In 2013, a scientist at Abbott Laboratories reviewed research findings that could affect both the company’s financial interests and the health of premature infants. The findings suggested that babies who were given an acidified liquid human milk fortifier produced by Mead Johnson Nutrition experienced certain complications more frequently than those who received Abbott’s fortifier. These nutritional supplements are commonly used in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) to support the growth of preterm infants.
The scientist, Bridget Barrett-Reis, shared the results with colleagues and proposed further testing of the Mead Johnson product, which used acidification as part of its sterilization process. This led to a clinical trial funded by Abbott, known as AL16. The study involved premature infants in hospitals across the United States. Some infants were fed Mead Johnson’s acidified fortifier, while others received a non-acidified Abbott fortifier.
Results later indicated that a higher number of infants given Mead Johnson’s product developed metabolic acidosis, a condition involving excess acid in the blood that can be serious for premature babies. According to published findings, 19 infants in the Mead Johnson group developed the condition compared with four infants in the Abbott group.
During the trial, two independent physicians monitoring the infants expressed concern about the complications they were observing and decided to stop enrolling additional patients. Despite these warnings, the study continued for nearly a year.
Abbott later promoted the trial’s results, which appeared in the Journal of Pediatrics, emphasizing improved outcomes associated with its own fortifier. Critics, however, argued that the research and its presentation reflected intense competition between major infant nutrition companies, where scientific studies can influence market share as well as medical practice.
