Group Register (last search July 2011). No restrictions were placed on language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of mite control measures versus placebo or no treatment in people with asthma known to be sensitive to house dust mites.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors applied the trial inclusion criteria and evaluated the data. We contacted trial authors to clarify information.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 55 trials (3121 patients). Thirty-seven trials assessed physical methods, including 26 trials employing mattress encasings. Ten trials involved chemical methods and eight trials involved a combination of chemical and physical methods. Despite the fact that many trials were of poor quality and would be expected to exaggerate the reported effect, we did not find an effect of the interventions. For the most frequently reported outcome, peak flow in the morning (1665 patients), the standardised mean difference (SMD) was 0.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 0.11). There were no statistically significant differences either in number of patients improved (risk ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27), asthma symptom scores (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05), or in medication usage (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.07).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chemical and physical methods aimed at reducing exposure to house dust mite allergens cannot be recommended. It is doubtful whether further studies, similar to the ones in our review, are worthwhile. If other types of studies are considered, they should be methodologically rigorous and use other methods than those used so far, with careful monitoring of mite exposure and relevant clinical outcomes.
Allergen-specific immunotherapy is one of the cornerstones of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis treatment. Since the development of non-invasive administration forms with better safety profiles, there is an increasing tendency to prescribe immunotherapy in youngsters. However, no overview is available on the efficacy of immunotherapy in all its different administration forms in youngsters. Therefore, we systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of immunotherapy with inhalant allergens on symptoms and medication use in children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register and reference lists of recent reviews and published trials were searched. RCTs including youngsters aged 0-18 yr with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and comparing immunotherapy with placebo, symptomatic treatment or a different administration form of immunotherapy were included. Primary outcome measures were rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and/or medication scores. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated Delphi list. A method of best evidence synthesis, a rating system with levels of evidence based on the overall quality and the outcome of the trials, was used to assess efficacy. Six subcutaneous (SCIT), four nasal (LNIT), seven oral (OIT) and 11 sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy trials, comprising 1619 youngsters, were included. Only 39% of the trials were of high methodological quality. For the SCIT and OIT subgroups the level of evidence for efficacy was conflicting. Moderate evidence of effect was found for LNIT. Analysis of the SLIT subgroup showed no evidence of effect. The evidence for the perennial and seasonal allergen trials within the subgroups varied from moderate evidence of effect to no evidence of effect. In conclusion, there is at present insufficient evidence that immunotherapy in any administration form has a positive effect on symptoms and/or medication use in children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
RATIONALE: Several randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) thus allowing for a meta-analysis to determine the overall treatment effect.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, LILACS, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library databases up to 31 October, 2007 was carried out. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of MFNS in patients with AR compared to placebo were included. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), individual nasal symptoms, total non-nasal symptom scores (TNNSS) and nasal airflow were analysed as the standardized mean difference (SMD). Meta-analysis was performed with the random or the fixed effect models depending on heterogeneity, by using revman 5 software.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixteen of the 113 identified articles met the inclusion criteria. For MFNS efficacy on TNSS, 2998 participants were analysed: 1534 received MFNS and 1464 placebo. Mometasone furoate nasal spray was associated with a significant reduction in TNSS (SMD -0.49, 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.38; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 50.1%). A significant effect on SMD for nasal stuffiness/congestion (-0.41; 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.27), rhinorrhoea (-0.44; 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), sneezing (-0.40; 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.23) and nasal itching (-0.39; 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.25) was also demonstrated. Mometasone furoate nasal spray treated subjects also showed a significant reduction in TNNSS (-0.30; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.18). The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar for MFNS and placebo (0.99; 95% CI: 0.81-1.20; P = 0.91).
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides a level Ia evidence for the efficacy of MFSN in the treatment of AR vs placebo. Adverse events frequency was similar in both groups.
BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is the most common of the allergic diseases. Despite improved understanding of the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis and advances in its pharmacological treatment, its prevalence has increased worldwide. For patients whose symptoms remain uncontrolled despite medical treatment, allergen injection immunotherapy is advised. An allergen-based treatment may reduce symptoms, the need for medication and modify the natural course of this disease.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous specific allergen immunotherapy, compared with placebo, for reducing symptoms and medication requirements in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2006), MEDLINE (1950 to 2006), EMBASE (1974 to 2006), Pre-MEDLINE, KOREAMED, INDMED, LILACS, PAKMEDINET, Scisearch, mRCT and the National Research Register. The date of the last search was February 2006.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All studies identified by the searches were assessed to identify randomised controlled trials involving participants with symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and proven allergen sensitivity, treated with subcutaneous allergen specific immunotherapy or corresponding placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors identified all studies reporting double-blind, placebo controlled randomised trials of specific immunotherapy in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis due to tree, grass or weed pollens. Two authors independently performed quality assessment of studies. Data from identified studies were abstracted onto a standard extraction sheet and subsequently entered into RevMan 4.2.8. Analysis was performed using the Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) method and a random-effects model; P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The primary outcome measures were symptom scores, medication use, quality of life and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 1111 publications of which 51 satisfied our inclusion criteria. In total there were 2871 participants (1645 active, 1226 placebo), each receiving on average 18 injections. Duration of immunotherapy varied from three days to three years. Symptom score data from 15 trials were suitable for meta-analysis and showed an overall reduction in the immunotherapy group (SMD -0.73 (95% CI -0.97 to -0.50, P < 0.00001)). Medication score data from 13 trials showed an overall reduction in the immunotherapy group (SMD of -0.57 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.33, p<0.00001)). Clinical interpretation of the effect size is difficult. Adrenaline was given in 0.13% (19 of 14085 injections) of those on active treatment and in 0.01% (1 of 8278 injections) of the placebo group for treatment of adverse events. There were no fatalities.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has shown that specific allergen injection immunotherapy in suitably selected patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis results in a significant reduction in symptom scores and medication use. Injection immunotherapy has a known and relatively low risk of severe adverse events. We found no long-term consequences from adverse events.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as monotherapy or combined with other drugs in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), and Cochrane databases; review articles; and references of included trials. STUDY SELECTION: Published (1966-2005) randomized controlled trials with nasal and eye symptoms and quality-of-life scores as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 6,231 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis were selected. Oral leukotriene antagonists significantly reduced daytime nasal symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.33 to -0.16), nighttime nasal symptoms (SMD, -0.23; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.16), and eye symptoms and significantly improved quality of life compared with placebo. There were no significant differences between oral leukotriene antagonists and oral histamine H1 antagonists on nasal and eye symptoms and quality-of-life overall score. We also found that leukotriene receptor antagonists were inferior to intranasal corticosteroids for decreasing daytime (SMD, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.56) and nighttime nasal symptoms. The combination of leukotriene receptor antagonists plus histamine H1 antagonists produced greater relief of eye symptoms compared with histamine H1 antagonists alone. Finally, intranasal corticosteroids significantly reduced nasal congestion compared with leukotriene receptor antagonists plus histamine H1 antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: Leukotriene receptor antagonists were better than placebo, equivalent to oral histamine H1 antagonists, and inferior to intranasal corticosteroids for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis. Alternatively, leukotriene receptor antagonists plus histamine H1 antagonists were more effective than histamine H1 antagonists alone but inferior to intranasal corticosteroids.
Increasing exclusive breastfeeding rates is an established public health strategy to reduce chronic disease and protect infants from illness. The role of breastfeeding in addressing health disparities takes on new significance as the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted some communities in Hawai'i, and those with chronic conditions face increased risk of hospitalization and death. However, there are myriad policy, systemic, and environmental barriers that make it difficult for parents to breastfeed, some of which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This editorial discusses the importance of breastfeeding in reducing chronic disease, reviews the status of breastfeeding in Hawai'i, explores the challenges parents face in breastfeeding their infants, especially in the time of COVID-19, and presents opportunities for improved access to lactation care to reduce health disparities.
