Oral dextrose gel to treat neonatal hypoglycaemia: Clinician survey

Midwife or doctor leader to implement a national guideline in babies on postnatal wards (DesIGN): A cluster-randomised, controlled, trial

The aim of this trial was to determine if midwives or doctor leaders are more effective at implementing a clinical practice guideline for oral dextrose gel to treat neonatal hypoglycaemia. This was a cluster-randomised, controlled, trial. New Zealand maternity hospitals were randomised to guideline implementation by a midwife or doctor implementation leader. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of hypoglycaemic babies (blood glucose concentration <2.6 mmol/L in the first 48 hours after birth), treated with dextrose gel from before, to three months after, implementation. Twenty-one maternity hospitals that cared for babies at risk of hypoglycaemia consented to participate, of which 15 treated babies with hypoglycaemia at both time points (7 randomised to midwifery led, 8 randomised to doctor led implementation). The primary outcome included 463 hypoglycaemic babies (292 midwifery led, 171 doctor led implementation). There was no difference in the primary outcome between hospitals randomised to midwifery or doctor led implementation (proportion treated with gel, mean(SD); midwifery led: before 71 (38)%, 3 months after 87 (12)%; doctor led: before 63 (43)%, 3 months after 86 (16)%; adjusted mean change in proportion (95%CI); 19.3% (-4.5-43.1), p = 0.11). There was an increase in the proportion of eligible babies treated with oral dextrose gel from before to 3 months after implementation of the guideline (122/153 (80%) v 144/163 (88%), OR (95%CI); 3.42 (1.67-6.98), p<0.001). Implementation of a clinical practice guideline improved uptake of oral dextrose gel. There was no evidence of a difference between midwife and doctor implementation leaders for implementing this guideline for treatment of hypoglycaemic babies. The trial was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry on the 20/05/2015 (ISRCTN61154098).

Effect of prophylactic dextrose gel on the neonatal gut microbiome

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of prophylactic dextrose gel on the infant gut microbiome.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study nested in a randomised trial.

SETTING

Three maternity hospitals in New Zealand.

PATIENTS

Infants at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia whose parents consented to participation in the hypoglycaemia Prevention in newborns with Oral Dextrose trial (hPOD). Infants were randomised to receive prophylactic dextrose gel or placebo gel, or were not randomised and received no gel (controls). Stool samples were collected on days 1, 7 and 28.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was microbiome beta-diversity at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes were beta-diversity, alpha-diversity, bacterial DNA concentration, microbial community stability and relative abundance of individual bacterial taxa at each time point.

RESULTS

We analysed 434 stool samples from 165 infants using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. There were no differences between groups in beta-diversity at 4 weeks (p=0.49). There were also no differences between groups in any other microbiome measures including beta-diversity (p=0.53 at day 7), alpha-diversity (p=0.46 for day 7 and week 4), bacterial DNA concentration (p=0.91), microbial community stability (p=0.52) and microbial relative abundance at genus level. There was no evidence that exposure to any dextrose gel (prophylaxis or treatment) had any effect on the microbiome. Mode of birth, type of milk fed, hospital of birth and ethnicity were all associated with differences in the neonatal microbiome.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians and consumers can be reassured that dextrose gel used for prophylaxis or treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia does not alter the neonatal gut microbiome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

12614001263684.

Implementation and outcomes of a standard dose dextrose gel protocol for management of transient neonatal hypoglycemia

OBJECTIVE

The use of oral dextrose gel (DG) reduces IV dextrose use. Prior studies used weight-based dosing (WD), though barriers exist, and are mitigated using standard dosing (SD). Our outcomes include IV dextrose use, NICU admissions, breastfeeding, adverse events, and assessment of WD vs SD.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review comparing pre-DG, WD, and SD in 16490 newborns (1329 hypoglycemic) ≥ 35 weeks admitted to the nursery over 3 years.

RESULTS

There was reduction in IV dextrose use 10.9% vs 6.5% (p = 0.004) and NICU admissions 27.9% vs 16.1% (p < 0.001) associated with DG use, and increased rate of breastfed infants 33.8% vs 43.5% (p = 0.001), with no difference between WD and SD. No difference noted in adverse events across the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

DG utilization is associated with reduced IV dextrose use, NICU admissions, and improved breastfeeding rates without changes in adverse events. We offer SD as a safe alternative to WD.

