*

Doctors fear losing access to essential formulas for

premature

babies

*

Plaintiffs argue companies failed to warn about NEC risk

from

cow's milk-based formula

By Brendan Pierson

Sept 30 (Reuters) - A Missouri mother and her lawyers

this week will aim to convince a jury that Abbott,

Reckitt's Mead Johnson and St. Louis Children's Hospital

are responsible for a severe intestinal illness that she says

her premature son got from the companies' formulas after he was

born at the hospital.

The closely watched trial in St. Louis, Missouri state court,

which begins with jury selection on Monday, is part of sprawling

litigation that has already resulted in verdicts of $60 million

against Reckitt and $495 million against Abbott. Close to 1,000

similar cases are still pending nationwide.

Plaintiffs argue that giving cow's milk-based formula to

premature babies - especially the smallest ones, born weighing

less than about 1,500 grams or about three pounds - greatly

increases their risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis

(NEC). That condition has an estimated fatality rate of more

than 20%. They also say the companies had a legal responsibility

to warn about that risk, but failed to do so.

Both companies said in statements that the lawsuit's claims

are not supported by evidence and that their products are

essential for premature babies.

St. Louis Children's did not respond to a request for

comment on the litigation.

Large verdicts in the two cases that have so far gone to

trial have raised alarm among doctors who fear losing access to

products they depend on to feed babies.

Abbott and Reckitt are the only companies selling the

formulas at issue, which are specialized products used in

newborn intensive care units. In a July investor call, Abbott

CEO Robert Ford suggested that they might become unavailable

because of the litigation. Reckitt also said it was considering

"strategic options" for its formula division.

The products for premature babies are not big sellers,

bringing Abbott only about $9 million and Reckitt less than $1

million annually, according to company spokespersons.

"I would say there's a genuine panic," said Jonathan Davis,

who is chief of newborn medicine at Tufts Children's Hospital in

Boston.

Doctors say the benefits of breast milk for premature babies

on a wide range of measures - including lower rates of NEC -

have been known for years, and are reflected in hospital feeding

practices. But, they say, formula remains vital to feed babies

when the mother's or donated breast milk is unavailable or

insufficient.

"I would love if every mother could give me breast milk.

They can't," said Jill Maron, chief of pediatrics at Women &

Infants Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island. "If I don't have

access to these products, babies will die."

'MESSAGE OF FEAR'

Tor Hoerman, a lawyer who represents the plaintiff who won the

$495 million verdict and others, said doctors are responding to

a "message of fear" pushed by the manufacturers, who were

unnecessarily suggesting that the products might be withdrawn.

"Nobody is requesting that the product be pulled from the

market," Hoerman said. Instead, he said, the companies "could

put a simple warning about risk" on the formulas' labels.

At the upcoming trial, plaintiff Elizabeth Whitfield will

urge the jury to find that the companies and the hospital were

negligent under Missouri law. She says her son, who was born at

less than 28 weeks in August 2017, developed NEC the following

month as a result of being fed formula and required surgery to

remove part of his intestine.

Whitfield's son, like many NEC survivors who have surgery,

"continues to suffer from permanent and severe injuries,"

according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit and others like it are separate from cases over

allegedly contaminated formula from an Abbott factory in

Michigan. There are no allegations that the premature baby

formula was contaminated.

The science around NEC, breast milk and formula feeding

remains unsettled.

A recent report from a U.S. National Institutes of Health

working group said that current evidence "supports the

hypothesis that it is the absence of human milk - rather than

the exposure to formula - that is associated with an increase in

the risk of NEC."

The manufacturers say that a label warning that formula can

cause NEC would be unsupported. And because doctors are already

aware of the research, they say, a label would not change

anything.

Several neonatologists interviewed by Reuters said they

worried that a warning label could make parents believe formula

was unsafe even when it was the best available option.

The NEC Society, a patient-led organization devoted to fighting

the disease, has said that formula is sometimes necessary and

that lawsuits are not part of its strategy.

"What I would love for everyone to focus on is how we

increase equitable access to mother's milk and pasteurized donor

milk," said NEC Society Director Jennifer Canvasser, who founded

the organization after losing her own son to the disease.