Carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants

Which is the optimal choice for neonates' formula or breast milk?

The incidence of prematurity has been increasing since the twenty-first century. Premature neonates are extremely vulnerable and require a rich supply of nutrients, including carbohydrates, proteins, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), arachidonic acid (ARA) and others. Typical breast milk serves as the primary source for infants under six months old to provide these nutrients. However, depending on the individual needs of preterm infants, a more diverse and intricate range of nutrients may be necessary. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the current research progress on the physical and chemical properties, biological activity, function, and structure of breast milk, as well as explores the relationship between the main components of milk globular membrane and infant growth. Additionally, compare the nutritional composition of milk from different mammals and newborn milk powder, providing a comprehensive understanding of the differences in milk composition and detailed reference for meeting daily nutritional needs during lactation.

Impact of Early Nutrient Intake and First Year Growth on Neurodevelopment of Very Low Birth Weight Newborns

Optimal nutrient intake ensuring better neurodevelopment for very low birth weight (VLBW) infants remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between early (first 28 days) nutritional intake, first year growth, and neurodevelopment. In total, 120 VLBW infants were included into the study. A group of 95 infants completed follow-up to 12 months of corrected gestational age (CGA). Nutrient intake was assessed, and weight, length, and head circumference (HC) were measured weekly until discharge and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of CGA. Neurodevelopment was assessed at 12 months of CGA. Two groups-extremely preterm (EP) and very/moderately preterm (VP)-were compared. Growth before discharge was slower in the EP group than the VP group. At 12 months, there was no difference in anthropometric characteristics or neurodevelopmental scores between the groups. Higher carbohydrate intake during the first 28 days was the single significant predictor for better cognitive scores only in the EP group (βs = 0.60, p = 0.017). Other nutrients and growth before discharge were not significant for cognitive and motor scores in either group in multivariable models, whereas post-discharge HC growth was associated with both cognitive and motor scores in the VP group. Monitoring intake of all nutrients and both pre-discharge and post-discharge growth is essential for gaining knowledge about individualized nutrition for optimal neurodevelopment.

Effectiveness of feeding supplementation in preterm infants: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Preterm infants have higher nutrition needs than term infants. The effectiveness of various feeding supplementation was assessed by the improvement of health outcomes in single specific systematic reviews (SRs). The aim of this review was to comprehensively describe the effectiveness of feeding supplementation in promoting health outcomes of preterm infants.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in the PUBMED, EMBASE, Science Direct, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Wiley online library. SRs selection followed clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pairs of reviewers independently applied the criteria to both titles/abstracts and full texts. Screening and data extraction were performed by using the advanced tables. The methodological quality of SRs and the quality of the evidence were carried out according to the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines (GRADE) respectively. A qualitative synthesis of evidence is presented.

Results

Seventeen SRs were included in the review. Fifteen kinds of feeding supplementation were reported in the SRs. In preterm infants, the effectiveness of feeding supplementation in addition to regular breast-feeding was mainly shown in six aspects: physical health, neurodevelopment, biochemical outcomes, other health outcomes, morbidity and all-cause mortality. And the effectiveness of the interventions on health outcomes in preterm infants was found by most systematic reviews. The methodological quality of all the included SRs was high, and most of the evidences was of low or very low quality.

Conclusions

Our results will allow a better understanding of the feeding supplementation in preterm infants. Although the feeling supplements may improve the health outcomes of in preterm infants, the existing evidence is uncertain. Therefore, the clinical use of these supplements should be considered cautiously and more well-designed RCTs are still needed to further address the unsolved problems of the included SRs.

