-
1.
Effects of iodine supplementation during pregnancy on pregnant women and their offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials over the past 3 decades.
Nazeri, P, Shariat, M, Azizi, F
European journal of endocrinology. 2021;(1):91-106
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The current systematic review aimed to provide comprehensive data on the effects of iodine supplementation in pregnancy and investigate its potential benefits on infant growth parameters and neurocognitive development using meta-analysis. METHODS A systematic review was conducted on trials published from January 1989 to December 2019 by searching MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar. For most maternal and neonatal outcomes, a narrative synthesis of the data was performed. For birth anthropometric measurements and infant neurocognitive outcomes, the pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs were estimated using fixed/random effect models. RESULTS Fourteen trials were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, of which five trials were included in the meta-analysis. Although the findings of different thyroid parameters are inconclusive, more consistent evidence showed that iodine supplementation could prevent the increase in thyroglobulin concentration during pregnancy. In the meta-analysis, no differences were found in weight (-0.11 (95% CI: -0.23 to 0.01)), length (-0.06 (95% CI: -0.21 to 0.09)), and head circumference (0.26 (95% CI: -0.35 to 0.88)) at birth, or in cognitive (0.07 (95% CI: -0.07 to 0.20)), language (0.06 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.35)), and motor (0.07 (95% CI: -0.06 to 0.21)) development during the first 2 years of life in infants between the iodine-supplemented and control groups. CONCLUSION Iodine supplementation during pregnancy can improve the iodine status in pregnant women and their offspring; however, according to our meta-analysis, there was no evidence of improved growth or neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants of iodine-supplemented mothers.
-
2.
Milk Fat Globule Membrane Supplementation in Children: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
Ambrożej, D, Dumycz, K, Dziechciarz, P, Ruszczyński, M
Nutrients. 2021;(3)
Abstract
(1) Background: Milk fat globule membrane (MFGM), composing fat droplets responsible for lipid transport in breast milk, has been shown to possess immunological and antimicrobial effects. Standard formulas (SF) are devoid of MFGMs during the production process. The study's aim was to evaluate the safety and benefits of MFGMs supplementation in children. (2) Methods: We searched four databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating the supplementation of MFGMs in children. Growth parameters were chosen as the primary outcome. (3) Results: Twenty-four publications of seventeen studies were included. Meta-analyses assessing the primary outcomes at the age of 4 months included four studies (814 children) comparing the MFGM-supplemented formulas and SF, and two trials (549 children) comparing the MFGM-supplemented formulas and breastfeeding. The primary outcomes were non-inferior in all the experimental MFGM formulas compared to SF, or even represented more similar results to breastfed infants. The promising effects, including a lower incidence of acute otitis media and improved cognitive development, cannot be firmly confirmed due to the small amount of existing evidence. No significant adverse effects were reported in any of the assessed products. (4) Conclusions: The available data signaled beneficial effects and a good safety profile, requiring future research with well-designed trials.
-
3.
Probiotic Supplementation for Promotion of Growth in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Catania, J, Pandit, NG, Ehrlich, JM, Zaman, M, Stone, E, Franceschi, C, Smith, A, Tanner-Smith, E, Zackular, JP, Bhutta, ZA, et al
Nutrients. 2021;(1)
Abstract
Probiotics are commonly prescribed to promote a healthy gut microbiome in children. Our objective was to investigate the effects of probiotic supplementation on growth outcomes in children 0-59 months of age. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that administered probiotics to children aged 0-59 months, with growth outcomes as a result. We completed a random-effects meta-analysis and calculated a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk (RR) and reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We included 79 RCTs, 54 from high-income countries (HIC), and 25 from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). LMIC data showed that probiotics may have a small effect on weight (SMD: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11-0.42, grade-certainty = low) and height (SMD 0.16, 95% CI: 0.06-0.25, grade-certainty = moderate). HIC data did not show any clinically meaningful effect on weight (SMD: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.04-0.05, grade-certainty = moderate), or height (SMD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.06-0.04, grade-certainty = moderate). There was no evidence that probiotics affected the risk of adverse events. We conclude that in otherwise healthy children aged 0-59 months, probiotics may have a small but heterogenous effect on weight and height in LMIC but not in children from HIC.
-
4.
Association of maternal caffeine intake during pregnancy with low birth weight, childhood overweight, and obesity: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Jin, F, Qiao, C
International journal of obesity (2005). 2021;(2):279-287
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological studies reported inconsistent results on the associations between maternal caffeine intake during pregnancy and risk of low birth weight (LBW) and childhood overweight and obesity in their offspring. METHODS We conducted a meta-analysis of cohort studies to quantitatively assess these associations. Pertinent studies were identified by searching PubMed and Embase through June 2019. Study-specifics risk estimates were combined using fixed effects models, or random-effects models when significant heterogeneity was detected. Dose-response analysis was modeled by using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS A total of 15 cohort studies, with 102,347 pregnancy women, was included in the meta-analysis. The pooled relative risk (RR) for LBW was 1.33 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.57) for mothers with the highest compared with the lowest level of caffeine intake during pregnancy, with significant heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 49.3%, P = 0.032). The pooled RR was 1.07 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.11) for each 100 mg/day increase of caffeine intake. The pooled RR for childhood overweight and obesity was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.69) for mothers with the highest compared with the lowest level of caffeine intake during pregnancy. No significant heterogeneity across studies was detected (I2 = 38.9%, P = 0.179). The pooled RR was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.55) for each 100 mg/day increase of caffeine intake. No evidence of publication bias was indicated. CONCLUSIONS Maternal caffeine intake during pregnancy is associated with higher risk of LBW and childhood overweight and obesity. Further studies may focus on investigating the potential mechanisms before the recommendation of complete avoidance of caffeine intake during pregnancy.
-
5.
Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed low birth weight infants.
Fenton, TR, Al-Wassia, H, Premji, SS, Sauve, RS
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(6):CD003959
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ideal quantity of dietary protein for formula-fed low birth weight infants is still a matter of debate. Protein intake must be sufficient to achieve normal growth without leading to negative effects such as acidosis, uremia, and elevated levels of circulating amino acids. OBJECTIVES To determine whether higher (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d) versus lower (< 3.0 g/kg/d) protein intake during the initial hospital stay of formula-fed preterm infants or low birth weight infants (< 2.5 kilograms) results in improved growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes without evidence of short- or long-term morbidity. Specific objectives were to examine the following comparisons of interventions and to conduct subgroup analyses if possible. 1. Low protein intake if the amount was less than 3.0 g/kg/d. 2. High protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 3.0 g/kg/d but less than 4.0 g/kg/d. 3. Very high protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 4.0 g/kg/d. SEARCH METHODS We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), in the Cochrane Library (August 2, 2019); OVID MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, and Ovid MEDLINE(R) (to August 2, 2019); MEDLINE via PubMed (to August 2, 2019) for the previous year; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to August 2, 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs contrasting levels of formula protein intake as low (< 3.0 g/kg/d), high (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d), or very high (≥ 4.0 g/kg/d) in formula-fed hospitalized neonates weighing less than 2.5 kilograms. We excluded studies if infants received partial parenteral nutrition during the study period, or if infants were fed formula as a supplement to human milk. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS We identified six eligible trials that enrolled 218 infants through searches updated to August 2, 2019. Five studies compared low (< 3 g/kg/d) versus high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) protein intake using formulas that kept other nutrients constant. The trials were small (n = 139), and almost all had methodological limitations; the most frequent uncertainty was about attrition. Low-certainty evidence suggests improved weight gain (mean difference [MD] 2.36 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31 to 3.40) and higher nitrogen accretion in infants receiving formula with higher protein content (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus lower protein content (< 3 g/kg/d), while other nutrients were kept constant. No significant differences were seen in rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, or diarrhea. We are uncertain whether high versus low protein intake affects head growth (MD 0.37 cm/week, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58; n = 18) and length gain (MD 0.16 cm/week, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.34; n = 48), but sample sizes were small for these comparisons. One study compared high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus very high (≥ 4 g/kg/d) protein intake (average intakes were 3.6 and 4.1 g/kg/d) during and after an initial hospital stay (n = 77). Moderate-certainty evidence shows no significant differences in weight gain or length gain to discharge, term, and 12 weeks corrected age from very high protein intake (4.1 versus 3.6 g/kg/d). Three of the 24 infants receiving very high protein intake developed uremia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Higher protein intake (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d) from formula accelerates weight gain. However, limited information is available regarding the impact of higher formula protein intake on long-term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Research is needed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of protein intake ≥ 4.0 g/kg/d.
-
6.
Individualized versus standard diet fortification for growth and development in preterm infants receiving human milk.
Fabrizio, V, Trzaski, JM, Brownell, EA, Esposito, P, Lainwala, S, Lussier, MM, Hagadorn, JI
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(11):CD013465
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human milk as compared to formula reduces morbidity in preterm infants but requires fortification to meet their nutritional needs and to reduce the risk of extrauterine growth failure. Standard fortification methods are not individualized to the infant and assume that breast milk is uniform in nutritional content. Strategies for individualizing fortification are available; however it is not known whether these are safe, or if they improve outcomes in preterm infants. OBJECTIVES To determine whether individualizing fortification of breast milk feeds in response to infant blood urea nitrogen (adjustable fortification) or to breast milk macronutrient content as measured with a milk analyzer (targeted fortification) reduces mortality and morbidity and promotes growth and development compared to standard, non-individualized fortification for preterm infants receiving human milk at < 37 weeks' gestation or at birth weight < 2500 grams. SEARCH METHODS We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on September 20, 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered randomized, quasi-randomized, and cluster-randomized controlled trials of preterm infants fed exclusively breast milk that compared a standard non-individualized fortification strategy to individualized fortification using a targeted or adjustable strategy. We considered studies that examined any use of fortification in eligible infants for a minimum duration of two weeks, initiated at any time during enteral feeding, and providing any regimen of human milk feeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were collected using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors evaluated the quality of the studies and extracted data. We reported analyses of continuous data using mean differences (MDs), and dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS Data were extracted from seven RCTs, resulting in eight publications (521 total participants were enrolled among these studies), with duration of study interventions ranging from two to seven weeks. As compared to standard non-individualized fortification, individualized (targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical mean difference [MD] 1.88 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26 to 2.50; 6 studies, 345 participants), may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.43 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.53; 5 studies, 242 participants), and may have increased head circumference gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.14 mm/d, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.23; 5 studies, 242 participants). Compared to standard non-individualized fortification, targeted fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 1.87 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.58; 4 studies, 269 participants) and may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.45 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 3 studies, 166 participants). Adjustable fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 2.86 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.69 to 4.03; 3 studies, 96 participants), probably increased gain in length during the intervention (typical MD 0.54 mm/d, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.7; 3 studies, 96 participants), and increased gain in head circumference during the intervention (typical MD 0.36 mm/d, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.5; 3 studies, 96 participants). We are uncertain whether there are differences between individualized versus standard fortification strategies in the incidence of in-hospital mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, culture-proven late-onset bacterial sepsis, retinopathy of prematurity, osteopenia, length of hospital stay, or post-hospital discharge growth. No study reported severe neurodevelopmental disability as an outcome. One study that was published after our literature search was completed is awaiting classification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found moderate- to low-certainty evidence suggesting that individualized (either targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds in very low birth weight infants increases growth velocity of weight, length, and head circumference during the intervention compared with standard non-individualized fortification. Evidence showing important in-hospital and post-discharge clinical outcomes was sparse and of very low certainty, precluding inferences regarding safety or clinical benefits beyond short-term growth.
-
7.
Comparison of different protein concentrations of human milk fortifier for promoting growth and neurological development in preterm infants.
Gao, C, Miller, J, Collins, CT, Rumbold, AR
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(11):CD007090
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human milk alone may provide inadequate amounts of protein to meet the growth requirements of preterm infants because of restrictions in the amount of fluid they can tolerate. It has become common practice to feed preterm infants with breast milk fortified with protein and other nutrients but there is debate about the optimal concentration of protein in commercially available fortifiers. OBJECTIVES To compare the effects of different protein concentrations in human milk fortifier, fed to preterm infants, on growth and neurodevelopment. SEARCH METHODS We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL on 15 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all published and unpublished randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing two different concentrations of protein in human milk fortifier. We included preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestational age). Participants may have been exclusively fed human milk or have been supplemented with formula. The concentration of protein was classified as low (< 1g protein/100 mL expressed breast milk (EBM)), moderate (≥ 1g to < 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM) or high (≥ 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM). We excluded trials that compared two protein concentrations that fell within the same category. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We undertook data collection and analyses using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently evaluated trials. Primary outcomes included growth, neurodevelopmental outcome and mortality. Data were synthesised using risk ratios (RR), risk differences and mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We identified nine trials involving 861 infants. There is one trial awaiting classification, and nine ongoing trials. The trials were mostly conducted in infants born < 32 weeks' gestational age or < 1500 g birthweight, or both. All used a fortifier derived from bovine milk. Two trials fed infants exclusively with mother's own milk, three trials gave supplementary feeds with donor human milk and four trials supplemented with preterm infant formula. Overall, trials were small but generally at low or unclear risk of bias. High versus moderate protein concentration of human milk fortifier There was moderate certainty evidence that a high protein concentration likely increased in-hospital weight gain compared to moderate concentration of human milk fortifier (MD 0.66 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82; trials = 6, participants = 606). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of high versus moderate protein concentration on length gain (MD 0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03; trials = 5, participants = 547; very low certainty evidence) and head circumference gain (MD 0.00 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; trials = 5, participants = 549; very low certainty evidence). Only one trial reported neonatal mortality, with no deaths in either group (participants = 45). Moderate versus low protein concentration of human milk fortifier A moderate versus low protein concentration fortifier may increase weight gain (MD 2.08 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.77; trials = 2, participants = 176; very low certainty evidence) with little to no effect on head circumference gain (MD 0.13 cm/week, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.26; I² = 85%; trials = 3, participants = 217; very low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There was low certainty evidence that a moderate protein concentration may increase length gain (MD 0.09 cm/week, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14; trials = 3, participants = 217). Only one trial reported mortality and found no difference between groups (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.17; participants = 112). No trials reported long term growth or neurodevelopmental outcomes including cerebral palsy and developmental delay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Feeding preterm infants with a human milk fortifier containing high amounts of protein (≥ 1.4g/100 mL EBM) compared with a fortifier containing moderate protein concentration (≥ 1 g to < 1.4 g/100 mL EBM) results in small increases in weight gain during the neonatal admission. There may also be small increases in weight and length gain when infants are fed a fortifier containing moderate versus low protein concentration (< 1 g protein/100 mL EBM). The certainty of this evidence is very low to moderate; therefore, results may change when the findings of ongoing studies are available. There is insufficient evidence to assess the impact of protein concentration on adverse effects or long term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Further trials are needed to determine whether modest increases in weight gain observed with higher protein concentration fortifiers are associated with benefits or harms to long term growth and neurodevelopment.
-
8.
Biomarkers of environmental manganese exposure and associations with childhood neurodevelopment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Liu, W, Xin, Y, Li, Q, Shang, Y, Ping, Z, Min, J, Cahill, CM, Rogers, JT, Wang, F
Environmental health : a global access science source. 2020;(1):104
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although prior studies showed a correlation between environmental manganese (Mn) exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders in children, the results have been inconclusive. There has yet been no consistent biomarker of environmental Mn exposure. Here, we summarized studies that investigated associations between manganese in biomarkers and childhood neurodevelopment and suggest a reliable biomarker. METHODS We searched PubMed and Web of Science for potentially relevant articles published until December 31th 2019 in English. We also conducted a meta-analysis to quantify the effects of manganese exposure on Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and the correlations of manganese in different indicators. RESULTS Of 1754 citations identified, 55 studies with 13,388 subjects were included. Evidence from cohort studies found that higher manganese exposure had a negative effect on neurodevelopment, mostly influencing cognitive and motor skills in children under 6 years of age, as indicated by various metrics. Results from cross-sectional studies revealed that elevated Mn in hair (H-Mn) and drinking water (W-Mn), but not blood (B-Mn) or teeth (T-Mn), were associated with poorer cognitive and behavioral performance in children aged 6-18 years old. Of these cross-sectional studies, most papers reported that the mean of H-Mn was more than 0.55 μg/g. The meta-analysis concerning H-Mn suggested that a 10-fold increase in hair manganese was associated with a decrease of 2.51 points (95% confidence interval (CI), - 4.58, - 0.45) in Full Scale IQ, while the meta-analysis of B-Mn and W-Mn generated no such significant effects. The pooled correlation analysis revealed that H-Mn showed a more consistent correlation with W-Mn than B-Mn. Results regarding sex differences of manganese associations were inconsistent, although the preliminary meta-analysis found that higher W-Mn was associated with better Performance IQ only in boys, at a relatively low water manganese concentrations (most below 50 μg/L). CONCLUSIONS Higher manganese exposure is adversely associated with childhood neurodevelopment. Hair is the most reliable indicator of manganese exposure for children at 6-18 years of age. Analysis of the publications demonstrated sex differences in neurodevelopment upon manganese exposure, although a clear pattern has not yet been elucidated for this facet of our study.
