A phase 1 study of regorafenib and sildenafil in adults with advanced solid tumors.

The purpose of this study is to establish the recommended phase 2 dose for regorafenib in combination with sildenafil for patients with advanced solid tumors. Secondary outcomes included identification of antitumor effects of regorafenib and sildenafil, toxicity of the combination, determination of PDE5 expression in tumor samples, and the impact of sildenafil on the pharmacokinetics of regorafenib. This study was a phase 1, open-label single-arm dose-escalation trial using a 3 + 3 design. Additional patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) until a total of 12 patients were treated at the MTD. A total of 29 patients were treated in this study. The median duration of treatment was 8 weeks. The recommended phase 2 doses determined in this study are regorafenib 160 mg daily with sildenafil 100 mg daily. The most common toxicities included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (20 patients, 69%) and hypophosphatemia (18 patients, 62%). Two patients (7%) experienced grade 4 lipase increase. Objective responses were not observed; however, 14 patients (48%) had a period of stable disease during the study. Stable disease for up to 12 months was observed in patients with ovarian cancer as well as up to 20 months for a patient with cervical cancer. The combination of regorafenib and sildenafil at the recommended phase 2 dose is safe and generally well tolerated. Disease control in patients with gynecologic malignancies was especially encouraging. Further evaluation of the combination of regorafenib and sildenafil in gynecologic malignancies is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02466802.

Probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Dietary supplementation with probiotics to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or VLBW infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of supplemental probiotics on the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database, and CINAHL from inception to July 2022. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing probiotics with placebo or no probiotics in very preterm infants (born before 32 weeks' gestation) and VLBW infants (weighing less than 1500 g at birth). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs), with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes were NEC and all-cause mortality; secondary outcome measures were late-onset invasive infection (more than 48 hours after birth), duration of hospitalisation from birth, and neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials with 11,156 infants. Most trials were small (median sample size 145 infants). The main potential sources of bias were unclear reporting of methods for concealing allocation and masking caregivers or investigators in about half of the trials. The formulation of the probiotics varied across trials. The most common preparations contained Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., Saccharomyces spp., andStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Very preterm or very low birth weight infants Probiotics may reduce the risk of NEC (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.65; I² = 17%; 57 trials, 10,918 infants; low certainty). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 33 (95% CI 25 to 50). Probiotics probably reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; I² = 0%; 54 trials, 10,484 infants; moderate certainty); the NNTB was 50 (95% CI 50 to 100). Probiotics probably have little or no effect on the risk of late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I² = 22%; 49 trials, 9876 infants; moderate certainty). Probiotics may have little or no effect on neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1518 infants; low certainty). Extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants Few data were available for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants. In this population, probiotics may have little or no effect on NEC (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22, I² = 0%; 10 trials, 1836 infants; low certainty), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18; I² = 0%; 7 trials, 1723 infants; low certainty), or late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09; I² = 0%; 7 trials, 1533 infants; low certainty). No trials provided data for measures of neurodevelopmental impairment in extremely preterm or ELBW infants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low to moderate certainty of evidence for the effects of probiotic supplements on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or VLBW infants, and particularly for extremely preterm or ELBW infants, there is a need for further large, high-quality trials to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Prebiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Dietary supplementation with prebiotic oligosaccharides to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of enteral supplementation with prebiotics (versus placebo or no treatment) for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), from the earliest records to July 2022. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing prebiotics with placebo or no prebiotics in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or VLBW (< 1500 g) infants. The primary outcomes were NEC and all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were late-onset invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation since birth, and neurodevelopmental impairment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference (MD), with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes of interest were NEC and all-cause mortality; our secondary outcome measures were late-onset (> 48 hours after birth) invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation, and neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the level of certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials in which a total of 705 infants participated. All the trials were small (mean sample size 100). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were potential sources of bias in three of the trials. The studied prebiotics were fructo- and galacto-oligosaccharides, inulin, and lactulose, typically administered daily with enteral feeds during birth hospitalisation. Meta-analyses of data from seven trials (686 infants) suggest that prebiotics may result in little or no difference in NEC (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.56; RD none fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 40 more; low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.92; 40 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 70 fewer to none fewer; low-certainty evidence), or late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.06; 50 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 100 fewer to 10 more; low-certainty evidence) prior to hospital discharge. The certainty of this evidence is low because of concerns about the risk of bias in some trials and the imprecision of the effect size estimates. The data available from one trial provided only very low-certainty evidence about the effect of prebiotics on measures of neurodevelopmental impairment (Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) Mental Development Index score < 85: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.90; very low-certainty evidence; BSID Psychomotor Development Index score < 85: RR 0.24, 95% 0.03 to 2.00; very low-certainty evidence; cerebral palsy: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.35; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data provide low-certainty evidence about the effects of prebiotics on the risk of NEC, all-cause mortality before discharge, and invasive infection, and very low-certainty evidence about the effect on neurodevelopmental impairment for very preterm or VLBW infants. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited; the true effects may be substantially different. Large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity to inform policy and practice decisions.

