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.).

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.

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.

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.

Associations between neonatal nutrition and visual outcomes in 7-year-old children born very preterm.

PURPOSE: There is uncertainty about the effect of increased neonatal protein intake on neurodevelopmental outcomes following preterm birth. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a change in neonatal nutrition protocol at a major tertiary neonatal intensive care unit intended to increase protein intake on ophthalmic and visual development in school-age children born very preterm. METHODS: The study cohort comprised children (n = 128) with birthweight <1500 g or gestational age < 30 weeks born at Auckland City Hospital before (OldPro group, n = 55) and after (NewPro group, n = 73) a reformulation of parenteral nutrition that resulted in increased total protein intake during the first postnatal week and decreased carbohydrate, total parenteral fluid and sodium intake. Clinical and psychophysical vision assessments were completed at 7 years' corrected age, including visual acuity, global motion perception (a measure of dorsal stream function), stereoacuity, ocular motility and ocular health. Composite measures of favourable overall visual, binocular and functional visual outcomes along with individual vision measures were compared between the groups using logistic and linear regression models. RESULTS: Favourable overall visual outcome did not differ between the two groups. However, global motion perception was better in the NewPro group (p = 0.04), whereas the OldPro group were more likely to have favourable binocular visual outcomes (60% vs. 36%, p = 0.02) and passing stereoacuity (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate subtle but complex associations between early neonatal nutrition after very preterm birth and visual development at school age.

Psychosocial Support Provided to Parents of Infants in Neonatal Intensive Care Units: An International Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe current psychosocial support practices and programs for parents with infants in level II nurseries and level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) across Australia and New Zealand. STUDY DESIGN: A staff member from each level II and level III hospital completed an online survey about the psychosocial support services available for parents in Australia and New Zealand. Mixed methods (descriptive and statistical analysis; descriptive content analysis) were used to describe current services and practices. RESULTS: Of 66 eligible units, 44 participated in the survey (67%). Hospital-based pediatricians (32%) and clinical directors (32%) were the most common respondents. Level III NICUs reported providing significantly more services for parents than level II nurseries (median [IQR]: level III, 7 [5.25-8.75]; level II, 4.5 [3.25-5]; P < .001), with variability in the type and number of services available (range, 4-13). Less than half of units (43%) reported using standardized screening tools to assess parents for mental health distress, and just 4 units (9%) provided staff-led parent mental health support programs. In qualitative feedback, respondents frequently reported a lack of resources (staffing, funding, and training) to support parents. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the well-documented distress that parents with infants in neonatal units experience and the evidence-based practices known to reduce this distress, this study identifies significant gaps in parent support services in level II and level III NICUs across Australia and New Zealand.

Glycemic control in gestational diabetes and impact on biomarkers in women and infants.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is linked to the dysregulation of inflammatory markers in women with GDM compared to women without. It is unclear whether the intensity of glycemic control influences these biomarkers. We aimed to assess whether different glycemic targets for women with GDM and compliance influence maternal and infant biomarkers. METHODS: Maternity hospitals caring for women with GDM were randomized in the TARGET Trial to tight or less tight glycemic targets. Maternal blood was collected at study entry, 36 weeks' gestation, and 6 months postpartum, and cord plasma after birth. We assessed compliance to targets and concentrations of maternal serum and infant biomarkers. RESULTS: Eighty-two women and infants were included in the study. Concentrations of maternal and infant biomarkers did not differ between women assigned to tighter and less tight glycemic targets; however, concentrations were altered in maternal serum leptin and CRP and infant cord C-peptide, leptin, and IGF in women who complied with tighter targets. CONCLUSIONS: Use of tighter glycemic targets in women with GDM does not change the concentrations of maternal and infant biomarkers compared to less tight targets. However, when compliance is achieved to tighter targets, maternal and infant biomarkers are altered. IMPACT: The use of tighter glycemic targets in gestational diabetes does not result in changes to maternal or cord plasma biomarkers. However, for women who complied with tighter targets, maternal serum leptin and CRP and infant cord C-peptide, leptin and IGF were altered compared with women who complied with the use of the less tight targets. This article adds to the current evidence base regarding the impact of gestational diabetes on maternal and infant biomarkers. This article highlights the need for further research to assess enablers to meet the tighter target recommendations and to assess the impact on relevant biomarkers.

