|Does aggressive phototherapy increase mortality while decreasing profound impairment among the smallest and sickest newborns?|
|Jump to Full Text|
|PMID: 22652561 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE|
|OBJECTIVE: Aggressive phototherapy (AgPT) is widely used and assumed to be safe and effective for even the most immature infants. We assessed whether the benefits and hazards for the smallest and sickest infants differed from those for other extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW; ≤ 1000 g) infants in our Neonatal Research Network trial, the only large trial of AgPT.
STUDY DESIGN: ELBW infants (n=1974) were randomized to AgPT or conservative phototherapy at age 12 to 36 h. The effect of AgPT on outcomes (death, impairment, profound impairment, death or impairment (primary outcome), and death or profound impairment) at 18 to 22 months of corrected age was related to BW stratum (501 to 750 g; 751 to 1000 g) and baseline severity of illness using multilevel regression equations. The probability of benefit and of harm was directly assessed with Bayesian analyses.
RESULT: Baseline illness severity was well characterized using mechanical ventilation and FiO(2) at 24 h age. Among mechanically ventilated infants ≤ 750 g BW (n=684), a reduction in impairment and in profound impairment was offset by higher mortality (P for interaction <0.05) with no significant effect on composite outcomes. Conservative Bayesian analyses of this subgroup identified a 99% (posterior) probability that AgPT increased mortality, a 97% probability that AgPT reduced impairment, and a 99% probability that AgPT reduced profound impairment.
CONCLUSION: Findings from the only large trial of AgPT suggest that AgPT may increase mortality while reducing impairment and profound impairment among the smallest and sickest infants. New approaches to reduce their serum bilirubin need development and rigorous testing.
|J E Tyson; C Pedroza; J Langer; C Green; B Morris; D Stevenson; K P Van Meurs; W Oh; D Phelps; M O'Shea; G E McDavid; C Grisby; R Higgins;|
|Type: Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Date: 2012-05-31|
|Title: Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association Volume: 32 ISSN: 1476-5543 ISO Abbreviation: J Perinatol Publication Date: 2012 Sep|
|Created Date: 2012-08-31 Completed Date: 2013-01-23 Revised Date: 2013-06-24|
Medline Journal Info:
|Nlm Unique ID: 8501884 Medline TA: J Perinatol Country: United States|
|Languages: eng Pagination: 677-84 Citation Subset: IM|
|Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA. firstname.lastname@example.org|
|APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex|
Hyperbilirubinemia, Neonatal / therapy*
Infant, Extremely Low Birth Weight*
Infant, Premature, Diseases / therapy*
Phototherapy / adverse effects*, methods, mortality*
Severity of Illness Index
|KL2 TR000370/TR/NCATS NIH HHS; U10 HD021373/HD/NICHD NIH HHS; UL1 RR024148/RR/NCRR NIH HHS; UL1 TR000142/TR/NCATS NIH HHS|
|J Perinatol. 2012 Sep;32(9):649-51
Journal ID (nlm-journal-id): 8501884
Journal ID (pubmed-jr-id): 5061
Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Perinatol
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Perinatol
nihms-submitted publication date: Day: 7 Month: 1 Year: 2013
Electronic publication date: Day: 31 Month: 5 Year: 2012
Print publication date: Month: 9 Year: 2012
pmc-release publication date: Day: 01 Month: 3 Year: 2013
Volume: 32 Issue: 9
First Page: 677 Last Page: 684
PubMed Id: 22652561
|Does Aggressive Phototherapy Increase Mortality while Decreasing Profound Impairment among the Smallest and Sickest Newborns?|
|Dr. Jon E Tyson, MD, MPH1|
|Dr. Claudia Pedroza, PhD1|
|Mr John Langer, MSc2|
|Dr. Charles Green, PhD1|
|Dr. Brenda Morris, MD3|
|Dr. David Stevenson, MD4|
|Dr. Krisa P. Van Meurs, MD4|
|Dr. William Oh, MD5|
|Dr. Dale Phelps, MD6|
|Dr. Michael O’Shea, MD, MPH7|
|Ms. Georgia E. McDavid, RN1|
|Dr. Cathy Grisby, RN8|
|Dr. Rose Higgins, MD9|
1University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States
2RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States
3Trinity Mother Frances Hospitals and Clinics, Tyler, TX, United States
4Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States
5Brown University, Providence, RI, United States
6University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States
7Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
8Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
9Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, United States
|Correspondence: Corresponding Author: Jon Tyson, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin St., MSB 2.106, Houston, TX 77030, Phone: 713-500-5651, Fax: 713-500-0519, email@example.com
Author Affiliations. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX (Drs. Tyson, Pedroza, Green, and Morris and Ms. Mc David) RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC (Mr. Langer), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA (Drs. Stevenson and Van Meurs), Brown University, Providence, RI (Dr. Oh). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (Dr. Phelps); Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC (Dr. O’Shea), University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (Ms. Grisby), and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD (Dr. Higgins).
