Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT

Background: Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement. Objective: To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day)...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jon Dorling, Oliver Hewer, Madeleine Hurd, Vasha Bari, Beth Bosiak, Ursula Bowler, Andrew King, Louise Linsell, David Murray, Omar Omar, Christopher Partlett, Catherine Rounding, John Townend, Jane Abbott, Janet Berrington, Elaine Boyle, Nicholas Embleton, Samantha Johnson, Alison Leaf, Kenny McCormick, William McGuire, Mehali Patel, Tracy Roberts, Ben Stenson, Warda Tahir, Mark Monahan, Judy Richards, Judith Rankin, Edmund Juszczak
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: NIHR Journals Library 2020-04-01
Series:Health Technology Assessment
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24180
id doaj-80286550194947feb4b3e82bddc457d2
record_format Article
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jon Dorling
Oliver Hewer
Madeleine Hurd
Vasha Bari
Beth Bosiak
Ursula Bowler
Andrew King
Louise Linsell
David Murray
Omar Omar
Christopher Partlett
Catherine Rounding
John Townend
Jane Abbott
Janet Berrington
Elaine Boyle
Nicholas Embleton
Samantha Johnson
Alison Leaf
Kenny McCormick
William McGuire
Mehali Patel
Tracy Roberts
Ben Stenson
Warda Tahir
Mark Monahan
Judy Richards
Judith Rankin
Edmund Juszczak
spellingShingle Jon Dorling
Oliver Hewer
Madeleine Hurd
Vasha Bari
Beth Bosiak
Ursula Bowler
Andrew King
Louise Linsell
David Murray
Omar Omar
Christopher Partlett
Catherine Rounding
John Townend
Jane Abbott
Janet Berrington
Elaine Boyle
Nicholas Embleton
Samantha Johnson
Alison Leaf
Kenny McCormick
William McGuire
Mehali Patel
Tracy Roberts
Ben Stenson
Warda Tahir
Mark Monahan
Judy Richards
Judith Rankin
Edmund Juszczak
Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT
Health Technology Assessment
preterm
disability
milk feeding
infection
necrotising enterocolitis
survival
randomised controlled trial
author_facet Jon Dorling
Oliver Hewer
Madeleine Hurd
Vasha Bari
Beth Bosiak
Ursula Bowler
Andrew King
Louise Linsell
David Murray
Omar Omar
Christopher Partlett
Catherine Rounding
John Townend
Jane Abbott
Janet Berrington
Elaine Boyle
Nicholas Embleton
Samantha Johnson
Alison Leaf
Kenny McCormick
William McGuire
Mehali Patel
Tracy Roberts
Ben Stenson
Warda Tahir
Mark Monahan
Judy Richards
Judith Rankin
Edmund Juszczak
author_sort Jon Dorling
title Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT
title_short Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT
title_full Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT
title_fullStr Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT
title_full_unstemmed Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT
title_sort two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the sift rct
publisher NIHR Journals Library
series Health Technology Assessment
issn 1366-5278
2046-4924
publishDate 2020-04-01
description Background: Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement. Objective: To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants. Design: This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents. Setting: The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015. Participants: The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks’ gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment. Interventions: When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell’s stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability. Results: The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost–consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention. Limitations: The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered. Conclusions: No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
topic preterm
disability
milk feeding
infection
necrotising enterocolitis
survival
randomised controlled trial
url https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24180
work_keys_str_mv AT jondorling twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT oliverhewer twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT madeleinehurd twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT vashabari twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT bethbosiak twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT ursulabowler twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT andrewking twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT louiselinsell twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT davidmurray twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT omaromar twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT christopherpartlett twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT catherinerounding twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT johntownend twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT janeabbott twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT janetberrington twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT elaineboyle twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT nicholasembleton twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT samanthajohnson twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT alisonleaf twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT kennymccormick twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT williammcguire twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT mehalipatel twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT tracyroberts twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT benstenson twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT wardatahir twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT markmonahan twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT judyrichards twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT judithrankin twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
AT edmundjuszczak twospeedsofincreasingmilkfeedsforverypretermorverylowbirthweightinfantsthesiftrct
_version_ 1724905707702059008
spelling doaj-80286550194947feb4b3e82bddc457d22020-11-25T02:13:22ZengNIHR Journals LibraryHealth Technology Assessment1366-52782046-49242020-04-01241810.3310/hta2418011/01/25Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCTJon Dorling0Oliver Hewer1Madeleine Hurd2Vasha Bari3Beth Bosiak4Ursula Bowler5Andrew King6Louise Linsell7David Murray8Omar Omar9Christopher Partlett10Catherine Rounding11John Townend12Jane Abbott13Janet Berrington14Elaine Boyle15Nicholas Embleton16Samantha Johnson17Alison Leaf18Kenny McCormick19William McGuire20Mehali Patel21Tracy Roberts22Ben Stenson23Warda Tahir24Mark Monahan25Judy Richards26Judith Rankin27Edmund Juszczak28Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, CanadaNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKWomen’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, CanadaNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKBliss, London, UKNewcastle Neonatal Service, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UKNewcastle Neonatal Service, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UKNational Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research Centre Department of Child Health, University of Southampton, Southampton, UKJohn Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UKCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UKBliss, London, UKSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKThe Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKBackground: Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement. Objective: To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants. Design: This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents. Setting: The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015. Participants: The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks’ gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment. Interventions: When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell’s stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability. Results: The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost–consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention. Limitations: The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered. Conclusions: No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24180pretermdisabilitymilk feedinginfectionnecrotising enterocolitissurvivalrandomised controlled trial