Bubble devices versus other pressure sources for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Several types of pressure sources, including underwater bubble devices, mechanical ventilators, and the Infant Flow Driver, are used for providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to preterm infants with respiratory distress. It is unclear whether the use of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources is associated with lower rates of CPAP treatment failure, or mortality and other morbidity.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources (mechanical ventilators or Infant Flow Driver) for reducing treatment failure and associated morbidity and mortality in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2023, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1946 to 6 January 2023), Embase (1974 to 6 January 2023), Maternity & Infant Care Database (1971 to 6 January 2023), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 6 January 2023). We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing bubble CPAP with other pressure sources (mechanical ventilators or Infant Flow Driver) for the delivery of nasal CPAP to preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for effects on treatment failure, all-cause mortality, neurodevelopmental impairment, pneumothorax, moderate-severe nasal trauma, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving a total of 1437 infants. All trials were small (median number of participants 88). The methods used to generate the randomisation sequence and ensure allocation concealment were unclear in about half of the trial reports. Lack of measures to blind caregivers or investigators was a potential source of bias in all of the included trials. The trials took place during the past 25 years in care facilities internationally, predominantly in India (five trials) and Iran (four trials). The studied pressure sources were commercially available bubble CPAP devices versus a variety of mechanical ventilator (11 trials) or Infant Flow Driver (4 trials) devices.  Meta-analyses suggest that the use of bubble CPAP compared with mechanical ventilator or Infant Flow Driver CPAP may reduce the rate of treatment failure (RR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.95; (I² = 31%); RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 20, 95% CI 10 to 100; 13 trials, 1230 infants; low certainty evidence). The type of pressure source may not affect mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36 (I² = 0%); RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 10 trials, 1189 infants; low certainty evidence). No data were available on neurodevelopmental impairment. Meta-analysis suggests that the pressure source may not affect the risk of pneumothorax (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.34 (I² = 0%); RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 14 trials, 1340 infants; low certainty evidence). Bubble CPAP likely increases the risk of moderate-severe nasal injury (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.82 (I² = 17%); RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 14, 95% CI 9 to 33; 8 trials, 753 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The pressure source may not affect the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.10 (I² = 0%); RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 7 trials, 603 infants; low certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low level of certainty about the effects of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources on the risk of treatment failure and most associated morbidity and mortality for preterm infants, further large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform context- and setting-relevant policy and practice.

Controlled Trial of Two Incremental Milk-Feeding Rates in Preterm Infants.

BACKGROUND: Observational data have shown that slow advancement of enteral feeding volumes in preterm infants is associated with a reduced risk of necrotizing enterocolitis but an increased risk of late-onset sepsis. However, data from randomized trials are limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants to daily milk increments of 30 ml per kilogram of body weight (faster increment) or 18 ml per kilogram (slower increment) until reaching full feeding volumes. The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months. Secondary outcomes included components of the primary outcome, confirmed or suspected late-onset sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and cerebral palsy. RESULTS: Among 2804 infants who underwent randomization, the primary outcome could be assessed in 1224 (87.4%) assigned to the faster increment and 1246 (88.7%) assigned to the slower increment. Survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 of 1224 infants (65.5%) assigned to the faster increment and 848 of 1246 (68.1%) assigned to the slower increment (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.01; P = 0.16). Late-onset sepsis occurred in 414 of 1389 infants (29.8%) in the faster-increment group and 434 of 1397 (31.1%) in the slower-increment group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07). Necrotizing enterocolitis occurred in 70 of 1394 infants (5.0%) in the faster-increment group and 78 of 1399 (5.6%) in the slower-increment group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months in very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants with a strategy of advancing milk feeding volumes in daily increments of 30 ml per kilogram as compared with 18 ml per kilogram. (Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; SIFT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN76463425.).

Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Enteral feeding for very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants is often delayed for several days after birth due to concern that early introduction of feeding may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. Concerns exist, however, that delaying enteral feeding may diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: Search strategies were developed by an information specialist in consultation with the review authors. The following databases were searched in October 2021 without date or language restrictions: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to October 2021), Embase via OVID (1974 to October 2021), Maternity and Infant Care via OVID (1971 to October 2021), CINAHL (1982 to October 2021). We also searched for eligible trials in clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, previous reviews, and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of delayed (four or more days after birth) versus earlier introduction of progressive enteral feeds on necrotising enterocolitis, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately evaluated trial risk of bias, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on necrotising enterocolitis, mortality,  feed intolerance, and invasive infection. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials in which a total of 1551 infants participated. Potential sources of bias were lack of clarity on methods to generate random sequences and conceal allocation in half of the trials, and lack of masking of caregivers or investigators in all of the trials. Trials typically defined delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds as later than four to seven days after birth and early introduction as four days or fewer after birth. Infants in six trials (accounting for about half of all of the participants) had intrauterine growth restriction or circulatory redistribution demonstrated by absent or reversed end-diastolic flow velocities in the fetal aorta or umbilical artery.  Meta-analyses showed that delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds may not reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.14; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; 13 trials, 1507 infants; low-certainty evidence due risk of bias and imprecision) nor all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 12 trials, 1399 infants; low-certainty evidence due risk of bias and imprecision). Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds may slightly reduce the risk of feed intolerance (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 11, 95% CI 6 to 50; 6 trials, 581 infants; low-certainty evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision) and probably increases the risk of invasive infection (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.80; RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.15; number needed to treat for a harmful outcome = 10, 95% CI 7 to 25; 7 trials, 872 infants; moderate-certainty evidence due to risk of bias).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds beyond four days after birth (compared with earlier introduction) may not reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis or death in very preterm or VLBW infants. Delayed introduction may slightly reduce feed intolerance, and probably increases the risk of invasive infection.

Synbiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Dietary supplementation with synbiotics (probiotic micro-organisms combined with prebiotic oligosaccharides) to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of enteral supplementation with synbiotics (versus placebo or no treatment, or versus probiotics or prebiotics alone) for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database and CINAHL, from earliest records to 17 June 2021. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing prophylactic synbiotics supplementation with placebo or no synbiotics in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or very low birth weight (< 1500 g) infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately performed the screening and selection process,  evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the level of certainty for effects on NEC, all-cause mortality, late-onset invasive infection, and neurodevelopmental impairment. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials in which a total of 925 infants participated. Most trials were small (median sample size 200). Lack of clarity on methods used to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were potential sources of bias in four of the trials. The studied synbiotics preparations contained lactobacilli or bifidobacteria (or both) combined with fructo- or galacto-oligosaccharides (or both).  Meta-analyses suggested that synbiotics may reduce the risk of NEC (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.40; RD 70 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 100 fewer to 40 fewer; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 14, 95% CI 10 to 25; six trials (907 infants); low certainty evidence); and all-cause mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.85; RD 50 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 120 fewer to 100 fewer; NNTB 20, 95% CI 8 to 100; six trials (925 infants); low-certainty evidence). Synbiotics may have little or no effect on late-onset invasive infection, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.21; RD 20 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 30 more; five trials (707 infants); very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes. In the absence of high levels of heterogeneity, we did not undertake any subgroup analysis (including the type of feeding). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data provide only low-certainty evidence about the effects of synbiotics on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited; the true effects may be substantially different from these estimates. Large, high-quality trials would be needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Masks versus prongs as interfaces for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Nasal masks and nasal prongs are used as interfaces for providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress, either as primary support after birth or as ongoing support after endotracheal extubation from mechanical ventilation. It is unclear which type of interface is associated with lower rates of CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nasal masks versus nasal prongs for reducing CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing masks versus prongs as interfaces for delivery of nasal CPAP in newborn preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) with or at risk of respiratory distress. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. treatment failure, 2. all-cause mortality, and 3. neurodevelopmental impairment. Our secondary outcomes were 4. pneumothorax, 5. moderate-severe nasal trauma, 6. bronchopulmonary dysplasia, 7. duration of CPAP use, 8. duration of oxygen supplementation, 9. duration of hospitalisation, 10. patent ductus arteriosus receiving medical or surgical treatment, 11. necrotising enterocolitis, 12. severe intraventricular haemorrhage, and 13. severe retinopathy of prematurity. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials with 1604 infants. All trials were small (median number of participants 118). The trials occurred after 2001 in care facilities internationally, predominantly in India (eight trials). Most participants were preterm infants of 26 to 34 weeks' gestation who received nasal CPAP as the primary form of respiratory support after birth. The studied interfaces included commonly used commercially available masks and prongs. Lack of measures to blind caregivers or investigators was a potential source of performance and detection bias in all the trials. Meta-analyses suggested that use of masks compared with prongs may reduce CPAP treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.90; 8 trials, 919 infants; low certainty). The type of interface may not affect mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.22; 7 trials, 814 infants; low certainty). There are no data on neurodevelopmental impairment. Meta-analyses suggest that the choice of interface may result in little or no difference in the risk of pneumothorax (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.93; 5 trials, 625 infants; low certainty). Use of masks rather than prongs may reduce the risk of moderate-severe nasal injury (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71; 10 trials, 1058 infants; low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; 7 trials, 843 infants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data provide low-certainty evidence that use of masks compared with prongs as the nasal CPAP interface may reduce treatment failure and nasal injury, and may have little or no effect on mortality or the risk of pneumothorax in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. The effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia is very uncertain. Large, high-quality trials would be needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.

