Beractant and poractant alfa in premature neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review of real-world evidence studies and randomized controlled trials

0Citations
Citations of this article
67Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Findings from previous meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) varied as to whether clinical outcomes differed by type of animal-derived pulmonary surfactant; real-world evidence (RWE) was excluded. We extracted study characteristics and outcomes from full-text articles from a systematic search for studies that compared beractant with poractant alfa for RDS in preterm infants. RWE data were tabulated; RCT data were subjected to meta-analyses. Designs, patient characteristics, and follow-up durations varied widely among studies (4 RWE, 15 RCT). RWE studies with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) found no statistically significant between-treatment differences in outcomes. In RCT meta-analyses, no statistically significant between-treatment differences were observed for death [OR (95% confidence interval) 1.35 (0.98–1.86)], bronchopulmonary dysplasia [1.25 (0.96–1.62)], pneumothorax [1.21 (0.72–2.05)], and air leak syndrome [2.28 (0.82–6.39)]. Collectively, outcomes were similar with beractant and poractant alfa in RWE studies and pooled RCTs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sanchez, L. M., Bacher, P., Unnebrink, K., Martinez-Tristani, M., & Ramos, N. C. (2020). Beractant and poractant alfa in premature neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review of real-world evidence studies and randomized controlled trials. Neonatology, 8(2), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-020-0603-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free