Modifications of Own Mothers' Milk Fortification Protocol Affect Early Plasma IGF-I and Ghrelin Levels in Preterm Infants. A Randomized Clinical Trial

Human Milk Fortification for Very Preterm Infants: Toward Optimal Nutrient Delivery, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Growth, and Long-Term Outcomes

Human milk is the preferred diet for very preterm infants due to short-term and long-term benefits for health and neurodevelopment. Fortification of human milk is required to deliver sufficient nutrients to attain recommended growth targets during the neonatal hospitalization. Intrinsic variability in human milk composition poses a challenge in clinical practice because some infants fail to meet recommended nutrient intakes even with existing approaches of standard (fixed-dose) and adjustable fortification. Individually targeted fortification is an emerging strategy to minimize nutrition delivery gaps through application of point-of-care human milk analysis and has potential to improve growth and related outcomes.

Effect of Targeted vs. Standard Fortification of Breast Milk on Growth and Development of Preterm Infants (≤32 Weeks): Results from an Interrupted Randomized Controlled Trial

Human milk is recommended for very low birth weight infants. Their nutritional needs are high, and the fortification of human milk is a standard procedure to optimize growth. Targeted fortification accounts for the variability in human milk composition. It has been a promising alternative to standard fixed-dose fortification, potentially improving short-term growth. In this trial, preterm infants (≤32 weeks of gestation) were randomized to receive human milk after standard fortification (HMF, Nutricia) or tailored fortification with modular components of proteins (Bebilon Bialko, Nutricia), carbohydrates (Polycal, Nutricia), and lipids (Calogen, Nutricia). The intervention started when preterms reached 80 mL/kg/day enteral feeds. Of the target number of 220 newborns, 39 were randomized. The trial was interrupted due to serious intolerance in five cases. There was no significant difference in velocity of weight gain during the supplementation period (primary outcome) in the tailored vs. standard fortification group: 27.01 ± 10.19 g/d vs. 25.84 ± 13.45 g/d, p = 0.0776. Length and head circumference were not significantly different between the groups. We found the feasibility of targeted fortification to be limited in neonatal intensive care unit practice. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT:03775785.

State of the evidence from clinical trials on human milk fortification for preterm infants

Infants born preterm or low birth weight are at risk for morbidity, mortality and later neuroimpairment. Appropriate early post-natal growth is associated with better outcomes in-hospital and post-discharge. Therefore, nutritional strategies that support growth may improve the long-term health of this population. Mother's milk with donor milk as a supplement are preferred sources of nutrition for these infants but may not always support growth, especially amongst infants born of very low birth weight (<1500 g) and or those with a major morbidity. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials to date demonstrate that multi-nutrient fortification of human milk improves in-hospital growth of preterm infants although data on long-term neurodevelopment are lacking. Further, individualised approaches to fortification based on milk analysis or the infant's metabolic response may improve growth over standard fortification. The evidence is insufficient to inform the timing of introducing fortifier, routine fortification of feeds post-discharge or routine use of fortifiers made from human instead of bovine milk. Importantly, there is insufficient data to determine if these fortification practices improve relevant clinical or neurodevelopmental outcomes. In sum, there is an urgent need for well-designed clinical trials to assess potential benefits and risks of fortification practices and at what cost.

Using Nature to Nurture: Breast Milk Analysis and Fortification to Improve Growth and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Preterm Infants

Premature infants are born prior to a critical window of rapid placental nutrient transfer and fetal growth-particularly brain development-that occurs during the third trimester of pregnancy. Subsequently, a large proportion of preterm neonates experience extrauterine growth failure and associated neurodevelopmental impairments. Human milk (maternal or donor breast milk) is the recommended source of enteral nutrition for preterm infants, but requires additional fortification of macronutrient, micronutrient, and energy content to meet the nutritional demands of the preterm infant in attempts at replicating in utero nutrient accretion and growth rates. Traditional standardized fortification practices that add a fixed amount of multicomponent fortifier based on assumed breast milk composition do not take into account the considerable variations in breast milk content or individual neonatal metabolism. Emerging methods of individualized fortification-including targeted and adjusted fortification-show promise in improving postnatal growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants.

Individualized versus standard diet fortification for growth and development in preterm infants receiving human milk

BACKGROUND

Human milk as compared to formula reduces morbidity in preterm infants but requires fortification to meet their nutritional needs and to reduce the risk of extrauterine growth failure. Standard fortification methods are not individualized to the infant and assume that breast milk is uniform in nutritional content. Strategies for individualizing fortification are available; however it is not known whether these are safe, or if they improve outcomes in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether individualizing fortification of breast milk feeds in response to infant blood urea nitrogen (adjustable fortification) or to breast milk macronutrient content as measured with a milk analyzer (targeted fortification) reduces mortality and morbidity and promotes growth and development compared to standard, non-individualized fortification for preterm infants receiving human milk at < 37 weeks' gestation or at birth weight < 2500 grams.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on September 20, 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized, quasi-randomized, and cluster-randomized controlled trials of preterm infants fed exclusively breast milk that compared a standard non-individualized fortification strategy to individualized fortification using a targeted or adjustable strategy. We considered studies that examined any use of fortification in eligible infants for a minimum duration of two weeks, initiated at any time during enteral feeding, and providing any regimen of human milk feeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors evaluated the quality of the studies and extracted data. We reported analyses of continuous data using mean differences (MDs), and dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Data were extracted from seven RCTs, resulting in eight publications (521 total participants were enrolled among these studies), with duration of study interventions ranging from two to seven weeks. As compared to standard non-individualized fortification, individualized (targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical mean difference [MD] 1.88 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26 to 2.50; 6 studies, 345 participants), may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.43 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.53; 5 studies, 242 participants), and may have increased head circumference gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.14 mm/d, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.23; 5 studies, 242 participants). Compared to standard non-individualized fortification, targeted fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 1.87 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.58; 4 studies, 269 participants) and may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.45 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 3 studies, 166 participants). Adjustable fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 2.86 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.69 to 4.03; 3 studies, 96 participants), probably increased gain in length during the intervention (typical MD 0.54 mm/d, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.7; 3 studies, 96 participants), and increased gain in head circumference during the intervention (typical MD 0.36 mm/d, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.5; 3 studies, 96 participants). We are uncertain whether there are differences between individualized versus standard fortification strategies in the incidence of in-hospital mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, culture-proven late-onset bacterial sepsis, retinopathy of prematurity, osteopenia, length of hospital stay, or post-hospital discharge growth. No study reported severe neurodevelopmental disability as an outcome. One study that was published after our literature search was completed is awaiting classification.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate- to low-certainty evidence suggesting that individualized (either targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds in very low birth weight infants increases growth velocity of weight, length, and head circumference during the intervention compared with standard non-individualized fortification. Evidence showing important in-hospital and post-discharge clinical outcomes was sparse and of very low certainty, precluding inferences regarding safety or clinical benefits beyond short-term growth.