Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Administración de suplementos de aminoácidos de cadena ramificada para mejorar el crecimiento y el desarrollo de los recién nacidos a término y prematuros

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Antecedentes

Los aminoácidos de cadena ramificada (AACR) tienen una función vital en la nutrición neonatal. La administración óptima de suplementos de AACR podría mejorar el almacenamiento de nutrientes en los recién nacidos, lo que provocaría un mejor desarrollo físico y neurológico, así como una mejoría en otros resultados.

Objetivos

Determinar el efecto de la administración de suplementos con AACR sobre el crecimiento físico y el desarrollo neurológico de los recién nacidos a término y prematuros. Se planificó hacer las siguientes comparaciones: nutrición parenteral con y sin administración de suplementos de AACR; administración de suplemento de AACR enteral versus ningún suplemento; y cualquier tipo de suplemento, incluido el enteral, el parenteral y ambas vías versus ningún suplemento.

Investigar la efectividad de la administración de suplementos según las diferentes dosis evaluadas en los ensayos elegibles.

Métodos de búsqueda

Se realizaron búsquedas exhaustivas mediante las estrategias de búsqueda estándar del Grupo Cochrane de Neonatología: Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, 2016, número 6), MEDLINE, Embase y CINAHL (hasta julio de 2016). La búsqueda se actualizó con CENTRAL (2019, número 8), MEDLINE, Embase y CINAHL (hasta agosto de 2019). También se realizaron búsquedas en los registros de ensayos clínicos y en las listas de referencias de los artículos recuperados.

Criterios de selección

Se planificó incluir ensayos controlados aleatorizados y cuasialeatorizados individuales y grupales que compararan la administración de suplementos con AACR versus placebo o ninguna administración de suplementos en recién nacidos a término y prematuros. Se excluyeron los ensayos presentados solo como resúmenes y los ensayos cruzados (cross‐over).

Obtención y análisis de los datos

Dos autores de la revisión de forma independiente evaluaron la elegibilidad de todos los posibles estudios, identificados a partir de la estrategia de búsqueda. Se planificó extraer los datos mediante un formulario estándar de extracción de datos probado con carácter experimental y evaluar el riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos según los métodos descritos en el Manual Cochrane para las Revisiones Sistemáticas de las Intervenciones (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions). Se planificó analizar los efectos del tratamiento y comunicar las estimaciones de los efectos, en función de si eran datos dicotómicos o continuos, con los intervalos de confianza del 95%. Se planificó realizar análisis de subgrupos para investigar la heterogeneidad, y realizar análisis de sensibilidad cuando fuera posible. Se planificó utilizar el metanálisis de efectos fijos para combinar los datos cuando fuera apropiado. Se planificó evaluar la calidad de la evidencia mediante el enfoque GRADE.

Resultados principales

No se identificaron estudios potencialmente elegibles que cumplieran los criterios de inclusión de esta revisión.

Conclusiones de los autores

No se encontraron datos de ensayos que apoyen o refuten la idea de que la administración de suplementos con AACR afecta el desarrollo físico y neurológico, así como otros resultados en los recién nacidos a término y prematuros.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Resumen en términos sencillos

Administración de suplementos de aminoácidos de cadena ramificada para mejorar la nutrición de los recién nacidos a término y prematuros

Pregunta de la revisión

¿La administración de suplementos de aminoácidos de cadena ramificada (AACR) mejora el desarrollo físico y neurológico y otros resultados de salud en los recién nacidos a término y prematuros?

Antecedentes

Aunque la leucina, la isoleucina y la valina (un grupo de aminoácidos esenciales) tienen una función importante en la nutrición neonatal, todavía se desconocen las dosis óptimas. Los recién nacidos suelen recibir AACR de la leche materna y de las leches artificiales, y los que reciben tratamiento en el hospital debido a diversos problemas, como el parto prematuro, la asfixia (falta de oxígeno) y las infecciones, pueden obtenerlos de las soluciones de infusión. La ingesta subóptima de AACR puede ser causada por una mala succión y también por un tratamiento de infusión inapropiado, lo que puede dar lugar a un crecimiento deficiente y a deterioro neurológico. Por lo tanto, se intentó determinar si la administración de suplementos con AACR puede mejorar los resultados de salud en los recién nacidos a término y prematuros.

