Diazoxide for Severe or Recurrent Neonatal Hypoglycemia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Neonatal hypoglycemia is an important preventable cause of neurodevelopmental impairment, but there is a paucity of evidence to guide treatment. Objective: To evaluate whether early, low-dose oral diazoxide for severe or recurrent neonatal hypoglycemia reduces time to resolution of hypoglycemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-arm, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 2020 to February 2023 in tertiary neonatal units at 2 New Zealand hospitals. Participants were neonates born at 35 or more weeks' gestation and less than 1 week of age with severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose concentration <22 mg/dL or <36 mg/dL despite 2 doses of dextrose gel) or recurrent hypoglycemia (≥3 episodes of a blood glucose concentration <47 mg/dL within 48 hours). Interventions: Newborns were randomized 1:1 to receive diazoxide suspension (loading dose, 5 mg/kg; maintenance, 1.5 mg/kg every 12 hours) or placebo, titrated per protocol. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was time to resolution of hypoglycemia, defined as enteral bolus feeding without intravenous fluids and normoglycemia (blood glucose concentration of 47-98 mg/dL) for at least 24 hours, compared between groups using adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios adjusted for stratification variables and gestation length are reported. Prespecified secondary outcomes, including number of blood glucose tests and episodes of hypoglycemia, duration of hypoglycemia, and time to enteral bolus feeding and weaning from intravenous fluids, were compared by generalized linear models. Newborns were followed up for at least 2 weeks. Results: Of 154 newborns screened, 75 were randomized and 74 with evaluable data were included in the analysis (mean [SD] gestational age for the full cohort, 37.6 [1.6] weeks), 36 in the diazoxide group and 38 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were similar: in the diazoxide group, mean (SD) gestational age was 37.9 (1.6) weeks and 26 (72%) were male; in the placebo group, mean (SD) gestational age was 37.4 (1.5) weeks and 27 (71%) were male. There was no significant difference in time to resolution of hypoglycemia (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.84-2.23), possibly due to increased episodes of elevated blood glucose concentration and longer time to normoglycemia in the diazoxide group. Resolution of hypoglycemia, when redefined post hoc as enteral bolus feeding without intravenous fluids for at least 24 hours with no further hypoglycemia, was reached by more newborns in the diazoxide group (AHR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.53-4.46). Newborns in the diazoxide group had fewer blood glucose tests (adjusted count ratio [ACR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.56-0.71) and episodes of hypoglycemia (ACR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), reduced duration of hypoglycemia (adjusted ratio of geometric means [ARGM], 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.53), and reduced time to enteral bolus feeding (ARGM, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95) and weaning from intravenous fluids (ARGM, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87). Only 2 newborns (6%) treated with diazoxide had hypoglycemia after the loading dose compared with 20 (53%) with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, early treatment of severe or recurrent neonatal hypoglycemia with low-dose oral diazoxide did not reduce time to resolution of hypoglycemia but reduced time to enteral bolus feeding and weaning from intravenous fluids, duration of hypoglycemia, and frequency of blood glucose testing compared with placebo. Trial Registration: ANZCTR.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12620000129987.

