Project description:BACKGROUND:Glutamine is a conditionally essential amino acid. Endogenous biosynthesis may be insufficient for tissue needs in states of metabolic stress. Evidence exists that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. It has been suggested that glutamine supplementation may also benefit preterm infants. OBJECTIVES:To determine the effects of glutamine supplementation on mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. 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 (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Maternity and Infant Care (to December 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in preterm infants at any time from birth to discharge from hospital. 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. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical relative risk, typical risk difference and weighted mean difference. MAIN RESULTS:We identified 12 randomised controlled trials in which a total of 2877 preterm infants participated. Six trials assessed enteral glutamine supplementation and six trials assessed parenteral glutamine supplementation. The trials were generally of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis did not find an effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality (typical relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.17; risk difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.02) or major neonatal morbidities including the incidence of invasive infection or necrotising enterocolitis. Three trials that assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes in children aged 18 to 24 months and beyond did not find any effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The available trial data do not provide evidence that glutamine supplementation confers important benefits for preterm infants.

Project description:BackgroundPreterm infants are susceptible to hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, which may lead to adverse neurodevelopment. The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices might help in keeping glucose levels in the normal range, and reduce the need for blood sampling. However, the use of CGM might be associated with harms in the preterm infant.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of CGM versus intermittent modalities to measure glycaemia in preterm infants 1. at risk of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia; 2. with proven hypoglycaemia; or 3. with proven hyperglycaemia.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 4); PubMed; Embase; and CINAHL in April 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.Selection criteriaWe included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing the use of CGM versus intermittent modalities to measure glycaemia in preterm infants at risk of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia; with proven hypoglycaemia; or with proven hyperglycaemia.Data collection and analysisWe assessed the methodological quality of included trials using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria (assessing randomization, blinding, loss to follow-up, and handling of outcome data). We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.Main resultsWe included four trials enrolling 300 infants in our updated review. We included one new study and excluded another previously included study (because the inclusion criteria of the review have been narrowed). We compared the use of CGM to intermittent modalities in preterm infants at risk of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia; however, one of these trials was analyzed separately because CGM was used as a standalone device, without being coupled to a control algorithm as in the other trials. We identified no studies in preterm infants with proven hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia. None of the four included trials reported the neurodevelopmental outcome (i.e. the primary outcome of this review), or seizures. The effect of the use of CGM on mortality during hospitalization is uncertain (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.13; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.03; 230 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes because of limitations in study design, and imprecision of estimates. One study is ongoing (estimated sample size 60 infants) and planned to be completed in 2022.Authors' conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to determine if CGM affects preterm infant mortality or morbidities. We are very uncertain of the safety of CGM and the available management algorithms, and many morbidities remain unreported. Preterm infants at risk of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia were enrolled in all four included studies. No studies have been conducted in preterm infants with proven hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia. Long-term outcomes were not reported. Events of necrotizing enterocolitis, reported in the study published in 2021, were lower in the CGM group. However, the effect of CGM on this outcome remains very uncertain. Clinical trials are required to determine the most effective CGM and glycaemic management regimens in preterm infants before larger studies can be performed to assess the efficacy of CGM for reducing mortality, morbidity, and long-term neurodevelopmental impairments.

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying preterm infants at risk for mortality or major morbidity traditionally relies on gestational age, birth weight, and other clinical characteristics that offer underwhelming utility. We sought to determine whether a newborn metabolic vulnerability profile at birth can be used to evaluate risk for neonatal mortality and major morbidity in preterm infants.MethodsThis was a population-based retrospective cohort study of preterm infants born between 2005 and 2011 in California. We created a newborn metabolic vulnerability profile wherein maternal/infant characteristics along with routine newborn screening metabolites were evaluated for their association with neonatal mortality or major morbidity.ResultsNine thousand six hundred and thirty-nine (9.2%) preterm infants experienced mortality or at least one complication. Six characteristics and 19 metabolites were included in the final metabolic vulnerability model. The model demonstrated exceptional performance for the composite outcome of mortality or any major morbidity (AUC 0.923 (95% CI: 0.917-0.929). Performance was maintained across mortality and morbidity subgroups (AUCs 0.893-0.979).ConclusionsMetabolites measured as part of routine newborn screening can be used to create a metabolic vulnerability profile. These findings lay the foundation for targeted clinical monitoring and further investigation of biological pathways that may increase the risk of neonatal death or major complications in infants born preterm.ImpactWe built a newborn metabolic vulnerability profile that could identify preterm infants at risk for major morbidity and mortality. Identifying high-risk infants by this method is novel to the field and outperforms models currently in use that rely primarily on infant characteristics. Utilizing the newborn metabolic vulnerability profile for precision clinical monitoring and targeted investigation of etiologic pathways could lead to reductions in the incidence and severity of major morbidities associated with preterm birth.

Dataset Information

Oropharyngeal colostrum in preventing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets