Neonatal hypoglycaemia.

Low blood concentrations of glucose (hypoglycaemia) soon after birth are common because of the delayed metabolic transition from maternal to endogenous neonatal sources of glucose. Because glucose is the main energy source for the brain, severe hypoglycaemia can cause neuroglycopenia (inadequate supply of glucose to the brain) and, if severe, permanent brain injury. Routine screening of infants at risk and treatment when hypoglycaemia is detected are therefore widely recommended. Robust evidence to support most aspects of management is lacking, however, including the appropriate threshold for diagnosis and optimal monitoring. Treatment is usually initially more feeding, with buccal dextrose gel, followed by intravenous dextrose. In infants at risk, developmental outcomes after mild hypoglycaemia seem to be worse than in those who do not develop hypoglycaemia, but the reasons for these observations are uncertain. Here, the current understanding of the pathophysiology of neonatal hypoglycaemia and recent evidence regarding its diagnosis, management, and outcomes are reviewed. Recommendations are made for further research priorities.

Protocol for the Gut Bugs in Autism Trial: a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial of faecal microbiome transfer for the treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic adolescents and adults.

INTRODUCTION: Autism (formally autism spectrum disorder) encompasses a group of complex neurodevelopmental conditions, characterised by differences in communication and social interactions. Co-occurring chronic gastrointestinal symptoms are common among autistic individuals and can adversely affect their quality of life. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of oral encapsulated faecal microbiome transfer (FMT) in improving gastrointestinal symptoms and well-being among autistic adolescents and adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial will recruit 100 autistic adolescents and adults aged 16-45 years, who have mild to severe gastrointestinal symptoms (Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS) score ≥2.0). We will also recruit eight healthy donors aged 18-32 years, who will undergo extensive clinical screening. Recipients will be randomised 1:1 to receive FMT or placebo, stratified by biological sex. Capsules will be administered over two consecutive days following an overnight bowel cleanse with follow-up assessments at 6, 12 and 26 weeks post-treatment. The primary outcome is GSRS score at 6 weeks. Other assessments include anthropometry, body composition, hair cortisol concentration, gut microbiome profile, urine/plasma gut-derived metabolites, plasma markers of gut inflammation/permeability and questionnaires on general well-being, sleep quality, physical activity, food diversity and treatment tolerability. Adverse events will be recorded and reviewed by an independent data monitoring committee. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for the study was granted by the Central Health and Disability Ethics Committee on 24 August 2021 (reference number: 21/CEN/211). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented to both scientific and consumer group audiences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000015741.

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.

An open-label pilot trial of faecal microbiome transfer to restore the gut microbiome in anorexia nervosa: protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with anorexia nervosa (AN) harbour distinct gut microbiomes compared with healthy individuals, which are sufficient to induce weight loss and anxiety-like behaviours when transplanted into germ-free mice. We hypothesise that faecal microbiome transfer (FMT) from healthy donors would help restore the gut microbiome of individuals with AN, which in turn, may aid patient recovery. METHODS: We aim to conduct an open-label pilot study in 20 females aged 16-32 years in Auckland, New Zealand who meet the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) criteria for AN and have a body mass index 13-19 kg/m2. We will recruit four healthy, lean, female donors, aged 18-32 years, who will undergo extensive clinical screening prior to stool donation. Faecal microbiota will be harvested from donors and double encapsulated in delayed release, acid-resistant capsules. All participants will receive a single course of 20 FMT capsules (five from each donor) which they can choose to take over two or four consecutive days. Stool and blood samples will be collected from participants over a period of 3 months to assess their gut microbiome profile, metabolome, levels of intestinal inflammation and nutritional status. Our primary outcome is a shift in the gut microbiome composition at 3 weeks post-FMT (Bray-Curtis dissimilarity). We will also monitor participants' body composition (whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans), eating disorder psychopathology, mental health and assess their views on, and tolerability of, treatment. All adverse events will be recorded and reviewed by an independent data monitoring committee. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was provided by the Central Health and Disability Ethics Committee (Ministry of Health, New Zealand, 21/CEN/212). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented to both scientific and consumer group audiences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001504808.

