Growth, metabolic response, and development in very-low-birth-weight infants fed banked human milk or enriched formula. I. Neonatal findings

What would happen in the United States if there were no cow milk-based preterm infant nutritional products: historical perspective and evaluation of nutrient-related challenges

Recent litigation has led to a situation where preterm cow milk-based infant nutritional products (PCMBPs) may soon have limited or no availability in the United States. Given their limited availability, similar products based only on human milk are unlikely to meet the needs of most preterm infants requiring such products, especially those born >1500 g or very preterm infants born at <1500 g after they reach 34-35 wk postmenstrual age. Alternative nutritional strategies, used before the introduction of specialized preterm products, would require modular nutrient additions to a formula designed for full-term infants and donor or maternal milk. The addition of modular products would require careful calibration to provide needed macro and micronutrients which would expose infants to risks of contamination, poor growth, and limited bioavailability of some of these modulars. Substantial risks of metabolic derangements, and ultimately, poor outcomes would occur. In the long-term greater availability and support for the use of human milk-based products is needed. However, policymakers cannot assume that PCMBPs will not be critically needed and should identify strategies for their continued marketplace availability.

Donor human milk for preventing necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants

BACKGROUND

When sufficient maternal milk is not available, donor human milk or formula are the alternative forms of enteral nutrition for very preterm or very low-birthweight (VLBW) infants. Donor human milk may retain the non-nutritive benefits of maternal milk and has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or VLBW infants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of donor human milk compared with formula for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants when sufficient maternal milk is not available.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care (MIC) database, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), from the earliest records to February 2024. We searched clinical trials registries and examined the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing feeding with donor human milk versus formula in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or VLBW (< 1500 g) infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors evaluated the risk of bias in the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio, risk difference, and mean difference, with associated 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcomes were NEC, late-onset invasive infection, and all-cause mortality before hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes were growth parameters and neurodevelopment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for our primary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials with a total of 2296 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most trials were small (average sample size was 191 infants). All trials were performed in neonatal units in Europe or North America. Five trials were conducted more than 40 years ago; the remaining seven trials were conducted in the year 2000 or later. Some trials had methodological weaknesses, including concerns regarding masking of investigators and selective reporting. Meta-analysis showed that donor human milk reduces the risk of NEC (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.76; I² = 4%; risk difference (RD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; 11 trials, 2261 infants; high certainty evidence). Donor human milk probably has little or no effect on late-onset invasive infection (RR 1.12, 0.95 to 1.31; I² = 27%; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to -0.07; 7 trials, 1611 infants; moderate certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.31; I² = 0%; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 9 trials, 2116 infants; moderate certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence shows that donor human milk reduces the risk of NEC by about half in very preterm or VLBW infants. There is probably little or no effect on late-onset invasive infection or all-cause mortality before hospital discharge.

Diversity and trends of human milk banking: a scoping review from 1946 to 2021

BACKGROUND

The provision of donor human milk (DHM) through human milk banks is now widely practised globally. The study aimed to describe the current state, identify major topics and map out the emerging trends in human milk banking.

METHODS

PubMed was systematically searched for publications related to DHM, with the last update on 14 May 2021, for papers published between 1946 and 2021. Titles and abstracts were screened and indexed into 8 main and 39 subcategories. A top-up search was done in April 2022, but these results have not been incorporated.

RESULTS

A total of 1083 publications were identified, and more than a third (41%) were either observational or interventional studies. Predominant topics were milk type and milk composition. Almost half (49%) of the publications in the last decade were funded through government/research councils, and industry funding started shortly after links between formula and necrotising enterocolitis were published. Literature from high-income countries was six times more than publications from low-income or middle-income countries (LMICs).

CONCLUSION

The diversity and trends of publications included in this scoping review ranged from descriptive studies comparing biological and compositional differences of mother's own milk, DHM and/or formula. Very few studies have investigated associations of different milk types with infant outcomes. Evidence on breastfeeding and recipient psychological health outcomes is limited. Further research should identify the appropriateness of different funding sources. Future collaborations between academics, clinicians and milk banks in LMICs should be fostered to bridge the gap that exists between DHM and access.

Efficacy of Donated Milk in Early Nutrition of Preterm Infants: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Preterm birth is associated with an increased risk of many complications, which is a main public health problem worldwide with social and economic consequences. Human milk from breast feeding has been proved to be the optimal nutrition strategy for preterm infants when available. However, the lack of human milk from mothers makes formula widely used in clinical practice. In recent years, donated breast milk has gained popularity as an alternative choice which can provide human milk oligosaccharides and other bioactive substances. Objective: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the nutritional effects of donated breast milk on preterm infants compared with formula. Method: In the present study, we searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, the China national knowledge infrastructure, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials for candidate randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results: A total of 1390 patients were enrolled in 11 RCTs and meta-analysis results showed that donated breast milk is also more advantageous in reducing the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC, RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.93, p = 0.02), reducing the duration of parenteral nutrition (MD = −2.39, 95% CI = −3.66 to −1.13, p = 0.0002) and the time of full enteral feeding (MD = −0.33, 95% CI = −3.23 to 2.57, p = 0.0002). In comparison, formula significantly promotes the growth of premature infants, including their weight gain (MD = −3.45, 95% CI = −3.68 to −3.21, p < 0.00001), head growth (MD = −0.07, 95% CI = −0.08 to −0.06, p < 0.00001) and body length (MD = −0.13, 95% CI = −0.15 to −0.11, p < 0.00001), and reduces the time it takes for premature infants to regain birth weight (MD = 6.60, 95% CI = 6.11 to 7.08, p < 0.00001. Conclusion: Compared with formula, donated breast milk could significantly reduce the incidence of NEC, the duration of parenteral nutrition, and the time of full enteral feeding. Adding fortifiers in donated milk could make it as effective as formula in promoting the physical growth of premature infants.

Cue-based versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding: the Cubs mixed-methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence of the effect of cue-based feeding compared with scheduled feeding on important outcomes for preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were as follows: (1) to describe the characteristics, components, theoretical basis and outcomes of approaches to feeding preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding; (2) to identify operational policies, barriers and facilitators, and staff and parents' educational needs in neonatal units implementing cue-based feeding; (3) to co-produce an intervention for feeding preterm infants in response to feeding cues; (4) to appraise the willingness of parents and staff to implement and sustain the intervention; (5) to assess associated costs of implementing cue-based feeding; (6) to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a future trial; (7) to scope existing data-recording systems and potential outcome measures; and (8) to determine stakeholders' views of whether or not a randomised controlled trial of this approach is feasible.

DESIGN

This was a mixed-methods intervention development and feasibility study comprising (1) a systematic review, case studies, qualitative research and stakeholder consensus; (2) the co-production of the intervention; (3) a mixed-methods feasibility study; and (4) an assessment of stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation.

SETTING

Three neonatal units in the UK (two level 3 units and one level 2 unit).

PARTICIPANTS

Developmentally normal, clinically stable preterm infants receiving enteral feeds (n = 50), parents (n = 15 pre intervention development; n = 14 in the feasibility study) and health-care practitioners (n = 54 pre intervention development; n = 16 in the feasibility study).

INTERVENTION

An evidence-informed multicomponent intervention comprising training, a feeding protocol, feeding assessment tools, supplementary training materials [including posters, a film and a narrated PowerPoint (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) presentation] and the 'Our Feeding Journey' document.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were recruitment and screening rates, infant weight gain, duration of the intervention, feeding outcomes, implementation outcomes (contextual facilitators and barriers, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness and fidelity) and stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation.

RESULTS

The systematic review of 25 studies concluded that evidence in favour of cue-based feeding should be treated cautiously. The case studies and qualitative research highlighted contextual barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of cue-based feeding. The telephone survey found that many neonatal units are considering implementing cue-based feeding. We recruited 37% of eligible infants, and there was good retention in the study until discharge but a high loss to follow-up at 2 weeks post discharge. The mean number of days from intervention to transition to full oral feeding was 10.8, and the mean daily change in weight gain was 25 g. The intervention was acceptable to parents and staff, although there was dissatisfaction with the study documentation. Intervention training did not reach all staff. A cluster-randomised design with a composite outcome was suggested by stakeholders for a future study.

LIMITATIONS

The intervention was available only in English. Intervention training did not reach all staff. There was low recruitment to qualitative interviews and observations. Only a small number of medical staff engaged in either the training or the interviews.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to implement a cue-based feeding intervention with improved training and documentation. Further work is needed to assess the feasibility of a future trial, noting evidence of existing lack of equipoise.

FUTURE WORK

The next steps are to digitalise the intervention and conduct a survey of all neonatal units in the UK.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018097317 and ISRCTN13414304.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Protective effects of different doses of human milk on neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis

We aim to summarize the evidence focusing on the effects of various doses of human milk on the risk of neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The eligible articles in the study were those investigating the association between human milk and NEC published before June 26, 2019, in the PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, VIP database, CNKI database, and Wangfang database. The included criteria were as follows: premature infants of <37 weeks; randomly controlled trials (RCTs); those fed by mother's own milk or donor human milk; studies focused on the comparison of human milk and formula milk, involving various breast milk doses; and NEC-related studies. Compared with the exclusive formula, the incidence of NEC in the infants fed by exclusive human milk was significantly lower. The incidence of NEC in the infants fed by exclusive human milk was significantly lower than that of partial human milk [risk ratio (RR) = 0.54, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.36-0.79, P < .05]. The incidence of NEC in the infants fed mainly by human milk was significantly lower than that of mainly fed by formula. Incidence of NEC in the infants fed by exclusive human milk was significantly lower than that of any formula (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.34-0.71, P < .05). In summary, this meta-analysis was based on the RCTs involving the prevention of NEC using human milk. Exclusive human milk and partial human milk reduced the incidence of NEC in premature infants, especially in the those fed by high proportion of human milk. In addition, more RCTs are needed to further validate such conclusion.

Human Milk Supplements: Principles, Practices, and Current Controversies

Human milk is the most optimal source of nutrition for preterm and term infants. However, in most preterm infants, breast milk fails to meet the energy needs of the newborn infant. Overwhelming evidence supports the fortification of breast milk in preterm infants to facilitate better short-term outcomes. Several single-nutrient and multinutrient breast milk supplements and fortifiers are used to improve the macronutrient and micronutrient content of breast milk. An individualized fortification strategy has the potential to offer better results compared with standard fortification strategies. Human milk-derived fortification is promising, but the benefits in exclusively human milk-fed preterm infants are unclear.

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.

Banked preterm versus banked term human milk to promote growth and development in very low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

Human milk banking has been available in many countries for the last three decades. The milk provided from milk banking is predominantly term breast milk, but some milk banks provide preterm breast milk. There are a number of differences between donor term and donor preterm human milk.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of banked donor preterm milk compared with banked donor term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants (infants weighing less than 1500 grams).

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 23 October 2018), Embase (1980 to 23 October 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 23 October 2018). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing banked donor preterm milk with banked donor term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned to perform assessment of methodology regarding blinding of randomisation, intervention and outcome measurements as well as completeness of follow-up. We planned to evaluate treatment effect using a fixed-effect model using relative risk (RR), relative risk reduction, risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for categorical data; and using mean, standard deviation and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support or refute the effect of banked donor preterm milk compared to banked term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants.

Tolerance of preterm formula versus pasteurized donor human milk in very preterm infants: a randomized non-inferiority trial

Background

Human milk (HM) is the best feeding for premature infants. When own mother’s milk (OMM) is insufficient or unavailable, pasteurized donor human milk (PDHM) and preterm formula (PF) are the alternative nutritional sources, but the benefits of donor milk over formula are not defined. This study aimed to assess whether, in the absence of OMM, the PF could guarantee a feeding tolerance not inferior to that seen with the use of PDHM during the first two weeks of life of very preterm infants.

Methods

Infants with gestational age (GA) of ≤32 weeks who started enteral feeding within the first 7 days of life were randomized to receive PDHM or PF as a supplement to the OMM insufficient or unavailable. The primary outcome was the day of life when full enteral feeding (FEF) of 150 mL/Kg/d was achieved.

Results

Seventy infants were randomized, 35 in the PF group (GA 30.2 ± 1.7 weeks; BW 1342 ± 275 g), 35 in the PDHM group (GA 30 ± 1.9 weeks; BW 1365 ± 332 g). The time to achieve FEF was the same for infants fed with PF and for infants fed with PDHM (12.3 ± 7.0 days vs 12.8 ± 6.5).

Conclusions

This trial shows that PF could be a valid alternative for the early feeding of very preterm infants when OMM is insufficient or unavailable.

Trial registration

UMIN000013922. Date of formal registration: December 31, 2014.

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; 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (until 8 June 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.

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 quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials, in which 1809 infants participated in total, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and seven compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the four 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.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). 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 0.06).The GRADE quality 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, 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.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human Milk Feeding and Morbidity in Very Low Birth Weight Infants

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised the post-1990 literature examining the effect of human milk on morbidity, specifically necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), late onset sepsis (LOS), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and neurodevelopment in infants born ≤28 weeks' gestation and/or publications with reported infant mean birth weight of ≤1500 g. Online databases including Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and comparisons were grouped as follows: exclusive human milk (EHM) versus exclusive preterm formula (EPTF), any human milk (HM) versus EPTF, higher versus lower dose HM, and unpasteurised versus pasteurised HM. Experimental and observational studies were pooled separately in meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed for each individual study and the GRADE system used to judge the certainty of the findings. Forty-nine studies (with 56 reports) were included, of which 44 could be included in meta-analyses. HM provided a clear protective effect against NEC, with an approximate 4% reduction in incidence. HM also provided a possible reduction in LOS, severe ROP and severe NEC. Particularly for NEC, any volume of HM is better than EPTF, and the higher the dose the greater the protection. Evidence regarding pasteurisation is inconclusive, but it appears to have no effect on some outcomes. Improving the intake of mother's own milk (MOM) and/or donor HM results in small improvements in morbidity in this population.

A Fortified Donor Milk Policy is Associated With Improved In-Hospital Head Growth and Weight Gain in Very Low-Birth-Weight Infants

BACKGROUND

Previous research has reported that infants fed donor milk grow slower than those fed formula. However, most of the trials used unfortified donor milk, which limits the ability to generalize the results to current clinical practice.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of early human milk feeding (donor milk and/or mother's own milk) with standard fortification on in-hospital growth of very low-birth-weight infants.

METHODS

This pre-/postretrospective study included selected newborn infants less than 1500 g admitted to a level IV neonatal intensive care unit before and after the introduction of a policy providing donor milk when mother's own milk was not available in sufficient quantity to meet her infant's need. When enteral feeds reached 80 mL/kg per day, all human milk was fortified.

RESULTS

Seventy-two "before" (any formula-fed) and 114 "after" (human milk-fed) infants were enrolled in this study. Infant characteristics and neonatal morbidity were similar in both groups. Outcomes revealed that an initial human milk diet with standard fortification was associated with significantly higher early extrauterine weight gain and head growth in very low-birth-weight infants than a formula-fed diet.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Very early initiation of fortified breast and/or donor milk feeding can help promote in-hospital head growth and weight gain of preterm infants. Formula may not be appropriate for early use among preterm infants.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Further large-scale clinical trials are needed to determine the best initiation and composition of enteral feeding for preterm infants.

Early Nutritional Interventions for Brain and Cognitive Development in Preterm Infants: A Review of the Literature

Adequate nutrition is important for neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm-born infants. In this review, we aim to summarize the current knowledge on nutritional interventions initiated during the hospital stay targeting brain and cognitive development benefits in preterm human infants. Studies can broadly be split in general dietary intervention studies and studies investigating specific nutrients or nutritional supplements. In general, mother's breast milk was reported to be better for preterm infants' neurodevelopment compared to infant formula. The differences in methodologies make it difficult to conclude any effects of interventions with individual nutrients. Only protein and iron level studies showed some consistent findings regarding optimal doses; however, confirmatory studies are needed. This review does not support some widely accepted associations, such as that between long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation and visual development. Clear nutritional recommendations cannot be made based on this review. However, the type of infant nutrition (i.e., breast milk versus formula or donor milk), the timing of the nutritional intervention, and the dose of the nutrient/supplement have been found to be relevant factors in determining the success of nutritional intervention studies in preterm infants.

Preterm formula use in the preterm very low birth weight infant

Whereas human milk is the recommended diet for all infants, preterm formulas are indicated for enteral feeding of preterm very low birth weight infants when sufficient maternal breast milk and donor human milk are not available. Feeding with preterm formulas helps to ensure consistent delivery of nutrients. The balance of risks and benefits of feeding preterm formulas versus supplemented maternal and donor breast milk for preterm infants, however, is uncertain. Numerous studies and extensive practice have shown improved growth with preterm formulas, but there is concern for increased risks of necrotizing enterocolitis, possibly from cow milk antigen in the formulas or from different gut microbiomes, increased duration of total parenteral nutrition, and increased rates of sepsis in infants receiving preterm formulas. Furthermore, whereas preterm formulas improve neurodevelopmental outcomes compared to term formulas and unfortified donor milk, they do not produce neurodevelopmental outcomes better than fortified human milk, again indicating that maternal milk has unique properties that formulas need to mimic as closely as possible.

Current Knowledge of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm Infants and the Impact of Different Types of Enteral Nutrition Products

Preterm infants are extremely vulnerable to a range of morbidities and mortality. Underdeveloped cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and immune systems in the preterm period increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a serious disease of the gut. NEC affects 5-12% of very-low birth-weight infants, leads to surgery in 20-40% of cases, and is fatal in 25-50% of cases. There are multiple factors that may contribute to NEC, but the exact cause is not yet fully understood. Severe cases can result in intestinal resection or death, and the health care costs average >$300,000/infant when surgical management is required. Different types of nutrition may affect the onset or progression of NEC. Several studies have indicated that bovine milk-based infant formulas lead to a higher incidence of NEC in preterm infants than does human milk (HM). However, it is not clear why HM is linked to a lower incidence of NEC or why some infants fed an exclusively HM diet still develop NEC. An area that has not been thoroughly explored is the use of semielemental or elemental formulas. These specialty formulas are easy to digest and absorb in the gut and may be an effective nutritional intervention for reducing the risk of NEC. This review summarizes what is known about the factors that contribute to the onset and progression of NEC, discusses its health care cost implications, and explores the impact that different formulas and HM have on this disease.

Responsive versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Feeding preterm infants in response to their hunger and satiation cues (responsive, cue-based, or infant-led feeding) rather than at scheduled intervals might enhance infants' and parents' experience and satisfaction, help in the establishment of independent oral feeding, increase nutrient intake and growth rates, and allow earlier hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of a policy of feeding preterm infants on a responsive basis versus feeding prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals on growth rates, levels of parent satisfaction, and time to hospital discharge.

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 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 17 February 2016), Embase (1980 to 17 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared a policy of feeding preterm infants on a responsive basis versus feeding at scheduled intervals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine eligible RCTs including 593 infants in total. These trials compared responsive with scheduled interval regimens in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding. The trials were generally small and contained various methodological weaknesses including lack of blinding and incomplete assessment of all randomised participants. Meta-analyses, although limited by data quality and availability, suggest that responsive feeding results in slightly slower rates of weight gain (MD -1.36, 95% CI -2.44 to -0.29 g/kg/day), and provide some evidence that responsive feeding reduces the time taken for infants to transition from enteral tube to oral feeding (MD -5.53, 95% CI -6.80 to -4.25 days). GRADE assessments indicated low quality of evidence. The importance of this finding is uncertain as the trials did not find a strong or consistent effect on the duration of hospitalisation. None of the included trials reported any parent, caregiver, or staff views.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data do not provide strong or consistent evidence that responsive feeding affects important outcomes for preterm infants or their families. Some (low quality) evidence exists that preterm infants fed in response to feeding and satiation cues achieve full oral feeding earlier than infants fed prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals. This finding should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. A large RCT would be needed to confirm this finding and to determine if responsive feeding of preterm infants affects other important outcomes.

Responsive versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Feeding preterm infants in response to their hunger and satiation cues (responsive, cue-based, or infant-led feeding) rather than at scheduled intervals might enhance infants' and parents' experience and satisfaction, help in the establishment of independent oral feeding, increase nutrient intake and growth rates, and allow earlier hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of feeding preterm infants on a responsive basis versus feeding prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals on growth, duration of hospital stay, and parental satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to September 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to September 2015), conference proceedings, previous reviews, and trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared a policy of feeding preterm infants on a responsive basis versus feeding at scheduled intervals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine eligible RCTs including 593 infants in total. These trials compared responsive with scheduled interval regimens in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding. The trials were generally small and contained various methodological weaknesses including lack of blinding and incomplete assessment of all randomised participants. Meta-analyses, although limited by data quality and availability, suggest that responsive feeding results in slightly slower rates of weight gain (MD -1.4, 95% CI -2.4 to -0.3 g/kg/day), and provide some evidence that responsive feeding reduces the time taken for infants to transition from enteral tube to oral feeding (MD -5.5, 95% CI -6.8 to -4.2 days). The importance of this finding is uncertain as the trials did not find a strong or consistent effect on the duration of hospitalisation. None of the included trials reported any parent, caregiver, or staff views.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data do not provide strong or consistent evidence that responsive feeding affects important outcomes for preterm infants or their families. Some evidence exists that preterm infants fed in response to feeding and satiation cues achieve full oral feeding earlier than infants fed prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals. However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. A large RCT would be needed to confirm this finding and to determine if responsive feeding of preterm infants affects other important outcomes.

Evidence-based feeding strategies before and after the development of necrotizing enterocolitis

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a devastating disease of premature infants and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While the pathogenesis of NEC remains incompletely understood, it is well established that the risk of disease is increased by the administration of infant formula and decreased by the administration of breast milk. This review will focus on the mechanisms by which breast milk may serve to protect against NEC, and will review the evidence regarding various feeding strategies that may be utilized before and after an episode of NEC.

High-protein formulas: evidence for use in preterm infants

Relatively high amounts of protein are required to achieve normal fractional protein synthetic rates during the late second through early third trimester of fetal growth. Once preterm infants achieve higher protein intakes for sustained periods, growth begins to approximate that of the normally growing fetus and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are improved. Preterm formulas have been developed that are enriched in protein. This review discusses several factors when using standard preterm formulas and high-protein preterm formulas in the neonatal intensive care unit, with an emphasis on quantity and quality of enteral protein delivery and risks to insufficient and/or excess protein administration.

Donor human milk for preterm infants: what it is, what it can do, and what still needs to be learned

Donor human milk is a dietary intervention rapidly increasing in usage in the very low birth weight (VLBW) preterm population. Donor milk may decrease risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and improve neurodevelopmental outcomes in VLBW infants compared with formula diets. The exclusive human milk diet shows promise as an intervention to decrease risk of necrotizing enterocolitis compared with formula. Further research is needed to assess the impact of donor human milk on infectious, growth, and neurodevelopmental outcomes of VLBW infants, as well as the effect of milk fortifier choice (human vs bovine) on these outcomes.

DoMINO: Donor milk for improved neurodevelopmental outcomes

BACKGROUND

Provision of mother's own milk is the optimal way to feed infants, including very low birth weight infants (VLBW, <1500 g). Importantly for VLBW infants, who are at elevated risk of neurologic sequelae, mother's own milk has been shown to enhance neurocognitive development. Unfortunately, the majority of mothers of VLBW infants are unable to provide an adequate supply of milk and thus supplementation with formula or donor milk is necessary. Given the association between mother's own milk and neurodevelopment, it is important to ascertain whether provision of human donor milk as a supplement may yield superior neurodevelopmental outcomes compared to formula.Our primary hypothesis is that VLBW infants fed pasteurized donor milk compared to preterm formula as a supplement to mother's own milk for 90 days or until hospital discharge, whichever comes first, will have an improved cognitive outcome as measured at 18 months corrected age on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 3(rd) ed. Secondary hypotheses are that the use of pasteurized donor milk will: (1) reduce a composite of death and serious morbidity; (2) support growth; and (3) improve language and motor development. Exploratory research questions include: Will use of pasteurized donor milk: (1) influence feeding tolerance and nutrient intake (2) have an acceptable cost effectiveness from a comprehensive societal perspective?

METHODS/DESIGN

DoMINO is a multi-centre, intent-to-treat, double blinded, randomized control trial. VLBW infants (n = 363) were randomized within four days of birth to either (1) pasteurized donor milk or (2) preterm formula whenever mother's own milk was unavailable. Study recruitment began in October 2010 and was completed in December 2012. The 90 day feeding intervention is complete and long-term follow-up is underway.

DISCUSSION

Preterm birth and its complications are a leading cause long-term morbidity among Canadian children. Strategies to mitigate this risk are urgently required. As mother's own milk has been shown to improve neurodevelopment, it is essential to ascertain whether pasteurized donor milk will confer the same advantage over formula without undue risks and at acceptable costs. Knowledge translation from this trial will be pivotal in setting donor milk policy in Canada and beyond.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN35317141; Registered 10 August 2010.

