Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed low birth weight infants

[Expert consensus on enteral nutrition management of preterm infants (2024)]

Providing adequate and balanced nutrition for preterm infants, especially extremely/very preterm infants, is the material basis for promoting their normal growth and development and improving long-term prognosis. Enteral nutrition is the best way to feed preterm infants. Previous systematic reviews have shown that using evidence-based standardized feeding management strategies can effectively promote the establishment of full enteral feeding, reduce the duration of parenteral nutrition, improve the nutritional outcomes of preterm infants, and not increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis or death. Based on relevant research in China and overseas, the consensus working group has developed 20 recommendations in 5 aspects including the goal of enteral nutrition, transitioning to enteral nutrition, stable growth period enteral nutrition, supplementation of special nutrients, and monitoring of enteral nutrition for preterm infants, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The aim is to provide recommendations for healthcare professionals involved in the management of enteral nutrition for preterm infants, in order to improve the clinical outcomes of preterm infants.

High protein intake on later outcomes in preterm children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Appropriate protein intake is crucial for growth and development in children born preterm. We assessed the effects of high (HP) versus low protein (LP) intake on neurodevelopment, growth, and biochemical anomalies in these children.

METHODS

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials providing protein to children born preterm (<37 completed weeks of gestation) were searched following PRISMA guideline in three databases and four registers (PROSPERO registration CRD42022325659). Random-effects model was used for assessing the effects of HP (≥3.5 g/kg/d) vs. LP (<3.5 g/kg/d).

RESULTS

Data from forty-four studies (n = 5338) showed HP might slightly reduce the chance of survival without neurodisability at ≥12 months (four studies, 1109 children, relative risk [RR] 0.95 [95% CI 0.90, 1.01]; P = 0.13; low certainty evidence) and might increase risk of cognitive impairment at toddler age (two studies; 436 children; RR 1.36 [0.89, 2.09]; P = 0.16; low certainty evidence). At discharge or 36 weeks, HP intake might result in higher weight and greater head circumference z-scores. HP intake probably increased the risk of hypophosphatemia, hypercalcemia, refeeding syndrome and high blood urea, but reduced risk of hyperglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

HP intake for children born preterm may be harmful for neonatal metabolism and later neurodisability and has few short-term benefits for growth.

IMPACT STATEMENT

Planned high protein intake after birth for infants born preterm might be harmful for survival, neurodisability and metabolism during infancy and did not improve growth after the neonatal period. Protein intake ≥3.5 g/kg/d should not be recommended for children born preterm.

Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed term infants

BACKGROUND

Many infants are fed infant formulas to promote growth. Some formulas have a high protein content (≥ 2.5 g per 100 kcal) to accelerate weight gain during the first year of life. The risk-benefit balance of these formulas is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of higher protein intake versus lower protein intake in healthy, formula-fed term infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, OpenGrey, clinical trial registries, and conference proceedings in October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of healthy formula-fed infants (those fed only formula and those given formula as a complementary food). We included infants of any sex or ethnicity who were fed infant formula for at least three consecutive months at any time from birth. We excluded quasi-randomized trials, observational studies, and infants with congenital malformations or serious underlying diseases. We defined high protein content as 2.5 g or more per 100 kcal, and low protein content as less than 1.8 g per 100 kcal (for exclusive formula feeding) or less than 1.7 g per 100 kcal (for complementary formula feeding).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from trials, and a fifth review author resolved discrepancies. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, calculating risk ratios (RRs) or Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs (1185 infants) conducted in high-income countries. Seven trials (1629 infants) compared high-protein formula against standard-protein formula, and four trials (256 infants) compared standard-protein formula against low-protein formula. The longest follow-up was 11 years. High-protein formula versus standard-protein formula We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy term infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has little or no effect on underweight (MD in weight-for-age z-score 0.05 SDs, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.19; P = 0.51, I2 = 61%; 7 studies, 1629 participants), stunting (MD in height-for-age z-score 0.15 SDs, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.35; P = 0.14, I2 = 73%; 7 studies, 1629 participants), and wasting (MD in weight-for-height z-score -0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; P = 0.20, I2 = 94%; 7 studies, 1629 participants) in the first year of life. We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has little or no effect on the occurrence of overweight (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.51; P = 0.51; 1 study, 1090 participants) or obesity (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.59 to 6.48; P = 0.27; 1 study, 1090 participants) at five years of follow-up. No studies reported all-cause mortality. Feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse events such as diarrhea, vomiting, or milk hypersensitivity (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13; P = 0.44, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the first year of life. Standard-protein formula versus low-protein formula We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula has little or no effect on underweight (MD in weight-for-age z-score 0.0, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.43; P = 0.99, I2 = 81%; 4 studies, 256 participants), stunting (MD in height-for-age z-score -0.01, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.35; P = 0.96, I2 = 73%; 4 studies, 256 participants), and wasting (MD in weight-for-height z-score 0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.56; P = 0.54, I2 = 95%; 4 studies, 256 participants) in the first year of life. No studies reported overweight, obesity, or all-cause mortality. Feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse events such as diarrhea, vomiting, or milk hypersensitivity (Peto OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.40; P = 0.28, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the first four months of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are unsure if feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has an effect on undernutrition, overweight, or obesity. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between infants fed with high-protein formula versus those fed with standard-protein formula. We are unsure if feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula has any effect on undernutrition. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between infants fed with standard-protein formula versus those fed with low-protein formula. The findings of six ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification studies may change the conclusions of this review.