Neurocognitive Outcomes at Age 2 Years After Neonatal Hypoglycemia in a Cohort of Participants From the hPOD Randomized Trial.

Importance: Neonatal hypoglycemia is common, but its association with later neurodevelopment is uncertain. Objective: To examine associations between neonatal hypoglycemia and neurocognitive outcomes at corrected age 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory cohort analysis of the Hypoglycaemia Prevention With Oral Dextrose (hPOD) randomized clinical trial was conducted. The trial recruited participants from January 9, 2015, to May 5, 2019, with follow-up between January 26, 2017, and July 31, 2021. Infants were recruited from 9 maternity hospitals in New Zealand and assessed at home or in a research clinic. Children born late preterm and at term at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia but without evidence of acute or imminent illness in the first hour after birth were screened and treated to maintain blood glucose concentrations greater than or equal to 47 mg/dL. Exposures: Hypoglycemia was defined as any blood glucose concentration less than 47 mg/dL, recurrent as 3 or more episodes, and severe as less than 36 mg/dL. Main Outcomes and Measures: Neurologic examination and tests of development (Bayley III) and executive function. The primary outcome was neurosensory impairment (any of the following: blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, or executive function total score worse than 1.5 SD below the mean). Results: A total of 1197 of 1321 (91%) eligible children were assessed at a mean of corrected age 24 months; 616 (52%) were male. Compared with the normoglycemia group, children who experienced hypoglycemia were more likely to have neurosensory impairment (111 [23%] vs 125 [18%]; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60), particularly if they experienced severe episodes (30 [28%] vs 125 [18%]; aRR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.20-2.36), but not recurrent episodes (12 [19%] vs 125 [18%]; aRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.63-1.80). The risk of cognitive, language, or motor delay was similar between groups, but children who experienced hypoglycemia had lower Bayley-III composite cognitive (adjusted mean difference [aMD], -1.48; 95% CI, -2.79 to -0.18) and motor scores (aMD, -2.05; 95% CI, -3.30 to -0.79). Conclusions and Relevance: In children born at risk of hypoglycemia but otherwise well, those who experienced neonatal hypoglycemia were more likely to have neurosensory impairment at corrected age 2 years, with higher risks after severe episodes. Further research is required to determine causality.

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.

