| Literature DB >> 31100900 |
Jorge Moreno-Fernandez1,2, Julio J Ochoa3,4, Gladys O Latunde-Dada5, Javier Diaz-Castro6,7.
Abstract
Iron is an essential micronutrient that is involved in many functions in humans, as it plays a critical role in the growth and development of the central nervous system, among others. Premature and low birth weight infants have higher iron requirements due to increased postnatal growth compared to that of term infants and are, therefore, susceptible to a higher risk of developing iron deficiency or iron deficiency anemia. Notwithstanding, excess iron could affect organ development during the postnatal period, particularly in premature infants that have an immature and undeveloped antioxidant system. It is important, therefore, to perform a review and analyze the effects of iron status on the growth of premature infants. This is a transversal descriptive study of retrieved reports in the scientific literature by a systematic technique. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were adapted for the review strategy. The inclusion criteria for the studies were made using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) model. Consequently, the systematic reviews that included studies published between 2008-2018 were evaluated based on the impact of iron status on parameters of growth and development in preterm infants.Entities:
Keywords: development; growth; infant; iron; premature
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31100900 PMCID: PMC6566715 DOI: 10.3390/nu11051090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Score breakdown on 8 items from the Delphi list for each randomized study.
| Study | Items from the Delphi List | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total Score | ||
| Gupta et al., 2017 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | 5 | |
| Berglund et al., 2018 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | These 4 references are all results from the same original cohort |
| Berglund et al., 2013 [ | ||||||||||
| Berglund et al., 2011 [ | ||||||||||
| Berglund et al., 2010 [ | ||||||||||
| Sankar et al., 2009 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | 5 | |
Items of Delphi List: 1. Treatment allocation; 2. Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators?; 3. Were the eligibility criteria specified?; 4. Was the outcome assessor blinded?; 5. Was the care provider blinded?; 6. Was the patient blinded?; 7. Were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the primary outcome measures?; 8. Did the analysis include an intention-to-treat analysis?; “yes” is indicated by a numeric score of 1 and “no” or “don’t know” is indicated by a 0; N/A: not applicable.
Score breakdown on 22 items from the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs (TREND) Statement Checklist for each non-randomized study.
| Study | Items from the TREND Statement Checklist | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Total Score | |
| de Waal et al., 2017 [ | 1 | 1 | 0.75 | N/A | 1 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.85 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 1 | 10.92 |
| Saha et al., 2016 [ | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | N/A | 1 | 0.66 | 1 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.85 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 1 | 13.75 |
| Akkermans et al., 2016 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 1 | 11.78 |
| Uijterschout et al., 2015 [ | 0.66 | 1 | 0.5 | N/A | 1 | 0.66 | 1 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.85 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 1 | 12.83 |
| Yamada and Leone 2014 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 1 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.66 | 1 | 1 | 12.75 |
| Mukhopadhyay et al., 2012 [ | 1 | 1 | 0.75 | N/A | 1 | 0.66 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.28 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.66 | 1 | 1 | 13.85 |
| Amin et al., 2012 [ | 1 | 1 | 0.75 | N/A | 1 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.66 | 1 | 1 | 11.94 |
| Kitajima et al., 2011 [ | 0.66 | 0.5 | 0.75 | N/A | 1 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.66 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0.66 | 1 | 1 | 11.39 |
| Molloy et al., 2009 [ | 0.33 | 1 | 0.75 | N/A | 1 | 0.66 | 1 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.85 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 1 | 12.41 |
| Amin et al., 2010 [ | 1 | 1 | 0.75 | N/A | 1 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.71 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 1 | 10.28 |
N/A: not applicable.
Figure 1Flowchart showing study selection procedure and results.
Summary of the characteristics of the randomized studies. LBW, low birth weight; CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist; ABR, auditory brainstem response; ID, iron deficiency.