Rising Incidence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in South Asian Children in New Zealand-A Retrospective Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVES: High rates of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are reported in children of South Asian (SA) descent in some western countries. This population-based study describes the incidence and clinical course of IBD in SA children compared to non-South Asian (NSA) children in New Zealand (NZ). METHODS: Children (≤15 years) with new-onset IBD presenting to a centralized tertiary referral center in Auckland, NZ from 2010 to 2020 were identified. Disease phenotype, clinical characteristics, response to exclusive enteral nutrition, clinical remission rates at 3 and 12 months, biologic use, corticosteroid exposure, and disease complications were compared by ethnicity; IBD incidence was calculated. RESULTS: There were 127 (26 SA; 101 NSA) children with Crohn disease, 41 (10 SA; 31 NSA) with ulcerative colitis, and 10 (3 SA; 7 NSA) with IBD-unclassified. IBD incidence in SA and NSA children was 14.1 per 100,000 and 4.3 per 100,000 respectively ( P < 0.001). IBD incidence increased by 5.6% per year ( P = 0.022), due to a greater rise in incidence in SA (SA 16.8% per year, P = 0.015; NSA 4.5% per year, P = 0.317). At presentation, SA children had worse biochemical parameters, severe colitis, and vitamin D deficiency. SA children had lower rates of remission following exclusive enteral nutrition (28.5% vs 65.0%, P < 0.001) or biologic induction (35.7% vs 70.8%, P = 0.020), at 3-month (35.3% vs 69.8%, P < 0.001) and 12-month follow-up (29.4% vs 55.0%, P = 0.005). No significant differences were found in disease location or corticosteroid burden. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing incidence of IBD was disproportionately represented by SA children with more severe disease and lower remission rates following exclusive enteral nutrition or biologic therapy.

Antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol for preventing gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes with onset or first recognition during pregnancy is an increasing problem worldwide. Myo-inositol, an isomer of inositol, is a naturally occurring sugar commonly found in cereals, corn, legumes and meat. Myo-inositol is one of the intracellular mediators of the insulin signal and correlates with insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes. The potential beneficial effect of improving insulin sensitivity suggests that myo-inositol may be useful for women in preventing gestational diabetes. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess if antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in preventing gestational diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (17 March 2022) and the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster-RCTs and conference abstracts, assessing the effects of myo-inositol for the prevention of gestational diabetes in pregnant women. We included studies that compared any dose of myo-inositol, alone or in a combination preparation, with no treatment, placebo or another intervention. Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were not eligible. We excluded women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. We checked the data for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (one conducted in Ireland, six conducted in Italy) reporting on 1319 women who were 10 weeks to 24 weeks pregnant at the start of the studies. The studies had relatively small sample sizes and the overall risk of bias was low. For the primary maternal outcomes, meta-analysis showed that myo-inositol may reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.90; 6 studies, 1140 women) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.61; 5 studies, 1052 women). However, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low. For the primary neonatal outcomes, only one study measured the risk of a large-for-gestational-age infant and found myo-inositol was associated with both appreciable benefit and harm (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.02; 1 study, 234 infants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on the other primary neonatal outcomes (perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite). For the secondary maternal outcomes, we are unclear about the effect of myo-inositol on weight gain during pregnancy (mean difference (MD) -0.25 kilogram (kg), 95% CI -1.26 to 0.75 kg; 4 studies, 831 women) and perineal trauma (RR 4.0, 95% CI 0.45 to 35.25; 1 study, 234 women) because the evidence was assessed as being very low-certainty. Further, myo-inositol may result in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07; 4 studies, 829 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on the other secondary maternal outcomes (postnatal depression and the development of subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus). For the secondary neonatal outcomes, meta-analysis showed no neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 10.52; 4 studies; 671 infants; very low-certainty evidence). However, myo-inositol may be associated with a reduction in the incidence of preterm birth (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70; 4 studies; 829 infants). There were insufficient data for a number of maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes, and no data were reported for any of the long-term childhood or adulthood outcomes, or for health service utilisation outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from seven studies shows that antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy may reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and preterm birth. Limited data suggest that supplementation with myo-inositol may not reduce the risk of a large-for-gestational-age infant.  The current evidence is based on small studies that were not powered to detect differences in outcomes such as perinatal mortality and serious infant morbidity. Six of the included studies were conducted in Italy and one in Ireland, which raises concerns about the lack of generalisability to other settings. There is evidence of inconsistency among doses of myo-inositol, the timing of administration and study population. As a result, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for many outcomes to low or very low certainty. Further studies for this promising antenatal intervention for preventing gestational diabetes are encouraged and should include pregnant women of different ethnicities and varying risk factors. Myo-inositol at different doses, frequency and timing of administration, should be compared with placebo, diet and exercise, and pharmacological interventions. Long-term follow-up should be considered and outcomes should include potential harms, including adverse effects.

Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has major short- and long-term implications for both the mother and her baby. GDM is defined as a carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia or any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy from 24 weeks' gestation onwards and which resolves following the birth of the baby. Rates for GDM can be as high as 25% depending on the population and diagnostic criteria used, and overall rates are increasing globally. There is wide variation internationally in glycaemic treatment target recommendations for women with GDM that are based on consensus rather than high-quality trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 September 2022), and reference lists of the retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs. Trials were eligible for inclusion if women were diagnosed with GDM during pregnancy and the trial compared tighter and less-tight glycaemic targets during management. We defined tighter glycaemic targets as lower numerical glycaemic concentrations, and less-tight glycaemic targets as higher numerical glycaemic concentrations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for carrying out data collection, assessing risk of bias, and analysing results. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data for the four included studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. Primary maternal outcomes included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and subsequent development of type 2 diabetes. Primary infant outcomes included perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational-age, composite of mortality or serious morbidity, and neurosensory disability. MAIN RESULTS: This was an update of a previous review completed in 2016. We included four RCTs (reporting on 1731 women) that compared a tighter glycaemic control with less-tight glycaemic control in women diagnosed with GDM. Three studies were parallel RCTs, and one study was a stepped-wedged cluster-RCT. The trials took place in Canada, New Zealand, Russia, and the USA. We judged the overall risk of bias to be unclear. Two trials were only published in abstract form. Tight glycaemic targets used in the trials ranged between ≤ 5.0 and 5.1 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and ≤ 6.7 and 7.4 mmol/L postprandial. Less-tight targets for glycaemic control used in the included trials ranged between < 5.3 and 5.8 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and < 7.8 and 8.0 mmol/L postprandial. For the maternal outcomes, compared with less-tight glycaemic control, the evidence suggests a possible increase in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with tighter glycaemic control (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.69, 2 trials, 1491 women; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. Tighter glycaemic control likely results in little to no difference in caesarean section rates (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17, 3 studies, 1662 women; moderate certainty evidence) or induction of labour rates (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18, 1 study, 1096 women; moderate certainty evidence) compared with less-tight control. No data were reported for the outcomes of subsequent development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, and postnatal depression. For the infant outcomes, it was difficult to determine if there was a difference in perinatal mortality (RR not estimable, 2 studies, 1499 infants; low certainty evidence), and there was likely no difference in being large-for-gestational-age (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The evidence suggests a possible reduction in the composite of mortality or serious morbidity with tighter glycaemic control (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.29, 3 trials, 1559 infants; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. There is probably little difference between groups in infant hypoglycaemia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Tighter glycaemic control may not reduce adiposity in infants of women with GDM compared with less-tight control (mean difference -0.62%, 95% CI -3.23 to 1.99, 1 study, 60 infants; low certainty evidence), but the wide CI suggests significant uncertainty. We found no data for the long-term outcomes of diabetes or neurosensory disability. Women assigned to tighter glycaemic control experienced an increase in the use of pharmacological therapy compared with women assigned to less-tight glycaemic control (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 4 trials, 1718 women). Tighter glycaemic control reducedadherence with treatment compared with less-tight glycaemic control (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.51, 1 trial, 395 women). Overall the certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from low to moderate, downgraded primarily due to risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is based on four trials (1731 women) with an overall unclear risk of bias. The trials provided data on most primary outcomes and suggest that tighter glycaemic control may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The risk of birth of a large-for-gestational-age infant and perinatal mortality may be similar between groups, and tighter glycaemic targets may result in a possible reduction in composite of death or severe infant morbidity. However, the CIs for these outcomes are wide, suggesting both benefit and harm. There remains limited evidence regarding the benefit of different glycaemic targets for women with GDM to minimise adverse effects on maternal and infant health. Glycaemic target recommendations from international professional organisations vary widely and are currently reliant on consensus given the lack of high-certainty evidence. Further high-quality trials are needed, and these should assess both short- and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies; include women's experiences; and assess health services costs in order to confirm the current findings. Two trials are ongoing.