With the increasingly aggressive care of the most immature newborns, it is important to ensure that the therapies that they receive are both safe and effective. Yet, as Lucy has emphasized, 1 “these fetal infants are receiving many therapies… that have never been tested on this unique population.”
In this manuscript we address whether aggressive phototherapy (AgPT), a therapy that is widely used in treating extremely low birth weight (ELBW; ≤1000 g), may increase the mortality of the smallest and sickest infants while reducing their serum bilirubin and risk of bilirubin neurotoxicity and neurodevelopmental impairment. Aggressive use of phototherapy has been encouraged by the neurodevelopmental delay associated with even low serum bilirubin levels among small premature infants in multiple large cohort studies.2 However, phototherapy has been assessed in only two large randomized trials, the most recent by the 16-center Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.3 In this trial we randomized ELBW infants at 12–36 hours of age to AgPT (provided at a total serum bilirubin value of 5 mg/dL or higher in the first week and 7 mg/dL or higher in the second week) or to conservative phototherapy (ConPT) (provided at a bilirubin value of 8mg/dL or higher for 501–750g infants and 10mg/dL or higher for 751–1000g infants). We failed to demonstrate that AgPT reduced the primary outcome (death or impairment) (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.94 [95% confidence interval = 0.87–1.02]). However, AgPT did reduce neurodevelopmental impairment at 18–22 months corrected age (after term) (RR = 0.86; [0.74–0.99]), a reduction due almost entirely to a reduction in profound impairment (RR = 0.68; [0.52–0.89]).
Of concern, mortality with aggressive phototherapy was increased, albeit not significantly, in the smaller birth weight stratum (501–750 g) (RR =1.13 [0.96 to 1.34]). A potentially important though nonsignificant increase in mortality also occurred in the only other major phototherapy trial (the Collaborative Phototherapy trial conducted in the 1970s).4,5 In this trial the RR was 1.49 (0.93 to 2.40) among ELBW infants randomized to phototherapy or no phototherapy.6
Although considered quite safe,7 phototherapy may reduce the antioxidant benefits associated with moderate bilirubin levels8,9 or cause oxidative injury or other adverse effects.10,11,12 Such problems might increase mortality among the smallest and sickest infants with the thinnest, most translucent skin and greatest vulnerability to phototoxicity. Conversely, the benefits of phototherapy may be greatest in these infants by preventing bilirubin neurotoxicity associated with hypoalbuminemia, hemolysis, infection, hypoxia, hypercapnia, or other problems that increase bilirubin production, reduce albumin binding, or compromise the blood-brain barrier.13,14,15
The protocol for our Network trial included plans to relate the risks and benefits of aggressive phototherapy to baseline risk factors including measures of severity of illness. This manuscript reports our analyses assessing whether the benefits and hazards of AgPT for the smallest and sickest infants differed from those for other ELBW infants. Partly because conventional frequentist analyses do not allow the probability of benefit or harm from treatment to be calculated,16,17 we performed Bayesian as well as frequentist analyses, as recently recommended for all clinical trials.18
The trial is described in detail elsewhere3 and summarized below.
Infants with a BW of 501 to 1000 g were enrolled 12 to 36 hours after birth. Exclusion criteria included terminal illness (pH <6.8 or persistent bradycardia and hypoxemia for >2 hours), major congenital anomaly, severe hemolytic disease, and congenital nonbacterial infection. After parental informed consent was obtained, infants were stratified by center and BW (501–750g; 751–1,000g) and randomized using a centralized computer system.
The protocol stipulated phototherapy administration during the first 14 postnatal days. Total serum bilirubin was measured in the first week at least once daily and in the second week when phototherapy had been given in the previous 24 hours or the last bilirubin exceeded 7mg/dL. Phototherapy was provided at the bilirubin values noted above and administered for at least 24 hours whenever started or restarted. The target irradiance level was 15–40μW/cm2/nm. Irradiance was increased within this range at bilirubin thresholds of 13 mg/dL for infants 501–750g and 15 mg/dL for infants 751–1,000g. An exchange transfusion was indicated whenever the bilirubin exceeded the threshold after 8 hours of intensified phototherapy. As appropriate for an effectiveness trial, the caregivers selected the fluid regimens, feedings, brand of phototherapy lamps, indications for mechanical ventilation and other interventions.
