Probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Dietary supplementation with probiotics to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or VLBW infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of supplemental probiotics on the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database, and CINAHL from inception to July 2022. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing probiotics with placebo or no probiotics in very preterm infants (born before 32 weeks' gestation) and VLBW infants (weighing less than 1500 g at birth). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs), with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes were NEC and all-cause mortality; secondary outcome measures were late-onset invasive infection (more than 48 hours after birth), duration of hospitalisation from birth, and neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials with 11,156 infants. Most trials were small (median sample size 145 infants). The main potential sources of bias were unclear reporting of methods for concealing allocation and masking caregivers or investigators in about half of the trials. The formulation of the probiotics varied across trials. The most common preparations contained Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., Saccharomyces spp., andStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Very preterm or very low birth weight infants Probiotics may reduce the risk of NEC (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.65; I² = 17%; 57 trials, 10,918 infants; low certainty). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 33 (95% CI 25 to 50). Probiotics probably reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; I² = 0%; 54 trials, 10,484 infants; moderate certainty); the NNTB was 50 (95% CI 50 to 100). Probiotics probably have little or no effect on the risk of late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I² = 22%; 49 trials, 9876 infants; moderate certainty). Probiotics may have little or no effect on neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1518 infants; low certainty). Extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants Few data were available for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants. In this population, probiotics may have little or no effect on NEC (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22, I² = 0%; 10 trials, 1836 infants; low certainty), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18; I² = 0%; 7 trials, 1723 infants; low certainty), or late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09; I² = 0%; 7 trials, 1533 infants; low certainty). No trials provided data for measures of neurodevelopmental impairment in extremely preterm or ELBW infants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low to moderate certainty of evidence for the effects of probiotic supplements on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or VLBW infants, and particularly for extremely preterm or ELBW infants, there is a need for further large, high-quality trials to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Prebiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Dietary supplementation with prebiotic oligosaccharides to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of enteral supplementation with prebiotics (versus placebo or no treatment) for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), from the earliest records to July 2022. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing prebiotics with placebo or no prebiotics in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or VLBW (< 1500 g) infants. The primary outcomes were NEC and all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were late-onset invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation since birth, and neurodevelopmental impairment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference (MD), with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes of interest were NEC and all-cause mortality; our secondary outcome measures were late-onset (> 48 hours after birth) invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation, and neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the level of certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials in which a total of 705 infants participated. All the trials were small (mean sample size 100). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were potential sources of bias in three of the trials. The studied prebiotics were fructo- and galacto-oligosaccharides, inulin, and lactulose, typically administered daily with enteral feeds during birth hospitalisation. Meta-analyses of data from seven trials (686 infants) suggest that prebiotics may result in little or no difference in NEC (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.56; RD none fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 40 more; low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.92; 40 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 70 fewer to none fewer; low-certainty evidence), or late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.06; 50 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 100 fewer to 10 more; low-certainty evidence) prior to hospital discharge. The certainty of this evidence is low because of concerns about the risk of bias in some trials and the imprecision of the effect size estimates. The data available from one trial provided only very low-certainty evidence about the effect of prebiotics on measures of neurodevelopmental impairment (Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) Mental Development Index score < 85: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.90; very low-certainty evidence; BSID Psychomotor Development Index score < 85: RR 0.24, 95% 0.03 to 2.00; very low-certainty evidence; cerebral palsy: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.35; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data provide low-certainty evidence about the effects of prebiotics on the risk of NEC, all-cause mortality before discharge, and invasive infection, and very low-certainty evidence about the effect on neurodevelopmental impairment for very preterm or VLBW infants. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited; the true effects may be substantially different. Large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity to inform policy and practice decisions.

