Rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in very low birth weight neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Large-scale estimates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) are warranted for adequate prevention and treatment. However, systematic approaches to ascertain rates of BPD are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of BPD in very low birth weight (≤ 1,500 g) or very low gestational age (< 32 weeks) neonates. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE from January 1990 until September 2019 using search terms related to BPD and prevalence was performed. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and observational studies evaluating rates of BPD in very low birth weight or very low gestational age infants were eligible. Included studies defined BPD as positive pressure ventilation or oxygen requirement at 28 days (BPD28) or at 36 weeks postmenstrual age (BPD36). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently conducted all stages of the review. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate the pooled prevalence. Subgroup analyses included gestational age group, birth weight group, setting, study period, continent, and gross domestic product. Sensitivity analyses were performed to reduce study heterogeneity. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prevalence of BPD defined as BPD28, BPD36, and by subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 105 articles or databases and 780,936 patients were included in this review. The pooled prevalence was 35% (95% CI, 28-42%) for BPD28 (n = 26 datasets, 132,247 neonates), and 21% (95% CI, 19-24%) for BPD36 (n = 70 studies, 672,769 neonates). In subgroup meta-analyses, birth weight category, gestational age category, and continent were strong drivers of the pooled prevalence of BPD. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study provides a global estimation of BPD prevalence in very low birth weight/low gestation neonates.

Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research.

Similar to systematic reviews (SRs) in clinical fields, preclinical SRs address a specific research area, furnishing information on current knowledge, possible gaps, and potential methodological flaws of study design, conduct, and report. One of the main goals of preclinical SRs is to identify aspiring treatment strategies and evaluate if currently available data is solid enough to translate to clinical trials or highlight the gaps, thus justifying the need for new studies. It is imperative to rigorously follow the methodological standards that are widely available. These include registration of the protocol and adherence to guidelines for assessing the risk of bias, study quality, and certainty of evidence. A special consideration should be made for pediatric SRs, clinical and preclinical, due to the unique characteristics of this age group. These include rationale for intervention and comparison of primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes measured should acknowledge age-related physiological changes and maturational processes of different organ systems. It is crucial to choose the age of the animals appropriately and its possible correspondence for specific pediatric age groups. The findings of well-conducted SRs of preclinical studies have the potential to provide a reliable evidence synthesis to guide the design of future preclinical and clinical studies. IMPACT: This narrative review highlights the importance of rigorous design, conduct and reporting of preclinical primary studies and systematic reviews. A special consideration should be made for pediatric systematic reviews of preclinical studies, due to the unique characteristics of this age group.

Inhaled bronchodilators for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lung disease (CLD) occurs frequently in preterm infants and is associated with respiratory morbidity. Bronchodilators have the potential effect of dilating small airways with muscle hypertrophy. Increased compliance and tidal volume, and decreased airway resistance, have been documented with the use of bronchodilators in infants with CLD. Therefore, bronchodilators are widely considered to have a role in the prevention and treatment of CLD, but there remains uncertainty as to whether they improve clinical outcomes. This is an update of the 2016 Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of inhaled bronchodilators given as prophylaxis or as treatment for chronic lung disease (CLD) on mortality and other complications of preterm birth in infants at risk for or identified as having CLD. SEARCH METHODS: An Information Specialist searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and three trials registers from 2016 to May 2023. In addition, the review authors undertook reference checking, citation searching and contact with trial authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving preterm infants less than 32 weeks old that compared bronchodilators to no intervention or placebo. CLD was defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days of life or at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. Initiation of bronchodilator therapy for the prevention of CLD had to occur within two weeks of birth. Treatment of infants with CLD had to be initiated before discharge from the neonatal unit. The intervention had to include administration of a bronchodilator by nebulisation or metered dose inhaler. The comparator was no intervention or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Critical outcomes included: mortality within the trial period; CLD (defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days of life or at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age); adverse effects of bronchodilators, including hypokalaemia (low potassium levels in the blood), tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmia, tremor, hypertension and hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar); and pneumothorax. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included two randomised controlled trials in this review update. Only one trial provided useable outcome data. This trial was conducted in six neonatal intensive care units in France and Portugal, and involved 173 participants with a gestational age of less than 31 weeks. The infants in the intervention group received salbutamol for the prevention of CLD. The evidence suggests that salbutamol may result in little to no difference in mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 2.31; risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; low-certainty evidence) or CLD at 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.17; low-certainty evidence), when compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of salbutamol on pneumothorax. The one trial with usable data reported that there were no relevant differences between groups, without providing the number of events (very low-certainty evidence). Investigators in this study did not report if side effects occurred. We found no eligible trials that evaluated the use of bronchodilator therapy for the treatment of infants with CLD. We identified no ongoing studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from one trial showed that inhaled bronchodilator prophylaxis may result in little or no difference in the incidence of mortality or CLD in preterm infants, when compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of salbutamol on pneumothorax, and neither included study reported on the incidence of serious adverse effects. We identified no trials that studied the use of bronchodilator therapy for the treatment of CLD. Additional clinical trials are necessary to assess the role of bronchodilator agents in the prophylaxis or treatment of CLD. Researchers studying the effects of inhaled bronchodilators in preterm infants should include relevant clinical outcomes in addition to pulmonary mechanical outcomes.

