Lauren Young

Purpose: Specialty medications can have life-altering outcomes for patients with complex diseases. However, their benefit relies on appropriate treatment selection, patients’ ability to afford and initiate treatment, and ongoing treatment optimization based on patient response to therapy. Mounting research demonstrates the benefits of the health-system specialty pharmacies (HSSPs) in improving specialty medication access, affordability, and outcomes. The purpose of this rapid review is to describe the currently reported role and function of HSSP pharmacists and outcomes reported with use of the HSSP model, and to identify gaps in the literature where more information is needed to better understand the HSSP model and outcomes. Summary: Current literature describes the role of HSSP pharmacists in facilitating patient access, affordability, and initiation and maintenance of specialty medications. Though it is clear HSSP pharmacists are involved in treatment monitoring, often through utilizing the electronic health record, more information is needed to elucidate the frequency, method, and extent of monitoring. Despite several valuable continuity of care services reported to be provided by HSSPs, the breadth and degree of standardization of these services remains unclear. There is minimal literature describing HSSP education and research involvement. HSSPs have reported significant benefits of this patient care model, as demonstrated by higher adherence and persistence; better clinical outcomes; financial benefits to patients, payers, and the health system; better quality of care; higher patient and provider satisfaction with services, and highly efficient specialty pharmacy services. More literature comparing clinical and diagnosis-related outcomes in HSSP versus non-HSSP patients is needed. Conclusion: HSSPs provide comprehensive, patient-centered specialty medication management that result in improved care across the continuum of the specialty patient journey and act as a valuable resource for specialty clinics and patients beyond medication management. Future research should build on the current description of HSSP services, how services affect patient outcomes, and the impact HSSP network restrictions.

Early enteral feeding practices are potentially modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens, including slowly advancing enteral feed volumes, reduce the risk of NEC. However, slow feed advancement may delay establishment of full enteral feeding and may be associated with metabolic and infectious morbidities secondary to prolonged exposure to parenteral nutrition. To determine effects of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the incidence of NEC, mortality, and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. We used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to June 2017), Embase (1980 to June 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to June 2017). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, previous reviews, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed effects of slow (up to 24 mL/kg/d) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes upon the incidence of NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We identified 10 RCTs in which a total of 3753 infants participated (2804 infants participated in one large trial). Most participants were stable very preterm infants of birth weight appropriate for gestation. About one-third of all participants were extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight (ELBW), and about one-fifth were small for gestational age (SGA), growth-restricted, or compromised in utero, as indicated by absent or reversed end-diastolic flow velocity (AREDFV) in the fetal umbilical artery. Trials typically defined slow advancement as daily increments of 15 to 20 mL/kg, and faster advancement as daily increments of 30 to 40 mL/kg. Trials generally were of good methodological quality, although none was blinded. Meta-analyses did not show effects on risk of NEC (typical RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.39; RD 0.0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) or all-cause mortality (typical RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03). Subgroup analyses of extremely preterm or ELBW infants, or of SGA or growth-restricted or growth-compromised infants, showed no evidence of an effect on risk of NEC or death. Slow feed advancement delayed establishment of full enteral nutrition by between about one and five days. Meta-analysis showed borderline increased risk of invasive infection (typical RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; typical RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05). The GRADE quality of evidence for primary outcomes was "moderate", downgraded from "high" because of lack of blinding in the included trials. Available trial data do not provide evidence that advancing enteral feed volumes at daily increments of 15 to 20 mL/kg (compared with 30 to 40 mL/kg) reduces the risk of NEC or death in very preterm or VLBW infants, extremely preterm or ELBW infants, SGA or growth-restricted infants, or infants with antenatal AREDFV. Advancing the volume of enteral feeds at a slow rate results in several days of delay in establishing full enteral feeds and may increase the risk of invasive infection.

Preterm infants are often growth-restricted at hospital discharge. Feeding nutrient-enriched formula rather than standard formula to infants after hospital discharge might facilitate 'catch-up' growth and might improve development. To compare the effects of nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula on growth and development of preterm infants after hospital discharge. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; to 8 September 2016), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of feeding nutrient-enriched formula (postdischarge formula or preterm formula) versus standard term formula to preterm infants after hospital discharge . Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity by performing sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 16 eligible trials with a total of 1251 infant participants. Trials were of variable methodological quality, with lack of allocation concealment and incomplete follow-up identified as major potential sources of bias. Trials (N = 11) that compared feeding infants with 'postdischarge formula' (energy density about 74 kcal/100 mL) versus standard term formula (about 67 kcal/100 mL) did not find consistent evidence of effects on growth parameters up to 12 to 18 months post term. GRADE assessments indicated that evidence was of moderate quality, and that inconsistency within pooled estimates was the main quality issue. Trials (N = 5) that compared feeding with 'preterm formula' (about 80 kcal/100 mL) versus term formula found evidence of higher rates of growth throughout infancy (weighted mean differences at 12 to 18 months post term: about 500 g in weight, 5 to 10 mm in length, 5 mm in head circumference). GRADE assessments indicated that evidence was of moderate quality, and that imprecision of estimates was the main quality issue. Few trials assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes, and these trials did not detect differences in developmental indices at 18 months post term. Data on growth or development through later childhood have not been provided. Recommendations to prescribe 'postdischarge formula' for preterm infants after hospital discharge are not supported by available evidence. Limited evidence suggests that feeding 'preterm formula' (which is generally available only for in-hospital use) to preterm infants after hospital discharge may increase growth rates up to 18 months post term.

Early enteral feeding practices are potentially modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens, including slowly advancing enteral feed volumes, reduce the risk of NEC. However, slow feed advancement may delay establishment of full enteral feeding and be associated with metabolic and infectious morbidities secondary to prolonged exposure to parenteral nutrition. To determine the effect of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the incidence of NEC, mortality, and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to August 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to August 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, previous reviews, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of slow (up to 24 mL/kg/day) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes upon the incidence of NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We identified nine randomised controlled trials in which 949 infants participated. Most participants were stable preterm infants with birth weights between 1000 and 1500 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted. The trials typically defined slow advancement as daily increments of 15 to 24 mL/kg and faster advancement as 30 to 40 mL/kg. Meta-analyses did not show statistically significant effects on the risk of NEC (typical RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.62; typical RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03) or all-cause mortality (typical RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.53; typical RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08). Slow feeds advancement delayed the establishment of full enteral nutrition by one to five days and increased the risk of invasive infection (typical RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.06; typical RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 14, 95% CI 8 to 100). The available trial data suggest that advancing enteral feed volumes at daily increments of 30 to 40 mL/kg (compared to 15 to 24 mL/kg) does not increase the risk of NEC or death in VLBW infants. Advancing the volume of enteral feeds at slow rates results in several days of delay in establishing full enteral feeds and increases the risk of invasive infection. The applicability of these findings to extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted infants is limited. Further randomised controlled trials in these populations may be warranted to resolve this uncertainty.

Early enteral feeding practices are potentially modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens, including slowly advancing enteral feed volumes, reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. However, slow feed advancement may delay establishment of full enteral feeding and be associated with metabolic and infectious morbidities secondary to prolonged exposure to parenteral nutrition. To determine the effect of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, mortality, and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group Specialised Register. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to September 2014), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of slow (up to 24 ml/kg per day) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes upon the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or VLBW infants. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We identified six randomised controlled trials in which a total of 618 infants participated. Most participants were stable preterm infants of birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. Few participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted. The trials typically defined slow advancement as daily increments of 15 ml/kg to 20 ml/kg and faster advancement as 30 ml/kg to 35 ml/kg. Meta-analyses did not detect statistically significant effects on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.70) or all-cause mortality (typical RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.70). Infants who had slow advancement took significantly longer to regain birth weight (reported median differences 2 to 6 days) and to establish full enteral feeding (1 to 5 days). The available trial data suggest that advancing enteral feed volumes at daily increments of 30 ml/kg to 35 ml/kg does not increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or VLBW infants. Advancing the volume of enteral feeds at slow rates resulted in several days delay in regaining birth weight and establishing full enteral feeds. The applicability of these findings to extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted infants is limited. Further randomised controlled trials in these populations may be warranted to resolve this uncertainty.

The introduction of enteral feeds for very preterm (less than 32 weeks' gestation) or very low birth weight (VLBW; less than 1500 g) infants is often delayed for several days or longer after birth due to concern that early introduction may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). However, delaying enteral feeding could diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks. To determine the effect of delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds on the incidence of NEC, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2014), EMBASE (1980 to September 2014), CINAHL (1982 to September 2014), conference proceedings and previous reviews. We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of delayed (more than four days after birth) versus earlier introduction of progressive enteral feeds on the incidence of NEC, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio (RR) and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We identified nine randomised controlled trials in which 1106 infants participated. Few participants were extremely preterm (less 28 weeks' gestation) or extremely low birth weight (less than 1000 g). The trials defined delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds as later than four to seven days after birth and early introduction as four days or less after birth. Meta-analyses did not detect statistically significant effects on the risk of NEC (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; 8 trials; 1092 infants) or all-cause mortality (typical RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.88; 7 trials; 967 infants). Four of the trials restricted participation to growth-restricted infants with Doppler ultrasound evidence of abnormal fetal circulatory distribution or flow. Planned subgroup analyses of these trials found no statistically significant effects on the risk of NEC or all-cause mortality. Infants who had delayed introduction of enteral feeds took longer to establish full enteral feeding (reported median differences two to four days). The evidence available from randomised controlled trials suggested that delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds beyond four days after birth did not reduce the risk of developing NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants, including growth-restricted infants. Delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds resulted in a few days' delay in establishing full enteral feeds but the clinical importance of this effect was unclear. The applicability of these findings to extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight was uncertain. Further randomised controlled trials in this population may be warranted.

Preterm infants are usually growth restricted at hospital discharge. Feeding preterm infants after hospital discharge with multinutrient fortified breast milk rather than unfortified breast milk may facilitate more rapid catch-up growth and improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. To determine the effect of feeding preterm infants following hospital discharge with multinutrient fortified human breast milk versus unfortified breast milk on growth and development. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (until August 2012), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants following hospital discharge with multinutrient fortified breast milk compared with unfortified human breast milk. We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors and synthesis of data using risk ratio, risk difference and mean difference. We identified two small trials involving a total of 246 infants. These did not provide evidence that multinutrient fortification of breast milk for three to four months after hospital discharge affected rates of growth during infancy. One trial assessed infants at 18 months corrected age and did not find any statistically significant effects on neurodevelopmental outcomes. The limited available data do not provide convincing evidence that feeding preterm infants with multinutrient fortified breast milk compared with unfortified breast milk following hospital discharge affects important outcomes including growth rates during infancy. There are no data on long-term growth. Since fortifying breast milk for infants fed directly from the breast is logistically difficult and has the potential to interfere with breast feeding, it is important to determine if mothers would support further trials of this intervention.

Background The introduction of enteral feeds for very preterm(<32weeks) or very lowbirth weight (<1500 g) infants is often delayed for several days or longer after birth due to concern that early introduction may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). However, delaying enteral feeding could diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks. Objectives To determine the effect of delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds on the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2013), EMBASE (1980 to April 2013), CINAHL (1982 to April 2013), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. Selection criteria Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of delayed (more than four days after birth) versus earlier introduction of progressive enteral feeds on the incidence of NEC, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Data collection and analysis We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. Main results We identified seven randomised controlled trials in which a total of 964 infants participated. Few participants were extremely preterm (<28 weeks) or extremely low birth weight (<1000 g). The trials defined delayed introduction as later than five to seven days after birth and early introduction as less than four days after birth. Meta-analyses did not detect statistically significant effects on the risk of NEC (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.34) or all-cause mortality (typical RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.78 to 2.01)). Three of the trials restricted participation to growth-restricted infants with Doppler ultrasound evidence of abnormal fetal circulatory distribution or flow. Planned subgroup analyses of these trials did not find any statistically significant effects on the risk of NEC or all-cause mortality. Infants who had delayed introduction of enteral feeds took longer to establish full enteral feeding (reported median difference two to four days). Authors' conclusions The evidence available from randomised controlled trials suggests that delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds beyond four days after birth does not affect the risk of developing NEC in very preterm or very low birth weight infants, including growth-restricted infants. Delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds results in a few days delay in establishing full enteral feeds but the clinical importance of this effect is unclear. The applicability of these findings to extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight is uncertain. Further randomised controlled trials in this population may be warranted.

Background Early enteral feeding practices are potentially modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens that include slowly advancing enteral feed volumes reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. However, slow feed advancement may delay establishment of full enteral feeding and be associated with metabolic and infectious morbidities secondary to prolonged exposure to parenteral nutrition. Objectives To determine the effect of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. Search methods We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (to December 2012), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. Selection criteria Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of slow (up to 24ml/kg/day) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes upon the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or VLBW infants. Data collection and analysis Data collection and analysis was performed using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Main results We identified five randomised controlled trials in which a total of 588 infants participated. Few participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight or growth restricted. The trials defined slow advancement as daily increments of 15 to 20 ml/kg and faster advancement as 30 to 35 ml/kg. Meta-analyses did not detect statistically significant effects on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.74) or all-cause mortality (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.74). Infants who had slow advancement took significantly longer to regain birth weight (reported median differences two to six days) and to establish full enteral feeding (two to five days). Authors' conclusions The available trial data suggest that advancing enteral feed volumes at slow rather than faster rates does not reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or VLBW infants. Advancing the volume of enteral feeds at slow rates results in several days delay in regaining birth weight and establishing full enteral feeds but the long term clinical importance of these effects is unclear. The applicability of these findings to extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight or growth restricted infants is limited. Further randomised controlled trials in these populations may be warranted to resolve this uncertainty.

Preterm infants are often growth‐restricted at hospital discharge. Feeding infants after hospital discharge with nutrient‐enriched formula rather than standard term formula might facilitate "catch‐up" growth and improve development. To determine the effect of feeding nutrient‐enriched formula compared with standard term formula on growth and development for preterm infants following hospital discharge. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to September 2011), conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials that compared the effect of feeding preterm infants following hospital discharge with nutrient‐enriched formula (post‐discharge formula or preterm formula) compared with standard term formula. We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We found 15 eligible trials in which a total of 1128 preterm infants participated. The trials were of variable methodological quality with lack of allocation concealment and incomplete follow‐up in some trials being the major potential sources of bias. The trials (N = 10) that compared feeding infants with "post‐discharge formula" (energy density about 74 kcal/100 ml) versus standard term formula (about 67 kcal/100 ml) did not find consistent evidence of effects on growth parameters up to 12 to 18 months corrected age. The trials (N = 5) that compared feeding with "preterm formula" (about 80 kcal/100 ml) versus term formula found some evidence of higher rates of growth through infancy: weighted mean differences at 12 to 18 months corrected age about 500 g in weight, 5 to10 mm in length, and 5 mm in head circumference. Few trials assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes and these did not detect any statistically significant differences in developmental indices at 18 months corrected age. There are not yet any data on growth or development through later childhood. Current recommendations to prescribe "post‐discharge formula" for preterm infants following hospital discharge are not supported by the available evidence. Some limited evidence exists that feeding preterm infants following hospital discharge with "preterm formula" (which is generally only available for in‐hospital use) may increase growth rates up to 18 months corrected age. Préparations enrichies en nutriments versus préparations ordinaires pour les nouveau-nés prématurés après la sortie de l'hôpital Les nouveau‐nés prématurés présentent souvent un retard de croissance à leur sortie de l'hôpital. L'alimentation des nouveau‐nés après leur sortie de l'hôpital avec une préparation enrichie en nutriments plutôt qu'avec une préparation ordinaire pourrait faciliter une croissance de « rattrapage » et améliorer le développement. Déterminer l'effet de l'alimentation avec une préparation enrichie en nutriments comparé à une préparation ordinaire sur la croissance et le développement de nouveau‐nés prématurés après leur sortie de l'hôpital. Nous avons utilisé la stratégie de recherche standard du Groupe thématique Cochrane sur la néonatologie. Celle‐ci comprenait des recherches dans le registre Cochrane des essais contrôlés (The Cochrane Library, 2011, numéro 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE et CINAHL (jusqu'en septembre 2011), dans des actes de conférences et des revues antérieures. Les essais contrôlés randomisés ou quasi‐randomisés qui comparaient l'effet de l'alimentation de nouveau‐nés prématurés après leur sortie de l'hôpital avec une préparation enrichie en nutriments (préparation de suite ou préparation pour prématurés) comparé à une préparation ordinaire. Nous avons extrait les données en utilisant les méthodes standard du Groupe thématique Cochrane sur la néonatologie avec une évaluation de la qualité des essais et une extraction des données séparées par deux auteurs de la revue. Nous avons trouvé 15 essais éligibles auxquels ont participé un total de 1 128 nouveau‐nés prématurés. Les essais étaient de qualité méthodologique variable, les principales sources de biais étant l'absence d'assignation secrète et un suivi incomplet dans certains essais. Les essais (N = 10) qui comparaient l'alimentation de nouveau‐nés avec des « préparations de suite » (densité énergétique d'environ 74 kcal/100 ml) versus des préparations ordinaires (environ 67 kcal/100 ml) n'ont pas trouvé de preuves cohérentes d'effets sur les paramètres de croissance jusqu'à 12 à 18 mois d'âge corrigé. Les essais (N = 5) qui comparaient l'alimentation avec des « préparations pour prématurés » (environ 80 kcal/100 ml) versus des préparations ordinaires ont trouvé des preuves de taux de croissance plus élevés au cours de la petite enfance : différences moyennes pondérées à 12 à 18 mois d'âge corrigé environ 500 g en poids, 5 à 10 mm en longueur et 5 mm en périmètre crânien. Peu d'essais ont évalué les résultats de développement neurologique et ceux‐ci n'ont détecté aucune différence statistiquement significative dans les indices de développement à 18 mois d'âge corrigé. Aucune donnée n'est encore disponible concernant la croissance ou le développement au cours de l'enfance. Les recommandations actuelles de prescription de « préparations de suite » pour les nouveau‐nés prématurés après leur sortie d'hôpital ne sont pas corroborées par les preuves disponibles. Il existe des preuves limitées indiquant que l'alimentation des nouveau‐nés prématurés après leur sortie d'hôpital avec des « préparations pour prématurés » (qui ne sont généralement disponibles qu'en usage hospitalier) peut augmenter la croissance jusqu'à 18 mois d'âge corrigé.