Probiotic Use and Safety in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Matched Cohort Study - 27/01/21
Abstract |
Objective |
To determine the prevalence of probiotic administration in infants born preterm over time, as well as the association between probiotic administration and select adverse outcomes.
Study design |
We performed a multicenter cohort study of infants 23-29 weeks of gestational age admitted to 289 neonatal intensive care units from 1997 to 2016. We evaluated the type of probiotics given and prevalence of exposure to probiotics over time and by site. We matched infants exposed to probiotics by several factors to unexposed infants receiving enteral feeds on the same postnatal day. We performed conditional logistic regression to evaluate the association between probiotics exposure and adverse outcomes, including necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), bloodstream infections, meningitis, and death.
Results |
Of 78 076 infants, 3626 (4.6%) received probiotics. Probiotic use increased over the study period and varied among neonatal intensive care units. We matched 2178 infants exposed to probiotics to 33 807 without exposure. Probiotic administration was associated with a decrease in NEC (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48-0.80) and death (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.70), an increase in Candida infection (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.29-3.85), but no increase in bloodstream infection (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70-1.05) or meningitis (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.40-3.46).
Conclusions |
Probiotic use increased over time and was associated with decreased odds of NEC and death. Prospective, randomized-controlled studies of specific probiotic products are needed to further investigate the safety and efficacy of probiotics in preterm infants.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : probiotic use, probiotic safety, infants born preterm
Abbreviations : CSF, FDA, NEC, NICU, VLBW, VON
Plan
Funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (HHSN275201000003I [to D.B.]) for the Pediatric Trials Network. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Also supported by Duke Clinical Research Institute's R25 Summer Training in Academic Research (STAR) Program (#5R25HD076475-07). R.G. received support from industry for research services (conflict-of-interest/). The other authors have declare no conflicts of interest. |
Vol 222
P. 59 - juillet 2020 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?