Noise or sound management in the neonatal intensive care unit for preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are subjected to different types of stress, including sounds of high intensity. The sound levels in NICUs often exceed the maximum acceptable level recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is 45 decibels (dB). Hearing impairment is diagnosed in 2% to 10% of preterm infants compared to only 0.1% of the general paediatric population. Bringing sound levels under 45 dB can be achieved by lowering the sound levels in an entire unit; by treating the infant in a section of a NICU, in a 'private' room, or in incubators in which the sound levels are controlled; or by reducing sound levels at the individual level using earmuffs or earplugs. By lowering sound levels, the resulting stress can be diminished, thereby promoting growth and reducing adverse neonatal outcomes. This review is an update of one originally published in 2015 and first updated in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of sound reduction on the growth and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of neonates. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. On 21 and 22 August 2023, a Cochrane Information Specialist searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases, two trials registers, and grey literature via Google Scholar and conference abstracts from Pediatric Academic Societies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in preterm infants (less than 32 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) or less than 1500 g birth weight) cared for in the resuscitation area, during transport, or once admitted to a NICU or stepdown unit. We specified three types of intervention: 1) intervention at the unit level (i.e. the entire neonatal department), 2) at the section or room level, or 3) at the individual level (e.g. hearing protection). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standardised review methods of Cochrane Neonatal to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We used the risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for dichotomous data. We used the mean difference (MD) for continuous data. Our primary outcome was major neurodevelopmental disability. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT, which enroled 34 newborn infants randomised to the use of silicone earplugs versus no earplugs for hearing protection. It was a single-centre study conducted at the University of Texas Medical School in Houston, Texas, USA. Earplugs were positioned at the time of randomisation and worn continuously until the infants were 35 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) or discharged (whichever came first). Newborns in the control group received standard care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of silicone earplugs on the following outcomes. • Cerebral palsy (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 61.74)and Mental Developmental Index (MDI) (Bayley II) at 18 to 22 months' corrected age (MD 14.00, 95% CI 3.13 to 24.87); no other indicators of major neurodevelopmental disability were reported. • Normal auditory functioning at discharge (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.94) • All-cause mortality during hospital stay (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.70; RD 0.20, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.50) • Weight (kg) at 18 to 22 months' corrected age (MD 0.31, 95% CI -1.53 to 2.16) • Height (cm) at 18 to 22 months' corrected age (MD 2.70, 95% CI -3.13 to 8.53) • Days of assisted ventilation (MD -1.44, 95% CI -23.29 to 20.41) • Days of initial hospitalisation (MD 1.36, 95% CI -31.03 to 33.75) For all outcomes, we judged the certainty of evidence as very low. We identified one ongoing RCT that will compare the effects of reduced noise levels and cycled light on visual and neural development in preterm infants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No studies evaluated interventions to reduce sound levels below 45 dB across the whole neonatal unit or in a room within it. We found only one study that evaluated the benefits of sound reduction in the neonatal intensive care unit for hearing protection in preterm infants. The study compared the use of silicone earplugs versus no earplugs in newborns of very low birth weight (less than 1500 g). Considering the very small sample size, imprecise results, and high risk of attrition bias, the evidence based on this research is very uncertain and no conclusions can be drawn. As there is a lack of evidence to inform healthcare or policy decisions, large, well designed, well conducted, and fully reported RCTs that analyse different aspects of noise reduction in NICUs are needed. They should report both short- and long-term outcomes.

Ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in children.

