Thirteen-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Clinical Trial of Early Preventive Care for Very Preterm Infants and Their Parents

Early interventions with parental participation and their implications on the neurodevelopment of premature children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The occurrence of preterm birth is correlated with the potential emergence of disabilities in children. Early intervention programs are designed to promote better developmental outcomes. These interventions employ family-centered methodologies, wherein parents are instructed to facilitate neurodevelopment, thereby promoting heightened involvement of the child in their daily activities. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of early family-based interventions on motor, cognitive, and language development. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted utilizing the databases PubMed, Medline, PEDro, Scopus, CINAHL Complete, SciELO, and Open Grey. The search terms utilized included NDT (neuro-developmental treatment), Bobath, neurodevelopmental therapy, parents administered, family administered, physical therapy modalities, early intervention (educational), early intervention, premature infant, preterm, and premature. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies written in English or Spanish were taken into consideration. The initial search resulted in 420 articles. After removing duplicates and applying the selection criteria, 12 articles were selected for the systematic review and 5 articles were selected for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed a significant association between early intervention and enhanced cognitive function (p = 0.01) in this study. Additionally, the meta-analysis indicated improvements resulting from early family-based intervention (p = 0.02) in motor function. Early motor interventions that emphasize parent involvement and education in neurodevelopment show significant outcomes in motor and cognitive areas at 2 years of age in very premature or extremely premature infants. However, inconclusive effects have been found in the language area, which is the least studied domain. Due to the methodological heterogeneity observed, further research is needed to establish conclusive decisions regarding the administration of these interventions and the determination of key evaluation periods.

Early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairment in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Infants born preterm are at increased risk of cognitive and motor impairments compared with infants born at term. Early developmental interventions for preterm infants are targeted at the infant or the parent-infant relationship, or both, and may focus on different aspects of early development. They aim to improve developmental outcomes for these infants, but the long-term benefits remain unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007 and updated in 2012 and 2015.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the effect of early developmental interventions compared with standard care in prevention of motor or cognitive impairment for preterm infants in infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years), and school age (five to < 18 years). Secondary objective To assess the effect of early developmental interventions compared with standard care on motor or cognitive impairment for subgroups of preterm infants, including groups based on gestational age, birthweight, brain injury, timing or focus of intervention and study quality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and trial registries in July 2023. We cross-referenced relevant literature, including identified trials and existing review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies included randomised, quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-randomised trials of early developmental intervention programmes that began within the first 12 months of life for infants born before 37 weeks' gestational age (GA). Interventions could commence as an inpatient but had to include a post discharge component for inclusion in this review. Outcome measures were not prespecified, other than that they had to assess cognitive outcomes, motor outcomes or both. The control groups in the studies could receive standard care that would normally be provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from the included studies regarding study and participant characteristics, timing and focus of interventions and cognitive and motor outcomes. Meta-analysis using RevMan was carried out to determine the effects of early developmental interventions at each age range: infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years) and school age (five to < 18 years) on cognitive and motor outcomes. Subgroup analyses focused on GA, birthweight, brain injury, time of commencement of the intervention, focus of the intervention and study quality. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to collect data and evaluate bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria (5051 randomly assigned participants). There were 19 new studies identified in this update (600 participants) and a further 17 studies awaiting outcomes. Three previously included studies had new data. There was variability in the focus and intensity of the interventions, participant characteristics, and length of follow-up. All included studies were either single or multicentre trials and the number of participants varied from fewer than 20 to up to 915 in one study. The trials included in this review were mainly undertaken in middle- or high-income countries. The majority of studies commenced in the hospital, with fewer commencing once the infant was home. The focus of the intervention programmes for new included studies was increasingly targeted at both the infant and the parent-infant relationship. The intensity and dosages of interventions varied between studies, which is important when considering the applicability of any programme in a clinical setting. Meta-analysis demonstrated that early developmental intervention may improve cognitive outcomes in infancy (developmental quotient (DQ): standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.27 standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.40; P < 0.001; 25 studies; 3132 participants, low-certainty evidence), and improves cognitive outcomes at preschool age (intelligence quotient (IQ); SMD 0.39 SD, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.50; P < 0.001; 9 studies; 1524 participants, high-certainty evidence). However, early developmental intervention may not improve cognitive outcomes at school age (IQ: SMD 0.16 SD, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.38; P = 0.15; 6 studies; 1453 participants, low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity between studies for cognitive outcomes in infancy and preschool age was moderate and at school age was substantial. Regarding motor function, meta-analysis of 23 studies showed that early developmental interventions may improve motor outcomes in infancy (motor scale DQ: SMD 0.12 SD, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.19; P = 0.003; 23 studies; 2737 participants, low-certainty evidence). At preschool age, the intervention probably did not improve motor outcomes (motor scale: SMD 0.08 SD, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.32; P = 0.53; 3 studies; 264 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence at school age for both continuous (motor scale: SMD -0.06 SD, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.18; P = 0.61; three studies; 265 participants, low-certainty evidence) and dichotomous outcome measures (low score on Movement Assessment Battery for Children (ABC) : RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.32; P = 0.74; 3 studies; 413 participants, low-certainty evidence) suggests that intervention may not improve motor outcome. The main source of bias was performance bias, where there was a lack of blinding of participants and personnel, which was unavoidable in this type of intervention study. Other biases in some studies included attrition bias where the outcome data were incomplete, and inadequate allocation concealment or selection bias. The GRADE assessment identified a lower certainty of evidence in the cognitive and motor outcomes at school age. Cognitive outcomes at preschool age demonstrated a high certainty due to more consistency and a larger treatment effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early developmental intervention programmes for preterm infants probably improve cognitive and motor outcomes during infancy (low-certainty evidence) while, at preschool age, intervention is shown to improve cognitive outcomes (high-certainty evidence). Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies due to variations in aspects of the intervention programmes, the population and outcome measures utilised. Further research is needed to determine which types of early developmental interventions are most effective in improving cognitive and motor outcomes, and in particular to discern whether there is a longer-term benefit from these programmes.