-
9.
Feeding modifications and additional primary caregiver support for infants exposed to Zika virus or diagnosed with congenital Zika syndrome: a rapid review of the evidence.
Martinez, SS, Pardo-Hernandez, H, Palacios, C
Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH. 2020;(11):1353-1361
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Infants exposed to Zika virus (ZIKV) or diagnosed with congenital Zika syndrome (CZVS) may present dysphagia, regurgitation and other feeding difficulties. They may require special feeding practices to minimise the risk of mortality, morbidity and developmental problems. Improving knowledge, skills and behaviours of caregivers may preserve health, maximise development and promote quality of life among affected infants. We reviewed intervention studies of modified feeding practices and additional primary caregiver support to improve outcomes among infants 0 to 12 months of age exposed to ZIKV or diagnosed with CZVS. METHODS Rapid review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and contacted experts. The search is current to 18 July 2020. We planned a meta-analysis using fixed-effect models; if unfeasible, we intended to summarise studies narratively. We planned to assess risk of bias of included studies and quality of evidence using Cochrane guidance. RESULTS We identified 42 records for title and abstract screening; 14 were eligible for full-text assessment. Among these, no intervention studies were found. Eight observational studies reported on the nutritional status, feeding practices and outcomes among infants affected by ZIKV or diagnosed with CZVS. They are presented and discussed to provide a basis for future research. CONCLUSIONS While no intervention studies were found, evidence from eight observational studies highlights the need for early nutrition interventions and caregiver support among infants affected by ZIKV or diagnosed with CZSV. More research is needed to assess whether modifications of feeding practices and provision of additional primary caregiver support will impact outcomes of interest.
-
10.
Maternal gestational diabetes and infant feeding, nutrition and growth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Manerkar, K, Harding, J, Conlon, C, McKinlay, C
The British journal of nutrition. 2020;(11):1201-1215
Abstract
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major health problem, with increased risks of obesity and diabetes in offspring. However, little is known about the effect of GDM on infant feeding, nutrition and growth, and whether these factors play a role in mediating these risks. We systematically reviewed evidence for the effect of GDM on infant feeding, nutrition and growth. We searched MEDLINE, Web-of-Science, Embase, CINAHL and CENTRAL for studies that reported outcomes in infants <2 years who were and were not exposed to GDM. Studies of pre-gestational diabetes were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed for three epochs (1–6, 7–12, 13–24 months), using inverse-variance, fixed-effects methods. Primary outcomes were energy intake (kJ) and BMI (kg/m2). Twenty-five studies and 308 455 infants were included. Infants exposed to GDM, compared with those not exposed, had similar BMI at age 1–6 months (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0·01, 95 % CI −0·04, 0·06; P = 0·69) and 7–12 months (SMD = 0·04, 95 % CI −0·01, 0·10; P = 0·09), reduced length at 1–6 and 7–12 months, increased whole-body fat at 1–6 months, higher rates of formula supplementation in hospital, shorter duration of breast-feeding and decreased rates of continued breast-feeding at 12 months. Breast milk of women with GDM had lower protein content. There was no association between GDM and infant weight and skinfold thickness. No data were available for nutritional intake and outcomes at 13–24 months. Low- or very low-quality evidence suggests GDM is not associated with altered BMI in infancy, but is associated with increased fat mass, high rates of formula use and decreased duration of breast-feeding.