Lipid emulsions for parenterally fed term and late preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Lipid emulsions (LE) form a vital component of infant nutrition for critically ill, late preterm or term infants, particularly for those with gastrointestinal failure. Conventionally used soybean oil-based LE (S-LE) have high polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content and phytosterols, which may contribute to adverse effects including parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease (PNALD).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of all LE for parenteral nutrition (PN) in term and late preterm infants (between 34 weeks' gestation and 36 weeks' and six days' gestation) with or without surgical conditions or PNALD within first six months of life, using all possible direct comparisons.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 June 2018), Embase (1974 to 18 June 2018), CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2018), MIDRIS (1971 to 31 May 2018), conference proceedings, trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO's Trials Registry), and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies in term and late preterm infants, with or without surgical conditions or PNALD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis conformed to the methods of Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for important outcomes in addition to reporting the conventional statistical significance of results.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included nine randomised studies (n = 273). LE were classified in three broad groups: 1. all fish oil-containing LE including pure fish oil (F-LE) and multisource LE (e.g. medium-chain triglycerides (MCT)-olive-fish-soybean oil-LE (MOFS-LE), MCT-fish-soy oil-LE (MFS-LE) and olive-fish-soy-LE (OFS-LE)); 2. conventional pure S-LE; 3. alternative-LE (e.g. MCT-soy-LE (MS-LE), olive-soy-LE (OS-LE) and borage oil-based LE).We considered four broad comparisons: 1. all fish oil LE versus non-fish oil LE (6 studies; n = 182); 2. fish oil LE versus another fish oil LE (0 studies); 3. alternative-LE versus S-LE (3 studies; n = 91); 4. alternative-LE versus another alternative-LE (0 studies) in term and late preterm infants (0 studies), term and late preterm infants with surgical conditions (7 studies; n = 233) and term and late preterm infants with PNALD/cholestasis (2 studies; n = 40).PNALD/cholestasis was defined as conjugated bilirubin (Cbil) 2 mg/dL or greater and resolution of PNALD/cholestasis as Cbil less than 2 mg/dL. We put no restriction on timing of PNALD detection. There was heterogeneity in definitions and time points for detecting PNALD in the included studies.We found one study each in surgical infants and in infants with cholestasis, showing no evidence of difference in incidence or resolution of PNALD/cholestasis (Cbil cut-off: 2 mg/dL) with use of fish oil-containing LE compared to S-LE.We considered an outcome allowing for any definition of PNALD (different Cbil cut-off levels). In infants with surgical conditions and no pre-existing PNALD, meta-analysis showed no difference in the incidence of PNALD/cholestasis (any definition) with use of fish oil-containing LE compared to S-LE (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 3.76; typical risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.20; 2 studies; n = 68; low-quality evidence). In infants with PNALD/cholestasis (any definition), use of fish oil-LEs was associated with significantly less cholestasis compared to the S-LE group (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.91; typical risk difference (RD) -0.39, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.12; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 9; 2 studies; n = 40; very low-quality evidence). This outcome had very low number of participants from two small studies with differences in study methodology and early termination in one study, which increased uncertainty about the effect estimates.One study in infants with cholestasis reported significantly better weight gain with a pure fish oil LE compared to a 10% S-LE (45 g/week, 95% CI 15.0 to 75.0; n = 16; very low-quality evidence). There were no significant differences in growth parameters in studies with surgical populations.For the secondary outcomes, in infants with cholestasis, one study (n = 24) reported significantly lower conjugated bilirubin levels but higher gamma glutamyl transferase levels with MOFS-LE (SMOFlipid) versus S-LE (Intralipid) and another study (n = 16), which was terminated early, reported significantly higher rates of rise in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and conjugated bilirubin levels in the S-LE group compared to pure F-LE (Omegaven).In surgical infants, two studies each reported on hypertriglyceridaemia and Cbil levels with one study in each outcome showing significant benefit with use of a F-LE and the other study showing no difference between the groups. Meta-analysis was not performed for either of these outcomes as there were only two studies showing conflicting results with high heterogeneity between the studies.There was no evidence of differences in death, sepsis, alkaline phosphatase and ALT levels in infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis (very low-quality evidence).One study reported neurodevelopmental outcomes at six and 24 months in infants with surgical conditions (n = 11) with no evidence of difference with use of pure F-LE versus S-LE. Another study in infants with cholestasis (n = 16) reported no difference in head growth velocity between pure F-LE versus S-LE.GRADE quality of evidence ranged from low to very low as the included studies were small single-centre studies. Three of the six studies that contributed data to the review were terminated early for various reasons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current review, there is insufficient data from randomised studies to determine with any certainty, the potential benefit of any LE including fish oil-containing LEs over another LE, for prevention or resolution of PNALD/cholestasis or any other outcomes in term and late preterm infants with underlying surgical conditions or cholestasis. There were no studies in infants without surgical conditions or cholestasis.Further research is required to establish role of fish oil or lipids from other sources in LEs to improve PNALD/cholestasis, and other clinical outcomes in parenterally fed term and late preterm infants.

