Dataset Information

Protein hydrolysate versus standard formula for preterm infants.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:When human milk is not available for feeding preterm infants, protein hydrolysate rather than standard cow's milk formulas (with intact proteins) are often used because they are perceived as being tolerated better and less likely to lead to complications. However, protein hydrolysate formulas are more expensive than standard formulas, and concern exists that their use in practice is not supported by high-quality evidence. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effect of feeding preterm infants with hydrolysed formula (versus standard cow's milk formulas) on the risk of feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, and other morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS:We used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to April 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula. 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 for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS:We identified 11 trials for inclusion in the review. All trials were small (total participants 665) and had various methodological limitations including uncertainty about methods to ensure allocation concealment and blinding. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of gestational age less than about 34 weeks or birth weight less than about 1750 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted. Most trials found no effects on feed intolerance assessed variously as mean prefeed gastric residual volume, incidence of abdominal distention or other concerning gastrointestinal signs, or time taken to achieve full enteral feeds (meta-analysis was limited because studies used different measures). Meta-analysis found no effect on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.34; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 5 trials, 385 infants) (low quality evidence; downgraded for imprecision and design weaknesses). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The identified trials provide only low quality evidence about the effects of feeding preterm infants with protein hydrolysate versus standard formula. The existing data did not support conclusions that feeding with protein hydrolysate affects the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis. Further large, pragmatic trials are needed to provide more reliable and precise estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Ng DHC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6485330 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protein hydrolysate versus standard formula for preterm infants.

Ng Derek Hang Cheong DHC Klassen Joel J Embleton Nicholas D ND McGuire William W

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20171002

<h4>Background</h4>When human milk is not available for feeding preterm infants, protein hydrolysate rather than standard cow's milk formulas (with intact proteins) are often used because they are perceived as being tolerated better and less likely to lead to complications. However, protein hydrolysate formulas are more expensive than standard formulas, and concern exists that their use in practice is not supported by high-quality evidence.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the effect of feeding prete ...[more]

PMID: 28968486

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:When human milk is not available for feeding preterm infants, protein hydrolysate, rather than standard cow's milk formulas (with intact proteins), is often used because it is perceived as being tolerated better and less likely to lead to complications. However, protein hydrolysate formulas are more expensive than standard formulas, and concern exists that their use in practice is not supported by high-quality evidence. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effects of feeding preterm infants hydrolysed formula (vs standard cow's milk formula) on risk of feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, and other morbidity and mortality. SEARCH METHODS:We used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2019); Ovid Embase (1980 to 28 January 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (28 January 2019), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula. 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 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 sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS:We identified 11 trials for inclusion in the review. All trials were small (total participants 665) and had various methodological limitations including uncertainty about methods to ensure allocation concealment and blinding. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of less than about 34 weeks' gestational age or with birth weight less than about 1750 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth restricted. Most trials found no effects on feed intolerance, assessed variously as mean pre-feed gastric residual volume, incidence of abdominal distension or other gastrointestinal signs of concern, or time taken to achieve full enteral feeds (meta-analysis was limited because studies used different measures). Meta-analysis showed no effect on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.34; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 5 trials, 385 infants) (low-certainty evidence; downgraded for imprecision and design weaknesses). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The identified trials provide only low-certainty evidence about the effects of feeding preterm infants protein hydrolysate versus standard formula. Existing data do not support conclusions that feeding protein hydrolysate affects the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis. Additional large, pragmatic trials are needed to provide more reliable and precise estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundWhen 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.ObjectivesTo 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 methodsWe 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 criteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.Data collection and analysisTwo 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 resultsEleven 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' conclusionsIn 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.

