Explore the vast range of titles available.

Extremely preterm babies are at increased risk of less than optimal neurodevelopment compared with their term-born counterparts. Optimising nutrition is a promising avenue to mitigate the adverse neurodevelopmental consequences of preterm birth. In this narrative review, we summarize current knowledge on how nutrition, and in particular, protein intake, affects neurodevelopment in extremely preterm babies. Observational studies consistently report that higher intravenous and enteral protein intakes are associated with improved growth and possibly neurodevelopment, but differences in methodologies and combinations of intravenous and enteral nutrition strategies make it difficult to determine the effects of each intervention. Unfortunately, there are few randomized controlled trials of nutrition in this population conducted to determine neurodevelopmental outcomes. Substantial variation in reporting of trials, both of nutritional intakes and of outcomes, limits conclusions from meta-analyses. Future studies to determine the effects of nutritional intakes in extremely preterm babies need to be adequately powered to assess neurodevelopmental outcomes separately in boys and girls, and designed to address the many potential confounders which may have clouded research findings to date. The development of minimal reporting sets and core outcome sets for nutrition research will aid future meta-analyses.

Exposure to low levels of nitrate in drinking water may have adverse reproductive effects. We reviewed evidence about the association between nitrate in drinking water and adverse reproductive outcomes published to November 2022. Randomized trials, cohort or case–control studies published in English that reported the relationship between nitrate intake from drinking water and the risk of perinatal outcomes were included. Random-effect models were used to pool data. Three cohort studies showed nitrate in drinking water is associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (odds ratio for 1 mg/L NO 3 -N increased (OR 1 ) = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.01, I 2  = 23.9%, 5,014,487 participants; comparing the highest versus the lowest nitrate exposure groups pooled OR (OR p ) = 1.05, 95% CI 1.01, 1.10, I 2  = 0%, 4,152,348 participants). Case–control studies showed nitrate in drinking water may be associated with the increased risk of neural tube defects OR 1  = 1.06, 95% CI 1.02, 1.10; 2 studies, 2196 participants; I 2  = 0%; and OR p  = 1.51, 95% CI 1.12, 2.05; 3 studies, 1501 participants; I 2  = 0%). The evidence for an association between nitrate in drinking water and risk of small for gestational age infants, any birth defects, or any congenital heart defects was inconsistent. Increased nitrate in drinking water may be associated with an increased risk of preterm birth and some specific congenital anomalies. These findings warrant regular review as new evidence becomes available.

Neonatal hypoglycaemia is common, and a preventable cause of brain damage. Dextrose gel is used to reverse hypoglycaemia in individuals with diabetes; however, little evidence exists for its use in babies. We aimed to assess whether treatment with dextrose gel was more effective than feeding alone for reversal of neonatal hypoglycaemia in at-risk babies. We undertook a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at a tertiary centre in New Zealand between Dec 1, 2008, and Nov 31, 2010. Babies aged 35–42 weeks' gestation, younger than 48-h-old, and at risk of hypoglycaemia were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated blocked randomisation, to 40% dextrose gel 200 mg/kg or placebo gel. Randomisation was stratified by maternal diabetes and birthweight. Group allocation was concealed from clinicians, families, and all study investigators. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as a blood glucose concentration of less than 2·6 mmol/L after two treatment attempts. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12608000623392. Of 514 enrolled babies, 242 (47%) became hypoglycaemic and were randomised. Five babies were randomised in error, leaving 237 for analysis: 118 (50%) in the dextrose group and 119 (50%) in the placebo group. Dextrose gel reduced the frequency of treatment failure compared with placebo (16 [14%] vs 29 [24%]; relative risk 0·57, 95% CI 0·33–0·98; p=0·04). We noted no serious adverse events. Three (3%) babies in the placebo group each had one blood glucose concentration of 0·9 mmol/L. No other adverse events took place. Treatment with dextrose gel is inexpensive and simple to administer. Dextrose gel should be considered for first-line treatment to manage hypoglycaemia in late preterm and term babies in the first 48 h after birth. Waikato Medical Research Foundation, the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, the Health Research Council of New Zealand, and the Rebecca Roberts Scholarship.

