Nutritional requirements of extremely low birthweight infants

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.

Sex-specific effects of nutritional supplements in infants born early or small: protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis (ESSENCE IPD-MA)

INTRODUCTION

Preterm and small for gestational age (SGA) infants are at increased risk of poor growth, disability and delayed development. While growing up they are also at increased risk of obesity, diabetes and later heart disease. The risk of such adverse outcomes may be altered by how preterm and SGA infants are fed after birth. Faltering postnatal growth is common due to failure to achieve recommended high energy and protein intakes, and thus preterm and SGA infants are often provided with supplemental nutrition soon after birth. Enhanced nutrition has been associated with improved early growth and better cognitive development. However, limited evidence suggests that faster growth may increase the risk for later adiposity, metabolic and cardiovascular disease, and that such risks may differ between girls and boys.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, controlled-trials.com, ClinicalTrials.gov and anzctr.org.au for randomised trials that studied the effects of macronutrient supplements for preterm and SGA infants on (i) developmental and metabolic and (ii) growth outcomes after hospital discharge. The outcomes will be (i) cognitive impairment and metabolic risk (co-primary) and (ii) body mass index. Individual participant data (IPD) from all available trials will be included using an intention-to-treat approach. A one-stage procedure for IPD meta-analysis (MA) will be used, accounting for clustering of participants within studies. Exploratory subgroup analyses will further investigate sources of heterogeneity, including sex and size of infants, different timing, duration and type of supplements.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This IPD-MA is approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (reference number: 019874). Individual studies have approval from relevant local ethics committees. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017072683.

Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (3 May 2019), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.

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 (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) 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 in subgroup analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials with a total of 1879 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and eight compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the five most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials. Most of the included trials were funded by companies that made the study formula.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). These meta-analyses contained high levels of heterogeneity. We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 9 studies, 1675 infants).The GRADE certainty of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In preterm and LBW infants, moderate-certainty evidence indicates that feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (until 8 June 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.

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 (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) 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 in subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials, in which 1809 infants participated in total, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and seven compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the four most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.06).The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In preterm and LBW infants, feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Randomized controlled trial of docosahexaenoic acid supplementation in midwestern U.S. human milk donors

BACKGROUND

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is a long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid important for neonatal neurodevelopment and immune homeostasis. Preterm infants fed donor milk from a Midwestern source receive only 20% of the intrauterine accretion of DHA. We tested the hypothesis that DHA supplementation of donor mothers would provide preterm infants with DHA intake equivalent to fetal accretion.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent, human milk donors to the Mother's Milk Bank of Ohio were randomized to receive 1 g of DHA (Martek(®) [now DSM Nutritional Lipids, Columbia, MD]) or placebo soy oil. Dietary intake data were collected and analyzed by a registered dietitian. Fatty acids were measured by gas chromatography/flame ionization detection. Statistical analysis used linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Twenty-one mothers were randomly assigned to either the DHA group (n=10) or the placebo group (n=11). Donor age was a median of 31 years in both groups with a mean lactational stage of 19 weeks. Dietary intake of DHA at baseline in both groups was a median of 23 mg/day (range, 0-194 mg), significantly (p<0.0001) less than the minimum recommended intake of 200 mg/day. The DHA content of milk increased in the DHA-supplemented group (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The women enrolled in this study had low dietary DHA intake. Supplementation with preformed DHA at 1 g/day resulted in increased DHA concentrations in the donor milk with no adverse outcomes. Infants fed donor milk from supplemented women receive dietary DHA levels that closely mimic normal intrauterine accretion during the third trimester.

Effects of light exposure on total parenteral nutrition and its implications in the neonatal population

Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is a necessary form of nutrition in neonates with functional or anatomical disruption of the digestive tract. However, laboratory and human investigation have shown that exposure of the TPN solution to light causes the formation of peroxides and other degradation products that are quantifiable in experimental TPN solutions, laboratory animals, and neonates. Premature neonates are at a higher risk for the development and progression of peroxide damage due to their relative lack of antioxidant and free radical scavenger reserves. Furthermore, cell damage seen in a number of neonatal disease states is exacerbated by the presence of peroxides that are generated via intrinsic pathologic processes and from exogenous sources such as TPN. Numerous studies show that the formation of TPN photodegradation products can be slowed or prevented by the application of various light protection mechanisms. While it is not yet known if minimizing TPN associated photodegradation byproducts has a significant direct effect on preventing or mitigating the overall clinical course of some neonatal disease states, it is becoming increasingly clear that light protecting TPN can avoid specific metabolic complications in neonatal patients. It is prudent to implement mechanisms that prevent photodegradation of TPN components from the manufacturer source to the point of patient administration.