| Authors, Years | Study Design | Randomized | Sample Size | Male-Female | Preterm Weeks Age | Iron Supplementation | Dosage mg/kg/day | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berglund et al., 2018 [ | controlled, double-blind, interventional trial | Yes | 285 | 179–106 | <37 | Yes | 1 or 2 | Early iron supplementation in LBW infants prevents behavioral problems at school age, recommending iron supplementation in this population. |
| Gupta et al., 2017 [ | open-label, multicentre trial | Yes | 401 | 213–188 | <34 | Yes | 2–3 | There were no significant differences in motor and mental development quotients in premature infants who received complementary feeding at 4 months, or continuation of milk feeding and initiation of complementary feeding at 6 months. |
| Berglund et al., 2013 [ | controlled, double-blind, interventional trial | Yes | 319 | 158–161 | <37 | Yes | 1 or 2 | Iron supplementation reduced the prevalence of behavioral problems, defined as abnormal CBCL scores. Marginally low birth weight infants should be included in iron supplementation programs during early infancy. |
| Berglund et al., 2011 [ | controlled, double blinded intervention trial | Yes | 223 | 109–114 | <37 | Yes | 1 or 2 | Iron supplementation did not improve ABR latencies, and iron-deficient marginally low birth weight infants did not have impaired ABR latencies at 6 months. ABR is not a sensitive measure of impaired neurological development or that mild/moderate ID causes no such impairment in these infants. |
| Berglund et al., 2010 [ | controlled, double-blind, interventional trial | Yes | 285 | 138–147 | <37 | Yes | 1 or 2 | Iron supplementation from 6 weeks to 6 months reduces this risk of ID and IDA effectively, with no short-term adverse effects on morbidity or growth. |
| Sankar et al., 2009 [ | Observacional | Yes | 46 | 24–22 | 33 | Yes | 3–4 | Supplementing iron at 2 weeks of life did not improve either serum ferritin or haematological parameters at 2 months of age in preterm very low birth weight infants. |
Summary of characteristics of non- randomized studies. ZnPP/H, Zinc protoporphyrin/heme; SF, serum ferritin.
| Authors, Years | Study Design | Randomized | Sample Size | Men-Women | Preterm Weeks Age | Iron Supplementation | Dosage mg/kg/day | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| de Waal et al., 2017 [ | prospective cohort study | No | 161 | 98–63 | 32–36 | No | – | ZnPP/H can be of additional value to detect infants at risk for IDA |
| Saha et al., 2016 [ | prospective observational study | No | 67 | 32–35 | 36.8–37.3 | No | – | Late preterm and term small gestational age infants have adequate iron stores at birth and at 2 months of age |
| Akkermans et al., 2016 [ | prospective multi-centre study | No | 68 | 43–25 | 32–35 | No | – | Iron depletion is common in late preterm infants at the age of 6 weeks in a setting without standardized iron supplementation. Early iron supplementation should be considered in late preterm infants with a low birth weight or low SF in the first week of life. |
| Uijterschout et al., 2015 [ | prospective cohort study | No | 143 | 87–56 | 32–36 | No | – | Preterm infants have an increased risk of ID compared with those born at term. Supporting the need of iron supplementation. Measurement of ferritin at the age of 1 week might be useful to identify those infants at particular risk. |
| Yamada and Leone 2014 [ | Cohort study | No | 46 | 27–19 | 34–36 | Yes | 2 | Exclusively breastfed late-preterm newborns presented greater reductions in hemoglobin/hematocrit and lower iron stores than term newborns. Specific iron supplementation is suggested. |
| Mukhopadhyay et al., 2012 [ | prospective cohort study | No | 150 | 47–103 | ≤36 | No | – | Preterm small gestational age infants have lesser total body iron stores as compared to preterm adequate gestational age infants at birth. Similarly preterm infants have less iron stores than term infants. |
| Amin et al., 2012 [ | prospective observational study | No | 131 | 67–64 | 24–32 | Yes | 2 | Iron parameters at 35 weeks post-menstrual age is extremely variable and is predicted by erythrocyte transfusions. Due to the harmful effects of iron overload and latent iron deficiency status, iron homeostasis maintenance is crucial in the neonatal period. |
| Kitajima et al., 2011 [ | prospective cohort study | No | 71 | 29–32 | <37 | No | - | Preterm infants have lower prohepcidin production at birth according to the gestational age, and the levels might be susceptible to the in utero stress. The postnatal increase might reflect the maturation and/or adaptation of iron homeostasis. |
| Amin et al., 2010 [ | prospective cohort study | No | 80 | 41–39 | 27–33 | No | - | Premature infants with iron deficiency have abnormal auditory neural maturation compared with infants with normal iron status. |
| Molloy et al., 2009 [ | Observational | No | 60 | 22–38 | 26.5 | Yes | 2–4 | Careful evaluation of iron indices is essential to prevent potential organ injury and unnecessary iron supplementation which could induce iron overload. |