Clinical Phenotypes of Malnutrition in Young Children: Differential Nutritional Correction

This review article summarizes current data on malnutrition etiology and pathogenesis in infants. Topical requirements for revealing this condition, its diagnosis and severity assessment via centile metrics are presented. The characteristics of the most common clinical phenotypes of postnatal growth insufficiency in infants (premature infants with different degree of maturation, including patients with bronchopulmonary dysplasia) are described. Differential approaches for malnutrition nutritional correction in these children are presented. The final section of the article describes special nutritional needs for children with congenital heart defects in terms of hemodynamic disorders nature and severity. Modern nutritional strategies for preparation of these patients to surgery and for their postoperative period are presented. The use of high-calorie/high-protein product for malnutrition correction in the most vulnerable patients with described in this review phenotypes is worth noticing.

Differences in Postnatal Growth of Preterm Infants in Northern China Compared to the INTERGROWTH-21st Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The INTERGROWTH-21st preterm postnatal growth standards (IPPGS) have increasingly been used to evaluate the growth of preterm infants worldwide. However, the validity of IPPGS's application to specific preterm populations remains controversial. This retrospective cohort study aimed to formulate reference growth charts for a preterm cohort in northern China and compare them to the IPPGS.

METHODS

A total of 1,827 healthy preterm infants with follow-up visits before 70 weeks of postmenstrual age (PMA) were retrospectively sampled from a preterm cohort (N = 2,011) born between 1 January 2011 and 28 February 2021, at the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University. Using the Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale, and Shape method, 5,539 sets of longitudinal data were used to construct percentile and Z-score charts of length, weight, and head circumference (HC) at 40-64 weeks of PMA. Z-scores of length, weight, and HC (LAZ, WAZ, and HCZ) before 64 weeks were calculated using the IPPGS. Differences in the 50th percentile values between preterm infants and IPPGS (dLength, dWeight, and dHC) were calculated. Z-scores were assigned to six PMA clusters: 40-44, 44-48, 48-52, 52-56, 56-60, and 60-64 weeks for comparison between sexes.

RESULTS

For eligible infants, the mean PMA and weight at birth were 33.93 weeks and 2.3 kg, respectively. Boys, late preterm infants, twins, and infants with exclusively breastfeeding accounted for 55.8, 70.6, 27.8, and 45.9%, respectively. Compared to IPPGS, preterm infants were longer and heavier, especially for dLength in girls (range, 2.19-2.97 cm), which almost spanned the 50th and 90th percentiles of IPPGS. The dHC tended to narrow with PMA for both sexes. The mean LAZ, WAZ, and HCZ of both sexes at all PMA clusters were >0, especially for LAZ and WAZ (about 1.0 relative to IPPGS), indicating higher levels than the IPPGS at 40-64 weeks. Girls had larger LAZ at each PMA cluster, larger WAZ at 40-44 weeks, and lower HCZ after 56 weeks than boys. HCZ declined with PMA for both sexes.

CONCLUSION

Postnatal growth of this preterm cohort was considerably higher than that of the IPPGS at 40-64 weeks of PMA with sex differences.

Nutritional Intake, White Matter Integrity, and Neurodevelopment in Extremely Preterm Born Infants

Background: Determining optimal nutritional regimens in extremely preterm infants remains challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a new nutritional regimen and individual macronutrient intake on white matter integrity and neurodevelopmental outcome. Methods: Two retrospective cohorts of extremely preterm infants (gestational age < 28 weeks) were included. Cohort B (n = 79) received a new nutritional regimen, with more rapidly increased, higher protein intake compared to cohort A (n = 99). Individual protein, lipid, and caloric intakes were calculated for the first 28 postnatal days. Diffusion tensor imaging was performed at term-equivalent age, and cognitive and motor development were evaluated at 2 years corrected age (CA) (Bayley-III-NL) and 5.9 years chronological age (WPPSI-III-NL, MABC-2-NL). Results: Compared to cohort A, infants in cohort B had significantly higher protein intake (3.4 g/kg/day vs. 2.7 g/kg/day) and higher fractional anisotropy (FA) in several white matter tracts but lower motor scores at 2 years CA (mean (SD) 103 (12) vs. 109 (12)). Higher protein intake was associated with higher FA and lower motor scores at 2 years CA (B = −6.7, p = 0.001). However, motor scores at 2 years CA were still within the normal range and differences were not sustained at 5.9 years. There were no significant associations with lipid or caloric intake. Conclusion: In extremely preterm born infants, postnatal protein intake seems important for white matter development but does not necessarily improve long-term cognitive and motor development.

The implications of routine milk fortification for the short and long-term health of preterm babies

Fortification refers to the practice of enriching human milk feeds for very preterm babies with macronutrients, minerals and vitamins. Though standard of care in some parts of the world, adoption of fortification is not universal. Fortification entered into use on the assumption that human milk macronutrient content, principally protein, is insufficient to support the growth and development of very preterm babies. However, because of the substantial variability in human milk composition, routine fortification risks exposing some babies to very high protein intakes, which may be dangerous. Some clinicians fear fortification with cow-milk derived products will increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis, leading them to favour commercial fortifiers made from pooled human milk over cow milk based products, a practice that has additional ethical implications. Randomised controlled trials of multi-nutrient fortification to-date are inadequate. No trial has had power to detect important functional effects; the majority are methodologically weak and focus primarily upon short-term growth. Evidence to guide practice is inadequate. There is an urgent need for collaboration to conduct high-quality research to end these long-standing uncertainties.

Improving long-term health outcomes of preterm infants: how to implement the findings of nutritional intervention studies into daily clinical practice

Preterm-born children are at risk for later neurodevelopmental problems and cardiometabolic diseases; early-life growth restriction and suboptimal neonatal nutrition have been recognized as risk factors. Prevention of these long-term sequelae has been the focus of intervention studies. High supplies of protein and energy during the first weeks of life (i.e., energy > 100 kcal kg-1 day-1 and a protein-to-energy ratio > 3 g/100 kcal) were found to improve both early growth and later neurodevelopmental outcome. Discontinuation of this high-energy diet is advised beyond 32-34 weeks postconceptional age to prevent excess fat mass and possible later cardiometabolic diseases. After discharge, nutrition with a higher protein-to-energy ratio (i.e., > 2.5-3.0 g/100 kcal) may improve growth and body composition in the short term.Conclusion: Preterm infants in their first weeks of life require a high-protein high-energy diet, starting shortly after birth. Subsequent adjustments in nutritional composition, aimed at achieving optimal body composition and minimizing the long-term cardiometabolic risks without jeopardizing the developing brain, should be guided by the growth pattern. The long-term impact of this strategy needs to be studied. What is Known: • Preterm infants are at risk for nutritional deficiencies and extrauterine growth restriction. • Extrauterine growth restriction and suboptimal nutrition are risk factors for neurodevelopmental problems and cardiometabolic disease in later life. What is New: • Postnatally, a shorter duration of high-energy nutrition may prevent excess fat mass accretion and its associated cardiometabolic risks and an early switch to a protein-enriched diet should be considered from 32-34 weeks postconceptional age. • In case of formula feeding, re-evaluate the need for the continuation of a protein-enriched diet, based on the infant's growth pattern.

