Evaluating Neonatal Telehealth Programs Using the STEM Framework.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an explosive adoption of telehealth in pediatrics . However, there remains substantial variation in evaluation methods and measures of these programs despite introduction of measurement frameworks in the last five years. In addition, for neonatal health care, assessing a telehealth program must measure its benefits and costs for four stakeholder groups - patients, providers, healthcare system, and payers. Because of differences in their role within the health system, each group's calculation of telehealth's value may align or not with one another, depending on how it is being used. Therefore, a common mental model for determining value is critical in order to use telehealth in ways that produce win-win situations for most if not all four stakeholder groups. In this chapter, we present important principles and concepts from previously published frameworks to propose an approach to telehealth evaluation that can be used for perinatal health. Such a framework will then drive future development and implementation of telehealth programs to provide value for all relevant stakeholders in a perinatal health care system.

Perspectives from the Society for Pediatric Research. Neonatal encephalopathy clinical trials: developing the future.

The next phase of clinical trials in neonatal encephalopathy (NE) focuses on hypothermia adjuvant therapies targeting alternative recovery mechanisms during the process of hypoxic brain injury. Identifying infants eligible for neuroprotective therapies begins with the clinical detection of brain injury and classification of severity. Combining a variety of biomarkers (serum, clinical exam, EEG, movement patterns) with innovative clinical trial design and analyses will help target infants with the most appropriate and timely treatments. The timing of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR spectroscopy after NE both assists in identifying the acute perinatal nature of the injury (days 3-7) and evaluates the full extent and evolution of the injury (days 10-21). Early, intermediate outcome of neuroprotective interventions may be best defined by the 21-day neuroimaging, with recognition that the full neurodevelopmental trajectory is not yet defined. An initial evaluation of each new therapy at this time point may allow higher-throughput selection of promising therapies for more extensive investigation. Functional recovery can be assessed using a trajectory of neurodevelopmental evaluations targeted to a prespecified and mechanistically derived hypothesis of drug action. As precision medicine revolutionizes healthcare, it should also include the redesign of NE clinical trials to allow safe, efficient, and targeted therapeutics. IMPACT: As precision medicine revolutionizes healthcare, it should also include the redesign of NE clinical trials to allow faster development of safe, effective, and targeted therapeutics. This article provides a multidisciplinary perspective on the future of clinical trials in NE; novel trial design; study management and oversight; biostatistical methods; and a combination of serum, imaging, and neurodevelopmental biomarkers can advance the field and improve outcomes for infants affected by NE. Innovative clinical trial designs, new intermediate trial end points, and a trajectory of neurodevelopmental evaluations targeted to a prespecified and mechanistically derived hypothesis of drug action can help address common challenges in NE clinical trials and allow for faster selection and validation of promising therapies for more extensive investigation.

Trends in intensive neonatal care during the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan.

The reduction in the use of neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) during the COVID-19 outbreak has been reported, but whether this phenomenon is widespread across countries is unclear. Using a large-scale inpatient database in Japan, we analysed the intensive neonatal care volume and the number of preterm births for weeks 10-17 vs weeks 2-9 (during and before the outbreak) of 2020 with adjustment for the trends during the same period of 2019. We found statistically significant reductions in the numbers of NICU admissions (adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR), 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.89) and neonatal resuscitations (aIRR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.55) during the COVID-19 outbreak. Along with the decrease in the intensive neonatal care volume, preterm births before 34 gestational weeks (aIRR, 0.71) and between 34 0/7 and 36 6/7 gestational weeks (aIRR, 0.85) also showed a significant reduction. Further studies about the mechanism of this phenomenon are warranted.

The future of Cochrane Neonatal.