ELFIN, the United Kingdom preterm lactoferrin trial: interpretation and future questions 1.

Results from previous studies have suggested that supplemental bovine lactoferrin (BLF) given to preterm infants (<32 weeks gestation) reduces late-onset sepsis (LOS) and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). The Enteral Lactoferrin in Neonates (ELFIN) study, performed in the UK, aimed to further address this issue with a well powered double-blind placebo controlled trial of >2200 preterm infants. The results from ELFIN did not demonstrate a reduction in LOS or NEC, or several other clinically important measures. Of the 1093 infants, 316 (29%) in the intervention group developed late-onset sepsis versus 334 (31%) of 1089 in the control group, with an adjusted risk ratio of 0.95 (95% CI = 0.86-1.04; p = 0.233). Reasons for the differences in ELFIN trial results and other studies may include population differences, the routine use of antifungal prophylaxis in the UK, timing of administration of the lactoferrin in relation to disease onset, or specific properties of the lactoferrin used in the different trials. The UK National Institutes for Health Research funded "Mechanisms Affecting the Guts of Preterm Infants in Enteral feeding trials" (MAGPIE) study is further exploring the use of lactoferrin, and the results should be available soon.

Topical emollient for preventing infection in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Breakdown of the developmentally immature epidermal barrier may permit entry for micro-organisms leading to invasive infection in preterm infants. Topical emollients may improve skin integrity and barrier function and thereby prevent invasive infection, a major cause of mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of topical application of emollients (ointments, creams, or oils) on the risk of invasive infection and mortality in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Web and MEDLINE via Ovid (updated 08 January 2021) and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of prophylactic application of topical emollient on the risk of invasive infection, mortality, other morbidity, and growth and development in preterm infants. 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 ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on mortality and invasive infection. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials with a total of 5578 infant participants. The main potential sources of bias were lack of clarity on the methods used to generate random sequences and conceal allocation in half of the trials, and lack of masking of parents, caregivers, clinicians, and investigators in all of the trials. Eight trials (2086 infants) examined the effect of topical ointments or creams. Most participants were very preterm infants cared for in healthcare facilities in high-income countries. Meta-analyses suggested that topical ointments or creams may have little or no effect on invasive infection (RR 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.31; low certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08; low certainty evidence). Fifteen trials (3492 infants) assessed the effect of topical plant or vegetable oils. Most of these trials were undertaken in low- or middle-income countries and were based in healthcare facilities. One large (2249 infants) community-based trial occurred in a rural field practice in India. Meta-analyses suggested that topical oils may reduce invasive infection (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96; I² = 52%; low certainty evidence) but have little or no effect on mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08, I² = 3%; low certainty evidence). One trial (316 infants) that compared petroleum-based ointment versus sunflower seed oil in very preterm infants in Bangladesh showed little or no effect on invasive infection (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.46; low certainty evidence), but suggested that ointment may lower mortality slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 8, 95% CI 4 to 100; low certainty evidence). One trial (64 infants) that assessed the effect of coconut oil versus mineral oil in preterm infants with birth weight 1500 g to 2000 g in India reported no episodes of invasive infection or death in either group (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The level of certainty about the effects of emollient therapy on invasive infection or death in preterm infants is low. Since these interventions are mostly inexpensive, readily accessible, and generally acceptable, further good-quality randomised controlled trials in healthcare facilities, and in community settings in low- or middle-income countries, may be justified.