BACKGROUND: Children often require pain management following surgery to avoid suffering. Effective pain management has consequences for healing time and quality of life. Ibuprofen, a frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administered to children, is used to treat pain and inflammation in the postoperative period. OBJECTIVES: 1) To assess the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo or other active comparators. 2) To compare ibuprofen administered at different doses, routes (e.g. oral, intravenous, etc.), or strategies (e.g. as needed versus as scheduled). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trials registries in August 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children aged 17 years and younger, treated for acute postoperative or postprocedural pain, that compared ibuprofen to placebo or any active comparator. We included RCTs that compared different administration routes, doses of ibuprofen and schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We adhered to standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain relief reported by the child, pain intensity reported by the child, adverse events, and serious adverse events. We present results using risk ratios (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 43 RCTs that enroled 4265 children (3935 children included in this review). We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for 37 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. We judged six studies as having a low risk of bias across all domains. Ibuprofen versus placebo (35 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen probably reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to placebo (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.86; 3 studies, 259 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may reduce child-reported pain intensity, two hours to less than 24 hours postintervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.78; 5 studies, 345 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 5 studies, 384 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus paracetamol (21 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to paracetamol (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.02; 2 studies, 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may slightly reduce child-reported pain intensity two hours to 24 hours postintervention (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.02; 6 studies, 422 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events (0 events in each group; 1 study, 44 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus morphine (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83; risk difference (RD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 1 study, 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus ketorolac (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen may result in a reduction in adverse events compared to ketorolac (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.04; NNTB 4; 1 study, 59 children; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite identifying 43 RCTs, we remain uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen compared to placebo or active comparators for some critical outcomes and in the comparisons between different doses, schedules and routes for ibuprofen administration. This is largely due to poor reporting on important outcomes such as serious adverse events, and poor study conduct or reporting that reduced our confidence in the results, along with small underpowered studies. Compared to placebo, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction less than two hours postintervention, however, the efficacy might be lower at two hours to 24 hours. Compared to paracetamol, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction up to 24 hours postintervention. We could not explore if there was a different effect in different kinds of surgeries or procedures. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine, and in little to no difference in bleeding when compared to paracetamol. We remain mostly uncertain about the safety of ibuprofen compared to other drugs.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Stem cell-based interventions for the treatment of stroke in newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Perinatal stroke refers to a diverse but specific group of cerebrovascular diseases that occur between 20 weeks of fetal life and 28 days of postnatal life. Acute treatment options for perinatal stroke are limited supportive care, such as controlling hypoglycemia and seizures. Stem cell-based therapies offer a potential therapeutic approach to repair, restore, or regenerate injured brain tissue. Preclinical findings have culminated in ongoing human neonatal studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of stem cell-based interventions for the treatment of stroke in newborn infants compared to control (placebo or no treatment) or stem-cell based interventions of a different type or source. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trials registries in February 2023. We planned to search the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We attempted to include randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and cluster trials that evaluated any of the following comparisons. • Stem cell-based interventions (any type) versus control (placebo or no treatment) • Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) of a specifictype (e.g. number of doses or passages) or source (e.g. autologous/allogeneic or bone marrow/cord) versus MSCs of another type or source • Stem cell-based interventions (other than MSCs) of a specific type (e.g. mononuclear cells, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, neural stem cells, hematopoietic stem cells, or induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cells) or source (e.g. autologous/allogeneic or bone marrow/cord) versus stem cell-based interventions (other than MSCs) of another type or source • MSCs versus stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs We planned to include all types of transplantation regardless of cell source (bone marrow, cord blood, Wharton's jelly, placenta, adipose tissue, peripheral blood), type of graft (autologous or allogeneic), and dose. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause neonatal mortality, major neurodevelopmental disability, and immune rejection or any serious adverse event. Our secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality prior to first hospital discharge, seizures, adverse effects, and death or major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months of age. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no completed or ongoing randomized trials that met our inclusion criteria. We excluded three studies: two were phase 1 trials, and one included newborn infants with conditions other than stroke (i.e. cerebral ischemia and anemia). Among the three excluded studies, we identified the first phase 1 trial on the use of stem cells for neonatal stroke. It reported that a single intranasal application of bone marrow-derived MSCs in term neonates with a diagnosis of perinatal arterial ischemic stroke (PAIS) was feasible and apparently not associated with severe adverse events. However, the trial included only 10 infants, and follow-up was limited to three months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No evidence is currently available to evaluate the benefits and harms of stem cell-based interventions for treatment of stroke in newborn infants. We identified no ongoing studies. Future clinical trials should focus on standardizing the timing and method of cell delivery and cell processing to optimize the therapeutic potential of stem cell-based interventions and safety profiles. Phase 1 and large animal studies might provide the groundwork for future randomized trials. Outcome measures should include all-cause mortality, major neurodevelopmental disability and immune rejection, and any other serious adverse events.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence): with one study reporting a concerning increase in severe apnea (RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.42 to 132.95; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia, hypotension or severe apnea. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.

