Probiotics in the NICU: a ‘how-to’ guide

I have had several communications from people interested in starting the use of probiotics in their nurseries. There are often roadblocks, and some reluctance from either infection control, or pharmacy and therapeutics committees (or both).

I will recount what we went through at Sainte-Justine to get probiotics to our babies.

When I arrived here 4 1/2 years ago (time flies) I was already convinced that probiotics were the way to go. My first inquiries about using probiotics were not fruitful, but I worked with one of our NICU pharmacists to produce a document formally applying for the addition of a probiotic mixture to the hospital formulary. I investigated the different preparations available and at that time got into contact with someone who works with a probiotic manufacturer (Harmonium International) who have their facility not far from Montreal. He is the one who really got me informed about the Health Canada Natural Products Directorate, what an NPN (natural product number) means, the DNA registration database for probiotics (there are several) and the different preparations available. After the document was prepared I went with the pharmacist to the pharmacy committee, they were very reluctant, wanted some time to consider, wanted to confer with the infection control docs, and asked me to consider how we would evaluate the effects. I was hopeful, however: it wasn’t an outright no.

At about the same time, we had a mother in our NICU whose baby was born about 24 1/2 weeks gestation, the baby had a ‘NEC scare’ and subsequently the mother came to me, telling me she had read about probiotics on the internet, that she already gave probiotics to her other children, and she would like her baby to have them.

Now we had previously had some parents want to give their baby herbal medicines, and, if we were able to be fairly sure that the preparation was safe, then we have facilitated this. So in this new situation, and my pre-existing desire to give probiotics anyway, I told the mother that if she wanted to go and buy a preparation with a Health Canada NPN, that had a lactobacilllus and at least one bifidobacterium in it, (and I gave her 2 choices of mixtures that I thought were appropriate) and bring it to the NICU, then we would give it to her baby.

From then it snowballed, several parents wanted to give their babies probiotics, when they asked me about it I told them about the evidence, (at the time there were ‘only’ 17 RCTs with ‘only’ 3,000 babies randomized; showing no adverse effects, no infections with probiotic organisms, a reduction in NEC and a reduction in mortality). It was, and still is, the only intervention, other than breast milk, which is proven to prevent NEC.  A number of parents decided to buy their own probiotics. By now it seemed a little random who was getting probiotics and who was not, so I wrote an information letter for the parents, to be given on admission. Applying the ethical principle of justice, I didn’t want some parents to be informed but not others.

By this time the hospital was a bit unhappy with me, and asked me to go back to the Pharmacy committee, so the pharmacist (Josianne Malo) and I re-applied to the pharmacy committee, by this time our infectious disease people had confirmed, by taking a sample from one of the tubs that a parent had brought to the hospital, that they can grow the organisms in our lab, and that they didn’t find any pathogens.

The pharmacy committee asked me to perform an objective prospective evaluation of the effects of introducing probiotics into our NICU, we developed a standing order form to be completed on admission, and wrote a protocol to control how they were used.

The current protocol:

All babies under 32 weeks gestation admitted to the NICU within the first 3 days of life are eligible.

Babies with congenital GI anomalies are excluded

Starting with the first feed 0.5g of florababy(TM) are given mixed with 1 ml of water, once a day just before a feed.

Florababy is continued to 34 weeks post-menstrual age, and then stopped (unless the parents ask us to continue, which has been rare).

If the baby is put npo the florababy is also stopped, and then restarted with the feeds.

As we were unwilling to perform a randomized trial with untreated controls, the pharmacy committee agreed that a prospective cohort study would be acceptable. We obtained permission from the research ethics board to perform the cohort study, and a retrospective chart review to get some historical controls. We planned an 18 month collection period to get a sample size of about 300 per group.

I think we have been successful because

1. there was a conjunction of circumstances, including the particular mother involved in our first ‘case’.

2. I was bloody minded enough to keep pushing.

3. My colleagues were supportive, especially Annie who helped to push this through.

4. Our NICU pharmacist was very helpful, to write the documents in a way that would work with the committee.

5. Discussions with Infection Control focused on the risk/benefit balance and not just on the risks, and they were receptive. (In fact the risks are tiny, no adverse effects despite over 5000 babies in the trials)

6. The pharmacy committee were open to the initiative.

I must emphasize that the Health Canada NPN does not mean that probiotics are approved by Health Canada for the prevention of NEC. It does mean that the manufacturers follow GMP, and that there is adequate quality control in inspected factories. It means for probiotics that the DNA of the strains is registered. So it basically means that you are getting what you think you are getting. It also means that any health claims on the label have been approved, (I think this label says ‘maintains intestinal health’ or something equally vague).

I think the key to getting over the objections here was really the infection control groups understanding of the importance of NEC prevention in the face of a lack of documented risks. Once you get them on-side, or at least not in the opposition camp, then you can probably win.