Lipid emulsions for parenterally fed preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Conventionally used soybean oil-based lipid emulsion (S-LE) have high polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content and phytosterols that may contribute to adverse effects in preterm infants. The newer lipid emulsions (LE) from different lipid sources are currently available for use in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of all LE for parenteral nutrition (PN) in preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) including preterm infants with surgical conditions or parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease (PNALD)/cholestasis using direct comparisons and pair-wise meta-analyses.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 June 2018), Embase (1974 to 18 July 2018), CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2018), MIDRIS (1971 to 31 May 2018), conference proceedings, trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO's Trials Registry and Platform), and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies in preterm infants with or without surgical conditions or PNALD within the first six months of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis conformed to the methods of Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for important outcomes in addition to reporting statistical significance of results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (n = 2037) in this review. LE were classified in three broad groups: 1. all fish oil-containing LE including pure fish oil-LE (F-LE) and multisource LE (e.g. medium-chain triglycerides (MCT)-olive-fish-soybean oil-LE (MOFS-LE), MCT-fish-soybean oil-LE (MFS-LE) and olive-fish-soybean oil-LE (OFS-LE); 2. conventional S-LE; 3. alternative-LE (e.g. MCT-soybean oil-LE (MS-LE), olive-soybean oil-LE and borage oil-based LE).We considered the following broad comparisons: fish oil LE versus non-fish oil LE; fish oil LE versus another fish oil LE; alternative-LE versus S-LE; alternative-LE versus another alternative-LE in preterm infants less than 37 weeks' gestation, preterm infants with surgical conditions and preterm infants with PNALD/cholestasis. Separate subgroup comparisons of each LE preparation were included within these broader groups.Most studies in preterm infants used PN for mean duration of four weeks or less and for longer duration in infants with cholestasis or surgical conditions.We defined the primary outcome of PNALD/cholestasis as conjugated bilirubin (Cbil) 2 mg/dL or greater and resolution of PNALD/cholestasis as Cbil less than 2 mg/dL. There was heterogeneity in definitions used by the included studies with Cbil cut-offs ranging from 17.1 μmol/L (1 mg/dL) up to 50 μmol/L (about 3 mg/dL).In preterm infants, meta-analysis found no evidence of a difference in the incidence of PNALD/cholestasis (Cbil cut-off: 2 mg/dl) between fish oil-LEs and all non-fish oil LEs (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.56; typical risk difference (RD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.02; 4 studies; n = 328; low-quality evidence).We also considered an outcome allowing for any definition of PNALD (different Cbil cutoffs). In the meta-analysis for PNALD/cholestasis, using any definition and restricted to low or unclear risk of bias studies, there was no evidence of a difference between fish oil LE and all non-fish oil LE for incidence of cholestasis (typical RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.21; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; 10 studies; n = 1024; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of difference in subgroup meta-analyses of individual LE types in any comparison.In preterm infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis, there was only one small study each reporting no evidence of a difference in incidence or resolution of cholestasis respectively with use of a pure F-LE versus S-LE (using a Cbil cut-off of 2 mg/dL).In preterm infants with PNALD/cholestasis (using any definition), the meta-analysis showed significantly less cholestasis with the use of fish oil-LE compared to S-LE (typical RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.91; typical RD -0.39, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 9; 2 studies; n = 40; very low-quality evidence). However, this outcome had a very low number of participants from two small studies with methodological differences, one of which was terminated early, increasing the uncertainty about effect estimates.There were no differences between LE types in pair-wise meta-analyses for growth in preterm infants. There was paucity of studies in preterm infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis to perform meta-analyses for growth and most other outcomes.In the secondary outcomes for preterm infants, there was no difference between fish-oil LE and non-fish oil LE in meta-analysis for severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (stage 3 or greater, or requiring surgery: typical RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.16; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 7 studies; n = 731; very low-quality evidence). There were no differences in the LE types in pair-wise meta-analyses for death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), ventilation duration, patent ductus arteriosus, sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, jaundice, hyperglycaemia, hypertriglyceridaemia, intrahepatocellular lipid content and conjugated bilirubin levels in any comparison.In surgical infants, one study (n = 19) reported no differences in death, sepsis rates, Cbil and neurodevelopmental outcomes with pure F-LE versus S-LE.In infants with cholestasis, there were no evidence of differences in death or sepsis in meta-analyses between fish oil-LE and S-LE; (2 studies; n = 40; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the current review, we did not find any particular LE with or without fish oil to be better than another LE in preterm infants for prevention of PNALD/cholestasis, growth, mortality, ROP, BPD and other neonatal outcomes.In preterm infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis, there is currently insufficient evidence from randomised studies to determine with any certainty if fish oil LEs offer advantage in prevention or resolution of cholestasis or in any other clinical outcome.Further research, with larger well-designed trials, is warranted to evaluate the ideal composition of LE in preterm infants and the role of fish oil-containing and other LEs in the prevention and resolution of PNALD, ROP and other clinical outcomes.