The outcomes included death, impairment, profound impairment, death or impairment (primary trial outcome), and death or profound impairment at 18–22 months corrected age. Outcomes at 18 to 22 months of corrected age were assessed by blinded neurological examiners and neurodevelopmental assessors trained to reliability during a 2-day workshop.19 Impairment was defined as blindness (no functional vision in either eye), severe hearing loss (hearing loss for which bilateral hearing aids were prescribed), moderate or severe cerebral palsy, or a score below 70 on the Mental or Psychomotor Development Index of the Bayley Scales of Infant DevelopmentII.20 Profound impairment was defined as a score of ≤50 for either index or a level of 5 for gross motor function by the modified Palisano criteria.21 (Profound impairment was not initially defined as an outcome for the trial but was added partly because profound impairment is less likely than less severe impairment to improve with age.22 This definition was based on prior Network studies23 and selected before any comparison of the outcomes of treatment groups. Infants were classified as having moderate or severe cerebral palsy if they were unable to walk or required assistive devices. Hearing outcomes were determined by the neurologic examiner and from parental report.
Multiple variables that may influence risk of bilirubin neurotoxicity or need for phototherapy (resuscitation drugs, chest compressions, early-onset sepsis, administration of pressors, acidosis (pH <7.10), hemolytic disease) were assessed singly and in combination. They added little beyond mechanical ventilation and FiO2 at 24 hours in predicting outcomes at 18–22 months. Accordingly, the latter two variables were used as our illness severity measures.
Intention-to-treat analyses were performed; the denominator for each outcome was the number of infants randomized whose outcome was known (three infants had a missing value for mechanical ventilation.) There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.24 In the frequentist analyses, the adjusted RR for each outcome was estimated using robust multilevel Poisson regression analyses (with center as a random effect to account for center variability). Predictor variables included treatment (AgPT or ConPT), BW, stratum (501–750 g; 751–1000 g), mechanical ventilation, FiO2 at 24 hours age, and interaction terms. In assessing the effects of AgPT on the smallest and sickest infants, three-way interactions and constituent terms were assessed with backward elimination of terms with a p > 0.10. (Because of limited power to identify interactions, a p>0.10 was used to reduce the risk of false negative findings.) Each final model included all main effects. The same approach was used in conducting secondary analyses for each outcome that included additional predictor variables (gestational age, sex, ethnicity, and inborn/outborn status). Bayesian statistics were used to estimate the probability of a RR <1.0 and of a RR < 0.9 with AgPT. Hierarchical analyses were performed using an extended approach of Dixon and Simon.25 Hierarchical models have the statistical advantage of pooling specific subgroup estimates rather than estimating an effect for each subgroup.
Bayesian models included the same predictors as in the final frequentist, multilevel Poisson regression models. For all main effects in the models, we used a neutral prior distribution centered at a RR = 1.0 with 95% credible intervals of 0.5 to 2.0 (a range that includes the values observed in the great majority of large neonatal trials26 (~N[log RR =0, 0.125]). All interaction terms assumed independent informative Normal prior distributions centered at log RR of zero and separate variance components for the two-way and three-way interaction terms (a prior that is skeptical, a priori, about interaction terms but which allows treatment estimates to vary across subgroups). For subgroups with a small sample size or number of adverse outcomes, Bayesian models shrink the subgroup-specific estimate toward the overall estimate of treatment effect thereby reducing the likelihood of overestimating subgroup differences.27 To perform a sensitivity analysis and assess the robustness of the disturbing results for death, we repeated the analysis assuming an optimistic prior probability with the RR centered at 0.90 (i.e., a 10% reduction in death with AgPT) and the probability of a RR>1.1 at 2%. In reporting the Bayesian analyses, we follow the guidelines developed by Sung et al.28
In all analyses, the Bayesian and frequentist models produced similar values for the RR. The tables include these values and to provide information not obtainable from frequentist statistics the (posterior) probability of a RR <1.0 and <0.9.
Overall and for all subgroups except one, the analyses provided minimal or no evidence that AgPT increased mortality (RR≤1.01). However, 501–750 g ventilated infants (n = 696) had an increased RR (1.19; 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.39) with only a 1% estimated probability of decreased mortality and thus, a 99% estimated probability of increased mortality with AgPT. These findings were associated with a p<0.05 for an interaction of treatment with birth weight and mechanical ventilation. The sensitivity analysis gave similar results (96% probability of increased mortality with AgPT for the 501–750 g ventilated infants) despite using an optimistic prior (0.90 relative risk for death).
Because there was no evidence that treatment effects for these outcomes differed among the patient subgroups (no interaction terms that were significant; p values > 0.31), all subgroups were combined in the analyses. The results consistently favored AgPT (RR = 0.69–0.89) among all infants enrolled and among all survivors assessed with 96% to >99% estimated probability of a reduction in impairment or profound impairment and a 95%–97% probability of a RR <0.90 in profound impairment.
Overall AgPT was associated with a marginally significant and potentially important overall reduction in death or impairment (RR = 0.91–0.93; upper 95% confidence or credible limits for both of 1.01) and a 95% estimated probability that the composite outcome of death or impairment was reduced (a RR <1.0). However, the findings differed by subgroup (an interaction of treatment with BW and mechanical ventilation; p<0.05) with less than a 50% estimated probability of a reduction in this composite outcome among ventilator treated infants ≤750 g and among nonventilated 751–1000 g infants.
Overall, there was a significant reduction in death or profound impairment (RR = 0.88–0.89) with a 99% estimated probability that AgPT reduced this composite outcome. The effect of treatment differed by BW stratum irrespective of mechanical ventilation (p=0.06). Infants greater than 750 g BW had a RR of 0.81 with a 99% estimated probability of a reduction in death or profound impairment. AgPT did not reduce this outcome among infants in the smaller BW stratum (RR= 0.98). Results similar to those above were found using secondary models that also included gestational age, sex, ethnicity, and whether the infants were born within or outside their Network center.
Despite concerns about extrapolating treatment effects from larger and healthier infants to the most immature infants,1 phototherapy has been considered both effective and safe in all newborns.7 Yet, preterm infants have been randomly assigned to treatment with phototherapy or no phototherapy in only one large trial, and it was performed decades ago.11,12 The findings were compatible with a substantial increase in mortality with phototherapy among not only ELBW infants as noted above but also among all low BW (<2500 g) infants (n=1,063; RR =1.32 [0.96–1.82]).13 These findings have been largely ignored because they were not significant at a p<0.05, an error often made in failing to recognize and seriously consider important potential treatment hazards when statistical power is limited.29
In our Network trial, 80% of the ConPT group received phototherapy, a factor likely to make it difficult to identify phototherapy hazards except perhaps in the most vulnerable infants. We previously reported that the absolute number of deaths among 501–750 g infants was 5% greater with aggressive than ConPT, a difference equal to the 5% absolute reduction in the number of infants with impairment and only slightly more than the 4% reduction in infants with profound impairment in this BW group.9 Although the P value for a two-way interaction between treatment group and BW was not significant (P=0.15), power was limited, and this finding, like those in the Collaborative Phototherapy Trial, suggests the possibility of an increased mortality in the smallest infants in the trial.
This Network trial is the only large trial to date of AgPT. The preselected primary outcome was the composite outcome of death or impairment. Composite outcomes have the disadvantage that treatment may have opposite effects for the outcome components. However, the use of composite outcomes may be unavoidable for such questions as the effect of AgPT on survival without impairment when the components (death or impairment) are competing outcomes. When, as in our analysis of ventilated 501–750 g infants, the effect of treatment appears to differ for the different components of outcome, the results for each component should be separately analyzed.
The analyses reported herein were conducted to provide the best assessment possible with the available data to evaluate whether the benefits and hazards of AgPT among the smallest and sickest infants differ from those in other ELBW infants. Because the effects of any therapy may differ considerably in different subgroups, subgroup differences should be considered in any trial.30 Such differences are particularly important in identifying treatment hazards to which the highest risk patients may be especially vulnerable. Our trial, like almost all clinical trials, had high power only to identify overall treatment effects using conventional frequentist statistics. Even so, we identified a significant three-way interaction suggesting that AgPT increased mortality among ventilated infants ≤750 g BW. This finding was supported by the sensitivity analysis using an optimistic prior probability.
Subgroup analyses must be viewed with skepticism. However, subgroup analyses are most likely to be valid when, as in our study, they are supported by preexisting evidence, their assessment was preplanned, and they are biologically plausible.31 Bilirubin is reported to be a powerful antioxidant. The reduction in bilirubin with phototherapy might increase the susceptibility of ELBW infants to oxidative injury.8,9 Moreover, phototoxicity might directly result in oxidative injury to cell membranes or other adverse effects.10,11,12 While larger and healthier infants might escape injury discernible in our trial, phototoxicity would be most likely to be identifiable in the most immature infants whose skin readily transmits light and who would be most vulnerable to oxidative injury The use of AgPT for the smallest and sickest newborns might be analogous to use of surgery (rather than radiation or chemotherapy alone) for some cancer patients to improve their long term outcome despite a greater initial risk of death.
The possibility that AgPT increases mortality of ventilated infants ≤750 g BW treated is supported by our Bayesian analyses performed to complement the frequentist analyses. Frequentist analyses assess the probability that the observed or a larger difference between groups would occur assuming the null hypothesis is correct. Such analyses do not assess the likelihood that the alternative hypothesis is correct. In contrast, Bayesian analyses directly assess the question: how likely is the treatment to have benefit/harm?16,17,18, 32,33 These analyses may be most helpful in estimating treatment benefits and hazards when power is limited as subgroup analyses.17 Bayesian analyses allow prior estimates of treatment effect to be updated using new data in estimating the (posterior) probability of benefit. Concerns about Bayesian analyses have largely been concerns that the prior probability would be derived from methodologically weak studies and be overly optimistic. These concerns do not apply to our analyses. The posterior probability that AgPT increased mortality was estimated using a neutral prior probability despite the evidence of an increased mortality in the one large prior trial of phototherapy,4,5,6 and the values for RR were similar in the Bayesian and frequentist analyses and identified a high probability that AgPT increases mortality while reducing profound impairment, an outcome that some people consider worse than death.34,35
In recent observational analyses of the Network trial,36 higher plasma bilirubin levels on day 5 were associated with a higher risk of death or impairment among unstable infants (infants who at five days had any of various risk factors [primarily mechanical ventilation but also blood pH < 7.1, pressor therapy, a positive blood culture, or apnea and bradycardia requiring bag and mask ventilation or intubation during the prior 24 hours]). This relationship was not observed among stable infants. These analyses did not involve any assessment of the effect of AgPT, have the limitations inherent in observational analyses for making treatment inferences, and thus do not contradict our analyses. Clinical instability at age 5 days may be the result--not the cause---of bilirubin toxicity that resulted in hypoventilation, recurrent apnea, or clinical instability prompting the use of respiratory or pressor support. The presence or absence of these problems may simply be a marker for infants who experienced bilirubin toxicity or phototoxicity.
Ordinarily, evidence of treatment heterogeneity like we identified in our analyses would generate a hypothesis to be tested in future trials.29 In this instance, there may never be another large trial comparing phototherapy to no phototherapy or AgPT to ConPT in ELBW infants. We considered whether to extend the Network trial to randomize additional infants less than 750 g BW to more precisely assess the risks and benefits of AgPT and ConPT in this subgroup. We decided against doing this partly because the findings with 684 such infants randomized suggested that any increase in survival with ConPT would be almost entirely offset by an increase in survivors with profound impairment.
The mortality findings in the Network trial prompted Watchko and Maisels to conclude that “In infants <750 g, it seems prudent to initiate phototherapy at lower irradiance levels. Irradiance levels can be increased, if necessary, or more surface …exposed to phototherapy if the bilirubin rises.”37 It remains to be determined whether the approach would avoid an increase in mortality while maintain the reduction in profound impairment with AgPT in the Network trial. The appropriate irradiance levels and how they would be best achieved is unclear, partly because the manufacturing changes in phototherapy lamps since the prior Collaborative Phototherapy have substantially increased the irradiance levels that they deliver (mean of 22–23 μW per square centimeter per nanometer each day as measured at the infant’s skin during the Network trial3).
In summary, the findings from the Network trial--the only large trial of AgPT yet performed--suggest that AgPT may increase mortality while reducing impairment and profound impairment among the smallest and sickest infants. As for other neonatal therapies, phototherapy should not be assumed to have the same risks and benefits in the smallest and sickest infants as in more mature infants. Our results indicate an urgent need to develop other treatment approaches using lower irradiance levels or other treatment methods38 that may reduce severe bilirubin neurotoxicity without risking an increase in the mortality of these infants. These treatment approaches could then be rigorously tested by comparing them to AgPT in a large randomized trial.
FN3The authors declare no other potential conflicts of interest.