Neonatal Hypoglycemia and Neurocognitive Function at School Age: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between transient neonatal hypoglycemia in at-risk infants and neurocognitive function at 6-7 years of corrected age. STUDY DESIGN: The pre-hPOD Study involved children born with at least 1 risk factor for neonatal hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia was defined as ≥1 consecutive blood glucose concentrations <47 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/L), severe as <36 mg/dl (2.0 mmol/L), mild as 36 to <47 mg/dL (2.0 to <2.6 mmol/L), brief as 1-2 episodes, and recurrent as ≥3 episodes. At 6-7 years children were assessed for cognitive and motor function (NIH-Toolbox), learning, visual perception and behavior. The primary outcome was neurocognitive impairment, defined as >1 SD below the normative mean in ≥1 Toolbox tests. The 8 secondary outcomes covered children's cognitive, motor, language, emotional-behavioral, and visual perceptual development. Primary and secondary outcomes were compared between children who did and did not experience neonatal hypoglycemia, adjusting for potential confounding by gestation, birthweight, sex and receipt of prophylactic dextrose gel (pre-hPOD intervention). Secondary analysis included assessment by severity and frequency of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Of 392 eligible children, 315 (80%) were assessed at school age (primary outcome, n = 308); 47% experienced hypoglycemia. Neurocognitive impairment was similar between exposure groups (hypoglycemia 51% vs 50% no hypoglycemia; aRD -4%, 95% CI -15%, 7%). Children with severe or recurrent hypoglycemia had worse visual motion perception and increased risk of emotional-behavioral difficulty. CONCLUSION: Exposure to neonatal hypoglycemia was not associated with risk of neurocognitive impairment at school-age in at-risk infants, but severe and recurrent episodes may have adverse impacts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Hypoglycemia Prevention in Newborns with Oral Dextrose: the Dosage Trial (pre-hPOD Study): ACTRN12613000322730.

Neonatal hypoglycaemia.

Low blood concentrations of glucose (hypoglycaemia) soon after birth are common because of the delayed metabolic transition from maternal to endogenous neonatal sources of glucose. Because glucose is the main energy source for the brain, severe hypoglycaemia can cause neuroglycopenia (inadequate supply of glucose to the brain) and, if severe, permanent brain injury. Routine screening of infants at risk and treatment when hypoglycaemia is detected are therefore widely recommended. Robust evidence to support most aspects of management is lacking, however, including the appropriate threshold for diagnosis and optimal monitoring. Treatment is usually initially more feeding, with buccal dextrose gel, followed by intravenous dextrose. In infants at risk, developmental outcomes after mild hypoglycaemia seem to be worse than in those who do not develop hypoglycaemia, but the reasons for these observations are uncertain. Here, the current understanding of the pathophysiology of neonatal hypoglycaemia and recent evidence regarding its diagnosis, management, and outcomes are reviewed. Recommendations are made for further research priorities.

Nutritional Support for Moderate-to-Late-Preterm Infants - A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most moderate-to-late-preterm infants need nutritional support until they are feeding exclusively on their mother's breast milk. Evidence to guide nutrition strategies for these infants is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, factorial, randomized trial involving infants born at 32 weeks 0 days' to 35 weeks 6 days' gestation who had intravenous access and whose mothers intended to breast-feed. Each infant was assigned to three interventions or their comparators: intravenous amino acid solution (parenteral nutrition) or dextrose solution until full feeding with milk was established; milk supplement given when maternal milk was insufficient or mother's breast milk exclusively with no supplementation; and taste and smell exposure before gastric-tube feeding or no taste and smell exposure. The primary outcome for the parenteral nutrition and the milk supplement interventions was the body-fat percentage at 4 months of corrected gestational age, and the primary outcome for the taste and smell intervention was the time to full enteral feeding (150 ml per kilogram of body weight per day or exclusive breast-feeding). RESULTS: A total of 532 infants (291 boys [55%]) were included in the trial. The mean (±SD) body-fat percentage at 4 months was similar among the infants who received parenteral nutrition and those who received dextrose solution (26.0±5.4% vs. 26.2±5.2%; adjusted mean difference, -0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.32 to 0.92; P = 0.72) and among the infants who received milk supplement and those who received mother's breast milk exclusively (26.3±5.3% vs. 25.8±5.4%; adjusted mean difference, 0.65; 95% CI, -0.45 to 1.74; P = 0.25). The time to full enteral feeding was similar among the infants who were exposed to taste and smell and those who were not (5.8±1.5 vs. 5.7±1.9 days; P = 0.59). Secondary outcomes were similar across interventions. Serious adverse events occurred in one infant. CONCLUSIONS: This trial of routine nutrition interventions to support moderate-to-late-preterm infants until full nutrition with mother's breast milk was possible did not show any effects on the time to full enteral feeding or on body composition at 4 months of corrected gestational age. (Funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand and others; DIAMOND Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12616001199404.).

