Masoli, DanielaMena, PatriciaDominguez, AngelicaRamolfo, PamelaVernal, PatriciaPantoja, Miguel AngelEsparza, RuthHübner, MERíos, AntonioFaunes, MiriamUauy, RicardoTapia, Jose L.2023-07-072023-07-072022Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 74(3):p 424-430, March 2022.https://repositorio.udd.cl/handle/11447/7651Objectives: To evaluate growth (weight, length, head circumference, and knee–heel length [KHL]) in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants (500–1500 g) who received human milk with a liquid fortifier (LHMF) with high protein and fatty acid content versus a traditional powder fortifier (PHMF) for 45 days or until discharge. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed to determine adverse events and withdrawal causes. We also performed an efficacy analysis involving the infants who completed at least 2 weeks of study. Results: Of the 158 infants enrolled in the study, 146 completed at least 2 weeks, and 125 completed the entire study. The biodemographic characteristics were similar between groups, with no differences in increments of weight (22.9 vs 22.7 g kg1 day1 ), length (1.03 vs 1.09 cm/week), head circumference (0.91 vs 0.90 cm/week), or KHL (3.6 vs 3.3 mm/week). The KHL increment was greater in infants weighing >1 kg receiving LHMF (3.7 vs 3.2 mm/week, P ¼ 0.027). Although there were no significant differences in serious adverse events, the incidence difference of the composite outcome death/necrotizing enterocolitis between groups warrants attention (1.3% with LHMF and 8.1% with PHMF). Conclusion: There were no differences in the overall growth between VLBW infants receiving either fortifier.7 p.enHuman milk fortifiersNeonatal nutritionRandomized controlled trialVery low birthweight infantsArticlehttps://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000003321