Or rather, it is the babies that win.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What we don’t know about neonatal endocrinology #3, the thyroid.

To finalize this litany of the unknown… We also need to know whether low thyroxine levels are common in the preterm (they are) what the consequences are (associated with worse long term outcomes) whether they are causative (don’t know) and whether replacement with exogenous thyroxine is a good idea or not (haven’t got the slightest).

In older patients they talk about the sick euthyroid syndrome: critically ill older patients have a suppression of thyroid function, which appears to be adaptive, but maybe not. In any case as a recent review for adults (free access) notes, “there is currently no convincing evidence to suggest that restoring physiological thyroid hormone concentrations in unselected patients with NTIS would be beneficial” NTIS being another term for the sick euthyroid syndrome.

This review article from last year (La Gamma E, Paneth N. Clinical importance of hypothyroxinemia in the preterm infant and a discussion of treatment concerns. Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 2012;24(2):172-80) is pretty complete.  Ed LaGamma and Nigel Paneth review the data regarding thyroid dysfunction in the very preterm infant. I reproduce the table of key points below, but please get access to the full article if you can, it is well written (as you would expect from those two) and quite complete. I think investigating preterm infants thyroid function could be very important for improving preterm outcomes.

Also don’t forget, dopamine is very efficient at suppressing thyroid function, as is well known in adults, and also in babies, as Istvan Seri showed many years ago (Seri I, Tulassay T, Kiszel J, Ruppert F, Sulyok E, Ertl T, et al. Effect of low-dose dopamine infusion on prolactin and thyrotropin secretion in preterm infants with hyaline membrane disease. Biol Neonate. 1985 1985;47(6):317-22) and confirmed several times since, (Filippi L, et al. Dopamine infusion: a possible cause of undiagnosed congenital hypothyroidism in preterm infants. Pediatric critical care medicine.  2006 May;7(3):249-51). So many very sick babies are getting dopamine, and this has often been ignored in the reports of the studies of thyroid function in the preterm infant, we often do not know how many were on dopamine, which really makes interpretation of the published data complicated.

Graphic

All of which makes me think that, for a neonatal fellow looking for an academic career path, you could do worse than neonatal endocrinology… if you speak French (you don’t have to be fluent, just the basics will do, you will become fluent very quickly), drop me a line, we have great endocrinologists at my hospital, Sainte Justine in Montreal, and we could create a new super-fellowship! In addition to the neonatology and neonatology/clinical ethics fellowships that are already very active and very high quality.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

What we don’t know about neonatal endocrinology #2, blood sugar regulation.

As a follow on to the previous post, also to highlight a thoughtful review article, we could ask whether blood sugar can be too low to be good for you  (I think there is not much doubt about that) how to define hypoglycemia (probably varies according to the context) how to diagnose it (may take more than a blood sugar, and certainly not a bedside strip test) and whether it helps to treat it (only if you get the diagnosis right, can probably cause harm when you treat a normal baby).

The review in question (Hawdon JM: Definition of neonatal hypoglycaemia: Time for a rethink? Archives of disease in childhood Fetal and neonatal edition 2013.) points out that when metabolic adaptation is intact babies can mobilize and use other sources of energy, and probably don’t need intervention at all, even if the blood sugar is as low as 1 mmol/L. She also notes that babies with hyperinsulinism have these adaptations completely suppressed.

So here is the problem, how to identify those babies that have intact adaptation mechanisms, and those that don’t. Because a proportion of babies with normal or low birth weight will have hyperinsulinism, not just the obvious infant of a diabetic mother. I am not sure that deciding if the infant is symptomatic is very good at differentiating either, the symptoms often listed are so non-specific that almost any baby could be symptomatic. Perhaps what we really need is a quick simple reliable point-of-care test of blood sugar which is combined with indicators of adequate metabolic response, or insulin levels. Many babies are currently getting screened and treated, only a proportion of which are probably benefiting. I think that is probably the best we can do for the moment, but we need to pursue this further for the future.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What we don’t know about neonatal endocrinology #1, the adrenals.

I once wrote a paper with the last author of this article, when we were both working in Edmonton, so I will have to be nice, I guess. Seriously, we do need to know a lot more about adrenal responses to being born very preterm, whether relative adrenal insufficiency exists (I think it probably does) how to define it (I have no idea, which makes the first answer a bit redundant) how to diagnose it (nope, no idea here either) and whether it helps to treat it (not a clue).