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Early enteral feeding practices are potentially modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens, including slowly advancing enteral feed volumes, reduce the risk of NEC. However, it is unclear whether slow feed advancement may delay establishment of full enteral feeding, and if it could be associated with infectious morbidities secondary to prolonged exposure to parenteral nutrition. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the risk of NEC, mortality, and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2020, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October 2020), Embase via Ovid (1974 to October 2020), Maternity and Infant Care database (MIDIRS) (1971 to October 2020), CINAHL (1982 to October 2020), and clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed effects of slow (up to 24 mL/kg/d) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes on the risk of NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately evaluated trial risk of bias, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Outcomes of interest were NEC, all-cause mortality, feed intolerance, and invasive infection. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials involving a total of 4033 infants (2804 infants participated in one large trial). None of the trials masked parents, caregivers, or investigators. Risk of bias was otherwise low. Most infants were stable very preterm or VLBW infants of birth weight appropriate for gestation. About one-third of all infants were extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight (ELBW), and about one-fifth were small for gestational age, growth-restricted, or compromised as indicated by absent or reversed end-diastolic flow velocity in the foetal umbilical artery. Trials typically defined slow advancement as daily increments of 15 to 24 mL/kg, and faster advancement as daily increments of 30 to 40 mL/kg. Meta-analyses showed that slow advancement of enteral feed volumes probably has little or no effect on the risk of NEC (RR 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.37; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; 14 trials, 4026 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.39; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; 13 trials, 3860 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses suggested that slow advancement may slightly increase feed intolerance (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.46; RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 9 trials, 719 infants; low-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the risk of invasive infection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.31; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.05; 11 trials, 3583 infants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data indicate that advancing enteral feed volumes slowly (daily increments up to 24 mL/kg) compared with faster rates probably does not reduce the risk of NEC, death, or feed intolerance in very preterm or VLBW infants. Advancing the volume of enteral feeds at a slow rate may slightly increase the risk of invasive infection.

Take me to your leader: Reporting structures and equity in academic gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Gynecologic oncology includes increasing percentages of women. This study characterizes representation of faculty by gender and subspecialty in academic department leadership roles relevant to the specialty. METHODS: The American Association of Medical Colleges accredited schools of medicine were identified. Observational data was obtained through institutional websites in 2019. RESULTS: 144 accredited medical schools contained a department of obstetrics and gynecology with a chair; 101 a gynecologic oncology division with a director; 98 a clinical cancer center with a director. Women were overrepresented in academic faculty roles compared to the US workforce (66 vs 57%, p < 0.01) but underrepresented in all leadership roles (p < 0.01). Departments with women chairs were more likely to have >50% women faculty (90.2 vs 9.8%, p < 0.01); and have larger faculties (80.4 vs 19.6% >20 faculty, p = 0.02). The cancer center director gender did not correlate to departmental characteristics. A surgically focused chair was also associated with >50% women faculty (85.7 vs 68.3%, p = 0.03); faculty size >20 (85.7 vs 61.4%, p < 0.01); and a woman gynecologic oncology division director (57.6 vs 29.4%, p < 0.01; 68.4 vs 31.7%, p < 0.01) and gynecologic oncology fellowship (50 vs 30.4%, p < 0.01; 59.1 vs 32%, p < 0.01). Gynecologic oncology leadership within cancer centers was below expected when incidence and mortality to leadership ratios were examined (p < 0.01, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Within academic medical schools, women remain under-represented in obstetrics and gynecology departmental and cancer center leadership. Potential benefits to gynecologic oncology divisions of inclusion women and surgically focused leadership were identified.

Probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Dietary supplementation with probiotics to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of supplemental probiotics on the risk of NEC and mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 Feb 2020), Embase Ovid (1974 to 17 Feb 2020), Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid (1971 to 17 Feb 2020), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 18 Feb 2020). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing probiotic supplementation with placebo or no probiotics in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. 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 ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on NEC, all-cause mortality, late-onset infection, and severe neurodevelopmental impairment. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 trials in which 10,812 infants participated. Most trials were small (median sample size 149). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were the main potential sources of bias in about half of the trials. Trials varied by the formulation of the probiotics. The most commonly used preparations contained Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., Saccharomyces spp., and Streptococcus spp. alone or in combinations. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may reduce the risk of NEC: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.65 (54 trials, 10,604 infants; I² = 17%); RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 33, 95% CI 25 to 50. Evidence was assessed as low certainty because of the limitations in trials design, and the presence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with publication bias. Sensitivity meta-analysis of trials at low risk of bias showed a reduced risk of NEC: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89 (16 trials, 4597 infants; I² = 25%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100. Meta-analyses showed that probiotics probably reduce mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.89; (51 trials, 10,170 infants; I² = 0%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 50 to 100), and late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; (47 trials, 9762 infants; I² = 19%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100). Evidence was assessed as moderate certainty for both these outcomes because of the limitations in trials design. Sensitivity meta-analyses of 16 trials (4597 infants) at low risk of bias did not show an effect on mortality or infection. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may have little or no effect on severe neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26 (five trials, 1518 infants; I² = 0%). The certainty on this evidence is low because of limitations in trials design and serious imprecision of effect estimate. Few data (from seven of the trials) were available for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants. Meta-analyses did not show effects on NEC, death, or infection (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low to moderate level of certainty about the effects of probiotic supplements on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or very low birth weight infants, and particularly for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants, further, large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient quality and applicability to inform policy and practice.

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.

Early full enteral feeding for preterm or low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: The introduction and advancement of enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants is often delayed because of concerns that early full enteral feeding will not be well tolerated or may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. Early full enteral feeding, however, might increase nutrient intake and growth rates; accelerate intestinal physiological, metabolic, and microbiomic postnatal transition; and reduce the risk of complications associated with intravascular devices for fluid administration.  OBJECTIVES: To determine how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth and adverse events such as necrotising enterocolitis, in preterm or low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials to October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared early full enteral feeding with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately assessed trial eligibility, evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RR), risk differences, and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials. All were undertaken in the 2010s in neonatal care facilities in India. In total, 526 infants participated. Most were very preterm infants of birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. Trials were of good methodological quality, but a potential source of bias was that parents, clinicians, and investigators were not masked. The trials compared early full feeding (60 mL/kg to 80 mL/kg on day one after birth) with minimal enteral feeding (typically 20 mL/kg on day one) supplemented with intravenous fluids. Feed volumes were advanced daily as tolerated by 20 mL/kg to 30 mL/kg body weight to a target steady-state volume of 150 mL/kg to 180 mL/kg/day. All participating infants were fed preferentially with maternal expressed breast milk, with two trials supplementing insufficient volumes with donor breast milk and four supplementing with preterm formula.  Few data were available to assess growth parameters. One trial (64 participants) reported a slower rate of weight gain (median difference -3.0 g/kg/day), and another (180 participants) reported a faster rate of weight gain in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 1.2 g/kg/day). We did not meta-analyse these data (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported rate of head circumference growth. One trial reported that the mean z-score for weight at hospital discharge was higher in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect on necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.54; 6 trials, 522 participants; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials provided insufficient data to determine with any certainty how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth in preterm or low birth weight infants. We are uncertain whether early full enteral feeding affects the risk of necrotising enterocolitis because of the risk of bias in the trials (due to lack of masking), inconsistency, and imprecision.

Differences in presentation and survival of Asians compared to Caucasians with ovarian cancer: An NRG Oncology/GOG Ancillary study of 7914 patients.