Características de los estudios

No se encontraron ensayos controlados aleatorizados elegibles que evaluaran el efecto de la administración de suplementos con AACR para los recién nacidos a término y prematuros. Esta evidencia está actualizada hasta agosto de 2019.

Resultados clave y conclusiones

Mediante esta revisión no es posible indicar un efecto de la administración de suplementos con AACR sobre el crecimiento físico y el desarrollo neurológico de los recién nacidos a término y prematuros. Se necesitan estudios futuros, ya que esta evaluación es muy importante en el campo neonatal.

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice

Our review is unable to suggest the benefits or harms of BCAA supplementation on neonatal physical and neurological development and other important outcomes.

Implications for research

BCAAs play a critical role in newborns, and they can be found in breast milk and commercially available nutritional products. While newborns who are adequately fed are usually not prone to BCAA deficiency, the optimal doses for healthy full‐term, sick, and preterm infants have yet to be determined. Further studies of BCAA‐deficient groups (e.g. sick and preterm infants) to determine the optimal dose, based on further pharmacokinetic or observational studies (or both), may be considered. Because commercially available nutritional formulations typically contain other amino acids and nutrients, it may be difficult to estimate the effects of BCAAs solely. It is therefore preferable to perform comparative studies using pure BCAA formulations in addition to standardised nutrition, if possible. Although short‐term weight gain and biochemical changes are often adopted as the study outcomes, it will be desirable to also assess growth, development, and other physical changes over a period of at least one year.

Background

Description of the condition

Three branched‐chain amino acids (BCAAs)—leucine, isoleucine and valine—are part of a group of essential amino acids (EAAs) that play a pivotal role in neonatal nutrition (De Groof 2011; Kashyap 2011; Suryawan 2011), and a range of key body functions (Ferrier 2013; Harper 1984). A significant amount of essential proteins for the human body comes from BCAAs, including 40% of total amino acids and approximately 35% of muscle protein (Harper 1984). Leucine in particular is of immense importance because it builds body protein and stimulates protein synthesis in the skeletal muscles (Fujita 2007; Suryawan 2011). During the neonatal period, leucine can promote protein synthesis and contribute to increasing skeletal muscle volume in animals (Escobar 2005; Suryawan 2011). It is associated with metabolism of glucose and stimulates insulin secretion (Layman 2006; Matthews 1997). Isoleucine might stimulate the innate immune system in the intestine, and has been shown to protect infants from various harmful microbes (Alam 2011). Additionally, BCAAs play an indispensable role in the brain by constantly nourishing neurons with glutamate (Fernstrom 2005), which is an important excitatory neurotransmitter (Yudkoff 2005). Furthermore, BCAAs act as indirect modulators to stimulate the synthesis of aromatic amino‐acid‐based neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine (Fernstrom 2005).

As the human body is unable to synthesise these amino acids, EAAs should be consumed directly from food sources, such as egg yolk, soy bean and maize (WHO 2007). Approximately 20% of amino acids in human breast milk are BCAAs, and are important for optimal neonatal health (Zhang 2013). The appropriate BCAA intake for neonates is unclear, however, and remains a very challenging area of study (De Groof 2011). In term infants, insufficient supply of BCAAs from breast milk or formula milk may be caused by poor sucking ability due to perinatal asphyxia, perinatal infection or the relatively small body weight at birth. Even in healthy term neonates, BCAAs from breast milk or formula milk may be inadequate during the first few days of life as they are only able to suck a small amount of milk from the mother's breast (Neville 1988). Similarly, preterm neonates are at higher risk of nutrition deficits due to insufficient nutrient reserves at birth, delayed introduction of enteral milk feeding, and increased energy expenditure based on various complications, including respiratory distress syndrome, patent ductus arteriosus, and infections (Shah 2009). Preterm neonates therefore warrant close investigation as a crucial subgroup. There is, moreover, a paucity of data on the short‐term and long‐term effect of BCAA supplementation for improving clinical outcomes in human neonates.