Oral dextrose gel for the treatment of hypoglycaemia in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Neonatal hypoglycaemia, a common condition, can be associated with brain injury. It is frequently managed by providing infants with an alternative source of glucose, often given enterally with milk-feeding or intravenously with dextrose solution, which may decrease breastfeeding success. Intravenous dextrose also often requires that mother and baby are cared for in separate environments. Oral dextrose gel is simple and inexpensive, and can be administered directly to the buccal mucosa for rapid correction of hypoglycaemia, in association with continued breastfeeding and maternal care. This is an update of a previous review published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of oral dextrose gel in correcting hypoglycaemia in newborn infants from birth to discharge home and reducing long-term neurodevelopmental impairment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase from database inception to October 2021.  We also searched international clinical trials networks, the reference lists of included trials, and relevant systematic reviews identified in the search.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing oral dextrose gel versus placebo, no treatment, or other therapies for the treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia in newborn infants from birth to discharge home.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data; they did not assess publications for which they were study authors. We contacted investigators to obtain additional information. We used fixed-effect models and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies conducted in high-income countries, involving 312 late preterm and at-risk term infants and comparing oral dextrose gel (40% concentration) to placebo gel. One study was at low risk of bias, and the other (an abstract) was at unclear to high risk of bias. Oral dextrose gel compared with placebo gel probably increases correction of hypoglycaemic events (rate ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.20; rate difference 66 more per 1000, 95% CI 17 fewer to 166 more; 1 study; 237 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in a slight reduction in the risk of major neurological disability at age two years or older, but the evidence is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.47; risk difference (RD) 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 41 fewer to 66 more; 1 study, 185 children; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral dextrose gel compared with placebo gel or no gel on the need for intravenous treatment for hypoglycaemia (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32; RD 37 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 91 fewer to 54 more; 2 studies, 312 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Investigators in one study of 237 infants reported no adverse events (e.g. choking or vomiting at the time of administration) in the oral dextrose gel or placebo gel group (low-certainty evidence).  Oral dextrose gel compared with placebo gel probably reduces the incidence of separation from the mother for treatment of hypoglycaemia (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93; RD 116 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 174 fewer to 18 fewer; 1 study, 237 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and increases the likelihood of exclusive breastfeeding after discharge (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.18; RD 87 more per 1000, 95% CI 9 more to 157 more; 1 study, 237 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral dextrose gel (specifically 40% dextrose concentration) used to treat hypoglycaemia in newborn infants (specifically at-risk late preterm and term infants) probably increases correction of hypoglycaemic events, and may result in a slight reduction in the risk of major neurological disability at age two years or older. Oral dextrose gel treatment probably reduces the incidence of separation from the mother for treatment and increases the likelihood of exclusive breastfeeding after discharge. No adverse events have been reported. Oral dextrose gel is probably an effective and safe first-line treatment for infants with neonatal hypoglycaemia in high-income settings.  More evidence is needed about the effects of oral dextrose gel treatment on later neurological disability and the need for other treatments for hypoglycaemia. Future studies should be conducted in low-and middle-income settings, in extremely and moderately preterm infants, and compare oral dextrose gel with other therapies such as intravenous dextrose. There are two ongoing studies that may alter the conclusions of this review when published.

Clinical management and knowledge of neonatal hypoglycaemia in Germany: A national survey of midwives and nurses

AIM

Despite being a common metabolic condition, the detection and care of neonatal hypoglycaemia in Germany largely depends on the infant's health-care provider, rather than a national protocol. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate midwives' and nurses' knowledge and management of neonatal hypoglycaemia and to determine the need for national guidelines.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey was developed and completed by 127 perinatal nurses and midwives. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney-U, χ² and Fisher's exact tests were used to summarise and analyse the results.

RESULTS

In total, 82% of respondents indicated using guidelines but routine blood glucose screening for neonates at risk for hypoglycaemia was rarely reported (44%). A blood glucose concentration of 2.5 mmol/L (45 mg/dL) was considered the treatment threshold by 52% of the respondents. However, the responses to clinical scenarios showed distinct differences regarding the management of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Finally, 49% of respondents reported insufficient knowledge regarding neonatal hypoglycaemia and 77% indicated that they would advocate the implication of enhanced national guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in knowledge about the prevention, screening and management of neonatal hypoglycaemia among nurses and midwives in Germany. Enhanced guidelines and education of health-care professionals are urgently needed to provide the best possible care to all hypoglycaemic newborns.

Two-year outcomes after dextrose gel prophylaxis for neonatal hypoglycaemia

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of prophylactic dextrose gel for prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia on neurodevelopment and executive function at 2 years' corrected age.

DESIGN

Prospective follow-up of a randomised trial.

SETTING

New Zealand.

PATIENTS

Participants from the pre-hypoglycaemia Prevention with Oral Dextrose (pre-hPOD) trial randomised to one of four dose regimes of buccal 40% dextrose gel or equivolume placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Coprimary outcomes were neurosensory impairment and executive function. Secondary outcomes were components of the primary outcomes, neurology, anthropometry and health measures.

RESULTS

We assessed 360 of 401 eligible children (90%) at 2 years' corrected age. There were no differences between dextrose gel dose groups, single or multiple dose groups, or any dextrose and any placebo groups in the risk of neurosensory impairment or low executive function (any dextrose vs any placebo neurosensory impairment: relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.19, p=0.23; low executive function: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.06, p=0.07). There were also no differences between groups in any secondary outcomes. There was no difference between children who did or did not develop neonatal hypoglycaemia in the risk of neurosensory impairment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.64, p=0.81) or low executive function (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.59, p=0.43).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic dextrose gel did not alter neurodevelopment or executive function and had no adverse effects to 2 years' corrected age, but this study was underpowered to detect potentially clinically important effects on neurosensory outcomes.