Early Enteral Feeding for Preterm or Low Birth Weight Infants: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Early enteral feeding has been associated with adverse outcomes such as necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm and low birth weight infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of early enteral feeding initiation within the first days after birth compared to delayed initiation. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL from inception to June 30, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials (RCTs) were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, growth, neurodevelopment, feed intolerance, and duration of hospitalization. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted and pooled with random-effects models. RESULTS: We included 14 randomized controlled trials with 1505 participants in our primary analysis comparing early (<72 hours) to delayed (≥72 hours) enteral feeding initiation. Early initiation likely decreased mortality at discharge and 28 days (1292 participants, 12 trials, relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.48-0.99, moderate certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (1100 participants, 10 trials, mean difference -3.20 days, 95%CI -5.74 to -0.66, moderate certainty evidence). The intervention may also decrease sepsis and weight at discharge. Based on low certainty evidence, early feeding may have little to no effect on necrotizing enterocolitis, feed intolerance, and days to regain birth weight. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of initiation time on intraventricular hemorrhage, length, and head circumference at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral feeding within 72 hours after birth likely reduces the risk of mortality and length of hospital stay, may reduce the risk of sepsis, and may reduce weight at discharge.

Responsive Feeding for Preterm or Low Birth Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Responsive feeding may improve health outcomes in preterm and low birth weight (LBW) infants. Our objective was to assess effects of responsive compared with scheduled feeding in preterm and LBW infants. METHODS: Data sources include PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, and MEDICUS. Randomized trials were screened. Primary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, growth, neurodevelopment. Secondary outcomes were feed intolerance and duration of hospitalization. Data were extracted and pooled with random-effects models. RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies were identified, and data from 8 randomized control trials with 455 participants were pooled in the meta-analyses. At discharge, the mean difference in body weight between the intervention (responsive feeding) and comparison (scheduled feeding) was -2.80 g per day (95% CI -3.39 to -2.22, I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence, 4 trials, 213 participants); -0.99 g/kg per day (95% CI -2.45 to 0.46, I2 = 74%, very low certainty evidence, 5 trials, 372 participants); -22.21 g (95% CI -130.63 to 86.21, I2 = 41%, low certainty evidence, 3 trials, 183 participants). The mean difference in duration of hospitalization was -1.42 days (95% CI -5.43 to 2.59, I2 = 88%, very low certainty evidence, 5 trials, 342 participants). There were no trials assessing other growth outcomes (eg, length and head circumference) mortality, morbidity or neurodevelopment. Limitations include a high risk of bias, heterogeneity, and small sample size in included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, responsive feeding may decrease in-hospital weight gain. Although the evidence is very uncertain, responsive feeding may slightly decrease the duration of hospitalization. Evidence was insufficient to understand the effects of responsive compared with scheduled feeding on mortality, morbidity, linear growth, and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm and LBW infants.

A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in east and southeast Asia (2006-2019).

INTRODUCTION: Pneumococcal infections can lead to serious invasive diseases such as meningitis, septicemia and pneumonia, as well as milder but more common illnesses such as sinusitis and otitis media. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the inclusion of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) in infant National Immunization Program (NIP) programs worldwide. Decision-makers in Asian countries planning to introduce PCVs in their respective NIP will need a comprehensive evidence of effectiveness of PCVs at the population level and economic evidence including cost-effectiveness. AREAS COVERED: A systematic literature review (from 1/1/2016 to 10/11/2019) of PCVs in East and Southeast Asia to understand (1) the contributing factors to cost-effectiveness results of PCVs and (2) whether gaps in evidence exist suggesting why the region may have yet to implement full NIPs. EXPERT OPINION: In East and Southeast Asia, vaccination with PCVs was found to significantly reduce the mortality and morbidity of pneumococcal diseases and was cost-effective compared to no vaccination. Study assumptions, specifically vaccine local acquisition, the inclusion or exclusion of indirect effects (serotype replacement and herd effect), cross-protection, and protection against nontypeable haemophilus influenzae and serotype 3, were the main drivers of cost-effectiveness.

Estimating the Public Health and Economic Impact of Introducing the 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine or 10-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines into State Immunization Programs in India.

INTRODUCTION: Although the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) has been introduced into select state immunization programs (SIPs) in India, many children remain unvaccinated. Recently, India's Advisory Committee on Vaccines & Immunization Practices recommended PCV on the pediatric immunization schedule nationally. This study estimates the public health and economic impact of introducing either Pfizer's 13-valent PCV (PCV13-PFE), GlaxoSmithKline's 10-valent PCV (PCV10-GSK), or Serum Institute of India's 10-valent PCV (PCV10-SII) into every pediatric SIP. METHODS: A model was developed to predict the disease cases, deaths, and costs associated with implementing PCV13-PFE, PCV10-GSK, or PCV10-SII in SIPs compared to no vaccination program across a 5-year period (2021-2025). State and national-level uptake rate and clinical and economic input parameters were collected from published literature. Disease outcomes included invasive pneumococcal disease, inpatient and outpatient pneumonia, and otitis media. Costs were estimated as vaccine-related costs and direct medical costs incurred to the healthcare system. Results were reported by individual state and aggregated nationally. RESULTS: Estimated over 5 years, implementing PCV13-PFE in SIPs could avert 12.1 million cases and save 626,512 lives among children under 5 years old compared to no vaccination. This corresponds to net national cost savings of over $1.0 billion. Both lower-valent PCVs are estimated to provide less economic savings than PCV13-PFE inclusive of vaccine-related costs. Compared with PCV13-PFE, implementing PCV10-GSK or PCV10-SII nationally is estimated to have a smaller public health impact, with PCV10-GSK averting 8.4 million cases (436,577 deaths) and PCV10-SII preventing 10.3 million cases (531,545 deaths) in India compared to no vaccination, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementation of PCV13-PFE throughout India is estimated to provide greater public health and economic benefits than PCV10-GSK or PCV10-SII SIPs. Our analysis highlights the substantial disease cases, deaths, and health system cost savings that may be realized from implementing PCV programs throughout India.