Description of the intervention

Immediately after birth, administration of breast milk or formula milk is required to ensure an optimal supply of necessary nutrients in newborns. Based on the amino acid constituents of human breast milk, leucine, isoleucine and valine intake requirements for term neonates are defined as 165 mg/kg/day, 95 mg/kg/day and 95 mg/kg/day, respectively (WHO 2007; Zhang 2013). Estimates of amino acid intake requirements in term neonates based on a method involving stable isotopes led to optimum amounts of leucine, isoleucine and valine at 140 mg/kg/day, 105 mg/kg/day and 110 mg/kg/day, respectively (De Groof 2011), which differ from the dosage mentioned above. These recommendations are still insufficient to ensure newborns optimal dosages of BCAAs because breast milk nutrients vary among mothers, depending on the maternal nutritional status, duration of lactation, and geographical locations (Neville 1988; Wurtman 1979; Zhang 2013). For example, some amino acids such as isoleucine are significantly higher in Asia, whereas in North America mothers' breast milk is rich in glutamate (Zhang 2013). Besides, for neonates with chronic disease or a critical condition, enteral feeding requirements may differ (Mager 2006). BCAAs are therefore distinct from other amino acids in that they play a wide variety of key roles in body function: as a result, BCAAs may be added to daily nutrients of neonates who are at risk of BCAA deficits. Nevertheless, as multiple nutrients are required for a balanced nutrition state and body function, past studies did not just assess BCAA supplementation in neonates but a combination of other nutrients. Cochrane Neonatal suggested that compared to no supplementation, protein‐supplemented breast milk administered enterally resulted in statistically significant increases in short‐term outcomes such as weight gain, linear growth and head growth in relatively well preterm infants (Amissah 2018). Higher amino acid administration in preterm infants was found to be associated with improved postnatal growth, a reduction in hyperglycaemia, and an increased risk of abnormal blood urea nitrogen (Osborn 2018).

How the intervention might work

Administration of BCAA supplementation can be performed both parenterally and enterally. The foremost choice, however, is enteral feeding with breast milk whenever possible, otherwise parenteral feeding should be sought. Parenteral administration of necessary nutrients to very preterm neonates (< 32 weeks of gestation) during the initial postnatal period is practised widely in most developed countries (Embleton 2014). In particular, this method is considered a relatively safe way to ensure nutritional intake, especially for neonates with enteral feeding intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis showing gastrointestinal malfunction (Koletzko 2008).

Enteral administration of additional BCAAs to all neonates may provide benefits to decrease associated negative health outcomes especially in those with inadequate intake of recommended dosages. Although evidence of BCAA supplementation effect in human neonates is very limited, the possible beneficial and adverse effects have been suggested in other populations. For example, a systematic review suggested that BCAA supplementation (range 5.5 g/day to 30 g/day) might have a positive effect on the improvement of muscle strength, ascites and oedema in adults with chronic liver disease (Ooi 2018). In contrast, limited evidence showed potential favourable effects of BCAA supplementation on body weight and serum albumin level in paediatric patients with liver dysfunction (Ooi 2018). Another systematic review showed that leucine administration (range 1.2 g/day to 6 g/day) increased lean muscle‐mass content in sarcopaenic elderly individuals (Martinez‐Arnau 2019).