Caffeine for apnea and prevention of neurodevelopmental impairment in preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the evidence for dose and effectiveness of caffeine in preterm infants. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL Plus, CENTRAL, and trial databases were searched to July 2022 for trials randomizing preterm infants to caffeine vs. placebo/no treatment, or low (≤10 mg·kg-1) vs. high dose (>10 mg·kg-1 caffeine citrate equivalent). Two researchers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using RoB; GRADE evaluation was completed by all authors. Meta-analysis of 15 studies (3530 infants) was performed in REVMAN across four epochs: neonatal/infant (birth-1 year), early childhood (1-5 years), middle childhood (6-11 years) and adolescence (12-19 years). Caffeine reduced apnea (RR 0.59; 95%CI 0.46,0.75; very low certainty) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (0.77; 0.69,0.86; moderate certainty), with higher doses more effective. Caffeine had no effect on neurocognitive impairment in early childhood but possible benefit on motor function in middle childhood (0.72; 0.57,0.91; moderate certainty). The optimal dose remains unknown; further long-term studies, are needed.

A digital Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and education intervention targeting stress of parents and caregivers with preterm babies in the neonatal intensive care unit: A randomised controlled cluster trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Parents with babies in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) experience high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. The NICU experience may also lead to impaired parenting and early childhood socio-emotional problems. Psychosocial interventions can reduce NICU parent distress. Yet many are time-intensive and costly to deliver. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), an evidence-based psychological therapy, may address these needs. ACT has been shown to be effective in reducing distress of parents of children with chronic illnesses, particularly when combined with parent education. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to determine if a digital intervention that uses a brief form of ACT plus parent education will reduce the stress of primary caregivers with preterm babies in the NICU more than a digital education-only intervention or standard care control group. METHODS: In a randomised controlled cluster trial design, participants will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: ACT plus education; education-only; or standard care control. The primary outcome will be parental/caregiver stress levels, measured on the Parental Stress Scale: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Secondary outcomes include overall stress, anxiety, and depression. Outcome measures will be evaluated at baseline, two weeks after enrolment, discharge to home, and 3-months post-discharge. CONCLUSION: This study will explore the efficacy of a digital ACT plus education intervention on parental stress levels. While position papers have advocated for the use of ACT with NICU parents, this study will be the first to test ACT as a stand-alone intervention with this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 14 June 2023 (ACTRN12623000641695p).

Dextrose gel prophylaxis for neonatal hypoglycaemia and neurocognitive function at early school age: a randomised dosage trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of different doses of prophylactic dextrose gel on neurocognitive function and health at 6-7 years. DESIGN: Early school-age follow-up of the pre-hPOD (hypoglycaemia Prevention with Oral Dextrose) study. SETTING: Schools and communities. PATIENTS: Children born at ≥35 weeks with ≥1 risk factor for neonatal hypoglycaemia: maternal diabetes, small or large for gestational age, or late preterm. INTERVENTIONS: Four interventions commencing at 1 hour of age: dextrose gel (40%) 200 mg/kg; 400 mg/kg; 200 mg/kg and 200 mg/kg repeated before three feeds (800 mg/kg); 400 mg/kg and 200 mg/kg before three feeds (1000 mg/kg); compared with equivolume placebo (combined for analysis). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Toolbox cognitive and motor batteries, as well as tests of motion perception, numeracy and cardiometabolic health, were used. The primary outcome was neurocognitive impairment, defined as a standard score of more than 1 SD below the age-corrected mean on one or more Toolbox tests. FINDINGS: Of 392 eligible children, 309 were assessed for the primary outcome. There were no significant differences in the rate of neurocognitive impairment between those randomised to placebo (56%) and dextrose gel (200 mg/kg 46%: adjusted risk difference (aRD)=-14%, 95% CI -35%, 7%; 400 mg/kg 48%: aRD=-7%, 95% CI -27%, 12%; 800 mg/kg 45%: aRD=-14%, 95% CI -36%, 9%; 1000 mg/kg 50%: aRD=-8%, 95% CI -29%, 13%). Children exposed to any dose of dextrose gel (combined), compared with placebo, had a lower risk of motor impairment (3% vs 14%, aRD=-11%, 95% CI -19%, -3%) and higher mean (SD) cognitive scores (106.0 (15.3) vs 101.1 (15.7), adjusted mean difference=5.4, 95% CI 1.8, 8.9). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic neonatal dextrose gel did not alter neurocognitive impairment at early school age but may have motor and cognitive benefits. Further school-age follow-up studies are needed.