These investigators from Vancouver have made a decent attempt to find some more answers.  Hochwald O, Holsti L, Osiovich H: The use of an early acth test to identify hypoadrenalism-related hypotension in low birth weight infants. J Perinatol 2012, 32(6):412-417. They performed ACTH stimulation tests on 40 babies from 24 to 29 weeks gestation, in the first 8 hours of life and then followed them to see if they got treated for hypotension. They also performed echos to look at cardiac function before treatment for low BP, or at 8 hours if the babies were not treated.
They noted that their practice is to only treat infants for “hypotension” if they have a mean BP less than the GA and clinical signs and symptoms of decreased capillary perfusion, and lack of response to a 10 ml/kg bolus. That is similar to what I would describe that I do, but they had 30% of the infants getting treated for hypotension, whereas I treat far fewer than 30% in the first 8 hours of life. Which points out only that some of these decisions are rather subjective, and the diagnosis of hypotension needing treatment is uncertain.

They found that babies who had less than a 12% rise in their cortisol with the test were more likely to get treated with inotropes, and that cutoff was relatively specific for getting treated (93%), with a 75% sensitivity.

They also measured left ventricular output by echo at the time of treatment, or if not treated at 8 hours of age. I am not sure why they chose to measure LVO; in this group of babies the ductus arteriosus will be open almost 100% of the time at these ages, so LVO is critically dependent on ductal shunting, and is likely to change rapidly as pulmonary vascular resistance falls, so if the non-treated group were studied a little later (as they will be by design, being studied at 8 hours of age) the ductal shunt may be larger, and thus give a higher LVO. Indeed LVO was higher in the non-treated babies: I must say though that in the treated babies, after the fluid bolus but before the inotrope, the LVOs were quite low, 66 to 120 mL/kg/min. That is very low, so probably a truly low systemic flow. Compared to between 135 and 266 ml/kg/min in the untreated babies at 8 hours of age. That very large difference is probably not all due to differences in ductal shunt, but I still don’t understand why they didn’t measure RVO instead.

When they analyzed the LVO by whether the ACTH test had a low response or a high response, there was much more overlap. Low ACTH response LVO = 118 (range 66–202) high response LVO= 179 (range 90–266) ml/kg/min. So the means were significantly different, but there is not good discrimination between the groups.

So this study suggests that having a low ACTH response makes you more likely to get treated for hypotension accompanied by poor perfusion, and is associated with a variably lower LVO.

The article is accompanied by an editorial (Aucott SW: The challenge of defining relative adrenal insufficiency. J Perinatol 2012, 32(6):397-398) which points out the difficulties in defining relative adrenal insufficiency, and the lack of good evidence to guide management, including steroid replacement.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Probiotics work in Practice

For anyone who was at the latest PAS meeting, you probably heard about the presentation of Proprems. This is the latest RCT of probiotics, from Australia and New Zealand, using ABCDophilus, which is interestingly manufactured in New Jersey.

The authors enrolled 1100 babies less than 32 weeks gestation, they found 4.4% NEC in the controls and 2% with probiotics. This was statistically significant. The abstract downplays the results a little I think, as they had a relatively low baseline rate of NEC the NNT was 43: they state ‘Although these probiotics appear safe, between 23 and 333 [those are the 95% confidence intervals of the NNT] infants require probiotics to prevent one case of severe NEC. Probiotics may have greatest impact globally in settings with higher rates of NEC, mortality and LOS than in Australia and New Zealand.’

If you look at the data from the ANZNN in 2010 (which is publicly available), the rate of NEC among babies under 28 weeks gestation is 10.4%. So the ‘setting with higher rates of NEC’ is right under their noses.

And even if you think that 43 babies is a lot to treat to prevent one case of NEC, I am just analyzing our first 18 months data since we started routine probiotics. Under 32 weeks, on average a baby gets 23 days of treatment. Our current cost is about 15 cents a day.

That’s right, until some drug company gets wind of it and tries to get an exclusive license to supply probiotics for premies, and then charges 10000% profit (don’t laugh, it has happened before), it costs 15 cents a day to give probiotics. So on average to prevent one case of NEC or mortality in my NICU (where the NNT is 10) costs $36.

We have had a major reduction in NEC, and in the combined outcome of death or NEC, we did have a relatively high incidence before, even with high breast feeding rates, but even if you start out with a 4.4% incidence, and an NNT of 43, the cost to prevent one case is about $150. Sounds like a good deal to me.

You can see below the poster of the first 12 months that we presented at the PAS meeting, the first 18 months experience are in preparation, and show even greater reductions. I will let you know when and where it is published.

Update at 1107 EST: I didn’t mention it at first but should have, in my NICU we have chosen to use Florababy, the Canadian suppliers applied for, and got, a Health Canada Natural Product Number for the product, which is reassurance of good quality control and manufacturing standards. It is a mix of 4 bifidobacteria and a lactobacillus rhamnosus, and 0.5 g per day gives you about 2 billion bugs, more or less.

Probiotics 2013

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

What’s up doc?

