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

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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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.

Fabrizio V ，Trzaski JM ，Brownell EA ，Esposito P ，Lainwala S ，Lussier MM ，Hagadorn JI ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

High versus standard volume enteral feeds to promote growth in preterm or low birth weight infants.

Human milk is the best enteral nutrition for preterm infants. However, human milk, given at standard recommended volumes, is not adequate to meet the protein, energy, and other nutrient requirements of preterm or low birth weight infants. One strategy that may be used to address the potential nutrient deficits is to give a higher volume of enteral feeds. High volume feeds may improve nutrient accretion and growth, and in turn may improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, there are concerns that high volume feeds may cause feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, or complications related to fluid overload such as patent ductus arteriosus and chronic lung disease. This is an update of a review published in 2017. To assess the effect on growth and safety of high versus standard volume enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. In infants who were fed fortified human milk or preterm formula, high and standard volume feeds were defined as > 180 mL/kg/day and ≤ 180 mL/kg/day, respectively. In infants who were fed unfortified human milk or term formula, high and standard volume feeds were defined as > 200 mL/kg/day and ≤ 200 mL/kg/day, respectively. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020 Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June 2020); Embase (1974 to June 2020); and CINAHL (inception to June 2020); Maternity & Infant Care Database (MIDIRS) (1971 to April 2020); as well as previous reviews, and trial registries. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared high versus standard volume enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) and risk difference for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcomes were weight gain, linear and head growth during hospital stay, and extrauterine growth restriction at discharge. We included two new RCTs (283 infants) in this update. In total, we included three trials (347 infants) in this updated review. High versus standard volume feeds with fortified human milk or preterm formula Two trials (283 infants) met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. Both were of good methodological quality, except for lack of masking. Both trials were performed in infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation. Meta-analysis of data from both trials showed high volume feeds probably improves weight gain during hospital stay (MD 2.58 g/kg/day, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.76; participants = 271; moderate-certainty evidence). High volume feeds may have little or no effect on linear growth (MD 0.05 cm/week, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.13; participants = 271; low-certainty evidence), head growth (MD 0.02 cm/week, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09; participants = 271; low-certainty evidence), and extrauterine growth restriction at discharge (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02; participants = 271; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of high volume feeds with fortified human milk or preterm formula on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.51; participants = 283; very-low certainty evidence). High versus standard volume feeds with unfortified human milk or term formula One trial with 64 very low birth weight infants met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. This trial was unmasked but otherwise of good methodological quality. High volume feeds probably improves weight gain during hospital stay (MD 6.2 g/kg/day, 95% CI 2.71 to 9.69; participants = 61; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial did not provide data on linear and head growth, and extrauterine growth restriction at discharge. We are uncertain as to the effect of high volume feeds with unfortified human milk or term formula on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.78; participants = 61; very low-certainty evidence). High volume feeds (≥ 180 mL/kg/day of fortified human milk or preterm formula, or ≥ 200 mL/kg/day of unfortified human milk or term formula) probably improves weight gain during hospital stay. The available data is inadequate to draw conclusions on the effect of high volume feeds on other growth and clinical outcomes. A large RCT is needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.

Abiramalatha T ，Thomas N ，Thanigainathan S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Early fortification of human milk versus late fortification to promote growth in preterm infants.

Uncertainty exists about the optimal point at which multi-component fortifier should be added to human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants. The most common practice is to start fortification when the infant's daily enteral feed volume reaches 100 mL/kg body weight. Another approach is to commence fortification earlier, in some cases as early as the first enteral feed. Early fortification of human milk could increase nutrient intake and growth rates but may increase the risk of feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). To assess effects on growth and safety of early fortification of human milk versus late fortification in preterm infants To assess whether effects vary based upon gestational age (≤ 27 weeks; 28 to 31 weeks; ≥ 32 weeks), birth weight (< 1000 g; 1000 to 1499 g; ≥ 1500 g), small or appropriate for gestational age, or type of fortifier (bovine milk-based human milk fortifier (HMF); human milk-based HMF; formula powder) SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8); OVID MEDLINE (R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions (R) (1946 to 15 August 2019); MEDLINE via PubMed (1 August 2018 to 15 August 2019) for the previous year; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literatue (CINAHL) (1981 to 15 August 2019). We searched clinical trials databases and reference lists of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials that compared early versus late fortification of human milk in preterm infants. We defined early fortification as fortification started at < 100 mL/kg/d enteral feed volume or < 7 days postnatal age, and late fortification as fortification started at ≥ 100 mL/kg/d feeds or ≥ 7 days postnatal age. Both review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials, and we reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. We included two trials with a total of 237 infants. All participants were very low birth weight infants (birth weight < 1500 g). Early fortification was started at 20 mL/kg/d enteral feeds in one study and 40 mL/kg/d in the other study. Late fortification was started at 100 mL/kg/d feeds in both studies. One study used bovine milk-based fortifier, and the other used human milk-based fortifier. Meta-analysis showed that early fortification may have little or no effect on growth outcomes including time to regain birth weight (MD -0.06 days, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.20 days), linear growth (MD 0.10 cm/week, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.22 cm/week), or head growth (MD -0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06 cm/week) during the initial hospitalisation period. Early fortification may have little or no effect on the risk of NEC (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06). The certainty of evidence was low for these outcomes due to risk of bias (lack of blinding) and imprecision (small sample size). Early fortification may have little or no effect on incidence of surgical NEC, time to reach full enteral feeds, extrauterine growth restriction at discharge, proportion of infants with feed interruption episodes, duration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), duration of central venous line usage, or incidence of invasive infection, all-cause mortality, and duration of hospital stay. The certainty of evidence was low for these outcomes due to risk of bias (lack of blinding) and imprecision (small sample size). We did not have data for other outcomes such as subsequent weight gain after birth weight is regained, parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease, postdischarge growth, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Available evidence is insufficient to support or refute early fortification of human milk in preterm infants. Further large trials would be needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.

