MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W196029384 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.8.571

In preterm infants, does the supplementation of carnitine to parenteral nutrition improve the following clinical outcomes: Growth, lipid metabolism and apneic spells?

2004· article· en· W196029384 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Van Aerde

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarnitineParenteral nutritionMedicineLipid metabolismPediatricsIntensive care medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carnitine is involved in fatty acid oxidation, and it has been hypothesized that a deficiency of carnitine, as is often found in preterm infants, would decrease available energy stores. Current literature, however, does not support the routine supplementation of carnitine to parenterally fed neonates for improvement of clinical outcomes. The addition of carnitine showed no effect on growth, lipid metabolism, or the amount and severity of apnea (Grade of Recommendation: A, based on a systematic review and a single randomized control trial). To determine if carnitine would have an effect on weight gain for preterm infants, Cairns et al (1) conducted a systematic review comparing carnitine supplementation with placebo for parenterally fed neonates. The review included only randomized controlled trials, the highest level of evidence for assessing efficacy of an intervention. Six trials met the criteria for inclusion in the review. The results of three of the trials demonstrated no significant difference in weight gain between supplemented neonates and control group neonates after two weeks (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.74 g/day, 95% CI −1.88 to 3.35). One study noted a difference in growth in the second week, but this was accounted for by the fact that the rate of weight gain halved in the control group between week 1 and 2 (ie, there was no difference between the groups when analyzed over the entire study period). Also, one study reported a weight gain with carnitine supplementation, but only in a larger infant group (1001 g to 1500 g). Unlike the weight gain results found in the large infant group, no weight gain was noted in the smaller birth weight group (750 g to 1000 g). Finally, a single study examined growth rate for longer than two weeks but found no difference at one month and three months post-term. Similarly, in a more recent randomized controlled trial, Whitfield et al (2) found that carnitine did not have an effect on the growth of 64 randomized preterm infants. The study was conducted with good methodological quality, with a Jadad score of five (a score of less than three indicates a poor quality study; a score of five indicates maximum quality) (3). The study's analysis had a power of 80%, and indicated that infants weighing less than 1500 g had low carnitine levels. Despite this, the study was unable to find an effect of routine supplementation with carnitine on growth. The secondary outcome of the Cairns et al (1) review was the effect of carnitine on lipid metabolism. This was evaluated by measuring plasma free fatty acids, plasma triglycerides, amount of lipid tolerated and ketogenesis. For the first three parameters, there were no differences between the supplemented group and the placebo group (WMD −0.16 mmol/L, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.05; WMD −0.69 mmol/L, 95% CI −1.84 to 0.45; and WMD 0.09 g/kg/day, 95% CI −0.20 to 0.38, respectively). Yet, the studies showed a statistically significant increase in ketogenesis in the carnitine-supplemented group (WMD 0.05 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.06). This supported the results of a study by Labadaridis et al (4), which illustrated an increase in ketone production by neonates receiving medium-chain triglycerides and carnitine. However, the results were not found to be clinically significant. That is, despite an increase in ketogenesis in carnitine-supplemented infants, the authors did not find evidence of clinical effect on fat metabolism. The secondary outcome for the Whitfield et al (2) study was the length and severity of apnea of prematurity. Both the placebo group and carnitine-supplemented group demonstrated similar results and had an equal incidence of apneic spells. The number of apneic episodes, percentage of periodic breathing and length of ventilation were similar between the supplemented and placebo groups. The authors noted that the concurrent use of xanthines to facilitate extubation may have masked the effects of carnitine. The evidence from these studies does not support the practice of routine supplementation of carnitine to parenterally fed neonates. The Cairns et al (1) review had several limitations. First, the studies in the review evaluated mainly short-term effects on weight gain. The study of short-term effects may be justified given that there is usually a diminishing role for parenteral nutrition after a few weeks (5). Because of the lack of long-term research in this area, future studies should focus on the effect of carnitine for those infants requiring long-term parenteral nutrition, particularly those who are receiving home parenteral nutrition. Second, it is necessary to note that there were only six studies included in the systematic review. This raises the question of whether there was enough power to detect a clinically significant effect of supplementing. Despite these shortcomings, current research does not support the use of carnitine supplementation for improvement of growth, lipid metabolism and apnea of prematurity in the parenterally fed preterm infant.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicMetabolism and Genetic DisordersFrench-language works237,207