NIH consensus development conference: Inhaled nitric oxide therapy for premature infants.

F Sessions Cole, Claudia Alleyne, John D E Barks, Robert J Boyle, John L Carroll, Deborah Dokken, William H Edwards, Michael Georgieff, Katherine Gregory, Michael V Johnston, Michael Kramer, Christine Mitchell, Josef Neu, DeWayne M Pursley, Walter Robinson, David H Rowitch
{"title":"NIH consensus development conference: Inhaled nitric oxide therapy for premature infants.","authors":"F Sessions Cole,&nbsp;Claudia Alleyne,&nbsp;John D E Barks,&nbsp;Robert J Boyle,&nbsp;John L Carroll,&nbsp;Deborah Dokken,&nbsp;William H Edwards,&nbsp;Michael Georgieff,&nbsp;Katherine Gregory,&nbsp;Michael V Johnston,&nbsp;Michael Kramer,&nbsp;Christine Mitchell,&nbsp;Josef Neu,&nbsp;DeWayne M Pursley,&nbsp;Walter Robinson,&nbsp;David H Rowitch","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide healthcare providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on the use of inhaled nitric oxide in early routine, early rescue, or later rescue regimens in the care of premature infants <34 weeks gestation who require respiratory support.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A non-Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 16-member panel representing the fields of biostatistics, child psychology, clinical trials, ethics, family-centered care, neonatology, neurodevelopmental follow-up, nursing, pediatric epidemiology, neurobehavior, neurological surgery, neurology, and pulmonology, perinatology, and research methodology. In addition, 18 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience.</p><p><strong>Evidence: </strong>Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience.</p><p><strong>Conference process: </strong>The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is a report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>(1) Taken as a whole, the available evidence does not support use of inhaled nitric oxide in early routine, early rescue, or later rescue regimens in the care of premature infants <34 weeks gestation who require respiratory support. (2) There are rare clinical situations, including pulmonary hypertension or hypoplasia, that have been inadequately studied in which inhaled nitric oxide may have benefit in infants <34 weeks gestation. In such situations, clinicians should communicate with families regarding the current evidence on its risks and benefits as well as remaining uncertainties. (3) Basic research and animal studies have contributed to important understandings of inhaled nitric oxide benefits on lung development and function in infants at high risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. These promising results have only partly been realized in clinical trials of inhaled nitric oxide treatment in premature infants. Future research should seek to understand this gap. (4) Predefined subgroup and post hoc analyses of previous trials showing potential benefit of inhaled nitric oxide have generated hypotheses for future research for clinical trials. Prior strategies shown to be ineffective are discouraged unless new evidence emerges. The positive results of one multicenter trial, which was characterized by later timing, higher dose, and longer duration of treatment, require confirmation. Future trials should attempt to quantify the individual effects of each of these treatment-related variables (timing, dose, and duration), ideally by randomizing them separately. (5) Based on assessment of currently available data, hospitals, clinicians, and the pharmaceutical industry should avoid marketing inhaled nitric oxide for premature infants <34 weeks gestation.</p>","PeriodicalId":86986,"journal":{"name":"NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements","volume":"27 5","pages":"1-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To provide healthcare providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on the use of inhaled nitric oxide in early routine, early rescue, or later rescue regimens in the care of premature infants <34 weeks gestation who require respiratory support.

Participants: A non-Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 16-member panel representing the fields of biostatistics, child psychology, clinical trials, ethics, family-centered care, neonatology, neurodevelopmental follow-up, nursing, pediatric epidemiology, neurobehavior, neurological surgery, neurology, and pulmonology, perinatology, and research methodology. In addition, 18 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience.

Evidence: Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience.

Conference process: The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is a report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.

Conclusions: (1) Taken as a whole, the available evidence does not support use of inhaled nitric oxide in early routine, early rescue, or later rescue regimens in the care of premature infants <34 weeks gestation who require respiratory support. (2) There are rare clinical situations, including pulmonary hypertension or hypoplasia, that have been inadequately studied in which inhaled nitric oxide may have benefit in infants <34 weeks gestation. In such situations, clinicians should communicate with families regarding the current evidence on its risks and benefits as well as remaining uncertainties. (3) Basic research and animal studies have contributed to important understandings of inhaled nitric oxide benefits on lung development and function in infants at high risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. These promising results have only partly been realized in clinical trials of inhaled nitric oxide treatment in premature infants. Future research should seek to understand this gap. (4) Predefined subgroup and post hoc analyses of previous trials showing potential benefit of inhaled nitric oxide have generated hypotheses for future research for clinical trials. Prior strategies shown to be ineffective are discouraged unless new evidence emerges. The positive results of one multicenter trial, which was characterized by later timing, higher dose, and longer duration of treatment, require confirmation. Future trials should attempt to quantify the individual effects of each of these treatment-related variables (timing, dose, and duration), ideally by randomizing them separately. (5) Based on assessment of currently available data, hospitals, clinicians, and the pharmaceutical industry should avoid marketing inhaled nitric oxide for premature infants <34 weeks gestation.

美国国立卫生研究院共识发展会议:吸入一氧化氮治疗早产儿。
目的:为医疗保健提供者、患者和公众提供一个负责任的评估,评估目前在早产儿早期常规、早期抢救或后期抢救方案中使用吸入一氧化氮的可用数据。一个非卫生与公众服务部、非倡导者的16人小组,代表生物统计学、儿童心理学、临床试验、伦理学、以家庭为中心的护理、新生儿学、神经发育随访、护理学、儿科流行病学、神经行为学、神经外科、神经病学、肺脏学、围产期学和研究方法学等领域。此外,来自相关领域的18位专家向小组和会议听众介绍了数据。证据:专家介绍和约翰霍普金斯大学循证实践中心通过医疗保健研究和质量机构编写的文献系统综述。科学证据优先于轶事经验。会议进程:小组根据公开论坛上提出的科学证据和已发表的科学文献起草了声明。声明草案在会议的最后一天提出,并分发给与会者征求意见。该委员会当天晚些时候在http://consensus.nih.gov上发布了一份修订后的声明。本声明是专家组的一份报告,并非美国国立卫生研究院或联邦政府的政策声明。结论:(1)总体而言,现有证据不支持在早产儿早期常规、早期抢救或后期抢救方案中使用吸入型一氧化氮
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信