PubMed · 9861105
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1999. Vending machine snacks.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9861105/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: In-hospital growth of most very low birth weight infants remains below the 10th percentile of reference intrauterine growth curves (Ehrenkranz 1999). To improve growth, fat is added to preterm formula in the form of medium chain triglycerides (MCT) or long chain triglycerides (LCT). MCT are easily accessible to the preterm infant with an immature digestive system while LCT are important in the development of the retina and visual acuity. Both have been incorporated into preterm formulas in varying amounts, but their effect on the preterm infant's short term growth is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine among preterm, formula fed infants, does high MCT as opposed to low MCT (high LCT) formula promote higher short term growth rates. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (1966-2002), CINAHL (1982-2002), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001), conference proceedings, and reference lists of articles were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized trials comparing the effects of exclusive feeding of high versus low MCT formula (for a minimum of one week) on the short term growth of healthy, preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed each study's quality and extracted data on growth parameters as well as adverse effects from included studies. All data used in analysis were continuous, and therefore weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were reported. MAIN RESULTS: Eight randomized trials studying a total of 182 infants were included. There was no evidence of difference in short term growth parameters when high and low MCT formulas were compared. The meta-analysis of weight gain based on five studies yielded a WMD of -0.35 g/kg/d (95% CI -1.44, 0.74). Similarly, meta-analysis of weight gain in g/d based on two studies showed no evidence of difference (WMD 2.09 g/d, 95% CI -1.46, 5.64). Length gain, based on five studies, showed a non-significant WMD of 0.14 cm/wk (95% CI -0.04, 0.31). Head circumference gain, based on data from five studies, showed a non-significant WMD -0.03 cm/wk (95% CI -0.15, 0.08). Only one study reported skin fold thickness gain, with a mean difference -0.15 mm/wk (95% CI -0.41, 0.11), again not significant. Subgroup analyses according to % MCT in the high MCT formula, by 10% intervals, showed no evidence of effect of high MCT on short term weight gain within any subgroup. There are conflicting data (two studies) as to formula tolerance. There is no evidence of effect on incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), based on small numbers in two trials. No studies were located addressing long term growth parameters or neurodevelopmental outcomes. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of difference between MCT and LCT on short term growth, gastrointestinal intolerance, or necrotizing enterocolitis. Therefore, neither formula type could be concluded to improve short term growth or have less adverse effects. Further studies are necessary because the results from the included eight studies are imprecise due to small numbers and do not address important long term outcomes. Additional research should aim to clarify effects on formula tolerance and on long term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes, and include larger study populations to better evaluate effect on NEC incidence.
The search for effective ways of dealing with obesity has centred on biological research and clinical management. However, obesity needs to be conceptualized more broadly if the modern pandemic is to be arrested. The epidemiological triad (hosts, agent/vectors and environments) has served us well in dealing with epidemics in the past, and may be worth re-evaluating to this end. Education, behaviour change and clinical practices deal predominantly with the host, although multidisciplinary practices such as shared-care might also be expected to impact on other corners of the triad. Technology deals best with the agent of obesity (energy imbalance) and it's vectors (excessive energy intake and/or inadequate energy expenditure), and policy and social change are needed to cope with the environment. The value of a broad model like this, rather than specific isolated approaches, is that the key players such as legislators, health professionals, governments and industry can see their roles in attenuating and eventually reversing the epidemic. It also highlights the need to intervene at all levels in obesity control and reduces the relevance of arguments about nature vs. nurture.