Non-opioid analgesics for procedural pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU will undergo multiple painful procedures per day throughout their stay. There is increasing evidence that frequent and repetitive exposure to painful stimuli is associated with poorer outcomes later in life. To date, a wide variety of pain control mechanisms have been developed and implemented to address procedural pain in neonates. This review focused on non-opioid analgesics, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which alleviate pain through inhibiting cellular pathways to achieve analgesia.  The analgesics considered in this review show potential for pain relief in clinical practice; however, an evidence summation compiling the individual drugs they comprise and outlining the benefits and harms of their administration is lacking. We therefore sought to summarize the evidence on the level of pain experienced by neonates both during and following procedures; relevant drug-related adverse events, namely episodes of apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension; and the effects of combinations of drugs.  As the field of neonatal procedural pain management is constantly evolving, this review aimed to ascertain the scope of non-opioid analgesics for neonatal procedural pain to provide an overview of the options available to better inform evidence-based clinical practice.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-opioid analgesics in neonates (term or preterm) exposed to procedural pain compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries in June 2022. We screened the reference lists of included studies for studies not identified by the database searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs in neonates (term or preterm) undergoing painful procedures comparing NSAIDs and NMDA receptor antagonists to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were pain assessed during the procedure and up to 10 minutes after the procedure with a validated scale; episodes of bradycardia; episodes of apnea; and hypotension requiring medical therapy. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs involving a total of 269 neonates conducted in Nigeria and India.  NMDA receptor antagonists versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention One RCT evaluated using oral ketamine (10 mg/kg body weight) versus sugar syrup (66.7% w/w at 1 mL/kg body weight) for neonatal circumcision.  The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure, assessed with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.32 to -0.58; 1 RCT; 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes of interest were reported on. Head-to-head comparison of different analgesics One RCT evaluated using intravenous fentanyl versus intravenous ketamine during laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity. Neonates receiving ketamine followed an initial regimen (0.5 mg/kg bolus 1 minute before procedure) or a revised regimen (additional intermittent bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg every 10 minutes up to a maximum of 2 mg/kg), while those receiving fentanyl followed either an initial regimen (2 µg/kg over 5 minutes, 15 minutes before the procedure, followed by 1 µg/kg/hour as a continuous infusion) or a revised regimen (titration of 0.5 µg/kg/hour every 15 minutes to a maximum of 3 µg/kg/hour). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine compared with fentanyl on pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores during the procedure (MD 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20; 1 RCT; 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence); on episodes of apnea occurring during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.18; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence); and on hypotension requiring medical therapy occurring during the procedure (RR 5.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 112.30; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.10; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The included study did not report pain score assessed up to 10 minutes after the procedure or episodes of bradycardia occurring during the procedure. We did not identify any studies comparing NSAIDs versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention or different routes of administration of the same analgesics. We identified three studies awaiting classification.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two small included studies comparing ketamine versus either placebo or fentanyl, with very low-certainty evidence, rendered us unable to draw meaningful conclusions. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure compared with placebo or fentanyl. We found no evidence on NSAIDs or studies comparing different routes of administration. Future research should prioritize large studies evaluating non-opioid analgesics in this population. As the studies included in this review suggest potential positive effects of ketamine administration, studies evaluating ketamine are of interest. Furthermore, as we identified no studies on NSAIDs, which are widely used in older infants, or comparing different routes of administration, such studies should be a priority going forward.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. No studies reported if any harms occurred. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia or hypotension. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.