Cochrane Neonatal was first established in 1993, as one of the original review groups of the Cochrane Collaboration. In fact, the origins of Cochrane Neonatal precede the establishment of the collaboration. In the 1980's, the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at Oxford, led by Dr. Iain Chalmers, established the "Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials" (ODPT), a register of virtually all randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine to provide a resource for reviews of the safety and efficacy of interventions used in perinatal care and to foster cooperative and coordinated research efforts in the perinatal field [1]. An effort that was clearly ahead of its time, ODPT comprised four main elements: a register of published reports of trials; a register of unpublished trials; a register of ongoing and planned trials; and data derived from pooled overviews (meta-analyses) of trials. This core effort grew into the creation of the seminal books, "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth" as well as "Effective Care of the Newborn Infant" [2,3]. As these efforts in perinatal medicine grew, Iain Chalmers thought well beyond perinatal medicine into the creation of a worldwide collaboration that became Cochrane [4]. The mission of the Cochrane Collaboration is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence (www.cochrane.org). Cochrane Neonatal has continued to be one of the most productive review groups, publishing between 25 tpo to 40 new or updated systematic reviews each year. The impact factor has been steadily increasing over four years and now rivals most of the elite journals in pediatric medicine. Cochrane Neonatal has been a worldwide effort. Currently, there are 404 reviews involving 1206 authors from 52 countries. What has Cochrane done for babies? Reviews from Cochrane Neonatal have informed guidelines and recommendations worldwide. From January 2018 through June 2020, 77 international guidelines cited 221 Cochrane Neonatal reviews. These recommendations have included recommendations of the use of postnatal steroids, inhaled nitric oxide, feeding guidelines for preterm infants and other core aspects of neonatal practice. In addition, Cochrane Reviews has been the impetus for important research, including the large-scale trial of prophylactic indomethacin therapy, a variety of trials of postnatal steroids, trials of emollient ointment and probiotic trials [6]. While justifiably proud of these accomplishments, one needs to examine the future contribution of Cochrane Neonatal to the neonatal community. The future of Cochrane Neonatal is inexorably linked to the future of neonatal research. Obviously, there is no synthesis of trials data if, as a community, we fail to provide the core substrate for that research. As we look at the current trials' environment, fewer randomized controlled trial related to neonates are being published in recent years. A simple search of PubMed, limiting the search to "neonates" and "randomized controlled trials" shows that in the year 2000, 321 randomized controlled trials were published. These peaked five years ago, in 2015, with close to 900 trials being published. However, in 2018, only 791 studies are identified. Does this decrease represent a meaningful change in the neonatal research environment? Quite possibly. There are shifting missions of clinical neonatology at academic medical institutions, at least in the United States, with a focus on business aspects as well as other important competing clinical activities. Quality improvement has taken over as one of the major activities at both private and academic neonatal practices. Clearly, this is a needed improvement. All units at levels need to be dedicated to improving the outcomes of the sick and fragile population we care for. However, this need not be at the expense of formal clinical trials. It is understandable that this approach would be taken. Newer interventions frequently relate to complex systems of care and not the simple single interventions. Even trials that might traditionally have been done as randomized controlled trials, such as the introduction of a new mode of ventilation, are in reality complex challenges to the ability of institutions to create systems to adapt to these new technologies. Cost of doing trials has always been a barrier. The challenging regulatory and ethical environment contributes to these problems as well [7]. Despite these barriers, how does the research agenda of the neonatal community move forward in the 21st Century? We need to reassess how we create and disseminate our research findings. Innovative trial designs will allow us to address complex issues that we may not have tackled with conventional trials. Adaptive designs may allow us to look at potentially life-saving therapies in a way that feel more efficient and more ethical [8]. Clarifying issues such as the use of inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants would be greatly served if we even knew whether or not there are hypoxemic preterm infant who would benefit from this therapy [9]. Current trials do not suggest so, yet current practice tells us that a significant number of these babies will receive inhaled nitric oxide [10-13]. Adaptive design, such as those done with trials of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), would allow us to quickly assess whether, in fact, these therapies are life-saving and allow us to consider whether or not further trials are needed [14,15]. Our understanding that many interventions involve entire systems approaches does not relegate us only to doing quality improvement work. Cluster designs may allow us to test more complex interventions that have usually been under the purview of quality improvement [16-18]. Cluster trials are well suited for such investigations and can be done with the least interruption to ongoing care. Ultimately, quality improvement is the application of the best evidence available (evidence-based medicine is "what to do" and evidence-based practice is "how to do"). [19,20]. Nascent efforts, such as the statement on "embedding necessary research into culture and health" (the ENRICH statement) call for the conduct of large, efficient pragmatic trials to evaluate neonatal outcomes, as in part called for in the ALPHA Collaboration [21,22]. This statement envisions an international system to identify important research questions by consulting regularly with all stakeholders, including patients, public health professionals, researchers, providers, policy makers, regulators, funders of industry. The ENRICH statement envisions a pathway to enable individuals, educational institutions, hospitals and health-care facilities to confirm their status as research-friendly by integrating an understanding of trials, other research and critical thinking and to teaching learning and culture, as well as an engagement with funders, professional organizations and regulatory bodies and other stake holders to raise awareness of the value of efficient international research to reduce barriers to large international pragmatic trials and other collaborative studies. In the future, if trials are to be done on this scale or trials are prospectively designed to be analyzed together, core outcome measures must be identified and standardized. That clinical trials supply estimates of outcomes that are relevant to patients and their families is critical. In addition, current neonatal research evaluates many different outcomes using multiple measures. A given measure can have multiple widely used definitions. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (or chronic lung disease just to add to the confusion) quickly comes to mind [23,24]. The use of multiple definitions when attempting to measure the same outcome prevents synthesis of trial results and meta-analysis and hinders efforts to refine our estimates of effects. Towards that end, Webbe and colleagues have set out to develop a core outcome set for neonatal research [25]. Key stakeholders in the neonatal community reviewed multiple outcomes reported in neonatal trials and qualitative studies. Based on consensus, key outcome measures were identified, including survival, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, brain injury on imaging, retinopathy or prematurity, gross motor ability, general cognitive ability, quality of life, adverse events, visual impairment or blindness, hearing impairment or deafness, chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Trials registration has to be a continued focus of the neonatal community. Trials registration allows for systematic reviewers to understand whether or not reporting bias has occurred [26]. It also allows for transparent incorporation of these core outcome measures. Ultimately, trials registration should include public reporting of all of these core outcomes and, in the future, access to data on an individual level such that more sophisticated individual patient data meta-analysis could occur. Lastly, there is no reason to see clinical trials and quality improvement as separate or exclusive activities. In fact, in the first NICQ Collaborative, conducted by Vermont Oxford Network, participation in a trial of postnatal steroids was considered part of the quality improvement best practices as opposed to simply choosing an as-of-yet unproven approach to use of this potent drug [27]. What role will Cochrane Neonatal play as we move forward in the 21st Century? As the neonatal community moves forward with its' research agenda, Cochrane Neonatal must not only follow but also lead with innovative approaches to synthesizing research findings. Cochrane Neonatal must continue to work closely with guideline developers. The relationship between systematic review production and guideline development is clearly outlined inreports from the Institute of Medicine [28,29]. Both are essential to guideline development; the systematic review group culling the evidence for the benefits and harms of a given intervention and the guideline group addressing the contextual issues of cost, feasibility, implementation and the values and preferences of individuals and societies. Most national and international guidelines groups now routinely use systematic reviews as the evidence basis for their guidelines and recommendations. Examples of the partnership between Cochrane Neonatal and international guideline development can be seen in our support of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on the use of vitamin A or the soon to be published recommendations from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) on cord management in preterm and term infants [30]. In the future, we need to collaborate early in the guideline development process so that the reviews are fit for purpose and meet the needs of the guideline developers and the end users. Towards this end, all Cochrane Neonatal reviews now contain GRADE assessments of the key clinical findings reported in the systematic review [31]. Addition of these assessments addresses the critical issue of our confidence in the findings. We are most confident in evidence provided by randomized controlled trials but this assessment can be can be downgraded if the studies that reported on the outcome in question had a high risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency of results, or imprecision, or where there is evidence of reporting bias. Information provided by GRADE assessments is seen as critical in the process of moving from the evidence to formal recommendations [32]. We need to explore complex reviews, such as network (NMA) or multiple treatment comparison (MCT) meta-analyses, to address issues not formally addressed in clinical trials [33]. In conditions where there are multiple effective interventions, it is rare for all possible interventions to have been tested against each other [34]. A solution could be provided by network meta-analysis, which allows for comparing all treatments with each other, even if randomized controlled trials are not available for some treatment comparisons [34]. Network meta-analysis uses both direct (head-to-head) randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence as well as indirect evidence from RCTs to compare the relative effectiveness of all included interventions [35]. However, Mills and colleagues note that the methodological quality of MTCs may be difficult for clinicians to interpret because the number of interventions evaluated may be large and the methodological approaches may be complex [35]. Cochrane Neonatal must take a role in both the creation of such analyses and the education of the neonatal community regarding the pitfalls of such an approach. The availability of individual patient data will make more sophisticated analyses more available to the community. Although the current crop of individual patient data meta-analyses (including the reviews of elective high frequency ventilation, inhaled nitric oxide and oxygen targets) have not differed substantially from the findings of the trials level reviews (suggesting that, in fact, sick neonates are more alike that unalike), there still will be a large role for individual patient data meta-analysis, at least to end the unfound conclusions that these therapies are effective in various subgroups (be it issues of sex, disease severity, or clinical setting) [36-39]. Future trials should take a lesson from the NeOProM Collaborative [37,39]. Given the difficulty in generating significant sample size and creating funding in any single environment, trials with similar protocols should be conducted in a variety of healthcare settings with an eye towards both study level and individual patient level meta-analysis at the conclusion of those trials, allowing for broader contribution to the trials data, more rapid accrual of sample size, and more precise results. We need to educate the neonatal community regarding the use and abuse of diagnostic tests. Diagnostic tests are a critical component of healthcare but also contribute greatly to the cost of medical care worldwide. These costs include the cost of the tests themselves and the costs of misdiagnosis and treatment of individuals who will not benefit from those treatments. Clinicians may have a limited understanding of diagnostic test accuracy, the ability of a diagnostic test to distinguish between patients with and without the disease or target condition [41,42]. Efforts such as Choosing Wisely have tried to identify these deficiencies [40]. As Cochrane has increased the general literacy of both the medical and general population regarding the interpretation of the results of interventions on various diseases, so should Cochrane move forward and improve the understanding of diagnostic testing. We need to become more efficient at creating and maintaining our reviews. The time spent to produce systematic reviews is far too great. In average, it takes between 2½ to 6½ years to produce a systematic review, requiring intense time input for highly trained and expensive experts. Innovations in the ways in which we produce systematic reviews can make the review process more efficient by outsourcing some of the tasks or crowdsourcing to machine learning. We need to let the crowd and machine learning innovations help us sort the massive amounts of information needed to conduct systematic reviews. It can also allow for "live" updating of critical reviews where the research landscape is quickly changing [43]. Lastly, Cochrane Neonatal must focus more on users of the reviews and not necessarily authors of the reviews. Current Cochrane programming speaks of Cochrane training with an eye towards developing the skills of individuals who will conduct systematic reviews. While this is clearly needed and laudable, the fact of the matter is that most of the community will be "users" of the reviews. Individuals who need to understand how to use and interpret the findings of systematic reviews. These review users include clinicians, guideline developers, policy makers and families. Incorporation of GRADE guidelines has been a huge step in adding transparency to the level of uncertainty we have in our findings. From a family's perspective, we need to overcome the environment of mistrust or misunderstanding of scientific evidence and how we convey what we know, and our uncertainty about what we know, to parents and families.

New directions in necrotizing enterocolitis with early-stage investigators.

The 2019 Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) Symposium expanded upon the NEC Society's goals of bringing stakeholders together to discuss cutting-edge science, potential therapeutics and preventative measures, as well as the patient-family perspectives of NEC. The Symposium facilitated discussions and shared knowledge with the overarching goal of creating "A World Without NEC." To accomplish this goal, new research to advance the state of the science is necessary. Over the last decade, several established investigators have significantly improved our understanding of the pathophysiology of NEC and they have paved the way for the next generation of clinician-scientists funded to perform NEC research. This article will serve to highlight the contributions of these young clinician-scientists that seek to elucidate how immune, microbial and nervous system dysregulation contributes to the pathophysiology of NEC.

[Therapeutic advances in neonatology]. / Actualités thérapeutiques en néonatologie.

In this article, we will review major therapeutic advances in neonatology over the past ten years. We will discuss the antenatal administration of magnesium sulfate, the interest of hypothermia in the context of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, the benefits and modalities of placental transfusion, less invasive techniques for ventilation and administration of the surfactant, possibilities to fortify breast milk and the concept of developmental care. These therapeutic advances are sometimes based on new therapeutics, sometimes on new concepts and, sometimes, on new less invasive techniques. They have made it possible to optimize the care of premature babies but also of term newborns.

Dans cet article, nous allons passer en revue les grandes avancées thérapeutiques dans le domaine de la néonatologie au cours des dix dernières années. Nous traiterons de l'administration anténatale du sulfate de magnésium, de l'intérêt de l'hypothermie contrôlée dans le cadre de l'encéphalopathie d'origine hypoxo-ischémique, des bénéfices et modalités de la transfusion placentaire, des techniques moins invasives pour la ventilation et pour l'administration du surfactant, de la fortification du lait maternel et du concept de soins de développement. Ces avancées thérapeutiques reposent tantôt sur des nouveautés thérapeutiques, tantôt sur de nouveaux concepts et, parfois, sur de nouvelles techniques moins invasives. Elles ont permis d'optimiser la prise en charge des prématurés, mais aussi des nouveau-nés à terme.