The effect of milk type and fortification on the growth of low-birthweight infants: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Approximately 15% of infants worldwide are born with low birthweight (<2500 g). These children are at risk for growth failure. The aim of this umbrella review is to assess the relationship between infant milk type, fortification and growth in low-birthweight infants, with particular focus on low- and lower middle-income countries. We conducted a systematic review in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and Web of Science comparing infant milk options and growth, grading the strength of evidence based on standard umbrella review criteria. Twenty-six systematic reviews qualified for inclusion. They predominantly focused on infants with very low birthweight (<1500 g) in high-income countries. We found the strongest evidence for (1) the addition of energy and protein fortification to human milk (donor or mother's milk) leading to increased weight gain (mean difference [MD] 1.81 g/kg/day; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23, 2.40), linear growth (MD 0.18 cm/week; 95% CI 0.10, 0.26) and head growth (MD 0.08 cm/week; 95% CI 0.04, 0.12) and (2) formula compared with donor human milk leading to increased weight gain (MD 2.51 g/kg/day; 95% CI 1.93, 3.08), linear growth (MD 1.21 mm/week; 95% CI 0.77, 1.65) and head growth (MD 0.85 mm/week; 95% CI 0.47, 1.23). We also found evidence of improved growth when protein is added to both human milk and formula. Fat supplementation did not seem to affect growth. More research is needed for infants with birthweight 1500-2500 g in low- and lower middle-income countries.

Individualized versus standard diet fortification for growth and development in preterm infants receiving human milk

BACKGROUND

Human milk as compared to formula reduces morbidity in preterm infants but requires fortification to meet their nutritional needs and to reduce the risk of extrauterine growth failure. Standard fortification methods are not individualized to the infant and assume that breast milk is uniform in nutritional content. Strategies for individualizing fortification are available; however it is not known whether these are safe, or if they improve outcomes in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether individualizing fortification of breast milk feeds in response to infant blood urea nitrogen (adjustable fortification) or to breast milk macronutrient content as measured with a milk analyzer (targeted fortification) reduces mortality and morbidity and promotes growth and development compared to standard, non-individualized fortification for preterm infants receiving human milk at < 37 weeks' gestation or at birth weight < 2500 grams.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on September 20, 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized, quasi-randomized, and cluster-randomized controlled trials of preterm infants fed exclusively breast milk that compared a standard non-individualized fortification strategy to individualized fortification using a targeted or adjustable strategy. We considered studies that examined any use of fortification in eligible infants for a minimum duration of two weeks, initiated at any time during enteral feeding, and providing any regimen of human milk feeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors evaluated the quality of the studies and extracted data. We reported analyses of continuous data using mean differences (MDs), and dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Data were extracted from seven RCTs, resulting in eight publications (521 total participants were enrolled among these studies), with duration of study interventions ranging from two to seven weeks. As compared to standard non-individualized fortification, individualized (targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical mean difference [MD] 1.88 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26 to 2.50; 6 studies, 345 participants), may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.43 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.53; 5 studies, 242 participants), and may have increased head circumference gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.14 mm/d, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.23; 5 studies, 242 participants). Compared to standard non-individualized fortification, targeted fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 1.87 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.58; 4 studies, 269 participants) and may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.45 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 3 studies, 166 participants). Adjustable fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 2.86 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.69 to 4.03; 3 studies, 96 participants), probably increased gain in length during the intervention (typical MD 0.54 mm/d, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.7; 3 studies, 96 participants), and increased gain in head circumference during the intervention (typical MD 0.36 mm/d, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.5; 3 studies, 96 participants). We are uncertain whether there are differences between individualized versus standard fortification strategies in the incidence of in-hospital mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, culture-proven late-onset bacterial sepsis, retinopathy of prematurity, osteopenia, length of hospital stay, or post-hospital discharge growth. No study reported severe neurodevelopmental disability as an outcome. One study that was published after our literature search was completed is awaiting classification.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate- to low-certainty evidence suggesting that individualized (either targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds in very low birth weight infants increases growth velocity of weight, length, and head circumference during the intervention compared with standard non-individualized fortification. Evidence showing important in-hospital and post-discharge clinical outcomes was sparse and of very low certainty, precluding inferences regarding safety or clinical benefits beyond short-term growth.

Carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants are born with low glycogen stores and require higher glucose intake to match fetal accretion rates. In spite of the myriad benefits of breast milk for preterm infants, it may not adequately meet the needs of these rapidly growing infants. Supplementing human milk with carbohydrates may help. However, there is a paucity of data on assessment of benefits or harms of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants. This is a 2020 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether human milk supplemented with carbohydrate compared with unsupplemented human milk fed to preterm infants improves growth, body composition, and cardio-metabolic and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE via PubMed on 22 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished controlled trials were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate preterm infants in hospital fed human milk to supplementation or no supplementation with additional carbohydrate.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality and the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. We planned to perform meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

One unblinded, quasi-randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk in the form of a prebiotic in 75 preterm infants was eligible for inclusion in this review. We identified two publications of the same trial, which reported different methods regarding blinding and randomisation. Study authors confirmed that these publications pertain to the same trial, but they have not yet clarified which method is correct. We were unable to reproduce analyses from the data presented. At 30 days of age, the mean weight of preterm infants in the trial was greater in the prebiotic carbohydrate-supplemented group than in the unsupplemented group (MD 160.4 grams, 95% CI 12.4 to 308.4 grams; one RCT, N = 75; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a clear difference in risk of feeding intolerance (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.15; one RCT, N = 75 infants; very low-quality evidence) or necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.3; one RCT, N = 75 infants; very low-quality evidence) between the prebiotic-supplemented group and the unsupplemented group. Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the prebiotic group than in the control group at a median (range) of 16 (9 to 45) days (95% CI 15.34 to 24.09) and 25 (11 to 80) days (95% CI 25.52 to 34.39), respectively. No other data were available for assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation on short- and long-term growth, body mass index, body composition, and neurodevelopmental or cardio-metabolic outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence on the short- and long-term effects of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk in preterm infants. The only trial included in this review presented very low-quality evidence, and study authors provided uncertain information about study methods and analysis. The evidence may be limited in its applicability because researchers included a small sample of preterm infants from a single centre. However, the outcomes assessed are common to all preterm infants, and this trial demonstrates the feasibility of prebiotic carbohydrate supplementation in upper-middle-income countries. Future trials should assess the safety and efficacy of different types and concentrations of carbohydrate supplementation for preterm infants fed human milk. Although prebiotic carbohydrate supplementation in preterm infants is currently a topic of active research, we do not envisage that further trials of digestible carbohydrates will be conducted, as this is currently done as a component of multi-nutrient human milk fortification. Hence we do not plan to publish any further updates of this review.

Evidence that informs feeding practices in very low birthweight and very preterm infants in sub-Saharan Africa: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Optimal feeding of very low birthweight (VLBW <1500 g)/very preterm (gestation <32 weeks) infants in resource-limited settings in sub-Saharan Africa (sSA) is critical to reducing high mortality and poor outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence on feeding of VLBW/very preterm infants relevant to sSA.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to July 2019 to identify reviews of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of feeding VLBW/very preterm infants. We focused on interventions that are readily available in sSA. Primary outcomes were weight gain during hospital stay and time to achieve full enteral feeds (120 mL/kg/day). Secondary outcomes were growth, common morbidities, mortality, duration of hospital stay and cognitive development. Quality of evidence (QOE) was assessed using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2).

RESULTS

Eight systematic reviews were included. Higher feed volume of day 1 (80 mL/kg) reduced late-onset sepsis and time to full enteral feeds, and higher feed volume (up to 300 mL/kg/day) improved weight gain without adverse events (QOE: low-moderate). Rapid advancement of feeds (30-40 mL/kg/day) was not associated with harm. Breast milk fortification with energy and protein increased growth and with prebiotics increased growth and reduced duration of admission (QOE: low-very low) and did not result in harm. Evidence regarding feeding tube placement and continuous versus bolus feeds was insufficient to draw conclusions. We found no reviews meeting our selection criteria regarding when to start feeds, use of preterm formula, cup-and-spoon feeding or gravity versus push feeds and none of the reviews included trials from low-income countries of sSA.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base informing feeding of VLBW/very preterm babies in resource-limited settings in sSA is extremely limited. Pragmatic studies are needed to generate evidence to guide management and improve outcomes for these highly vulnerable infants.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019140204.