Two different low birth weight formulae compared

High versus low medium chain triglyceride content of formula for promoting short-term growth of preterm infants

BACKGROUND

In-hospital growth of preterm infants remains a challenge in clinical practice. The high nutrient demands of preterm infants often lead to growth faltering. For preterm infants who cannot be fed maternal or donor breast milk or may require supplementation, preterm formulas with fat in the form of medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) or long chain triglycerides (LCTs) may be chosen to support nutrient utilization and to improve growth. MCTs are easily accessible to the preterm infant with an immature digestive system, and LCTs are beneficial for central nervous system development and visual function. Both have been incorporated into preterm formulas in varying amounts, but their effects on the preterm infant's short-term growth remain unclear. This is an update of a review originally published in 2002, then in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of formula containing high as opposed to low MCTs on early growth in preterm infants fed a diet consisting primarily of formula.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 8), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, and Ovid MEDLINE(R); MEDLINE via PubMed for the previous year; and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on 16 September 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing the effects of feeding high versus low MCT formula (for a minimum of five days) on the short-term growth of preterm (< 37 weeks' gestation) infants. We defined high MCT formula as 30% or more by weight, and low MCT formula as less than 30% by weight. The infants must be on full enteral diets, and the allocated formula must be the predominant source of nutrition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors assessed each study's quality and extracted data on growth parameters as well as adverse effects from included studies. All data used in analysis were continuous; therefore, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were reported. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 eligible trials (253 infants) and extracted relevant growth data from 7 of these trials (136 infants). These studies were found to provide evidence of very low to low certainty. Risk of bias was noted, as few studies described specific methods for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, or blinding. We found no evidence of differences in short-term growth parameters when high and low MCT formulas were compared. As compared to low MCT formula, preterm infants fed high MCT formula showed little to no difference in weight gain velocity (g/kg/d) during the intervention, with a typical mean difference (MD) of -0.21 g/kg/d (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.24 to 0.83; 6 studies, 118 infants; low-certainty evidence). The analysis for weight gain (g/d) did not show evidence of differences, with an MD of 0.00 g/d (95% CI -5.93 to 5.93; 1 study, 18 infants; very low-certainty evidence), finding an average weight gain of 20 ± 5.9 versus 20 ± 6.9 g/d for high and low MCT groups, respectively. We found that length gain showed no difference between low and high MCT formulas, with a typical MD of 0.10 cm/week (95% CI -0.09 to 0.29; 3 studies, 61 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Head circumference gain also showed little to no difference during the intervention period, with an MD of -0.04 cm/week (95% CI -0.17 to 0.09; 3 studies, 61 infants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported skinfold thickness with different measurement definitions, and evidence was insufficient to determine if there was a difference (2 studies, 32 infants; very low-certainty evidence). There are conflicting data (5 studies) as to formula tolerance, with 4 studies reporting narrative results of no observed clinical difference and 1 study reporting higher incidence of signs of gastrointestinal intolerance in high MCT formula groups. There is no evidence of effect on the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), based on small numbers in two trials. Review authors found no studies addressing long-term growth parameters or neurodevelopmental outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of very low to low certainty suggesting no differences among short-term growth data for infants fed low versus high MCT formulas. Due to lack of evidence and uncertainty, neither formula type could be concluded to improve short-term growth outcomes or have fewer adverse effects. Further studies are necessary because the results from included studies are imprecise due to small numbers and do not address important long-term outcomes. Additional research should aim to clarify effects on formula tolerance and on long-term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes, and should include larger study populations to better evaluate effect on NEC incidence.