Systemic opioids versus other analgesics and sedatives for postoperative pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Neonates may undergo surgery because of malformations such as diaphragmatic hernia, gastroschisis, congenital heart disease, and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, or complications of prematurity, such as necrotizing enterocolitis, spontaneous intestinal perforation, and retinopathy of prematurity that require surgical treatment. Options for treatment of postoperative pain include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported. The assessment of the effects of opioids is of utmost importance, especially for neonates in substantial pain during the postoperative period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates who underwent surgery on all-cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability compared to no intervention, placebo, non-pharmacological interventions, different types of opioids, or other drugs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed and CINAHL in May 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov, and ICTRP trial registries. We searched conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for RCTs and quasi-RCTs.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days with postoperative pain where systemic opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no intervention; 2) non-pharmacological interventions; 3) different types of opioids; or 4) other drugs.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, and cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs enrolling 331 infants in four countries across different continents. Most studies considered patients undergoing large or medium surgical procedures (including major thoracic or abdominal surgery), who potentially required pain control through opioid administration after surgery. The randomized trials did not consider patients undergoing minor surgery (including inguinal hernia repair) and those individuals exposed to opioids before the beginning of the trial. Two RCTs compared opioids with placebo; one fentanyl with tramadol; and one morphine with paracetamol. No meta-analyses could be performed because the included RCTs reported no more than three outcomes within the prespecified comparisons. Certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes due to imprecision of the estimates (downgrade by two levels) and study limitations (downgrade by one level).  Comparison 1: opioids versus no treatment or placebo Two trials were included in this comparison, comparing either tramadol or tapentadol with placebo. No data were reported on the following critical outcomes: pain; major neurodevelopmental disability; or cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tramadol compared with placebo on all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization (RR 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.70; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05, 71 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on: retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage.  Comparison 2: opioids versus non-pharmacological interventions No trials were included in this comparison. Comparison 3: head-to-head comparisons of different opioids One trial comparing fentanyl with tramadol was included in this comparison. No data were reported on the following critical outcomes: pain; major neurodevelopmental disability; or cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fentanyl compared with tramadol on all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.64; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.13, 171 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on: retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage.  Comparison 4: opioids versus other analgesics and sedatives One trial comparing morphine with paracetamol was included in this comparison. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine compared with paracetamol on COMFORT pain scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.85 to 1.05; 71 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable).  No data were reported on the other critical outcomes, i.e. major neurodevelopmental disability; cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization; retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available on opioid administration for postoperative pain in newborn infants compared to either placebo, other opioids, or paracetamol. We are uncertain whether tramadol reduces mortality compared to placebo; none of the studies reported pain scores, major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children older than five years old, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We are uncertain whether fentanyl reduces mortality compared to tramadol; none of the studies reported pain scores, major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children older than five years old, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We are uncertain whether morphine reduces pain compared to paracetamol; none of the studies reported major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We identified no studies comparing opioids versus non-pharmacological interventions.

Stem cell-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of intraventricular haemorrhage and encephalopathy of prematurity in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage (GMH-IVH) and encephalopathy of prematurity (EoP) remain substantial issues in neonatal intensive care units worldwide. Current therapies to prevent or treat these conditions are limited. Stem cell-based therapies offer a potential therapeutic approach to repair, restore, or regenerate injured brain tissue. These preclinical findings have now culminated in ongoing human neonatal studies. This is an update of the 2019 review, which did not include EoP. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of stem cell-based interventions for prevention or treatment of GM-IVH and EoP in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We attempted to include randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing 1. stem cell-based interventions versus control; 2. mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) of type or source versus MSCs of other type or source; 3. stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs of type or source versus stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs of other type or source; or 4. MSCs versus stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs. For prevention studies, we included extremely preterm infants (less than 28 weeks' gestation), 24 hours of age or less, without ultrasound diagnosis of GM-IVH or EoP; for treatment studies, we included preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation), of any postnatal age, with ultrasound diagnosis of GM-IVH or with EoP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause neonatal mortality, 2. major neurodevelopmental disability, 3. GM-IVH, 4. EoP, and 5. extension of pre-existing non-severe GM-IVH or EoP. We planned to use GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria. Three studies are currently registered and ongoing. Phase 1 trials are described in the 'Excluded studies' section. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No evidence is currently available to evaluate the benefits and harms of stem cell-based interventions for treatment or prevention of GM-IVH or EoP in preterm infants. We identified three ongoing studies, with a sample size range from 20 to 200. In two studies, autologous cord blood mononuclear cells will be administered to extremely preterm infants via the intravenous route; in one, intracerebroventricular injection of MSCs will be administered to preterm infants up to 34 weeks' gestational age.

Systemic opioid regimens for postoperative pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain clinical management in neonates has always been a challenging medical issue. Worldwide, several systemic opioid regimens are available for pediatricians, neonatologists, and general practitioners to control pain in neonates undergoing surgical procedures. However, the most effective and safe regimen is still unknown in the current body of literature. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of different regimens of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates submitted to surgery on all-cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability. Potentially assessed regimens might include: different doses of the same opioid, different routes of administration of the same opioid, continuous infusion versus bolus administration, or 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in June 2022 using the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], PubMed, and CINAHL. Trial registration records were identified via CENTRAL and an independent search of the ISRCTN registry. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, cluster-randomized, and cross-over controlled trials evaluating systemic opioid regimens' effects on postoperative pain in neonates (pre-term or full-term). We considered suitable for inclusion: I) studies evaluating different doses of the same opioid; 2) studies evaluating different routes of administration of the same opioid; 3) studies evaluating the effectiveness of continuous infusion versus bolus infusion; and 4) studies establishing an assessment of an 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: According to Cochrane methods, two investigators independently screened retrieved records, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. We stratified meta-analysis by the type of intervention: studies evaluating the use of opioids for postoperative pain in neonates through continuous infusion versus bolus infusion and studies assessing the 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), median, and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous data. Finally, we used the GRADEpro approach for primary outcomes to evaluate the quality of the evidence across included studies. MAIN RESULTS: In this review, we included seven randomized controlled clinical trials (504 infants) from 1996 to 2020. We identified no studies comparing different doses of the same opioid, or different routes. The administration of continuous opioid infusion versus bolus administration of opioids was evaluated in six studies, while one study compared 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled' administration of morphine given by parents or nurses. Overall, the effectiveness of continuous infusion of opioids over bolus infusion as measured by the visual analog scale (MD 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.23; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0); or using the COMFORT scale (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.75; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0), remains unclear due to study designs' limitations, such as the unclear risk of attrition, reporting bias, and imprecision among reported results (very low certainty of the evidence).  None of the included studies reported data on other clinically important outcomes such as all-cause mortality rate during hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, the incidence of severe retinopathy of prematurity or intraventricular hemorrhage, and cognitive- and educational-related outcomes.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available on continuous infusion compared to intermittent boluses of systemic opioids. We are uncertain whether continuous opioid infusion reduces pain compared with intermittent opioid boluses; none of the studies reported the other primary outcomes of this review, i.e. all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, significant neurodevelopmental disability, or cognitive and educational outcomes among children older than five years old. Only one small study reported on morphine infusion with parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia.

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.

Postnatal phenobarbital for the prevention of intraventricular haemorrhage in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) is a major complication of preterm birth. Large haemorrhages are associated with a high risk of disability and hydrocephalus. Instability of blood pressure and cerebral blood in the newborn flow are postulated as causative factors. Another mechanism may involve reperfusion damage from oxygen free radicals. It has been suggested that phenobarbital stabilises blood pressure and may protect against free radicals. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2007 and 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of the postnatal administration of phenobarbital in preterm infants at risk of developing IVH compared to control (i.e. no intervention or placebo). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL and clinical trial registries in January 2022. A new, more sensitive search strategy was developed, and searches were conducted without date limits.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in which phenobarbital was given within the first 24 hours of life to preterm infants identified as being at risk of IVH because of gestational age below 34 weeks, birth weight below 1500 g or respiratory failure. Phenobarbital was compared to no intervention or placebo. We excluded infants with serious congenital malformations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all grades of IVH and severe IVH (i.e. grade III and IV); secondary outcomes were ventricular dilation or hydrocephalus, hypotension, pneumothorax, hypercapnia, acidosis, mechanical ventilation, neurodevelopmental impairment and death. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (792 infants). The evidence suggests that phenobarbital results in little to no difference in the incidence of IVH of any grade compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.19; risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; I² for RD = 65%; 10 RCTs, 792 participants; low certainty evidence) and in severe IVH (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.21; 10 RCTs, 792 participants; low certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on posthaemorrhagic ventricular dilation or hydrocephalus (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.26; 4 RCTs, 271 participants; very low certainty evidence), mild neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.17; 1RCT, 101 participants; very low certainty evidence), and severe neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.82; 2 RCTs, 153 participants; very low certainty evidence). Phenobarbital may result in little to no difference in death before discharge (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.21; 9 RCTs, 740 participants; low certainty evidence) and mortality during study period (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33; 10 RCTs, 792 participants; low certainty evidence) compared with control. We identified no ongoing trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that phenobarbital results in little to no difference in the incidence of IVH (any grade or severe) compared with control (i.e. no intervention or placebo). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of phenobarbital on ventricular dilation or hydrocephalus and on neurodevelopmental impairment. The evidence suggests that phenobarbital results in little to no difference in death before discharge and all deaths during the study period compared with control. Since 1993, no randomised studies have been published on phenobarbital for the prevention of IVH in preterm infants, and no trials are ongoing. The effects of postnatal phenobarbital might be assessed in infants with both neonatal seizures and IVH, in both randomised and observational studies. The assessment of benefits and harms should include long-term outcomes.

Systemic opioid regimens for postoperative pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain clinical management in neonates has always been a challenging medical issue. Worldwide, several systemic opioid regimens are available for pediatricians, neonatologists, and general practitioners to control pain in neonates undergoing surgical procedures. However, the most effective and safe regimen is still unknown in the current body of literature. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of different regimens of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates submitted to surgery on all-cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability. Potentially assessed regimens might include: different doses of the same opioid, different routes of administration of the same opioid, continuous infusion versus bolus administration, or 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in June 2022 using the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], PubMed, and CINAHL. Trial registration records were identified via CENTRAL and an independent search of the ISRCTN registry. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, cluster-randomized, and cross-over controlled trials evaluating systemic opioid regimens' effects on postoperative pain in neonates (pre-term or full-term). We considered suitable for inclusion: I) studies evaluating different doses of the same opioid; 2) studies evaluating different routes of administration of the same opioid; 3) studies evaluating the effectiveness of continuous infusion versus bolus infusion; and 4) studies establishing an assessment of an 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: According to Cochrane methods, two investigators independently screened retrieved records, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. We stratified meta-analysis by the type of intervention: studies evaluating the use of opioids for postoperative pain in neonates through continuous infusion versus bolus infusion and studies assessing the 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), median, and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous data. Finally, we used the GRADEpro approach for primary outcomes to evaluate the quality of the evidence across included studies. MAIN RESULTS: In this review, we included seven randomized controlled clinical trials (504 infants) from 1996 to 2020. We identified no studies comparing different doses of the same opioid, or different routes. The administration of continuous opioid infusion versus bolus administration of opioids was evaluated in six studies, while one study compared 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled' administration of morphine given by parents or nurses. Overall, the effectiveness of continuous infusion of opioids over bolus infusion as measured by the visual analog scale (MD 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.23; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0); or using the COMFORT scale (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.75; 133 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0), remains unclear due to study designs' limitations, such as the unclear risk of attrition, reporting bias, and imprecision among reported results (very low certainty of the evidence).  None of the included studies reported data on other clinically important outcomes such as all-cause mortality rate during hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, the incidence of severe retinopathy of prematurity or intraventricular hemorrhage, and cognitive- and educational-related outcomes.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available on continuous infusion compared to intermittent boluses of systemic opioids. We are uncertain whether continuous opioid infusion reduces pain compared with intermittent opioid boluses; none of the studies reported the other primary outcomes of this review, i.e. all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, significant neurodevelopmental disability, or cognitive and educational outcomes among children older than five years old. Only one small study reported on morphine infusion with parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia.

Diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in children.