Conversely, excessive BCAA intake may lead to short‐term and long‐term adverse outcomes. For instance, excess ingestion of BCAA can be associated with nausea and fatigue in manic patients (Scarna 2003). Previous research suggests that high plasma concentrations of BCAAs could possibly develop from formula feeding and that might have a negative effect on neonates' carbohydrate and insulin metabolism (De Groof 2011; Jarvenpaa 1982). Interestingly, one meta‐analysis found that higher total BCAA intake could increase the risk of type 2 diabetes (odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.53), and could decrease obesity risk (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82) in adults (Okekunle 2019). Since diabetes and obesity are associated with increased probability of developing cardiovascular diseases in the long term, including ischaemic heart disease and stroke in adulthood, which are the two leading causes of death worldwide (WHO 2014), it is of utmost importance to examine the long‐term effects of BCAA supplementation on the progression of non‐communicable diseases in newborns. Such risk may even be higher for formula‐fed neonates, who have a higher likelihood of becoming overweight or obese (Koletzko 2009).

Why it is important to do this review

As BCAAs play an indispensable role in key body functions and growth, it is essential to gain a comprehensive understanding of the effect of BCAA supplementation in neonates including optimal dosages, duration of administration, and short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes. Existing Cochrane Reviews have assessed the impact of additional amino acids on neonatal outcomes, that is glutamine supplementation on preterm neonates' morbidity and mortality (Moe‐Byrne 2016), as well as the effect of taurine supplementation on the growth and development of preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants (Verner 2007). However, there is currently no synthesised evidence of the effectiveness of BCAA supplementation on positive or adverse outcomes for either term or preterm neonates. Although various nutrients are necessary for neonatal growth and development, BCAAs have distinctive importance considering their diverse body mechanisms beyond just nutritional metabolism (Nie 2018). Further research was therefore required to address this important literature gap in the field of neonatal health.

Objectives

To determine the effect of BCAA supplementation on physical growth and neurological development in term and preterm neonates. We planned to make the following comparisons: parenteral nutrition with and without BCAA supplementation; enteral BCAA supplementation versus no supplementation; and any type of supplementation including enteral, parenteral and both ways versus no supplementation.

To investigate the supplementation effectiveness for different dosages assessed in the eligible trials.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

We considered all randomised (individual and cluster) or quasi‐RCTs investigating BCAA supplementation effect in term and preterm neonates. We excluded trials presented only as abstracts and cross‐over trials.

Types of participants

We aimed to include all preterm and term neonates randomised within 28 days after birth.

Types of interventions

Supplementation of any BCAAs (i.e. leucine, isoleucine or valine) versus placebo or no supplementation administered to the neonates via enteral or parenteral route. We considered any dosages for inclusion. We considered comparisons of BCAAs to no BCAAs and additional BCAAs to basal BCAA levels contained in amino acid formulations and formula milk. We restricted neither the type of milk (i.e. breast milk, formula milk and both) nor the duration of the supplementation. Since the availability of BCAA supplementations' trial data from neonates are scarce, we also considered trials reporting biochemical changes observed following a single dose for any number of given days.

Types of outcome measures

We aimed to include all identified eligible trials regardless of their assessed outcome measures.

Primary outcomes

  1. Physical development

    1. Weight gain during the 28 days after birth (grams)

    2. Increase in height during the 28 days after birth (centimetres)

    3. Increase in head circumference during the 28 days after birth (centimetres)

  2. Neurological development

    1. Major neurodevelopmental disability after 18 months' post‐term age

      1. Cerebral palsy (yes/no)

      2. Developmental delay (more than two standard deviations (SD) below the mean in a validated mental development test) or intellectual impairment (more than two SD below the mean in a validated intelligence test) (yes/no)

      3. Blindness (vision < 6/60 in both eyes) (yes/no)

      4. Sensorineural deafness (requiring amplification) (yes/no)

We planned to analyse children aged 12 to 24 months and 25 months to 5 years separately.

Secondary outcomes

  1. All‐cause mortality within the first year of life

  2. Systemic infection assessed during the trial period diagnosed by positive blood culture or clinical diagnosis by an attending physician (yes/no)

  3. Feeding tolerance assessed by the number of days since birth until full establishment of enteral feeding, e.g. at least 150 mL/kg/day, independent of parenteral fluids or nutrition (days)

  4. Cognitive and educational outcomes at five years or more diagnosed by a physician, e.g. autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning disorder (yes/no)

  5. Adverse events during the trial period, e.g. nausea, vomiting and fatigue reported by healthcare staff and abnormal blood tests such as urea nitrogen (yes/no). We planned to report other adverse outcomes if reported in individual trials

Search methods for identification of studies

We used the criteria and standard methods of Cochrane, and Cochrane Neonatal (see the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy for specialised register).

Electronic searches

We conducted comprehensive searches in two different time points and merged the results. We pulled the first search from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL, from the inception to 14 July 2016. The second search included CENTRAL (2019, Issue 8), OVID Medline Epub Ahead of Print, In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R) (1946 to 2 August 2019), MEDLINE via PubMed (to 2 August 2019) for the previous year and CINAHL (1981 to 2 August 2019). We have included the search strategies for each database in Appendix 1. We did not apply language restrictions.

We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing or recently completed trials. We searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en), and the US National Library of Medicine's ClinicalTrials.gov, via Cochrane CENTRAL. Additionally, we searched the ISRCTN Registry for any unique trials that might not have been retrieved by the Cochrane CENTRAL database search.

Searching other resources

We also searched the reference lists of potentially eligible articles retrieved for this review.

Data collection and analysis

We used the standardised method of Cochrane and the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (www.neonatal.cochrane.org/resources-review-authors).

Selection of studies

Two review authors, Shoichiro Amari (SA) and Fumihiko Namba (FN), independently assessed the eligibility of all potential studies that we identified as a result of the search strategies. We resolved any disagreement through discussion or, if required, consultation with a third author—Sadequa Shahrook (SS), Erika Ota (EO) or Rintaro Mori (RM).

Data extraction and management

We planned to use a pilot‐tested standardised form for data extraction designed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. When we identify eligible studies in future updates of this review, two review authors will extract data using this form. We will resolve disagreements through discussion or, if required, consultation with a third person (EO or RM). We will enter data into Review Manager 5 software to check for data authenticity (Review Manager 2014). When information regarding any of the above is unclear, we will attempt to contact authors of the original reports to ask them to provide further details. Moreover, owing to the paucity of available trial data in this area, we will consider including abstracts from eligible trial design for our future review update.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors (SA and FN) planned to independently assess the risk of bias (low, high, or unclear) of the included trials using the following domain criteria (Higgins 2011).

  1. Sequence generation (selection bias)

  2. Allocation concealment (selection bias)

  3. Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

  4. Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

  5. Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

  6. Selective reporting (reporting bias)

  7. Any other bias

We planned to resolve any disagreements by discussion or by involving a third assessor. See Appendix 2 for a detailed risk of bias description for each of the domains.

Measures of treatment effect

Dichotomous data

For dichotomous data, we planned to report risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% CIs. If the RD was statistically significant (P value < 0.05), we planned to use the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH).

Continuous data

For continuous data, we planned to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs.

Unit of analysis issues

Cluster‐randomised trials

We planned to include cluster‐randomised trials in the analyses along with individually randomised trials. To take into account the design effect, we planned to adjust sample sizes using the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011); and an estimate of the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) derived from the trial, if possible, or from a similar trial or from a study of a similar population. Had the ICCs been used from other sources, we would have reported it and would have conducted sensitivity analyses to investigate the variation effect in the ICCs. If we could identify both cluster‐randomised trials and individually randomised trials, we would have synthesised the most relevant information from each. We planned to combine the study results if there had been a little heterogeneity between their designs, and if we considered the interaction between the intervention effect and the randomisation unit to be unlikely. We would have acknowledged heterogeneity in the randomisation unit prior to performing a sensitivity analysis for investigating the effects of the randomisation unit.