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

BACKGROUND

The ideal quantity of dietary protein for formula-fed low birth weight infants is still a matter of debate. Protein intake must be sufficient to achieve normal growth without leading to negative effects such as acidosis, uremia, and elevated levels of circulating amino acids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether higher (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d) versus lower (< 3.0 g/kg/d) protein intake during the initial hospital stay of formula-fed preterm infants or low birth weight infants (< 2.5 kilograms) results in improved growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes without evidence of short- or long-term morbidity. Specific objectives were to examine the following comparisons of interventions and to conduct subgroup analyses if possible. 1. Low protein intake if the amount was less than 3.0 g/kg/d. 2. High protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 3.0 g/kg/d but less than 4.0 g/kg/d. 3. Very high protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 4.0 g/kg/d.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), in the Cochrane Library (August 2, 2019); OVID MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, and Ovid MEDLINE(R) (to August 2, 2019); MEDLINE via PubMed (to August 2, 2019) for the previous year; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to August 2, 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs contrasting levels of formula protein intake as low (< 3.0 g/kg/d), high (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d), or very high (≥ 4.0 g/kg/d) in formula-fed hospitalized neonates weighing less than 2.5 kilograms. We excluded studies if infants received partial parenteral nutrition during the study period, or if infants were fed formula as a supplement to human milk.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible trials that enrolled 218 infants through searches updated to August 2, 2019. Five studies compared low (< 3 g/kg/d) versus high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) protein intake using formulas that kept other nutrients constant. The trials were small (n = 139), and almost all had methodological limitations; the most frequent uncertainty was about attrition. Low-certainty evidence suggests improved weight gain (mean difference [MD] 2.36 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31 to 3.40) and higher nitrogen accretion in infants receiving formula with higher protein content (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus lower protein content (< 3 g/kg/d), while other nutrients were kept constant. No significant differences were seen in rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, or diarrhea. We are uncertain whether high versus low protein intake affects head growth (MD 0.37 cm/week, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58; n = 18) and length gain (MD 0.16 cm/week, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.34; n = 48), but sample sizes were small for these comparisons. One study compared high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus very high (≥ 4 g/kg/d) protein intake (average intakes were 3.6 and 4.1 g/kg/d) during and after an initial hospital stay (n = 77). Moderate-certainty evidence shows no significant differences in weight gain or length gain to discharge, term, and 12 weeks corrected age from very high protein intake (4.1 versus 3.6 g/kg/d). Three of the 24 infants receiving very high protein intake developed uremia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Higher protein intake (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d) from formula accelerates weight gain. However, limited information is available regarding the impact of higher formula protein intake on long-term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Research is needed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of protein intake ≥ 4.0 g/kg/d.

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

BACKGROUND

The ideal quantity of dietary protein for formula-fed low birth weight infants is still a matter of debate. Protein intake must be sufficient to achieve normal growth without negative effects such as acidosis, uremia, and elevated levels of circulating amino acids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether higher (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d) versus lower (< 3.0 g/kg/d) protein intake during the initial hospital stay of formula-fed preterm infants or low birth weight infants (< 2.5 kilograms) results in improved growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes without evidence of short- and long-term morbidity.To examine the following distinctions in protein intake. 1. Low protein intake if the amount was less than 3.0 g/kg/d. 2. High protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 3.0 g/kg/d but less than 4.0 g/kg/d. 3. Very high protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 4.0 g/kg/d.If the reviewed studies combined alterations of protein and energy, subgroup analyses were to be carried out for the planned categories of protein intake according to the following predefined energy intake categories. 1. Low energy intake: less than 105 kcal/kg/d. 2. Medium energy intake: greater than or equal to 105 kcal/kg/d and less than or equal to 135 kcal/kg/d. 3. High energy intake: greater than 135 kcal/kg/d.As the Ziegler-Fomon reference fetus estimates different protein requirements for infants based on birth weight, subgroup analyses were to be undertaken for the following birth weight categories. 1. < 800 grams. 2. 800 to 1199 grams. 3. 1200 to 1799 grams. 4. 1800 to 2499 grams.

