Donor human milk versus infant formula for low-risk infants: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing acceptance and use of donor human milk (DHM) in healthy infants. This review investigates the benefits and risks of mothers' own milk (MOM) supplementation with DHM compared to infant formula (IF) in moderate-late preterm (MLP) and early term (ET) infants. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL and clinical trial registries were searched for studies published up to September 2023. The primary outcome was rates of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF). Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE framework. RoB1 and EPHPP were used to assess risk of bias for controlled trials and observational studies, respectively. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving total of 10,147 infants and six ongoing trials were identified. Studies were of low quality, and the certainty of evidence was assessed as very low. Three studies suggested benefits of DHM compared to IF on EBF at discharge, while two suggested no difference. No clear effect was observed on EBF duration, any breastfeeding, hypoglycemia and morbidity. No health risks were reported. CONCLUSION: The effect of supplementing MOM with DHM instead of IF on EBF and other health outcomes is unclear. High-quality studies are required to determine the potential benefits or risks of DHM supplementation in this population. IMPACT: We identified 11 relevant studies reporting on supplementation of mothers' own milk (MOM) with donor human milk (DHM) compared to infant formula (IF). Studies were of low quality, had heterogeneous outcome definitions and were geographically limited; all except two were observational studies. Limited evidence showed no clear difference on rates of exclusive breastfeeding and other health outcomes. No potential risks were reported. The increasing acceptance and use of DHM in healthy infants highlights the need for future high-quality studies.

High protein intake on later outcomes in preterm children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate protein intake is crucial for growth and development in children born preterm. We assessed the effects of high (HP) versus low protein (LP) intake on neurodevelopment, growth, and biochemical anomalies in these children. METHODS: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials providing protein to children born preterm (<37 completed weeks of gestation) were searched following PRISMA guideline in three databases and four registers (PROSPERO registration CRD42022325659). Random-effects model was used for assessing the effects of HP (≥3.5 g/kg/d) vs. LP (<3.5 g/kg/d). RESULTS: Data from forty-four studies (n = 5338) showed HP might slightly reduce the chance of survival without neurodisability at ≥12 months (four studies, 1109 children, relative risk [RR] 0.95 [95% CI 0.90, 1.01]; P = 0.13; low certainty evidence) and might increase risk of cognitive impairment at toddler age (two studies; 436 children; RR 1.36 [0.89, 2.09]; P = 0.16; low certainty evidence). At discharge or 36 weeks, HP intake might result in higher weight and greater head circumference z-scores. HP intake probably increased the risk of hypophosphatemia, hypercalcemia, refeeding syndrome and high blood urea, but reduced risk of hyperglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: HP intake for children born preterm may be harmful for neonatal metabolism and later neurodisability and has few short-term benefits for growth. IMPACT STATEMENT: Planned high protein intake after birth for infants born preterm might be harmful for survival, neurodisability and metabolism during infancy and did not improve growth after the neonatal period. Protein intake ≥3.5 g/kg/d should not be recommended for children born preterm.

Exposure to the smell and taste of milk to accelerate feeding in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants (born before 37 weeks' gestation) are often unable to co-ordinate sucking, swallowing, and breathing for oral feeding because of their immaturity. In such cases, initial nutrition is provided by orogastric or nasogastric tube feeding. Feeding intolerance is common and can delay attainment of full enteral and sucking feeds, prolonging the need for nutritional support and the hospital stay. Smell and taste play an important role in the activation of physiological pre-absorptive processes that contribute to food digestion and absorption. However, during tube feeding, milk bypasses the nasal and oral cavities, limiting exposure to the smell and taste of milk. Provision of the smell and taste of milk with tube feeds offers a non-invasive and low-cost intervention that, if effective in accelerating the transition to enteral feeds and subsequently to sucking feeds, would bring considerable advantages to infants, their families, and healthcare systems. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether exposure to the smell or taste (or both) of breastmilk or formula administered with tube feeds can accelerate the transition to full sucking feeds without adverse effects in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Epistemonikos to 26 April 2023. We also searched clinical trial databases and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies that evaluated exposure versus no exposure to the smell or taste of milk (or both) immediately before or at the time of tube feeds. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data according to Cochrane Neonatal methodology. We performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (1277 preterm infants). Seven studies (1244 infants) contributed data for meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feeds has little to no effect on time taken to reach full sucking feeds (MD -1.07 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 0.50; 3 studies, 662 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported no adverse effects related to the intervention. The intervention may have little to no effect on duration of parenteral nutrition (MD 0.23 days, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.71; 3 studies, 977 infants; low-certainty evidence), time to reach full enteral feeds (MD -0.16 days, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.12; 1 study, 736 infants; very low-certainty evidence) or risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.84; 2 studies, 435 infants; low-certainty evidence), although the evidence for time to reach full enteral feeds is very uncertain. Exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feeds probably has little to no effect on risk of late infection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.75; 2 studies, 436 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no data available to assess feeding intolerance. The included studies had small sample sizes and methodological limitations, including unclear or lack of randomisation (four studies), lack of blinding of participants and personnel (five studies), unclear or lack of blinding of the outcome assessor (all eight studies), and different inclusion criteria and methods of administering the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of our meta-analyses suggest that exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feeds may have little to no effect on time to reach full sucking feeds and time to reach full enteral feeds. We found no clear difference between exposure and no exposure to the smell or taste of milk on safety outcomes (adverse effects, necrotising enterocolitis, and late infection). Results from one ongoing study and two studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review. Future research should examine the effect of exposing preterm infants to the smell and taste of milk with tube feeds on health outcomes during hospitalisation, such as attainment of feeding skills, safety, feed tolerance, infection, and growth. Future studies should be powered to detect the effect of the intervention in infants of different gestational ages and on each sex separately. It is also important to determine the optimal method, frequency, and duration of exposure.

Umbilical cord milking and delayed cord clamping for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Placental management strategies such as umbilical cord milking and delayed cord clamping may provide a range of benefits for the newborn. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of umbilical cord milking and delayed cord clamping for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia. METHODS: Three databases and five clinical trial registries were systematically reviewed to identify randomised controlled trials comparing umbilical cord milking or delayed cord clamping with control in term and preterm infants. The primary outcome was neonatal hypoglycaemia (study defined). Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB-2). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis using a random effect model was done using Review Manager 5.4. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42022356553). RESULTS: Data from 71 studies and 14 268 infants were included in this review; 22 (2 537 infants) compared umbilical cord milking with control, and 50 studies (11 731 infants) compared delayed with early cord clamping. For umbilical cord milking there were no data on neonatal hypoglycaemia, and no differences between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. We found no evidence that delayed cord clamping reduced the incidence of hypoglycaemia (6 studies, 444 infants, RR = 0.87, CI: 0.58 to 1.30, p = 0.49, I2 = 0%). Delayed cord clamping was associated with a 27% reduction in neonatal mortality (15 studies, 3 041 infants, RR = 0.73, CI: 0.55 to 0.98, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%). We found no evidence for the effect of delayed cord clamping for any of the other outcomes. The certainty of evidence was low for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found no data for the effectiveness of umbilical cord milking on neonatal hypoglycaemia, and no evidence that delayed cord clamping reduced the incidence of hypoglycaemia, but the certainty of the evidence was low.

Intrapartum maternal glycaemic control for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal hypoglycaemia is the most common metabolic disorder in infants, and may be influenced by maternal glycaemic control. This systematic review evaluated the effect of intrapartum maternal glycaemic control on neonatal hypoglycaemia. METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-randomised studies of interventions, and cohort or case-control studies that examined interventions affecting intrapartum maternal glycaemic control compared to no or less stringent control. We searched four databases and three trial registries to November 2023. Quality assessments used Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 or the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models analysed separately for women with or without diabetes. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42022364876). RESULTS: We included 46 studies of women with diabetes and five studies of women without diabetes: one RCT, 32 cohort and 18 case-control studies (11,273 participants). For women with diabetes, the RCT showed little to no difference in the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia between tight versus less tight intrapartum glycaemic control groups (76 infants, RR 1.00 (0.45, 2.24), p = 1.00, low certainty evidence). However, 11 cohort studies showed tight intrapartum glycaemic control may reduce neonatal hypoglycaemia (6,152 infants, OR 0.44 (0.31, 0.63), p < 0.00001, I2 = 58%, very low certainty evidence). For women without diabetes, there was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of tight intrapartum glycaemic control on neonatal hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Very uncertain evidence suggests that tight intrapartum glycaemic control may reduce neonatal hypoglycaemia in infants of women with diabetes. High-quality RCTs are required.

Maternal ethnicity and gestational age at birth predict hypoglycaemia among neonates of mothers with gestational diabetes.

AIM: Hypoglycaemia is common in neonates born to mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We aimed to determine predictors of hypoglycaemia among neonates of women with GDM and association with short-term outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary cohort analysis of data from a multi-centre randomised trial (the TARGET trial) conducted across ten maternity hospitals in New Zealand between May 2015 and November 2017. Data were analysed using univariate analysis and multivariable forward stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1085 neonates, those born to Asian mothers had reduced odds of hypoglycaemia (OR [95% CI]: 0.54 [0.38, 0.75], p = 0.001), as did those born at higher gestational ages (0.76 [0.68, 0.85], p < 0.001). Neonates born to Pacific mothers had increased odds of hypoglycaemia (OR [95% CI]: 1.57 [1.04, 2.39], p = 0.034). Neonates who experienced hypoglycaemia were more likely to experience neonatal intensive care unit admission (8.3% vs. 2.1%; p ≤ 0.001), hyperbilirubinaemia (8.6% vs. 3.3%; p ≤ 0.001) and receive respiratory support (11.4% vs. 4.8%; p ≤ 0.001) and less likely to be breastfed at discharge (92.4% vs. 96.2%; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Among neonates of women with GDM, maternal ethnicity and gestation at birth are independent predictors of hypoglycaemia, and hypoglycaemia is associated with short-term comorbidities. Additional surveillance may be appropriate for neonates in these high-risk groups.

Betamethasone for Preterm Birth: Auckland Steroid Trial Full Results and New Insights 50 Years on.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to use modern analysis and reporting methods to present the full results of the first randomized trial of antenatal corticosteroids, performed 50 years ago. STUDY DESIGN: In this single-center trial, women at risk of preterm birth at 24 to less than 37 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive 2 doses of betamethasone or placebo, 24 hours apart. Women and their caregivers were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was respiratory distress syndrome. Secondary outcomes included measures of neonatal mortality and morbidity, mode of birth, and maternal infection. RESULTS: Between 1969 and 1974, 1115 women (1142 pregnancies) were randomized, 560 pregnancies (601 infants) to betamethasone and 582 (617 infants) to placebo. The risk of respiratory distress syndrome was significantly reduced in the betamethasone group compared with placebo (8.8% vs 14.4%, adjusted relative risk 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.86, P = .004). Subgroup analyses indicated greater efficacy in male than female infants but no effect of tocolytic therapy or doubling of betamethasone dose. Fetal or neonatal death, neonatal or maternal infection, neonatal hypoglycaemia, cesarean delivery, and lactation status at discharge were not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal betamethasone administered to women at risk of preterm birth between 24 and less than 37 weeks of gestation reduces the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome, with greater effect in male than in female infants. Doubling the dose of betamethasone does not provide additional benefit.

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.

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.

Skin-to-skin contact for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Skin-to-skin contact between mother and infant after birth is recommended to promote breastfeeding and maternal-infant bonding. However, its impact on the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia is unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess this. METHODS: Published randomised control trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-randomised studies of interventions, cohort, or case-control studies with an intervention of skin-to-skin care compared to other treatment were included without language or date restrictions. The primary outcome was neonatal hypoglycaemia (study-defined). We searched 4 databases and 4 trial registries from inception to May 12th, 2023. Quality of studies was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 or Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment tools. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results were synthesised using RevMan 5.4.1 or STATA and analysed using random-effects meta-analyses where possible, otherwise with direction of findings tables. This review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42022328322). RESULTS: This review included 84,900 participants in 108 studies, comprising 65 RCTs, 16 quasi-RCTs, seven non-randomised studies of intervention, eight prospective cohort studies, nine retrospective cohort studies and three case-control studies. Evidence suggests skin-to-skin contact may result in a large reduction in the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia (7 RCTs/quasi-RCTs, 922 infants, RR 0.29 (0.13, 0.66), p < 0.0001, I2 = 47%). Skin-to-skin contact may reduce the incidence of admission to special care or neonatal intensive care nurseries for hypoglycaemia (1 observational study, 816 infants, OR 0.50 (0.25-1.00), p = 0.050), but the evidence is very uncertain. Skin-to-skin contact may reduce duration of initial hospital stay after birth (31 RCTs, 3437 infants, MD -2.37 (-3.66, -1.08) days, p = 0.0003, I2 = 90%, p for Egger's test = 0.02), and increase exclusive breastmilk feeding from birth to discharge (1 observational study, 1250 infants, RR 4.30 (3.19, 5.81), p < 0.0001), but the evidence is very uncertain. CONCLUSION: Skin-to-skin contact may lead to a large reduction in the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia. This, along with other established benefits, supports the practice of skin-to-skin contact for all infants and especially those at risk of hypoglycaemia.

Maternal postures for fetal malposition in labour for improving the health of mothers and their infants.

BACKGROUND: Fetal malposition (occipito-posterior and persistent occipito-transverse) in labour is associated with adverse maternal and infant outcomes. Whether use of maternal postures can improve these outcomes is unclear. This Cochrane Review of maternal posture in labour is one of two new reviews replacing a 2007 review of maternal postures in pregnancy and labour. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of specified maternal postures for women with fetal malposition in labour on maternal and infant morbidity compared to other postures.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 July 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs conducted among labouring women with a fetal malposition confirmed by ultrasound or clinical examination, comparing a specified maternal posture with another posture. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, risk of bias, and performed data extraction. We used mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight eligible studies with 1766 women.  All studies reported some form of random sequence generation but were at high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. There was a high risk of selection bias in one study, detection bias in two studies, attrition bias in two studies, and reporting bias in two studies. Hands and knees The use of hands and knees posture may have little to no effect on operative birth (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.50; 3 trials, 721 women; low-certainty evidence) and caesarean section (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.87; 3 trials, 721 women; low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is uncertain; and very uncertain for epidural use (average RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.31; 2 trials, 282 women; very low-certainty evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.90; 3 trials, 721 women; very low-certainty evidence), severe perineal tears (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.03 to 22.30; 2 trials, 586 women; very low-certainty evidence), maternal satisfaction (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.54; 3 trials, 350 women; very low-certainty evidence), and Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.34; 2 trials, 586 babies; very low-certainty evidence).  No data were reported for the hands and knees comparisons for postpartum haemorrhage, serious neonatal morbidity, death (stillbirth or death of liveborn infant), admission to neonatal intensive care, neonatal encephalopathy, need for respiratory support, and neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy.  Lateral postures The use of lateral postures may have little to no effect on reducing operative birth (average RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.19; 4 trials, 871 women; low-certainty evidence), caesarean section (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.39; 4 trials, 871 women; low-certainty evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.36; 4 trials, 871 women; low-certainty evidence), and maternal satisfaction (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; 2 trials, 451 women; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of lateral postures on severe perineal tears (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.48; 3 trials, 609 women; very low-certainty evidence), postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.70; 1 trial, 322 women; very low-certainty evidence), serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.12; 3 trials, 752 babies; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.24; 1 trial, 322 babies; very low-certainty evidence), admissions to neonatal intensive care (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.12; 2 trials, 542 babies; very low-certainty evidence) and neonatal death (stillbirth or death of liveborn) (1 trial, 210 women and their babies; no events).  For the lateral posture comparisons, no data were reported for epidural use, neonatal encephalopathy, need for respiratory support, and neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy. We were not able to estimate the outcome death (stillbirth or death of liveborn infant) due to no events (1 trial, 210 participants).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- and very low-certainty evidence which indicated that the use of hands and knees posture or lateral postures in women in labour with a fetal malposition may have little or no effect on health outcomes of the mother or her infant. If a woman finds the use of hands and knees or lateral postures in labour comfortable there is no reason why they should not choose to use them. Further research is needed on the use of hands and knees and lateral postures for women with a malposition in labour. Trials should include further assessment of semi-prone postures, same-side-as-fetus lateral postures with or without hip hyperflexion, or both, and consider interventions of longer duration or that involve the early second stage of labour.

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.

Impact of macronutrient supplements on later growth of children born preterm or small for gestational age: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and quasirandomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional supplements may improve short-term growth of infants born small (preterm or small for gestational age), but there are few data on long-term effects and concerns that body composition may be adversely affected. Effects also may differ between girls and boys. Our systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of macronutrient supplements for infants born small on later growth. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched OvidMedline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to January 30, 2020, and controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and anzctr.org.au on January 30, 2020. Randomised or quasirandomised trials were included if the intention was to increase macronutrient intake to improve growth or development of infants born small and growth was assessed after discharge. Primary outcome was body mass index (BMI) in childhood. Data were pooled using random-effect models. Outcomes were evaluated in toddlers (< 3 years), childhood (3 to 8 years), adolescence (9 to 18 years), and adulthood (>18 years). Forty randomised and 2 quasirandomised trials of variable methodological quality with 4,352 infants were included. Supplementation did not alter BMI in childhood (7 trials, 1,136 children; mean difference [MD] -0.10 kg/m2, [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 0.16], p = 0.45). In toddlers, supplementation increased weight (31 trials, 2,924 toddlers; MD 0.16 kg, [0.01 to 0.30], p = 0.03) and length/height (30 trials, 2,889 toddlers; MD 0.44 cm, [0.10 to 0.77], p = 0.01), but not head circumference (29 trials, 2,797 toddlers; MD 0.15 cm, [-0.03 to 0.33], p = 0.10). In childhood, there were no significant differences between groups in height (7 trials, 1,136 children; MD 0.22 cm, [-0.48 to 0.92], p = 0.54) or lean mass (3 trials, 354 children; MD -0.07 kg, [-0.98 to 0.85], p = 0.88), although supplemented children appeared to have higher fat mass (2 trials, 201 children; MD 0.79 kg, [0.19 to 1.38], p = 0.01). In adolescence, there were no significant differences between groups in BMI (2 trials, 216 adolescents; MD -0.48 kg/m2, [-2.05 to 1.08], p = 0.60), height (2 trials, 216 adolescents; MD -0.55 cm, [-2.95 to 1.86], p = 0.65), or fat mass (2 trials, 216 adolescents; MD -1.3 5 kg, [-5.76 to 3.06], p = 0.55). In adulthood, there also were no significant differences between groups in weight z-score (2 trials, 199 adults; MD -0.11, [-0.72 to 0.50], p = 0.73) and height z-score (2 trials, 199 adults; MD -0.07, [-0.36 to 0.22], p = 0.62). In subgroup analysis, supplementation was associated with increased length/height in toddler boys (2 trials, 173 boys; MD 1.66 cm, [0.75 to 2.58], p = 0.0003), but not girls (2 trials, 159 girls; MD 0.15 cm, [-0.71 to 1.01], p = 0.74). Limitations include considerable unexplained heterogeneity, low to very low quality of evidence, and possible bias due to low or unbalanced followup. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found no evidence that early macronutrient supplementation for infants born small altered BMI in childhood. Although supplements appeared to increase weight and length in toddlers, effects were inconsistent and unlikely to be clinically significant. Limited data suggested that supplementation increased fat mass in childhood, but these effects did not persist in later life. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019126918.

Multi-nutrient fortification of human milk for preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Human breast milk-fed preterm infants can accumulate nutrient deficits leading to extrauterine growth restriction. Feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified human milk could increase nutrient accretion and growth rates and improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. Concern exists, however, that multi-nutrient fortifiers are associated with adverse events such as feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether multi-nutrient fortified human milk, compared with unfortified human milk, affects important outcomes (including growth rate and neurodevelopment) of preterm infants without increasing the risk of adverse effects (such as feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 9), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 26 September 2019), Embase (1980 to 26 September 2019), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 26 September 2019). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient (protein and energy plus minerals, vitamins, or other nutrients) fortified human breast milk versus unfortified (no added protein or energy) breast milk. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences, and mean differences (MDs). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence at the outcome level using "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 trials in which a total of 1456 preterm infants participated. These trials were generally small and methodologically weak. Meta-analyses provided low- to moderate-certainty evidence showing that multi-nutrient fortification of human milk increases in-hospital rate of weight gain (MD 1.76 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 2.22), body length (MD 0.11 cm/week, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15), or head circumference (MD 0.06 cm/week, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08) among preterm infants. Few data on growth and developmental outcomes assessed beyond infancy are available, and these do not show effects of multi-nutrient fortification. The data do not suggest other benefits or harms and provide low-certainty evidence suggesting effects of multi-nutrient fortification on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants (typical RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.63; 13 studies, 1110 infants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified human breast milk compared with unfortified human breast milk is associated with modest increases in in-hospital growth rates. Evidence is insufficient to show whether multi-nutrient fortification has any effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Impact of macronutrient supplements for children born preterm or small for gestational age on developmental and metabolic outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional supplements may improve development of infants born small (preterm or small for gestational age [SGA]) but may increase the risk of later metabolic disease. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of macronutrient supplements for infants born small on later development and metabolism. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched OvidMedline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to April 1, 2019, and controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and anzctr.org.au. Randomised or quasirandomised trials were included if the intention was to increase macronutrient intake to improve growth or development of infants born small and assessed post-discharge outcomes. Co-primary outcomes were cognitive impairment and metabolic risk, evaluated in toddlers (<3 years), childhood (3 to 8 years), and adolescence (9 to 18 years). Two reviewers independently extracted data. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and data were pooled using random-effect models. Twenty-one randomised and one quasirandomised trial of variable methodological quality involving 3,680 infants were included. In toddlers born small, supplementation did not alter cognitive impairment (relative risk [RR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.49; P = 0.99), and there were no differences in cognitive scores (mean difference [MD] 0.57; 95% CI -0.71 to 1.84; P = 0.38) or motor scores (MD 1.16; 95% CI -0.32 to 2.65; P = 0.12) between supplemented and unsupplemented groups. However, fewer supplemented children had motor impairment (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; P = 0.01). In subgroup analyses, supplementation improved cognitive scores in boys (MD 5.60; 95% CI 1.07 to 10.14; P = 0.02), but not girls born small (MD -2.04; 95% CI -7.04 to 2.95; P = 0.42), and did not alter cognitive or motor scores in the subgroup of children born SGA. In childhood, there was no difference in cognitive impairment (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.57; P = 0.72) or cognitive scores (MD 1.02; 95% CI -1.91 to 3.95; P = 0.50) between supplemented and unsupplemented groups. There were also no differences in blood pressure, triglyceride, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentrations (all P > 0.05). However, supplemented children had lower fasting glucose (mmol/L: MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; P = 0.005) and higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) concentrations (mmol/L: MD 0.11; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.19; P = 0.02). In subgroup analyses, there was no evidence of differences in blood pressure between supplemented and unsupplemented groups in boys or girls born small, or in SGA children. In adolescence, there was no difference between supplemented and unsupplemented groups in blood pressure, triglycerides, LDL and HDL concentrations, fasting blood glucose, insulin resistance, and fasting insulin concentrations (all P > 0.05). Limitations include considerable unexplained heterogeneity, low to very low quality of the evidence, and limited data beyond early childhood. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials, we found no evidence that early macronutrient supplementation for infants born small altered later cognitive function, although there was some evidence that supplementation may decrease motor impairment in toddlers. Contrary to the findings from observational studies, evidence from randomised trials suggests that early macronutrient supplementation for infants born small improves some metabolic outcomes in childhood. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42019127858.

Exposure to the smell and taste of milk to accelerate feeding in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants are often unable to co-ordinate sucking, swallowing and breathing for oral feeding because of their immaturity; in such cases, initial nutrition is provided by orogastric or nasogastric tube feeding. Feed intolerance is common and can delay attainment of full enteral feeds and sucking feeds, which prolongs the need for intravenous nutrition and hospital stay. Smell and taste play an important role in the activation of physiological pre-absorptive processes that contribute to food digestion and absorption. However, during tube feedings, milk bypasses the nasal and oral cavities, which limits exposure to the smell and taste of milk. Provision of the smell and taste of milk with tube feedings is non-invasive and inexpensive; and if it does accelerate the transition to enteral feeds, and then to sucking feeds, it would be of considerable potential benefit to infants, their families, and the healthcare system. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether exposure to the smell or taste (or both) of milk administered with tube feedings can accelerate progress to full sucking feeds without adverse effects in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 1 June 2018), Embase (1980 to 1 June 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 1 June 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies that compared the provision of the smell or taste of milk (or both) immediately before or at the time of tube feedings, with no provision of smell or taste. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data according to Cochrane Neonatal methodology; they also assessed risk of bias, and the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the GRADE approach. We performed meta-analyses using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving a total of 161 preterm infants were included in this review, but only two trials (131 infants) contributed data for meta-analysis. There was no evidence of a clear effect of exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feedings on time taken to reach full sucking feeds (MD -2.57 days, 95% CI -5.15 to 0.02; I2 = 17%; 2 trials, 131 infants; very low-quality evidence). One trial reported no adverse effects. There was no evidence of a clear effect of exposure to the smell and taste of milk on the following outcomes: time taken to reach full enteral feeds (MD -1.57 days, 95% CI -6.25 to 3.11; 1 trial, 51 infants; very low-quality evidence), duration of parenteral nutrition (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -9.49 to 5.09; 1 trial, 51 infants; very low-quality evidence), incidence of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.48; 1 trial, 51 infants; low-quality evidence), and late infection (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 22.13; 1 trial, 51 infants; low-quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence demonstrating that exposure to the smell and taste of milk decreased duration of hospitalisation by almost four days (MD -3.89 days, 95% CI -7.03 to -0.75; I2 = 51%; 2 trials, 131 infants). In two trials, an increased growth velocity was noted in infants exposed to the intervention, but we were unable to combine data to perform meta-analysis. No data were available to assess feed intolerance and rates of exclusive breastfeeding at discharge. Included trials were small and had methodological limitations including lack of randomisation (one trial), lack of blinding, and different inclusion criteria and administration of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from two trials suggests that exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feedings has no clear effect on time taken to reach full sucking feeds, but it may decrease length of hospitalisation. However, these results are uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. There is also limited evidence about the impact on other important clinical outcomes and on safety. Future research should examine the effect of exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feedings on clinical outcomes during hospitalisation, such as attainment of full enteral and sucking feeds, safety, feed tolerance, incidence of infection, and infant growth. Additionally, future research should be sufficiently powered to evaluate the effect of the intervention in infants of different gestational ages, on each sex separately, and on the optimal frequency and duration of exposure.

Investigating behaviour from early- to mid-childhood and its association with academic outcomes in a cohort of children born at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia.

High rates of academic underachievement at 9-10 years have been identified in children born at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia. This study investigated the stability of behaviour from early to mid-childhood and how this relates to academic outcomes in children born with at least one risk factor of neonatal hypoglycaemia in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Behaviour data was collected using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Child Behaviour Checklist 1.5-5, and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for 466 children (52 % male; 27 % Maori, 60 % New Zealand European, 2 % Pacific, 11 % Other) at multiple timepoints between ages 2 and 10 years. Academic data was collected at 9-10 years using the e-asTTle online learning and assessment tool. Findings revealed a link between early childhood behaviour and academic outcomes could be detected as early as age 2, suggesting that identifying and addressing early behavioural issues in children at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia could aid in targeted interventions.

Nutrition guidelines for preterm infants: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on optimal nutrition for preterm infants, leading to substantial practice variation. We aimed to assess the quality of nutrition guidelines for preterm infants, the consistency of recommendations, and the gaps in recommendations. METHODS: We searched databases and websites for nutrition guidelines for preterm infants before first hospital discharge, which were endorsed, prepared, or authorized by a regional, national, or international body, written in English, and published between 2012 and 2023. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted the recommendations. Four reviewers appraised the included guidelines using Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II. RESULTS: A total of 7051 were identified, with 27 guidelines included, 26% of which were high in quality. Most guidelines lacked stakeholder involvement and rigor of development. We found considerable variation in recommendations, many of which lacked details on certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation. Recommendations for type of feed and breastmilk fortification were consistent among high-quality guidelines, but recommendations varied for intakes of almost all nutrients and monitoring of nutrition adequacy. Different guidelines gave different certainty of evidence for the same recommendations. Most gaps in recommendations were due to very low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: Future development of nutrition guidelines for preterm infants should follow the standard guideline development method and ensure the rigorous process, including stakeholders' involvement, to improve the reporting of strength of recommendation, certainty of evidence, and gaps in recommendation. Evidence is needed to support recommendations about macro and micronutrient intakes, breastmilk fortification, and markers on adequacy of intake of different nutrients.

Early Feeding for the Prevention of Neonatal Hypoglycaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Poor feeding, among other factors, predisposes neonates to hypoglycaemia. Early feeding is widely recommended to prevent hypoglycaemia in those at risk, but the effectiveness of this is uncertain. This review aimed to summarise and analyse the evidence on the effectiveness of early feeding for prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia. METHODS: Four databases and three clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 24, 2023. Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster randomised trials, non-randomised studies of interventions, and observational studies with comparison groups were considered for inclusion with no language or publication date restrictions. We included studies of neonates who were fed early (within 60 min of birth or study defined) versus delayed. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 tool or Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RevMan 5.4.1 or R was used to synthesise results in random-effects meta-analyses. This review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42022378904). RESULTS: A total of 175,392 participants were included across 19 studies, of which two were RCTs, 14 cohort studies, two cross-sectional studies, and one a case-control study. Most studies (13/19) were conducted in low- or lower-middle-income countries. Early feeding may be associated with reduced neonatal hypoglycaemia (four cohort studies, 744 infants, odds ratio [OR] 0.19 (95% CI: 0.10-0.35), p < 0.00001, I2 = 44%) and slightly reduced duration of initial hospital stay (one cohort study, 1,673 infants, mean difference: -0.20 days [95% CI: -0.31 to -0.09], p = 0.0003), but the evidence is very uncertain. One RCT found early feeding had little or no effect on the risk of neonatal mortality, but three cohort studies found early feeding may be associated with reduced risk (136,468 infants, OR 0.51 [95% CI: 0.37-0.72]; low certainty evidence; p <0.0001; I2 = 54%). CONCLUSION: We found that early feeding may reduce the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia, but the evidence is very uncertain. Given its many other benefits, early feeding should continue to be recommended. This review was primarily funded by the Aotearoa Foundation and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health.