Generalizability of the Necrotizing Enterocolitis Surgery Trial to the Target Population of Eligible Infants.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether infants randomized in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network Necrotizing Enterocolitis Surgery Trial differed from eligible infants and whether differences affected the generalizability of trial results. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of infants enrolled in Necrotizing Enterocolitis Surgery Trial (born 2010-2017, with follow-up through 2019) at 20 US academic medical centers and an observational data set of eligible infants through 2013. Infants born ≤1000 g and diagnosed with necrotizing enterocolitis or spontaneous intestinal perforation requiring surgical intervention at ≤8 weeks were eligible. The target population included trial-eligible infants (randomized and nonrandomized) born during the first half of the study with available detailed preoperative data. Using model-based weighting methods, we estimated the effect of initial laparotomy vs peritoneal drain had the target population been randomized. RESULTS: The trial included 308 randomized infants. The target population included 382 (156 randomized and 226 eligible, non-randomized) infants. Compared with the target population, fewer randomized infants had necrotizing enterocolitis (31% vs 47%) or died before discharge (27% vs 41%). However, incidence of the primary composite outcome, death or neurodevelopmental impairment, was similar (69% vs 72%). Effect estimates for initial laparotomy vs drain weighted to the target population were largely unchanged from the original trial after accounting for preoperative diagnosis of necrotizing enterocolitis (adjusted relative risk [95% CI]: 0.85 [0.71-1.03] in target population vs 0.81 [0.64-1.04] in trial) or spontaneous intestinal perforation (1.02 [0.79-1.30] vs 1.11 [0.95-1.31]). CONCLUSION: Despite differences between randomized and eligible infants, estimated treatment effects in the trial and target population were similar, supporting the generalizability of trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01029353.

Birth asphyxia is under-rated as a cause of preterm neonatal mortality in low- and middle-income countries: A prospective, observational study from PURPOSe.

OBJECTIVE: To assess respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) compared with birth asphyxia as the cause of death in preterm newborns, assigned by the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) physician at the time of death and assigned by a panel with complete obstetric history, placental evaluation, tissue histology and microbiology. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTINGS: Study NICUs in India and Pakistan. POPULATION: Preterm infants delivered in study facility. METHODS: A total of 410 preterm infants who died in the NICU with cause of death ascertained by the NICU physicians and independently by expert panels. We compared the percentage of cases assigned RDS versus birth asphyxia as cause of death by the physician and the panel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: RDS and birth asphyxia. RESULTS: Of 410 preterm neonatal deaths, the discharging NICU physicians found RDS as a cause of death among 83.2% of the cases, compared with the panel finding RDS in only 51.0%. In the same neonatal deaths, the NICU physicians found birth asphyxia as a cause of death in 14.9% of the deaths, whereas the panels found birth asphyxia in 57.6% of the deaths. The difference was greater in Pakistan were the physicians attributed 89.7% of the deaths to RDS and less than 1% to birth asphyxia whereas the panel attributed 35.6% of the deaths to RDS and 62.7% to birth asphyxia. CONCLUSIONS: NICU physicians who reported cause of death in deceased preterm infants less often attributed the death to birth asphyxia, and instead more often chose RDS, whereas expert panels with more extensive data attributed a greater proportion of deaths to birth asphyxia than did the physicians.

Neurodevelopment of Children Whose Mothers Were Randomized to Low-Dose Aspirin During Pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: Because low-dose aspirin is now commonly prescribed in pregnancy, we sought to assess the association between early antenatal exposure and child neurodevelopment. METHODS: We performed a noninferiority, masked, neurodevelopmental follow-up study of children between age 33 and 39 months whose mothers had been randomized to daily low-dose aspirin (81 mg) or placebo between 6 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks of gestation through 37 weeks. Neurodevelopment was assessed with the Bayley-III (Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd Edition) and the ASQ-3 (Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd Edition). The primary outcome was the Bayley-III cognitive composite score with a difference within 4 points demonstrating noninferiority. RESULTS: A total of 640 children (329 in the low-dose aspirin group, 311 in the placebo group) were evaluated between September 2021 and June 2022. The Bayley-III cognitive composite score was noninferior between the two groups (-1, adjusted mean -0.8, 95% CI, -2.2 to 0.60). Significant differences were not seen in the language composite score (difference 0.7, 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.1) or the motor composite score (difference -0.6, 95% CI, -2.5 to 1.2). The proportion of children who had any component of the Bayley-III score lower than 70 did not differ between the two groups. Similarly, the communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem-solving, and personal-social components of the ASQ-3 did not differ between groups. Maternal characteristics, delivery outcomes, breastfeeding rates, breastfeeding duration, and home environment as measured by the Family Care Indicators were similar. CONCLUSION: Antenatal low-dose aspirin exposure was not associated with altered neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 3 years. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04888377.