Preterm infants fed nutrient-enriched formula until 6 months show improved growth and development

Nutrition Management of High-Risk Neonates After Discharge

Nutrition management of the high-risk infant after hospital discharge is complicated by the infant's dysfunctional or immature oral feeding skills, nutritional deficits, and the family's feeding plan. Although evidence is limited, available studies point to developing an individualized nutritional plan, which accounts for these factors; protects and prioritizes the family's plan for breastfeeding; and promotes an acceptable growth pattern. Further research is needed to identify the type and duration of posthospital discharge nutrition to optimize high-risk infant neurodevelopment and body composition. Attention to infant growth, lactation support, and safe feed preparation practices are critical in the transition to home.

Postdischarge Nutrition in Preterm Infants

The field of postdischarge nutrition for preterm infants arose when concerns that using diets suitable for term infants-breastfeeding without fortification or standard formulas-might not meet the postdischarge nutritional needs of infants born preterm, who often exhibited growth restriction and evidence of undernutrition. A decade ago, there were already 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nutritional supplementation from which an eligible subsample of trials have provided evidence on whether nutritional fortification of human milk or nutrient-enriched formula favorably affects postdischarge growth in these infants. These RCTs also allowed exploration of the quality of growth, bone mineralization, and the ad libitum-fed infant's own regulation of milk volume and nutrient intake. Importantly, such RCTs, augmented by observational data on the links between growth and neurodevelopment, have allowed exploration of the potential impact of postdischarge nutrition on neurocognitive function. However, the interpretation of published data and the implication for practice has proven difficult and contentious. In this review, we examine, and to an extent reanalyze, existing evidence to elucidate its strengths and limitations, with the goal of adding more clarity to the ways in which this sizeable body of clinical scientific research may have a positive impact on the postdischarge nutritional approach to infants born preterm.

Sex-Specific Effects of Nutritional Supplements for Infants Born Early or Small: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis (ESSENCE IPD-MA) I-Cognitive Function and Metabolic Risk

Neonatal nutritional supplements are widely used to improve growth and development but may increase risk of later metabolic disease, and effects may differ by sex. We assessed effects of supplements on later development and metabolism. We searched databases and clinical trials registers up to April 2019. Participant-level data from randomised trials were included if the intention was to increase macronutrient intake to improve growth or development of infants born preterm or small-for-gestational-age. Co-primary outcomes were cognitive impairment and metabolic risk. Supplementation did not alter cognitive impairment in toddlers (13 trials, n = 1410; adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.88 [95% CI 0.68, 1.13]; p = 0.31) or older ages, nor alter metabolic risk beyond 3 years (5 trials, n = 438; aRR 0.94 [0.76, 1.17]; p = 0.59). However, supplementation reduced motor impairment in toddlers (13 trials, n = 1406; aRR 0.76 [0.60, 0.97]; p = 0.03), and improved motor scores overall (13 trials, n = 1406; adjusted mean difference 1.57 [0.14, 2.99]; p = 0.03) and in girls not boys (p = 0.03 for interaction). Supplementation lowered triglyceride concentrations but did not affect other metabolic outcomes (high-density and low-density lipoproteins, cholesterol, fasting glucose, blood pressure, body mass index). Macronutrient supplementation for infants born small may not alter later cognitive function or metabolic risk, but may improve early motor function, especially for girls.