Oral dextrose gel to prevent hypoglycaemia in at-risk neonates.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal hypoglycaemia is a common condition that can be associated with brain injury. Current practice usually includes early identification of at-risk infants (e.g. infants of diabetic mothers; preterm, small- or large-for-gestational-age infants), and prophylactic measures are advised. However, these measures often involve use of formula milk or admission to the neonatal unit. Dextrose gel is non-invasive, inexpensive and effective for treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Prophylactic dextrose gel can reduce the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia, thus potentially reducing separation of mother and baby and supporting breastfeeding, as well as preventing brain injury. This is an update of a previous Cochrane Review published in 2021. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral dextrose gel in preventing hypoglycaemia before first hospital discharge and reducing long-term neurodevelopmental impairment in newborn infants at risk of hypoglycaemia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Epistemonikos in April 2023. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing oral dextrose gel versus placebo, no intervention, or other therapies for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia. We included newborn infants at risk of hypoglycaemia, including infants of mothers with diabetes (all types), high or low birthweight, and born preterm (< 37 weeks), age from birth to 24 hours, who had not yet been diagnosed with hypoglycaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain additional information. We used fixed-effect meta-analyses. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies conducted in high-income countries comparing oral dextrose gel versus placebo in 2548 infants at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Both of these studies were included in the previous version of this review, but new follow-up data were available for both. We judged these two studies to be at low risk of bias in 13/14 domains, and that the evidence for most outcomes was of moderate certainty. Meta-analysis of the two studies showed that oral dextrose gel reduces the risk of hypoglycaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.95; risk difference (RD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; 2548 infants; high-certainty evidence). Evidence from two studies showed that there may be little to no difference in the risk of major neurological disability at two years of age after oral dextrose gel (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.68; 1554 children; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of the two studies showed that oral dextrose gel probably reduces the risk of receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia during initial hospital stay (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00; 2548 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) but probably makes little or no difference to the risk of receipt of intravenous treatment for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.01, 0.68 to 1.49; 2548 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Oral dextrose gel may have little or no effect on the risk of separation from the mother for treatment of hypoglycaemia (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.55; two studies, 2548 infants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects in infants who receive oral dextrose gel compared to placebo gel (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.33; two studies, 2510 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), but there are no studies comparing oral dextrose with other comparators such as no intervention or other therapies. No data were available on exclusive breastfeeding after discharge. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic oral dextrose gel reduces the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia in at-risk infants and probably reduces the risk of treatment for hypoglycaemia without adverse effects. It may make little to no difference to the risk of major neurological disability at two years, but the confidence intervals include the possibility of substantial benefit or harm. Evidence at six to seven years is limited to a single small study. In view of its limited short-term benefits, prophylactic oral dextrose gel should not be incorporated into routine practice until additional information is available about the balance of risks and harms for later neurological disability. Additional large follow-up studies at two years of age or older are required. Future research should also be undertaken in other high-income countries, low- and middle-income countries, preterm infants, using other dextrose gel preparations, and using comparators other than placebo gel. There are three studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study which may alter the conclusions of the review when published.