Smell and taste of milk during tube feeding of preterm infants: neurodevelopmental follow-up of the randomized TASTE trial, study protocol

BACKGROUND

The Taste And Smell To Enhance nutrition (TASTE) trial investigated the effects of smell and taste of milk with tube feeding compared to routine care on the growth of preterm infants. There was no difference between groups in growth (weight, head circumference, length) z-scores at discharge from the hospital. Infants in the intervention group had higher head circumference and length z-scores at 36 weeks postmenstrual age, both secondary outcomes. The objective of this follow-up study is to assess 2-year neurodevelopmental and growth outcomes after exposure of preterm infants to the smell and taste of milk with tube feeding compared to routine care.

METHODS

This is a neurodevelopmental follow-up study of a two-center, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Infants born before 29 weeks postmenstrual age and/or with a birth weight of less than 1250 g were randomized to smell and taste of milk with each tube feed or routine care. The current follow-up assessed the 2-year neurodevelopmental and growth outcomes of participants of the TASTE trial discharged from the hospital (n = 334). The primary outcome is survival free of any major neurodevelopmental impairment comprising any moderate/severe cerebral palsy (Gross Motor Function Classification System score II-V), Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third/Fourth Edition (Bayley-III/Bayley-4) motor, cognitive, or language scores < -2SD, blindness, or deafness at 2 years of age. Other outcomes include death, breastfeeding within the first year, and respiratory support, oral feeding, and anthropometric parameters at 2 years of age. The Human Research Ethics Committees of Mater Misericordiae Limited and the Royal Women's Hospital approved the TASTE trial including the neurodevelopmental follow-up described in this protocol.

DISCUSSION

For patients and their families, the neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants are of utmost importance. Consequently, they should be investigated following any interventional study performed during the newborn period. Furthermore, improved weight gain and head growth in the hospital are associated with better long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Smelling and tasting of milk is an uncomplicated and cost-effective intervention that may improve the growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants. Potential limitations affecting this follow-up study, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, are anticipated and discussed in this protocol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; Registration number: ACTRN12617000583347 ; Registration date: 26 April 2017.