Trials with more than two treatment groups

If we had identified trials with more than two intervention groups (multi‐arm studies), we planned to include only directly relevant arms. If we had identified studies with various relevant arms, we would have combined groups to generate a single pair‐wise comparison (Higgins 2011), and we would have included the disaggregated data in the corresponding subgroup category. If the control group was shared by two or more study arms, we would have divided the control group over the number of relevant subgroup categories to avoid double counting the participants. For dichotomous data, we planned to divide the events and the total population; and for continuous data, we planned to assume the same mean and standard deviation but to divide the total population. We aimed to provide the detailed approach in the 'Characteristics of included studies' tables.

Dealing with missing data

We planned to note levels of attrition if we found any studies eligible for inclusion. We planned to explore the impact of including studies with high levels of missing data in the overall assessment of treatment effect by using sensitivity analysis.

For all outcomes, we planned to carry out analyses, as far as possible, on an intention‐to‐treat basis: that is, we would have attempted to include all participants randomised to each group in the analyses, and we would have analysed all participants in the group to which they had been allocated, regardless of whether or not they had received the allocated intervention. The denominator for each outcome in each trial would have been the number randomised minus any participants whose outcomes were known to be missing.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We planned to assess statistical heterogeneity in each meta‐analysis using the I² and Chi² statistics. We planned to interpret I² statistics as follows.

  1. Less than 25% no heterogeneity

  2. 25% to 49% low heterogeneity

  3. 50% to 74% moderate heterogeneity

  4. 75% and above high heterogeneity

We planned to consider the meta‐analysis inappropriate when I² was 75% or more (high heterogeneity). In addition, we planned to employ the Chi² test of homogeneity. We planned to explore clinical variation across studies by comparing the distribution of important participant factors among trials and trial factors (randomisation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, lacking follow‐up, treatment type and co‐interventions). We planned to interpret heterogeneity as present when the P value was less than 0.1.

Assessment of reporting biases

If there were 10 or more studies included in the meta‐analysis, we would have investigated reporting biases (such as publication bias) by visually examining the degree of asymmetry in funnel plots. If asymmetry was suggested by a visual assessment, we would have performed exploratory analyses.

Data synthesis

We planned to carry out statistical analysis using the Review Manager 5 software (Review Manager 2014). We planned to use the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to synthesise data using RRs, RDs, NNTB/NNTH, MDs, standardised MDs and 95% CIs. We planned to use fixed‐effect meta‐analysis to combine the included trial data.

Certainty of evidence

We planned to use the GRADE approach, as outlined in the GRADE Handbook (Schünemann 2013), to assess the certainty of evidence of the following (clinically relevant) outcomes: physical development including weight gain; increase in height and head circumference; neurological development; all‐cause mortality; and systemic infection.

Two review authors (SA and FN) planned to independently assess the certainty of the evidence for each of the above outcomes. We planned to embrace evidence from RCTs as high certainty but to downgrade the evidence one level for serious (or two levels for very serious) limitations based upon the following: design (risk of bias), consistency across studies, directness of the evidence, precision of estimates and presence of publication bias. We planned to use the GRADEpro GDT Guideline Development Tool to create nine ‘Summary of findings’ tables to report the certainty of the evidence.

The GRADE approach results in an assessment of the certainty of a body of evidence as one of four grades.

  1. High certainty: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.

  2. Moderate certainty: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.

  3. Low certainty: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

  4. Very low certainty: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

If we identified substantial heterogeneity in meta‐analyses (I² > 50%), we would have investigated it using subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. We planned to consider whether an overall summary was meaningful; and if it was, to use random‐effects analysis.

We planned to carry out the following subgroup analyses on the primary outcomes, wherever possible.