Barriers and enablers to implementing an induction of labour guideline: A clinician survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines improve outcomes, but poor compliance with recommendations is common. Insight into perceived barriers and enablers to the implementation of guidelines can engage maternity care providers and inform strategies for effective implementation. AIM: To identify the perceived barriers and enablers to implementing the 2020 'Induction of Labour [IOL] in Aotearoa New Zealand; a Clinical Practice Guideline.' MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic anonymous survey of clinical leaders in midwifery, obstetrics, and neonatology in New Zealand, from August to November 2021. Recruitment of participants was initially through provided lists of national clinical leads, followed by chain sampling. RESULTS: There were 32 of 89 surveys returned (36%). The most frequently identified enablers were implementation tools such as 'standardised IOL request form' and 'peer review process,' and administrative support and dedicated time. Six maternity hospitals already had peer review in place, whereby IOL requests that did not adhere to guidelines were reviewed by a multidisciplinary group of senior colleagues or peers, with individual feedback to the referring clinician. Attitudes in the form of 'existing systems, routines and culture' was the most frequently identified barrier, followed by external barriers such as 'lack of human resources.' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, few barriers were identified to implementing this guideline, and some of the key enablers were already in place. The identified enablers warrant future research to develop and evaluate effectiveness in improving outcomes.

Mindfulness and Relaxation-Based Interventions to Reduce Parental Stress, Anxiety and/or Depressive Symptoms in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review.

Parents with infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) experience high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Mindfulness and relaxation-based interventions are effective in reducing distress in the general postpartum population. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether mindfulness and/or relaxation-based interventions reduce stress, anxiety, and depression in NICU parents. A total of five studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for quality using the Downs & Black Checklist. The most consistent results in this review suggest that mindfulness and/or relaxation-based interventions may be effective at reducing anxiety symptoms in NICU parents, with moderate to large effect sizes, and show promise in reducing depressive symptoms. The findings show limited potential benefits on parental stress. Methodological weaknesses, heterogeneous intervention factors (including format and length), and varying participant adherence hinder the ability to make strong conclusions. Directions for future research are discussed.

Tighter or less tight glycaemic targets for women with gestational diabetes mellitus for reducing maternal and perinatal morbidity: A stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) aims to reduce maternal hyperglycaemia. The TARGET Trial assessed whether tighter compared with less tight glycaemic control reduced maternal and perinatal morbidity. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial, identification number ACTRN12615000282583, 10 hospitals in New Zealand were randomised to 1 of 5 implementation dates. The trial was registered before the first participant was enrolled. All hospitals initially used less tight targets (fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <5.5 mmol/L (<99 mg/dL), 1-hour <8.0 mmol/L (<144 mg/dL), 2 hour postprandial <7.0 mmol/L (<126 mg/dL)) and every 4 months, 2 hospitals moved to use tighter targets (FPG ≤5.0 mmol/L (≤90 mg/dL), 1-hour ≤7.4 mmol/L (≤133 mg/dL), 2 hour postprandial ≤6.7 mmol/L) (≤121 mg/dL). Women with GDM, blinded to the targets in use, were eligible. The primary outcome was large for gestational age. Secondary outcomes assessed maternal and infant health. Analyses were by intention to treat. Between May 2015 and November 2017, data were collected from 1,100 women with GDM (1,108 infants); 598 women (602 infants) used the tighter targets and 502 women (506 infants) used the less tight targets. The rate of large for gestational age was similar between the treatment target groups (88/599, 14.7% versus 76/502, 15.1%; adjusted relative risk [adjRR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66 to 1.40, P = 0.839). The composite serious health outcome for the infant of perinatal death, birth trauma, or shoulder dystocia was apparently reduced in the tighter group when adjusted for gestational age at diagnosis of GDM, BMI, ethnicity, and history of GDM compared with the less tight group (8/599, 1.3% versus 13/505, 2.6%, adjRR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.88, P = 0.032). No differences were seen for the other infant secondary outcomes apart from a shorter stay in intensive care (P = 0.041). Secondary outcomes for the woman showed an apparent increase for the composite serious health outcome that included major haemorrhage, coagulopathy, embolism, and obstetric complications in the tighter group (35/595, 5.9% versus 15/501, 3.0%, adjRR 2.29, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.59, P = 0.020). There were no differences between the target groups in the risk for pre-eclampsia, induction of labour, or cesarean birth, but more women using tighter targets required pharmacological treatment (404/595, 67.9% versus 293/501, 58.5%, adjRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.44, P = 0.047). The main study limitation is that the treatment targets used may vary to those in use in some countries. CONCLUSIONS: Tighter glycaemic targets in women with GDM compared to less tight targets did not reduce the risk of a large for gestational age infant, but did reduce serious infant morbidity, although serious maternal morbidity was increased. These findings can be used to aid decisions on the glycaemic targets women with GDM should use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). ACTRN12615000282583.