Oral dextrose gel for the treatment of hypoglycaemia in newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal hypoglycaemia, a common condition, can be associated with brain injury. It is frequently managed by providing infants with an alternative source of glucose, often given enterally with milk-feeding or intravenously with dextrose solution, which may decrease breastfeeding success. Intravenous dextrose also often requires that mother and baby are cared for in separate environments. Oral dextrose gel is simple and inexpensive, and can be administered directly to the buccal mucosa for rapid correction of hypoglycaemia, in association with continued breastfeeding and maternal care. This is an update of a previous review published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of oral dextrose gel in correcting hypoglycaemia in newborn infants from birth to discharge home and reducing long-term neurodevelopmental impairment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase from database inception to October 2021.  We also searched international clinical trials networks, the reference lists of included trials, and relevant systematic reviews identified in the search.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing oral dextrose gel versus placebo, no treatment, or other therapies for the treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia in newborn infants from birth to discharge home. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data; they did not assess publications for which they were study authors. We contacted investigators to obtain additional information. We used fixed-effect models and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies conducted in high-income countries, involving 312 late preterm and at-risk term infants and comparing oral dextrose gel (40% concentration) to placebo gel. One study was at low risk of bias, and the other (an abstract) was at unclear to high risk of bias. Oral dextrose gel compared with placebo gel probably increases correction of hypoglycaemic events (rate ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.20; rate difference 66 more per 1000, 95% CI 17 fewer to 166 more; 1 study; 237 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in a slight reduction in the risk of major neurological disability at age two years or older, but the evidence is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.47; risk difference (RD) 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 41 fewer to 66 more; 1 study, 185 children; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral dextrose gel compared with placebo gel or no gel on the need for intravenous treatment for hypoglycaemia (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32; RD 37 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 91 fewer to 54 more; 2 studies, 312 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Investigators in one study of 237 infants reported no adverse events (e.g. choking or vomiting at the time of administration) in the oral dextrose gel or placebo gel group (low-certainty evidence).  Oral dextrose gel compared with placebo gel probably reduces the incidence of separation from the mother for treatment of hypoglycaemia (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93; RD 116 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 174 fewer to 18 fewer; 1 study, 237 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and increases the likelihood of exclusive breastfeeding after discharge (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.18; RD 87 more per 1000, 95% CI 9 more to 157 more; 1 study, 237 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral dextrose gel (specifically 40% dextrose concentration) used to treat hypoglycaemia in newborn infants (specifically at-risk late preterm and term infants) probably increases correction of hypoglycaemic events, and may result in a slight reduction in the risk of major neurological disability at age two years or older. Oral dextrose gel treatment probably reduces the incidence of separation from the mother for treatment and increases the likelihood of exclusive breastfeeding after discharge. No adverse events have been reported. Oral dextrose gel is probably an effective and safe first-line treatment for infants with neonatal hypoglycaemia in high-income settings.  More evidence is needed about the effects of oral dextrose gel treatment on later neurological disability and the need for other treatments for hypoglycaemia. Future studies should be conducted in low-and middle-income settings, in extremely and moderately preterm infants, and compare oral dextrose gel with other therapies such as intravenous dextrose. There are two ongoing studies that may alter the conclusions of this review when published.

An evaluation of a combined psychological and parenting intervention for HIV-positive women depressed in the perinatal period, to enhance child development and reduce maternal depression: study protocol for the Insika Yomama cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of poverty, HIV and depression in the perinatal period represents a major public health challenge in many Southern African countries. In some areas, up to a third of HIV-positive women experience perinatal depression. Perinatal depression is associated with negative effects on parenting and key domains of child development including cognitive, behavioural and growth, especially in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. Several studies have documented the benefits of psychological interventions for perinatal depression in low- and middle-income countries, but none have evaluated an integrated psychological and parenting intervention for HIV-positive women using task-sharing. This randomised controlled trial aims to evaluate the effect of a home-based intervention, combining a psychological treatment for depression and a parenting programme for perinatally depressed HIV-positive women. METHODS: This study is a cluster randomised controlled trial, consisting of 48-60 geospatial clusters. A total of 528 pregnant HIV-positive women aged ≥ 16 years who meet the criteria for depression on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS, score ≥ 9)) are recruited from antenatal clinics in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The geospatial clusters are randomised on an allocation ratio of 1:1 to either the intervention or Enhanced Standard of Care (ESoC). The intervention group receives 10 home-based counselling sessions by a lay counsellor (4 antenatal and 6 postnatal sessions) and a booster session at 16 months. The intervention combines behavioural activation for depression with a parenting programme, adapted from the UNICEF/WHO Care for Child Development programme. The ESoC group receives two antenatal and two postnatal counselling support and advice telephone calls. In addition, measures have been taken to enhance the routine standard of care. The co-primary outcomes are child cognitive development at 24 months assessed on the cognitive subscale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Third Edition and maternal depression at 12 months measured by the EPDS. ANALYSIS: The primary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcomes will be analysed using mixed-effects linear regression. DISCUSSION: If this treatment is successful, policymakers could use this model of mental healthcare delivered by lay counsellors within HIV treatment programmes to provide more comprehensive services for families affected by HIV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry # 11284870 (14/11/2017) and SANCTR DOH-27-102020-9097 (17/11/2017).

