-
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 -
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 -
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 -
Neonatology 2017Apnea of prematurity (AOP) is a common complication of preterm birth, for which caffeine is the first treatment of choice. In case of persistent AOP, doxapram has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Apnea of prematurity (AOP) is a common complication of preterm birth, for which caffeine is the first treatment of choice. In case of persistent AOP, doxapram has been advocated as an additional therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To identify and appraise all existing evidence regarding efficacy and safety of doxapram use for AOP in infants born before 34 weeks of gestational age.
METHODS
All studies reporting on doxapram use for AOP were identified by searching electronic databases, references from relevant studies, and abstracts from the Societies for Pediatric Research. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality, and extracted data on study design, patient characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes.
RESULTS
The randomized controlled trials showed less apnea during doxapram treatment when compared to placebo, but no difference in treatment effect when compared to theophylline. No serious adverse effects were reported. We identified 28 observational studies consisting mainly of cohort studies and case series (n = 1,994). There was considerable heterogeneity in study design and quality. Most studies reported a positive effect of doxapram on apnea rate. A few studies reported on long-term outcomes with conflicting results. A range of possible doxapram-related short-term adverse effects were reported, sometimes associated with the use of higher doses.
CONCLUSION
Based on the limited number of studies and level of evidence, no firm conclusions on the efficacy and safety of doxapram in preterm infants can be drawn. For this reason, routine use cannot be recommended. A large multicenter randomized controlled trial is urgently needed to provide more conclusive evidence.
Topics: Apnea; Caffeine; Doxapram; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory System Agents; Theophylline
PubMed: 27760427
DOI: 10.1159/000448941 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000When preterm infants have been given intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) for respiratory failure, weaning from support and tracheal extubation may be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
When preterm infants have been given intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) for respiratory failure, weaning from support and tracheal extubation may be difficult. A significant contributing factor is thought to be the relatively poor respiratory effort and tendency to develop hypoventilation and apnea, particularly in very preterm infants. Doxapram stimulates breathing and appears to act via stimulation of both the peripheral chemoreceptors and the central nervous system. This effect might increase the chance of successful tracheal extubation.
OBJECTIVES
In preterm infants being weaned from IPPV and in whom endotracheal extubation is planned, does treatment with doxapram reduce the use of intubation and IPPV, or reduce other morbidity, without clinically important side effects? In this regard, how does doxapram compare with standard treatment or with an alternative treatment such as methylxanthine or CPAP? Subgroup analyses were prespecified according to birth weight and/or gestational age, use of co-interventions (methylxanthines or nasal CPAP), and route of administration (intravenous or oral).
SEARCH STRATEGY
The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group as outlined in the Cochrane Library was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies included published trials utilising random or quasi-random patient allocation in which preterm or low birth weight infants being weaned from IPPV were given doxapram compared with standard care or other treatments, to facilitate weaning from IPPV and endotracheal extubation. Trials were independently assessed by the authors before inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group were used. Each author extracted data separately; the results were compared and any differences resolved. The data were synthesized using the standard method of Neonatal Review Group with use of relative risk and risk difference.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials involving a total of 85 infants compared doxapram and placebo. In both the individual trials and the meta-analyses there were no significant differences between the doxapram and placebo groups in any of the outcomes (failed extubation, death before discharge, respiratory failure, duration of IPPV, side effects, oxygen at 28 days or oxygen at discharge). There was a trend towards an increase in side effects (hypertension or irritability leading to cessation of treatment) in the doxapram group [summary RR 3.21 (0.53, 19.43). In one of these two trials (Huon 1998) an 'alarming rise in blood pressure' occurred in five infants in the doxapram group and none of the controls, although in only one was treatment withdrawn. One additional trial involving only eight infants compared doxapram with aminophylline, but there were insufficient data for meaningful analysis.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
The evidence does not support the routine use of doxapram to assist endotracheal extubation in preterm infants who are eligible for methylxanthine and/or CPAP. The results should be interpreted with caution because the small number of infants studied does not allow reliable assessment of the benefits and harms of doxapram. Further trials are required to evaluate the benefits and harms of doxapram compared with no treatment or with other treatments, such as methylxanthines or CPAP, to evaluate whether it is more effective in infants not responding to these other treatments, and to assess whether the drug is effective when given orally.
Topics: Doxapram; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation; Intubation, Intratracheal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory System Agents; Ventilator Weaning
PubMed: 10908519
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001966