Thanigainathan S ，Abiramalatha T 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Perretta L ，Ouldibbat L ，Hagadorn JI ，Brumberg HL ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Continuous nasogastric milk feeding versus intermittent bolus milk feeding for preterm infants less than 1500 grams.

Milk feedings can be given via nasogastric tube either intermittently, typically over 10 to 20 minutes every two or three hours, or continuously, using an infusion pump. Although the theoretical benefits and risks of each method have been proposed, their effects on clinically important outcomes remain uncertain.  OBJECTIVES: To examine the evidence regarding the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent bolus tube feeding of milk in preterm infants less than 1500 grams. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to run comprehensive searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 7) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions; and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) on 17 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing continuous versus intermittent bolus nasogastric milk feeding in preterm infants less than 1500 grams. Two review authors independently assessed all trials for relevance and risk of bias. We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal to extract data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were: age at full enteral feedings; feeding intolerance; days to regain birth weight; rate of gain in weight, length and head circumference; and risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). We included nine randomised trials (919 infants) in this updated Cochrane Review. One study is awaiting classification. Seven of the nine included trials reported data from infants with a maximum weight of between 1000 grams and 1400 grams. Two of the nine trials included infants weighing up to 1500 grams. Type(s) of milk feeds varied, including human milk (either mother's own milk or pasteurised donor human milk), preterm formula, or mixed feeding regimens. In some instances, preterm formula was initially diluted. Earlier studies also used water to initiate feedings. We judged six trials as unclear or high risk of bias for random sequence generation. We judged four trials as unclear for allocation concealment. We judged all trials as high risk of bias for blinding of care givers, and seven as unclear or high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for imprecision, due to low numbers of participants in the trials, and/or wide 95% confidence intervals, and/or for risk of bias. Continuous compared to intermittent bolus (nasogastric and orogastric tube) milk feeding Babies receiving continuous feeding may reach full enteral feeding almost one day later than babies receiving intermittent feeding (mean difference (MD) 0.84 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.81; 7 studies, 628 infants; low-certainty evidence).  It is uncertain if there is any difference between continuous feeding and intermittent feeding in terms of number of days of feeding interruptions (MD -3.00 days, 95% CI -9.50 to 3.50; 1 study, 171 infants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if continuous feeding has any effect on days to regain birth weight (MD -0.38 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.41; 6 studies, 610 infants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence is low and the 95% confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. It is uncertain if continuous feeding has any effect on rate of gain in weight compared with intermittent feeding (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.09, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.46; 5 studies, 433 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Continuous feeding may result in little to no difference in rate of gain in length compared with intermittent feeding (MD 0.02 cm/week, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 5 studies, 433 infants; low-certainty evidence). Continuous feeding may result in little to no difference in rate of gain in head circumference compared with intermittent feeding (MD 0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 5 studies, 433 infants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if continuous feeding has any effect on the risk of NEC compared with intermittent feeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.11; 4 studies, 372 infants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence is low and the 95% confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Although babies receiving continuous feeding may reach full enteral feeding slightly later than babies receiving intermittent feeding, the evidence is of low certainty. However, the clinical risks and benefits of continuous and intermittent nasogastric tube milk feeding cannot be reliably discerned from current available randomised trials. Further research is needed to determine if either feeding method is more appropriate for the initiation of feeds. A rigorous methodology should be adopted, defining feeding protocols and feeding intolerance consistently for all infants. Infants should be stratified according to birth weight and gestation, and possibly according to illness.

Sadrudin Premji S ，Chessell L ，Stewart F 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》