RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between breastfeeding competency, as determined by Latch, Audible swallowing, Type of nipple, Comfort, and Hold (LATCH) and Preterm Infant Breastfeeding Behavior Scale (PIBBS) scores, and exclusive breastfeeding and growth among infants with low birth weight (LBW) in India, Malawi, and Tanzania. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted LATCH and PIBBS assessments among mother-infant dyads enrolled in the Low Birthweight Infant Feeding Exploration (LIFE) observational study of infants with moderately LBW (1500g-2499 g) in India, Malawi, and Tanzania. We analyzed feeding and growth patterns among this cohort. RESULTS: We observed 988 infants. We found no association between LATCH or PIBBS scores and rates of exclusive breastfeeding at 4 or 6 months. Higher week 1 LATCH and PIBBS scores were associated with increased likelihood of regaining birth weight by 2 weeks of age [LATCH: aRR 1.42 (95% CI 1.15, 1.76); PIBBS: aRR 1.15 (95% CI 1.07, 1.23); adjusted for maternal age, parity, education, residence, delivery mode, LBW type, number of offspring, and site]. Higher PIBBS scores at 1 week were associated with improved weight gain velocity (weight-for-age z-score change) at 1, 4, and 6 months [adjusted beta coefficient: 1 month 0.04 (95% CI 0.01, 0.06); 4 month 0.04 (95% CI 0.01, 0.06); and 6 month 0.04 (95% CI 0.00, 0.08)]. CONCLUSION: Although week 1 LATCH and PIBBS scores were not associated with rates of exclusive breastfeeding, higher scores were positively associated with growth metrics among infants with LBW, suggesting that these tools may be useful to identify dyads who would benefit from early lactation support.
Asunto(s)
Lactancia Materna , Recién Nacido de Bajo Peso , Humanos , Lactancia Materna/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Estudios Prospectivos , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Adulto , Lactante , Tanzanía , India , Malaui , Desarrollo Infantil/fisiología , Estudios de CohortesRESUMEN
Clinicians caring for small, vulnerable newborns increasingly have access to specific nutritional information about human milk through point-of-care analyzers and labeled products. It is critical for clinicians to recognize that there is considerable variability in how human milk nutritional data are derived and reported, which impacts the interpretation of nutritional values, comparison of nutritional data between products, and ultimately the ability to deliver optimal nutritional care. This article distills key issues that will enable clinicians to interpret human milk nutritional labels/analysis more effectively, ultimately allowing them to make better decisions about dietary strategies. We aim to empower clinicians to ask questions about milk sampling techniques, reported nutrient values, analysis techniques, and milk bank pooling practices. This knowledge can put human milk nutrient values in context, improve clinical care, and help to drive more rigorous research for exploring the impact of human milk feeding on infant outcomes.
RESUMEN
CONTEXT: Meningitis is associated with high mortality risk in young infants, yet the optimal treatment regimen is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic regimens to treat meningitis in young infants aged 0 to 59 days on critical clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane Central Registry of Trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of young infants with meningitis (population) comparing the efficacy of antibiotic regimens (interventions) with alternate regimens (control) on clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data on study characteristics and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 1088 studies screened, only 2 RCTs were identified. They included 168 infants from 5 countries and were conducted between 1976 and 2015. Neither study compared current World Health Organization-recommended regimens. One multisite trial from 4 countries compared intrathecal gentamicin plus systemic ampicillin/gentamicin to systemic ampicillin/gentamicin and found no difference in mortality (relative risk, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.53; 1 trial, n = 98, very low certainty of evidence) or adverse events (no events in either trial arm). Another trial in India compared a 10-day versus 14-day course of antibiotics and found no difference in mortality (relative risk, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.53; 1 trial, n = 98, very low certainty of evidence) or other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trial data on the efficacy of antibiotic regimens in young infant meningitis are scarce. Rigorous RCTs are needed to inform recommendations for optimal antibiotic regimens for meningitis treatment in this vulnerable population, particularly within the context of changing epidemiology and increasing antimicrobial resistance.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Meningitis Bacterianas , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Meningitis Bacterianas/tratamiento farmacológico , Meningitis Bacterianas/mortalidad , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del Tratamiento , Gentamicinas/uso terapéutico , Gentamicinas/administración & dosificaciónRESUMEN
CONTEXT: Clinical sign algorithms are a key strategy to identify young infants at risk of mortality. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize the evidence on the accuracy of clinical sign algorithms to predict all-cause mortality in young infants 0-59 days. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Studies evaluating the accuracy of infant clinical sign algorithms to predict mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: We used Cochrane methods for study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We determined certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: We included 11 studies examining 26 algorithms. Three studies from non-hospital/community settings examined sign-based checklists (n = 13). Eight hospital-based studies validated regression models (n = 13), which were administered as weighted scores (n = 8), regression formulas (n = 4), and a nomogram (n = 1). One checklist from India had a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI: 88%-100%) and specificity of 94% (93%-95%) for predicting sepsis-related deaths. However, external validation in Bangladesh showed very low sensitivity of 3% (0%-10%) with specificity of 99% (99%-99%) for all-cause mortality (ages 0-9 days). For hospital-based prediction models, area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.76-0.93 (n = 13). The Score for Essential Neonatal Symptoms and Signs had an AUC of 0.89 (0.84-0.93) in the derivation cohort for mortality, and external validation showed an AUC of 0.83 (0.83-0.84). LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of algorithms and lack of external validation limited the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical sign algorithms may help identify at-risk young infants, particularly in hospital settings; however, overall certainty of evidence is low with limited external validation.
