4.4 Review

Nutritional support for low birth weight infants: insights from animal studies

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 117, 期 10, 页码 1390-1402

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S000711451700126X

关键词

Low birth weight; Infants; Growth; Metabolic syndrome; Nutritional support

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31272449, 31422052, 31572412, 31630074]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0500506]
  3. '111' Project [B16044]
  4. Jinxinnong University Animal Science Developmental Foundation
  5. Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Animal Production Safety (CICAPS)
  6. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2014-67015-21770, 2015-67015-23276, 2016-67015-24958]
  7. Texas A&M AgriLife Research [H-8200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infants born with low birth weights (<2500 g, LBW), accounting for about 15 % of newborns, have a high risk for postnatal growth failure and developing the metabolic syndromes such as type 2 diabetes, CVD and obesity later in life. Improper nutrition provision during critical stages, such as undernutrition during the fetal period or overnutrition during the neonatal period, has been an important mediator of these metabolic diseases. Considering the specific physiological status of LBW infants, nutritional intervention and optimisation during early life merit further attention. In this review, the physiological and metabolic defects of LBW infants were summarised from a nutritional perspective. Available strategies for nutritional interventions and optimisation of LBW infants, including patterns of nutrition supply, macronutrient proportion, supplementation of amino acids and their derivatives, fatty acids, nucleotides, vitamins, minerals as well as hormone and microbiota manipulators, were reviewed with an aim to provide new insights into the advancements of formulas and human-milk fortifiers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据