Prophylactic cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor drugs for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in extremely preterm infants: a clinical practice guideline incorporating family values and preferences

ImportanceProphylactic cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors (COX-Is) such as indomethacin, ibuprofen and acetaminophen may prevent morbidity and mortality in extremely preterm infants (born ≤28 weeks' gestation). However, there is controversy around which COX-I, if any, is the most effective and safest, which has resulted in considerable variability in clinical practice.  Our objective was to develop rigorous and transparent clinical practice guideline recommendations for the prophylactic use of COX-I drugs for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in extremely preterm infants.  The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence-to-decision framework for multiple comparisons was used to develop the guideline recommendations. A 12-member panel, including 5 experienced neonatal care providers, 2 methods experts, 1 pharmacist, 2 parents of former extremely preterm infants and 2 adults born extremely preterm, was convened. A rating of the most important clinical outcomes was established a priori. Evidence from a Cochrane network meta-analysis and a cross-sectional mixed-methods study exploring family values and preferences were used as the primary sources of evidence.  The panel recommended that prophylaxis with intravenous indomethacin may be considered in extremely preterm infants (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty in estimate of effects). Shared decision making with parents was encouraged to evaluate their values and preferences prior to therapy. The panel recommended against routine use of ibuprofen prophylaxis in this gestational age group (conditional recommendation, low certainty in the estimate of effects). The panel strongly recommended against use of prophylactic acetaminophen (strong recommendation, very low certainty in estimate of effects) until further research evidence is available.

Methylxanthine for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Very preterm infants often require respiratory support and are therefore exposed to an increased risk of chronic lung disease and later neurodevelopmental disability. Although methylxanthines are widely used to prevent and treat apnea associated with prematurity and to facilitate extubation, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of different types of methylxanthines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of methylxanthines on the incidence of apnea, death, neurodevelopmental disability, and other longer-term outcomes in preterm infants (1) at risk for or with apnea, or (2) undergoing extubation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trial registers (November 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials in preterm infants, in which methylxanthines (aminophylline, caffeine, or theophylline) were compared to placebo or no treatment for any indication (i.e. prevention of apnea, treatment of apnea, or prevention of re-intubation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 studies (2705 infants), evaluating the use of methylxanthine in preterm infants for: any indication (one study); prevention of apnea (six studies); treatment of apnea (five studies); and to prevent re-intubation (six studies). Death or major neurodevelopmental disability (DMND) at 18 to 24 months. Only the Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity (CAP) study (enrolling 2006 infants) reported on this outcome. Overall, caffeine probably reduced the risk of DMND in preterm infants treated with caffeine for any indication (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.97; risk difference (RD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 10 to 50; 1 study, 1869 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). No other trials reported DMND. Results from the CAP trial regarding DMND at 18 to 24 months are less precise when analyzed based on treatment indication. Caffeine probably results in little or no difference in DMND in infants treated for prevention of apnea (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.09; 1 study, 423 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably results in a slight reduction in DMND in infants treated for apnea of prematurity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.00; NNTB 16, 95% CI 7 to > 1000; 1 study, 767 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) or to prevent re-intubation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.00; NNTB 12, 95% CI 6 to >1000; 1 study, 676 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Death. In the overall analysis of any methylxanthine treatment for any indication, methylxanthine used for any indication probably results in little or no difference in death at hospital discharge (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; I2 = 5%; 7 studies, 2289 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. In the CAP trial, caffeine probably reduced the risk of major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; NNTB 16, 95% CI 10 to 50; 1 study, 1869 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), including a reduction in the risk of cerebral palsy or gross motor disability (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; NNTB 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 1 study, 1810 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a marginal reduction in the risk of developmental delay (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.00; NNTB 20, 95% CI 11 to > 1000; 1 study, 1725 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Any apneic episodes, failed apnea reduction after two to seven days (< 50% reduction in apnea) (for infants treated with apnea), and need for positive-pressure ventilation after institution of treatment. Methylxanthine used for any indication probably reduces the occurrence of any apneic episodes (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; I2 = 47%; RD -0.38, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.25; I2 = 49%; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 4; 4 studies, 167 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), failed apnea reduction after two to seven days (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; RD -0.31, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; I2 = 53%; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 6; 4 studies, 174 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce receipt of positive-pressure ventilation after institution of treatment (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96; I2 = 0%; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.01; I2 = 49%; NNTB 16, 95% CI 9 to 100; 9 studies, 373 infants; low-certainty evidence). Chronic lung disease. Methylxanthine used for any indication reduces chronic lung disease (defined as the use of supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age) (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.06; I2 = 18%; NNTB 10, 95% CI 7 to 16; 4 studies, 2142 infants; high-certainty evidence). Failure to extubate or the need for re-intubation within one week after initiation of therapy. Methylxanthine used for the prevention of re-intubation probably results in a large reduction in failed extubation compared with no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71; I2 = 0%; RD -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; I2 = 69%; NNTB 4, 95% CI 2 to 6; 6 studies, 197 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Caffeine probably reduces the risk of death, major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months, and the composite outcome DMND at 18 to 24 months. Administration of any methylxanthine to preterm infants for any indication probably leads to a reduction in the risk of any apneic episodes, failed apnea reduction after two to seven days, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, and may reduce receipt of positive-pressure ventilation after institution of treatment. Methylxanthine used for any indication reduces chronic lung disease (defined as the use of supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age).

Surfactant therapy guided by tests for lung maturity in preterm infants at risk of respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Administration of various exogenous surfactant preparations has been shown to decrease lung injury and pneumothorax and improve survival in very preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). There is no consensus on the threshold for surfactant administration, to allow timely intervention and avoid over-treatment, also considering the invasiveness of the procedure and its cost. Rapid tests for lung maturity, which include the click test, lamellar body counts and stable microbubble test, might guide the identification of those infants needing surfactant administration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency in preterm infants at risk for or having RDS. Comparison 1: In preterm infants at risk for RDS, does surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency compared to prophylactic surfactant administration to all high-risk infants minimize the need for surfactant treatment and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality? Comparison 2: In preterm infants who require early respiratory support, does surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency compared to surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria minimize the need for surfactant treatment and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in October 2022 CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase and three additional trial registries. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating rapid tests after birth for surfactant deficiency in infants at high risk of RDS or requiring respiratory support. We specified two comparisons: 1)surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus prophylactic surfactant administration to all high-risk infants in extremely preterm (less than 28 weeks' gestation) and very preterm (28 to 32 weeks' gestation); 2)surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus surfactant therapy provided to preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. Our primary outcomes were: neonatal mortality, mortality prior to hospital discharge, bronchopulmonary dysplasia and the composite outcome bronchopulmonary dysplasia or mortality. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs enrolling 562 newborn infants in this review. No studies compared surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus prophylactic surfactant administration to all high-risk infants. Comparing surfactant therapy guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria. No studies reported neonatal mortality. Compared with surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency on mortality prior to hospital discharge: RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.41, RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05, 562 participants, 3 studies; I² for RR and RD = 75% and 43%, respectively; very low-certainty evidence. Surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency may result in little to no difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.32, RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04, 562 participants, 3 studies; I² for RR and RD = 0%; low-certainty evidence. No studies reported the composite outcome bronchopulmonary dysplasia or mortality. Surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency may result in little to no difference in surfactant utilization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11, RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.06, 562 participants, 3 studies, I² for RR and RD = 63% and 65%, respectively, low-certainty evidence), and any pneumothorax (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.92, RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01, 506 participants, 2 studies, I² for RR and RD = 0%, low-certainty evidence) compared with surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria. No studies reported moderate to severe neurodevelopmental impairment. We identified two large ongoing RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No studies compared surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency to prophylactic surfactant administration to all high-risk infants. Low to very low-certainty evidence from three studies is available on surfactant therapy guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria. No studies reported neonatal mortality, the composite outcome 'bronchopulmonary dysplasia or mortality', or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Compared with surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency on mortality prior to hospital discharge. Surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency may result in little to no difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia, surfactant utilization and any pneumothorax. The findings of the two large ongoing trials identified in this review are likely to have an important impact on establishing the effects of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency in preterm infants.

Doxapram for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Apnea of prematurity is a common problem in preterm infants that may have significant consequences on their development. Methylxanthines (aminophylline, theophylline, and caffeine) are effective in the treatment of apnea of prematurity. Doxapram is used as a respiratory stimulant in cases refractory to the methylxanthine treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of doxapram administration on the incidence of apnea and other short-term and longer-term clinical outcomes in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the role of doxapram in prevention and treatment of apnea of prematurity and prevention of reintubation in preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation). We included studies comparing doxapram with either placebo or methylxanthines as a control group, or when doxapram was used as an adjunct to methylxanthines and compared to methylxanthines alone as a control group. We included studies of doxapram at any dose and route.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical apnea, need for positive pressure ventilation after initiation of treatment, failed apnea reduction after two to seven days, and failed extubation (defined as unable to wean from invasive intermittent positive pressure ventilation [IPPV] and extubate or reintubation for IPPV within one week). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs enrolling 248 infants. Seven studies (214 participants) provided data for meta-analysis. Five studied doxapram for treatment of apnea in preterm infants. Three studied doxapram to prevent reintubation in preterm infants. None studied doxapram in preventing apnea in preterm infants. All studies administered doxapram intravenously as continuous infusions. Two studies used doxapram as an adjunct to aminophylline compared to aminophylline alone and one study as an adjunct to caffeine compared to caffeine alone. When used to treat apnea, compared to no treatment, doxapram may result in a slight reduction in failed apnea reduction (risk ratio [RR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 1.05; 1 study, 21 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on need for positive pressure ventilation after initiation of treatment (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.74; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Doxapram may result in little to no difference in side effects causing cessation of therapy (0 events in both groups; risk difference [RD] 0.00, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.17; 1 study, 21 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to alternative treatment, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on failed apnea reduction (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.45; 4 studies, 84 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on need for positive pressure ventilation after initiation of treatment (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 51.32; 2 studies, 37 participants; very-low certainty evidence; note 1 study recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 2). Doxapram may result in little to no difference in side effects causing cessation of therapy (0 events in all groups; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.15; 37 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). As adjunct therapy to methylxanthine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on failed apnea reduction after two to seven days (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.17; 1 study, 10 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on clinical apnea, chronic lung disease at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA), death at any time during initial hospitalization, long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in the three comparisons, and need for positive pressure ventilation and side effects when used as adjunct therapy to methylxanthine. In studies to prevent reintubation, when compared to alternative treatment, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on failed extubation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). As adjunct therapy to methylxanthine, doxapram may result in a slight reduction in 'clinical apnea' after initiation of treatment (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.98; 1 study, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). Doxapram may result in little to no difference in failed extubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.62; 1 study, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxapram on side effects causing cessation of therapy (RR 6.42, 95% CI 0.80 to 51.26; 2 studies, 85 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported need for positive pressure ventilation, chronic lung disease at 36 weeks' PMA, long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in the three comparisons; failed extubation when compared to no treatment; and clinical apnea, death at any time during initial hospitalization, and side effects when compared to no treatment or alternative treatment. We identified two ongoing studies, one conducted in Germany and one in multiple centers in the Netherlands and Belgium.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In treating apnea of prematurity, doxapram may slightly reduce failure in apnea reduction when compared to no treatment and there may be little to no difference in side effects against both no treatment and alternative treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the need for positive pressure ventilation when compared to no treatment or alternative treatment and about failed apnea reduction when used as alternative or adjunct therapy to methylxanthine. For use to prevent reintubation, doxapram may reduce apnea episodes when administered in adjunct to methylxanthine, but with little to no difference in failed extubation. The evidence is very uncertain about doxapram's effect on death when used as adjunct therapy to methylxanthine and about failed extubation when used as alternative or adjunct therapy to methylxanthine. There is a knowledge gap about the use of doxapram as a therapy to prevent apnea. More studies are needed to clarify the role of doxapram in the treatment of apnea of prematurity, addressing concerns about long-term outcomes. The ongoing studies may provide useful data.

Superoxide dismutase for bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Free oxygen radicals have been implicated in the pathogenesis of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm infants. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) is a naturally occurring enzyme which provides a defense against such oxidant injury. Providing supplementary SOD has been tested in clinical trials to prevent BPD in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of SOD in the prevention and treatment of BPD on mortality and other complications of prematurity in infants at risk for, or having BPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trials registers on 22 September 2022 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, quasi-randomized and cluster-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where the participants were preterm infants who had developed, or were at risk of developing BPD, and who were randomly allocated to receive either SOD (in any form, by any route, any dose, anytime) or placebo, or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were BPD defined as an oxygen requirement at 28 days, BPD defined as oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, neonatal mortality, mortality prior to discharge, and BPD or death at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. We reported risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the dichotomous outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (380 infants) on SOD administration in preterm infants at risk for BPD, and no studies in preterm infants with evolving BPD / early respiratory insufficiency. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SOD on BPD defined as an oxygen requirement at 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26; RD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.16, 1 study, 302 infants; I2 for RR and RD not applicable), BPD defined as oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.09, 2 studies, 335 infants; I2 for RR and RD = 0%), neonatal mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.68; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07, 2 studies, 335 infants; I2 for RR and RD = 0%), and mortality prior to discharge (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.71; RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.23, 2 studies, 78 infants; I2 for RR and RD = 0%). No studies reported BPD or death at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SOD on retinopathy of prematurity any stage (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.08, 2 studies, 335 infants; I2for RR = 0%, I2 for RD = 8%), and severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.65; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.09, 1 study, 244 infants; I2 for RR and RD not applicable). No studies reported moderate to severe neurodevelopmental outcome at 18 to 24 months. Certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. We identified no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SOD on BPD defined as an oxygen requirement at 28 days, BPD defined as oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, neonatal mortality and mortality prior to discharge compared to placebo. No studies reported BPD or death at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and need for supplemental oxygen. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SOD on retinopathy of prematurity any stage and severe retinopathy of prematurity. No studies reported moderate to severe neurodevelopmental outcome at 18 to 24 months. The effects of SOD in preterm infants has not been reported in any trial in the last few decades, considering that the most recent trial on SOD in preterm infants was conducted in 1997/1998, and no new studies are ongoing. In the light of the limited available evidence, new data from preclinical and observational studies are needed to justify the conduction of new RCTs. Observational studies might report how SOD is administered, including indication, dose and association with relevant outcomes such as mortality, BPD and long-term neurodevelopment.

Caffeine versus other methylxanthines for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Methylxanthines, including caffeine, theophylline, and aminophylline, work as stimulants of the respiratory drive, and decrease apnea of prematurity, a developmental disorder common in preterm infants. In particular, caffeine has been reported to improve important clinical outcomes, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and neurodevelopmental disability. However, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy of caffeine compared to other methylxanthines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of caffeine compared to aminophylline or theophylline in preterm infants at risk of apnea, with apnea, or in the peri-extubation phase.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and clinicaltrials.gov in February 2023. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs Participants: infants born before 34 weeks of gestation for prevention and extubation trials, and infants born before 37 weeks of gestation for treatment trials Intervention and comparison: caffeine versus theophylline or caffeine versus aminophylline. We included all doses and duration of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical data, and mean, standard deviation, and mean difference for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials enrolling 1776 preterm infants. The indication for treatment was prevention of apnea in three studies, treatment of apnea in 13 studies, and extubation management in three studies. In three studies, there were multiple indications for treatment, and in one study, the indication for treatment was unclear. In 19 included studies, the infants had a mean gestational age between 28 and 32 weeks and a mean birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. One study's participants had a mean gestational age of more than 32 weeks, and two studies had participants with a mean birth weight of 1500 g or more. Caffeine administrated for any indication may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality prior to hospital discharge compared to other methylxanthines (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.84; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 2 studies, 396 infants; low-certainty evidence). Only one study enrolling 79 infants reported components of the outcome moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 26 months. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on cognitive developmental delay compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.01; 1 study, 79 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on language developmental delay compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.58; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.12; 1 study, 79 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on motor developmental delay compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.96; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.07; 1 study, 79 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on visual and hearing impairment compared to other methylxanthines. At 24 months of age, visual impairment was seen in 8 out of 11 infants and 10 out of 11 infants in the caffeine and other methylxanthines groups, respectively. Hearing impairment was seen in 2 out of 5 infants and 1 out of 1 infant in the caffeine and other methylxanthines groups, respectively. No studies reported the outcomes cerebral palsy, gross motor disability, and mental development. Compared to other methylxanthines, caffeine may result in little to no difference in BPD/chronic lung disease, defined as 28 days of oxygen exposure at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.11; RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09; 3 studies, 481 infants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on side effects (tachycardia, agitation, or feed intolerance) leading to a reduction in dose or withholding of methylxanthines compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.02; 1 study, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Caffeine may result in little to no difference in duration of hospital stay compared to other methylxanthines (median (interquartile range): caffeine 43 days (27.5 to 61.5); other methylxanthines 39 days (28 to 55)). No studies reported the outcome seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although caffeine has been shown to improve important clinical outcomes, in the few studies that compared caffeine to other methylxanthines, there might be little to no difference in mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and duration of hospital stay. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine compared to other methylxanthines on long-term development and side effects. Although caffeine or other methylxanthines are widely used in preterm infants, there is little direct evidence to support the choice of which methylxanthine to use. More research is needed, especially on extremely preterm infants born before 28 weeks of gestation. Data from four ongoing studies might provide more evidence on the effects of caffeine or other methylxanthines.

A multicentre neonatal interventional randomised controlled trial of nebulized surfactant for preterm infants with respiratory distress: Neo-INSPIRe trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Less invasive methods of surfactant administration, along with the use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), have improved outcomes of preterm infants. Aerosolized surfactant can be given without the need for airway instrumentation and may be employed in areas where these skills are scarce. Recent trials from high-resourced countries utilising aerosolized surfactant have had a low quality of evidence and varying outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Neo-INSPIRe trial is an unblinded, multicentre, randomised trial of a novel aerosolized surfactant drug/device combination. Inclusion criteria include preterm infants of 27-34+6 weeks' gestational age who weigh 900-1999g and who require CPAP with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of 0.25-0.35 in the first 2-24 h of age. Infants are randomised 1:1 to control (CPAP alone) or intervention (CPAP with aerosolized surfactant). The primary outcome is the need for intratracheal bolus surfactant instillation within 72 h of age. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of reaching failure criteria (persistent FiO2 of > 0.40, severe apnoea or severe work of breathing), the need for and duration of ventilation and respiratory support, bronchopulmonary dysplasia and selected co-morbidities of prematurity. Assuming a 40% relative risk reduction to reduce the proportion of infants requiring intratracheal bolus surfactant from 45 to 27%, the study will aim to enrol 232 infants for the study to have a power of 80% to detect a significant difference with a type 1 error of 0.05.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the relevant human research ethics committees at University of Cape Town (HREC 681/2022), University of the Witwatersrand HREC (221112) and Stellenbosch University (M23/02/004).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PACTR202307490670785.

Systemic corticosteroids for the prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite considerable improvement in outcomes for preterm infants, rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remain high, affecting an estimated 33% of very low birthweight infants, with corresponding long-term respiratory and neurosensory issues. Systemic corticosteroids can address the inflammation underlying BPD, but the optimal regimen for prevention of this disease, balancing of the benefits with the potentially meaningful risks of systemic corticosteroids, continues to be a medical quandary. Numerous studies have shown that systemic corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, effectively treat or prevent BPD. However, concerning short and long-term side effects have been reported and the optimal approach to corticosteroid treatment remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether differences in efficacy and safety exist between high-dose dexamethasone, moderate-dose dexamethasone, low-dose dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, and placebo in the prevention of BPD, death, the composite outcome of death or BPD, and other relevant morbidities, in preterm infants through a network meta-analysis, generating both pairwise comparisons between all treatments and rankings of the treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library for all systematic reviews of systemic corticosteroids for the prevention of BPD and searched for completed and ongoing studies in the following databases in January 2023: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation) at risk for BPD that evaluated systemic corticosteroids (high-dose [≥ 4 mg/kg cumulative dose] dexamethasone, moderate-dose [≥ 2 to < 4 mg/kg] dexamethasone, low-dose [< 2 mg/kg] dexamethasone, or hydrocortisone) versus control or another systemic corticosteroid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our main information sources were the systematic reviews, with reference to the original manuscript only for data not included in these reviews. Teams of two paired review authors independently performed data extraction, with disagreements resolved by discussion. Data were entered into Review Manager 5 and exported to R software for network meta-analysis (NMA). NMA was performed using a frequentist model with random-effects. Two separate networks were constructed, one for early (< seven days) initiation of treatment and one for late (≥ seven days) treatment initiation, to reflect the different patient populations evaluated. We assessed the certainty of evidence derived from the NMA for our primary outcomes using principles of the GRADE framework modified for application to NMA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies, involving 6441 infants, in our analyses. Only six of the included studies provided direct comparisons between any of the treatment (dexamethasone or hydrocortisone) groups, forcing network comparisons between treatments to rely heavily on indirect evidence through comparisons with placebo/no treatment groups. Thirty-one studies evaluated early corticosteroid treatment, 27 evaluated late corticosteroid treatment, and one study evaluated both early and late corticosteroid treatments. Early treatment (prior to seven days after birth): Benefits:NMA for early treatment showed only moderate-dose dexamethasone to decrease the risk of BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) compared with control (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80; moderate-certainty evidence), although the other dexamethasone dosing regimens may have similar effects compared with control (high-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence; low-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence). Other early treatment regimens may have little or no effect on the risk of death at 36 weeks' PMA. Only moderate-dose dexamethasone decreased the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA compared with control (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; moderate-certainty evidence).

HARMS

Low-dose dexamethasone increased the risk for cerebral palsy (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.28; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with control. Hydrocortisone may decrease the risk of major neurosensory disability versus low-dose dexamethasone (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence). Late treatment (at seven days or later after birth): Benefits: NMA for late treatment showed high-dose dexamethasone to decrease the risk of BPD both versus hydrocortisone (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence) and versus control (RR 0.72, CI 0.59 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). The late treatment regimens evaluated may have little or no effect on the risk of death at 36 weeks' PMA. High-dose dexamethasone decreased risk for the composite outcome of death or BPD compared with all other treatments (control, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.80, high-certainty evidence; hydrocortisone, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84, low-certainty evidence; low-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88, low-certainty evidence; moderate-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.93, low-certainty evidence).

HARMS

No effect was observed for the outcomes of major neurosensory disability or cerebral palsy. The evidence for the primary outcomes was of overall low certainty, with notable deductions for imprecision and heterogeneity across the networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While early treatment with moderate-dose dexamethasone or late treatment with high-dose dexamethasone may lead to the best effects for survival without BPD, the certainty of the evidence is low. There is insufficient evidence to guide this therapy with regard to plausible adverse long-term outcomes. Further RCTs with direct comparisons between systemic corticosteroid treatments are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach, and these studies should be adequately powered to evaluate survival without major neurosensory disability.

Caffeine dosing regimens in preterm infants with or at risk for apnea of prematurity

BACKGROUND

Very preterm infants often require respiratory support and are therefore exposed to an increased risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (chronic lung disease) and later neurodevelopmental disability. Caffeine is widely used to prevent and treat apnea (temporal cessation of breathing) associated with prematurity and facilitate extubation. Though widely recognized dosage regimes have been used for decades, higher doses have been suggested to further improve neonatal outcomes. However, observational studies suggest that higher doses may be associated with harm.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of higher versus standard doses of caffeine on mortality and major neurodevelopmental disability in preterm infants with (or at risk of) apnea, or peri-extubation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and clinicaltrials.gov in May 2022. The reference lists of relevant articles were also checked to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing high-dose to standard-dose strategies in preterm infants. High-dose strategies were defined as a high-loading dose (more than 20 mg of caffeine citrate/kg) or a high-maintenance dose (more than 10 mg of caffeine citrate/kg/day). Standard-dose strategies were defined as a standard-loading dose (20 mg or less of caffeine citrate/kg) or a standard-maintenance dose (10 mg or less of caffeine citrate/kg/day). We specified three additional comparisons according to the indication for commencing caffeine: 1) prevention trials, i.e. preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, who are at risk for apnea; 2) treatment trials, i.e. preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestation, with signs of apnea; 3) extubation trials: preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, prior to planned extubation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.  MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials enrolling 894 very preterm infants (reported in Comparison 1, i.e. any indication). Two studies included infants for apnea prevention (Comparison 2), four studies for apnea treatment (Comparison 3) and two for extubation management (Comparison 4); in one study, indication for caffeine administration was both apnea treatment and extubation management (reported in Comparison 1, Comparison 3 and Comparison 4). In the high-dose groups, loading and maintenance caffeine doses ranged from 30 mg/kg to 80 mg/kg, and 12 mg/kg to 30 mg/kg, respectively; in the standard-dose groups, loading and maintenance caffeine doses ranged from 6 mg/kg to 25 mg/kg, and 3 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg, respectively. Two studies had three study groups: infants were randomized in three different doses (two of them matched our definition of high dose and one matched our definition of standard dose); high-dose caffeine and standard-dose caffeine were compared to theophylline administration (the latter is included in a separate review). Six of the seven included studies compared high-loading and high-maintenance dose to standard-loading and standard-maintenance dose, whereas in one study standard-loading dose and high-maintenance dose was compared to standard-loading dose and standard-maintenance dose. High-dose caffeine strategies (administration for any indication) may have little or no effect on mortality prior to hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence of interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.38; risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 5 studies, 723 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only one study enrolling 74 infants reported major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged three to five years (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.24; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.13; 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcome mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged 18 to 24 months and 3 to 5 years. Five studies reported bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.02; number needed to benefit (NNTB) = 13; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 723 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose caffeine strategies may have little or no effect on side effects (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.23; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 5 studies, 593 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for duration of hospital stay (data reported in three studies could not be pooled in meta-analysis because outcomes were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges) and seizures (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.53; RD 0.14, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.36; 1 study, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We identified three ongoing trials conducted in China, Egypt, and New Zealand.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-dose caffeine strategies in preterm infants may have little or no effect on reducing mortality prior to hospital discharge or side effects. We are very uncertain whether high-dose caffeine strategies improves major neurodevelopmental disability, duration of hospital stay or seizures. No studies reported the outcome mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged 18 to 24 months and 3 to 5 years. High-dose caffeine strategies probably reduce the rate of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Recently completed and future trials should report long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of children exposed to different caffeine dosing strategies in the neonatal period. Data from extremely preterm infants are needed, as this population is exposed to the highest risk for mortality and morbidity. However, caution is required when administering high doses in the first hours of life, when the risk for intracranial bleeding is highest. Observational studies might provide useful information regarding potential harms of the highest doses.