Nutritional supplements may improve short-term growth of infants born small (preterm or small for gestational age), but there are few data on long-term effects and concerns that body composition may be adversely affected. Effects also may differ between girls and boys. Our systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of macronutrient supplements for infants born small on later growth. We searched OvidMedline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to January 30, 2020, and controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and anzctr.org.au on January 30, 2020. Randomised or quasirandomised trials were included if the intention was to increase macronutrient intake to improve growth or development of infants born small and growth was assessed after discharge. Primary outcome was body mass index (BMI) in childhood. Data were pooled using random-effect models. Outcomes were evaluated in toddlers (< 3 years), childhood (3 to 8 years), adolescence (9 to 18 years), and adulthood (>18 years). Forty randomised and 2 quasirandomised trials of variable methodological quality with 4,352 infants were included. Supplementation did not alter BMI in childhood (7 trials, 1,136 children; mean difference [MD] -0.10 kg/m2, [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 0.16], p = 0.45). In toddlers, supplementation increased weight (31 trials, 2,924 toddlers; MD 0.16 kg, [0.01 to 0.30], p = 0.03) and length/height (30 trials, 2,889 toddlers; MD 0.44 cm, [0.10 to 0.77], p = 0.01), but not head circumference (29 trials, 2,797 toddlers; MD 0.15 cm, [-0.03 to 0.33], p = 0.10). In childhood, there were no significant differences between groups in height (7 trials, 1,136 children; MD 0.22 cm, [-0.48 to 0.92], p = 0.54) or lean mass (3 trials, 354 children; MD -0.07 kg, [-0.98 to 0.85], p = 0.88), although supplemented children appeared to have higher fat mass (2 trials, 201 children; MD 0.79 kg, [0.19 to 1.38], p = 0.01). In adolescence, there were no significant differences between groups in BMI (2 trials, 216 adolescents; MD -0.48 kg/m2, [-2.05 to 1.08], p = 0.60), height (2 trials, 216 adolescents; MD -0.55 cm, [-2.95 to 1.86], p = 0.65), or fat mass (2 trials, 216 adolescents; MD -1.3 5 kg, [-5.76 to 3.06], p = 0.55). In adulthood, there also were no significant differences between groups in weight z-score (2 trials, 199 adults; MD -0.11, [-0.72 to 0.50], p = 0.73) and height z-score (2 trials, 199 adults; MD -0.07, [-0.36 to 0.22], p = 0.62). In subgroup analysis, supplementation was associated with increased length/height in toddler boys (2 trials, 173 boys; MD 1.66 cm, [0.75 to 2.58], p = 0.0003), but not girls (2 trials, 159 girls; MD 0.15 cm, [-0.71 to 1.01], p = 0.74). Limitations include considerable unexplained heterogeneity, low to very low quality of evidence, and possible bias due to low or unbalanced followup. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found no evidence that early macronutrient supplementation for infants born small altered BMI in childhood. Although supplements appeared to increase weight and length in toddlers, effects were inconsistent and unlikely to be clinically significant. Limited data suggested that supplementation increased fat mass in childhood, but these effects did not persist in later life. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019126918.

The aim of this trial was to determine if midwives or doctor leaders are more effective at implementing a clinical practice guideline for oral dextrose gel to treat neonatal hypoglycaemia. This was a cluster-randomised, controlled, trial. New Zealand maternity hospitals were randomised to guideline implementation by a midwife or doctor implementation leader. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of hypoglycaemic babies (blood glucose concentration <2.6 mmol/L in the first 48 hours after birth), treated with dextrose gel from before, to three months after, implementation. Twenty-one maternity hospitals that cared for babies at risk of hypoglycaemia consented to participate, of which 15 treated babies with hypoglycaemia at both time points (7 randomised to midwifery led, 8 randomised to doctor led implementation). The primary outcome included 463 hypoglycaemic babies (292 midwifery led, 171 doctor led implementation). There was no difference in the primary outcome between hospitals randomised to midwifery or doctor led implementation (proportion treated with gel, mean(SD); midwifery led: before 71 (38)%, 3 months after 87 (12)%; doctor led: before 63 (43)%, 3 months after 86 (16)%; adjusted mean change in proportion (95%CI); 19.3% (-4.5–43.1), p = 0.11). There was an increase in the proportion of eligible babies treated with oral dextrose gel from before to 3 months after implementation of the guideline (122/153 (80%) v 144/163 (88%), OR (95%CI); 3.42 (1.67–6.98), p<0.001). Implementation of a clinical practice guideline improved uptake of oral dextrose gel. There was no evidence of a difference between midwife and doctor implementation leaders for implementing this guideline for treatment of hypoglycaemic babies. The trial was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry on the 20/05/2015 (ISRCTN61154098).

Introduction The proposed revised diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes (GDM) in New Zealand include a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentration ≥5.3 mmol/L and 1‐h post‐load glucose (PLG) concentration ≥10.6 mmol/L on a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), but no 2‐h PLG. This study evaluates the impact of GDM diagnosis based on FPG and/or 1‐h PLG abnormalities on perinatal and long‐term outcomes. Material and Methods This secondary analysis of data from GEMS, a multicentre, randomized trial and its follow‐up, included women and their children who met the proposed revised GDM criteria and received treatment. Participants were classified into three groups: (1) both group: elevated FPG and 1‐h PLG, (2) fasting group: elevated FPG alone, and (3) one‐hour group: elevated 1‐h PLG alone. Between‐group pairwise comparisons were made using log‐binomial and normal‐identity regressions. Results Of 217 eligible women‐child pairs, 85 (39.2%) were in the fasting group, 61 (28.1%) in the both group, and 71 (32.7%) in the one‐hour group. Women in the fasting and both groups, compared with the one‐hour group, were more likely to be overweight or obese both at the first antenatal visit and five‐year follow‐up, more likely to have required pharmacotherapy for GDM (85.9% and 88.5% vs. 69.0%; p < 0.0001), and had higher rates of type 2 diabetes/prediabetes at 5 years (50.0% and 48.8% vs. 28.3%; p = 0.03). Their infants were born earlier (38.1 and 38.0 vs. 38.6 weeks; p = 0.02) with higher birthweight z‐scores (0.2 and 0.1 vs. −0.2; p = 0.03). Infants in the fasting group, compared with infants in the one‐hour group, had higher rates of being large‐for‐gestational age and neonatal intensive care unit admission. At 5 years, children in the fasting group, compared with those in the one‐hour group, had higher mean z‐scores in weight and height, and were more likely to have an abnormal developmental screening questionnaire score (24.4% vs. 5.1%; p = 0.04). Conclusions Women diagnosed with GDM based on an elevated FPG, compared with those with only an elevated 1‐h PLG, may have had increased diabetes risks at five‐year follow‐up, while their children may have greater infant health risks and greater growth at 5 years. Women with gestational diabetes diagnosed by an elevated fasting ± one‐hour glucose concentration, compared with one‐hour alone, may have higher later diabetes risk, and their children greater perinatal complications and five‐year growth, supporting gestational diabetes subtyping for risk stratification.

Antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality, but there is limited evidence regarding their effects on long-term health. This study assessed cardiovascular outcomes at 50 years after antenatal exposure to corticosteroids. We assessed the adult offspring of women who participated in the first randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of antenatal betamethasone for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) (1969 to 1974). The first 717 mothers received 2 intramuscular injections of 12 mg betamethasone or placebo 24 h apart and the subsequent 398 received 2 injections of 24 mg betamethasone or equivalent volume of placebo. Follow-up included a health questionnaire and consent to access administrative data sources. The co-primary outcomes were the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (any of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, gestational diabetes mellitus, or prediabetes) and age at first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, stroke, admission for peripheral vascular disease, and admission for heart failure). Analyses were adjusted for gestational age at entry, sex, and clustering. Of 1,218 infants born to 1,115 mothers, we followed up 424 (46% of survivors; 212 [50%] female) at mean (standard deviation) age 49.3 (1.0) years. There were no differences between those exposed to betamethasone or placebo for cardiovascular risk factors (159/229 [69.4%] versus 131/195 [67.2%]; adjusted relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.89, 1.18;]; p = 0.735) or age at first MACE (adjusted hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI [0.23, 1.49]; p = 0.261). There were also no differences in the components of these composite outcomes or in any of the other secondary outcomes. Key limitations were follow-up rate and lack of in-person assessments. There is no evidence that antenatal corticosteroids increase the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors or incidence of cardiovascular events up to 50 years of age. Established benefits of antenatal corticosteroids are not outweighed by an increase in adult cardiovascular disease.