Are Neonatal Trials Better Conducted and Reported over the Last 6 Decades? An Analysis on Their Risk-of-Bias Status in Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

The introduction of Neonatology as a subspecialty in 1960 has stimulated an enormous amount of neonatal research. A large proportion of neonatal randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) have been included in the Cochrane reviews, within which methodological quality or risk-of-bias (ROB) assessment is an integral feature.

OBJECTIVES

We described the ROB profile of neonatal RCTs published since the 1950s.

METHODS

We analyzed individual studies within the Cochrane Neonatal reviews published up to December 2016. We extracted the reviewers' judgments on the ROB domains including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. We evaluated blinding of personnel in trials in which blinding was considered feasible.

RESULTS

We assessed 1980 RCTs published between 1952 and 2016 from 294 Cochrane Neonatal systematic reviews, with full ROB assessments performed in 848 trials (42.8%). Among the ROB domains, the highest proportion of trials (73%) were judged as satisfactory ("low risk") in handling incomplete outcome data, while fewest trials achieved blinding of outcome assessor (38.4%). In the last 6 decades, a progressive increase has been observed in the proportion of trials that were rated as low risk in random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting. However, blinding was achieved in less than half of the trials with no clear improvement across decades (23-44% since the 1980s).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite steady improvement in the overall quality of neonatal RCTs over the last 6 decades, blinding remained unsatisfactory in the majority of the trials.

Maternal probiotic supplementation for prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Inflammation may contribute to preterm birth and to morbidity of preterm infants. Preterm infants are at risk for alterations in the normal protective microbiome. Oral probiotics administered directly to preterm infants have been shown to decrease the risk for severe necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) as well as the risk of death, but there are safety concerns about administration of probiotics directly to preterm infants. Through decreasing maternal inflammation, probiotics may play a role in preventing preterm birth and/or decreasing the inflammatory milieu surrounding delivery of preterm infants, and may alter the microbiome of the preterm infant when given to mothers during pregnancy. Probiotics given to mothers after birth of preterm infants may effect infant bacterial colonization, which could potentially reduce the incidence of NEC.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the efficacy of maternal probiotic administration versus placebo or no intervention in mothers during pregnancy for the prevention of preterm birth and the prevention of morbidity and mortality of infants born preterm.2. To compare the efficacy of maternal probiotic administration versus placebo, no intervention, or neonatal probiotic administration in mothers of preterm infants after birth on the prevention of mortality and preterm infant morbidities such as NEC.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 21 March 2017), Embase (1980 to 21 March 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 21 March 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials in the review if they administered oral probiotics to pregnant mothers at risk for preterm birth, or to mothers of preterm infants after birth. Quasi-randomized trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. Studies enrolling pregnant women needed to administer probiotics at < 36 weeks' gestation until the trimester of birth. Probiotics considered were of the genera Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium or Saccharomyces.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and Cochrane Neonatal to determine the methodologic quality of studies, and for data collection and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 eligible trials with a total of 1450 mothers and 1204 known infants. Eleven trials administered probiotics to mothers during pregnancy and one trial administered probiotics to mothers after birth of their preterm infants. No studies compared maternal probiotic administration directly with neonatal administration. Included prenatal trials were highly variable in the indication for the trial, the gestational age and duration of administration of probiotics, as well as the dose and formulation of the probiotics. The pregnant women included in these trials were overall at low risk for preterm birth. In a meta-analysis of trial data, oral probiotic administration to pregnant women did not reduce the incidence of preterm birth < 37 weeks (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 2.67; 4 studies, 518 mothers and 506 infants), < 34 weeks (typical risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 2 studies, 287 mothers and infants), the incidence of infant mortality (typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 2 studies, 309 mothers and 298 infants), or the gestational age at birth (mean difference (MD) 0.15, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.63; 2 studies, 209 mothers with 207 infants).One trial studied administration of probiotics to mothers after preterm birth and included 49 mothers and 58 infants. There were no significant differences in the risk of any NEC (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.46; 1 study, 58 infants), surgery for NEC (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.58; 1 study, 58 infants), death (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.88; 1 study, 58 infants), and death or NEC (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.49; 1 study, 58 infants). There was an improvement in time to reach 50% enteral feeds in infants whose mothers received probiotics, but the estimate is imprecise (MD -9.60 days, 95% CI -19.04 to -0.16 days; 58 infants). No other improvement in any neonatal outcomes were reported. The estimates were imprecise and do not exclude the possibility of meaningful harms or benefits from maternal probiotic administration. There were no cases of culture-proven sepsis with the probiotic organism. The GRADE quality of evidence was judged to be low to very low due to inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether there is appreciable benefit or harm to neonates of either oral supplementation of probiotics administered to pregnant women at low risk for preterm birth or oral supplementation of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants after birth. Oral supplementation of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants after birth may decrease time to 50% enteral feeds, however, this estimate is extremely imprecise. More research is needed for post-natal administration of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants, as well as to pregnant mothers at high risk for preterm birth.

Surfactant therapy guided by tests for lung maturity in preterm infants at risk of respiratory distress syndrome

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency in preterm infants at risk for or having RDS.

Comparison 1: In preterm infants at risk for RDS, does surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency compared to prophylactic surfactant administration to all high‐risk infants minimize the need for surfactant treatment and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality?

Comparison 2: In preterm infants who require early respiratory support, does surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency compared to surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria minimize the need for surfactant treatment and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality?

Planned subgroup analysis: gestational age, disease severity, timing of testing and treatment, surfactant preparation, exposure to antenatal steroids.

Lipid emulsions for parenterally fed preterm infants

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

The primary objective is to compare the effectiveness and safety of lipid formulations from different sources, including soybean oil‐based, multicomponent, olive oil‐based, and fish oil–based, in parenterally fed preterm infants.

The secondary objective is to determine the effectiveness and safety of alternative lipid emulsions compared with soybean oil‐based lipid emulsions in relation to gestational age (less than 30 weeks' gestation; 30 weeks' gestation or more), birth weight (1000 grams or less; more than 1000 grams), clinical condition (surgical patients, patients with established cholestasis).

Variability of Very Low Birth Weight Infant Outcome and Practice in Swiss and US Neonatal Units

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes of very preterm infants vary considerably between health care facilities. Our objective was to compare outcome and practices between the Swiss Neonatal Network (SNN) and US members of the Vermont Oxford Network (US-VON).

METHODS

Retrospective observational study including all live-born infants with a birth weight between 501 and 1500 g as registered by SNN and US-VON between 2012 and 2014. We performed multivariable and propensity score-matched analyses of neonatal outcome by adjusting for case-mix, race, prenatal care, and unit-level factors, and compared indirectly standardized practices.

RESULTS

A total of 123 689 infants were born alive in 696 US-VON units and 2209 infants were born alive in 13 SNN units. Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) for the composite "death or major morbidity" (aRR: 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.62) and all other outcomes were either comparable or lower in SNN except for mortality, for which aRR was higher (aRR: 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.50). Propensity score matching and restricting the analysis to infants for which we expect no survival bias, because both networks routinely initiate intensive care at birth, revealed comparable aRR. Variations in observed practices between SNN and US-VON were large.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNN units had a significantly lower risk ratio for death or major morbidity. Despite higher mortality, this difference is independent of survival bias. The higher delivery room mortality reflects the SNN practice to favor primary nonintervention for infants born <24 completed gestational weeks. We propose further research into which practice differences have the strongest beneficial impact.