Asunto(s)
Algoritmos , Mortalidad Infantil , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Mortalidad Infantil/tendencias , Lista de Verificación , Medición de Riesgo/métodosRESUMEN
CONTEXT: Pneumonia is a leading cause of death in young infants. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of different antibiotic regimens to treat young infant pneumonia on critical clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, World Health Organization (WHO) Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Central Registry of Trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials of young infants aged 0 to 59 days with pneumonia (population) comparing the efficacy of antibiotic regimens (intervention) with alternate regimens or management (control) on clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess certainty of evidence. LIMITATIONS: Trials were heterogeneous, which precluded data pooling. RESULTS: Of 2601 publications screened, 10 randomized controlled trials were included. Seven trials were hospital-based (n = 869) and 3 were nonhospital-based (n = 4329). No hospital-based trials evaluated WHO-recommended first-choice regimens. One trial found the WHO-recommended second-choice antibiotic, cefotaxime, to have similar rates of treatment success as non-WHO-recommended regimens of either amoxicillin-clavulanate (RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.10) or amoxicillin-clavulanate/cefotaxime (RR 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.12). Among 3 nonhospital-based trials comparing oral amoxicillin to alternate regimens to treat isolated tachypnea among infants aged 7-59 days, there were no differences in treatment failure between amoxicillin and alternate regimens. Certainty of evidence was low or very low for all primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence to support the superiority of any single antibiotic regimen over alternate regimens to treat young infant pneumonia.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Neumonía/tratamiento farmacológico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Neumonía Bacteriana/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
CONTEXT: Sepsis is a leading cause of young infant mortality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of different antibiotic regimens to treat young infant sepsis or possible serious bacterial infection (PSBI) on clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Central Registry of Trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of young infants 0 to 59 days with sepsis or PBSI (population) comparing the efficacy of antibiotic regimens (intervention) with alternate regimens or management (control) on clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We performed random-effects meta-analysis, and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 2390 publications, we included 41 RCTs (n = 18 054). Thirty-five trials were hospital-based and 6 were nonhospital-based. Meta-analysis of 4 trials demonstrated similar rates of treatment success with intramuscular/intravenous third generation cephalosporins versus intramuscular/intravenous penicillin or ampicillin + gentamicin (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.13]; n = 1083; moderate certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis of 3 trials demonstrated similar rates of treatment failure with oral amoxicillin + intramuscular gentamicin versus intramuscular penicillin + gentamicin for nonhospital treatment of clinical severe illness (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72-1.02]; n = 5054; low certainty of evidence). Other studies were heterogeneous. LIMITATIONS: RCTs evaluated heterogeneous regimens, limiting our ability to pool data. CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence to support any single antibiotic regimen as superior to alternate regimens to treat young infant sepsis or PSBI.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Infecciones Bacterianas , Sepsis , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Infecciones Bacterianas/tratamiento farmacológico , Sepsis/tratamiento farmacológico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
CONTEXT: Accurate identification of possible sepsis in young infants is needed to effectively manage and reduce sepsis-related morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical sign algorithms to identify young infants (aged 0-59 days) with suspected sepsis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy measures of algorithms including infant clinical signs to identify young infants with suspected sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION: We used Cochrane methods for study screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and determining certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: We included 19 studies (12 Integrated Management of Childhood Illness [IMCI] and 7 non-IMCI studies). The current World Health Organization (WHO) 7-sign IMCI algorithm had a sensitivity of 79% (95% CI 77%-82%) and specificity of 77% (95% CI 76%-78%) for identifying sick infants aged 0-59 days requiring hospitalization/antibiotics (1 study, N = 8889). Any IMCI algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI 75%-90%) and specificity of 80% (95% CI 64%-90%) for identifying suspected sepsis (11 studies, N = 15523). When restricting the reference standard to laboratory-supported sepsis, any IMCI algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 86% (95% CI 82%-90%) and lower specificity of 61% (95% CI 49%-72%) (6 studies, N = 14278). LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of algorithms and reference standards limited the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: IMCI algorithms had acceptable sensitivity for identifying young infants with suspected sepsis. Specificity was lower using a reference standard of laboratory-supported sepsis diagnosis.