  1. Term neonates (37 weeks' gestation or more) versus preterm neonates (36 weeks' gestation or less)

  2. Exclusively breast‐fed neonates versus mostly breast‐fed neonates versus mostly formula‐fed neonates and inconsistently lactated neonates versus exclusively formula‐fed neonates

  3. Body weight at birth, e.g. less than 2500 grams versus 2500 grams and above

  4. Male versus female neonates

  5. Developed versus developing country settings: we will consider high‐income and upper‐middle‐income economies classified by the World Bank as developed and lower‐middle‐income and low‐income economies as developing (World Bank 2015).

We would have assessed subgroup differences using interaction tests available within Review Manager software (Review Manager 2014). We planned to report the results of subgroup analyses quoting the Chi² statistics and P values and the interaction test I² values.

Sensitivity analysis

We planned sensitivity analyses to determine whether findings were affected (and heterogeneity reduced) by including only studies at low overall risk of bias, defined as adequate randomisation and allocation concealment, masking of intervention and measurement, and less than 10% loss to follow‐up for outcome assessment.

Results

Description of studies

Results of the search

The literature search conducted in July 2016 and August 2019 identified 643 references after removing duplicates. After screening we assessed 76 studies. (See Figure 1).


Study flow diagram.

Study flow diagram.

Included studies

We identified no trials that matched our inclusion criteria.

Excluded studies

We excluded 76 studies that included one duplicate title (Socha 2011). We found five titles presented as abstracts and none met our review inclusion criteria for eligible study design (Coloso 1997; De Groof 2011; Protheroe 1995; Rigo 1985; Sáenz 2001), two of which were reviewed by two review authorrs (SA and FN) based on the corresponding full‐text report (De Groof 2011; Sáenz 2001). Seventeen studies from 19 reports did not apply randomised or quasi‐randomised trial design (Antony 1967; Berry 1982; Chin 1990; De Boo 2005; De Groof 2011; Helms 1987; Mager 2006; NCT01304394; NCT01813526; NCT01820494; NCT02536482; NL1539; Poindexter 1997; Rigo 1985; Sáenz 2001; Schober 1989; van Toledo‐Eppinga 1996). We identified 11 studies as cross‐over trials (Chin 1992; Denne 1994; Kadrofske 2006; NCT00196482; NCT01062815; NCT01569776; NCT02414243; NL3889; Parimi 2005; Protheroe 1995; Verbruggen 2011). Three studies were narrative reviews (Chuang 2006; Haschke 2016; Koletzko 2013); while one was a case report (Sperl 1994). The remaining 44 studies did not compare BCAA supplementation against placebo or no supplementation. Nine of the 44 studies did not assess dose differences in BCAA intake (Darmaun 1997; Liet 1999; NCT00005775; NCT00005889; NCT00254176; NCT01470768; NCT01599286; NCT02719405; Vlaardingerbroek 2014). Although 35 studies assessed different BCAA dosages administered to varying study arms, we did not include these studies because of their group variation with other nutrients including amino acids and lipids. Parenteral administration of amino acids was the focus in 15 out of 35 studies (Adamkin 1995; Battista 1996; Camelo 1995; ChiCTR‐IPR‐15006106; Coloso 1997; Lai 1999; Maldonado 1988; NCT00120926; NCT01062724; NCT01860573; Rivera 1993; Thureen 2003; van den Akker 2006; van den Akker 2007; Van Goudoever 1995), of which 13 administered commercially available amino acid solutions (Adamkin 1995; Battista 1996; Camelo 1995; Lai 1999; Maldonado 1988; NCT00120926; NCT01062724; NCT01860573; Rivera 1993; Thureen 2003; van den Akker 2006; van den Akker 2007; Van Goudoever 1995). Enteral feeding route was applied in  20 studies (Fleddermann 2015; Geukers 2015; Giovannini 1994; Hagelberg 1990; Hanning 1992; Kirchberg 2015; Lonnerdal 1990; Lonnerdal 2016; Manary 2004; NCT00664768; NCT01109966; NCT01583673; NCT01699386; NCT01940068; NCT02410057; NCT02500563; NL4677; Sáenz 2003; Socha 2011; Yogman 1982); and commercially available formulas were examined in eight studies (Giovannini 1994; Lonnerdal 2016; NCT00664768; NCT01109966; NCT01583673; NCT01699386; NCT01940068; Sáenz 2003).