Bubble devices versus other pressure sources for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Several types of pressure sources, including underwater bubble devices, mechanical ventilators, and the Infant Flow Driver, are used for providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to preterm infants with respiratory distress. It is unclear whether the use of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources is associated with lower rates of CPAP treatment failure, or mortality and other morbidity.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources (mechanical ventilators or Infant Flow Driver) for reducing treatment failure and associated morbidity and mortality in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2023, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1946 to 6 January 2023), Embase (1974 to 6 January 2023), Maternity & Infant Care Database (1971 to 6 January 2023), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 6 January 2023). We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing bubble CPAP with other pressure sources (mechanical ventilators or Infant Flow Driver) for the delivery of nasal CPAP to preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for effects on treatment failure, all-cause mortality, neurodevelopmental impairment, pneumothorax, moderate-severe nasal trauma, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving a total of 1437 infants. All trials were small (median number of participants 88). The methods used to generate the randomisation sequence and ensure allocation concealment were unclear in about half of the trial reports. Lack of measures to blind caregivers or investigators was a potential source of bias in all of the included trials. The trials took place during the past 25 years in care facilities internationally, predominantly in India (five trials) and Iran (four trials). The studied pressure sources were commercially available bubble CPAP devices versus a variety of mechanical ventilator (11 trials) or Infant Flow Driver (4 trials) devices.  Meta-analyses suggest that the use of bubble CPAP compared with mechanical ventilator or Infant Flow Driver CPAP may reduce the rate of treatment failure (RR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.95; (I² = 31%); RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 20, 95% CI 10 to 100; 13 trials, 1230 infants; low certainty evidence). The type of pressure source may not affect mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36 (I² = 0%); RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 10 trials, 1189 infants; low certainty evidence). No data were available on neurodevelopmental impairment. Meta-analysis suggests that the pressure source may not affect the risk of pneumothorax (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.34 (I² = 0%); RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 14 trials, 1340 infants; low certainty evidence). Bubble CPAP likely increases the risk of moderate-severe nasal injury (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.82 (I² = 17%); RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 14, 95% CI 9 to 33; 8 trials, 753 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The pressure source may not affect the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.10 (I² = 0%); RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 7 trials, 603 infants; low certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low level of certainty about the effects of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources on the risk of treatment failure and most associated morbidity and mortality for preterm infants, further large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform context- and setting-relevant policy and practice.

Implementing two-stage consent pathway in neonatal trials.

Perinatal trials sometimes require rapid recruitment processes to facilitate inclusion of participants when interventions are time-critical. A two-stage consent pathway has been used in some trials and is supported by national guidance. This pathway includes seeking oral assent for participation during the time-critical period followed by informed written consent later. This approach is being used in the fluids exclusively enteral from day one (FEED1) trial where participants need to be randomised within 3 hours of birth. There is some apprehension about approaching parents for participation via the oral assent pathway. The main reasons for this are consistent with previous research: lack of a written record, lack of standardised information and unfamiliarity with the process. Here, we describe how the pathway has been implemented in the FEED1 trial and the steps the trial team have taken to support sites. We provide recommendations for future trials to consider if they are considering implementing a similar pathway. Trial registration number: ISRCTN89654042.

Masks versus prongs as interfaces for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Nasal masks and nasal prongs are used as interfaces for providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress, either as primary support after birth or as ongoing support after endotracheal extubation from mechanical ventilation. It is unclear which type of interface is associated with lower rates of CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nasal masks versus nasal prongs for reducing CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing masks versus prongs as interfaces for delivery of nasal CPAP in newborn preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) with or at risk of respiratory distress. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. treatment failure, 2. all-cause mortality, and 3. neurodevelopmental impairment. Our secondary outcomes were 4. pneumothorax, 5. moderate-severe nasal trauma, 6. bronchopulmonary dysplasia, 7. duration of CPAP use, 8. duration of oxygen supplementation, 9. duration of hospitalisation, 10. patent ductus arteriosus receiving medical or surgical treatment, 11. necrotising enterocolitis, 12. severe intraventricular haemorrhage, and 13. severe retinopathy of prematurity. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials with 1604 infants. All trials were small (median number of participants 118). The trials occurred after 2001 in care facilities internationally, predominantly in India (eight trials). Most participants were preterm infants of 26 to 34 weeks' gestation who received nasal CPAP as the primary form of respiratory support after birth. The studied interfaces included commonly used commercially available masks and prongs. Lack of measures to blind caregivers or investigators was a potential source of performance and detection bias in all the trials. Meta-analyses suggested that use of masks compared with prongs may reduce CPAP treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.90; 8 trials, 919 infants; low certainty). The type of interface may not affect mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.22; 7 trials, 814 infants; low certainty). There are no data on neurodevelopmental impairment. Meta-analyses suggest that the choice of interface may result in little or no difference in the risk of pneumothorax (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.93; 5 trials, 625 infants; low certainty). Use of masks rather than prongs may reduce the risk of moderate-severe nasal injury (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71; 10 trials, 1058 infants; low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; 7 trials, 843 infants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data provide low-certainty evidence that use of masks compared with prongs as the nasal CPAP interface may reduce treatment failure and nasal injury, and may have little or no effect on mortality or the risk of pneumothorax in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. The effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia is very uncertain. Large, high-quality trials would be needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents in England, 2019-2021.