BACKGROUND: Many children undergo various surgeries, which often lead to acute postoperative pain. This pain influences recovery and quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), specifically cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors such as diclofenac, can be used to treat pain and reduce inflammation. There is uncertainty regarding diclofenac's benefits and harms compared to placebo or other drugs for postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of diclofenac (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo, other active comparators, or diclofenac administered by different routes (e.g. oral, rectal, etc.) or strategies (e.g. 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled'). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and trial registries on 11 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children under 18 years of age undergoing surgery that compared diclofenac (delivered in any dose and route) to placebo or any active pharmacological intervention. We included RCTs comparing different administration routes of diclofenac and different strategies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: pain relief (PR) reported by the child, defined as the proportion of children reporting 50% or better postoperative pain relief; pain intensity (PI) reported by the child; adverse events (AEs); and serious adverse events (SAEs). We presented results using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs with 2250 children. All surgeries were done using general anaesthesia. Most studies (27) included children above age three. Only two studies had an overall low risk of bias; 30 had an unclear or high risk of bias in one or several domains. Diclofenac versus placebo (three studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus placebo on nausea/vomiting (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.80; 2 studies, 100 children) and any reported bleeding (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 26.45; 2 studies, 100 children), both very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus opioids (seven studies) We are very uncertain if diclofenac reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively compared to opioids (median pain intensity 0.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.0 to 2.5) for diclofenac versus median 0.7 (IQR 0.1 to 2.4) in the opioid group; 1 study, 50 children; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on PR or PI for other time points. Diclofenac probably results in less nausea/vomiting compared to opioids (41.0% in opioids, 31.0% in diclofenac; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96; 7 studies, 463 participants), and probably increases any reported bleeding (5.4% in opioids, 16.5% in diclofenac; RR 3.06, 95% CI 1.31 to 7.13; 2 studies, 222 participants), both moderate-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus paracetamol (10 studies) None of the included studies assessed child-reported PR. Compared to paracetamol, we are very uncertain if diclofenac: reduces PI at 0 to 2 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.15; 2 studies, 180 children); reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.39; 3 studies, 300 children); reduces nausea/vomiting (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.87; 5 studies, 348 children); reduces bleeding events (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.62; 5 studies, 332 participants); or reduces SAEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.22; 1 study, 60 children). The evidence certainty was very low for all outcomes. Diclofenac versus bupivacaine (five studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. Compared to bupivacaine, we are very uncertain about the effect of diclofenac on nausea/vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.78; 3 studies, 128 children) and SAEs (RR 4.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 88.38; 1 study, 38 children), both very low-certainty evidence. Diclofenac versus active pharmacological comparator (10 studies) We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus any other active pharmacological comparator (dexamethasone, pranoprofen, fluorometholone, oxybuprocaine, flurbiprofen, lignocaine), and for different routes and delivery of diclofenac, due to few and small studies, no reporting of key outcomes, and very low-certainty evidence for the reported outcomes. We are unable to draw any meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We remain uncertain about the efficacy of diclofenac compared to placebo, active comparators, or by different routes of administration, for postoperative pain management in children. This is largely due to authors not reporting on clinically important outcomes; unclear reporting of the trials; or poor trial conduct reducing our confidence in the results. We remain uncertain about diclofenac's safety compared to placebo or active comparators, except for the comparison of diclofenac with opioids: diclofenac probably results in less nausea and vomiting compared with opioids, but more bleeding events. For healthcare providers managing postoperative pain, diclofenac is a COX inhibitor option, along with other pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Healthcare providers should weigh the benefits and risks based on what is known of their respective pharmacological effects, rather than known efficacy. For surgical interventions in which bleeding or nausea and vomiting are a concern postoperatively, the risks of adverse events using opioids or diclofenac for managing pain should be considered.

Positioning for lumbar puncture in newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar puncture is a common invasive procedure performed in newborns for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Approximately one in two lumbar punctures fail, resulting in both short- and long-term negative consequences for the clinical management of patients. The most common positions used to perform lumbar puncture are the lateral decubitus and sitting position, and each can impact the success rate and safety of the procedure. However, it is uncertain which position best improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of the lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone positions for lumbar puncture in newborn infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving newborn infants of postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days, undergoing lumbar puncture for any indication, comparing different positions (i.e. lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone position) during the procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcomes were successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt; total number of lumbar puncture attempts; and episodes of bradycardia. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 1476 participants. Compared to sitting position: lateral decubitus position probably results in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05; I2 = 47% and 46% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts as specified in this review. Lateral decubitus position likely increases episodes of bradycardia (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.76; RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 33; I2 = not applicable and 69% for RR and RD, respectively; 3 studies, 1279 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and oxygen desaturation (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.08; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; NNTH = 17; I2 = not applicable and 96% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, moderate-certainty evidence). Lateral decubitus position results in little to no difference in time to perform the lumbar puncture compared to sitting position (I2 = not applicable; 2 studies; 1102 infants; high-certainty evidence; in one of the study median and IQR to report time to perform the lumbar puncture were 8 (5-13) and 8 (5-12) in the lateral and sitting position, respectively, I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 1082 infants; in the other study: mean difference 2.00, 95% CI -4.98 to 8.98; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 20 infants). Lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in the number of episodes of apnea during the procedure (RR not estimable; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; I2 = not applicable and 0% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 197 infants, low-certainty evidence). No studies reported apnea defined as number of infants with one or more episodes during the procedure. Compared to prone position: lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 5; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 171 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts or episodes of apnea. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a non-validated pain scale. None of the studies comparing lateral decubitus versus prone position reported the other critical outcomes of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to sitting position, lateral decubitus position probably results in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. None of the included studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts as specified in this review. Furthermore, infants in a sitting position likely experience less episodes of bradycardia and oxygen desaturation than in the lateral decubitus, and there may be little to no difference in episodes of apnea. Lateral decubitus position results in little to no difference in time to perform the lumbar puncture compared to sitting position. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a pain scale that was not included in our prespecified tools for pain assessment due to its high risk of bias. Most study participants were term newborns, thereby limiting the applicability of these results to preterm babies. When compared to prone position, lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. Only one study reported on this comparison and did not evaluate adverse effects. Further research exploring harms and benefits and the effect on patients' pain experience of different positions during lumbar puncture using validated pain scoring tool may increase the level of confidence in our conclusions.

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.