FN4Dr. Tyson drafted the manuscript and no form of payment was given him to produce the manuscript.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Natus Medical loaned light-emitting diode phototherapy lights to each center. These lights were used at the discretion of the attending neonatologist in treating infants in either treatment group. The lights were returned to Natus Medical or purchased at a prorated price after the study. Natus Medical played no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation or revision.
Funding/Support. The National Institutes of Health and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) provided grant support for the Neonatal Research Network’s Phototherapy Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00114543). All data analyses and interpretation were done independently of the funding agency.
Data collected at participating sites of the NICHD Neonatal Research Network (NRN) were transmitted to RTI International, the data coordinating center (DCC) for the network, which stored, managed and analyzed the data for this study. On behalf of the NRN, Dr. Abhik Das (DCC Principal Investigator) and Mr. John Langer (DCC Statistician) had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.
We are indebted to our medical and nursing colleagues and the infants and their parents who agreed to take part in this study.
Study concept and design. Tyson, Pedroza, Morris, Oh, Stevenson, Phelps, O’Shea, Higgins
Acquisition of data. Tyson, Pedroza, Morris, Oh, Stevenson, Phelps, O’Shea, Mc David, Grisby.
Analysis and interpretation of data. Langer, Pedroza, Green, Tyson
Drafting of the manuscript. Tyson, Pedroza, Green, Langer
Critical Revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Tyson, Pedroza, Green, Morris, Oh, Stevenson, Van Meurs, Phelps, O’Shea, Higgins
Obtained funding. Tyson, Oh, Stevenson, Phelps, O’Shea, Higgins
Administrative, technical, or material support. Higgins
Study supervision. Tyson, Morris
RTI International, the data coordinating center (DCC) for the network, which stored, managed and analyzed the data for this study. On behalf of the Network, Dr. Abhik Das (DCC Principal Investigator) and Ms. Nellie Hansen (DCC Statistician) at RTU International had full access to all the data in the Phototherapy Trial and take responsibility for the integrity of the data. The following investigators, in addition to those listed as authors, participated in this study:
NRN Steering Committee Chair: Alan H. Jobe, MD PhD, University of Cincinnati (2001–2006); Michael S. Caplan, MD, University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine (2006-present).
Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island (U10 HD27904) – Abbot R. Laptook, MD; Betty R. Vohr, MD; Angelita Hensman, BSN RNC; Theresa M. Leach, MEd CAES; Martha R. Leonard, BA BS; James R. Moore, MD; Lucy Noel RN; Bonnie E. Stephens, MD; Robert T. Burke, MD; Yvette Yatchmink, MD; Rachel V. Walden, MD; Victoria E. Watson, MS CAS.
Case Western Reserve University, Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital (U10 HD21364, M01 RR80) – Avroy A. Fanaroff, MD; Michele C. Walsh, MD MS; Deanne Wilson-Costello, MD; Nancy S. Newman, RN; Bonnie S. Siner, RN.
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University Hospital, and Good Samaritan Hospital (U10 HD27853, M01 RR8084) – Kurt Schibler, MD; Edward F. Donovan, MD; Jean J. Steichen, MD; Kate Bridges, MD; Barbara Alexander, RN; Marcia Worley Mersmann, RN CCRC; Holly L. Mincey, RN BSN; Jody Hessling, RN; Teresa L. Gratton, PA; Kimberly Yolton, PhD.
Duke University School of Medicine, University Hospital, Alamance Regional Medical Center, and Durham Regional Hospital (U10 HD40492, M01 RR30) – Ronald N. Goldberg, MD; C. Michael Cotten, MD MHS; Ricki F. Goldstein, MD; Kathy J. Auten, MSHS; Kimberley A. Fisher, PhD FNP-BC IBCLC; Melody B. Lohmeyer, RN MSN; Kathryn E. Gustafson, PhD; Katherine A. Foy, RN.
Emory University, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Grady Memorial Hospital, and Emory University Hospital Midtown (U10 HD27851, M01 RR39) – Barbara J. Stoll, MD; Ira Adams-Chapman, MD; Ellen C. Hale, RN BS CCRC.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development – Linda L. Wright, MD; Elizabeth M. McClure, MEd.
Indiana University, University Hospital, Methodist Hospital, Riley Hospital for Children, and Wishard Health Services (U10 HD27856, M01 RR750) – Brenda B. Poindexter, MD MS; James A. Lemons, MD; Anna M. Dusick, MD; Dianne E. Herron, RN; Lucy C. Miller, RN BSN CCRC.