Nutritional supplements may improve development of infants born small (preterm or small for gestational age [SGA]) but may increase the risk of later metabolic disease. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of macronutrient supplements for infants born small on later development and metabolism. We searched OvidMedline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to April 1, 2019, and controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and anzctr.org.au. Randomised or quasirandomised trials were included if the intention was to increase macronutrient intake to improve growth or development of infants born small and assessed post-discharge outcomes. Co-primary outcomes were cognitive impairment and metabolic risk, evaluated in toddlers (<3 years), childhood (3 to 8 years), and adolescence (9 to 18 years). Two reviewers independently extracted data. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and data were pooled using random-effect models. Twenty-one randomised and one quasirandomised trial of variable methodological quality involving 3,680 infants were included. In toddlers born small, supplementation did not alter cognitive impairment (relative risk [RR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.49; P = 0.99), and there were no differences in cognitive scores (mean difference [MD] 0.57; 95% CI -0.71 to 1.84; P = 0.38) or motor scores (MD 1.16; 95% CI -0.32 to 2.65; P = 0.12) between supplemented and unsupplemented groups. However, fewer supplemented children had motor impairment (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; P = 0.01). In subgroup analyses, supplementation improved cognitive scores in boys (MD 5.60; 95% CI 1.07 to 10.14; P = 0.02), but not girls born small (MD -2.04; 95% CI -7.04 to 2.95; P = 0.42), and did not alter cognitive or motor scores in the subgroup of children born SGA. In childhood, there was no difference in cognitive impairment (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.57; P = 0.72) or cognitive scores (MD 1.02; 95% CI -1.91 to 3.95; P = 0.50) between supplemented and unsupplemented groups. There were also no differences in blood pressure, triglyceride, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentrations (all P > 0.05). However, supplemented children had lower fasting glucose (mmol/L: MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; P = 0.005) and higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) concentrations (mmol/L: MD 0.11; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.19; P = 0.02). In subgroup analyses, there was no evidence of differences in blood pressure between supplemented and unsupplemented groups in boys or girls born small, or in SGA children. In adolescence, there was no difference between supplemented and unsupplemented groups in blood pressure, triglycerides, LDL and HDL concentrations, fasting blood glucose, insulin resistance, and fasting insulin concentrations (all P > 0.05). Limitations include considerable unexplained heterogeneity, low to very low quality of the evidence, and limited data beyond early childhood. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials, we found no evidence that early macronutrient supplementation for infants born small altered later cognitive function, although there was some evidence that supplementation may decrease motor impairment in toddlers. Contrary to the findings from observational studies, evidence from randomised trials suggests that early macronutrient supplementation for infants born small improves some metabolic outcomes in childhood. CRD42019127858.

Describes, in a cohort of women with diabetes in pregnancy receiving antenatal corticosteroids (ANC), the rate of maternal hyperglycaemia and its temporal relationship to ANC, the rate of neonatal hypoglycaemia, and the relationship between maternal hyperglycaemia and neonatal hypoglycaemia. Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

A combination of self-reported questionnaire and administrative data could potentially enhance ascertainment of outcomes and alleviate the limitations of both in follow up studies. However, it is uncertain how access to only one of these data sources to assess outcomes impact study findings. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether the study findings would be altered if the outcomes were assessed by different data sources alone or in combination. At 50-year follow-up of participants in a randomized trial, we assessed the effect of antenatal betamethasone exposure on the diagnosis of diabetes, pre-diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, mental health disorders, and asthma using a self-reported questionnaire, administrative data, a combination of both, or any data source, with or without adjudication by an expert panel of five clinicians. Differences between relative risks derived from each data source were calculated using the Bland-Altman approach. There were 424 participants (46% of those eligible, aged 49 years, SD 1, 50% male). There were no differences in study outcomes between participants exposed to betamethasone and those exposed to placebo when the outcomes were assessed using different data sources. When compared to the study findings determined using adjudicated outcomes, the mean difference (limits of agreement) in relative risks derived from other data sources were: self-reported questionnaires 0.02 (-0.35 to 0.40), administrative data 0.06 (-0.32 to 0.44), both questionnaire and administrative data 0.01 (-0.41 to 0.43), and any data source, 0.01 (-0.08 to 0.10). Utilizing a self-reported questionnaire, administrative data, both questionnaire and administrative data, or any of these sources for assessing study outcomes had no impact on the study findings compared with when study outcomes were assessed using adjudicated outcomes.