Sunlight for the prevention and treatment of hyperbilirubinemia in term and late preterm neonates

BACKGROUND

Acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and the other serious complications of severe hyperbilirubinemia in the neonate occur far more frequently in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This is due to several factors that place babies in LMIC at greater risk for hyperbilirubinemia, including increased prevalence of hematologic disorders leading to hemolysis, increased sepsis, less prenatal or postnatal care, and a lack of resources to treat jaundiced babies. Hospitals and clinics face frequent shortages of functioning phototherapy machines and inconsistent access to electricity to run the machines. Sunlight has the potential to treat hyperbilirubinemia: it contains the wavelengths of light that are produced by phototherapy machines. However, it contains harmful ultraviolet light and infrared radiation, and prolonged exposure has the potential to lead to sunburn, skin damage, and hyperthermia or hypothermia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of sunlight administered alone or with filtering or amplifying devices for the prevention and treatment of clinical jaundice or laboratory-diagnosed hyperbilirubinemia in term and late preterm neonates.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 5), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 2 May 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs. We updated the searches on 1 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs. We excluded crossover RCTs. Included studies must have evaluated sunlight (with or without filters or amplification) for the prevention and treatment of hyperbilirubinemia or jaundice in term or late preterm neonates. Neonates must have been enrolled in the study by one-week postnatal age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were: use of conventional phototherapy, treatment failure requiring exchange transfusion, ABE, chronic bilirubin encephalopathy, and death.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (1103 infants). All three studies had small sample sizes, were unblinded, and were at high risk of bias. We planned to undertake four comparisons, but only found studies reporting on two. Sunlight with or without filters or amplification compared to no treatment for the prevention and treatment of hyperbilirubinemia in term and late preterm neonates One study of twice-daily sunlight exposure (30 to 60 minutes) compared to no treatment reported the incidence of jaundice may be reduced (risk ratio [RR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.82; risk difference [RD] -0.14, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome [NNTB] 7, 95% CI 5 to 17; 1 study, 482 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and the number of days that an infant was jaundiced may be reduced (mean difference [MD] -2.20 days, 95% CI -2.60 to -1.80; 1 study, 482 infants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data on safety or potential harmful effects of the intervention. The study did not assess use of conventional phototherapy, treatment failure requiring exchange transfusion, ABE, and long-term consequences of hyperbilirubinemia. The study showed that sunlight therapy may reduce rehospitalization rates within seven days of discharge for treatment for hyperbilirubinemia, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.11; RD -0.04, -0.08 to 0.01; 1 study, 482 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Sunlight with or without filters or amplification compared to other sources of phototherapy for the treatment of hyperbilirubinemia in infants with confirmed hyperbilirubinemia Two studies (621 infants) compared the effect of filtered-sunlight exposure to other sources of phototherapy in infants with confirmed hyperbilirubinemia. Filtered-sunlight phototherapy (FSPT) and conventional or intensive electric phototherapy led to a similar number of days of effective treatment (broadly defined as a minimal increase of total serum bilirubin in infants less than 72 hours old and a decrease in total serum bilirubin in infants more than 72 hours old on any day that at least four to five hours of sunlight therapy was available). There may be little or no difference in treatment failure requiring exchange transfusion (typical RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.73; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 2 studies, 621 infants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported ABE, and no infants developed this outcome (RR not estimable; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 1 study, 174 infants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported death as a reason for study withdrawal; no infants were withdrawn due to death (RR not estimable; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 1 study, 447 infants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study assessed long-term outcomes. Possible harms: both studies showed a probable increased risk for hyperthermia (body temperature greater than 37.5 °C) with FSPT (typical RR 4.39, 95% CI 2.98 to 6.47; typical RD 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.36; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome [NNTH] 3, 95% CI 2 to 4; 2 studies, 621 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably no difference in hypothermia (body temperature less than 35.5 °C) (typical RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.03; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 2 studies, 621 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sunlight may be an effective adjunct to conventional phototherapy in LMIC settings, may allow for rotational use of limited phototherapy machines, and may be preferable to families as it can allow for increased bonding. Filtration of sunlight to block harmful ultraviolet light and frequent temperature checks for babies under sunlight may be warranted for safety. Sunlight may be effective in preventing hyperbilirubinemia in some cases, but these studies have not demonstrated that sunlight alone is effective for the treatment of hyperbilirubinemia given its sporadic availability and the low or very low certainty of the evidence in these studies.

Umbilical Cord Management for Newborns <34 Weeks' Gestation: A Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation prioritized scientific review of umbilical cord management strategies at preterm birth.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of umbilical cord management strategies (including timing of cord clamping and cord milking) in preterm infants <34 weeks' gestation.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registries were searched through July 2019 for randomized controlled trials assessing timing of cord clamping and/or cord milking.

STUDY SELECTION

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, appraised risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty (GRADE).

DATA EXTRACTION

We identified 42 randomized controlled trials (including 5772 infants) investigating 4 different comparisons of cord management interventions.

RESULTS

Compared to early cord clamping, delayed cord clamping (DCC) and intact-cord milking (ICM) may slightly improve survival; however, both are compatible with no effect (DCC: risk ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.04, n = 2988 infants, moderate certainty evidence; ICM: risk ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.98 to 1.06, n = 945 infants, moderate certainty evidence). DCC and ICM both probably improve hematologic measures but may not affect major neonatal morbidities.

LIMITATIONS

For many of the included comparisons and outcomes, certainty of evidence was low. Our subgroup analyses were limited by few researchers reporting subgroup data.

CONCLUSIONS

DCC appears to be associated with some benefit for infants born <34 weeks. Cord milking needs further evidence to determine potential benefits or harms. The ideal cord management strategy for preterm infants is still unknown, but early clamping may be harmful.

Differences in demographics and outcomes based on method of consent for a randomised controlled trial on heat loss prevention in the delivery room

OBJECTIVE

Informed consent is standard in research. International guidelines allow for research without prior consent in emergent situations, such as neonatal resuscitation. Research without prior consent was incorporated in the Vermont Oxford Network Heat Loss Prevention Trial. We evaluated whether significant differences in outcomes exist based on the consent method.

DESIGN

Subgroup analysis of infants enrolled in a randomised controlled trial conducted from 2004 to 2010.

SETTING

A multicentre trial with 38 participating centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Infants born 24-27 weeks of gestation. 3048 infants assessed, 2231 excluded due to fetal congenital anomalies, failure to obtain consent or gestation less than 24 weeks. 817 randomised, 4 withdrew consent, total of 813 analysed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The difference in mortality between consent groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in mortality at 36 weeks (80.2%, 77.4%, p=0.492) or 6 months corrected gestational age (80.7%, 79.7%, p=0.765). Infants enrolled after informed consent were more likely to have mothers who had received antenatal steroids (95.2%, 84.0%, p<0.0001). They also had significantly higher Apgar scores at 1 (5.0, 4.4, p=0.019), 5 (7.3, 6.7, p=0.025) and 10 min (7.5, 6.3, p=0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Research without prior consent resulted in the inclusion of infants with different baseline characteristics than those enrolled after informed consent. There were no significant differences in mortality. Significantly higher Apgar scores in the informed consent group suggest that some of the sicker infants would have been excluded from enrolment under informed consent. Research without prior consent should be considered in neonatal resuscitation research.

Indomethacin for symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. In these infants, prophylactic use of indomethacin, a non-selective cyclooxygenase inhibitor, has demonstrated short-term clinical benefits. The effect of indomethacin in preterm infants with a symptomatic PDA remains unexplored.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of indomethacin (given by any route) compared to placebo or no treatment in reducing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants with a symptomatic PDA.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 7), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on 31 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared indomethacin (any dose, any route) versus placebo or no treatment in preterm infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by at least two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: failure of PDA closure within one week of administration of the first dose of indomethacin; bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 28 days' postnatal age and at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age; proportion of infants requiring surgical ligation or transcatheter occlusion; all-cause neonatal mortality; necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (≥ Bell stage 2); and mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal bleeding.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (880 preterm infants). Four out of the 14 included studies were judged to have high risk of bias in one or more domains. Indomethacin administration was associated with a large reduction in failure of PDA closure within one week of administration of the first dose (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.38; risk difference (RD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.45; 10 studies, 654 infants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the incidence of BPD (BPD defined as supplemental oxygen need at 28 days' postnatal age: RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.51; 1 study, 55 infants; low-certainty evidence; BPD defined as supplemental oxygen need at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.55; 1 study, 92 infants; low-certainty evidence) and probably little to no difference in mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.33; 8 studies, 314 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) with use of indomethacin for symptomatic PDA. No differences were demonstrated in the need for surgical PDA ligation (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.29; 7 studies, 275 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), in NEC (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.55; 2 studies, 147 infants; low-certainty evidence), or in mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.58; 2 studies, 119 infants; low-certainty evidence) with use of indomethacin compared to placebo or no treatment. Certainty of evidence for BPD, surgical PDA ligation, NEC, and mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal bleeding was downgraded for very serious or serious imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence shows that indomethacin is effective in closing a symptomatic PDA compared to placebo or no treatment in preterm infants. Evidence is insufficient regarding effects of indomethacin on other clinically relevant outcomes and medication-related adverse effects.

Follow-through care for high-risk infants during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned from the Vermont Oxford Network

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the delivery of follow-up care for high-risk infants. We performed an audit to characterize programmatic responses in a quality improvement network.

STUDY DESIGN

We audited 43 North American-based follow-up programs of the Vermont Oxford Network Extremely Low Birth Weight Follow-up Study Group in October, 2020. Our electronic survey included yes/no, agree/disagree, and free text response items.