Prophylactic vitamin K for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding in preterm neonates

BACKGROUND

Vitamin K is necessary for the synthesis of coagulation factors. Term infants, especially those who are exclusively breast fed, are deficient in vitamin K and consequently may have vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). Preterm infants are potentially at greater risk for VKDB because of delayed feeding and subsequent delay in the colonization of their gastrointestinal system with vitamin K producing microflora, as well as immature hepatic and hemostatic function.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of vitamin K prophylaxis in the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 5 December 2016), Embase (1980 to 5 December 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 5 December 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any preparation of vitamin K given to preterm infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated potential studies and extracted data in accordance with the recommendations of Cochrane Neonatal.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any eligible studies that compared vitamin K to no treatment.One study compared intravenous (IV) to intramuscular (IM) administration of vitamin K and compared various dosages of vitamin K. Three different prophylactic regimes of vitamin K (0.5 mg IM, 0.2 mg vitamin K₁, or 0.2 mg IV) were given to infants less than 32 weeks' gestation. Given that only one small study met the inclusion criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence for the outcomes evaluated as low.Intramuscular versus intravenousThere was no statistically significant difference in vitamin K levels in the 0.2 mg IV group when compared to the infants that received either 0.2 or 0.5 mg vitamin K IM (control) on day 5. By day 25, vitamin K₁ levels had declined in all of the groups, but infants who received 0.5 mg vitamin K IM had higher levels of vitamin K₁ than either the 0.2 mg IV group or the 0.2 mg IM group.Vitamin K₁ 2,3-epoxide (vitamin K₁O) levels in the infants that received 0.2 mg IV were not statistically different from those in the control group on day 5 or 25 of the study. All of the infants had normal or supraphysiologic levels of vitamin K₁ concentrations and either no detectable or insignificant amounts of prothrombin induced by vitamin K absence-II (PIVKA II).Dosage comparisonsDay 5 vitamin K₁ levels and vitamin K₁O levels were significantly lower in the 0.2 mg IM group when compared to the 0.5 mg IM group. On day 25, vitamin K₁O levels and vitamin K₁ levels in the 0.2 mg IM group and the 0.5 mg IM group were not significantly different. Presence of PIVKA II proteins in the 0.2 mg IM group versus the 0.5 mg IM group was not significantly different at day 5 or 25 of the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Preterm infants have low levels of vitamin K and develop detectable PIVKA proteins during the first week of life. Despite being at risk for VKDB, there are no studies comparing vitamin K versus non-treatment and few studies that address potential dosing strategies for effective treatment. Dosage studies suggest that we are currently giving doses of vitamin K to preterm infants that lead to supraphysiologic levels. Because of current uncertainty, clinicians will have to extrapolate data from term infants to preterm infants. Since there is no available evidence that vitamin K is harmful or ineffective and since vitamin K is an inexpensive drug, it seems prudent to follow the recommendations of expert bodies and give vitamin K to preterm infants. However, further research on appropriate dose and route of administration is warranted.

Delayed versus Immediate Cord Clamping in Preterm Infants

BACKGROUND

The preferred timing of umbilical-cord clamping in preterm infants is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned fetuses from women who were expected to deliver before 30 weeks of gestation to either immediate clamping of the umbilical cord (≤10 seconds after delivery) or delayed clamping (≥60 seconds after delivery). The primary composite outcome was death or major morbidity (defined as severe brain injury on postnatal ultrasonography, severe retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, or late-onset sepsis) by 36 weeks of postmenstrual age. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, accounting for multiple births.

RESULTS

Of 1634 fetuses that underwent randomization, 1566 were born alive before 30 weeks of gestation; of these, 782 were assigned to immediate cord clamping and 784 to delayed cord clamping. The median time between delivery and cord clamping was 5 seconds and 60 seconds in the respective groups. Complete data on the primary outcome were available for 1497 infants (95.6%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the primary outcome between infants assigned to delayed clamping (37.0%) and those assigned to immediate clamping (37.2%) (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.13; P=0.96). The mortality was 6.4% in the delayed-clamping group and 9.0% in the immediate-clamping group (P=0.03 in unadjusted analyses; P=0.39 after post hoc adjustment for multiple secondary outcomes). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidences of chronic lung disease or other major morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Among preterm infants, delayed cord clamping did not result in a lower incidence of the combined outcome of death or major morbidity at 36 weeks of gestation than immediate cord clamping. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] and the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre; APTS Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12610000633088 .).