Prioritising long-term outcomes for preterm babies: A survey of consumers and clinicians.

AIM: To determine if consumers and clinicians believe intelligence or health outcomes are more important long-term outcomes for babies born preterm. METHODS: Prospective, online survey of six outcomes ranked using a hierarchy ladder, Likert scale and a hypothetical scenario: education (complete secondary school); longevity (70 years of age or more); money (sufficient for rent and food); normal weight; good health and intelligence. Participants were clinicians taking care of preterm babies, parents of preterm babies, ex-preterm adults and adult controls. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 145 participants (35 controls, 36 clinicians, 39 parents and 35 ex-preterm adults). Health was the most frequently top-ranked variable on the hierarchy ladder (health; 99/145 (68.3%), money; 17/145 (11.7%), longevity; 10/145 (6.9%), education; 8/145 (5.5%), normal weight; 6/145 (4.1%), intelligence; 5/145 (3.4%), P < 0.0001), with no statistical difference between the groups. On a 5-point Likert scale, participants were most likely to agree that sufficient money, health and finishing secondary school were important for preterm babies to have a good life (mean (SD): money 4.43 (0.81); health 4.39 (0.72); education 4.37 (0.81); normal weight 4.10 (0.81); intelligence 4.03 (0.94); longevity 4.01 (1.07), P < 0.0001). In the scenario, the option of an ex-preterm adult having a healthy life with low socio-economic status (SES), was preferred over high SES with an unhealthy life (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Health was perceived as the most important long-term outcome for preterm babies. Future research should prioritise good health outcomes for babies born preterm.

The challenges of keeping clinicians unaware of their participation in a national, cluster-randomised, implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines is essential for evidence based clinical practice. However, the most effective methods of implementation are unclear. We conducted a national, cluster-randomised, blinded implementation trial to determine if midwife or doctor local implementation leaders are more effective in implementing a guideline for use of oral dextrose gel to treat hypoglycaemic babies on postnatal wards. To prevent any conscious or unconscious performance bias both the doctor and midwife local implementation leaders were kept unaware of the trial. This paper reports the ethical dilemmas and practical challenges of ensuring clinicians remained unaware of their involvement in an implementation trial. METHODS: We sought approval from the National Health and Disability Ethics committee to keep clinicians unaware of the trial by waiving the standard requirement for locality approval usually required for each district health board. The ethics committee did not approve a waiver of consent but advised that we approach the chief executive of each district health board to ask for provisional locality approval. Ultimately it was necessary to seek ethics approval for three separate study designs to keep clinicians unaware of the trial. RESULTS: The median (IQR) time for chief executive approval was 16 (6-40) days and for locality approval was 57 (39-84) days. We completed 21 different locality approval forms for 27 hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Keeping clinicians unaware of their involvement in a national implementation cluster-randomised trial is feasible. However, despite a national ethics committee, significant logistical challenges were time consuming and delayed trial completion. Co-ordination of the locality approval process would help facilitate multi-centre trials.

Prophylactic Oral Dextrose Gel and Neurosensory Impairment at 2-Year Follow-up of Participants in the hPOD Randomized Trial.

Importance: Prophylactic oral dextrose gel reduces neonatal hypoglycemia, but later benefits or harms remain unclear. Objective: To assess the effects on later development of prophylactic dextrose gel for infants born at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective follow-up of a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in 18 Australian and New Zealand hospitals from January 2015 to May 2019. Participants were late preterm or term at-risk infants; those randomized in 9 New Zealand centers (n = 1359) were included and followed up between January 2017 and July 2021. Interventions: Infants were randomized to prophylactic 40% dextrose (n = 681) or placebo (n = 678) gel, 0.5 mL/kg, massaged into the buccal mucosa 1 hour after birth. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this follow-up study was neurosensory impairment at 2 years' corrected age. There were 44 secondary outcomes, including cognitive, language, and motor composite Bayley-III scores (mean [SD], 100 [15]; higher scores indicate better performance). Results: Of eligible infants, 1197 (91%) were assessed (581 females [49%]). Neurosensory impairment was not significantly different between the dextrose and placebo gel groups (20.8% vs 18.7%; unadjusted risk difference [RD], 2.09% [95% CI, -2.43% to 6.60%]; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.41]). The risk of cognitive and language delay was not significantly different between the dextrose and placebo groups (cognitive: 7.6% vs 5.3%; RD, 2.32% [95% CI, -0.46% to 5.11%]; aRR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.91 to 2.17]; language: 17.0% vs 14.7%; RD, 2.35% [95% CI, -1.80% to 6.50%]; aRR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.54]). However, the dextrose gel group had a significantly higher risk of motor delay (2.5% vs 0.7%; RD, 1.81% [95% CI, 0.40% to 3.23%]; aRR, 3.79 [95% CI, 1.27 to 11.32]) and significantly lower composite scores for cognitive (adjusted mean difference [aMD], -1.30 [95% CI, -2.55 to -0.05]), language (aMD, -2.16 [95% CI, -3.86 to -0.46]), and motor (aMD, -1.40 [95% CI, -2.60 to -0.20]) performance. There were no significant differences between groups in the other 27 secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among late preterm and term infants born at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia, prophylactic oral 40% dextrose gel at 1 hour of age, compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the risk of neurosensory impairment at 2 years' corrected age. However, the study may have been underpowered to detect a small but potentially clinically important increase in risk, and further research including longer-term follow-up is required. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614001263684.

Association of Neonatal Hypoglycemia With Academic Performance in Mid-Childhood.

Importance: Neonatal hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk of poor executive and visual-motor function, but implications for later learning are uncertain. Objective: To test the hypothesis that neonatal hypoglycemia is associated with educational performance at age 9 to 10 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of moderate to late preterm and term infants born at risk of hypoglycemia. Blood and masked interstitial sensor glucose concentrations were measured for up to 7 days. Infants with hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose concentration <47 mg/dL [2.6 mmol/L]) were treated to maintain a blood glucose concentration of at least 47 mg/dL. Six hundred fourteen infants were recruited at Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand, in 2006-2010; 480 were assessed at age 9 to 10 years in 2016-2020. Exposures: Hypoglycemia was defined as at least 1 hypoglycemic event, representing the sum of nonconcurrent hypoglycemic and interstitial episodes (sensor glucose concentration <47 mg/dL for ≥10 minutes) more than 20 minutes apart. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was low educational achievement, defined as performing below or well below the normative curriculum level in standardized tests of reading comprehension or mathematics. There were 47 secondary outcomes related to executive function, visual-motor function, psychosocial adaptation, and general health. Results: Of 587 eligible children (230 [48%] female), 480 (82%) were assessed at a mean age of 9.4 (SD, 0.3) years. Children who were and were not exposed to neonatal hypoglycemia did not significantly differ on rates of low educational achievement (138/304 [47%] vs 82/176 [48%], respectively; adjusted risk difference, -2% [95% CI, -11% to 8%]; adjusted relative risk, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.78-1.15]). Children who were exposed to neonatal hypoglycemia, compared with those not exposed, were significantly less likely to be rated by teachers as being below or well below the curriculum level for reading (68/281 [24%] vs 49/157 [31%], respectively; adjusted risk difference, -9% [95% CI, -17% to -1%]; adjusted relative risk, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53-0.99; P = .04]). Groups were not significantly different for other secondary end points. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia who were screened and treated if needed, exposure to neonatal hypoglycemia compared with no such exposure was not significantly associated with lower educational achievement in mid-childhood.

