Rickets in premature infants fed different formulas

Nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants may accumulate nutrient deficits leading to extrauterine growth restriction. Feeding preterm infants with nutrient-enriched rather than standard formula might increase nutrient accretion and growth rates and might improve neurodevelopmental outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of feeding with nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula on growth and development of preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the Cochrane Neonatal standard search strategy. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (until November 2018), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and clinical trials databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with nutrient-enriched formula (protein and energy plus minerals, vitamins, or other nutrients) versus standard formula.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using the Cochrane Neonatal standard methods. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality and extracted and synthesised data using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences, and mean differences (MDs). We assessed certainty of evidence at the outcome level using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven trials in which a total of 590 preterm infants participated. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of birth weight less than 1850 g. Few participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth restricted at birth. Trials were conducted more than 30 years ago, were formula industry funded, and were small with methodological weaknesses (including lack of masking) that might bias effect estimates. Meta-analyses of in-hospital growth parameters were limited by statistical heterogeneity. There is no evidence of an effect on time to regain birth weight (MD -1.48 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.73 to 1.77) and low-certainty evidence suggests that feeding with nutrient-enriched formula increases in-hospital rates of weight gain (MD 2.43 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.26) and head circumference growth (MD 1.04 mm/week, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.89). Meta-analysis did not show an effect on the average rate of length gain (MD 0.22 mm/week, 95% CI -0.70 to 1.13). Fewer data are available for growth and developmental outcomes assessed beyond infancy, and these do not show consistent effects of nutrient-enriched formula feeding. Data from two trials did not show an effect on Bayley Mental Development Index scores at 18 months post term (MD 2.87, 95% CI -1.38 to 7.12; moderate-certainty evidence). Infants who received nutrient-enriched formula had higher Bayley Psychomotor Development Index scores at 18 months post term (MD 6.56. 95% CI 2.87 to 10.26; low-certainty evidence), but no evidence suggested an effect on cerebral palsy (typical RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.07; 2 studies, 377 infants). Available data did not indicate any other benefits or harms and provided low-certainty evidence about the effect of nutrient-enriched formula feeding on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25; 3 studies, 489 infants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available trial data show that feeding preterm infants nutrient-enriched (compared with standard) formulas has only modest effects on growth rates during their initial hospital admission. No evidence suggests effects on long-term growth or development. The GRADE assessment indicates that the certainty of this evidence is low, and that these findings should be interpreted and applied with caution. Further randomised trials would be needed to resolve this uncertainty.

Safety of soya-based infant formulas in children

Soya-based infant formulas (SIF) containing soya flour were introduced almost 100 years ago. Modern soya formulas are used in allergy/intolerance to cows' milk-based formulas (CMF), post-infectious diarrhoea, lactose intolerance and galactosaemia, as a vegan human milk (HM) substitute, etc. The safety of SIF is still debated. In the present study, we reviewed the safety of SIF in relation to anthropometric growth, bone health (bone mineral content), immunity, cognition, and reproductive and endocrine functions. The present review includes cross-sectional, case-control, cohort studies or clinical trials that were carried out in children fed SIF compared with those fed other types of infant formulas and that measured safety. The databases that were searched included PubMed (1909 to July 2013), Embase (1988 to May 2013), LILACS (1990 to May 2011), ARTEMISA (13th edition, December 2012), Cochrane controlled trials register, Bandolier and DARE using the Cochrane methodology. Wherever possible, a meta-analysis was carried out. We found that the anthropometric patterns of children fed SIF were similar to those of children fed CMF or HM. Despite the high levels of phytates and aluminium in SIF, Hb, serum protein, Zn and Ca concentrations and bone mineral content were found to be similar to those of children fed CMF or HM. We also found the levels of genistein and daidzein to be higher in children fed SIF; however, we did not find strong evidence of a negative effect on reproductive and endocrine functions. Immune measurements and neurocognitive parameters were similar in all the feeding groups. In conclusion, modern SIF are evidence-based safety options to feed children requiring them. The patterns of growth, bone health and metabolic, reproductive, endocrine, immune and neurological functions are similar to those observed in children fed CMF or HM.

NTP-CERHR expert panel report on the developmental toxicity of soy infant formula

Soy infant formula contains soy protein isolates and is fed to infants as a supplement to or replacement for human milk or cow milk. Soy protein isolates contains estrogenic isoflavones (phytoestrogens) that occur naturally in some legumes, especially soybeans. Phytoestrogens are nonsteroidal, estrogenic compounds. In plants, nearly all phytoestrogens are bound to sugar molecules and these phytoestrogen-sugar complexes are not generally considered hormonally active. Phytoestrogens are found in many food products in addition to soy infant formula, especially soy-based foods such as tofu, soy milk, and in some over-the-counter dietary supplements. Soy infant formula was selected for National Toxicology Program (NTP) evaluation because of (1) the availability of large number of developmental toxicity studies in laboratory animals exposed to the isoflavones found in soy infant formula (namely, genistein) or other soy products, as well as few studies on human infants fed soy infant formula, (2) the availability of information on exposures in infants fed soy infant formula, and (3) public concern for effects on infant or child development. On October 2, 2008 (73 FR 57360), the NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) announced its intention to conduct an updated review of soy infant formula to complete a previous evaluation that was initiated in 2005. Both the current and previous evaluations relied on expert panels to assist the NTP in developing its conclusions on the potential developmental effects associated with the use of soy infant formula, presented in the NTP Brief on Soy Infant Formula. The initial expert panel met on March 15 to 17, 2006, to reach conclusions on the potential developmental and reproductive toxicities of soy infant formula and its predominant isoflavone constituent genistein. The expert panel reports were released for public comment on May 5, 2006 (71 FR 28368). On November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65537), CERHR staff released draft NTP Briefs on Genistein and Soy Formula that provided the NTP's interpretation of the potential for genistein and soy infant formula to cause adverse reproductive and/or developmental effects in exposed humans. However, CERHR did not complete these evaluations, finalize the briefs, or issue NTP Monographs on these substances based on this initial evaluation. Between 2006 and 2009, a substantial number of new publications related to human exposure or reproductive and/or developmental toxicity were published for these substances. Thus, CERHR determined that updated evaluations of genistein and soy infant formula were needed. However, the current evaluation focuses only on soy infant formula and the potential developmental toxicity of its major isoflavone components, e.g. genistein, daidzein (and estrogenic metabolite, equol), and glycitein. This updated evaluation does not include an assessment on the potential reproductive toxicity of genistein following exposures during adulthood as was carried out in the 2006 evaluation. CERHR narrowed the scope of the evaluation because the assessment of reproductive effects of genistein following exposure to adults was not considered relevant to the consideration of soy infant formula use in infants during the 2006 evaluation. To obtain updated information about soy infant formula for the CERHR evaluation, the PubMed (Medline) database was searched from February 2006 to August 2009 with genistein/genistin, daidzein/daidzin, glycitein/glycitin, equol, soy, and other relevant keywords. References were also identified from the bibliographies of published literature. The updated expert panel report represents the efforts of a 14-member panel of government and nongovernment scientists, and was prepared with assistance from NTP staff. The finalized report, released on January 15, 2010 (75 FR 2545), reflects consideration of public comments received on a draft report that was released on October 19, 2009, for public comment and discussions that occurred at a public meeting of the expert panel held December 16 to 18, 2009 (74 FR 53509). The finalized report presents conclusions on (1) the strength of scientific evidence that soy infant formula or its isoflavone constituents are developmental toxicants based on data from in vitro, animal, or human studies; (2) the extent of exposures in infants fed soy infant formula; (3) the assessment of the scientific evidence that adverse developmental health effects may be associated with such exposures; and (4) knowledge gaps that will help establish research and testing priorities to reduce uncertainties and increase confidence in future evaluations. The Expert Panel expressed minimal concern for adverse developmental effects in infants fed soy infant formula. This level of concern represents a "2" on the five-level scale of concern used by the NTP that ranges from negligible concern ("1") to serious concern ("5"). The Expert Panel Report on Soy Infant Formula was considered extensively by NTP staff in preparing the 2010 NTP Brief on Soy Infant Formula, which represents the NTP's opinion on the potential for exposure to soy infant formula to cause adverse developmental effects in humans. The NTP concurred with the expert panel that there is minimal concern for adverse effects on development in infants who consume soy infant formula. This conclusion was based on information about soy infant formula provided in the expert panel report, public comments received during the course of the expert panel evaluation, additional scientific information made available since the expert panel meeting, and peer reviewer critiques of the draft NTP Brief by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) on May 10, 2010 (Meeting materials are available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/9741.). The BSC voted in favor of the minimal concern conclusion with 7 yes votes, 3 no votes, and 0 abstentions. One member thought that the conclusion should be negligible concern and two members thought that the level of concern should be higher than minimal concern. The NTP's response to the May 10, 2010 review ("peer-review report") is available on the NTP website at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/9741. The monograph includes the NTP Brief on Soy Infant Formula as well as the entire final Expert Panel Report on Soy Infant Formula. Public comments received as part of the NTP's evaluation of soy infant formula and other background materials are available at http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/evals/index.html.

Calcium nutrition and metabolism during infancy

Calcium is a vital mineral for the developing newborn infant. This review discusses perinatal and neonatal calcium metabolism, with an emphasis on enteral calcium absorption and the nutritional factors affecting calcium bioavailability including the three major endocrine hormones involved in calcium metabolism: parathyroid hormone, vitamin D, and calcitonin. The placenta transports calcium to the fetus throughout pregnancy, with the largest amount of fetal calcium accumulation occurring in the third trimester. At birth, the newborn transitions to intestinal absorption to meet the body's calcium needs. Most calcium is absorbed by paracellular passive diffusion in the small intestine. Calcium intestinal absorption is affected by the type and amount of calcium ingested. It is also affected by the amount of intestinal calcium that is bound to dietary fats and proteins. One major consequence of decreased calcium absorption is metabolic bone disease in which there is a failure of complete mineralization of the bone osteoid.