Dataset Information

Probiotics, prebiotics infant formula use in preterm or low birth weight infants: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Previous reviews (2005 to 2009) on preterm infants given probiotics or prebiotics with breast milk or mixed feeds focused on prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis, sepsis and diarrhea. This review assessed if probiotics, prebiotics led to improved growth and clinical outcomes in formula fed preterm infants.Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared preterm formula containing probiotic(s) or prebiotic(s) to conventional preterm formula in preterm infants. The mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and a chi² test. An I² test assessed inconsistencies across studies. I²> 50% represented substantial heterogeneity.Four probiotics studies (N=212), 4 prebiotics studies (N=126) were included. Probiotics: There were no significant differences in weight gain (MD 1.96, 95% CI: -2.64 to 6.56, 2 studies, n=34) or in maximal enteral feed (MD 35.20, 95% CI: -7.61 to 78.02, 2 studies, n=34), number of stools per day increased significantly in probiotic group (MD 1.60, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.00, 1 study, n=20). Prebiotics: Galacto-oligosaccharide/Fructo-oligosaccharide (GOS/FOS) yielded no significant difference in weight gain (MD 0.04, 95% CI: -2.65 to 2.73, 2 studies, n=50), GOS/FOS yielded no significant differences in length gain (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04, 2 studies, n=50). There were no significant differences in head growth (MD -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.00, 2 studies, n=76) or age at full enteral feed (MD -0.79, 95% CI: -2.20 to 0.61, 2 studies, n=86). Stool frequency increased significantly in prebiotic group (MD 0.80, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.1, 2 studies, n=86). GOS/FOS and FOS yielded higher bifidobacteria counts in prebiotics group (MD 2.10, 95% CI: 0.96 to 3.24, n=27) and (MD 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.68, n=56).There is not enough evidence to state that supplementation with probiotics or prebiotics results in improved growth and clinical outcomes in exclusively formula fed preterm infants.

SUBMITTER: Mugambi MN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3487753 | biostudies-other | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Probiotics, prebiotics infant formula use in preterm or low birth weight infants: a systematic review.

Mugambi Mary N MN Musekiwa Alfred A Lombard Martani M Young Taryn T Blaauw Reneé R

Nutrition journal 20120828

<h4>Background</h4>Previous reviews (2005 to 2009) on preterm infants given probiotics or prebiotics with breast milk or mixed feeds focused on prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis, sepsis and diarrhea. This review assessed if probiotics, prebiotics led to improved growth and clinical outcomes in formula fed preterm infants.<h4>Methods</h4>Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared preterm formula containing probiotic(s) or prebiotic(s) to conve ...[more]

PMID: 22928998

Similar Datasets

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: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; 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 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 certainty of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods.Main resultsTwelve 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' conclusionsIn 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:Background & aimsWe aimed to compare the effectiveness of single- vs multiple-strain probiotics in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, and Google Scholar through January 1, 2019, for studies of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations on the outcomes of preterm, low-birth-weight neonates. We used a frequentist approach for network meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, severe necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (Bell stage II or more), and culture-proven sepsis.ResultsWe analyzed data from 63 trials involving 15,712 preterm infants. Compared with placebo, a combination of 1 or more Lactobacillus species (spp) and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp was the only intervention with moderate- or high-quality evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.80). Among interventions with moderate- or high-quality evidence for efficacy compared with placebo, combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp, Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis, Lactobacillus reuteri, or Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced severe NEC (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.20-0.59]; OR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.74]; OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91]; and OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.21-0.90], respectively). There was moderate- or high-quality evidence that combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp and Saccharomyces boulardii reduced the number of days to reach full feeding (mean reduction of 3.30 days [95% CI, reduction of 5.91-0.69 days]). There was moderate- or high-quality evidence that, compared with placebo, the single-species product B animalis subsp lactis or L reuteri significantly reduced duration of hospitalization (mean reduction of 13.00 days [95% CI, reduction of 22.71-3.29 days] and mean reduction of 7.89 days [95% CI, reduction of 11.60-4.17 days], respectively).ConclusionsIn a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies to determine the effects of single-strain and multistrain probiotic formulations on outcomes of preterm, low-birth-weight neonates, we found moderate to high evidence for the superiority of combinations of 1 or more Lactobacillus spp and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp vs single- and other multiple-strain probiotic treatments. The combinations of Bacillus spp and Enterococcus spp, and 1 or more Bifidobacterium spp and Streptococcus salivarius subsp thermophilus, might produce the largest reduction in NEC development. Further trials are needed.

Project description:Preterm birth survivors are at a higher risk of growth and developmental disabilities compared to their term counterparts. Development of strategies to lower the complications of preterm birth forms the rising need of the hour. Appropriate nutrition is essential for the growth and development of preterm infants. Early administration of optimal nutrition to preterm birth survivors lowers the risk of adverse health outcomes and improves cognition in adulthood. A group of neonatologists, pediatricians, and nutrition experts convened to discuss and frame evidence-based recommendations for optimizing nutrition in preterm low birth weight (LBW) infants. The following were the primary recommendations of the panel: (1) enteral feeding is safe and may be preferred to parenteral nutrition due to the complications associated with the latter; however, parenteral nutrition may be a useful adjunct to enteral feeding in some critical cases; (2) early, fast, or continuous enteral feeding yields better outcomes compared to late, slow, or intermittent feeding, respectively; (3) routine use of nasogastric tubes is not advisable; (4) preterm infants can be fed while on ventilator or continuous positive airway pressure; (5) routine evaluation of gastric residuals and abdominal girth should be avoided; (6) expressed breast milk (EBM) is the first choice for feeding preterm infants due to its beneficial effects on cardiovascular, neurological, bone health, and growth outcomes; the second choice is donor pasteurized human milk; (7) EBM or donor milk may be fortified with human milk fortifiers, without increasing the osmolality of the milk, to meet the high protein requirements of preterm infants; (8) standard fortification is effective and safe but does not fulfill the high protein needs; (9) use of targeted and adjustable fortification, where possible, helps provide optimal nutrition; (10) optimizing weight gain in preterm infants prevents long-term cardiovascular complications; (11) checking for optimal weight and sucking/swallowing ability is essential prior to discharge of preterm infants; and (12) appropriate counseling and regular follow-up and monitoring after discharge will help achieve better long-term health outcomes. This consensus summary serves as a useful guide to clinicians in addressing the challenges and providing optimal nutrition to preterm LBW infants.

Dataset Information

Probiotics, prebiotics infant formula use in preterm or low birth weight infants: a systematic review.

Publications

Probiotics, prebiotics infant formula use in preterm or low birth weight infants: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets