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.).

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.

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.