Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants.


Journal

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 07 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 20 7 2019
medline: 29 9 2019
entrez: 20 7 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. To determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants. We used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (3 May 2019), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and clinical trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods. Twelve trials with a total of 1879 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and eight compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the five most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials. Most of the included trials were funded by companies that made the study formula.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). These meta-analyses contained high levels of heterogeneity. We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 9 studies, 1675 infants).The GRADE certainty of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision). In preterm and LBW infants, moderate-certainty evidence indicates that feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (3 May 2019), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and clinical trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve trials with a total of 1879 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and eight compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the five most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials. Most of the included trials were funded by companies that made the study formula.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). These meta-analyses contained high levels of heterogeneity. We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 9 studies, 1675 infants).The GRADE certainty of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In preterm and LBW infants, moderate-certainty evidence indicates that feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31322731
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002971.pub5
pmc: PMC6640412
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD002971

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : SRP/16/114/03
Pays : United Kingdom

Commentaires et corrections

Type : UpdateOf
Type : CommentIn

Références

Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):822-8
pubmed: 10702179
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD002971
pubmed: 11687169
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2003 Oct;37(4):437-46
pubmed: 14508214
Arch Dis Child. 1992 Apr;67(4 Spec No):432-5
pubmed: 1586186
Pediatrics. 2005 Aug;116(2):400-6
pubmed: 16061595
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD002971
pubmed: 17943776
J Pediatr. 2009 Aug;155(2):229-34
pubmed: 19446846
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Lancet. 1990 Dec 22-29;336(8730):1519-23
pubmed: 1979363
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010 Jan;50(1):85-91
pubmed: 19881390
J Pediatr. 2010 Apr;156(4):562-7.e1
pubmed: 20036378
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2012 Jan;97(1):F56-61
pubmed: 21856644
Pediatrics. 2012 Mar;129(3):e827-41
pubmed: 22371471
J Pediatr. 2013 Dec;163(6):1592-1595.e1
pubmed: 23968744
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2013 Oct;57(4):535-42
pubmed: 24084373
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 22;(4):CD002971
pubmed: 24752468
BMC Pediatr. 2014 May 13;14:123
pubmed: 24884424
J Pediatr. 2014 Nov;165(5):915-20
pubmed: 25130571
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015 Aug;28(12):1482-5
pubmed: 25157499
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015 Mar;100(2):F173-8
pubmed: 25293712
Curr Opin Pediatr. 2015 Apr;27(2):172-6
pubmed: 25689453
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2015 Jul;61(1):125-9
pubmed: 25729886
J Hum Lact. 2016 May;32(2):212-20
pubmed: 26887844
Arch Dis Child. 1989 Nov;64(11):1570-8
pubmed: 2690739
Breastfeed Med. 2016 Apr;11:133-7
pubmed: 26982282
JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Jul 1;170(7):654-61
pubmed: 27135598
Nutrients. 2016 Aug 02;8(8):
pubmed: 27490567
JAMA. 2016 Nov 8;316(18):1897-1905
pubmed: 27825008
J Trop Pediatr. 2018 Feb 1;64(1):4-14
pubmed: 28369652
Breastfeed Med. 2017 Nov;12(9):528-536
pubmed: 28829161
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 20;6:CD002971
pubmed: 29926476
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2019 Jan;43(1):162-165
pubmed: 30070721
Ital J Pediatr. 2018 Aug 16;44(1):96
pubmed: 30115086
Front Pediatr. 2018 Oct 31;6:324
pubmed: 30430103
Acta Paediatr. 2019 Apr;108(4):766-767
pubmed: 30537331
Arch Dis Child. 1977 Apr;52(4):296-301
pubmed: 558739
Early Hum Dev. 1978 Dec;2(4):351-61
pubmed: 571325
Arch Dis Child. 1984 Aug;59(8):722-30
pubmed: 6476868
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1984 Nov;3(5):749-54
pubmed: 6502375
J Pediatr. 1984 Jul;105(1):79-85
pubmed: 6737152
J Pediatr. 1981 Sep;99(3):496-8
pubmed: 6790690
Pediatrics. 1983 Feb;71(2):171-8
pubmed: 6823418
N Engl J Med. 1983 Feb 3;308(5):237-41
pubmed: 6848932
J Pediatr. 1983 Jul;103(1):95-104
pubmed: 6864403
Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl. 1982;296:28-31
pubmed: 6961737
Early Hum Dev. 1982 Jan;6(1):47-58
pubmed: 7056196
Acta Paediatr Scand. 1982 May;71(3):441-5
pubmed: 7136659
Acta Paediatr Scand. 1980 Sep;69(5):647-52
pubmed: 7234386
J Pediatr. 1981 Sep;99(3):389-93
pubmed: 7264792
J Pediatr. 1980 Apr;96(4):641-4
pubmed: 7359266
Pediatrics. 1976 May;57(5):659-84
pubmed: 7767
Clin Perinatol. 1995 Mar;22(1):207-22
pubmed: 7781253
Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1994 Sep;402:94-9
pubmed: 7841630
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1994 Mar;70(2):F141-6
pubmed: 8154907
J Pediatr. 1977 Mar;90(3):348-55
pubmed: 839326
J Pediatr. 1977 Mar;90(3):356-60
pubmed: 839327
Pediatrics. 1977 Mar;59(3):407-22
pubmed: 840561

Auteurs

Maria Quigley (M)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, UK, 0X3 7LF.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH