WITHDRAWN: Nutrition support for bone marrow transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002. Bone marrow transplantation involves administration of toxic chemotherapy and infusion of marrow cells. After treatment, patients can develop poor appetite, mucositis and gastrointestinal failure, leading to malnutrition. To prevent this, parenteral nutrition (PN) support is often first choice but is associated with increased risk of infection. Enteral nutrition (EN) is an alternative, as is addition of substrates. OBJECTIVES: To determine efficacy of EN or PN support for patients receiving bone marrow transplant. SEARCH METHODS: Search of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL in November 2000 and subsequently June 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs that compared one form of nutrition support with another, or control, for bone marrow transplant patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Twenty nine studies were identified. Data were collected on participants' characteristics; adverse effects; neutropaenia; % change in body weight; graft versus host disease; and survival. MAIN RESULTS: In two studies (82 participants) glutamine mouthwash reduced number of days patients were neutropenic (6.82 days, 95%CI (1.67 to 11.98) P = 0.009) compared with placebo. Three studies reported (103 participants) that patients receiving PN with glutamine had reduced hospital stay, 6.62 d (95%CI 3.47 to 9.77, P = 0.00004) compared with patients receiving standard PN. However, in the update a further study was added (147 participants) which altered the pooled results: duration in hospital may be increased for those who receive PN with additional glutamine - 0.22 days (95%CI (1.29 to 1.72). Two other studies reported that (73 participants) patients receiving PN plus glutamine had reduced incidence of positive blood cultures (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.65, P = 0.006) compared to those receiving standard PN. However, a study from the update (113 participants in total) showed the odds of having a positive blood culture have increased but are still less likely if the patient receives PN with glutamine compared to standard PN (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.04). When patients were given PN versus IV hydration, (25 participants) patients receiving PN had a higher incidence of line infections (OR 21.23, 95%CI 4.15 to 108.73, P = 0.0002) compared to those receiving standard IV fluids. The update identified one study which recognised that (55 participants) those who received IV were likely to spend less time in hospital, 3.30 days (95%CI -0.38 to 6.98, P = 0.08), although this result was not significant. As reported in the original review there remains no evaluable data to properly compare PN with EN. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update an additional study that compared PN and Glutamine versus standard PN showed that the certain benefits of parenteral nutrition with added glutamine compared to standard PN for reducing hospital stay are no longer definite. When PN with glutamine is compared with standard PN, patients may not leave hospital earlier, but do have reduced incidence of positive blood cultures, than those receiving standard PN. Where possible use of intravenous fluids and oral diet should be considered as a preference to parenteral nutrition, however, in the event of a patient suffering severe gastrointestinal failure even with a trial of enteral feeding, PN with the addition of glutamine could be considered.

Nutrition support for bone marrow transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002. Bone marrow transplantation involves administration of toxic chemotherapy and infusion of marrow cells. After treatment, patients can develop poor appetite, mucositis and gastrointestinal failure, leading to malnutrition. To prevent this, parenteral nutrition (PN) support is often first choice but is associated with increased risk of infection. Enteral nutrition (EN) is an alternative, as is addition of substrates. OBJECTIVES: To determine efficacy of EN or PN support for patients receiving bone marrow transplant. SEARCH STRATEGY: Search of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL in November 2000 and subsequently June 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs that compared one form of nutrition support with another, or control, for bone marrow transplant patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Twenty nine studies were identified. Data were collected on participants' characteristics; adverse effects; neutropaenia; % change in body weight; graft versus host disease; and survival. MAIN RESULTS: In two studies (82 participants) glutamine mouthwash reduced number of days patients were neutropenic (6.82 days, 95%CI (1.67 to 11.98) P = 0.009) compared with placebo. Three studies reported (103 participants) that patients receiving PN with glutamine had reduced hospital stay, 6.62 d (95%CI 3.47 to 9.77, P = 0.00004) compared with patients receiving standard PN. However, in the update a further study was added (147 participants) which altered the pooled results: duration in hospital may be increased for those who receive PN with additional glutamine - 0.22 days (95%CI (1.29 to 1.72). Two other studies reported that (73 participants) patients receiving PN plus glutamine had reduced incidence of positive blood cultures (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.65, P = 0.006) compared to those receiving standard PN. However, a study from the update (113 participants in total) showed the odds of having a positive blood culture have increased but are still less likely if the patient receives PN with glutamine compared to standard PN (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.04). When patients were given PN versus IV hydration, (25 participants) patients receiving PN had a higher incidence of line infections (OR 21.23, 95%CI 4.15 to 108.73, P = 0.0002) compared to those receiving standard IV fluids. The update identified one study which recognised that (55 participants) those who received IV were likely to spend less time in hospital, 3.30 days (95%CI -0.38 to 6.98, P = 0.08), although this result was not significant. As reported in the original review there remains no evaluable data to properly compare PN with EN. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update an additional study that compared PN and Glutamine versus standard PN showed that the certain benefits of parenteral nutrition with added glutamine compared to standard PN for reducing hospital stay are no longer definite. When PN with glutamine is compared with standard PN, patients may not leave hospital earlier, but do have reduced incidence of positive blood cultures, than those receiving standard PN. Where possible use of intravenous fluids and oral diet should be considered as a preference to parenteral nutrition, however, in the event of a patient suffering severe gastrointestinal failure even with a trial of enteral feeding, PN with the addition of glutamine could be considered.

Nutrition support for bone marrow transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002. Bone marrow transplantation involves administration of toxic chemotherapy and infusion of marrow cells. After treatment, patients can develop poor appetite, mucositis and gastrointestinal failure, leading to malnutrition. To prevent this, parenteral nutrition (PN) support is often first choice but is associated with increased risk of infection. Enteral nutrition (EN) is an alternative, as is addition of substrates. OBJECTIVES: To determine efficacy of EN or PN support for patients receiving bone marrow transplant. SEARCH STRATEGY: Search of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL in November 2000 and subsequently June 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs that compared one form of nutrition support with another, or control, for bone marrow transplant patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Twenty nine studies were identified. Data were collected on participants' characteristics; adverse effects; neutropaenia; % change in body weight; graft versus host disease; and survival. MAIN RESULTS: In two studies (82 participants) glutamine mouthwash reduced number of days patients were neutropenic (6.82 days, 95%CI (1.67 to 11.98) P = 0.009) compared with placebo. Three studies reported (103 participants) that patients receiving PN with glutamine had reduced hospital stay, 6.62 d (95%CI 3.47 to 9.77, P = 0.00004) compared with patients receiving standard PN. However, in the update a further study was added (147 participants) which altered the pooled results: duration in hospital may be increased for those who receive PN with additional glutamine - 0.22 days (95%CI (1.29 to 1.72). Two other studies reported that (73 participants) patients receiving PN plus glutamine had reduced incidence of positive blood cultures (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.65, P = 0.006) compared to those receiving standard PN. However, a study from the update (113 participants in total) showed the odds of having a positive blood culture have increased but are still less likely if the patient receives PN with glutamine compared to standard PN (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.04). When patients were given PN versus IV hydration, (25 participants) patients receiving PN had a higher incidence of line infections (OR 21.23, 95%CI 4.15 to 108.73, P = 0.0002) compared to those receiving standard IV fluids. The update identified one study which recognised that (55 participants) those who received IV were likely to spend less time in hospital, 3.30 days (95%CI -0.38 to 6.98, P = 0.08), although this result was not significant. As reported in the original review there remains no evaluable data to properly compare PN with EN. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update an additional study that compared PN and Glutamine versus standard PN showed that the certain benefits of parenteral nutrition with added glutamine compared to standard PN for reducing hospital stay are no longer definite. When PN with glutamine is compared with standard PN, patients may not leave hospital earlier, but do have reduced incidence of positive blood cultures, than those receiving standard PN. Where possible use of intravenous fluids and oral diet should be considered as a preference to parenteral nutrition, however, in the event of a patient suffering severe gastrointestinal failure even with a trial of enteral feeding, PN with the addition of glutamine could be considered.

Support for breastfeeding mothers: a systematic review.

Although the benefits of breastfeeding are widely accepted, the effectiveness of different strategies to promote the continuation of breastfeeding once initiated are less clear. The objective of this systematic review was to describe studies comparing standard care with the provision of extra breastfeeding support and to measure its effectiveness. Outcome measures used were rates of cessation of any breastfeeding or exclusive breastfeeding at chosen points in time. Measures of child morbidity and maternal satisfaction were also used when these were reported. Twenty eligible randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials were identified, involving 23 712 mother-infant pairs. Extra support had a beneficial effect on the duration of any breastfeeding (RR [95% confidence intervals] for stopping any breastfeeding before the last study assessment up to 6 months 0.88 [0.81, 0.95]; 15 trials, 21 910 women). The effect was greater for exclusive breastfeeding (RR for stopping exclusive breastfeeding before the last study assessment 0.78 [0.69, 0.89]; 11 trials, 20 788 women). Although the point estimates of relative risk were very similar, benefit derived from professional support achieved statistical significance for any breastfeeding (RR 0.89 [0.81, 0.97]; 10 trials, 19 696 women) but not for exclusive breastfeeding (RR 0.90 [0.81, 1.01]; six trials, 18 258 women). Lay support was effective in reducing the cessation of exclusive breastfeeding (RR 0.66 [0.49, 0.89]; five trials, 2530 women) while the strength of its effect on any breastfeeding was less clear (RR 0.84 [0.69, 1.02]; five trials, 2224 women). Professional support in the largest trial to assess health outcomes produced a significant reduction in the risk of gastrointestinal infections and atopic eczema. In two trials with children suffering from diarrhoeal illness, extra support was highly effective in increasing short-term exclusive breastfeeding rates and reducing recurrence of diarrhoea. This review supports the conclusion that supplementary breastfeeding support should be provided as part of routine health service provision. There is clear evidence for the effectiveness of professional support on the duration of any breastfeeding although the strength of its effect on the rate of exclusive breastfeeding is uncertain. Lay support is effective in promoting exclusive breastfeeding although the strength of its effect on the duration of any breastfeeding is uncertain. Evidence supports the promotion of exclusive breastfeeding as central to the management of diarrhoeal illness in partially breast-fed infants.

Primary vesicoureteric reflux as a predictor of renal damage in children hospitalized with urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Renal parenchymal disease after urinary tract infection (UTI) has been associated with the development of hypertension and renal functional impairment. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed to determine how effectively the finding of primary vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) on micturating cystography (MCU) in children hospitalized with UTI predicted renal parenchymal disease on (99m)Technetium-dimercaptosuccinic acid ((99m)Tc-DMSA) scintigraphy. Medline, Embase, and PubMed were use to find reports with original data for children hospitalized with bacteriologically-proven UTI who had undergone both MCU and (99m)Tc-DMSA scintigraphy, and which also reported both positive and negative results of these tests. A meta-analysis of likelihood ratios positive and negative for MCU was then performed, including tests for heterogeneity. Twelve valid studies were found, seven with data for 537 children, with a positive (99m)Tc-DMSA scan prevalence of 59% overall, and seven studies with data for 1062 kidneys, with a positive (99m)Tc-DMSA scan prevalence of 36%. The likelihood ratio positive for MCU was 1.96 (95% CI, 1.51 to 2.54) for children, and 2.34 (1.53 to 3.57) for kidneys. The likelihood ratio negative was 0.71 (0.58 to 0.85) for children and 0.72 (0.61 to 0.86) for kidneys. There was evidence of heterogeneity. The meta-analysis showed that a positive MCU increases the risk of renal damage in hospitalized UTI patients by about 20%, whereas a negative MCU increases the chance of no renal involvement by just 8%. VUR is hence a weak predictor of renal damage in pediatric patients hospitalized with UTI. Physicians should be aware of the limitations of using MCU-detected primary VUR as an effective screening test for renal damage in this population. Furthermore, the pathogenesis of renal damage in such patients is probably complex because it is often detected without demonstrable VUR.

Starting dose of levothyroxine for the treatment of congenital hypothyroidism: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of levothyroxine sodium starting dose on cognitive development, growth, or behavior in children with congenital hypothyroidism identified by neonatal screening. DESIGN: Systematic review of cohort studies. Two analyses were performed: a between-study comparison of mean starting dose with mean developmental score and an analysis of the within-study effects of starting dose on cognitive development, growth, or behavior. RESULTS: The between-study comparison (14 cohort studies based on 1321 patients) found that the standardized mean IQ or developmental quotient scores ranged from 90 to 115 but were not associated with the mean starting dose of levothyroxine (P =.48). The within-study comparison of 4 cohort studies (based on 558 patients) that reported the effect of the starting dose of levothyroxine on cognitive development found no consistent effects. There was weak evidence for an effect of starting dose on growth (1 study) and on behavior problems (1 study). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for an effect of starting dose of levothyroxine on cognitive development, growth, or behavior is too weak to justify recommendations in favor of high- or standard-dose regimens. More reliable information, based on a randomized controlled trial of starting dose or a meta-analysis of the individual patient data currently available, is required to inform treatment policies.