SEARCH METHODS

The standard search methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials contrasting levels of formula protein intake as low (< 3.0 g/kg/d), high (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d), or very high (≥ 4.0 g/kg/d) in formula-fed hospitalized neonates weighing less than 2.5 kilograms were included. Studies were excluded if infants received partial parenteral nutrition during the study period or were fed formula as a supplement to human milk. Studies in which nutrients other than protein also varied were added in a post-facto analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies compared low versus high protein intake. Improved weight gain and higher nitrogen accretion were demonstrated in infants receiving formula with higher protein content while other nutrients were kept constant. No significant differences were seen in rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, or diarrhea.One study compared high versus very high protein intake during and after an initial hospital stay. Very high protein intake promoted improved gain in length at term, but differences did not remain significant at 12 weeks corrected age. Three of the 24 infants receiving very high protein intake developed uremia.A post-facto analysis revealed further improvement in all growth parameters in infants receiving formula with higher protein content. No significant difference in the concentration of plasma phenylalanine was noted between high and low protein intake groups. However, one study (Goldman 1969) documented a significantly increased incidence of low intelligence quotient (IQ) scores among infants of birth weight less than 1300 grams who received a very high protein intake (6 to 7.2 g/kg).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Higher protein intake (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d) from formula accelerates weight gain. However, limited information is available regarding the impact of higher formula protein intake on long-term outcomes such as neurodevelopmental abnormalities. Available evidence is not adequate to permit specific recommendations regarding the provision of very high protein intake (> 4.0 g/kg/d) from formula during the initial hospital stay or after discharge.

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

BACKGROUND

The ideal quantity of dietary protein for formula-fed low birth weight infants < 2.5 kilograms is still a matter of controversy and debate. In premature infants, the protein intake must be sufficient to achieve normal growth without negative effects such as acidosis, uremia, and elevated levels of circulating amino acids (e.g. phenylalanine levels). This systematic review evaluates the benefits and risks of higher (>= 3.0 g/kg/day) versus lower (< 3.0 g/kg/day) protein intakes during the initial hospital stay of formula-fed preterm infants < 2.5 kilograms.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether higher (>= 3.0 g/kg/day) versus lower (< 3.0 g/kg/day) protein intakes during the initial hospital stay of formula-fed preterm infants < 2.5 kilograms result in improved growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes without evidence of short and long-term morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Two review authors searched MEDLINE (1966 - May 2005), CINAHL (1982 - May 2005), PubMed (1966 - May 2005), EMBASE (1980 - May 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2005), abstracts, conferences and symposia proceedings from Society of Pediatric Research, and American Academy of Pediatrics. Cross references were reviewed independently for additional relevant titles and abstracts for articles up to fifty years old.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials contrasting levels of formula protein intakes as low (< 3.0 g/kg/day), high (=> 3.0 g/kg/day but < 4.0 g/kg/day), or very high protein intake (=> 4.0 g/kg/day) during hospitalization of neonates less than 2.5 kilograms at birth who were formula-fed. Studies were not included if infants received partial parenteral nutrition during the study period or were fed formula as a supplement to human milk. Given the small number of studies that met all inclusion criteria, studies in which nutrients other than protein also varied (> 10% relative difference) were added in a post-facto analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors used standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to independently assess trial eligibility and quality, and extracted data. In a 3-arm trial where two groups fell within the same predesignated protein intake group, weighted means and pooled standard deviations were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

The literature search identified 37 studies, of which five met all the inclusion criteria. All five studies compared low (< 3.0 g/kg/day) to high protein intakes (=> 3.0 g/kg/day but < 4.0 g/kg/day). The overall analysis revealed an improved weight gain (WMD 2.36 g/kg/day, 95% CI 1.31, 3.40) and higher nitrogen accretion (WMD 143.7 mg/kg/day, 95% CI 128.7, 158.8) in infants receiving formula with higher protein content while other nutrients were kept constant. None of the studies reported IQ or Bayley scores at 18 months or later. No significant differences were seen in rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis or diarrhea. Of three studies included in the post-facto analysis, only one could be included in the meta-analysis. The post-facto analysis revealed further improvement in all growth parameters in infants receiving formula with higher protein content (weight gain: WMD 2.53 g/kg/day, 95% CI 1.62, 3.45, linear growth: WMD 0.16 cm/week, 95% CI 0.03, 0.30, and head growth: WMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.12, 0.35). There was no significant difference (WMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.20, 0.70) in the concentration of plasma phenylalanine between the high and low protein intake groups. One study (Goldman 1969) in the post-facto analysis documented a significantly increased incidence of low IQ scores, below 90, in infants of birth weight less than 1300 grams who received a very high protein intake (6 to 7.2 g/kg/day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that higher protein intake (=> 3.0 g/kg/day but < 4.0 g/kg/day) from formula accelerates weight gain. Based on increased nitrogen accretion rates, this most likely indicates an increase in lean body mass. Although accelerated weight gain is considered to be a positive effect, increase in other outcome measures examined may represent a negative or ambivalent effect. These include elevated blood urea nitrogen levels and increased metabolic acidosis. Limited information was available regarding the impact of higher formula protein intakes on long term outcomes such as neurodevelopmental abnormalities. As determined in this review, existing research literature on this topic is not adequate to make specific recommendations regarding the provision of very high protein intake (> 4.0 g/kg/day) from formula.

