Table 4

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

Trial of example	Birth year of cohort	Therapy	No. of infants
Trial of example	Birth year of cohort	Therapy	Intervention	Control	Outcome	Results (intervention vs control)
Immune replacement therapy
Carr et al52	2000–2006	GM-CSF	139	141	Sepsis-free survival rate	66.9% vs 74.5%, difference: −8%, 95% CI −18 to 3
Kuhn et al51	2002–2006	G-CSF	102	98	Sepsis-free survival rate	73% vs 67%, p=0.42
Fanaroff et al53	1988–1991	IVIG	1204	1212	Incidence of sepsis	15.5% vs 17.2%, RR: 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08
DeJonge et al55	2004–2006	INH-A21	994	989	Incidence of sepsis	27% vs 29%, p=0.2
Feeding strategies
Jacobs et al42	2007–2011	Probiotics*	548	551	Incidence of sepsis	13.1% vs 16.2%, p=0.16
Flidel-Rimon et al 46	1995–2001	Enteral feeding	385†		The relationship between the initiation of feeding and sepsis	Enteral 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 al49	2007–2008	BLF alone	153	168	Incidence of sepsis	5.9% vs 17.3%, p=0.002
Manzoni et al49	2007–2008	BLF plus LGG	151	168	Incidence of sepsis	4.6% vs 17.3%, p<0.001
Skin care with antiseptics
Quach et al57	2009–2013	CHG bathing	195‡		Incidence of sepsis	Sepsis 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.