Taygen Edwards1, Jane M Alsweiler2,3, Caroline A Crowther1, Richard Edlin4, Greg D Gamble1, Joanne E Hegarty3, Luling Lin1, Christopher J D McKinlay1,5, Jenny A Rogers1, Benjamin Thompson6,7, Trecia A Wouldes8, Jane E Harding1. 1. Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 2. Department of Paediatrics: Child and Youth Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Newborn Services, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Health Systems, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 5. Kidz First Neonatal Care, Counties Manukau Health, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. School of Optometry and Vision Science, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 7. Center for Eye and Vision Research, Hong Kong. 8. Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
Importance: Prophylactic oral dextrose gel reduces neonatal hypoglycemia, but later benefits or harms remain unclear. Objective: To assess the effects on later development of prophylactic dextrose gel for infants born at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective follow-up of a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in 18 Australian and New Zealand hospitals from January 2015 to May 2019. Participants were late preterm or term at-risk infants; those randomized in 9 New Zealand centers (n = 1359) were included and followed up between January 2017 and July 2021. Interventions: Infants were randomized to prophylactic 40% dextrose (n = 681) or placebo (n = 678) gel, 0.5 mL/kg, massaged into the buccal mucosa 1 hour after birth. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this follow-up study was neurosensory impairment at 2 years' corrected age. There were 44 secondary outcomes, including cognitive, language, and motor composite Bayley-III scores (mean [SD], 100 [15]; higher scores indicate better performance). Results: Of eligible infants, 1197 (91%) were assessed (581 females [49%]). Neurosensory impairment was not significantly different between the dextrose and placebo gel groups (20.8% vs 18.7%; unadjusted risk difference [RD], 2.09% [95% CI, -2.43% to 6.60%]; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.41]). The risk of cognitive and language delay was not significantly different between the dextrose and placebo groups (cognitive: 7.6% vs 5.3%; RD, 2.32% [95% CI, -0.46% to 5.11%]; aRR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.91 to 2.17]; language: 17.0% vs 14.7%; RD, 2.35% [95% CI, -1.80% to 6.50%]; aRR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.54]). However, the dextrose gel group had a significantly higher risk of motor delay (2.5% vs 0.7%; RD, 1.81% [95% CI, 0.40% to 3.23%]; aRR, 3.79 [95% CI, 1.27 to 11.32]) and significantly lower composite scores for cognitive (adjusted mean difference [aMD], -1.30 [95% CI, -2.55 to -0.05]), language (aMD, -2.16 [95% CI, -3.86 to -0.46]), and motor (aMD, -1.40 [95% CI, -2.60 to -0.20]) performance. There were no significant differences between groups in the other 27 secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among late preterm and term infants born at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia, prophylactic oral 40% dextrose gel at 1 hour of age, compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the risk of neurosensory impairment at 2 years' corrected age. However, the study may have been underpowered to detect a small but potentially clinically important increase in risk, and further research including longer-term follow-up is required. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614001263684.
Importance: Prophylactic oral dextrose gel reduces neonatal hypoglycemia, but later benefits or harms remain unclear. Objective: To assess the effects on later development of prophylactic dextrose gel for infants born at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective follow-up of a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in 18 Australian and New Zealand hospitals from January 2015 to May 2019. Participants were late preterm or term at-risk infants; those randomized in 9 New Zealand centers (n = 1359) were included and followed up between January 2017 and July 2021. Interventions: Infants were randomized to prophylactic 40% dextrose (n = 681) or placebo (n = 678) gel, 0.5 mL/kg, massaged into the buccal mucosa 1 hour after birth. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this follow-up study was neurosensory impairment at 2 years' corrected age. There were 44 secondary outcomes, including cognitive, language, and motor composite Bayley-III scores (mean [SD], 100 [15]; higher scores indicate better performance). Results: Of eligible infants, 1197 (91%) were assessed (581 females [49%]). Neurosensory impairment was not significantly different between the dextrose and placebo gel groups (20.8% vs 18.7%; unadjusted risk difference [RD], 2.09% [95% CI, -2.43% to 6.60%]; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.41]). The risk of cognitive and language delay was not significantly different between the dextrose and placebo groups (cognitive: 7.6% vs 5.3%; RD, 2.32% [95% CI, -0.46% to 5.11%]; aRR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.91 to 2.17]; language: 17.0% vs 14.7%; RD, 2.35% [95% CI, -1.80% to 6.50%]; aRR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.54]). However, the dextrose gel group had a significantly higher risk of motor delay (2.5% vs 0.7%; RD, 1.81% [95% CI, 0.40% to 3.23%]; aRR, 3.79 [95% CI, 1.27 to 11.32]) and significantly lower composite scores for cognitive (adjusted mean difference [aMD], -1.30 [95% CI, -2.55 to -0.05]), language (aMD, -2.16 [95% CI, -3.86 to -0.46]), and motor (aMD, -1.40 [95% CI, -2.60 to -0.20]) performance. There were no significant differences between groups in the other 27 secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among late preterm and term infants born at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia, prophylactic oral 40% dextrose gel at 1 hour of age, compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the risk of neurosensory impairment at 2 years' corrected age. However, the study may have been underpowered to detect a small but potentially clinically important increase in risk, and further research including longer-term follow-up is required. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614001263684.
Authors: Tzu-Ying Yu; Robert J Jacobs; Nicola S Anstice; Nabin Paudel; Jane E Harding; Benjamin Thompson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Nataliia Burakevych; Christopher Joel Dorman Mckinlay; Jane Marie Alsweiler; Trecia Ann Wouldes; Jane Elizabeth Harding Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2016-08-20 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Rebecca Griffith; Joanne Elizabeth Hegarty; Jane M Alsweiler; Greg D Gamble; Robyn May; Christopher Joel Dorman McKinlay; Benjamin Thompson; Trecia Ann Wouldes; Jane E Harding Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Jane E Harding; Joanne E Hegarty; Caroline A Crowther; Richard Edlin; Greg Gamble; Jane M Alsweiler Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Joanne Elizabeth Hegarty; Jane Elizabeth Harding; Gregory David Gamble; Caroline Anne Crowther; Richard Edlin; Jane Marie Alsweiler Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Nataliia Burakevych; Christopher J D McKinlay; Deborah L Harris; Jane M Alsweiler; Jane E Harding Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jane E Harding; Joanne E Hegarty; Caroline A Crowther; Richard P Edlin; Gregory D Gamble; Jane M Alsweiler Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Henrike Hoermann; Marcia Roeper; Roschan Salimi Dafsari; Felix Koestner; Dominik Schneble; Dunja von Zezschwitz; Ertan Mayatepek; Sebastian Kummer; Thomas Meissner Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 3.006