Post Discharge Formula Fortification of Maternal Human Milk of Very Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants: An Introduction of a Feeding Protocol in a University Hospital

Fortification of Breast Milk With Preterm Formula Powder vs Human Milk Fortifier in Preterm Neonates: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

IMPORTANCE

Fortification of expressed breast milk (EBM) using commercially available human milk fortifiers (HMF) increases short-term weight and length in preterm very low-birth-weight (VLBW) neonates. However, the high cost and increased risk of feed intolerance limit their widespread use. Preterm formula powder fortification (PTF) might be a better alternative in resource-limited settings.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that fortification of EBM by preterm formula powder is noninferior to fortification by HMF, in terms of short-term weight gain, in VLBW neonates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from December 2017 to June 2019 at a level 3 neonatal unit in India. The trial enrolled preterm (born at or before 34 weeks of gestation) VLBW neonates receiving at least 100 mL/kg/d of feeds and consuming 75% of milk or more as EBM.

INTERVENTIONS

Neonates were randomly assigned to receive fortification by either PTF or HMF. Calcium, phosphorus, iron, vitamin D, and multivitamins were supplemented in PTF and only vitamin D in the HMF group to meet the recommended dietary allowances.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the weight gain until discharge from the hospital or 40 weeks' postmenstrual age, whichever was earlier; the prespecified noninferiority margin was 2 g/kg/d. Secondary outcomes included morbidities such as necrotizing enterocolitis, feed intolerance, and extrauterine growth restriction (<10th percentile on the Fenton chart at 40 weeks' postmenstrual age).

RESULTS

Of the 123 neonates enrolled, 60 and 63 were randomized to the PTF and HMF groups, respectively. The mean gestation (30.5 vs 29.9 weeks) and birth weight (1161 vs 1119 g) were comparable between the groups. There was no difference in the mean (SD) weight gain between the PTF and HMF groups (15.7 [3.9] vs 16.3 [4.0] g/kg/d; mean difference, -0.5 g/kg/d; 95% CI, -1.9 to 0.7). The lower bound of 95% CI did not cross the noninferiority margin. The incidence of feed intolerance was lower in the PTF group (1.4 vs 6.8 per 1000 patient-days; incidence rate ratio 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.95), and fewer neonates required withholding of fortification for 24 hours or more (5% vs 22%; risk ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.75). The incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis stage II or more (0 vs 5%) and extrauterine growth restriction (73% vs 81%) was comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Fortification with preterm formula powder is not inferior to fortification with human milk fortifiers in preterm neonates. Given the possible reduction in feed intolerance and lower costs, preterm formula might be a better option for fortification, especially in resource-restricted settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Registry, India Identifier: CTRI/2017/11/010593.

Multi-nutrient fortification of human milk for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Human breast milk-fed preterm infants can accumulate nutrient deficits leading to extrauterine growth restriction. Feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified human milk could increase nutrient accretion and growth rates and improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. Concern exists, however, that multi-nutrient fortifiers are associated with adverse events such as feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether multi-nutrient fortified human milk, compared with unfortified human milk, affects important outcomes (including growth rate and neurodevelopment) of preterm infants without increasing the risk of adverse effects (such as feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 9), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 26 September 2019), Embase (1980 to 26 September 2019), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 26 September 2019). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient (protein and energy plus minerals, vitamins, or other nutrients) fortified human breast milk versus unfortified (no added protein or energy) breast milk.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 trials in which a total of 1456 preterm infants participated. These trials were generally small and methodologically weak. Meta-analyses provided low- to moderate-certainty evidence showing that multi-nutrient fortification of human milk increases in-hospital rate of weight gain (MD 1.76 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 2.22), body length (MD 0.11 cm/week, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15), or head circumference (MD 0.06 cm/week, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08) among preterm infants. Few data on growth and developmental outcomes assessed beyond infancy are available, and these do not show effects of multi-nutrient fortification. The data do not suggest other benefits or harms and provide low-certainty evidence suggesting effects of multi-nutrient fortification on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants (typical RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.63; 13 studies, 1110 infants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified human breast milk compared with unfortified human breast milk is associated with modest increases in in-hospital growth rates. Evidence is insufficient to show whether multi-nutrient fortification has any effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Nutritional Support of Very Low Birth Weight Infants in a Tertiary Center in a Developing Country

Background

Very low birth weight infants (VLBWIs) are at high risk for nutritional deficiency. Enteral feeding is usually challenged by increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The nutritional needs of VLBWIs are usually dependent on parenteral nutrition during early postnatal life. This study aimed to evaluate the nutritional service of VLBWIs at Jordan University Hospital.

Methods

This was a prospective follow-up study of VLBWIs with birth weight ≤ 1,500 g. Data were extracted from medical charts and laboratory database.

Results

In total, 43 VLBWIs met our inclusion criteria; of them, 21% were extremely low birth weight infants (ELBWIs). The mean gestational age was 29 weeks, and the mean birth weight was 1,218 g. The mean age of starting feeds was 3 days. Mean full feed age is 2 weeks. The most common side effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) was hypertriglyceridemia (35%).

Conclusions

Nutritional care of VLBWIs is well established in our center. Initiating fortification earlier and working to increase mother's own breast milk supply is vital to improve growth in low resource setting.

A randomized controlled trial comparing the effect of fortification of human milk with an infant formula powder versus unfortified human milk on the growth of preterm very low birth weight infants

Objective: To optimize growth in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants, human milk fortification is standard of care in neonatal units of high-income countries. However, commercial fortifiers may not be available or it may be too expensive in resource-limited settings. As an alternative to using human milk fortifiers, we studied the effects of milk fortification with an infant formula on growth and biochemical parameters of very low birth weight (VLBW) infantsMethods: We undertook a prospective, randomized controlled trial in the neonatal unit of a tertiary care hospital in South India. Preterm infants weighing <1500 grams and <34 weeks of gestation were randomized after stratification according to birth weight into two groups (<1250 g and 1250 to <1500 g). One group received fortified human milk while the other received exclusive human milk. The fortification was done with a commercially available infant milk powder added to expressed breast milk (when the infant reached 150 ml/kg/day of feeds) and continued till the infant reached 1800 g. The primary outcome was the rate of weight gain/kg/day. Secondary outcome measures were linear growth, head circumference increase, biochemical parameters to assess the adequacy or excess of protein supplementation and comorbidities like feed intolerance, sepsis, and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).Results: Total of 163 babies were randomized during the study period, of whom 148 babies (73 in the standard arm and 75 in the fortification arm) completed the trial. Baseline demographic data among the two groups were comparable. Weight gain/kg/day (mean difference (MD) 1.98 g/kg/day; 95% CI: 1.03-2.92; p<.001) and linear growth (MD 0.09 cm/week; 95% CI: 0.02-0.2; p=.02) was significantly higher in the fortification arm as compared to the control arm. The head growth (head circumference gain in cm/week) was higher and length of hospital stay lesser in the fortification arm, though not statistically significant. Biochemical parameters, rates of sepsis, feed intolerance, and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) were not different between the two groups.Conclusion: Fortification with Infant milk powder achieves better growth parameters than unfortified human milk and can be a useful alternative for feeding preterm VLBW infants in low resource settings.

ABM Clinical Protocol #12: Transitioning the Breastfeeding Preterm Infant from the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit to Home, Revised 2018

A central goal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is the development of clinical protocols, free from commercial interest or influence, for managing common medical problems that may impact breastfeeding success. These protocols serve only as guidelines for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants and do not delineate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as standards of medical care. Variations in treatment may be appropriate according to the needs of an individual patient.