Neonatal and maternal outcomes at early vs. full term following induction of labor; A secondary analysis of the OBLIGE randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Birth at early term (37+0-38+6 completed gestational weeks [GW] and additional days) is associated with adverse neonatal outcomes compared with waiting to ≥39 GW. Most studies report outcomes after elective cesarean section or a mix of all modes of births; it is unclear whether these adverse outcomes apply to early-term babies born after induction of labor (IOL). We aimed to determine, in women with a non-urgent induction indication (elective/planned >48 h in advance), if IOL at early and late term was associated with adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes compared with IOL at full term. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational cohort study as a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 1087 New Zealand women with a planned IOL ≥37+0 GW. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze neonatal and maternal outcomes in relation to gestational age; 37+0-38+6 (early term), 39+0-40+6 (full term) and ≥41+0 (late term) GW. Neonatal outcome analyses were adjusted for sex, birthweight, mode of birth and induction indication, and maternal outcome analyses for parity, age, body mass index and induction method. The primary neonatal outcome was admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for >4 hours; the primary maternal outcome was cesarean section. RESULTS: Among the 1087 participants, 266 had IOL at early term, 480 at full term, and 341 at late term. Babies born following IOL at early term had increased odds for NICU admission for >4 hours (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.16, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.16-4.05), compared with full term. Women having IOL at early term had no difference in emergency cesarean rates but had an increased need for a second induction method (aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.15-2.51) and spent 4 h longer from start of IOL to birth (Hodges-Lehmann estimator 4.10, 95% CI 1.33-6.95) compared with those with IOL at full term. CONCLUSIONS: IOL for a non-urgent indication at early term was associated with adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes and no benefits compared with IOL at full term. These findings support international guidelines to avoid IOL before 39 GW unless there is an evidence-based indication for earlier planned birth and will help inform women and clinicians in their decision-making about timing of IOL.

Maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with Fetal Pillow® use at full dilatation caesarean: A retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations of the Fetal Pillow® with maternal and neonatal morbidity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Two tertiary maternity units, New Zealand. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Full dilatation singleton, term, cephalic caesarean section, with three comparisons: at Unit A (1) before versus after introduction of the Fetal Pillow® (1 Jaunary 2016-31 October 2021); (2) with versus without the Fetal Pillow® after introduction (27 July 2017-31 October 2021); and (3) between Unit A and Unit B during the same time period (1 January 2019-31 October 2021). The Fetal Pillow® is unavailable at Unit B. METHODS: Cases were ascertained and clinical data were extracted from electronic clinical databases and records. Outcome data were adjusted and presented as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome "any" uterine incision extension; secondary outcomes included major extension (into adjacent structures), and a composite neonatal outcome. RESULTS: In all, 1703 caesareans were included; 375 with the device and 1328 without. Uterine incision extension rates were: at Unit A before versus after introduction: 26.8% versus 24.8% (aOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65-1.19); at Unit A with the Fetal Pillow® versus without: 26.1% versus 23.8% (aOR 1.14, 95% CI 0.83-1.57); and at Unit A versus Unit B: 24.2% versus 29.2% (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.99). No differences were found in major extensions, or neonatal composite outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively large size of this study, it could not rule out either a positive or a negative association between use of the Fetal Pillow® and uterine extensions, major uterine incision extensions, and neonatal morbidity. Randomised controlled trial evidence is required to assess efficacy.