Impact of macronutrient supplements on later growth of children born preterm or small for gestational age: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and quasirandomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Nutritional supplements may improve short-term growth of infants born small (preterm or small for gestational age), but there are few data on long-term effects and concerns that body composition may be adversely affected. Effects also may differ between girls and boys. Our systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of macronutrient supplements for infants born small on later growth.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched OvidMedline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to January 30, 2020, and controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and anzctr.org.au on January 30, 2020. Randomised or quasirandomised trials were included if the intention was to increase macronutrient intake to improve growth or development of infants born small and growth was assessed after discharge. Primary outcome was body mass index (BMI) in childhood. Data were pooled using random-effect models. Outcomes were evaluated in toddlers (< 3 years), childhood (3 to 8 years), adolescence (9 to 18 years), and adulthood (>18 years). Forty randomised and 2 quasirandomised trials of variable methodological quality with 4,352 infants were included. Supplementation did not alter BMI in childhood (7 trials, 1,136 children; mean difference [MD] -0.10 kg/m2, [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 0.16], p = 0.45). In toddlers, supplementation increased weight (31 trials, 2,924 toddlers; MD 0.16 kg, [0.01 to 0.30], p = 0.03) and length/height (30 trials, 2,889 toddlers; MD 0.44 cm, [0.10 to 0.77], p = 0.01), but not head circumference (29 trials, 2,797 toddlers; MD 0.15 cm, [-0.03 to 0.33], p = 0.10). In childhood, there were no significant differences between groups in height (7 trials, 1,136 children; MD 0.22 cm, [-0.48 to 0.92], p = 0.54) or lean mass (3 trials, 354 children; MD -0.07 kg, [-0.98 to 0.85], p = 0.88), although supplemented children appeared to have higher fat mass (2 trials, 201 children; MD 0.79 kg, [0.19 to 1.38], p = 0.01). In adolescence, there were no significant differences between groups in BMI (2 trials, 216 adolescents; MD -0.48 kg/m2, [-2.05 to 1.08], p = 0.60), height (2 trials, 216 adolescents; MD -0.55 cm, [-2.95 to 1.86], p = 0.65), or fat mass (2 trials, 216 adolescents; MD -1.3 5 kg, [-5.76 to 3.06], p = 0.55). In adulthood, there also were no significant differences between groups in weight z-score (2 trials, 199 adults; MD -0.11, [-0.72 to 0.50], p = 0.73) and height z-score (2 trials, 199 adults; MD -0.07, [-0.36 to 0.22], p = 0.62). In subgroup analysis, supplementation was associated with increased length/height in toddler boys (2 trials, 173 boys; MD 1.66 cm, [0.75 to 2.58], p = 0.0003), but not girls (2 trials, 159 girls; MD 0.15 cm, [-0.71 to 1.01], p = 0.74). Limitations include considerable unexplained heterogeneity, low to very low quality of evidence, and possible bias due to low or unbalanced followup.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found no evidence that early macronutrient supplementation for infants born small altered BMI in childhood. Although supplements appeared to increase weight and length in toddlers, effects were inconsistent and unlikely to be clinically significant. Limited data suggested that supplementation increased fat mass in childhood, but these effects did not persist in later life. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019126918.

Effects of a nutrient-dense formula compared with a post-discharge formula on post-discharge growth of preterm very low birth weight infants with extrauterine growth retardation: a multicentre randomised study in China

BACKGROUND

Post-discharge optimal growth and nutritional intake have beneficial effects for neurodevelopment in preterm very low birth weight infants (VLBWIs) with extrauterine growth retardation (EUGR). The present study aimed to compare the effects of a nutrient-dense formula (NDF) to a post-discharge formula (PDF) on post-discharge growth of preterm VLBWIs with EUGR.

METHODS

Forty-eight preterm VLBWIs with EUGR at discharge were randomised to receive NDF (100 kcal per 100 mL; 2.6 g protein per 100 mL) or PDF (74 kcal per 100 mL; 1.95 g protein per 100 mL) for 1-6 months until body weight reached the 50th percentile on growth charts with corrected age. Volume, nutrient intake, anthropometry and biochemistry data were collected.

RESULTS

Volume intake was lower in the NDF group than the PDF group during the first 2 months of feeding (P = 0.039 and 0.018, respectively).There were no significant differences in volume intake during months 2-6 of feeding. Energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat intake were higher in the NDF group during months 1-6 of feeding. There were no significant differences in weight, length, and head circumference Z-scores during months 1-6 between the two groups. The △length Z-score from discharge to month 6 was significantly higher in the NDF group than the PDF group (P = 0.043). No differences existed between the two groups with respect to biochemistry.

CONCLUSIONS

After discharge, preterm VLBWIs with EUGR fed a NDF gain anthropometric parameter Z-scores similar to those for a PDF within 6 months of follow-up. A NDF leading to gain in length requires further follow-up.

Impact of macronutrient supplements for children born preterm or small for gestational age on developmental and metabolic outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nutritional supplements may improve development of infants born small (preterm or small for gestational age [SGA]) but may increase the risk of later metabolic disease. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of macronutrient supplements for infants born small on later development and metabolism.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched OvidMedline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to April 1, 2019, and controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and anzctr.org.au. Randomised or quasirandomised trials were included if the intention was to increase macronutrient intake to improve growth or development of infants born small and assessed post-discharge outcomes. Co-primary outcomes were cognitive impairment and metabolic risk, evaluated in toddlers (<3 years), childhood (3 to 8 years), and adolescence (9 to 18 years). Two reviewers independently extracted data. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and data were pooled using random-effect models. Twenty-one randomised and one quasirandomised trial of variable methodological quality involving 3,680 infants were included. In toddlers born small, supplementation did not alter cognitive impairment (relative risk [RR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.49; P = 0.99), and there were no differences in cognitive scores (mean difference [MD] 0.57; 95% CI -0.71 to 1.84; P = 0.38) or motor scores (MD 1.16; 95% CI -0.32 to 2.65; P = 0.12) between supplemented and unsupplemented groups. However, fewer supplemented children had motor impairment (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; P = 0.01). In subgroup analyses, supplementation improved cognitive scores in boys (MD 5.60; 95% CI 1.07 to 10.14; P = 0.02), but not girls born small (MD -2.04; 95% CI -7.04 to 2.95; P = 0.42), and did not alter cognitive or motor scores in the subgroup of children born SGA. In childhood, there was no difference in cognitive impairment (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.57; P = 0.72) or cognitive scores (MD 1.02; 95% CI -1.91 to 3.95; P = 0.50) between supplemented and unsupplemented groups. There were also no differences in blood pressure, triglyceride, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentrations (all P > 0.05). However, supplemented children had lower fasting glucose (mmol/L: MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; P = 0.005) and higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) concentrations (mmol/L: MD 0.11; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.19; P = 0.02). In subgroup analyses, there was no evidence of differences in blood pressure between supplemented and unsupplemented groups in boys or girls born small, or in SGA children. In adolescence, there was no difference between supplemented and unsupplemented groups in blood pressure, triglycerides, LDL and HDL concentrations, fasting blood glucose, insulin resistance, and fasting insulin concentrations (all P > 0.05). Limitations include considerable unexplained heterogeneity, low to very low quality of the evidence, and limited data beyond early childhood.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials, we found no evidence that early macronutrient supplementation for infants born small altered later cognitive function, although there was some evidence that supplementation may decrease motor impairment in toddlers. Contrary to the findings from observational studies, evidence from randomised trials suggests that early macronutrient supplementation for infants born small improves some metabolic outcomes in childhood.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42019127858.

Do effects of early life interventions on linear growth correspond to effects on neurobehavioural development? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Faltering in linear growth and neurobehavioural development during early childhood are often assumed to have common causes because of their consistent association. This notion has contributed to a global focus on the promotion of nutrition during pregnancy and childhood to improve both conditions. Our aim was to assess whether effects of interventions on linear growth are associated with effects on developmental scores and to quantify these associations.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included randomised trials done during pregnancy and in children aged 0-5 years that reported effects of any intervention on length-for-age or height-for-age Z scores (LAZ or HAZ) and on any of the following outcomes: motor, cognitive or mental, language, and social-emotional or behavioural development. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (EBSCO) from database inception to June 25, 2019. Study-level data were extracted and, when required, authors were contacted for missing information. We calculated weighted meta-regression coefficients of the association between standardised effect sizes of interventions on LAZ or HAZ and developmental outcome scores and calculated pooled effect sizes for different types of intervention.

FINDINGS

Of the 7207 studies identified, we included 75 studies with 122 comparisons between intervention and control groups and outcomes reported for 72 275 children. Across all interventions, effect sizes on LAZ or HAZ were significantly associated with effect sizes on social-emotional scores (β 0·23, 95% CI 0·05 to 0·41; p=0·02), but not on cognitive (0·18, -0·36 to 0·72; p=0·51), language (0·12, -0·07 to 0·31; p=0·21), or motor development scores (0·23, -0·05 to 0·50; p=0·11). In studies that provided nutritional supplements, we observed positive significant pooled effect sizes on all five outcomes of LAZ or HAZ (effect size 0·05, 95% CI 0·01-0·09; p=0·01; n=50), cognitive or mental (0·06, 0·03-0·10; p<0·01; n=38), language (0·08, 0·03-0·13; p=0·01; n=21), motor (0·08, 0·04-0·12; p<0·01; n=41), and social-emotional (0·07, 0·02-0·12; p=0·01; n=20) scores. The effect sizes of nutritional supplementation on LAZ or HAZ scores were significantly associated with effect sizes on cognitive (β 0·40, 95% CI 0·04-0·77; p=0·049) and motor (0·43, 0·11-0·75; p=0·01) scores. In the 14 interventions promoting responsive care and learning opportunities, the pooled effect size on LAZ or HAZ score was not significant (-0·01, 95% CI -0·07 to 0·05; p=0·74), but pooled effect sizes on cognitive, language, and motor scores were 4 to 5 times larger (range 0·38-0·48) than the pooled effect sizes of nutritional supplementation (0·05-0·08).

INTERPRETATION

In nutritional supplementation interventions, improvements in linear growth were associated with small improvements in child development, whereas nurturing and stimulation interventions had significant effects on child development but no effects on linear growth. The determinants of linear growth and neurodevelopment are only partly shared. To nurture thriving individuals and communities, interventions should specifically target determinants of neurodevelopment and not simply linear growth.

FUNDING

University of California Davis, US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula for preterm infants following hospital discharge

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants are often growth-restricted at hospital discharge. Feeding nutrient-enriched formula rather than standard formula to infants after hospital discharge might facilitate 'catch-up' growth and might improve development.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula on growth and development of preterm infants after hospital discharge.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; to 8 September 2016), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of feeding nutrient-enriched formula (postdischarge formula or preterm formula) versus standard term formula to preterm infants after hospital discharge .

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity by performing sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 eligible trials with a total of 1251 infant participants. Trials were of variable methodological quality, with lack of allocation concealment and incomplete follow-up identified as major potential sources of bias. Trials (N = 11) that compared feeding infants with 'postdischarge formula' (energy density about 74 kcal/100 mL) versus standard term formula (about 67 kcal/100 mL) did not find consistent evidence of effects on growth parameters up to 12 to 18 months post term. GRADE assessments indicated that evidence was of moderate quality, and that inconsistency within pooled estimates was the main quality issue.Trials (N = 5) that compared feeding with 'preterm formula' (about 80 kcal/100 mL) versus term formula found evidence of higher rates of growth throughout infancy (weighted mean differences at 12 to 18 months post term: about 500 g in weight, 5 to 10 mm in length, 5 mm in head circumference). GRADE assessments indicated that evidence was of moderate quality, and that imprecision of estimates was the main quality issue.Few trials assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes, and these trials did not detect differences in developmental indices at 18 months post term. Data on growth or development through later childhood have not been provided.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations to prescribe 'postdischarge formula' for preterm infants after hospital discharge are not supported by available evidence. Limited evidence suggests that feeding 'preterm formula' (which is generally available only for in-hospital use) to preterm infants after hospital discharge may increase growth rates up to 18 months post term.

Post-discharge formula feeding in preterm infants: A systematic review mapping evidence about the role of macronutrient enrichment

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Preterm infants are a heterogeneous group and many accumulate growth deficits before and after initial hospital discharge. Although this is associated with worse cognitive outcome, recent meta-analyses suggest that nutrient fortification of breast milk, or the use of nutrient and energy rich formulae after discharge exert little effect on growth and neurodevelopment. However, the complexity of study design, inclusion criteria and outcome parameters, combined with differences in formula composition mean that meta-analysis may overlook important effects of differing interventions in sub-groups.

METHODS

We systematically identified evidence and mapped the information on Participants, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) from 31 published studies illustrating the marked heterogeneity in study design and interventions next to outcomes on (quality of) growth and neurodevelopment.

RESULTS

Despite significant heterogeneity in study design, we found that nutrient enriched diets after discharge show no negative effects but frequently improve growth parameters at some point in the course of the study, in particular for boys. The data indicates that when energy requirements are adequate, increased protein results in increased growth and lean mass (LM) accretion; In particular, higher protein to energy ratios lead to increased lean mass accretion, and increased head circumference (HC) at one year. However, improvements in neurodevelopmental outcome were rarely seen.

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive evidence mapping approach to the field provides a broad but detailed overview of the currently available evidence. Furthermore, we identified key gaps in existing knowledge on the role of nutrient enrichment in the post-discharge period.

Optimum feeding and growth in preterm neonates

Approximately 10% of all babies worldwide are born preterm, and preterm birth is the leading cause of perinatal mortality in developed countries. Although preterm birth is associated with adverse short- and long-term health outcomes, it is not yet clear whether this relationship is causal. Rather, there is evidence that reduced foetal growth, preterm birth and the long-term health effects of both of these may all arise from a suboptimal intrauterine environment. Further, most infants born preterm also experience suboptimal postnatal growth, with potential adverse effects on long-term health and development. A number of interventions are used widely in the neonatal period to optimise postnatal growth and development. These commonly include supplementation with macronutrients and/or micronutrients, all of which have potential short-term risks and benefits for the preterm infant, whereas the long-term health consequences are largely unknown. Importantly, more rapid postnatal growth trajectory (and the interventions required to achieve this) may result in improved neurological outcomes at the expense of increased cardiovascular risk in later life.

Randomized outcome trial of nutrient-enriched formula and neurodevelopment outcome in preterm infants

Background

Preterm infants are at risk for adverse neurodevelopment. Furthermore, nutrition may play a key role in supporting neurodevelopment. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a nutrient-enriched formula fed to preterm infants after hospital discharge could improve their neurodevelopment at 24 months (term-corrected age).

Methods

We conducted an observer-blinded, single-center, randomized controlled trial in infants admitted to the Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Italy between 2009 and 2011. Inclusion criteria were gestational age < 32 weeks and/or birth weight < 1500 g, and being fed human milk for < 20% of the total milk intake. Exclusion criteria were congenital malformations or conditions that could interfere with growth or body composition. Included infants were randomized to receive a standard full-term formula or a nutrient-enriched formula up until 6 months of corrected age, using two computer-generated randomization lists; one appropriate for gestational age (AGA) and one for small for gestational age (SGA) infants. We assessed neurodevelopment at 24 months of corrected age using the Griffiths Mental Development Scale and related subscales (locomotor, personal-social, hearing and speech, hand and eye coordination, and performance).

Results

Of the 207 randomized infants, 181 completed the study. 52 AGA and 35 SGA infants were fed a nutrient-enriched formula, whereas 56 AGA and 38 SGA infants were fed a standard full-term formula. The general quotient at 24 months of corrected age was not significantly different between infants randomized to receive a nutrient-enriched formula compared with a standard term formula up until 6 months of corrected age (AGA infants: 93.8 ± 12.6 vs. 92.4 ± 10.4, respectively; SGA infants: 96.1 ± 9.9 vs. 98.2 ± 9, respectively). The scores of related subscales were also similar among groups.

Conclusions

This study found that feeding preterm infants a nutrient-enriched formula after discharge does not affect neurodevelopment at 24 months of corrected age, in either AGA or SGA infants, free from major comorbidities.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN30189842) London, UK.

Nutrient-enriched formula versus standard term formula for preterm infants following hospital discharge

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants are often growth-restricted at hospital discharge. Feeding infants after hospital discharge with nutrient-enriched formula rather than standard term formula might facilitate "catch-up" growth and improve development.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of feeding nutrient-enriched formula compared with standard term formula on growth and development for preterm infants following hospital discharge.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to September 2011), conference proceedings and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effect of feeding preterm infants following hospital discharge with nutrient-enriched formula (post-discharge formula or preterm formula) compared with standard term formula.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 15 eligible trials in which a total of 1128 preterm infants participated. The trials were of variable methodological quality with lack of allocation concealment and incomplete follow-up in some trials being the major potential sources of bias. The trials (N = 10) that compared feeding infants with "post-discharge formula" (energy density about 74 kcal/100 ml) versus standard term formula (about 67 kcal/100 ml) did not find consistent evidence of effects on growth parameters up to 12 to 18 months corrected age. The trials (N = 5) that compared feeding with "preterm formula" (about 80 kcal/100 ml) versus term formula found some evidence of higher rates of growth through infancy: weighted mean differences at 12 to 18 months corrected age about 500 g in weight, 5 to10 mm in length, and 5 mm in head circumference. Few trials assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes and these did not detect any statistically significant differences in developmental indices at 18 months corrected age. There are not yet any data on growth or development through later childhood.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current recommendations to prescribe "post-discharge formula" for preterm infants following hospital discharge are not supported by the available evidence. Some limited evidence exists that feeding preterm infants following hospital discharge with "preterm formula" (which is generally only available for in-hospital use) may increase growth rates up to 18 months corrected age.