Bonny Jasani1, Karen Simmer2, Sanjay K Patole3, Shripada C Rao4. 1. King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, WA, Australia. 2. Neonatal Care Unit, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Bagot Road, Subiaco, WA, Australia, 6008. 3. School of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Women's and Infants' Health, University of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, 374 Bagot Rd, Subiaco, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 6008. 4. Centre for Neonatal Research and Education, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 6008.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA) are considered essential for maturation of the developing brain, retina and other organs in newborn infants. Standard infant milk formulae are not supplemented with LCPUFA; they contain only alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid, from which formula-fed infants must synthesise their own DHA and AA, respectively. Over the past few years, some manufacturers have added LCPUFA to formula milk and have marketed these products as providing an advantage for the overall development of full-term infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether supplementation of formula milk with LCPUFA is both safe and beneficial for full-term infants, while focusing on effects on visual function, neurodevelopment and physical growth. SEARCH METHODS: Two review authors independently searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; December 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to December 2016), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to December 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1980 to December 2016) and abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies (2000 to 2016). We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We reviewed all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating effects of LCPUFA supplemented versus non-supplemented formula milk on visual function, neurodevelopment and physical growth. We did not include trials reporting only biochemical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the guidelines of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. When appropriate, we conducted meta-analysis to determine a pooled estimate of effect. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 31 RCTs and included 15 of these in the review (N = 1889).Nine studies assessed visual acuity, six of which used visual evoked potentials (VEP), two Teller cards and one both. Four studies reported beneficial effects, and the remaining five did not. Meta-analysis of three RCTs showed significant benefit for sweep VEP acuity at 12 months (log of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR)) (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.13; I2 = 0; three trials; N = 244), but meta-analysis of three other RCTs showed no benefit for visual acuity measured with Teller cards at 12 months (cycles/degree) (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.11; I2 = 0; three trials; N = 256). GRADE analysis for the outcome of visual acuity indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low.Eleven studies measured neurodevelopmental outcomes at or before two years. Nine studies used Bayley Scales of Infant Development, version II (BSID-II), and only two of these studies reported beneficial effects. Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between LCPUFA and placebo groups in BSID Mental Developmental Index (MDI) scores at 18 months (MD 0.06, 95% CI -2.01 to 2.14; I2 = 75%; four trials; N = 661) and no significant differences in BSID Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) scores at 18 months (MD 0.69, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.16; I2 = 61%; four trials; N = 661). Results showed no significant differences between the two groups in BSID-II scores at one year and two years of age. One study reported better novelty preference measured by the Fagan Infant Test at nine months. Another study reported better problem solving at 10 months. One study used the Brunet and Lezine test to assess the developmental quotient and found no beneficial effects. Follow-up of some infants in different studies at three, six and nine years of age revealed no beneficial effects of supplementation. GRADE analysis of these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low.Thirteen studies measured physical growth; none found beneficial or harmful effects of supplementation. Meta-analysis of five RCTs showed that the supplemented group had lower weight (z scores) at one year of age (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.06; I2 = 83%; N = 521) and that the two groups showed no significant differences with respect to length and head circumference (z scores). Meta-analysis at 18 months and at two years revealed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to weight (kg), length (cm) and head circumference (cm). GRADE analysis of these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included RCTs reported no beneficial effects or harms of LCPUFA supplementation on neurodevelopmental outcomes of formula-fed full-term infants and no consistent beneficial effects on visual acuity. Routine supplementation of full-term infant milk formula with LCPUFA cannot be recommended at this time.
BACKGROUND: The long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA) are considered essential for maturation of the developing brain, retina and other organs in newborn infants. Standard infant milk formulae are not supplemented with LCPUFA; they contain only alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid, from which formula-fed infants must synthesise their own DHA and AA, respectively. Over the past few years, some manufacturers have added LCPUFA to formula milk and have marketed these products as providing an advantage for the overall development of full-term infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether supplementation of formula milk with LCPUFA is both safe and beneficial for full-term infants, while focusing on effects on visual function, neurodevelopment and physical growth. SEARCH METHODS: Two review authors independently searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; December 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to December 2016), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to December 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1980 to December 2016) and abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies (2000 to 2016). We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We reviewed all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating effects of LCPUFA supplemented versus non-supplemented formula milk on visual function, neurodevelopment and physical growth. We did not include trials reporting only biochemical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the guidelines of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. When appropriate, we conducted meta-analysis to determine a pooled estimate of effect. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 31 RCTs and included 15 of these in the review (N = 1889).Nine studies assessed visual acuity, six of which used visual evoked potentials (VEP), two Teller cards and one both. Four studies reported beneficial effects, and the remaining five did not. Meta-analysis of three RCTs showed significant benefit for sweep VEP acuity at 12 months (log of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR)) (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.13; I2 = 0; three trials; N = 244), but meta-analysis of three other RCTs showed no benefit for visual acuity measured with Teller cards at 12 months (cycles/degree) (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.11; I2 = 0; three trials; N = 256). GRADE analysis for the outcome of visual acuity indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low.Eleven studies measured neurodevelopmental outcomes at or before two years. Nine studies used Bayley Scales of Infant Development, version II (BSID-II), and only two of these studies reported beneficial effects. Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between LCPUFA and placebo groups in BSID Mental Developmental Index (MDI) scores at 18 months (MD 0.06, 95% CI -2.01 to 2.14; I2 = 75%; four trials; N = 661) and no significant differences in BSID Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) scores at 18 months (MD 0.69, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.16; I2 = 61%; four trials; N = 661). Results showed no significant differences between the two groups in BSID-II scores at one year and two years of age. One study reported better novelty preference measured by the Fagan Infant Test at nine months. Another study reported better problem solving at 10 months. One study used the Brunet and Lezine test to assess the developmental quotient and found no beneficial effects. Follow-up of some infants in different studies at three, six and nine years of age revealed no beneficial effects of supplementation. GRADE analysis of these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low.Thirteen studies measured physical growth; none found beneficial or harmful effects of supplementation. Meta-analysis of five RCTs showed that the supplemented group had lower weight (z scores) at one year of age (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.06; I2 = 83%; N = 521) and that the two groups showed no significant differences with respect to length and head circumference (z scores). Meta-analysis at 18 months and at two years revealed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to weight (kg), length (cm) and head circumference (cm). GRADE analysis of these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included RCTs reported no beneficial effects or harms of LCPUFA supplementation on neurodevelopmental outcomes of formula-fed full-term infants and no consistent beneficial effects on visual acuity. Routine supplementation of full-term infant milk formula with LCPUFA cannot be recommended at this time.
Authors: A Lucas; M Stafford; R Morley; R Abbott; T Stephenson; U MacFadyen; A Elias-Jones; H Clements Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-12-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: D R Hoffman; E E Birch; D G Birch; R Uauy; Y S Castañeda; M G Lapus; D H Wheaton Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Stewart Forsyth; Philip C Calder; Francis Zotor; Paul Amuna; Barbara Meyer; Bruce Holub Journal: Ann Nutr Metab Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.374
Authors: Christina J Valentine; Kelly A Dingess; Jeanne Kleiman; Ardythe L Morrow; Lynette K Rogers Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.839