The Eyes have it! Retinopathy of Prematurity updates

A review article in the PNEJM introducing the basic concepts in the pathophysiology and treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (Hartnett ME, Penn JS: Mechanisms and management of retinopathy of prematurity. Prestigious New England Journal of Medicine 2012, 367(26):2515-2526). I think it would be a really good article for a first-year fellow. As usual in the PNEJM review articles, the llustrations are excellent.

Another interesting article is a secondary analysis of data from the multicenter superoxide dismutase trial, in which the principal investigator was Jonathan Davis, you may remember that the original trial (an RCT of intra-tracheal recombinant human SOD in about 300 babies less than 1200 g birth weight) was negative in terms of reducing the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia or death, which was the primary outcome variable, although there were some signs of potential beneficial effects on the severity of the disease at 1 year follow up. This new secondary analysis examines the possible effects of superoxide dismutase on retinopathy of prematurity. Overall there was a small reduction in retinopathy but when the highest risk groups were examined, in particular those under 25 weeks, there seems to be a substantial reduction in retinopathy in the patients who received active treatment. As always you have to be super-careful with secondary analyses and in particular careful with those that were not planned at the time of the initial study design; but this is suggestive and biologically plausible. It probably means we need another larger RCT to examine effects on RoP, but recombinant human SOD is probably very expensive, as most thing are that start with ‘recombinant’, maybe another look at bovine SOD would be worthwhile.

Finally a new version of the AAP guideline on screening for RoP, and the timing of repeat eye exams depending on the initial or subsequent findings. A very clearly written guideline in general. However the section on reducing pain during screening is, how shall I put this, pathetic.   I quote ‘Effort may be made to minimize the discomfort and systemic effect of this examination by pretreatment of the eyes with a topical anesthetic agent such as proparacaine; consideration also may be given to the use of pacifiers, oral sucrose, and so forth.’    So forth!  I notice that the authors of this guideline do not include the committee on fetus and newborn. Which I find a bit strange, and probably the reason the authors say that you ‘may’ make an effort to reduce pain (which they try to minimize I think by calling it discomfort), and you might use ‘so forth’. I think the neonatologists on the committee on fetus and newborn would have had more to say about this, and would have requested the evidence base to be reviewed. Each of the individual methods the authors of this guideline suggest have very limited efficacy. Combined methods, using sucrose, swaddling, soothers and local anesthetics are effective, but not 100%, and should be the routine for retinal examinations.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged | Leave a comment

Assisted Reproductive Technologies, and how they affect babies.

ARTs of course affect babies, because they produce babies. Recent advances in ART, however, have not taken much notice of babies. Many changes in technique have been introduced without any investigation of the effects on the final product.

If I am to be polemical for a moment (it doesn’t happen often), I am very disturbed that any physician manipulating gametes and embryos, with the worthy goal of helping infertile couples, could change any aspect of the procedure (a culture medium, for example) and not bother to find out if there was any effect on the babies that result. (We now know that culture media do affect perinatal outcomes, babies are smaller after the use of one culture medium compared to another). The only criterion of success in the past has been whether the pregnancy rate increased. That’s right, the pregnancy rate. Not even the live birth rate, and certainly not the live birth at term of a healthy single baby.

Well I think the times they are a-changin, and some countries have decided that unrestricted free-enterprise ART is not in the best interests of society, or infertile couples, or of their babies. There are a number of disparate societies where restrictions on embryo transfers have been introduced, including Sweden, Belgium, and most recently Turkey and Quebec.

In Quebec we have reduced the frequency of twins after IVF from 30% (which is where it still is in the USA and the rest of Canada) to under 5%, this happened immediately after the introduction of the new reimbursement and regulation strategy.

Annie Janvier and I have just published a review article, now available from the previously anonymous Acta Paediatrica. We review the data regarding neonatal consequences of ART, most particularly multiple delivery, but also other effects such a congenital anomalies, which are also increased after ART.

The overall Odds of having a congenital anomaly are about doubled after all types of in vitro techniques (see for example here). I think we need to ban all innovations in IVF and any ART that manipulates gametes or embryos, unless they are accompanied by an objective evaluation of  the results, meaning adequate outcomes research, evaluating congenital anomalies, neurodevelopmental progress and other health outcomes.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged | Leave a comment

Not neonatology: let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!

I hope all my loyal fans (!) are not too disappointed by the lack of posts over the past few days, it was Newtonmas after all. Also, a couple of days after the celebration of the great man’s birthday, there was a record snow fall in Montreal, 45 cms in one day. This is what it looked like when I tried to get my car out to go to the chalet. 2012-12-28 12.59.50

At least I had 3 loyal helpers

2012-12-28 12.58.43

who shovelled with me, and then we all went to the chalet with very limited web access. We all went skiing for a couple of days; and now back to the grind, 69 babies in our 65 beds… oh well.

Happy New Year to everyone.

Posted in Neonatal Research | 2 Comments

Gastro-esophageal Reflux, are we thick enough?

Making the milk thicker, in order to make it harder to reflux, has a long history in the treatment of GE reflux, or spitting-up babies. As I mentioned in a previous post there are some thickeners that have been associated with NEC, specifically xanthan gum.

In general, in good studies, the effects of thickeners have been modest or absent, in terms of reducing reflux. One group has previously studied Gaviscon, which is an alginate that sort of clots in the stomach, so reducing reflux. They showed that it did reduce reflux, but did not reduce apnea.

The most recent study from that same group looked at the effects of another agent, amylopectin. They again showed in a small cross-over RCT that thickening reduced reflux (in this case acid reflux but not non-acid reflux) but did not reduce apnea, the most parsimonious explanation for this is that reflux has nothing to do with apnea.

That is exactly the interpretation that Christian Poets puts on the data in his accompanying editorial .

In fact Corvaglia and colleagues are the only group that has consistently shown a relationship between reflux and apnea. If you look at their data closely, it appears that the apneas that they find after feeds more than between feeds, and that they seem to show are associated with reflux on Multi-luminal impedance monitoring, are short apneas of 5 seconds or more. It does not appear that pathologic apneas, with associated hypoxia and bradycardia are associated, even in their studies. Maybe this is the difference to other investigators, and the reason why those others, who only looked at longer, pathological apneas, have not found any association.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Leave a comment

Probiotics: more than enough!

Yet another small RCT of probiotics. This time 150 infants less than 1500 grams birth weight in an NICU in Mexico were randomized to a mixture of 4 different Lactobacilli and Bifidobacterium infantis or control. There was a reduction in NEC stage 2 or greater (6/75 vs 12/75) of about the same magnitude as all the other trials. They also had lower mortality, and no adverse effects.

Probiotics dec 2012

Here is the funnel plot with the new new study added. I can only say it again, its time we stopped doing placebo controlled RCTs and focused on finding the best preparation, and the optimal dose and timing. RCTs in women at risk of preterm delivery are also a good idea.

Posted in Neonatal Research | 2 Comments

Reducing Global Neonatal Mortality

Melinda Gates has written a column in the Economist where she notes that the improvements in child and maternal mortality seen in response to the millennium development goals have not been reflected in reductions in neonatal mortality. The column is short, and optimistic. I hope her optimism is well placed.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged | Leave a comment

Weekly Updates #18

Abbas W, Attia NI, Hassanein SM: Two-stage single-volume exchange transfusion in severe hemolytic disease of the newborn. The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine. 2012, 25(7):1080-1083. In this randomized clinical trial the authors did 104 exchange transfusions, they randomized the infants to either have a standard double volume exchange or the experimental technique which was to wait for 3 hours between the 2 single volume exchanges. The immediate effects were identical with a good lowering of the bilirubin, but the intervention group had much less rebound after the exchange was finished, to about 210 rather than 290. Unfortunately the report doesn’t clearly state when the rebound levels were taken, or even if they were measured at the same time in each group, but it looks like they were taken at 3 hours post exchange according to one of the tables. Also fewer of the intervention group needed as 2nd exchange.

In my hospital to do a study with 104 exchanges would take about 104 years, which means 2 things to me, 1. to improve techniques and treatments for severe jaundice we have to rely on studies from countries without well established anti-rhesus IgG programs. 2. Those countries need to develop anti-rhesus IgG programs!

Berry J, Griffiths M, Westcott C: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of tongue-tie division and its immediate effect on breastfeeding. Breastfeed Med 2012, 7(3):189-193. This is one of the oldest debates in care of the newborn, does tongue-tie affect feeding, and does cutting the tie improve feeding. This was an RCT in breastfed babies. The observer scoring the rbeastfeeding adn the mother were masked as to whether an actual frenulotomy had been performed or not, the baby was taken away from the mother, either a real or sham frenulotomy was performed and the babe was then returned to the mother with a piece of gauze under the tongue. There were 30 babies in each group, and the primary outcome was improvement in breast feeding. The tongue tie group had 78% of the babies feeding improved after the procedure and the controls 48%.

there are a couple of issues with this study, 1 I don’t know if you should really call this double blind as the baby probably knew it had the procedure! and 2. seriously this time, there was no anesthetic or analgesic used. I think that is appalling. there is no reason why a little topical anesthetic or at least some analgesia, such as sucrose, could not be given. The authors state that there is a NICE guidance, which they say requested further studies to provide evidence ‘that division of tongue-tie without an anesthetic in infants is safe,  successful, and acceptable to parents’. In fact the guidance requests no such thing. The NICE review notes that the procedure is usually performed without anesthesia, and suggests further studies, but does not suggest further studies without anesthesia, it is in fact silent on the issue as far as a recommendation is performed. Also the study was actually performed in 2003 and 2004, so they can’t use the NICE guidance published in 2005 as justification for not giving analgesia. Some infants do sleep through the procedure, but others cry and do demonstrate pain responses.

It certainly now looks like division of a tongue tie improves poor breast feeding, as well as reducing nipple pain ( as shown previously) so a referral to someone who has been trained to do it seems appropriate, but find someone who gives an anesthetic, or at least some analgesic.

Autrata R, Krejcirova I, Senkova K, Holousova M, Dolezel Z, Borek I: Intravitreal pegaptanib combined with diode laser therapy for stage 3+ retinopathy of prematurity in zone i and posterior zone ii. European journal of ophthalmology 2012, 22(5):687-694. This multi-center RCT of retinopathy treatment enrolled a very high risk group of babies. Stage 3 with plus in zone 1 or poterior zone 2. They compared laser plus pegaptanib, a VEGF-165 inhibitor. Apparently this agent is more selective than the one that was used in the BEAT-ROP trial (called bevacizumab) it is an RNA aptamer whatever that means! The biggest other difference between this trial and BEAT-ROP is that all the babies in both groups got laser therapy. The conventional treatment group received laser therapy ‘combined with cryotherapy’ but the cryo is never described, we don’t know who got cryo for what indications. The authors state that they followed the ETROP recommendations, but those recommendations don’t suggest combined laser and cryotherapy, so I don’t undestand this at all.

One of the major advantages of anti-VEGF treatment as far as I can see is avoidance of laser. Laser therapy injures the peripheral retina, requires a very sedated baby, often one who has to be re-intubated for the procedure, and as many of the babies also have BPD, avoiding re-intubation is a big advantage. The primary outcome of this trial was recurrence of stage 3+ disease, and there was significantly less recurrence after pegaptanib than after conventional therapy, 15% versus 50%.

Pasquali SK, Ohye RG, Lu M, Kaltman J, Caldarone CA, Pizarro C, Dunbar-Masterson C, Gaynor JW, Jacobs JP, Kaza AK et al: Variation in perioperative care across centers for infants undergoing the norwood procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012, 144(4):915-921.
Ohye RG, Schonbeck JV, Eghtesady P, Laussen PC, Pizarro C, Shrader P, Frank DU, Graham EM, Hill KD, Jacobs JP et al: Cause, timing, and location of death in the single ventricle reconstruction trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012, 144(4):907-914.
Tabbutt S, Ghanayem N, Ravishankar C, Sleeper LA, Cooper DS, Frank DU, Lu M, Pizarro C, Frommelt P, Goldberg CS et al: Risk factors for hospital morbidity and mortality after the norwood procedure: A report from the pediatric heart network single ventricle reconstruction trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012, 144(4):882-895.
Ghanayem NS, Allen KR, Tabbutt S, Atz AM, Clabby ML, Cooper DS, Eghtesady P, Frommelt PC, Gruber PJ, Hill KD et al: Interstage mortality after the norwood procedure: Results of the multicenter single ventricle reconstruction trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012, 144(4):896-906.
These publications are all from the Single Ventricle Reconstruction Trial, which was a surgical RCT of about 550 infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome randomized to different forms of the Norwood procedure. These secondary analyses show that there are enormous variations in many different aspects of perioperative care, and that many babies die between different stages of the surgical repair. Bravo to the collaborators for doing a very difficult trial. The next stage will be to do more trials to find out which of these differences in care really have an impact on clinical outcomes.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Leave a comment

Is the glass 81% full or 19% empty?

The new Epicure 2 data show encouraging trends in outcomes in the UK and Ireland for extremely preterm babies. Survival rates have improved significantly over the whole of the British Isles, Here for example is one of the figures from the long term outcome publication.

epicure2

As you can see the proportion of survivors has increased, and the proportion of severely impaired survivors has not changed, when expressed as a proportion of the survivors. When expressed as a proportion of the number of babies who can be stabilized at birth and are admitted to NICU this means that the proportion of admissions who are severely impaired has increased. So in 1995 there were 266 survivors of 666 babies admitted, 39%; of them 19% (51 infants) were severely impaired, so the percentage of the original 666 babies who were admitted for intensive care who survive with a severe impairment is 51/666 = 7.7%. In 2006 there were proportionally many more survivors; 593 survivors of 1115 babies admitted, 53%. 19% of them (113) had severe impairments, the percentage of the original 1115 babies admitted for intensive care who survive with a severe impairment is 113/1115 = 10.1%.

Now you can interpret these data according to your own prejudices, and that is indeed what has been happening. The editorial accompanying the publications in the BMJ was very negatively slanted. That editorial, written by 2 individuals from the Netherlands, includes the following quotes ‘a greater absolute number of neonates had major morbidity’, ‘the prevalence of important adverse neurological and developmental outcomes had indeed not improved’ and ‘of 100 neonates born at 24 weeks, 60 will die despite intensive care, and of the 40 survivors 12 will have serious impairments’ (this is actually a serious error! Fifteen or nineteen percent of the survivors at 24 weeks gestation had serious impairments, which means that of the 40 survivors in their scenario there would be 6 or 7 with serious impairments).

One other quote: ‘Similar outcome data are seen in the Netherlands, and neonatal intensive care is therefore not offered routinely to neonates born before 24 completed weeks’ gestation.’ This is also untrue, there are no similar outcome data from the Netherlands. As there are no survivors at 23 weeks in the Netherlands, and until recently there were no survivors at 24 weeks either, they do not have data to make that statement.

I think that anyone looking at the graph at the top of this post without any pre-existing prejudices (like me for example) would say that there have been major advances. In the context of a huge increase in the absolute number of extremely preterm infants, there are major improvements in survival with a stable proportion of impairments among the survivors. With an overall prevalence of severe disability among the survivors of 19% why do we persist in focusing on those infants? I know it is vitally important that those infants receive early evaluation and effective services and interventions. But surely we can also emphasize that 81% of these infants, who would all be dead if it wasn’t for NICU, are free of serious impairment.

The authors of the editorial appear to be of the opinion that it is OK for 81% of the potential survivors to die to avoid the survival of the 19% who have severe impairments. I beg to differ.

Posted in Advocating for impaired children | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

I am Epicurious…

Two publications have just appeared from the EPICURE 2 study. The first (Costeloe KL, Hennessy EM, Haider S, Stacey F, Marlow N, Draper ES: Short term outcomes after extreme preterm birth in England: comparison of two birth cohorts in 1995 and 2006 (the EPICure studies). BMJ 2012, 345:e7976) describes the survival and serious complications among all the babies born in the UK and Ireland during 2006. It also compares the figures with EPICURE 1, which ran for 10 months in 1995.

One of the issues with the first EPICURE cohort was the large number of infants who were born outside of tertiary care centers and never transferred for intensive care, or who remained in tiny units that only looked after one or two such babies a year. Of course their outcomes are not as good as centers who do it all the time. Part of the UK response to the EPICURE results was to improve regionalisation, and there is a higher proportion of extremely preterm babies born in centers with a tertiary NICU this time. But, it is still an inadequate percentage: At 22, 23, 24 and 25 weeks the percentages are 45%, 48%, 58%, 66% even at 26 weeks more than a third of babies are born in the wrong place (40%).

This means that substantial proportions of babies had to be transported during the first day of life to a tertiary unit, a process which we know increases all sorts of complications.

What can be done to improve these outcomes further?

The latest CNN annual report is now available on-line. The data are in many ways not comparable. They do not include babies never admitted to a participating hospital, so a baby born elsewhere and not referred for intensive care is nowhere to be found in the CNN report. However, I just wanted to point out that, of babies admitted to NICU in Canada at 25 weeks there was 78% survival, at 24 weeks there was 54% survival, and at 23 weeks there was 42% survival, all of these figures are around 10% better than the EPICURE data. So I think one thing that needs to be done in the UK is to get more of these babies born in tertiary care centers. Plus in Canada we still have more to do, survival rates seem to be substantially better in Japan than in Canada, what can we all do to improve survival and outcomes?

There are some pointers in the report of other things that can be done, in 2006 99% of the 26 weekers, 98% of the 25 weekers and 99% of the 24 week infants received surfactant. Which means that almost none of them were kept extubated during the first few days of life. I find that a little surprising, things were starting to change in terms of trying to use CPAP from birth in many places, but that obviously wasn’t the case in the British Isles in 2006. Early CPAP rather than routine intubation for surfactant appears to reduce severe BPD; BPD was very common in this cohort, but we don’t have any indication of severity.

We also now have probiotics which can reduce Necrotising Enterocolitis and mortality, and the incidence of late onset sepsis can be reduced with aggressive quality control and perhaps also with lactoferrin.

One thing that the investigators note is the older age of death in this cohort compared to the previous one, with half of the deaths occurring after the first week of life. Others have noted the same thing, these deaths are often due to NEC, Sepsis and sometimes to end-stage respiratory failure, EPICURE 2 showed a very high proportion of their late deaths were due to sepsis and NEC. If we can get reductions in those complications and also find ways to treat them better when they occur, we can really make a difference to survival, and to long term disability also, as BPD, NEC and Sepsis are major determinants of poorer long term outcomes.

Onto the second instalment; (Moore T, Hennessy EM, Myles J, Johnson SJ, Draper ES, Costeloe KL, Marlow N: Neurological and developmental outcome in extremely preterm children born in England in 1995 and 2006: the EPICure studies. BMJ 2012, 345:e7961.) The EPICURE investigators have followed up to 3 years of age a good proportion of the survivors. Much fewer than they would have liked however. Changes in certain regulations in the UK inhibited, and continue to inhibit, good follow up studies. So they had to estimate what the outcomes of the non-followed babies would have been, using the perinatal characteristics of the babies who were seen, and assuming that the influence of being a boy with sepsis (for example) was the same between babies who were examined and the others. This is called multiple imputation, and is the best you can do if you don’t have the children in front of you. Anyway the increase in survivors compared to the previous cohort was not associated with more impaired survivors, or indeed with a reduction in impairment. The proportions were almost identical. The proportions of severely impaired survivors are higher than in other regional cohorts such as from Victoria in Australia, which again I think shows that there are more improvements to be found.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Weekly Updates #17

Moon C, Lagercrantz H, Kuhl PK: Language experienced in utero affects vowel perception after birth: A two-country study. Acta Paediatrica 2012. This is neat, the researchers played recordings of different vowel sounds to Swedish and American babies who were just about 1 day old, sucking frequency changed when the vowel sounds that were from their own region were played to them compared to the non-native sounds. Looks like the vowel sounds the fetus heard before birth affect cerebral development some way, so that different vowel sounds after birth elicit different responses to those they have already heard.

Klinger G, Sokolover N, Boyko V, Sirota L, Lerner-Geva L, Reichman B, in collaboration with the Israel Neonatal N: Perinatal risk factors for bronchopulmonary dysplasia in a national cohort of very-low-birthweight infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012. An epidemiologic analysis of antecedents of BPD in a cohort from Israel. BPD was independently associated with young maternal age (odds ratio [OR], 1.53), maternal hypertensive disorders (OR, 1.28), antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.26), male gender (OR, 1.41), non-Jewish ethnicity (OR, 1.23), birth defects (OR, 1.94), small for gestational age (GA) (OR, 2.65), and delivery room resuscitation (OR, 1.86).

Carey JC: Perspectives on the care and management of infants with trisomy 18 and trisomy 13: Striving for balance. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 2012, 24(6):672-678. A very thoughtful review and opinion article about how to care for families with an infant who has trisomy 18 or 13.

Cheong JL, Coleman L, Hunt RW, Lee KJ, Doyle LW, Inder TE, Jacobs SE, Infant Cooling Evaluation C: Prognostic utility of magnetic resonance imaging in neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy: Substudy of a randomized trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2012, 166(7):634-640. MRI is fairly predictive of death or major disability at 2 years of age. PPV for the abnomalities of white or grey matter that they investigated were mostly around 85%, so only 15% were survivors without major disability (false positives). There were a lot of false negatives though, around 40% of the babies with a normal MRI score in each category still had either death or major disability. Disability included Bayley Scores more than 2SD below the mean, which I have criticized before; a low Bayley score is not a disability. But in infants with HIE it does seem more predictive of future intellectual impairment than it is among ex-preterm infants.

Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Korsak V, Kupka M, Nygren KG, Nyboe Andersen A, IVF-monitoring TE et al: Assisted reproductive technology in europe, 2008: Results generated from european registers by eshre. Human Reproduction 2012, 27(9):2571-2584. If you saw my other post earlier, this is the source of the European data, from 2008 of ART success and complication rates.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Leave a comment