Table 4

Trials for prevention of late-onset sepsis in very low birth weight neonates

Trial of exampleBirth year of cohortTherapyNo. of infants
InterventionControlOutcomeResults (intervention vs control)
Immune replacement therapy
 Carr et al522000–2006GM-CSF139141Sepsis-free survival rate66.9% vs 74.5%, difference: −8%, 95% CI −18 to 3
 Kuhn et al512002–2006G-CSF10298Sepsis-free survival rate73% vs 67%, p=0.42
 Fanaroff et al531988–1991IVIG12041212Incidence of sepsis15.5% vs 17.2%, RR: 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08
 DeJonge et al552004–2006INH-A21994989Incidence of sepsis27% vs 29%, p=0.2
Feeding strategies
 Jacobs et al422007–2011Probiotics*548551Incidence of sepsis13.1% vs 16.2%, p=0.16
  Flidel-Rimon et al 461995–2001Enteral feeding385†The relationship between the initiation of feeding and sepsisEnteral feeding was started at an earlier age in infants who did not develop sepsis (2.8 vs 4.8 days, p=0.0001)
 Manzoni et al492007–2008BLF alone153168Incidence of sepsis5.9% vs 17.3%, p=0.002 
BLF plus LGG151168Incidence of sepsis4.6% vs 17.3%, p<0.001
Skin care with antiseptics
 Quach et al572009–2013CHG bathing195‡Incidence of sepsisSepsis rate decreased in the period of CHG bathing (6.00 vs 1.92/1000 CVC-days; adjusted RR, 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.73)
  • *Bifidobacterium infantis, Streptococcus thermophilus and Bifidobacterium lactis.

  • †Grouping of neonates was based on the presence of sepsis.

  • ‡The study used a before-and-after quasiexperimental design.

  • BLF, bovine lactoferrin; CHG, chlorhexidine gluconate; CVC, central venous catheter; GM-CSF, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulins; LGG, Lactobacillus rhamnosus; G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; RR, relative risk.