OBJECTIVE: To understand community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents. This is vital to understanding the susceptibility of this cohort to COVID-19 and to inform public health policy for disease control such as immunisation. DESIGN: We conducted a community-based cross-sectional seroprevalence study in participants aged 0-18 years old recruiting from seven regions in England between October 2019 and June 2021 and collecting extensive demographic and symptom data. Serum samples were tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins using Roche assays processed at UK Health Security Agency laboratories. Prevalence estimates were calculated for six time periods and were standardised by age group, ethnicity and National Health Service region. RESULTS: Post-first wave (June-August 2020), the (anti-spike IgG) adjusted seroprevalence was 5.2%, varying from 0.9% (participants 10-14 years old) to 9.5% (participants 5-9 years old). By April-June 2021, this had increased to 19.9%, varying from 13.9% (participants 0-4 years old) to 32.7% (participants 15-18 years old). Minority ethnic groups had higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity than white participants (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.0), after adjusting for sex, age, region, time period, deprivation and urban/rural geography. In children <10 years, there were no symptoms or symptom clusters that reliably predicted seropositivity. Overall, 48% of seropositive participants with complete questionnaire data recalled no symptoms between February 2020 and their study visit. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of participants aged 15-18 years old had evidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 prior to the introduction of widespread vaccination. These data demonstrate that ethnic background is independently associated with risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04061382.

Synbiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Dietary supplementation with synbiotics (probiotic micro-organisms combined with prebiotic oligosaccharides) to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of enteral supplementation with synbiotics (versus placebo or no treatment, or versus probiotics or prebiotics alone) for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database and CINAHL, from earliest records to 17 June 2021. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing prophylactic synbiotics supplementation with placebo or no synbiotics in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or very low birth weight (< 1500 g) infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately performed the screening and selection process,  evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the level of certainty for effects on NEC, all-cause mortality, late-onset invasive infection, and neurodevelopmental impairment. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials in which a total of 925 infants participated. Most trials were small (median sample size 200). Lack of clarity on methods used to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were potential sources of bias in four of the trials. The studied synbiotics preparations contained lactobacilli or bifidobacteria (or both) combined with fructo- or galacto-oligosaccharides (or both).  Meta-analyses suggested that synbiotics may reduce the risk of NEC (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.40; RD 70 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 100 fewer to 40 fewer; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 14, 95% CI 10 to 25; six trials (907 infants); low certainty evidence); and all-cause mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.85; RD 50 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 120 fewer to 100 fewer; NNTB 20, 95% CI 8 to 100; six trials (925 infants); low-certainty evidence). Synbiotics may have little or no effect on late-onset invasive infection, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.21; RD 20 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 30 more; five trials (707 infants); very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes. In the absence of high levels of heterogeneity, we did not undertake any subgroup analysis (including the type of feeding). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data provide only low-certainty evidence about the effects of synbiotics on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited; the true effects may be substantially different from these estimates. Large, high-quality trials would be needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Enteral feeding for very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants is often delayed for several days after birth due to concern that early introduction of feeding may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. Concerns exist, however, that delaying enteral feeding may diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: Search strategies were developed by an information specialist in consultation with the review authors. The following databases were searched in October 2021 without date or language restrictions: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to October 2021), Embase via OVID (1974 to October 2021), Maternity and Infant Care via OVID (1971 to October 2021), CINAHL (1982 to October 2021). We also searched for eligible trials in clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, previous reviews, and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of delayed (four or more days after birth) versus earlier introduction of progressive enteral feeds on necrotising enterocolitis, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately evaluated trial risk of bias, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on necrotising enterocolitis, mortality,  feed intolerance, and invasive infection. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials in which a total of 1551 infants participated. Potential sources of bias were lack of clarity on methods to generate random sequences and conceal allocation in half of the trials, and lack of masking of caregivers or investigators in all of the trials. Trials typically defined delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds as later than four to seven days after birth and early introduction as four days or fewer after birth. Infants in six trials (accounting for about half of all of the participants) had intrauterine growth restriction or circulatory redistribution demonstrated by absent or reversed end-diastolic flow velocities in the fetal aorta or umbilical artery.  Meta-analyses showed that delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds may not reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.14; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; 13 trials, 1507 infants; low-certainty evidence due risk of bias and imprecision) nor all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 12 trials, 1399 infants; low-certainty evidence due risk of bias and imprecision). Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds may slightly reduce the risk of feed intolerance (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 11, 95% CI 6 to 50; 6 trials, 581 infants; low-certainty evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision) and probably increases the risk of invasive infection (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.80; RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.15; number needed to treat for a harmful outcome = 10, 95% CI 7 to 25; 7 trials, 872 infants; moderate-certainty evidence due to risk of bias).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds beyond four days after birth (compared with earlier introduction) may not reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis or death in very preterm or VLBW infants. Delayed introduction may slightly reduce feed intolerance, and probably increases the risk of invasive infection.