Carrots anyone? This is interesting, but I am afraid I can’t figure out a number of things in the manuscript. The authors report that they randomized 203 babies <33 weeks to get supplemented with carotenoids, they wanted to look at effects on the blood levels of the 3 carotenoids. I am not sure why you would want to do that, surely if you give carotenoids, it would be weird if the carotenoid levels didn’t go up. I guess they were really interested in the secondary outcomes, growth, feeding tolerance and electroretinograms.

Rubin LP, Chan GM, Barrett-Reis BM, Fulton AB, Hansen RM, Ashmeade TL, Oliver JS, Mackey AD, Dimmit RA, Hartmann EE et al: Effect of carotenoid supplementation on plasma carotenoids, inflammation and visual development in preterm infants. J Perinatol 2012, 32(6):418-424.

where it starts to get confusing is in the analysis, of the 203 enrolled infants, they select 183 babies to be the ITT group, 91 controls and 92 supplemented. That is a perversion of the term ‘Intention To Treat’. An ITT analysis includes all of the randomized subjects. It is not clear what was wrong with the other 20 babies, why weren’t they analyzed? The authors supply a Consort flow sheet in the supplemental data, but nowhere on that flow sheet are there 12 controls and 8 supplemented babies who were not analyzed mentioned, the flow sheet introduces even more confusion, there were 70 controls and 73 supplemented who completed the study, but only 50 and 58 of them completed ‘on assigned feeding’. In the results, they state that 52 and 46 infants respectively were ‘evaluable’ which apparently means they strictly adhered to the feeding protocol.

In fact none of the numbers in the flow sheet match the numbers in the text.

The primary outcome variable, that is the blood carotenoid concentrations, wasn’t even measured in most of the infants, at 40 weeks, only 43 controls and 36 supplemented infants had plasma concentrations measured. This is another number that doesn’t appear anywhere else, or in the flow sheets, and is unexplained. To only measure the primary outcome variable on a third of the randomized patients doesn’t sound like good research planning.

Even more bizarre the sample size was calculated as being 68 patients per group, for each of the 3 groups, but there were only 2 groups. The authors talk about a 3rd human milk group in the methods, but they then are very hard to find in the results, and don’t appear at all in the flow sheet. I think what they did was randomize infants to 2 groups, of formulae with or without carotenoids, and then when an infant was receiving a lot of breast milk, they took them out of the assigned group and called them a 3rd group. But the only data presented from them that I can see are the CRP values. The carotenoid concentration comparison group that they show in the figures as the human milk group is from previously unpublished data from Abbott, from term breast fed babies.

The ERG results are from a very small subset of infants, 16 controls and 25 supplemented.

I can’t see any indication that this trial was registered, which most IRBs now insist on, and most journals also require. The Consort flow diagram is missing a lot of information, such as numbers of babies eligible, and doesn’t explain most of the terms.

I was just planning to write a little note to point out this study which might show something, but after re-reading it, the post started growing and growing; I am very confused if they found anything, other than giving carotenoids might increase carotenoid concentrations in the 1/3 of the infants who had them measured.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Surgeons like probiotics, breast milk, and eating quickly.

…for their patients of course, or to be more accurate, to reduce the chances of small preterm infants becoming their patients. A review of ways to prevent necrotizing enterocolitis, and then to treat it if it occurs, was just published. The authors endorse probiotics, and note the value of breast milk in reducing NEC. They note that feeding preterm babies faster does not increase NEC. The review is quite complete regarding other important issues in the management of NEC,  for all of them the response is unfortunately ‘dunno’.

Downard CD, Renaud E, St Peter SD, Abdullah F, Islam S, Saito JM, Blakely ML, Huang EY, Arca MJ, Cassidy L et al: Treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis: An american pediatric surgical association outcomes and clinical trials committee systematic review. J Pediatr Surg 2012, 47(11):2111-2122.

Here are their questions and the abbreviated version of their answers.
1. Does the use of prophylactic probiotics reduce the rate of NEC in newborn infants? YES
2. Does exclusive use of human breast milk rather than formula affect the rate of NEC in newborn infants? YES
3. Does the rate of feeding affect development of NEC in newborn infants? NO
4. Does peritoneal drainage versus laparotomy as treatment for perforated NEC affect mortality or long-term sequelae, such as neurodevelopmental outcomes and stricture rates? DUNNO
5. Does primary anastomosis at laparotomy versus enterostomy as treatment for NEC affect mortality or long-term sequelae, such as neurodevelopmental outcomes and stricture rates? DUNNO
6. Does length or type of antibiotic treatment affect recurrence rate of NEC? DUNNO

I’m being a bit facetious, but in fact the review is very complete, I think of high quality and well written. If you want a review of all the literature, this would be a very good place to start.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment