-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Apnea of prematurity is a common problem in preterm infants that may have significant consequences on their development. Methylxanthines (aminophylline, theophylline,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Doxapram; Apnea; Caffeine; Aminophylline; Infant, Premature; Lung Diseases
PubMed: 37877431
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014145.pub2 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2022QTc interval measurement is a widely used screening tool to assess the risk of cardiac diseases, arrhythmias, and is a useful biomarker for pharmacovigilance. However,... (Review)
Review
QTc interval measurement is a widely used screening tool to assess the risk of cardiac diseases, arrhythmias, and is a useful biomarker for pharmacovigilance. However, the interpretation of QTc is difficult in neonates due to hemodynamic maturational changes and uncertainties on reference values. To describe trends in QTc values throughout infancy (1 year of life), and to explore the impact of (non)-maturational changes and medicines exposure, a structured systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022302296) was performed. In term neonates, a decrease was observed over the first week of life, whereafter values increased until two months of age, followed by a progressive decrease until six months. A similar pattern with longer QTc values was observed in preterms. QTc is influenced by cord clamping, hemodynamic changes, therapeutic hypothermia, illnesses and sleep, not by sex. Cisapride, domperidone and doxapram result in QTc prolongation in neonates. Further research in this age category is needed to improve primary screening practices and QTcthresholds, earlier detection of risk factors and precision pharmacovigilance.
PubMed: 36421220
DOI: 10.3390/children9111771 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Oct 2023Shivering is a common side effect after general anesthesia. Risk factors are hypothermia, young age and postoperative pain. Severe complications of shivering are rare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Shivering is a common side effect after general anesthesia. Risk factors are hypothermia, young age and postoperative pain. Severe complications of shivering are rare but can occur due to increased oxygen consumption. Previous systematic reviews are outdated and have summarized the evidence on the topic using only pairwise comparisons. The objective of this manuscript was a quantitative synthesis of evidence on pharmacological interventions to treat postanesthetic shivering.
EVIDENCE ACQUSITION
Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using the R package netmeta. Endpoints were the risk ratio (RR) of persistent shivering at one, five and 10 minutes after treatment with saline/placebo as the comparator. Data were retrieved from Medline, Embase, Central and Web of Science up to January 2022. Eligibility criteria were: randomized, controlled, and blinded trials comparing pharmacological interventions to treat shivering after general anesthesia. Studies on shivering during or after any type of regional anesthesia were excluded as well as sedated patients after cardiac surgery.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Thirty-two trials were eligible for data synthesis, including 28 pharmacological interventions. The largest network included 1431 patients. The network geometry was two-centered with most comparisons linked to saline/placebo or pethidine. The best interventions were after one minute: doxapram 2 mg/kg, tramadol 2 mg/kg and nefopam 10 mg, after 5 minutes: tramadol 2 mg/kg, nefopam 10 mg and clonidine 150 µg and after 10 minutes: nefopam 10 mg, methylphenidate 20 mg and tramadol 1 mg/kg, all reaching statistical significance. Pethidine 25 mg and clonidine 75 µg also performed well and with statistical significance in all networks.
CONCLUSIONS
Nefopam, tramadol, pethidine and clonidine are the most effective treatments to stop postanesthetic shivering. The efficacy of doxapram is uncertain since different doses showed contradictory effects and the evidence for methylphenidate is based on a single comparison in only one network. Furthermore, both lack data on side effects. Further studies are needed to clarify the efficacy of dexmedetomidine to treat postanesthetic shivering.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Shivering; Nefopam; Clonidine; Tramadol; Network Meta-Analysis; Doxapram; Meperidine; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 37458681
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.23.17410-4 -
Animals : An Open Access Journal From... Mar 2020Anaesthetic drugs are commonly used during the evaluation of laryngeal function in dogs. The aim of this review was to systematically analyse the literature describing... (Review)
Review
Anaesthetic drugs are commonly used during the evaluation of laryngeal function in dogs. The aim of this review was to systematically analyse the literature describing the effects of anaesthetic drugs and doxapram on laryngeal motion in dogs and to determine which drug regime provides the best conditions for laryngeal examination. PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE databases were used for the literature search up to November 2019. Relevant search terms included laryngeal motion, anaesthetic drugs and dogs. Studies were scored based on their level of evidence (LoE), according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, and the quality was assessed using the risk-of-bias tool and SIGN-checklist. In healthy dogs, premedication before laryngeal examination provided better examination conditions and maintained overall adequate laryngeal motion in 83% of the studies. No difference in laryngeal motion between induction drugs was found in 73% of the studies but the effects in dogs with laryngeal paralysis remain largely unknown. Doxapram increased laryngeal motion in healthy dogs without serious side effects, but intubation was necessary for some dogs with laryngeal paralysis. Methodological characteristics varied considerably between studies, including the technique and timing of evaluation, number of assessors, study design, drug dose, combinations, route and speed of administration.
PubMed: 32235700
DOI: 10.3390/ani10030530 -
Paediatric Drugs Aug 2020Caffeine is a common treatment for neonatal intensive care management of the developmental complication of apnea of prematurity in preterm infants. There are several...
BACKGROUND
Caffeine is a common treatment for neonatal intensive care management of the developmental complication of apnea of prematurity in preterm infants. There are several systematic reviews (SRs) on the performance of caffeine in the treatment of apnea. The evidence provided by those, however, is depressed by an information overload due to high heterogeneity in the characteristics as well as the quality of these SRs.
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to provide a systematic overview of SRs on the use of caffeine for the management of neonatal apnea. Such overviews are a recent method used to assess and filter top evidence among SRs, enabling enhanced access to targeted information of interest.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted via EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and PubMed since inception to January 2020. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and data extraction, and assessed the quality of methods and the risk of bias in included SRs based on A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tools. Extracted data related to study type, characteristics, patients, intervention, comparator, regimen, and outcome measures.
RESULTS
Seven SRs with meta-analyses (SRMAs) were included in the current overview, involving a total of 63,315 neonates. SRMAs included randomized clinical and observational studies, with various types of patients, comparators, and outcomes. The quality of SRMAs ranged from critically low (n = 1), low (n = 1), moderate (n = 2), to high (n = 3), and the risk of bias was unclear (n = 2), low (n = 4), and high (n = 1). The effectiveness of caffeine with regard to treatment success and the rate of apnea was not significantly different from that of theophylline or doxapram in two SRMAs. Against control, in one SRMA, while caffeine reduced the rate of failure as well as the need for pressure ventilation, it did not significantly reduce mortality. This comparative effectiveness of caffeine was based on high-quality SRMAs with a low risk of bias. The effectiveness against apnea seems to be enhanced via the administration of early (0-2 days) or high doses of caffeine in one and three SRMAs, respectively. This, nevertheless, was based on lower-quality SRMAs with a higher risk of bias. Safety outcomes were mostly based on comparative SRMAs of different drug regimens, whereby, less tachycardia and lower risk for complications were reported with lower and earlier caffeine administrations, respectively. The evidence behind this, however, was limited in quantity and quality.
CONCLUSION
While limited in quantity, there is evidence of non-inferior effectiveness of caffeine against other methylxanthines or doxapram for the management of apnea in neonates. Owing to the limited quality, however, limited evidence exists in support of an optimal administration regimen for caffeine. Further controlled studies are, therefore, needed to confirm the comparative usefulness of caffeine as well as to assess its different potential regimens, including in relation to safety.
Topics: Apnea; Caffeine; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Theophylline; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32488731
DOI: 10.1007/s40272-020-00404-4