We identified a comparative study assessing BCAA supplementation but without any changes in its nutrition composition except for the BCAAs (Berry 1982). Valine, isoleucine and leucine in crystalline form were orally administered to participants aged 11 days to 22 years with hyperphenylalaninaemia, either with a free natural protein diet or with a low‐phenylalanine diet. We excluded this intervention as it did not satisfy our review study design criteria.

With regard to the reported outcomes in the excluded interventions in this review, anthropometric indices were the end points in 11 studies (ChiCTR‐IPR‐15006106; Giovannini 1994; Hagelberg 1990; Hanning 1992; Lonnerdal 2016; NCT00664768; NCT01583673; NCT01699386; NCT01860573; NL4677; Socha 2011); and neurological development was measured in only one study identified on the Chinese clinical trial registry (ChiCTR‐IPR‐15006106). The rest of the identified studies primarily reported biochemical components of amino acids using neonatal blood and urine samples.

Risk of bias in included studies

We were not able to assess the risk of bias of the studies, as we identified no trials that met the inclusion criteria of our review.

Effects of interventions

We were not able to measure the effects of BCAA supplementation as we found no eligible trials to include in this review.

Discussion

Summary of main results

We found no randomised or quasi‐randomised trials assessing the effect of BCAA supplementation versus placebo or no supplementation administered to neonates. As a result, we are unable to suggest whether administration of BCAA supplementation provides benefits for neonatal physical growth and neurological development.

One probable reason for this data paucity could originate from researchers’ interests primarily directed either to protein or total amino acids rather than a specific group of amino acids such as BCAAs.

Secondly, as multiple nutrients are required for optimal nutrition, it is probable that past studies refrained from administering only BCAAs as that could have done more harm than benefit to the newborns.

Thirdly, the availability of the nutritional compounds used in the eligible studies or their presence in the market might also have an impact. We identified studies using commercial amino acid solutions and neonatal formula as intervention components (Adamkin 1995; Battista 1996; Camelo 1995; Giovannini 1994; Lai 1999; Lonnerdal 2016; Maldonado 1988; NCT00120926; NCT00664768; NCT01062724; NCT01109966; NCT01583673; NCT01699386; NCT01860573; NCT01940068; Rivera 1993; Sáenz 2003; Thureen 2003; van den Akker 2006; van den Akker 2007; Van Goudoever 1995). The authors of such intervention studies attempted to capture the effect difference in either total amount of the amino acids or composite amino acid mixtures. The nutrient mix in such compounds given through the enteral route typically includes carbohydrates, lipids and amino acids, which differed by study arms (Giovannini 1994; Lonnerdal 2016; NCT00664768; NCT01109966; NCT01583673; NCT01699386; NCT01940068; Sáenz 2003). Therefore, we did not consider them eligible to provide evidence for the effect of BCAA supplementation in our review (please see the Excluded studies list). This review finding suggests the need for future studies to fill the knowledge gap which Nie 2018 highlighted: the authors suggested that BCAAs and their derivatives might act as potential biomarkers of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cancer and other non‐communicable diseases. Adequate intake of BCAAs during infancy may therefore avert the progression of these diseases and, as a result, allow greater health benefits in the long‐term.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

We identified no eligible studies for inclusion.

Quality of the evidence

We identified no eligible studies for inclusion.

Potential biases in the review process

We implemented all possible countermeasures to overcome potential biases in the review process. Two review authors independently assessed all titles identified from the combined searches including the full texts of the final eligible study list. We screened the reference lists of the full‐text papers. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that our searches, albeit comprehensive, failed to isolate some potentially eligible trials.

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

We did not find any trial data to support, refute or remain neutral on the effect of BCAA supplementation in neonates with comparison to other available studies.

Study flow diagram.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.