Project description:BackgroundModerate-to-late preterm infants (32-34 weeks GA) have increased risk of neonatal morbidities compared to term infants, however dedicated nutritional guidelines are lacking.MethodsModerate-to-late preterm infants received a preterm formula (n = 17) or breastmilk (n = 24) from age 2-10 weeks in a non-randomized, open-label observational study. Anthropometric measurements were assessed bi-weekly. Blood concentrations of hemoglobin, ferritin, serum retinol, and 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25OHD) were analyzed at age 2 and 10 weeks.ResultAverage growth per day was 14.7 g/kg BW/day in formula-fed and 12.8 g/kg BW/day in breastmilk-fed infants but not different from each other. Length and head circumference in both groups were in line with the median reference values of the Fenton growth chart. At 10 weeks of age, hemoglobin tended to be higher in the formula-fed group (10.2 g/dL vs. 9.6 g/dL, p = 0.053). 25OHD increased in formula- and breastmilk-fed infants from 73.8 to 180.9 nmol/L and from 70.7 to 97.6 nmol/L, respectively. Serum retinol only increased in the formula-fed group (0.63 to 1.02 µmol/L, p < 0.001).ConclusionBreastfeeding resulted in adequate growth in moderate-late preterm infants but was limiting in some micronutrients. The preterm formula provided adequate micronutrients, but weight gain velocity was higher than the Fenton reference value.Impact statementUnfortified breastmilk resulted in adequate growth in weight, length and head circumference in Nigerian moderate to late preterm infants during an study period of 8 weeks, but status of vitamin D, vitamin A and iron needs to be monitored. The high-energy formula, developed for very preterm infants, resulted in higher growth in body weight in moderate to late preterm infants than the median of the Fenton preterm growth chart. This study supports the necessity of dedicated nutritional guidelines, and regular monitoring of growth and nutritional status of moderate to late preterm infants.

Project description:Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP) are the most common acute surgical emergencies associated with high morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. We aimed to compare the profiles of immunoregulatory proteins and identify novel mediators in plasma of NEC and SIP infants. We also investigated the expression of target genes in resected intestinal tissues and an enterocyte cell line. Using Cytokine Antibody Array assay, we reported the first comparative profiles of immunoregulatory proteins in plasma of NEC and SIP infants, and showed that dysregulated proteins belonged to functionally diversified categories, including pro- and anti-inflammation, angiogenesis, cell growth, wound healing, anti-apoptosis, cell adhesion and extracellular matrix reorganization. Validation by ELISA confirmed significantly higher concentrations of interleukin (IL)-6, angiopoietin (Ang)-2, soluble type II interleukin-1 receptor (sIL-1RII), and soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) in NEC infants compared with gestational age-matched control, and a lower level of an epidermal growth factor receptor, secreted form of receptor tyrosine-protein kinase ErbB3 (sErbB3), compared with SIP infants. mRNA expressions of IL1-RII and uPAR were up-regulated in resected bowel tissues from NEC infants, indicating that immunoregulation also occurred at the cellular level. In FHs-74 Int cells, Ang-2, IL1-RII and uPAR mRNA expressions were significantly induced by the combined treatment with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and platelet activating factor (PAF). Our study provided plasmatic signatures of immunoregulatory proteins in NEC and SIP infants, and demonstrated involvement of multiple functional pathways. The magnitude of changes in these proteins was significantly more extensive in NEC infants, reflecting the different nature of injury and/or severity of inflammation. We speculate that dysregulation of IL-6, Ang-2, IL-1RII and uPAR occurred at both systemic and cellular levels, and probably mediated via LPS and endogeneous PAF signals. Such exaggerated immunologic responses may account for the high morbidity and mortality in NEC compared with SIP patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There are limited data to inform the choice between early treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and early surfactant treatment as the initial support for extremely-low-birth-weight infants. METHODS:We performed a randomized, multicenter trial, with a 2-by-2 factorial design, involving infants who were born between 24 weeks 0 days and 27 weeks 6 days of gestation. Infants were randomly assigned to intubation and surfactant treatment (within 1 hour after birth) or to CPAP treatment initiated in the delivery room, with subsequent use of a protocol-driven limited ventilation strategy. Infants were also randomly assigned to one of two target ranges of oxygen saturation. The primary outcome was death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia as defined by the requirement for supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks (with an attempt at withdrawal of supplemental oxygen in neonates who were receiving less than 30% oxygen). RESULTS:A total of 1316 infants were enrolled in the study. The rates of the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the CPAP group and the surfactant group (47.8% and 51.0%, respectively; relative risk with CPAP, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.05) after adjustment for gestational age, center, and familial clustering. The results were similar when bronchopulmonary dysplasia was defined according to the need for any supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks (rates of primary outcome, 48.7% and 54.1%, respectively; relative risk with CPAP, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.01). Infants who received CPAP treatment, as compared with infants who received surfactant treatment, less frequently required intubation or postnatal corticosteroids for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (P<0.001), required fewer days of mechanical ventilation (P=0.03), and were more likely to be alive and free from the need for mechanical ventilation by day 7 (P=0.01). The rates of other adverse neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study support consideration of CPAP as an alternative to intubation and surfactant in preterm infants. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00233324.)

Dataset Information

Protein hydrolysate versus standard formula for preterm infants.

Publications

Protein hydrolysate versus standard formula for preterm infants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets