Oral dextrose gel to prevent hypoglycaemia in at-risk neonates.


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:
17 05 2021
Historique:
entrez: 17 5 2021
pubmed: 18 5 2021
medline: 22 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Neonatal hypoglycaemia is a common condition that can be associated with brain injury. Current practice usually includes early identification of at-risk infants (e.g. infants of diabetic mothers; preterm, small- or large-for-gestational-age infants), and prophylactic measures are advised. However, these measures usually involve use of formula milk or admission to the neonatal unit. Dextrose gel is non-invasive, inexpensive and effective for treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Prophylactic dextrose gel can reduce the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia, thus potentially reducing separation of mother and baby and supporting breastfeeding, as well as preventing brain injury.  This is an update of a previous Cochrane Review published in 2017.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral dextrose gel given to newborn infants at risk of hypoglycaemia in preventing hypoglycaemia and reducing long-term neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library; and Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R) on 19 October 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing oral dextrose gel versus placebo, no intervention, or other therapies for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain additional information. We used fixed-effect meta-analyses. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. We included two studies conducted in high-income countries comparing oral dextrose gel versus placebo in 2548 infants at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Of these, one study was included in the previous version of this review. We judged these two studies to be at low risk of bias, and that the evidence for most outcomes was of moderate certainty. Meta-analysis of the two studies showed that oral dextrose gel reduces the risk of hypoglycaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.95; risk difference (RD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; 2548 infants; high certainty evidence). One study reported that oral dextrose gel probably reduces the risk of major neurological disability at two years' corrected age (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.78; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.00; 360 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of the two studies showed that oral dextrose gel probably reduces the risk of receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia during initial hospital stay (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00; 2548 infants; moderate certainty evidence) but makes little or no difference to the risk of receipt of intravenous treatment for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.01, 0.68 to 1.49; 2548 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Oral dextrose gel may have little or no effect on the risk of separation from the mother for treatment of hypoglycaemia (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.55; two studies, 2548 infants; low certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events in infants who receive oral dextrose gel compared to placebo gel (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.33; two studies, 2510 infants; moderate certainty evidence), but there are no studies comparing oral dextrose with other comparators such as no treatment, standard care or other therapies. No data were available on exclusive breastfeeding after discharge. Oral dextrose gel reduces the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia in at-risk infants and probably reduces the risk of major neurological disability at two years of age or greater without increasing the risk of adverse events compared to placebo gel. Additional large follow-up studies at two years of age or older are required. Future research should also be undertaken in low- and middle-income countries, preterm infants, using other dextrose gel preparations, and using comparators other than placebo gel. There are three studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study which may alter the conclusions of the review when published.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Neonatal hypoglycaemia is a common condition that can be associated with brain injury. Current practice usually includes early identification of at-risk infants (e.g. infants of diabetic mothers; preterm, small- or large-for-gestational-age infants), and prophylactic measures are advised. However, these measures usually involve use of formula milk or admission to the neonatal unit. Dextrose gel is non-invasive, inexpensive and effective for treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Prophylactic dextrose gel can reduce the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia, thus potentially reducing separation of mother and baby and supporting breastfeeding, as well as preventing brain injury.  This is an update of a previous Cochrane Review published in 2017.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral dextrose gel given to newborn infants at risk of hypoglycaemia in preventing hypoglycaemia and reducing long-term neurodevelopmental impairment.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library; and Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R) on 19 October 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing oral dextrose gel versus placebo, no intervention, or other therapies for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain additional information. We used fixed-effect meta-analyses. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies conducted in high-income countries comparing oral dextrose gel versus placebo in 2548 infants at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Of these, one study was included in the previous version of this review. We judged these two studies to be at low risk of bias, and that the evidence for most outcomes was of moderate certainty. Meta-analysis of the two studies showed that oral dextrose gel reduces the risk of hypoglycaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.95; risk difference (RD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; 2548 infants; high certainty evidence). One study reported that oral dextrose gel probably reduces the risk of major neurological disability at two years' corrected age (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.78; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.00; 360 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of the two studies showed that oral dextrose gel probably reduces the risk of receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia during initial hospital stay (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00; 2548 infants; moderate certainty evidence) but makes little or no difference to the risk of receipt of intravenous treatment for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.01, 0.68 to 1.49; 2548 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Oral dextrose gel may have little or no effect on the risk of separation from the mother for treatment of hypoglycaemia (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.55; two studies, 2548 infants; low certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events in infants who receive oral dextrose gel compared to placebo gel (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.33; two studies, 2510 infants; moderate certainty evidence), but there are no studies comparing oral dextrose with other comparators such as no treatment, standard care or other therapies. No data were available on exclusive breastfeeding after discharge.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral dextrose gel reduces the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia in at-risk infants and probably reduces the risk of major neurological disability at two years of age or greater without increasing the risk of adverse events compared to placebo gel. Additional large follow-up studies at two years of age or older are required. Future research should also be undertaken in low- and middle-income countries, preterm infants, using other dextrose gel preparations, and using comparators other than placebo gel. There are three studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study which may alter the conclusions of the review when published.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33998668
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012152.pub3
pmc: PMC8127543
doi:

Substances chimiques

Gels 0
Sweetening Agents 0
Glucose IY9XDZ35W2

Types de publication

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

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD012152

Subventions

Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R01 HD091075
Pays : United States

Commentaires et corrections

Type : UpdateIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Références

J Pediatr. 1999 Apr;134(4):492-8
pubmed: 10190926
PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 25;13(10):e1002155
pubmed: 27780197
N Engl J Med. 1965 Aug 12;273(7):378-81
pubmed: 21417085
BMC Pediatr. 2015 Sep 16;15:120
pubmed: 26377909
J Pediatr. 2017 Feb;181:112-115
pubmed: 27817881
Lancet. 2017 Jun 3;389(10085):2204-2213
pubmed: 28589894
Midwifery. 2011 Apr;27(2):209-14
pubmed: 19615797
Lancet. 2013 Dec 21;382(9910):2077-83
pubmed: 24075361
J Pediatr. 2020 Nov;226:80-86.e1
pubmed: 32634402
In Vivo. 2020 May-Jun;34(3):1493-1497
pubmed: 32354952
Neonatology. 2009;96(2):80-5
pubmed: 19225239
J Pediatr. 2009 Nov;155(5):612-7
pubmed: 19840614
Trop Med Int Health. 2010 Feb;15(2):232-40
pubmed: 19961563
PLoS Med. 2021 Jan 28;18(1):e1003411
pubmed: 33507929
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Oct 1;171(10):972-983
pubmed: 28783802
Early Hum Dev. 1999 May;55(1):63-6
pubmed: 10367983
Pediatrics. 2011 Mar;127(3):575-9
pubmed: 21357346
Dev Med Child Neurol. 1972 Oct;14(5):603-14
pubmed: 4124641
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 04;(5):CD011027
pubmed: 27142842
Breastfeed Med. 2012 Oct;7(5):323-4
pubmed: 22946888
Soins Pediatr Pueric. 2013 Nov-Dec;(275):8
pubmed: 24409565
Pediatrics. 2016 Jan;137(1):
pubmed: 26702029
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2021 May;106(3):278-285
pubmed: 33148686
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 30;(8):CD006462
pubmed: 27574798
J Pediatr. 2017 Nov;190:136-141
pubmed: 28709629
JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Oct;169(10):913-21
pubmed: 26301959
Indian Pediatr. 1992 Nov;29(11):1365-9
pubmed: 1294490
Am J Perinatol. 2000;17(1):11-8
pubmed: 10928598
Indian J Med Res. 1991 Oct;94:342-5
pubmed: 1794889
Arch Dis Child. 1993 Mar;68(3 Spec No):280-5
pubmed: 8466263
Arch Dis Child. 1988 Nov;63(11):1353-8
pubmed: 3202642
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Jul;91(7):844-9
pubmed: 22471810
J Paediatr Child Health. 2014 Oct;50(10):E55-62
pubmed: 19863712
BMJ. 1999 Jan 16;318(7177):194-5
pubmed: 9888932
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 25;11:CD003519
pubmed: 27885658
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1994 Sep;15(8):1477-8
pubmed: 7985565
N Z Med J. 1992 Jan 22;105(926):22
pubmed: 1549278
Pediatrics. 2012 Aug;130(2):e265-72
pubmed: 22778308
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2009 Apr;22(2):166-9
pubmed: 19226355
Pediatrics. 2004 Aug;114(2):361-6
pubmed: 15286217
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2005 Nov-Dec;44(9):783-90
pubmed: 16327965
J Pediatr. 2016 Mar;170:54-9.e1-2
pubmed: 26613985
Acta Paediatr. 1994 Nov;83(11):1122-6
pubmed: 7841722
Breastfeed Rev. 2006 Nov;14(3):11-6
pubmed: 17190015
Pediatr Qual Saf. 2017 Jun 20;2(4):e030
pubmed: 30229167
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 17;5:CD012152
pubmed: 33998668
Pediatrics. 2008 Jul;122(1):65-74
pubmed: 18595988
Paediatr Child Health. 2004 Dec;9(10):723-740
pubmed: 19688086
J Pediatr. 2018 Jul;198:156-161
pubmed: 29605395
J Paediatr Child Health. 2000 Aug;36(4):354-6
pubmed: 10940170
BMJ. 1988 Nov 19;297(6659):1304-8
pubmed: 2462455
Pediatrics. 2000 May;105(5):1141-5
pubmed: 10790476
J Trop Pediatr. 2010 Aug;56(4):227-34
pubmed: 19933785
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1998 Nov;79(3):F174-9
pubmed: 10194986
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013 Aug;89(2):232-237
pubmed: 23817332
Horm Res. 2005;64(2):61-3
pubmed: 16103685
J Pediatr. 2018 Jul;198:151-155.e1
pubmed: 29625731
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013 Mar;98(2):F185
pubmed: 23118200
J Pediatr. 2012 Nov;161(5):787-91
pubmed: 22727868

Auteurs

Taygen Edwards (T)

Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Gordon Liu (G)

Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Joanne E Hegarty (JE)

Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Auckland Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.

Caroline A Crowther (CA)

Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
ARCH: Australian Research Centre for Health of Women and Babies, Robinson Research Institute, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Jane Alsweiler (J)

Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Auckland Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Department of Paediatrics: Child and Youth Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Jane E Harding (JE)

Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

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