Nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula for preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants may accumulate nutrient deficits leading to extrauterine growth restriction. Feeding preterm infants with nutrient-enriched rather than standard formula might increase nutrient accretion and growth rates and might improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of feeding with nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula on growth and development of preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Neonatal standard search strategy. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (until November 2018), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and clinical trials databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with nutrient-enriched formula (protein and energy plus minerals, vitamins, or other nutrients) versus standard formula. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the Cochrane Neonatal standard methods. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality and extracted and synthesised data using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences, and mean differences (MDs). We assessed certainty of evidence at the outcome level using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven trials in which a total of 590 preterm infants participated. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of birth weight less than 1850 g. Few participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth restricted at birth. Trials were conducted more than 30 years ago, were formula industry funded, and were small with methodological weaknesses (including lack of masking) that might bias effect estimates. Meta-analyses of in-hospital growth parameters were limited by statistical heterogeneity. There is no evidence of an effect on time to regain birth weight (MD -1.48 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.73 to 1.77) and low-certainty evidence suggests that feeding with nutrient-enriched formula increases in-hospital rates of weight gain (MD 2.43 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.26) and head circumference growth (MD 1.04 mm/week, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.89). Meta-analysis did not show an effect on the average rate of length gain (MD 0.22 mm/week, 95% CI -0.70 to 1.13). Fewer data are available for growth and developmental outcomes assessed beyond infancy, and these do not show consistent effects of nutrient-enriched formula feeding. Data from two trials did not show an effect on Bayley Mental Development Index scores at 18 months post term (MD 2.87, 95% CI -1.38 to 7.12; moderate-certainty evidence). Infants who received nutrient-enriched formula had higher Bayley Psychomotor Development Index scores at 18 months post term (MD 6.56. 95% CI 2.87 to 10.26; low-certainty evidence), but no evidence suggested an effect on cerebral palsy (typical RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.07; 2 studies, 377 infants). Available data did not indicate any other benefits or harms and provided low-certainty evidence about the effect of nutrient-enriched formula feeding on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25; 3 studies, 489 infants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available trial data show that feeding preterm infants nutrient-enriched (compared with standard) formulas has only modest effects on growth rates during their initial hospital admission. No evidence suggests effects on long-term growth or development. The GRADE assessment indicates that the certainty of this evidence is low, and that these findings should be interpreted and applied with caution. Further randomised trials would be needed to resolve this uncertainty.

Immunonutrition for Preterm Infants.

Care and outcomes for very preterm infants continue to improve, but important causes of mortality and acute and long-term morbidity associated with prolonged hospitalisation remain. Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and late-onset infection have emerged as the major causes of death beyond the early neonatal period and of neurodisability in very preterm infants. Although the pathogenesis of these conditions is incompletely understood, it appears to be related to the content and mode of delivery of the enteral diet, particularly the impact of immunonutrients from human breast milk on the microbial and metabolic balance within the immature intestine. Evidence exists to support investment in measures to help mothers to express breast milk as the primary source of nutrition for their very preterm infants. In the absence of maternal milk, pasteurised donor breast milk provides protection against NEC, but its nutritive adequacy is not clear and its cost-effectiveness is uncertain. Supplementation with individual immunonutrients, including immunoglobulins and lactoferrin, has not been shown to be effective in preventing NEC or infection in randomised controlled trials. The evidence base for prebiotics and probiotics is stronger, but concerns exist about the choice, safety and availability of formulations. Other strategies - including avoidance of drugs such as gastric acid suppressants that compromise innate immunity, as well as evidence-based progressive feeding strategies that reduce exposure to invasive interventions - are emerging as key components of care packages to reduce the burden of NEC, infection and associated growth and developmental faltering for very preterm infants.

Iodine supplementation for the prevention of mortality and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition solutions, artificial formulas, and human breast milk contain insufficient iodine to meet recommended intakes for preterm infants. Iodine deficiency may exacerbate transient hypothyroxinaemia in preterm infants and this may be associated with adverse neonatal and longer-term outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence from randomised controlled trials that dietary supplementation with iodine reduces mortality and morbidity 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 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Maternity & Infant Care Database, and CINAHL to February 2018. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared supplementing enteral or parenteral feeds with iodine (as iodide salt) versus placebo or no supplementation in preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios (RR) and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and planned to explore potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Both trials used methods to limit bias including allocation concealment and blinding of clinicians and investigators to the allocated intervention. The trials enrolled 1394 infants. One trial recruited 1273 participants. Most participants were born very preterm (less than 32 weeks' gestation) and about one-third were extremely preterm (less than 28 weeks' gestation). Analyses found no effect of iodine supplementation on mortality before hospital discharge (typical RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 2 studies, 1380 infants) or on neurodevelopmental assessments at two years post-term (Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition main domain composite scores: cognitive: MD -0.30, 95% CI -2.44 to 1.84; motor: MD 0.20, 95% CI -2.15 to 2.55; language: MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.50 to 2.30; 1 study, 1259 infants). There were no differences in the proportion of infants who died or had a composite score less than 85 in any main Bayley domain (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; 1 study, 1259 infants), or had visual impairment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.45; 1 study, 1092 infants) or auditory impairment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.16; 1 study, 1093 infants). Using GRADE methods, we assessed the evidence for the effects on mortality and neurodevelopment outcomes as high-certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data, predominantly from one large, high-quality multicentre study published in 2017, do not show any evidence of beneficial effects of iodine supplementation for preterm infants. Given the high certainty of these estimates of effect, further trials of this intervention in this population are unlikely to be considered research priorities.

Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour.

BACKGROUND: Active management of the third stage of labour involves giving a prophylactic uterotonic, early cord clamping and controlled cord traction to deliver the placenta. With expectant management, signs of placental separation are awaited and the placenta is delivered spontaneously. Active management was introduced to try to reduce haemorrhage, a major contributor to maternal mortality in low-income countries. This is an update of a review last published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and other maternal and infant outcomes.To compare the effects of variations in the packages of active and expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary PPH and other maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), on 22 January 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, carried out data extraction and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies, involving analysis of data from 8892 women. The studies were all undertaken in hospitals, seven in higher-income countries and one in a lower-income country. Four studies compared active versus expectant management, and four compared active versus a mixture of managements. We used a random-effects model in the analyses because of clinical heterogeneity. Of the eight studies included, we considered three studies as having low risk of bias in the main aspects of sequence generation, allocation concealment and completeness of data collection. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes, which is reflected in the cautious language below.The evidence suggested that, for women at mixed levels of risk of bleeding, it is uncertain whether active management reduces the average risk of maternal severe primary PPH (more than 1000 mL) at time of birth (average risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.87, 3 studies, 4636 women, I2 = 60%; GRADE: very low quality). For incidence of maternal haemoglobin (Hb) less than 9 g/dL following birth, active management of the third stage may reduce the number of women with anaemia after birth (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, 2 studies, 1572 women; GRADE: low quality). We also found that active management of the third stage may make little or no difference to the number of babies admitted to neonatal units (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, 2 studies, 3207 infants; GRADE: low quality). It is uncertain whether active management of the third stage reduces the number of babies with jaundice requiring treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.68, 2 studies, 3142 infants, I2 = 66%; GRADE: very low quality). There were no data on our other primary outcomes of very severe PPH at the time of birth (more than 2500 mL), maternal mortality, or neonatal polycythaemia needing treatment.Active management reduces mean maternal blood loss at birth and probably reduces the rate of primary blood loss greater than 500 mL, and the use of therapeutic uterotonics. Active management also probably reduces the mean birthweight of the baby, reflecting the lower blood volume from interference with placental transfusion. In addition, it may reduce the need for maternal blood transfusion. However, active management may increase maternal diastolic blood pressure, vomiting after birth, afterpains, use of analgesia from birth up to discharge from the labour ward, and more women returning to hospital with bleeding (outcome not pre-specified).In the comparison of women at low risk of excessive bleeding, there were similar findings, except it was uncertain whether there was a difference identified between groups for severe primary PPH (average RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.17; 2 studies, 2941 women, I2 = 71%), maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL at 24 to 72 hours (average RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 study, 193 women) or the need for neonatal admission (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.88; 1 study, 1512 women). In this group, active management may make little difference to the rate of neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy (average RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.18; 1 study, 1447 women).Hypertension and interference with placental transfusion might be avoided by using modifications to the active management package, for example, omitting ergot and deferring cord clamping, but we have no direct evidence of this here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the data appeared to show that active management reduced the risk of severe primary PPH greater than 1000 mL at the time of birth, we are uncertain of this finding because of the very low-quality evidence. Active management may reduce the incidence of maternal anaemia (Hb less than 9 g/dL) following birth, but harms such as postnatal hypertension, pain and return to hospital due to bleeding were identified.In women at low risk of excessive bleeding, it is uncertain whether there was a difference between active and expectant management for severe PPH or maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL (at 24 to 72 hours). Women could be given information on the benefits and harms of both methods to support informed choice. Given the concerns about early cord clamping and the potential adverse effects of some uterotonics, it is critical now to look at the individual components of third-stage management. Data are also required from low-income countries.It must be emphasised that this review includes only a small number of studies with relatively small numbers of participants, and the quality of evidence for primary outcomes is low or very low.

High versus standard volume enteral feeds to promote growth in preterm or low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Breast milk alone, given at standard recommended volumes (150 to 180 mL/kg/d), is not adequate to meet the protein, energy, and other nutrient requirements of growing preterm or low birth weight infants. One strategy that may be used to address these potential nutrient deficits is to give infants enteral feeds in excess of 200 mL/kg/d ('high-volume' feeds). This approach may increase nutrient uptake and growth rates, but concerns include that high-volume enteral feeds may cause feed intolerance, gastro-oesophageal reflux, aspiration pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis, or complications related to fluid overload, including patent ductus arteriosus and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on growth and safety of feeding preterm or low birth weight infants with high (> 200 mL/kg/d) versus standard (≤ 200 mL/kg/d) volume of enteral feeds. Infants in intervention and control groups should have received the same type of milk (breast milk, formula, or both), the same fortification or micronutrient supplements, and the same enteral feeding regimen (bolus, continuous) and rate of feed volume advancement.To conduct subgroup analyses based on type of milk (breast milk vs formula), gestational age or birth weight category of included infants (very preterm or VLBW vs preterm or LBW), presence of intrauterine growth restriction (using birth weight relative to the reference population as a surrogate), and income level of the country in which the trial was conducted (low or middle income vs high income) (see 'Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity'). SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Neonatal standard search strategy, which included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1946 to November 2016); Embase (1974 to November 2016); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to November 2016), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared high-volume versus standard-volume enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data, and the mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. . We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level via the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found one eligible trial that included 64 infants. This trial was not blinded. Analysis showed a higher rate of weight gain in the high-volume feeds group: mean difference 6.20 g/kg/d (95% confidence interval 2.71 to 9.69). There was no increase in the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis with high-volume feeds, but 95% confidence intervals around these estimates were wide. We assessed the quality of evidence for these outcomes as 'low' or 'very low' because of imprecision of the estimates of effect and concern about risk of bias due to lack of blinding in the included trial. Trial authors provided no data on other outcomes, including gastro-oesophageal reflux, aspiration pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis, patent ductus arteriosus, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, or long-term growth and neurodevelopment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found only very limited data from one small unblinded trial on the effects of high-volume feeds on important outcomes for preterm or low birth weight infants. The quality of evidence is low to very low. Hence, available evidence is insufficient to support or refute high-volume enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. A large, pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.

Multi-nutrient fortification of human milk for preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Exclusively breast milk-fed preterm infants may accumulate nutrient deficits leading to extrauterine growth restriction. Feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified human breast milk rather than unfortified breast milk may increase nutrient accretion and growth rates and may improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether multi-nutrient fortified human breast milk improves important outcomes (including growth and development) over unfortified breast milk for preterm infants without increasing the risk of adverse effects (such as feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis). SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (until February 2016), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. 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 extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We separately evaluated trial quality, data extracted by two review authors and data synthesised using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences and mean differences (MDs). We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 trials in which a total of 1071 infants participated. The trials were generally small and weak methodologically. Meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence that multi-nutrient fortification of breast milk increases in-hospital rates of growth (MD 1.81 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.40); length (MD 0.12 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17); and head circumference (MD 0.08 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12). Only very limited data are available for growth and developmental outcomes assessed beyond infancy, and these show no effects of fortification. The data did not indicate other potential benefits or harms and provided low-quality evidence that fortification does not increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants (typical RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.23; 11 studies, 882 infants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited available data do not provide strong evidence that feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified breast milk compared with unfortified breast milk affects important outcomes, except that it leads to slightly increased in-hospital growth rates.

Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Glutamine is a conditionally essential amino acid. Endogenous biosynthesis may be insufficient for tissue needs in states of metabolic stress. Evidence exists that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. It has been suggested that glutamine supplementation may also benefit preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of glutamine supplementation on mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Maternity and Infant Care (to December 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in preterm infants at any time from birth to discharge from hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical relative risk, typical risk difference and weighted mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 randomised controlled trials in which a total of 2877 preterm infants participated. Six trials assessed enteral glutamine supplementation and six trials assessed parenteral glutamine supplementation. The trials were generally of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis did not find an effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality (typical relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.17; risk difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.02) or major neonatal morbidities including the incidence of invasive infection or necrotising enterocolitis. Three trials that assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes in children aged 18 to 24 months and beyond did not find any effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data do not provide evidence that glutamine supplementation confers important benefits for preterm infants.

[Pemetrexed + Sorafenib] lethality is increased by inhibition of ERBB1/2/3-PI3K-NFκB compensatory survival signaling.

In the completed phase I trial NCT01450384 combining the anti-folate pemetrexed and the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib it was observed that 20 of 33 patients had prolonged stable disease or tumor regression, with one complete response and multiple partial responses. The pre-clinical studies in this manuscript were designed to determine whether [pemetrexed + sorafenib] -induced cell killing could be rationally enhanced by additional signaling modulators. Multiplex assays performed on tumor material that survived and re-grew after [pemetrexed + sorafenib] exposure showed increased phosphorylation of ERBB1 and of NFκB and IκB; with reduced IκB and elevated G-CSF and KC protein levels. Inhibition of JAK1/2 downstream of the G-CSF/KC receptors did not enhance [pemetrexed + sorafenib] lethality whereas inhibition of ERBB1/2/4 using kinase inhibitory agents or siRNA knock down of ERBB1/2/3 strongly promoted killing. Inhibition of ERBB1/2/4 blocked [pemetrexed + sorafenib] stimulated NFκB activation and SOD2 expression; and expression of IκB S32A S36A significantly enhanced [pemetrexed + sorafenib] lethality. Sorafenib inhibited HSP90 and HSP70 chaperone ATPase activities and reduced the interactions of chaperones with clients including c-MYC, CDC37 and MCL-1. In vivo, a 5 day transient exposure of established mammary tumors to lapatinib or vandetanib significantly enhanced the anti-tumor effect of [pemetrexed + sorafenib], without any apparent normal tissue toxicities. Identical data to that in breast cancer were obtained in NSCLC tumors using the ERBB1/2/4 inhibitor afatinib. Our data argue that the combination of pemetrexed, sorafenib and an ERBB1/2/4 inhibitor should be explored in a new phase I trial in solid tumor patients.

Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Glutamine is a conditionally essential amino acid. Endogenous biosynthesis may be insufficient for tissue needs in states of metabolic stress. Evidence exists that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. It has been suggested that glutamine supplementation may also benefit preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of glutamine supplementation on mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Maternity and Infant Care (to December 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in preterm infants at any time from birth to discharge from hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical relative risk, typical risk difference and weighted mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 randomised controlled trials in which a total of 2877 preterm infants participated. Six trials assessed enteral glutamine supplementation and six trials assessed parenteral glutamine supplementation. The trials were generally of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis did not find an effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality (typical relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.17; risk difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.02) or major neonatal morbidities including the incidence of invasive infection or necrotising enterocolitis. Three trials that assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes in children aged 18 to 24 months and beyond did not find any effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data do not provide evidence that glutamine supplementation confers important benefits for preterm infants.

Topical emollient for prevention of infection in preterm infants: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Breakdown of the developmentally immature epidermal barrier in the preterm infant can permit entry of microorganisms leading to invasive infection. Topical emollients might improve skin integrity and barrier function and thereby prevent invasive infection, a major cause of mortality and morbidity in these infants. The aim of this study was to appraise and synthesise the evidence for topical application of emollients in the prevention of invasive infection and mortality in preterm infants. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of prophylactic application of topical emollient (ointments, creams, or oils) on the incidence of invasive infection, and other morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Group to identify and appraise trials and extract and synthesise data. We prespecified subgroup analyses of trials in low-income and middle-income versus high-income countries. FINDINGS: We included 16 trials (2809 infants). Methodological quality varied, with uncertainty about adequate allocation concealment methods in eight trials and lack of masking in all of the trials. Most trials in high-income countries compared expensive proprietary ointments or creams with standard care. Meta-analysis showed a significantly higher incidence of infection in infants treated with emollient (relative risk 1·20, 95% CI 1·01-1·42), but no significant effect on mortality or other morbidity. In low-income or middle-income countries, most trials compared low-cost natural plant oils with standard care, and meta-analyses did not show a significant effect on infection or mortality. Topical oil application increased rates of weight gain (∼2 g/kg per day) and gain in length (∼1 mm/kg per week). INTERPRETATION: The available trial data do not provide strong evidence that emollients prevent invasive infection or death in preterm infants. Given the burden of infectious morbidity and mortality in preterm infants in low-income or middle-income countries, further large, pragmatic trials of topical oils (which are low-cost, readily available, and widely accepted traditional neonatal skin care practices) are justified to improve the precision of the estimates of effect size. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Glutamine supplementation for young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease.

BACKGROUND: Endogenous glutamine biosynthesis may be insufficient to meet the needs of people with severe gastrointestinal disease. Results from studies using experimental animal models of gastrointestinal disease have suggested that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes. This review examines evidence on the effect of glutamine supplementation in young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of supplemental glutamine on mortality and morbidity in young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searcheed the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (from inception to September 2014), conference proceedings, and reference lists from previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in infants up to three months old (corrected for preterm birth if necessary) with severe gastrointestinal disease defined as a congenital or acquired gastrointestinal condition that is likely to necessitate providing parenteral nutrition for at least 24 hours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We found three trials in which a total of 274 infants participated. The trials were of good methodological quality but were too small to detect clinically important effects of glutamine supplementation. Meta-analyses did not reveal a statistically significant difference in the risk of death before hospital discharge (typical RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.20; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03) or in the rate of invasive infection (typical RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.11; typical RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.18]). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available data from randomised controlled trials do not suggest that glutamine supplementation has any important benefits for young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease.

Glutamine supplementation for young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease.

BACKGROUND: Endogenous glutamine biosynthesis may be insufficient to meet the needs of people with severe gastrointestinal disease. Studies using experimental animal models and controlled trials in adult patients with severe gastrointestinal disease have suggested that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes. This review examines evidence for the effect of glutamine supplementation in young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence from randomised controlled trials that providing supplemental glutamine reduces mortality and morbidity in young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to November 2011), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in infants up to three months old (corrected for preterm birth if necessary) with severe gastrointestinal disease defined as a congenital or acquired gastrointestinal condition that is likely to necessitate providing parenteral nutrition for at least 24 hours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical risk ratio (RR), typical risk difference (RD), and weighted mean difference (WMD). MAIN RESULTS: We found two trials in which a total of 100 infants participated. The trials were of good methodological quality but were too small to detect clinically important effects of glutamine supplementation. Meta-analysis did not reveal a statistically significant difference in the risk of death before hospital discharge (typical RR 1.57; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25 to 9.66; RD 0.02; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.10) or in the rate of invasive infection [typical RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.70; RD 0.04; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available data from randomised controlled trials are insufficient to determine whether glutamine supplementation has any important benefits for young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease.

Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Glutamine is a conditionally essential amino acid. Endogenous biosynthesis may be insufficient for tissue needs in states of metabolic stress. Evidence exists that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. It has been suggested that glutamine supplementation may also benefit preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of glutamine supplementation on mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (to November 2011), conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in preterm infants at any time from birth to discharge from hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical relative risk, typical risk difference and weighted mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 randomised controlled trials in which a total of 2771 preterm infants participated. Five trials assessed enteral glutamine supplementation and six trials assessed parenteral glutamine supplementation. The trials were generally of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis did not detect a statistically significant effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality [typical relative risk 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.18); risk difference 0.00 (95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.02)] or major neonatal morbidities including the incidence of invasive infection or necrotising enterocolitis. Two trials that assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months did not find any statistically significant differences in various assessments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data do not provide evidence that glutamine supplementation confers important benefits for preterm infants.

A phase II study of irofulven in women with recurrent and heavily pretreated ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of a novel illudin S derivative, irofulven (MGI-114), in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had received extensive prior chemotherapy. METHODS: The trial was an open label phase II study. Patients initially enrolled in this study were treated every 14 days with a dose of 24 mg/m2. Unexpected retinal toxicity associated with this dose and schedule lead to modification of the dosing to 0.55 mg/kg on the same schedule with a maximum individual dose of 50 mg. Dose reductions were permitted based on both hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities. RESULTS: Seventy-four women were accrued and stratified into two cohorts including 58 women with platinum-resistant disease and 16 with platinum-sensitive disease. Non-hematologic toxicities included nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Thirty-one women had between one and six visual symptoms, most were Grade 1 and 2 in nature. The majority of visual toxicities resolved either during treatment or post-treatment with irofulven. There was one partial response in each cohort with 19 (33%) and 8 (50%) of women having stable disease in the platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Irofulven at 24 mg/m2 on every 14-day schedule is associated with significant retinal toxicity in this patient population. Dosing at 0.55 mg/kg has persistent retinal toxicity, yet demonstrated only limited anti-tumor activity in a population of women who had received extensive prior chemotherapy.

Factors affecting cytochrome P-450 3A activity in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose is to identify the demographic, physiologic, and inheritable factors that influence CYP3A activity in cancer patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 134 patients (62 females; age range, 26 to 83 years) underwent the erythromycin breath test as a phenotyping probe of CYP3A. Genomic DNA was screened for six variants of suspected functional relevance in CYP3A4 (CYP3A4*1B, CYP3A4*6, CYP3A4*17, and CYP3A4*18) and CYP3A5 (CYP3A5*3C and CYP3A5*6). RESULTS: CYP3A activity (AUC(0-40 min)) varied up to 14-fold in this population. No variants in the CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 genes were a significant predictor of CYP3A activity (P > 0.2954). CYP3A activity was reduced by approximately 50% in patients with concurrent elevations in liver transaminases and alkaline phosphatase or elevated total bilirubin (P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, CYP3A activity was not significantly influenced by age, sex, and body size measures (P > 0.05), but liver function combined with the concentration of the acute-phase reactant, alpha-1 acid glycoprotein, explained approximately 18% of overall variation in CYP3A activity (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that baseline demographic, physiologic, and chosen genetic polymorphisms have a minor impact on phenotypic CYP3A activity in patients with cancer. Consideration of additional factors, including the inflammation marker C-reactive protein, as well as concomitant use of other drugs, food constituents, and complementary and alternative medicine with inhibitory and inducible effects on CYP3A, is needed to reduce variation in CYP3A and treatment outcome to anticancer therapy.