Close to Home: Perinatal Palliative Care in a Community Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Advances in prenatal testing and diagnosis have resulted in more parents learning during pregnancy that their child may die before or shortly after birth. These advances in testing and diagnosis have also resulted in more parents choosing, despite the diagnosis, to continue their pregnancies and pursue a palliative approach to their infant's short life. Perinatal hospice and palliative care is a growing model of care developed in response to these parents' previously unmet needs. A seldom-discussed opportunity to provide this care exists in outlying community hospitals, which are ideally placed to provide care close to home for families who have chosen comfort measures and time with their child. PURPOSE: This article reviews the definition and utility of perinatal palliative care, the population it serves, attempts to support a rational for development of community-based programs, and describes one community hospital's experience with perinatal palliative care in their community. METHODS/SEARCH STRATEGY: This article describes the development and processes of a perinatal palliative care program at a community hospital in Fredericksburg, Virginia. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Perinatal palliative care can be developed with the assistance of already existing training materials, resources, and staff. While the cohort of patients may be small, implementing perinatal palliative care in a community setting may result in wider availability of this care and more accessible options for these families. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Research possibilities include developing a template for creating a perinatal palliative care program at community hospitals that could be replicated elsewhere; assessing parental satisfaction and quality indicators of perinatal palliative care at community hospitals and at referral hospitals; and assessing outcomes in various settings.

Conceptually Redefining Neonatal Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: First defined in 2002 by Catlin and Carter, neonatal palliative care (NPC) is a relatively new model of care in neonatal pediatrics, first appearing in the medical literature in the early 1980s. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to suggest a conceptual definition of NPC that encompasses all the essential concepts as a way of moving NPC forward by having a consistent approach. METHODS: Following a review of the NPC literature, a thematic analysis as a method for identifying, analyzing, and interpreting patterns of meaning in the definitions ("themes") within the literature was undertaken. FINDINGS: The major themes identified included philosophies of care, support, culture and spirituality, the team, and clinical management. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: At the heart of NPC is the primacy of maintaining quality of life, while providing ethical and humane care that supports a "good death." The extensive elements presented in this article are considered essential to a comprehensive and conceptual definition of NPC proposed here.

Periviability: A Review of Key Concepts and Management for Perinatal Nursing.

One of the most complex clinical problems in obstetrics and neonatology is caring for pregnant women at the threshold of viability. Births near viability boundaries are grave events that carry a high prevalence of neonatal death or an increased potential for severe lifelong complications and disabilities among those who survive. Compared with several decades ago, premature infants receiving neonatal care by today's standards have better outcomes than those born in other eras. However, preterm labor at periviability represents a more complex counseling and management challenge. Although preterm birth incidence between 20/7 and 25/7 weeks has remained unchanged, survival rates at earlier gestational ages have increased as perinatal and neonatal specialties have become more adept at caring for this at-risk population. Women face difficult choices about obstetric and neonatal interventions in light of uncertainties around survival and outcomes. This article reviews current neonatal statistics in reference to short- and long-term outcomes, key concepts in obstetric clinical management of an anticipated periviable birth, and counseling guidance to ensure shared-decision making.

Neonatal functional echocardiography.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The role of echocardiography has dramatically changed over the past decade and use of functional echocardiography has become increasingly popular among neonatologists and pediatric intensivists in making clinical decisions in sick infants and children. The purpose of this review is to outline the current capabilities and limitations of functional echocardiography, best practices for its clinical application, and evidence for its utility. RECENT FINDINGS: Functional echocardiography can provide direct assessment of hemodynamics at bedside and can be used as a modern hemodynamic monitoring tool in the neonatal intensive care unit. It is now being regarded as a useful extension to the clinical examination and other monitoring tools in the critically ill infant. The anatomic, physiological, and hemodynamic information functional echocardiography provides can be used in targeting specific interventions and evaluating response to treatment. SUMMARY: This review article is focused on an overview of the most common applications of functional neonatal echocardiography also called targeted neonatal echocardiography or neonatologist performed echocardiography. It will review assessment of hemodynamics and cardiac function in neonatal hypotension and shock, suspected patent ductus arteriosus, suspected persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn with evaluation of pulmonary artery pressure and assessment of pericardial effusion. It will also emphasize the specific requirements for the practice and training of functional neonatal echocardiography.

Point-of-care ultrasound in the neonatal ICU.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an emerging clinical tool in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Recent literature describing the use of POCUS for various applications in the NICU has garnered increased interest among neonatologists. RECENT FINDINGS: Diagnostic applications for POCUS in the NICU include the evaluation and serial monitoring of common pulmonary diseases, hemodynamic instability, patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), among others. Procedural applications include vascular access, endotracheal intubation, lumbar puncture, and fluid drainage. SUMMARY: Experience with POCUS in the NICU is growing. Current evidence supports the use of POCUS for a number of diagnostic and procedural applications. As use of this tool increases, there is an urgent need to develop formal training requirements specific to neonatology, as well as evidence-based guidelines to standardize use across centers.