RESULT

The response rate was 67.4%. Most programs altered capacity and the timing, frequency, or content of clinical assessments. Most perceived practice changes compromised their ability to ascertain infants' medical and developmental needs. There was a rapid uptake of telemedicine services. Despite challenges with implementation, many endorsed improved connectedness with families.

CONCLUSION

Programs adapted rapidly to meet the needs of high-risk infants during the pandemic. Clinical operations, assessment procedures, and quality metrics will also need to evolve. Quality improvement study group collaboratives are well-positioned to coordinate such work.

Non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of substance use, both prescribed and non-prescribed, is increasing in many areas of the world. Substance use by women of childbearing age contributes to increasing rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) is a newer term describing the subset of NAS related to opioid exposure. Non-pharmacological care is the first-line treatment for substance withdrawal in newborns. Despite the widespread use of non-pharmacological care to mitigate symptoms of NAS, there is not an established definition of, and standard for, non-pharmacological care practices in this population. Evaluation of safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological practices could provide clear guidance for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological treatment of infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal on the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment for symptom management. Comparison 1: in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal, does non-pharmacological treatment reduce the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment? Comparison 2: in infants receiving pharmacological treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal, does concurrent non-pharmacological treatment reduce duration of pharmacological treatment, maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication, and length of hospitalization?

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; and CINAHL on 11 October 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials comparing single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions to no non-pharmacological treatment or different single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions. We assessed non-pharmacological interventions independently and in combination based on sufficient similarity in population, intervention, and comparison groups studied. We categorized non-pharmacological interventions as: modifying environmental stimulation, feeding practices, and support of the mother-infant dyad. We presented non-randomized studies identified in the search process narratively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization and pharmacological treatment with one or more doses of opioid or sedative medication. Primary outcomes in infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization, length of pharmacological treatment with opioid or sedative medication, and maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs (353 infants) in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated between 1975 and 2018. We identified no RCTs in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low to low. We also identified and excluded 34 non-randomized studies published between 2005 and 2018, including 29 in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated and five in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. We identified seven preregistered interventional clinical trials that may qualify for inclusion at review update when complete. Of the six RCTs, four studies assessed modifying environmental stimulation in the form of a mechanical rocking bed, prone positioning, non-oscillating waterbed, or a low-stimulation nursery; one study assessed feeding practices (comparing 24 kcal/oz to 20 kcal/oz formula); and one study assessed support of the maternal-infant dyad (tailored breastfeeding support). There was no evidence of a difference in length of hospitalization in the one study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation (mean difference [MD) -1 day, 95% confidence interval [CI) -2.82 to 0.82; 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and the one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (MD -8.9 days, 95% CI -19.84 to 2.04; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies of feeding practices evaluated the length of hospitalization. There was no evidence of a difference in use of pharmacological treatment in three studies of modifying environmental stimulation (typical risk ratio [RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 92 infants; low-certainty evidence), one study of feeding practices (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.33; 49 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Reported secondary outcomes included neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, days to regain birth weight, and weight nadir. One study of support of the maternal-infant dyad reported NICU admission (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study of feeding practices reported days to regain birth weight (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI 2.76 to 0.56; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation reported weight nadir (MD -0.28, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.59; 194 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and one study of feeding practices reported weight nadir (MD -0.8, 95% CI -2.24 to 0.64; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns affects important clinical outcomes including length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment based on the six included studies. The outcomes identified for this review were of very low- to low-certainty evidence. Combined analysis was limited by heterogeneity in study design and intervention definitions as well as the number of studies. Many prespecified outcomes were not reported. Although caregivers are encouraged by experts to optimize non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns prior to initiating pharmacological care, we do not have sufficient evidence to inform specific clinical practices. Larger well-designed studies are needed to determine the effect of non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns.

How Often Are Patient-Important Outcomes Represented in Neonatal Randomized Controlled Trials? An Analysis of Cochrane Neonatal Reviews

BACKGROUND

Research findings based on patient-important outcomes (PIOs) provide more useful conclusions than those that are based on surrogate outcomes. It is unclear to what extent PIOs are represented in neonatal randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews.

METHODS

We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management.

RESULTS

Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year).

CONCLUSIONS

The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.

The Choice of Population and Outcomes in Neonatal Trials on Hyperbilirubinemia: Are They Relevant? An Analysis of Cochrane Neonatal Reviews

BACKGROUND

Neonates with jaundice are usually managed according to their serum bilirubin despite an unclear overall correlation between bilirubin levels and patient-important outcomes (PIOs) such as kernicterus spectrum disorder (KSD).

OBJECTIVES

We examined data from Cochrane Neonatal reviews to assess whether conditions that constituted KSD were included as key outcomes and how commonly they occurred in the population studied.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews, published till November 2017 that evaluated interventions for neonatal jaundice (NNJ). We extracted the following information at the review and study levels: included population, outcomes assessed (in particular, whether PIOs such as KSD were listed as the primary outcomes), as well as their cumulative incidence in the reviews.

RESULTS

Out of 311 reviews, 11 evaluated interventions for NNJ with 78 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included. Among the reviews, a total number of 148 outcomes were predefined and 30 (20.3%) were PIOs related to KSD, with 11 (36.7%) listed as primary outcomes. Among the 78 included RCTs (total participants = 8,232), 38 (48.7%) enrolled predominantly high-risk and 40 (51.3%) enrolled predominantly low-risk population. A total number of 431 outcomes were reported, and 40 (9.2%) were PIOs related to KSD (of which 37 were from studies with high-risk infants), with 13 (32.5%) listed as primary outcome. Cumulatively, no infant developed KSD across all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is suboptimal representation of PIOs such as KSD in neonatal trials and Cochrane reviews on NNJ. Over half of the trials included populations with very low risk of KSD, which does not represent judicious use of resources. Amidst our continued search for a more reliable surrogate marker for NNJ, studies should evaluate the whole spectrum KSD alongside serum bilirubin in high-risk populations with sufficiently significant event rates, as this will make the trial methodologically feasible, with findings that will impact the population concerned.

The relationship between patient safety and quality improvement in neonatology

Patient safety and healthcare quality have become foundational components of neonatal care, and hospitals and neonatal intensive care units have developed robust programs and structures committed to improving outcomes through rigorous quality improvement methods. Despite increasingly more sophisticated frameworks for defining and understanding quality, the relationship between patient safety and health care quality is not clearly defined. Safety is often defined as the avoidance of injury and harm, while quality is typically defined as achieving the best possible health care outcomes. Safety can be considered one of multiple domains of quality, and safety can also be considered synonymous with quality. Regardless, both safety and quality are driven by systems of care, and improvement methods should focus on understanding and improving these systems. While many improvement methods will apply to safety goals or quality goals, there are unique aspects of patient safety that require specific tools and approaches. Achieving the safest and highest quality healthcare for our patients and families requires an understanding of the tools needed to improve both safety and quality.

Lipid emulsions for parenterally fed term and late preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Lipid emulsions (LE) form a vital component of infant nutrition for critically ill, late preterm or term infants, particularly for those with gastrointestinal failure. Conventionally used soybean oil-based LE (S-LE) have high polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content and phytosterols, which may contribute to adverse effects including parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease (PNALD).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of all LE for parenteral nutrition (PN) in term and late preterm infants (between 34 weeks' gestation and 36 weeks' and six days' gestation) with or without surgical conditions or PNALD within first six months of life, using all possible direct comparisons.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 June 2018), Embase (1974 to 18 June 2018), CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2018), MIDRIS (1971 to 31 May 2018), conference proceedings, trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO's Trials Registry), and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies in term and late preterm infants, with or without surgical conditions or PNALD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis conformed to the methods of Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for important outcomes in addition to reporting the conventional statistical significance of results.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included nine randomised studies (n = 273). LE were classified in three broad groups: 1. all fish oil-containing LE including pure fish oil (F-LE) and multisource LE (e.g. medium-chain triglycerides (MCT)-olive-fish-soybean oil-LE (MOFS-LE), MCT-fish-soy oil-LE (MFS-LE) and olive-fish-soy-LE (OFS-LE)); 2. conventional pure S-LE; 3. alternative-LE (e.g. MCT-soy-LE (MS-LE), olive-soy-LE (OS-LE) and borage oil-based LE).We considered four broad comparisons: 1. all fish oil LE versus non-fish oil LE (6 studies; n = 182); 2. fish oil LE versus another fish oil LE (0 studies); 3. alternative-LE versus S-LE (3 studies; n = 91); 4. alternative-LE versus another alternative-LE (0 studies) in term and late preterm infants (0 studies), term and late preterm infants with surgical conditions (7 studies; n = 233) and term and late preterm infants with PNALD/cholestasis (2 studies; n = 40).PNALD/cholestasis was defined as conjugated bilirubin (Cbil) 2 mg/dL or greater and resolution of PNALD/cholestasis as Cbil less than 2 mg/dL. We put no restriction on timing of PNALD detection. There was heterogeneity in definitions and time points for detecting PNALD in the included studies.We found one study each in surgical infants and in infants with cholestasis, showing no evidence of difference in incidence or resolution of PNALD/cholestasis (Cbil cut-off: 2 mg/dL) with use of fish oil-containing LE compared to S-LE.We considered an outcome allowing for any definition of PNALD (different Cbil cut-off levels). In infants with surgical conditions and no pre-existing PNALD, meta-analysis showed no difference in the incidence of PNALD/cholestasis (any definition) with use of fish oil-containing LE compared to S-LE (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 3.76; typical risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.20; 2 studies; n = 68; low-quality evidence). In infants with PNALD/cholestasis (any definition), use of fish oil-LEs was associated with significantly less cholestasis compared to the S-LE group (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.91; typical risk difference (RD) -0.39, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.12; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 9; 2 studies; n = 40; very low-quality evidence). This outcome had very low number of participants from two small studies with differences in study methodology and early termination in one study, which increased uncertainty about the effect estimates.One study in infants with cholestasis reported significantly better weight gain with a pure fish oil LE compared to a 10% S-LE (45 g/week, 95% CI 15.0 to 75.0; n = 16; very low-quality evidence). There were no significant differences in growth parameters in studies with surgical populations.For the secondary outcomes, in infants with cholestasis, one study (n = 24) reported significantly lower conjugated bilirubin levels but higher gamma glutamyl transferase levels with MOFS-LE (SMOFlipid) versus S-LE (Intralipid) and another study (n = 16), which was terminated early, reported significantly higher rates of rise in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and conjugated bilirubin levels in the S-LE group compared to pure F-LE (Omegaven).In surgical infants, two studies each reported on hypertriglyceridaemia and Cbil levels with one study in each outcome showing significant benefit with use of a F-LE and the other study showing no difference between the groups. Meta-analysis was not performed for either of these outcomes as there were only two studies showing conflicting results with high heterogeneity between the studies.There was no evidence of differences in death, sepsis, alkaline phosphatase and ALT levels in infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis (very low-quality evidence).One study reported neurodevelopmental outcomes at six and 24 months in infants with surgical conditions (n = 11) with no evidence of difference with use of pure F-LE versus S-LE. Another study in infants with cholestasis (n = 16) reported no difference in head growth velocity between pure F-LE versus S-LE.GRADE quality of evidence ranged from low to very low as the included studies were small single-centre studies. Three of the six studies that contributed data to the review were terminated early for various reasons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current review, there is insufficient data from randomised studies to determine with any certainty, the potential benefit of any LE including fish oil-containing LEs over another LE, for prevention or resolution of PNALD/cholestasis or any other outcomes in term and late preterm infants with underlying surgical conditions or cholestasis. There were no studies in infants without surgical conditions or cholestasis.Further research is required to establish role of fish oil or lipids from other sources in LEs to improve PNALD/cholestasis, and other clinical outcomes in parenterally fed term and late preterm infants.

Lipid emulsions for parenterally fed preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Conventionally used soybean oil-based lipid emulsion (S-LE) have high polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content and phytosterols that may contribute to adverse effects in preterm infants. The newer lipid emulsions (LE) from different lipid sources are currently available for use in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of all LE for parenteral nutrition (PN) in preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) including preterm infants with surgical conditions or parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease (PNALD)/cholestasis using direct comparisons and pair-wise meta-analyses.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 June 2018), Embase (1974 to 18 July 2018), CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2018), MIDRIS (1971 to 31 May 2018), conference proceedings, trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO's Trials Registry and Platform), and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies in preterm infants with or without surgical conditions or PNALD within the first six months of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis conformed to the methods of Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for important outcomes in addition to reporting statistical significance of results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (n = 2037) in this review. LE were classified in three broad groups: 1. all fish oil-containing LE including pure fish oil-LE (F-LE) and multisource LE (e.g. medium-chain triglycerides (MCT)-olive-fish-soybean oil-LE (MOFS-LE), MCT-fish-soybean oil-LE (MFS-LE) and olive-fish-soybean oil-LE (OFS-LE); 2. conventional S-LE; 3. alternative-LE (e.g. MCT-soybean oil-LE (MS-LE), olive-soybean oil-LE and borage oil-based LE).We considered the following broad comparisons: fish oil LE versus non-fish oil LE; fish oil LE versus another fish oil LE; alternative-LE versus S-LE; alternative-LE versus another alternative-LE in preterm infants less than 37 weeks' gestation, preterm infants with surgical conditions and preterm infants with PNALD/cholestasis. Separate subgroup comparisons of each LE preparation were included within these broader groups.Most studies in preterm infants used PN for mean duration of four weeks or less and for longer duration in infants with cholestasis or surgical conditions.We defined the primary outcome of PNALD/cholestasis as conjugated bilirubin (Cbil) 2 mg/dL or greater and resolution of PNALD/cholestasis as Cbil less than 2 mg/dL. There was heterogeneity in definitions used by the included studies with Cbil cut-offs ranging from 17.1 μmol/L (1 mg/dL) up to 50 μmol/L (about 3 mg/dL).In preterm infants, meta-analysis found no evidence of a difference in the incidence of PNALD/cholestasis (Cbil cut-off: 2 mg/dl) between fish oil-LEs and all non-fish oil LEs (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.56; typical risk difference (RD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.02; 4 studies; n = 328; low-quality evidence).We also considered an outcome allowing for any definition of PNALD (different Cbil cutoffs). In the meta-analysis for PNALD/cholestasis, using any definition and restricted to low or unclear risk of bias studies, there was no evidence of a difference between fish oil LE and all non-fish oil LE for incidence of cholestasis (typical RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.21; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; 10 studies; n = 1024; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of difference in subgroup meta-analyses of individual LE types in any comparison.In preterm infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis, there was only one small study each reporting no evidence of a difference in incidence or resolution of cholestasis respectively with use of a pure F-LE versus S-LE (using a Cbil cut-off of 2 mg/dL).In preterm infants with PNALD/cholestasis (using any definition), the meta-analysis showed significantly less cholestasis with the use of fish oil-LE compared to S-LE (typical RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.91; typical RD -0.39, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 9; 2 studies; n = 40; very low-quality evidence). However, this outcome had a very low number of participants from two small studies with methodological differences, one of which was terminated early, increasing the uncertainty about effect estimates.There were no differences between LE types in pair-wise meta-analyses for growth in preterm infants. There was paucity of studies in preterm infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis to perform meta-analyses for growth and most other outcomes.In the secondary outcomes for preterm infants, there was no difference between fish-oil LE and non-fish oil LE in meta-analysis for severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (stage 3 or greater, or requiring surgery: typical RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.16; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 7 studies; n = 731; very low-quality evidence). There were no differences in the LE types in pair-wise meta-analyses for death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), ventilation duration, patent ductus arteriosus, sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, jaundice, hyperglycaemia, hypertriglyceridaemia, intrahepatocellular lipid content and conjugated bilirubin levels in any comparison.In surgical infants, one study (n = 19) reported no differences in death, sepsis rates, Cbil and neurodevelopmental outcomes with pure F-LE versus S-LE.In infants with cholestasis, there were no evidence of differences in death or sepsis in meta-analyses between fish oil-LE and S-LE; (2 studies; n = 40; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the current review, we did not find any particular LE with or without fish oil to be better than another LE in preterm infants for prevention of PNALD/cholestasis, growth, mortality, ROP, BPD and other neonatal outcomes.In preterm infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis, there is currently insufficient evidence from randomised studies to determine with any certainty if fish oil LEs offer advantage in prevention or resolution of cholestasis or in any other clinical outcome.Further research, with larger well-designed trials, is warranted to evaluate the ideal composition of LE in preterm infants and the role of fish oil-containing and other LEs in the prevention and resolution of PNALD, ROP and other clinical outcomes.

Are Neonatal Trials Better Conducted and Reported over the Last 6 Decades? An Analysis on Their Risk-of-Bias Status in Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

The introduction of Neonatology as a subspecialty in 1960 has stimulated an enormous amount of neonatal research. A large proportion of neonatal randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) have been included in the Cochrane reviews, within which methodological quality or risk-of-bias (ROB) assessment is an integral feature.

OBJECTIVES

We described the ROB profile of neonatal RCTs published since the 1950s.

METHODS

We analyzed individual studies within the Cochrane Neonatal reviews published up to December 2016. We extracted the reviewers' judgments on the ROB domains including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. We evaluated blinding of personnel in trials in which blinding was considered feasible.

RESULTS

We assessed 1980 RCTs published between 1952 and 2016 from 294 Cochrane Neonatal systematic reviews, with full ROB assessments performed in 848 trials (42.8%). Among the ROB domains, the highest proportion of trials (73%) were judged as satisfactory ("low risk") in handling incomplete outcome data, while fewest trials achieved blinding of outcome assessor (38.4%). In the last 6 decades, a progressive increase has been observed in the proportion of trials that were rated as low risk in random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting. However, blinding was achieved in less than half of the trials with no clear improvement across decades (23-44% since the 1980s).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite steady improvement in the overall quality of neonatal RCTs over the last 6 decades, blinding remained unsatisfactory in the majority of the trials.

Maternal probiotic supplementation for prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Inflammation may contribute to preterm birth and to morbidity of preterm infants. Preterm infants are at risk for alterations in the normal protective microbiome. Oral probiotics administered directly to preterm infants have been shown to decrease the risk for severe necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) as well as the risk of death, but there are safety concerns about administration of probiotics directly to preterm infants. Through decreasing maternal inflammation, probiotics may play a role in preventing preterm birth and/or decreasing the inflammatory milieu surrounding delivery of preterm infants, and may alter the microbiome of the preterm infant when given to mothers during pregnancy. Probiotics given to mothers after birth of preterm infants may effect infant bacterial colonization, which could potentially reduce the incidence of NEC.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the efficacy of maternal probiotic administration versus placebo or no intervention in mothers during pregnancy for the prevention of preterm birth and the prevention of morbidity and mortality of infants born preterm.2. To compare the efficacy of maternal probiotic administration versus placebo, no intervention, or neonatal probiotic administration in mothers of preterm infants after birth on the prevention of mortality and preterm infant morbidities such as NEC.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 21 March 2017), Embase (1980 to 21 March 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 21 March 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials in the review if they administered oral probiotics to pregnant mothers at risk for preterm birth, or to mothers of preterm infants after birth. Quasi-randomized trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. Studies enrolling pregnant women needed to administer probiotics at < 36 weeks' gestation until the trimester of birth. Probiotics considered were of the genera Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium or Saccharomyces.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and Cochrane Neonatal to determine the methodologic quality of studies, and for data collection and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 eligible trials with a total of 1450 mothers and 1204 known infants. Eleven trials administered probiotics to mothers during pregnancy and one trial administered probiotics to mothers after birth of their preterm infants. No studies compared maternal probiotic administration directly with neonatal administration. Included prenatal trials were highly variable in the indication for the trial, the gestational age and duration of administration of probiotics, as well as the dose and formulation of the probiotics. The pregnant women included in these trials were overall at low risk for preterm birth. In a meta-analysis of trial data, oral probiotic administration to pregnant women did not reduce the incidence of preterm birth < 37 weeks (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 2.67; 4 studies, 518 mothers and 506 infants), < 34 weeks (typical risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 2 studies, 287 mothers and infants), the incidence of infant mortality (typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 2 studies, 309 mothers and 298 infants), or the gestational age at birth (mean difference (MD) 0.15, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.63; 2 studies, 209 mothers with 207 infants).One trial studied administration of probiotics to mothers after preterm birth and included 49 mothers and 58 infants. There were no significant differences in the risk of any NEC (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.46; 1 study, 58 infants), surgery for NEC (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.58; 1 study, 58 infants), death (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.88; 1 study, 58 infants), and death or NEC (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.49; 1 study, 58 infants). There was an improvement in time to reach 50% enteral feeds in infants whose mothers received probiotics, but the estimate is imprecise (MD -9.60 days, 95% CI -19.04 to -0.16 days; 58 infants). No other improvement in any neonatal outcomes were reported. The estimates were imprecise and do not exclude the possibility of meaningful harms or benefits from maternal probiotic administration. There were no cases of culture-proven sepsis with the probiotic organism. The GRADE quality of evidence was judged to be low to very low due to inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether there is appreciable benefit or harm to neonates of either oral supplementation of probiotics administered to pregnant women at low risk for preterm birth or oral supplementation of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants after birth. Oral supplementation of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants after birth may decrease time to 50% enteral feeds, however, this estimate is extremely imprecise. More research is needed for post-natal administration of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants, as well as to pregnant mothers at high risk for preterm birth.

Surfactant therapy guided by tests for lung maturity in preterm infants at risk of respiratory distress syndrome

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency in preterm infants at risk for or having RDS.

Comparison 1: In preterm infants at risk for RDS, does surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency compared to prophylactic surfactant administration to all high‐risk infants minimize the need for surfactant treatment and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality?

Comparison 2: In preterm infants who require early respiratory support, does surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency compared to surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria minimize the need for surfactant treatment and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality?

Planned subgroup analysis: gestational age, disease severity, timing of testing and treatment, surfactant preparation, exposure to antenatal steroids.

Lipid emulsions for parenterally fed preterm infants

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

The primary objective is to compare the effectiveness and safety of lipid formulations from different sources, including soybean oil‐based, multicomponent, olive oil‐based, and fish oil–based, in parenterally fed preterm infants.

The secondary objective is to determine the effectiveness and safety of alternative lipid emulsions compared with soybean oil‐based lipid emulsions in relation to gestational age (less than 30 weeks' gestation; 30 weeks' gestation or more), birth weight (1000 grams or less; more than 1000 grams), clinical condition (surgical patients, patients with established cholestasis).

Variability of Very Low Birth Weight Infant Outcome and Practice in Swiss and US Neonatal Units

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes of very preterm infants vary considerably between health care facilities. Our objective was to compare outcome and practices between the Swiss Neonatal Network (SNN) and US members of the Vermont Oxford Network (US-VON).

METHODS

Retrospective observational study including all live-born infants with a birth weight between 501 and 1500 g as registered by SNN and US-VON between 2012 and 2014. We performed multivariable and propensity score-matched analyses of neonatal outcome by adjusting for case-mix, race, prenatal care, and unit-level factors, and compared indirectly standardized practices.

RESULTS

A total of 123 689 infants were born alive in 696 US-VON units and 2209 infants were born alive in 13 SNN units. Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) for the composite "death or major morbidity" (aRR: 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.62) and all other outcomes were either comparable or lower in SNN except for mortality, for which aRR was higher (aRR: 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.50). Propensity score matching and restricting the analysis to infants for which we expect no survival bias, because both networks routinely initiate intensive care at birth, revealed comparable aRR. Variations in observed practices between SNN and US-VON were large.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNN units had a significantly lower risk ratio for death or major morbidity. Despite higher mortality, this difference is independent of survival bias. The higher delivery room mortality reflects the SNN practice to favor primary nonintervention for infants born <24 completed gestational weeks. We propose further research into which practice differences have the strongest beneficial impact.

Prophylactic vitamin K for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding in preterm neonates

BACKGROUND

Vitamin K is necessary for the synthesis of coagulation factors. Term infants, especially those who are exclusively breast fed, are deficient in vitamin K and consequently may have vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). Preterm infants are potentially at greater risk for VKDB because of delayed feeding and subsequent delay in the colonization of their gastrointestinal system with vitamin K producing microflora, as well as immature hepatic and hemostatic function.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of vitamin K prophylaxis in the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 5 December 2016), Embase (1980 to 5 December 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 5 December 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any preparation of vitamin K given to preterm infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated potential studies and extracted data in accordance with the recommendations of Cochrane Neonatal.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any eligible studies that compared vitamin K to no treatment.One study compared intravenous (IV) to intramuscular (IM) administration of vitamin K and compared various dosages of vitamin K. Three different prophylactic regimes of vitamin K (0.5 mg IM, 0.2 mg vitamin K₁, or 0.2 mg IV) were given to infants less than 32 weeks' gestation. Given that only one small study met the inclusion criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence for the outcomes evaluated as low.Intramuscular versus intravenousThere was no statistically significant difference in vitamin K levels in the 0.2 mg IV group when compared to the infants that received either 0.2 or 0.5 mg vitamin K IM (control) on day 5. By day 25, vitamin K₁ levels had declined in all of the groups, but infants who received 0.5 mg vitamin K IM had higher levels of vitamin K₁ than either the 0.2 mg IV group or the 0.2 mg IM group.Vitamin K₁ 2,3-epoxide (vitamin K₁O) levels in the infants that received 0.2 mg IV were not statistically different from those in the control group on day 5 or 25 of the study. All of the infants had normal or supraphysiologic levels of vitamin K₁ concentrations and either no detectable or insignificant amounts of prothrombin induced by vitamin K absence-II (PIVKA II).Dosage comparisonsDay 5 vitamin K₁ levels and vitamin K₁O levels were significantly lower in the 0.2 mg IM group when compared to the 0.5 mg IM group. On day 25, vitamin K₁O levels and vitamin K₁ levels in the 0.2 mg IM group and the 0.5 mg IM group were not significantly different. Presence of PIVKA II proteins in the 0.2 mg IM group versus the 0.5 mg IM group was not significantly different at day 5 or 25 of the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Preterm infants have low levels of vitamin K and develop detectable PIVKA proteins during the first week of life. Despite being at risk for VKDB, there are no studies comparing vitamin K versus non-treatment and few studies that address potential dosing strategies for effective treatment. Dosage studies suggest that we are currently giving doses of vitamin K to preterm infants that lead to supraphysiologic levels. Because of current uncertainty, clinicians will have to extrapolate data from term infants to preterm infants. Since there is no available evidence that vitamin K is harmful or ineffective and since vitamin K is an inexpensive drug, it seems prudent to follow the recommendations of expert bodies and give vitamin K to preterm infants. However, further research on appropriate dose and route of administration is warranted.

Delayed versus Immediate Cord Clamping in Preterm Infants

BACKGROUND

The preferred timing of umbilical-cord clamping in preterm infants is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned fetuses from women who were expected to deliver before 30 weeks of gestation to either immediate clamping of the umbilical cord (≤10 seconds after delivery) or delayed clamping (≥60 seconds after delivery). The primary composite outcome was death or major morbidity (defined as severe brain injury on postnatal ultrasonography, severe retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, or late-onset sepsis) by 36 weeks of postmenstrual age. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, accounting for multiple births.

RESULTS

Of 1634 fetuses that underwent randomization, 1566 were born alive before 30 weeks of gestation; of these, 782 were assigned to immediate cord clamping and 784 to delayed cord clamping. The median time between delivery and cord clamping was 5 seconds and 60 seconds in the respective groups. Complete data on the primary outcome were available for 1497 infants (95.6%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the primary outcome between infants assigned to delayed clamping (37.0%) and those assigned to immediate clamping (37.2%) (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.13; P=0.96). The mortality was 6.4% in the delayed-clamping group and 9.0% in the immediate-clamping group (P=0.03 in unadjusted analyses; P=0.39 after post hoc adjustment for multiple secondary outcomes). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidences of chronic lung disease or other major morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Among preterm infants, delayed cord clamping did not result in a lower incidence of the combined outcome of death or major morbidity at 36 weeks of gestation than immediate cord clamping. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] and the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre; APTS Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12610000633088 .).

Mesenchymal stem cells for the prevention and treatment of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains a major complication of prematurity and currently lacks efficient treatments. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) have been extensively explored as a potential therapy in several preclinical and clinical settings. Human and animal MSCs have been shown to prevent and treat lung injury in various preclinical models of lung diseases, including experimental BPD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if MSCs, administered intravenously or endotracheally, are safe and effective in preventing or treating BPD, or both, in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 6 November 2016), Embase (1980 to 6 November 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 6 November 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs investigating prevention or treatment of BPD, or both, in preterm infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality according to prespecified criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs addressing the use of MSCs for prevention or treatment of BPD in premature infants. Two RCTs are currently registered and ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of MSCs in the treatment or prevention of BPD in premature infants. The results of the ongoing trials addressing this issue are expected in the near future.

Do trials reduce uncertainty? Assessing impact through cumulative meta-analysis of neonatal RCTs

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of the latest randomized controlled trial (RCT) to each systematic review (SR) in Cochrane Neonatal Reviews.

STUDY DESIGN

We selected meta-analyses reporting the typical point estimate of the risk ratio for the primary outcome of the latest study (n=130), mortality (n=128) and the mean difference for the primary outcome (n=44). We employed cumulative meta-analysis to determine the typical estimate after each trial was added, and then performed multivariable logistic regression to determine factors predictive of study impact.

RESULTS

For the stated primary outcome, 18% of latest RCTs failed to narrow the confidence interval (CI), and 55% failed to decrease the CI by ⩾20%. Only 8% changed the typical estimate directionality, and 11% caused a change to or from significance. Latest RCTs did not change the typical estimate in 18% of cases, and only 41% changed the typical estimate by at least 10%. The ability to narrow the CI by >20% was negatively associated with the number of previously published RCTs (odds ratio 0.707). Similar results were found in analysis of typical estimates for the outcomes of mortality and mean difference.

CONCLUSION

Across a broad range of clinical questions, the latest RCT failed to substantially narrow the CI of the typical estimate, to move the effect estimate or to change its statistical significance in a majority of cases. Investigators and grant peer review committees should consider prioritizing less-studied topics or requiring formal consideration of optimal information size based on extant evidence in power calculations.

Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are key tools to enable decision making by healthcare providers and policymakers. Despite the availability of the evidence based Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-P 2015) statements that were developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting of systematic reviews, uncertainty on how to deal with pediatric-specific methodological challenges of systematic reviews impairs decision-making in child health. In this paper, we identify methodological challenges specific to the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric systematic reviews, and propose a process to address these challenges.

DISCUSSION

One fundamental decision at the outset of a systematic review is whether to focus on a pediatric population only, or to include both adult and pediatric populations. Both from the policy and patient care point of view, the appropriateness of interventions and comparators administered to pre-defined pediatric age subgroup is critical. Decisions need to be based on the biological plausibility of differences in treatment effects across the developmental trajectory in children. Synthesis of evidence from different trials is often impaired by the use of outcomes and measurement instruments that differ between trials and are neither relevant nor validated in the pediatric population. Other issues specific to pediatric systematic reviews include lack of pediatric-sensitive search strategies and inconsistent choices of pediatric age subgroups in meta-analyses. In addition to these methodological issues generic to all pediatric systematic reviews, special considerations are required for reviews of health care interventions' safety and efficacy in neonatology, global health, comparative effectiveness interventions and individual participant data meta-analyses. To date, there is no standard approach available to overcome this problem. We propose to develop a consensus-based checklist of essential items which researchers should consider when they are planning (PRISMA-PC-Protocol for Children) or reporting (PRISMA-C-reporting for Children) a pediatric systematic review. Available guidelines including PRISMA do not cover the complexity associated with the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in the pediatric population; they require additional and modified standards for reporting items. Such guidance will facilitate the translation of knowledge from the literature to bedside care and policy, thereby enhancing delivery of care and improving child health outcomes.

Prophylactic barbiturate use for the prevention of morbidity and mortality following perinatal asphyxia

BACKGROUND

Seizures are common following perinatal asphyxia and may exacerbate secondary neuronal injury. Barbiturate therapy has been used for infants with perinatal asphyxia in order to prevent seizures. However, barbiturate therapy may adversely affect neurodevelopment leading to concern regarding aggressive use in neonates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of administering prophylactic barbiturate therapy on death or neurodevelopmental disability in term and late preterm infants following perinatal asphyxia.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 30 November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 30 November 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all RCTs or quasi-RCTs of prophylactic barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants without clinical or electroencephalographic evidence of seizures compared to controls following perinatal asphyxia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected, assessed the quality of, and extracted data from the included studies. We assessed methodologic quality and validity of studies without consideration of the results. The review authors independently extracted data and performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH).

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we identified nine RCTs of any barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants aged less than three days old with perinatal asphyxia without evidence of seizures. Eight of these studies compared prophylactic barbiturate therapy to conventional treatment (enrolling 439 infants) and one study compared barbiturate therapy to treatment with phenytoin (enrolling 17 infants). Prophylactic barbiturate therapy versus conventional treatment: one small trial reported a decreased risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental disability for barbiturate therapy (phenobarbital) versus conventional treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; RD -0.55, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 4; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).Eight trials comparing prophylactic barbiturate therapy with conventional treatment following perinatal asphyxia demonstrated no significant impact on the risk of death (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05; 8 trials, 429 infants) (low quality evidence) and the one small trial noted above reported a significant decrease in the risk of severe neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92; RD -0.43, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 8; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).A meta-analysis of the six trials reporting on seizures in the neonatal period demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in seizures in the prophylactic barbiturate group versus conventional treatment (typical RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81; typical RD -0.18, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.09; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 11; 6 studies, 319 infants) (low quality evidence). There were similar results in subgroup analyses based on type of barbiturate and Sarnat score. Prophylactic barbiturate therapy versus other prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy: one study reported on prophylactic barbiturate versus prophylactic phenytoin. There was no significant difference in seizure activity in the neonatal period between the two study groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00; 1 trial, 17 infants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found only low or very low quality evidence addressing the use of prophylactic barbiturates in infants with perinatal asphyxia. Although the administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy to infants following perinatal asphyxia did reduce the risk of seizures, there was no reduction seen in mortality and there were few data addressing long-term outcomes. The administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy for late preterm and term infants in the immediate period following perinatal asphyxia cannot be recommended for routine clinical practice. If used at all, barbiturates should be reserved for the treatment of seizures. The results of the current review support the use of prophylactic barbiturate therapy as a promising area of research. Future studies should be of sufficient size and duration to detect clinically important reductions in mortality and severe neurodevelopmental disability and should be conducted in the context of the current standard of care, including the use of therapeutic hypothermia.

PRISMA-Children (C) and PRISMA-Protocol for Children (P-C) Extensions: a study protocol for the development of guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of newborn and child health research

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric systematic reviews differ from adult systematic reviews in several key aspects such as considerations of child tailored interventions, justifiable comparators, valid outcomes and child sensitive search strategies. Available guidelines, including PRISMA-P (2015) and PRISMA (2009), do not cover all the complexities associated with reporting systematic reviews in the paediatric population. Using a collaborative, multidisciplinary structure, we aim to develop evidence-based and consensus-based PRISMA-P-C (Protocol for Children) and PRISMA-C (Children) Extensions to guide paediatric systematic review protocol and completed review reporting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This project's methodology follows published recommendations for developing reporting guidelines and involves the following six phases; (1) establishment of a steering committee representing key stakeholder groups; (2) a scoping review to identify potential Extension items; (3) three types of consensus activities including meetings of the steering committee to achieve high-level decisions on the content and methodology of the Extensions, a survey of key stakeholders to generate a list of possible items to include in the Extensions and a formal consensus meeting to select the reporting items to add to, or modify for, the Extension; (4) the preliminary checklist items generated in phase III will be evaluated against the existing evidence and reporting practices in paediatric systematic reviews; (5) extension statements and explanation and elaboration documents will provide detailed advice for each item and examples of good reporting; (6) development and implementation of effective knowledge translation of the extension checklist, and an evaluation of the Extensions by key stakeholders.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was considered a quality improvement project by the Hospital for Sick Children's Ethics Committee and did not require ethical review. The resultant checklists, jointly developed with all relevant stakeholders, will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conference presentations. Endorsement of the checklist will be sought simultaneously in multiple journals.