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

BACKGROUND

When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative sources of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight 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 low birth weight infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of optimal levels of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or low birth weight 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 infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to March 2014), CINAHL (1982 to March 2014), conference proceedings and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or low birth weight infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials, in which 1070 infants participated, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and five compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the two most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various methodological quality weaknesses, specifically uncertainty about adequate allocation concealment methods in three trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials.Formula-fed infants had higher in hospital rates of increase in weight [mean difference (MD): 2.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98 to 3.71) g/kg/day], length [MD 1.93 (95% CI 1.23 to 2.62) mm/week] and head circumference [MD 1.59 (95% CI 0.95 to 2.24) mm/week]. We did not find evidence of an effect on post-discharge growth rates or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis: typical risk ratio 2.77 (95% CI 1.40 to 5.46); risk difference 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.07).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In preterm and low birth weight infants, feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk results in a higher rate of short-term growth but also a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. Limited data on the comparison of feeding with formula versus nutrient-fortified donor breast milk are available. This limits the applicability of the findings of this review as nutrient fortification of breast milk is now a common practice in neonatal care. Future trials may compare growth, development and adverse outcomes in infants who receive formula milk versus nutrient-fortified donor breast milk given as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet.

Donor human milk for preterm infants: current evidence and research directions

The Committee on Nutrition of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition aims to document the existing evidence of the benefits and common concerns deriving from the use of donor human milk (DHM) in preterm infants. The comment also outlines gaps in knowledge and gives recommendations for practice and suggestions for future research directions. Protection against necrotizing enterocolitis is the major clinical benefit deriving from the use of DHM when compared with formula. Limited data also suggest unfortified DHM to be associated with improved feeding tolerance and with reduced cardiovascular risk factors during adolescence. Presence of a human milk bank (HMB) does not decrease breast-feeding rates at discharge, but decreases the use of formula during the first weeks of life. This commentary emphasizes that fresh own mother's milk (OMM) is the first choice in preterm infant feeding and strong efforts should be made to promote lactation. When OMM is not available, DHM is the recommended alternative. When neither OMM nor DHM is available, preterm formula should be used. DHM should be provided from an established HMB, which follows specific safety guidelines. Storage and processing of human milk reduces some biological components, which may diminish its health benefits. From a nutritional point of view, DHM, like HM, does not meet the requirements of preterm infants, necessitating a specific fortification regimen to optimize growth. Future research should focus on the improvement of milk processing in HMB, particularly of heat treatment; on the optimization of HM fortification; and on further evaluation of the potential clinical benefits of processed and fortified DHM.

Human milk and the nutritional needs of preterm infants

Key principles underpinning feeding guidelines for preterm infants include support for developmental care, breastfeeding, milk expression, and creating feeding plans. Early trophic feeding with colostrum and transitional milk improves immune protection and promotes gut maturation. Studies of preterm infants demonstrate that feeding mother's milk (MM) decreases the incidence of infection and necrotizing enterocolitis and improves neurodevelopmental outcome but may decrease ponderal and linear growth. Standard practice in neonatal units is to promote mother's own milk as the feed of choice for all infants. However, it is not feasible or prudent to do so for all preterm infants. Mothers of preterm infants have lower rates of successful breastfeeding compared with those of term infants. MM can contain harmful bacterial or viral pathogens. Although preterm human milk (HM) contains higher concentrations of protein, sodium, zinc, and calcium than mature HM, it falls short of supplying adequate quantities of nutrients required by preterm infants. Therefore, HM supplemented with nutrients is recommended for all infants born before 32 weeks gestation and for certain infants born at 32-36 weeks of gestation. HM is the preferred feed, but preterm formula is an appropriate option when there is an inadequate supply of MM.

Donor human milk banking and the emergence of milk sharing

Donor human milk has emerged as the preferred substrate to feed extremely preterm infants, when mother's own milk is unavailable. This article summarizes the clinical data demonstrating the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of feeding donor human milk to premature babies. It describes the current state of milk banking in North America, as well as other parts of the world, and the differing criteria for donor selection, current pasteurization techniques, and quality control measures. A risk assessment methodology is proposed, which would allow milk banks globally to assess the safety of their process and respond appropriately to differing risk environments.

Treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The optimal treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a common challenge for pediatric surgeons. Although many studies have evaluated prevention and medical therapy for NEC, few guidelines for surgical care exist. The aim of this systematic review is to review and evaluate the currently available evidence for the surgical care of patients with NEC.

METHODS

Data were compiled from a search of PubMed, OVID, the Cochrane Library database, and Web of Science from January 1985 until December 2011. Publications were screened, and their references were hand-searched to identify additional studies. Clinicaltrials.gov was also searched to identify ongoing or unpublished trials. The American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee proposed six questions deemed pertinent to the surgical treatment of NEC. Recent Cochrane Reviews examined three of these topics; a literature review was performed to address the additional three specific questions.

RESULTS

The Cochrane Reviews support the use of prophylactic probiotics in preterm infants less than 2500 grams to reduce the incidence of NEC, as well as the use of human breast milk rather than formula when possible. There is no clear evidence to support delayed initiation or slow advancement of feeds. For surgical treatment of NEC with perforation, there is no clear support of peritoneal drainage versus laparotomy. Similarly, there is a lack of evidence comparing enterostomy versus primary anastomosis after resection at laparotomy. There are little data to determine the length of treatment with antibiotics to prevent recurrence of NEC.

CONCLUSION

Based on available evidence, probiotics are advised to decrease the incidence of NEC, and human milk should be used when possible. The other reviewed questions are clinically relevant, but there is a lack of evidence-based data to support definitive recommendations. These areas of NEC treatment would benefit from future investigation.

Banked preterm versus banked term human milk to promote growth and development in very low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

Human milk banking has been available in many countries for the last three decades. The milk provided from milk banking is predominantly term breast milk, but some milk banks provide preterm breast milk. There are a number of differences between donor term and donor preterm human milk.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of banked preterm milk compared with banked term milk regarding growth and developmental outcome in very low birth weight infants (infants weighing less than 1500 g).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, including a search of the Cochrane Neonatal Group specialized register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, January 2010). We searched the computerised bibliographic databases MEDLINE (1966 to February 2010), EMBASE (1988 to February 2010) and Web of Science (1975 to February 2010). We searched reference lists of all selected articles, review articles and the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials. We also searched abstracts from neonatal and pediatric meetings (PAS electronic version from 2000 to 2009, ESPR hand search from 2000 to 2009). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing banked donor preterm milk with banked donor term milk regarding growth and developmental outcomes in very low birth weight infants

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to perform assessment of methodology regarding blinding of randomisation, intervention and outcome measurements as well as completeness of follow-up. We planned to evaluate treatment effect using a fixed-effect model using relative risk (RR), relative risk reduction, risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT) for categorical data and using mean, standard deviation and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data. We planned an evaluation of heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no randomised trials that compare preterm banked milk to banked term milk to promote growth and development in very low birth weight infants.

Ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding versus scheduled interval feeding for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Scheduled interval feeding of prescribed enteral volumes is current standard practice for preterm infants. However, feeding preterm infants in response to their hunger and satiation cues (ad libitum or demand/semi demand) rather than at scheduled intervals might help in the establishment of independent oral feeding, increase nutrient intake and growth rates, and allow earlier hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of a policy of feeding preterm infants on an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand basis versus feeding prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals on growth rates and the time to hospital discharge.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to Oct 2009), EMBASE (1980 to Oct 2009), CINAHL (1982 to Oct 2009), conference proceedings, and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cluster randomised trials) that compared a policy of feeding preterm infants on an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand basis versus feeding at scheduled intervals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We found eight randomised controlled trials that compared ad libitum or demand/semi-demand regimens with scheduled interval regimes in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding. The trials were generally small and of variable methodological quality. The duration of the intervention and the duration of data collection and follow-up in most of the trials was not likely to have allowed detection of measurable effects on growth. Three trials reported that feeding preterm infants using an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding regimen allowed earlier discharge from hospital (by about two to four days) but other trials did not confirm this finding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence exists that feeding preterm infants with ad libitum or demand/semi-demand regimens allows earlier attainment of full oral feeding and earlier hospital discharge. This finding should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. A large randomised controlled trial is needed to confirm this finding and to determine if ad libitum of demand/semi-demand feeding of preterm infants affects other clinically important outcomes.

A summary of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's evidence report on breastfeeding in developed countries

OBJECTIVES

This article summarizes the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's evidence report on the effects of breastfeeding on term infant and maternal health outcomes in developed countries.

EVIDENCE REPORT DATA SOURCES

Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, bibliographies of selected reviews, and suggestions from domain experts were surveyed. Searches were limited to English-language publications.

EVIDENCE REPORT REVIEW METHODS

Eligible comparisons examined the association between differential exposure to breastfeeding and health outcomes. We assessed 15 infant and six maternal outcomes. For four outcomes, we also updated previously published systematic reviews. For the rest of the outcomes, we either summarized previous systematic reviews or conducted new systematic reviews; randomized and non-randomized comparative trials, prospective cohorts, and case-control studies were included. Adjusted estimates were extracted from non-experimental designs. The studies were graded for methodological quality. We did not draw conclusions from poor quality studies.

EVIDENCE REPORT RESULTS

We screened over 9,000 abstracts. Thirty-two primary studies on term infant health outcomes, 43 primary studies on maternal health outcomes, and 28 systematic reviews or meta-analyses that covered approximately 400 individual studies were included in this review. A history of breastfeeding was associated with a reduction in the risk of acute otitis media, nonspecific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, asthma (young children), obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome. There was no relationship between breastfeeding in term infants and cognitive performance. There were insufficient good quality data to address the relationship between breastfeeding and cardiovascular diseases and infant mortality. For maternal outcomes, a history of lactation was associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, breast, and ovarian cancer. Early cessation of breastfeeding or no breastfeeding was associated with an increased risk of maternal postpartum depression. There was no relationship between a history of lactation and the risk of osteoporosis. The effect of breastfeeding in mothers on return-to-prepregnancy weight was negligible, and the effect of breastfeeding on postpartum weight loss was unclear.

EVIDENCE REPORT CONCLUSIONS

A history of breastfeeding is associated with a reduced risk of many diseases in infants and mothers. Future research would benefit from clearer selection criteria, definitions of breastfeeding exposure, and adjustment for potential confounders. Matched designs such as sibling analysis may provide a method to control for hereditary and household factors that are important in certain outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, the alternative sources of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula milk. Feeding preterm or low birth weight infants with formula milk might increase nutrient input and growth rates. However, since feeding with formula milk may be associated with a higher incidence of feeding intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis, this may adversely affect growth and development.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of formula milk compared with donor human breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight infants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 - May 2007), EMBASE (1980 - May 2007), CINAHL (1982 - May 2007), conference proceedings, and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing feeding with formula milk versus donor breast milk in preterm or low birth weight infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two reviewer authors, and synthesis of data using relative risk, risk difference and weighted mean difference.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Only one trial used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. Enteral feeding with formula milk compared with donor breast milk resulted in higher rates of growth in the short term. There was no evidence of an effect on long-term growth rates or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Meta-analysis of data from five trials demonstrated a statistically significantly higher incidence of necrotising enterocolitis in the formula fed group: typical relative risk 2.5 (95% confidence interval 1.2, 5.1); typical risk difference: 0.03 (95% confidence interval 0.01, 0.06; number needed to harm: 33 (95% confidence interval 17, 100).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In preterm and low birth weight infants, feeding with formula milk compared with donor breast milk results in a higher rate of short-term growth but also a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. There are only limited data on the comparison of feeding with formula milk versus nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. This limits the applicability of the findings as nutrient fortification of breast milk is now a common practice in neonatal care. Future trials may compare growth, development and adverse outcomes in infants who receive formula milk versus nutrient-fortified donor breast milk given as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet.

Enteral intake for very low birth weight infants: what should the composition be?

Providing optimal nutrition to satisfy the growth needs of very low birth weight infants is critical. The available preterm formulas and fortified human milk diets provide protein intakes of approximately 3.5 to 3.6 g/kg/d when volumes sufficient to provide 120 kcal/kg/d are fed to these infants. These intakes support growth and protein accretion at about or slightly greater than intrauterine rate and lead to relatively increased fat deposition. However, most very low birth infants fed these diets remain below the 10th percentile of the intrauterine growth standards at discharge. There is clear evidence that, with respect to growth, very low birth infants are likely to benefit from a higher protein intake; however, there is no clear evidence that energy intakes greater than 120 kcal/kg/d are needed. Although the upper limit of protein intake and the ideal protein:energy ratio remain controversial, there is enough evidence to support the beneficial and safe use of formulas providing protein:energy ratio of 3.2 to 3.3 g/100 kcal.

Human milk and clinical outcomes in VLBW infants: how compelling is the evidence of benefit?

Significant benefits to infant host defense, sensory-neural development, gastrointestinal maturation, and some aspects of nutritional status are observed when premature infants are fed their mothers' own milk. A reduction in infection-related morbidity in human milk-fed premature infants has been reported in nearly a dozen descriptive, and a few quasi-randomized, studies in the past 25 years. Studies on neurodevelopmental outcomes have reported significantly positive effects for human milk intake on mental and motor development, intelligence quotient, and visual acuity compared with the feeding of formula. Human milk-fed infants also have decreased rates of re-hospitalization after discharge. It is unclear how much human milk is needed to provide protection or at what postnatal age the protective effects maximize. More data are warranted to elucidate these questions. Despite the significant benefits of mothers' own milk, nutritional adequacy may be a limiting factor in the infant weighing less than 1500 g at birth. The overall nutritional needs of these infants can be supported with a nutrient supplement, or fortifier, added to the milk.

Enteral nutrition for premature infants: the role of human milk

Nutrition support of the premature infant must be designed to compensate for metabolic and gastrointestinal immaturity, immunologic insufficiency, and the demands of associated medical conditions. The beneficial effects of human milk extend to the feeding of premature infants. Although human milk enhances immunity, nutritional concerns arise because the milk might not meet the expanded nutrient requirements of very low birth weight premature infants. Human milk fortifiers are available to provide optimum nutrition. This chapter summarizes the benefits and limitations of human milk for the premature infant.

Benefits of maternal and donor human milk for premature infants

Nutrition support of the premature infant must be designed to compensate for metabolic and gastrointestinal immaturity, immunologic insufficiency, and the demands of associated medical conditions. The beneficial effects of human milk extend to the feeding of premature infants. While human milk enhances immunity, nutritional concerns arise because the milk may not meet the expanded nutrient requirements of the very low birth weight (VLBW, less than 1500 g) premature infant. Human milk fortifiers are available to provide optimum nutrition. This review summarizes the benefits and limitations of human milk for the premature infant.

Ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding versus scheduled interval feeding for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Feeding preterm infants in response to their hunger and satiation cues (ad libitum or demand/semi demand) rather than at scheduled intervals might help in the establishment of independent oral feeding, increase nutrient intake and growth rates, and allow earlier hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of a policy of feeding preterm infants on an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand basis versus feeding prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals on growth rates and the time to hospital discharge.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 - March 2006), EMBASE (1980 - March 2006), CINAHL (1982 - March 2006), conference proceedings, and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cluster randomised trials) that compared a policy of feeding preterm infants on an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand basis versus feeding at scheduled intervals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. The primary outcomes of interest were growth rates and age at hospital discharge.

MAIN RESULTS

We found seven randomised controlled trials that compared ad libitum or demand/semi-demand regimes with scheduled interval regimes in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding. The trials were generally small and of variable methodological quality. The duration of the intervention and the duration of data collection and follow up in most of the trials is not likely to have allowed detection of measurable effects on growth. The single trial that assessed growth for longer than one week found that the rate of weight gain was lower in the ad libitum fed infants [mean difference -3.30 (95% confidence interval -6.2 to -0.4) grams per kilogram per day]. Two trials reported that feeding preterm infants using an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding regime allowed earlier discharge from hospital, but the other trials did not confirm this finding. We were not able to undertake meta-analyses because of differences in study design and in the way the findings were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data at present to guide clinical practice. A large randomised controlled trial is needed to determine if ad libitum of demand/semi-demand feeding of preterm infants affects clinically important outcomes. This trial should focus on infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding and should be of sufficient duration to assess effects on growth and time to oral feeding and hospital discharge.

Multi-modal approach to prophylaxis of necrotizing enterocolitis: clinical report and review of literature

For the first time a multimodal approach to NEC prophylaxis is reported, consisting of early trophic feeding with human breast milk, and enteral administration of an antibiotic, an antifungal agent, and probiotics. A retrospective analysis of local protocol of NEC prophylaxis is presented. Included were all VLBWI admitted to the NICU, including transfers within the first 28 days of life. These infants were divided into two groups, an "inborn group" (infants admitted within the first 24 h of life) and an "outborn group" (infants admitted after the onset of their second day of life). Prophylaxis of NEC according to protocol was started at the day of admission, and was continued until discharge. Between 1998 and 2004, 405 VLBWI were admitted, including all transfers within the first 28 days of life. A total of 334 (82%) infants were admitted within the first 24 h of life (inborn group), and 71 (18%) were admitted after 24 h of life (outborn group). Five infants developed clinical features of necrotizing enterocolitis. The inborn group showed a NEC incidence of 0.7% (two infants), whereas the outborn group showed a NEC incidence of 4.5% (three infants), respectively. This difference was significant (P=0.049, Fisher's exact test). A surgical treatment with bowel resection was performed in two infants (both from the outborn group). The present study used a combination of different strategies, all having shown to have some beneficial effect, but not having brought a clinical breakthrough in single administration studies. Combinated were the beneficial effects of human breast milk feeding, oral antiobiotics, oral antifungal agents, and the administration of probiotics. In a homogenous group of preterm infants, using this protocol of multimodal NEC prophylaxis, there was a very low incidence of NEC, when started within the first 24 h of life.

Randomized trial of donor human milk versus preterm formula as substitutes for mothers' own milk in the feeding of extremely premature infants

OBJECTIVE

Compared with preterm formula (PF), mother's milk (MM) is associated with lower rates of late-onset sepsis (LOS) and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) among premature infants. Because not all mothers of premature infants produce sufficient milk to supply their infants throughout hospitalization, we reasoned that pasteurized donor human milk (DM) would be a suitable alternative.

METHODS

Extremely premature infants (<30 weeks of gestation) whose mothers intended to breastfeed were assigned randomly to receive either pasteurized DM or PF if the supply of their own MM became insufficient during the study (birth to 90 days of age or hospital discharge). Infection-related events (LOS, NEC, meningitis, presumed sepsis, or urinary tract infection) that occurred after the attainment of a milk intake of 50 mL/kg, dietary intake, growth, skin-to-skin contact, and duration of hospital stay were compared. The primary analysis compared groups DM and PF on an intent-to-treat basis. If no differences were noted, then these groups were combined and compared with the reference group, group MM. If differences were noted, then the subsequent analyses compared each group with group MM.

RESULTS

Of 243 infants, 70 (29%) received only MM; group DM included 81 infants and group PF included 92 infants. Because of poor weight gain, 17 infants (21%), all in group DM, were switched to PF. There were no differences in birth weight, gestational age, multiple births, and age at attainment of feeding of 50 mL/kg among groups. There were no differences between group DM and group PF in LOS and/or NEC, other infection-related events, hospital stay, or number of deaths. Group DM received a greater intake of milk and more nutritional supplements but had a slower rate of weight gain, compared with group PF. Compared with groups DM and PF, group MM had fewer episodes of LOS and/or NEC and total infection-related events and a shorter duration of hospital stay. Group MM also had fewer Gram-negative organisms isolated from blood cultures than did the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized, blinded trial of feeding of extremely premature infants, we found that, as a substitute for MM, DM offered little observed short-term advantage over PF for feeding extremely premature infants. Advantages to an exclusive diet of MM were observed in terms of fewer infection-related events and shorter hospital stays.

Donor human milk versus formula for preventing necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine if enteral feeding with donor human milk compared with formula milk reduces the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm or low birthweight infants.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

RESULTS

Four small trials, all initiated more than 20 years ago, fulfilled the prespecified inclusion criteria. None of the trials individually found any statistically significant difference in the incidence of NEC. However, meta-analysis found that feeding with donor human milk was associated with a significantly reduced relative risk (RR) of NEC. Infants who received donor human milk were three times less likely to develop NEC (RR 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.99), and four times less likely to have confirmed NEC (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.98) than infants who received formula milk.

CONCLUSIONS

It may be appropriate to consider further larger trials to compare growth, development, and the incidence of adverse outcomes, including NEC, in preterm infants who receive donor human milk versus formula milk.

Feeding the premature infant in the 20th century

This article reviews the historical development of feeding the premature infant in the 20th century. It describes the early work determining the energy requirements of the preterm infant, the evolution of the use of human milk and its fortification for these infants, the development of special formulas for very-low-birth-weight infants and the various techniques/methods utilized including total parenteral nutrition.

Formula milk versus term human milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

Term (mature) human breast milk, compared with artificial formula milks, may provide insufficient nutrition for growth and development in preterm or low birth weight infants. However, human milk may confer advantages to infants in terms of a decreased incidence of adverse outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if formula milk compared with term human breast milk leads to improved growth and development without significant adverse effects in low birth weight or preterm infants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and previous reviews including cross references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing feeding with formula milk versus term human milk in low birth weight or preterm infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author and synthesis of data using relative risk, risk difference and weighted mean difference.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials, all initiated more than 20 years ago, fulfilled the pre-specified inclusion criteria. Four small trials compared feeding with standard calorie formula milk versus unfortified term human milk. Two trials compared feeding with calorie-enriched formula milk versus unfortified term human milk. No trials comparing feeding with formula milk versus nutrient-fortified term human milk were found. Only one trial reported longer term follow up of growth and development. In preterm and low birth weight infants, enteral feeding with formula milk compared with unfortified term human milk resulted in a greater rate of growth in the short term. We did not find a statistically significant difference in the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, but this was evaluated as a pre-defined outcome in only one trial. The single trial that evaluated longer-term outcomes did not find evidence of an effect on longer-term growth and neurodevelopment.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

In preterm and low birth weight infants, feeding with formula milk, compared with unfortified term human milk, leads to a greater rate of growth in the short term. The limited data available do not allow definite conclusions on whether adverse outcomes, including necrotising enterocolitis, are increased in infants who receive formula milk compared with term human milk. There are no data from randomised trials on the comparison of feeding with formula milk versus nutrient-fortified breast milk. This limits the implications for practice of this review as nutrient fortification of breast milk is now a common practice in neonatal care. Future trials may compare growth, development and adverse outcomes in infants who receive adapted "preterm" formula milks versus nutrient-fortified human breast milk.

Formula milk versus preterm human milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

Preterm human breast milk, compared with artificial formula milk, may provide insufficient nutrition for preterm or low birth weight infants. However, human milk may confer advantages in terms of a decreased incidence of gastrointestinal and neurodevelopmental adverse outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if formula milk compared with preterm human milk leads to improved growth and development without significant adverse effects in preterm or low birth weight infants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and previous reviews including cross references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing feeding with formula milk versus preterm human milk in preterm or low birth weight infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author and synthesis of data using relative risk and mean difference.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one small trial fulfilled the pre-specified inclusion criteria (Gross 1983). In preterm and low birth weight infants, enteral feeding with protein-enriched standard calorie formula milk compared with unfortified donated preterm human milk resulted in a greater rate of short term weight gain, but not of increase in length or head circumference. In the group randomised to receive formula milk, there was an increase in the risk of feed intolerance of borderline statistical significance, but no evidence of an effect on necrotising enterocolitis. There are no data on long term growth parameters or on neurodevelopmental outcomes. There are no randomised comparisons of feeding with the preterm milk of the infant's mother versus formula milk.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There are very limited data from randomised trials of feeding preterm or low birth weight infants with formula milk compared with preterm human milk. This may relate to a perceived difficulty of allocating an alternative enteral feed to an infant in cases where the infant's mother wishes to feed with expressed breast milk.

Magnesium in human milk

Reported concentrations for magnesium in breast milk vary over a wide range (15 to 64 mg/L) with a median value of 31 mg/L and 75% of reported mean concentrations below 35 mg/L. Constitutional variables such as adolescent motherhood, gestation length, maternal undernutrition, metabolic disorders (diabetes, galactosemia), race, stage of lactation, sampling techniques (foremilk and hindmilk), as well as environmental variables such as socio-cultural diversity, smoking habits, dietary calcium and magnesium (including supplementation), vegetarianism, calciotropic agents (immunoreactive calcitonin, vitamin D), medication (hormonal contraceptives, magnesium sulfate) are critically reviewed in relation to changes in milk magnesium concentrations. Magnesium secretion into breast milk does not seem to be affected by the studied variables.

Effects of nutrients in human milk on the recipient premature infant

As the rate of survival of premature infants is increasing, more attention is necessarily focused on improving the quality of survival through optimal nutritional management. The nutritional needs of the premature infant are greater than at any other time in the life cycle. The benefits of human milk for term infants are well known. Emerging data suggest that human milk may especially benefit the premature infant. The human milk-fed premature infant may experience improved health (such as lower rates of infection and necrotizing enterocolitis), gastrointestinal function, and neurodevelopment. These factors may outweigh the concerns about adequate growth, nutrient accretion, and biochemical indices of nutritional status attributed to the lower nutrient content of human milk compared with preterm formula. Some of the nutritional concerns may be met by the use of multinutrient supplements during the time infants receive tube-feeding, generally the time prior to attaining complete oral feeding in-hospital. The available data suggest that the quality of survival of premature infants can be improved, both in the short-term and long-term, through the feeding of human milk.