Evaluation of oral dextrose gel for prevention of neonatal hypoglycemia (hPOD): A multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal hypoglycemia is common and can cause brain injury. Buccal dextrose gel is effective for treatment of neonatal hypoglycemia, and when used for prevention may reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia in babies at risk, but its clinical utility remains uncertain. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial in 18 New Zealand and Australian maternity hospitals from January 2015 to May 2019. Babies at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia (maternal diabetes, late preterm, or high or low birthweight) without indications for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were randomized to 0.5 ml/kg buccal 40% dextrose or placebo gel at 1 hour of age. Primary outcome was NICU admission, with power to detect a 4% absolute reduction. Secondary outcomes included hypoglycemia, NICU admission for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, breastfeeding at discharge, formula feeding at 6 weeks, and maternal satisfaction. Families and clinical and study staff were unaware of treatment allocation. A total of 2,149 babies were randomized (48.7% girls). NICU admission occurred for 111/1,070 (10.4%) randomized to dextrose gel and 100/1,063 (9.4%) randomized to placebo (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.10; 95% CI 0.86, 1.42; p = 0.44). Babies randomized to dextrose gel were less likely to become hypoglycemic (blood glucose < 2.6 mmol/l) (399/1,070, 37%, versus 448/1,063, 42%; aRR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80, 0.98; p = 0.02) although NICU admission for hypoglycemia was similar between groups (65/1,070, 6.1%, versus 48/1,063, 4.5%; aRR 1.35; 95% CI 0.94, 1.94; p = 0.10). There were no differences between groups in breastfeeding at discharge from hospital (aRR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99, 1.02; p = 0.67), receipt of formula before discharge (aRR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92, 1.08; p = 0.90), and formula feeding at 6 weeks (aRR 1.01; 95% CI 0.93, 1.10; p = 0.81), and there was no hyperglycemia. Most mothers (95%) would recommend the study to friends. No adverse effects, including 2 deaths in each group, were attributable to dextrose gel. Limitations of this study included that most participants (81%) were infants of mothers with diabetes, which may limit generalizability, and a less reliable analyzer was used in 16.5% of glucose measurements. CONCLUSIONS: In this placebo-controlled randomized trial, prophylactic dextrose gel 200 mg/kg did not reduce NICU admission in babies at risk of hypoglycemia but did reduce hypoglycemia. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine the clinical utility of this strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN 12614001263684.

Effect of Prophylactic Dextrose Gel on Continuous Measures of Neonatal Glycemia: Secondary Analysis of the Pre-hPOD Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of different doses of prophylactic dextrose gel on glycemic stability assessed using continuous glucose monitoring in the first 48 hours when given to babies at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. STUDY DESIGN: Continuous glucose monitoring was undertaken for the first 48 hours in 133 infants at risk of hypoglycemia who participated in the pre-hPOD randomized dosage trial of dextrose gel prophylaxis. RESULTS: Low glucose concentrations were detected in 41% of infants by blood glucose monitoring and 68% by continuous interstitial glucose monitoring. The mean ± SD duration of low interstitial glucose concentrations was 295 ± 351 minutes in the first 48 hours. Infants who received any dose of dextrose gel seemed to be less likely than those who received placebo gel to experience low glucose concentrations (<47 mg/dL [2.6 mmol/L]; P = .08), particularly if they received a single dose of 200 mg/kg (relative risk, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.10; P = .049). They also spent a greater proportion of time in the central glucose concentration range of 54-72 mg/dL (3-4 mmol/L) (any dose, mean ± SD, 58.2 ± 20.3%; placebo, 50.0 ± 21.9%; mean difference, 8.20%; 95% CI, 0.43-15.9%; P = .038). Dextrose gel did not increase recurrent or severe episodes of low glucose concentrations and did not increase the peak glucose concentration. These effects were similar for all trial dosages. CONCLUSIONS: Low glucose concentrations were common in infants at risk of hypoglycemia despite blood glucose monitoring and treatment. Prophylactic dextrose gel reduced the risk of hypoglycemia without adverse effects on glucose stability.