High versus low medium chain triglyceride content of formula for promoting short term growth of preterm infants

BACKGROUND

In-hospital growth of most very low birth weight infants remains below the 10th percentile of reference intrauterine growth curves (Ehrenkranz 1999). To improve growth, fat is added to preterm formula in the form of medium chain triglycerides (MCT) or long chain triglycerides (LCT). MCT are easily accessible to the preterm infant with an immature digestive system while LCT are important in the development of the retina and visual acuity. Both have been incorporated into preterm formulas in varying amounts, but their effect on the preterm infant's short term growth is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine among preterm, formula fed infants, does high MCT as opposed to low MCT (high LCT) formula promote higher short term growth rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE (1966-2002), CINAHL (1982-2002), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001), conference proceedings, and reference lists of articles were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized trials comparing the effects of exclusive feeding of high versus low MCT formula (for a minimum of one week) on the short term growth of healthy, preterm infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers assessed each study's quality and extracted data on growth parameters as well as adverse effects from included studies. All data used in analysis were continuous, and therefore weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were reported.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight randomized trials studying a total of 182 infants were included. There was no evidence of difference in short term growth parameters when high and low MCT formulas were compared. The meta-analysis of weight gain based on five studies yielded a WMD of -0.35 g/kg/d (95% CI -1.44, 0.74). Similarly, meta-analysis of weight gain in g/d based on two studies showed no evidence of difference (WMD 2.09 g/d, 95% CI -1.46, 5.64). Length gain, based on five studies, showed a non-significant WMD of 0.14 cm/wk (95% CI -0.04, 0.31). Head circumference gain, based on data from five studies, showed a non-significant WMD -0.03 cm/wk (95% CI -0.15, 0.08). Only one study reported skin fold thickness gain, with a mean difference -0.15 mm/wk (95% CI -0.41, 0.11), again not significant. Subgroup analyses according to % MCT in the high MCT formula, by 10% intervals, showed no evidence of effect of high MCT on short term weight gain within any subgroup. There are conflicting data (two studies) as to formula tolerance. There is no evidence of effect on incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), based on small numbers in two trials. No studies were located addressing long term growth parameters or neurodevelopmental outcomes.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of difference between MCT and LCT on short term growth, gastrointestinal intolerance, or necrotizing enterocolitis. Therefore, neither formula type could be concluded to improve short term growth or have less adverse effects. Further studies are necessary because the results from the included eight studies are imprecise due to small numbers and do not address important long term outcomes. Additional research should aim to clarify effects on formula tolerance and on long term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes, and include larger study populations to better evaluate effect on NEC incidence.

Enteral feeding in the preterm infant

In planning enteral feeding in the preterm infant, decisions need to be made regarding the feeding schedule, choice of milk, and the route of administration. Feeds should be commenced within a week after birth beginning with subnutritional quantities. Preterm human milk from the infant's own mother is the milk of choice. When full enteral feeding is established, supplementation with human milk fortifier is recommended. Donor human milk and preterm formula are alternatives. Early establishment of enteral nutrition and maintenance of optimal nutrition during infancy are important as dietary manipulations in preterm infants have potential long-term influences on their health, growth and neurodevelopment.