PURPOSE: To compare patient/tumor characteristics and outcomes of Asians to Caucasian patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Ancillary data were pooled and analyzed from ten prospective randomized front-line Gynecologic Oncology Group clinical trials from 1996 to 2011. Demographic, clinicopathologic features, disease-specific and all-cause survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 7914 patients, 7641 were Caucasian and 273 Asian. When compared to Caucasians, Asians were younger at trial enrollment, had a better performance status, earlier-stage cancers (17.2% vs. 8.1% with stage I; p < 0.001), and were more likely to be of clear cell (15.8% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001) and mucinous (3.3% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) histology. Asians had an improved 5-year disease-specific survival of 54.1% compared to 46.1% for Caucasians, p = 0.001. In multivariate analysis, the Asian race remained a significant prognostic factor for all-cause survival (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.99; p = 0.04). Other factors predictive of improved survival included younger age, better performance status, optimal cytoreduction, earlier stage, non-clear cell histology, and lower grade tumors. CONCLUSION: Asians enrolled into phase III ovarian cancer clinical trials were younger, with better performance status, earlier-stage of disease, and have a greater number of clear cell and mucinous tumors. After adjusting for these prognostic factors, Asians have a better survival compared to Caucasians.

Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (3 May 2019), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials with a total of 1879 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and eight compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the five most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials. Most of the included trials were funded by companies that made the study formula.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). These meta-analyses contained high levels of heterogeneity. We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 9 studies, 1675 infants).The GRADE certainty of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In preterm and LBW infants, moderate-certainty evidence indicates that feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Formula versus maternal breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Artificial formula can be manipulated to contain higher amounts of macro-nutrients than maternal breast milk but breast milk confers important immuno-nutritional advantages for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of feeding preterm or LBW infants with formula compared with maternal breast milk on growth and developmental outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 9), and Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Maternity & Infant Care Database, and CINAHL to October 2018. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm or low birth weight infants with formula versus maternal breast milk. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors planned independently to assess trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extract data. We planned to analyse treatment effects as described in the individual trials and report risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to use a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no trials of formula versus maternal breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants. Such trials are unlikely to be conducted because of the difficulty of allocating an alternative form of nutrition to an infant whose mother wishes to feed with her own breast milk. Maternal breast milk remains the default choice of enteral nutrition because observational studies, and meta-analyses of trials comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk, suggest that feeding with breast milk has major immuno-nutritional advantages for preterm or low birth weight 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.

C-reactive protein for diagnosing late-onset infection in newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Late-onset infection is the most common serious complication associated with hospital care for newborn infants. Because confirming the diagnosis by microbiological culture typically takes 24 to 48 hours, the serum level of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) measured as part of the initial investigation is used as an adjunctive rapid test to guide management in infants with suspected late-onset infection. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serum CRP measurement in detecting late-onset infection in newborn infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to September 2017), conference proceedings, previous reviews, and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cohort and cross-sectional studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serum CRP levels for the detection of late-onset infection (occurring more than 72 hours after birth) in newborn infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of included studies, and extracted data to estimate diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) models. We assessed heterogeneity by examining variability of study estimates and overlap of the 95% confidence interval (CI) in forest plots of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 20 studies (1615 infants). Most were small, single-centre, prospective cohort studies conducted in neonatal units in high- or middle-income countries since the late 1990s. Risk of bias in the included studies was generally low with independent assessment of index and reference tests. Most studies used a prespecified serum CRP threshold level as the definition of a 'positive' index test (typical cut-off level between 5 mg/L and 10 mg/L) and the culture of a pathogenic micro-organism from blood as the reference standard.At median specificity (0.74), sensitivity was 0.62 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.73). Heterogeneity was evident in the forest plots but it was not possible to conduct subgroup or meta-regression analyses by gestational ages, types of infection, or types of infecting micro-organism. Covariates for whether studies used a predefined threshold or not, and whether studies used a standard threshold of between 5 mg/L and 10 mg/L, were not statistically significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The serum CRP level at initial evaluation of an infant with suspected late-onset infection is unlikely to be considered sufficiently accurate to aid early diagnosis or select infants to undergo further investigation or treatment with antimicrobial therapy or other interventions.