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 usually 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 2017.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral dextrose gel given to newborn infants at risk of hypoglycaemia in preventing hypoglycaemia and reducing long-term neurodevelopmental impairment. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library; and Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R) on 19 October 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed 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. Of these, one study was included in the previous version of this review. We judged these two studies to be at low risk of bias, 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). One study reported that oral dextrose gel probably reduces the risk of major neurological disability at two years' corrected age (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.78; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.00; 360 infants; moderate 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 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 events 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 treatment, standard care or other therapies. No data were available on exclusive breastfeeding after discharge. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral dextrose gel reduces the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia in at-risk infants and probably reduces the risk of major neurological disability at two years of age or greater without increasing the risk of adverse events compared to placebo gel. Additional large follow-up studies at two years of age or older are required. Future research should also be undertaken in 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.

Empowering parents for human immunodeficiency virus prevention: Health and sex education at home.

BACKGROUND: Improving health literacy amongst human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive mothers could strengthen child and adolescent HIV prevention. The Amagugu intervention included health literacy materials to strengthen maternal communication and has demonstrated success in low-resource HIV-endemic settings. OBJECTIVES: Our aims were to (1) evaluate whether Amagugu materials improved health literacy leading to changes in parental behaviour towards communicating on topics such as HIV, health behaviours and sex education, and (2) explore what additional information and materials mothers would find helpful. METHOD: The Amagugu evaluation included 281 HIV-positive mothers and their HIV-uninfected children (6-10 years). Process evaluation data from exit interviews were analysed using content analysis and logistic regression techniques. RESULTS: Of 281 mothers, 276 (98.0%) requested more educational storybooks: 99 (35.2%) on moral development/future aspirations, 92 (32.7%) on general health, safety and health promotion, and 67 (23.8%) on HIV and disease management. Compared to baseline, mothers reported that the materials increased discussion on the risks of bullying from friends (150; 53.4%), teacher problems (142; 50.5%), physical abuse (147; 52.3%) and sexual abuse (126; 44.8%). Most mothers used the 'HIV Body Map' for health (274; 97.5%) and sex education (267; 95.0%). The use of a low-cost doll was reported to enhance mother-child communication by increasing mother-child play (264; 94.3%) and maternal attentiveness to the child's feelings (262; 93.6%). CONCLUSION: Parent-led health education in the home seems feasible, acceptable and effective and should be capitalised on in HIV prevention strategies. Further testing in controlled studies is recommended.

Clinical Aspects of Neonatal Hypoglycemia: A Mini Review.

Introduction: Neonatal hypoglycemia is common and a preventable cause of brain damage. The goal of management is to prevent or minimize brain injury. The purpose of this mini review is to summarize recent advances and current thinking around clinical aspects of transient neonatal hypoglycemia. Results: The groups of babies at highest risk of hypoglycemia are well defined. However, the optimal frequency and duration of screening for hypoglycemia, as well as the threshold at which treatment would prevent brain injury, remains uncertain. Continuous interstitial glucose monitoring in a research setting provides useful information about glycemic control, including the duration, frequency, and severity of hypoglycemia. However, it remains unknown whether continuous monitoring is associated with clinical benefits or harms. Oral dextrose gel is increasingly being recommended as a first-line treatment for neonatal hypoglycemia. There is some evidence that even transient and clinically undetected episodes of neonatal hypoglycemia are associated with adverse sequelae, suggesting that prophylaxis should also be considered. Mild transient hypoglycemia is not associated with neurodevelopmental impairment at preschool ages, but is associated with low visual motor and executive function, and with neurodevelopmental impairment and poor literacy and mathematics achievement in later childhood. Conclusion: Our current management of neonatal hypoglycemia lacks a reliable evidence base. Randomized trials are required to assess the effects of different prophylactic and treatment strategies, but need to be adequately powered to assess outcomes at least to school age.