RTI International (U10 HD36790) – Abhik Das, PhD; W. Kenneth Poole, PhD; Qing Yao, PhD; Betty Hastings; Elizabeth N. McClure, MEd; Jamie E. Newman, PhD MPH; Rebecca L. Perritt, MS; Carolyn M. Petrie Huitema, MS; Kristin M. Zaterka-Baxter, RN BSN.
Stanford University, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (U10 HD27880, M01 RR70) – Susan R. Hintz, MD MS Epi; M. Bethany Ball, BS CCRC; Joan M. Baran, PhD; Barbara Bentley, PsychD MSEd; Lori E. Bond, PhD; Ginger K. Brudos, PhD; Maria Elena DeAnda, PhD; Anne M. DeBattista, RN PNP; Jean G. Kohn, MD MPH; Renee P. Pyle, PhD; Nicholas H. St. John, PhD.
University of Alabama at Birmingham Health System and Children’s Hospital of Alabama (U10 HD34216, M01 RR32) – Waldemar A. Carlo, MD; Namasivayam Ambalavanan, MD; Myriam Peralta-Carcelen, MD MPH; Monica V. Collins, RN BSN MaEd; Shirley S. Cosby, RN BSN; Vivien A. Phillips, RN BSN.
University of California – San Diego Medical Center and Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns (U10 HD40461) – Neil N. Finer, MD; Yvonne E. Vaucher, MD MPH; Maynard R. Rasmussen MD; Paul R. Wozniak MD; Kathy Arnell, RNC; Clarence Demetrio, RN; Martha G. Fuller, RN MSN; Wade Rich, BSHS RRT.
University of Miami Holtz Children’s Hospital (U10 HD21397, M01 RR16587) – Charles R. Bauer, MD; Shahnaz Duara, MD; Silvia Hiriart-Fajardo, MD; Ruth Everett-Thomas, RN BSN; Mary Allison, RN; Alexis N. Diaz, BA; Silvia Frade Eguaras, Yamiley C. Gideon, BA; Alexandra Stoerger, BA; Andrea Garcia, MA; Kasey Hamlin-Smith, PhD.
University of Rochester Medical Center, Golisano Children’s Hospital (U10 HD40521, M01 RR44, UL1 RR24160) – Ronnie Guillet, MD PhD; Gary J. Myers, MD; Linda J. Reubens, RN CCRC; Erica Burnell, RN; Mary Rowan, RN; Diane Hust, MS RN CS; Rosemary L. Jensen; Kelly Yost, PhD; Lauren Zwetsch, RN MS PNP; Julie Babish Johnson, MSW; Emily Kushner, MA; Joan Merzbach, LMSW.
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Parkland Health & Hospital System, and Children’s Medical Center Dallas (U10 HD40689, M01 RR633) – Walid A. Salhab, MD; Pablo J. Sánchez, MD; Charles R. Rosenfeld, MD; Abbot R. Laptook, MD; Roy J. Heyne, MD; Sally S. Adams, MS RN CPNP; Alicia Guzman; Gaynelle Hensley, RN; Elizabeth T. Heyne, PsyD PA-C; Jackie F. Hickman, RN; Linda A. Madden, RN CPNP; Susie Madison, RN; Nancy A. Miller, RN; Janet S. Morgan, RN; Catherine Twell Boatman, MS CIMI.
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Medical School, Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital, and Lyndon Baines Johnson General Hospital/Harris County Hospital District (U10 HD21373, KL2 RR24149, UL1 RR24148) – Kathleen A. Kennedy, MD MPH; Pamela J. Bradt, MD MPH; Patricia W. Evans, MD; Terri Major-Kincade, MD MPH; Laura L. Whitely, MD; Nora I. Alaniz, BS; Esther G. Akpa, RN BSN; Patty A. Cluff, RN; Susan Dieterich, PhD; Anna E. Lis, RN BSN; Georgia E. McDavid, RN; Stacy Reddoch, BA; Maegan C. Simmons, RN; Patti L. Pierce Tate, RCP; Sharon L. Wright, MT(ASCP).
Wake Forest University, Baptist Medical Center, Brenner Children’s Hospital, and Forsyth Medical Center (U10 HD40498, M01 RR7122) – Lisa K. Washburn, MD; Robert G. Dillard, MD; Nancy J. Peters, RN CCRP; Barbara G. Jackson, RN BSN; Korinne Chiu, MA; Deborah Evans Allred, MA LPA; Donald J. Goldstein, PhD; Raquel Halfond, MA; Carroll Peterson, MA; Ellen L. Waldrep, MS; Melissa Whalen Morris, MA; Gail Wiley Hounshell, PhD.