Mesenchymal stem cells for the prevention and treatment of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains a major complication of prematurity and currently lacks efficient treatments. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) have been extensively explored as a potential therapy in several preclinical and clinical settings. Human and animal MSCs have been shown to prevent and treat lung injury in various preclinical models of lung diseases, including experimental BPD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if MSCs, administered intravenously or endotracheally, are safe and effective in preventing or treating BPD, or both, in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 6 November 2016), Embase (1980 to 6 November 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 6 November 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs investigating prevention or treatment of BPD, or both, in preterm infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality according to prespecified criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs addressing the use of MSCs for prevention or treatment of BPD in premature infants. Two RCTs are currently registered and ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of MSCs in the treatment or prevention of BPD in premature infants. The results of the ongoing trials addressing this issue are expected in the near future.

Do trials reduce uncertainty? Assessing impact through cumulative meta-analysis of neonatal RCTs

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of the latest randomized controlled trial (RCT) to each systematic review (SR) in Cochrane Neonatal Reviews.

STUDY DESIGN

We selected meta-analyses reporting the typical point estimate of the risk ratio for the primary outcome of the latest study (n=130), mortality (n=128) and the mean difference for the primary outcome (n=44). We employed cumulative meta-analysis to determine the typical estimate after each trial was added, and then performed multivariable logistic regression to determine factors predictive of study impact.

RESULTS

For the stated primary outcome, 18% of latest RCTs failed to narrow the confidence interval (CI), and 55% failed to decrease the CI by ⩾20%. Only 8% changed the typical estimate directionality, and 11% caused a change to or from significance. Latest RCTs did not change the typical estimate in 18% of cases, and only 41% changed the typical estimate by at least 10%. The ability to narrow the CI by >20% was negatively associated with the number of previously published RCTs (odds ratio 0.707). Similar results were found in analysis of typical estimates for the outcomes of mortality and mean difference.

CONCLUSION

Across a broad range of clinical questions, the latest RCT failed to substantially narrow the CI of the typical estimate, to move the effect estimate or to change its statistical significance in a majority of cases. Investigators and grant peer review committees should consider prioritizing less-studied topics or requiring formal consideration of optimal information size based on extant evidence in power calculations.

Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are key tools to enable decision making by healthcare providers and policymakers. Despite the availability of the evidence based Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-P 2015) statements that were developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting of systematic reviews, uncertainty on how to deal with pediatric-specific methodological challenges of systematic reviews impairs decision-making in child health. In this paper, we identify methodological challenges specific to the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric systematic reviews, and propose a process to address these challenges.

DISCUSSION

One fundamental decision at the outset of a systematic review is whether to focus on a pediatric population only, or to include both adult and pediatric populations. Both from the policy and patient care point of view, the appropriateness of interventions and comparators administered to pre-defined pediatric age subgroup is critical. Decisions need to be based on the biological plausibility of differences in treatment effects across the developmental trajectory in children. Synthesis of evidence from different trials is often impaired by the use of outcomes and measurement instruments that differ between trials and are neither relevant nor validated in the pediatric population. Other issues specific to pediatric systematic reviews include lack of pediatric-sensitive search strategies and inconsistent choices of pediatric age subgroups in meta-analyses. In addition to these methodological issues generic to all pediatric systematic reviews, special considerations are required for reviews of health care interventions' safety and efficacy in neonatology, global health, comparative effectiveness interventions and individual participant data meta-analyses. To date, there is no standard approach available to overcome this problem. We propose to develop a consensus-based checklist of essential items which researchers should consider when they are planning (PRISMA-PC-Protocol for Children) or reporting (PRISMA-C-reporting for Children) a pediatric systematic review. Available guidelines including PRISMA do not cover the complexity associated with the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in the pediatric population; they require additional and modified standards for reporting items. Such guidance will facilitate the translation of knowledge from the literature to bedside care and policy, thereby enhancing delivery of care and improving child health outcomes.

Prophylactic barbiturate use for the prevention of morbidity and mortality following perinatal asphyxia

BACKGROUND

Seizures are common following perinatal asphyxia and may exacerbate secondary neuronal injury. Barbiturate therapy has been used for infants with perinatal asphyxia in order to prevent seizures. However, barbiturate therapy may adversely affect neurodevelopment leading to concern regarding aggressive use in neonates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of administering prophylactic barbiturate therapy on death or neurodevelopmental disability in term and late preterm infants following perinatal asphyxia.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 30 November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 30 November 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all RCTs or quasi-RCTs of prophylactic barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants without clinical or electroencephalographic evidence of seizures compared to controls following perinatal asphyxia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected, assessed the quality of, and extracted data from the included studies. We assessed methodologic quality and validity of studies without consideration of the results. The review authors independently extracted data and performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH).

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we identified nine RCTs of any barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants aged less than three days old with perinatal asphyxia without evidence of seizures. Eight of these studies compared prophylactic barbiturate therapy to conventional treatment (enrolling 439 infants) and one study compared barbiturate therapy to treatment with phenytoin (enrolling 17 infants). Prophylactic barbiturate therapy versus conventional treatment: one small trial reported a decreased risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental disability for barbiturate therapy (phenobarbital) versus conventional treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; RD -0.55, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 4; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).Eight trials comparing prophylactic barbiturate therapy with conventional treatment following perinatal asphyxia demonstrated no significant impact on the risk of death (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05; 8 trials, 429 infants) (low quality evidence) and the one small trial noted above reported a significant decrease in the risk of severe neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92; RD -0.43, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 8; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).A meta-analysis of the six trials reporting on seizures in the neonatal period demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in seizures in the prophylactic barbiturate group versus conventional treatment (typical RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81; typical RD -0.18, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.09; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 11; 6 studies, 319 infants) (low quality evidence). There were similar results in subgroup analyses based on type of barbiturate and Sarnat score. Prophylactic barbiturate therapy versus other prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy: one study reported on prophylactic barbiturate versus prophylactic phenytoin. There was no significant difference in seizure activity in the neonatal period between the two study groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00; 1 trial, 17 infants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found only low or very low quality evidence addressing the use of prophylactic barbiturates in infants with perinatal asphyxia. Although the administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy to infants following perinatal asphyxia did reduce the risk of seizures, there was no reduction seen in mortality and there were few data addressing long-term outcomes. The administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy for late preterm and term infants in the immediate period following perinatal asphyxia cannot be recommended for routine clinical practice. If used at all, barbiturates should be reserved for the treatment of seizures. The results of the current review support the use of prophylactic barbiturate therapy as a promising area of research. Future studies should be of sufficient size and duration to detect clinically important reductions in mortality and severe neurodevelopmental disability and should be conducted in the context of the current standard of care, including the use of therapeutic hypothermia.

PRISMA-Children (C) and PRISMA-Protocol for Children (P-C) Extensions: a study protocol for the development of guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of newborn and child health research

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric systematic reviews differ from adult systematic reviews in several key aspects such as considerations of child tailored interventions, justifiable comparators, valid outcomes and child sensitive search strategies. Available guidelines, including PRISMA-P (2015) and PRISMA (2009), do not cover all the complexities associated with reporting systematic reviews in the paediatric population. Using a collaborative, multidisciplinary structure, we aim to develop evidence-based and consensus-based PRISMA-P-C (Protocol for Children) and PRISMA-C (Children) Extensions to guide paediatric systematic review protocol and completed review reporting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This project's methodology follows published recommendations for developing reporting guidelines and involves the following six phases; (1) establishment of a steering committee representing key stakeholder groups; (2) a scoping review to identify potential Extension items; (3) three types of consensus activities including meetings of the steering committee to achieve high-level decisions on the content and methodology of the Extensions, a survey of key stakeholders to generate a list of possible items to include in the Extensions and a formal consensus meeting to select the reporting items to add to, or modify for, the Extension; (4) the preliminary checklist items generated in phase III will be evaluated against the existing evidence and reporting practices in paediatric systematic reviews; (5) extension statements and explanation and elaboration documents will provide detailed advice for each item and examples of good reporting; (6) development and implementation of effective knowledge translation of the extension checklist, and an evaluation of the Extensions by key stakeholders.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was considered a quality improvement project by the Hospital for Sick Children's Ethics Committee and did not require ethical review. The resultant checklists, jointly developed with all relevant stakeholders, will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conference presentations. Endorsement of the checklist will be sought simultaneously in multiple journals.