Comparison of different protein concentrations of human milk fortifier for promoting growth and neurological development in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Human milk alone may provide inadequate amounts of protein to meet the growth requirements of preterm infants because of restrictions in the amount of fluid they can tolerate. It has become common practice to feed preterm infants with breast milk fortified with protein and other nutrients but there is debate about the optimal concentration of protein in commercially available fortifiers.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different protein concentrations in human milk fortifier, fed to preterm infants, on growth and neurodevelopment.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL on 15 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

We included all published and unpublished randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing two different concentrations of protein in human milk fortifier. We included preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestational age). Participants may have been exclusively fed human milk or have been supplemented with formula. The concentration of protein was classified as low (< 1g protein/100 mL expressed breast milk (EBM)), moderate (≥ 1g to < 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM) or high (≥ 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM). We excluded trials that compared two protein concentrations that fell within the same category.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We undertook data collection and analyses using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently evaluated trials. Primary outcomes included growth, neurodevelopmental outcome and mortality. Data were synthesised using risk ratios (RR), risk differences and mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine trials involving 861 infants. There is one trial awaiting classification, and nine ongoing trials. The trials were mostly conducted in infants born < 32 weeks' gestational age or < 1500 g birthweight, or both. All used a fortifier derived from bovine milk. Two trials fed infants exclusively with mother's own milk, three trials gave supplementary feeds with donor human milk and four trials supplemented with preterm infant formula. Overall, trials were small but generally at low or unclear risk of bias. High versus moderate protein concentration of human milk fortifier There was moderate certainty evidence that a high protein concentration likely increased in-hospital weight gain compared to moderate concentration of human milk fortifier (MD 0.66 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82; trials = 6, participants = 606). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of high versus moderate protein concentration on length gain (MD 0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03; trials = 5, participants = 547; very low certainty evidence) and head circumference gain (MD 0.00 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; trials = 5, participants = 549; very low certainty evidence). Only one trial reported neonatal mortality, with no deaths in either group (participants = 45). Moderate versus low protein concentration of human milk fortifier A moderate versus low protein concentration fortifier may increase weight gain (MD 2.08 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.77; trials = 2, participants = 176; very low certainty evidence) with little to no effect on head circumference gain (MD 0.13 cm/week, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.26; I² = 85%; trials = 3, participants = 217; very low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There was low certainty evidence that a moderate protein concentration may increase length gain (MD 0.09 cm/week, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14; trials = 3, participants = 217). Only one trial reported mortality and found no difference between groups (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.17; participants = 112). No trials reported long term growth or neurodevelopmental outcomes including cerebral palsy and developmental delay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Feeding preterm infants with a human milk fortifier containing high amounts of protein (≥ 1.4g/100 mL EBM) compared with a fortifier containing moderate protein concentration (≥ 1 g to < 1.4 g/100 mL EBM) results in small increases in weight gain during the neonatal admission. There may also be small increases in weight and length gain when infants are fed a fortifier containing moderate versus low protein concentration (< 1 g protein/100 mL EBM). The certainty of this evidence is very low to moderate; therefore, results may change when the findings of ongoing studies are available. There is insufficient evidence to assess the impact of protein concentration on adverse effects or long term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Further trials are needed to determine whether modest increases in weight gain observed with higher protein concentration fortifiers are associated with benefits or harms to long term growth and neurodevelopment.