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Early enteral feeding practices are potentially modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens, including slowly advancing enteral feed volumes, reduce the risk of NEC. However, it is unclear whether slow feed advancement may delay establishment of full enteral feeding, and if it could be associated with infectious morbidities secondary to prolonged exposure to parenteral nutrition. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the risk of NEC, mortality, and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2020, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October 2020), Embase via Ovid (1974 to October 2020), Maternity and Infant Care database (MIDIRS) (1971 to October 2020), CINAHL (1982 to October 2020), and clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed effects of slow (up to 24 mL/kg/d) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes on the risk of NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately evaluated trial risk of bias, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Outcomes of interest were NEC, all-cause mortality, feed intolerance, and invasive infection. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials involving a total of 4033 infants (2804 infants participated in one large trial). None of the trials masked parents, caregivers, or investigators. Risk of bias was otherwise low. Most infants were stable very preterm or VLBW infants of birth weight appropriate for gestation. About one-third of all infants were extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight (ELBW), and about one-fifth were small for gestational age, growth-restricted, or compromised as indicated by absent or reversed end-diastolic flow velocity in the foetal umbilical artery. Trials typically defined slow advancement as daily increments of 15 to 24 mL/kg, and faster advancement as daily increments of 30 to 40 mL/kg. Meta-analyses showed that slow advancement of enteral feed volumes probably has little or no effect on the risk of NEC (RR 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.37; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; 14 trials, 4026 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.39; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; 13 trials, 3860 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses suggested that slow advancement may slightly increase feed intolerance (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.46; RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 9 trials, 719 infants; low-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the risk of invasive infection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.31; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.05; 11 trials, 3583 infants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data indicate that advancing enteral feed volumes slowly (daily increments up to 24 mL/kg) compared with faster rates probably does not reduce the risk of NEC, death, or feed intolerance in very preterm or VLBW infants. Advancing the volume of enteral feeds at a slow rate may slightly increase the risk of invasive infection.

Water fluoridation: current challenges.

Dental extraction for caries is the most common reason for children aged 6-10 years to be admitted to hospital. Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) is safe and effective at reducing dental caries. It is most effective where there is more deprivation. However, many deprived areas do not have CWF despite Public Health England recommending it. Those who lobby against fluoridation do so using emotionally charged language and misinformation. We discuss the benefits of fluoridation and the specious arguments used against this important public health measure. The National CWF Network is led by dentists and promotes CWF. COVID-19 has led to the suspension of routine dentistry, renewing the urgency of implementation of CWF. Professional bodies such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health are urged to give their support.

Early full enteral feeding for preterm or low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: The introduction and advancement of enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants is often delayed because of concerns that early full enteral feeding will not be well tolerated or may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. Early full enteral feeding, however, might increase nutrient intake and growth rates; accelerate intestinal physiological, metabolic, and microbiomic postnatal transition; and reduce the risk of complications associated with intravascular devices for fluid administration.  OBJECTIVES: To determine how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth and adverse events such as necrotising enterocolitis, in preterm or low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials to October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared early full enteral feeding with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately assessed trial eligibility, evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RR), risk differences, and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials. All were undertaken in the 2010s in neonatal care facilities in India. In total, 526 infants participated. Most were very preterm infants of birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. Trials were of good methodological quality, but a potential source of bias was that parents, clinicians, and investigators were not masked. The trials compared early full feeding (60 mL/kg to 80 mL/kg on day one after birth) with minimal enteral feeding (typically 20 mL/kg on day one) supplemented with intravenous fluids. Feed volumes were advanced daily as tolerated by 20 mL/kg to 30 mL/kg body weight to a target steady-state volume of 150 mL/kg to 180 mL/kg/day. All participating infants were fed preferentially with maternal expressed breast milk, with two trials supplementing insufficient volumes with donor breast milk and four supplementing with preterm formula.  Few data were available to assess growth parameters. One trial (64 participants) reported a slower rate of weight gain (median difference -3.0 g/kg/day), and another (180 participants) reported a faster rate of weight gain in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 1.2 g/kg/day). We did not meta-analyse these data (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported rate of head circumference growth. One trial reported that the mean z-score for weight at hospital discharge was higher in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect on necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.54; 6 trials, 522 participants; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials provided insufficient data to determine with any certainty how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth in preterm or low birth weight infants. We are uncertain whether early full enteral feeding affects the risk of necrotising enterocolitis because of the risk of bias in the trials (due to lack of masking), inconsistency, and imprecision.

Antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters for preventing neonatal bloodstream infection: the PREVAIL RCT.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials show that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection in adults and children receiving intensive care, but there is insufficient evidence for use in newborn babies. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were (1) to determine clinical effectiveness by conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters for reducing bloodstream or cerebrospinal fluid infections (referred to as bloodstream infections); (2) to conduct an economic evaluation of the costs, cost-effectiveness and value of conducting additional research; and (3) to conduct a generalisability analysis of trial findings to neonatal care in the NHS. DESIGN: Three separate studies were undertaken, each addressing one of the three objectives. (1) This was a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial; (2) an analysis was undertaken of hospital care costs, lifetime cost-effectiveness and value of information from an NHS perspective; and (3) this was a retrospective cohort study of bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England. SETTING: The randomised controlled trial was conducted in 18 neonatal intensive care units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were babies who required a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (of 1 French gauge in size). INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were an antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter (coated with rifampicin-miconazole) or a standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, allocated randomly (1 : 1) using web randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Study 1 - time to first bloodstream infection, sampled between 24 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal. Study 2 - cost-effectiveness of the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter compared with the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Study 3 - risk-adjusted bloodstream rates in the trial compared with those in neonatal units in England. For study 3, the data used were as follows: (1) case report forms and linked death registrations; (2) case report forms and linked death registrations linked to administrative health records with 6-month follow-up; and (3) neonatal health records linked to infection surveillance data. RESULTS: Study 1, clinical effectiveness - 861 babies were randomised (antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n = 430; standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n = 431). Bloodstream infections occurred in 46 babies (10.7%) randomised to antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters and in 44 (10.2%) babies randomised to standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. No difference in time to bloodstream infection was detected (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.67; p = 0.63). Secondary outcomes of rifampicin resistance in positive blood/cerebrospinal fluid cultures, mortality, clinical outcomes at neonatal unit discharge and time to peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal were similar in both groups. Rifampicin resistance in positive peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip cultures was higher in the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter group (relative risk 3.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 10.57; p = 0.02) than in the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter group. Adverse events were similar in both groups. Study 2, economic evaluation - the mean cost of babies' hospital care was £83,473. Antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters were not cost-effective. Given the increased price, compared with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters, the minimum reduction in risk of bloodstream infection for antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters to be cost-effective was 3% and 15% for babies born at 23-27 and 28-32 weeks' gestation, respectively. Study 3, generalisability analysis - risk-adjusted bloodstream infection rates per 1000 peripherally inserted central venous catheter days were similar among babies in the trial and in all neonatal units. Of all bloodstream infections in babies receiving intensive or high-dependency care in neonatal units, 46% occurred during peripherally inserted central venous catheter days. LIMITATIONS: The trial was open label as antimicrobial-impregnated and standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters are different colours. There was insufficient power to determine differences in rifampicin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence of benefit or harm was found of peripherally inserted central venous catheters impregnated with rifampicin-miconazole during neonatal care. Interventions with small effects on bloodstream infections could be cost-effective over a child's life course. Findings were generalisable to neonatal units in England. Future research should focus on other types of antimicrobial impregnation of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and alternative approaches for preventing bloodstream infections in neonatal care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81931394. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Babies who are born too early or who are very sick require intensive care after birth and during early life. Most will have a long, narrow, plastic tube, called a catheter, inserted into a vein. The catheter is used to give babies fluids containing medicines and nutrition to keep them well and help them grow. The catheter can remain in place for several days or weeks. But the presence of plastic tubing in the vein increases the risk of infection. This study aimed to find out whether or not catheters coated with antimicrobial medicines, called rifampicin and miconazole, could reduce the risk of infection. These medicines act by stopping germs from growing on the catheter, but do not harm the baby or interfere with other treatments. A randomised controlled trial was carried out in 18 neonatal units in England. Whenever a baby needed a catheter, their parents were asked for consent to participate in the trial. The baby was then randomised, similar to tossing a coin, to receive either the antimicrobial catheter or a standard one. A total of 861 babies participated. We followed up all babies in the same way until after the catheter was removed to compare how often babies in each group had an infection. It was found that antimicrobial catheters were no better or worse at preventing infection than standard catheters. Antimicrobial catheters cost more and we found no evidence of benefit; these results suggest that their use in neonatal intensive care is not justified. It was calculated that further research on ways to reduce infection may be good value for money, depending on the costs of this research. The babies who took part in this study were typical of babies in England receiving catheters, meaning that the results can be applied across the NHS. Future research should focus on catheters that contain other types of antimicrobials and alternative ways of preventing infection.

Probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Dietary supplementation with probiotics to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of supplemental probiotics on the risk of NEC and mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 Feb 2020), Embase Ovid (1974 to 17 Feb 2020), Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid (1971 to 17 Feb 2020), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 18 Feb 2020). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing probiotic supplementation with placebo or no probiotics in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. 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 ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on NEC, all-cause mortality, late-onset infection, and severe neurodevelopmental impairment. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 trials in which 10,812 infants participated. Most trials were small (median sample size 149). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were the main potential sources of bias in about half of the trials. Trials varied by the formulation of the probiotics. The most commonly used preparations contained Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., Saccharomyces spp., and Streptococcus spp. alone or in combinations. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may reduce the risk of NEC: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.65 (54 trials, 10,604 infants; I² = 17%); RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 33, 95% CI 25 to 50. Evidence was assessed as low certainty because of the limitations in trials design, and the presence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with publication bias. Sensitivity meta-analysis of trials at low risk of bias showed a reduced risk of NEC: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89 (16 trials, 4597 infants; I² = 25%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100. Meta-analyses showed that probiotics probably reduce mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.89; (51 trials, 10,170 infants; I² = 0%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 50 to 100), and late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; (47 trials, 9762 infants; I² = 19%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100). Evidence was assessed as moderate certainty for both these outcomes because of the limitations in trials design. Sensitivity meta-analyses of 16 trials (4597 infants) at low risk of bias did not show an effect on mortality or infection. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may have little or no effect on severe neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26 (five trials, 1518 infants; I² = 0%). The certainty on this evidence is low because of limitations in trials design and serious imprecision of effect estimate. Few data (from seven of the trials) were available for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants. Meta-analyses did not show effects on NEC, death, or infection (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low to moderate level of certainty about the effects of probiotic supplements on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or very low birth weight infants, and particularly for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants, further, large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient quality and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies preventing late-onset infection in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVE: Developing a model to analyse the cost-effectiveness of interventions preventing late-onset infection (LOI) in preterm infants and applying it to the evaluation of anti-microbial impregnated peripherally inserted central catheters (AM-PICCs) compared with standard PICCs (S-PICCs). DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis, using data from the Preventing infection using Antimicrobial Impregnated Long Lines (PREVAIL) randomised controlled trial linked to routine healthcare data, supplemented with published literature. The model assumes that LOI increases the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). SETTING: Neonatal intensive care units in the UK National Health Service (NHS). PATIENTS: Infants born ≤32 weeks gestational age, requiring a 1 French gauge PICC. INTERVENTIONS: AM-PICC and S-PICC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs over the infants' expected lifetime. RESULTS: Severe NDI reduces life expectancy by 14.79 (95% CI 4.43 to 26.68; undiscounted) years, 10.63 (95% CI 7.74 to 14.02; discounted) QALYs and costs £19 057 (95% CI £14 197; £24697; discounted) to the NHS. If LOI causes NDI, the maximum acquisition price of an intervention reducing LOI risk by 5% is £120. AM-PICCs increase costs (£54.85 (95% CI £25.95 to £89.12)) but have negligible impact on health outcomes (-0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.04) QALYs), compared with S-PICCs. The NHS can invest up to £2.4 million in research to confirm that AM-PICCs are not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The model quantifies health losses and additional healthcare costs caused by NDI and LOI during neonatal care. Given these consequences, interventions preventing LOI, even by a small extent, can be cost-effective. AM-PICCs, being less effective and more costly than S-PICC, are not likely to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03260517.

Linking surveillance and clinical data for evaluating trends in bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate variation in trends in bloodstream infection (BSI) rates in neonatal units (NNUs) in England according to the data sources and linkage methods used. METHODS: We used deterministic and probabilistic methods to link clinical records from 112 NNUs in the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) to national laboratory infection surveillance data from Public Health England. We calculated the proportion of babies in NNRD (aged <1 year and admitted between 2010-2017) with a BSI caused by clearly pathogenic organisms between two days after admission and two days after discharge. We used Poisson regression to determine trends in the proportion of babies with BSI based on i) deterministic and probabilistic linkage of NNRD and surveillance data (primary measure), ii) deterministic linkage of NNRD-surveillance data, iii) NNRD records alone, and iv) linked NNRD-surveillance data augmented with clinical records of laboratory-confirmed BSI in NNRD. RESULTS: Using deterministic and probabilistic linkage, 5,629 of 349,740 babies admitted to a NNU in NNRD linked with 6,660 BSI episodes accounting for 38% of 17,388 BSI records aged <1 year in surveillance data. The proportion of babies with BSI due to clearly pathogenic organisms during their NNU admission was 1.0% using deterministic plus probabilistic linkage (primary measure), compared to 1.0% using deterministic linkage alone, 0.6% using NNRD records alone, and 1.2% using linkage augmented with clinical records of BSI in NNRD. Equivalent proportions for babies born before 32 weeks of gestation were 5.0%, 4.8%, 2.9% and 5.9%. The proportion of babies who linked to a BSI decreased by 7.5% each year (95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.3%, -0.1%) using deterministic and probabilistic linkage but was stable using clinical records of BSI or deterministic linkage alone. CONCLUSION: Linkage that combines BSI records from national laboratory surveillance and clinical NNU data sources, and use of probabilistic methods, substantially improved ascertainment of BSI and estimates of BSI trends over time, compared with single data sources.