Wayne State University, Hutzel Women’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, and Sinai-Grace Hospital (U10 HD21385) – Seetha Shankaran, MD; Yvette R. Johnson, MD MPH; Athina Pappas, MD; Rebecca Bara, RN BSN; Geraldine Muran, RN BSN; Deborah Kennedy, RN BSN; Laura A. Goldston, MA.
Yale University, Yale-New Haven Children’s Hospital and Bridgeport Hospital (U10 HD27871, UL1 RR24139, MO1 RR125, M01 RR6022) – Richard A. Ehrenkranz, MD; Patricia Gettner, RN; Harris C. Jacobs, MD; Christine G. Butler, MD; Patricia Cervone, RN; Monica Konstantino, RN BSN; Elaine Romano, MSN; JoAnn Poulsen, RN; Joanne Williams, RN; Sheila Greisman, RN.
Note: All persons named in the Acknowledgement above have provided written permission to be named.
|ELBW||extremely low birth weight|
|1.||Lucey JF. Fetal infants: thoughts about what to doPediatricsYear: 20041136181915173516|
|2.||Oh W,Tyson JE,Fanaroff AA,Vohr BR,Perritt R,Stoll BJ,et al. Association between peak serum bilirubin and neurodevelopmental outcomes in ELBW infantsPediatricsYear: 2003112477377914523165|
|3.||Morris BH,Oh W,Tyson JE,Stevenson DK,Phelps DL,O’Shea TM,et al. Aggressive vs. conservative phototherapy for infants with ELBWN Engl J MedYear: 20083591818859618971491|
|4.||Brown AK,Kim MH,Wu PYK,Bryla DA. Efficacy of phototherapy in prevention and management of neonatal hyperbilirubinemiaPediatricsYear: 1985752 Pt 23934003881731|
|5.||Lipsitz PJ,Gartner LM,Bryla DA. Neonatal and infant mortality in relation to phototherapyPediatricsYear: 1985752 Pt 24224263969352|
|6.||Maisels MJ. Chapter 22. Neonatal jaundiceSinclair JC,Bracken MBEffective care of the newborn infantOxford, EnglandOxford University PressYear: 1992 Table 47. 532|
|7.||Maisels MJ. Neonatal hyperbilirubinemiaKlaus MH,Fanaroff AACare of the high-risk neonate5PhiladelphiaW.B. SaundersYear: 200132462|
|8.||Gopinathan V,Miller NJ,Milner AD,Rice-Evans CA. Bilirubin and ascorbate antioxidant activity in neonatal plasmaFEBS LetterYear: 19943492197200|
|9.||Stocker R,Yamamoto Y,McDonagh AF,Glazer AN,Ames BN. Bilirubin is an antioxidant of possible physiological importanceScienceYear: 19872354792104310463029864|
|10.||Tozzi E,Tozzi-Ciancarelli MG,Di Giulo A,D’Alfonso A,Farello G,Spennati GF,et al. In vitro and in vivo effects of erythrocyte phototherapy on newbornsBiol NeonateYear: 19895642042092529913|
|11.||Vreman HJ,Wong RJ,Stevenson DK. Phototherapy: current methods and future directionsSemin PerinatolYear: 200428532633315686263|
|12.||Roll EB,Christensen T. Formation of photoproducts and cytotoxicity of bilirubin irradiated with turquoise and blue phototherapy lightActa PaediatrYear: 20059414485416263632Acta PaediatrYear: 2005Month: 10 94101360216263628|
|13.||Wennberg RP. The blood-brain barrier and bilirubin encephalopathyCell Mol NeurobiolYear: 20002019710910690504|
|14.||Hansen TWR. Mechanisms of bilirubin toxicity: clinical implicationsClin PerinatolYear: 200229476577812516745|
|15.||Bender GJ,Cashore WJ,Oh W. Ontogeny of bilirubin-biimpairmentng capacity and the effect of clinical status in premature infants born at less than 1300 gramsPediatricsYear: 200712051067107317974745|
|16.||Spiegelhalter DJ,Myles JP,Jones DR,Abrams KR. An introduction to Bayesian methods in health technology assessmentBMJYear: 1999319720850851210454409|
|17.||Lilford RJ,Thornton JG,Braunholtz D. Clinical trials and rare diseases: a way out of a conundrumBMJYear: 19953117020162116258555809|
|18.||Wijeysundera DN,Austin PC,Hux JE,Beattie WS,Laupacis A. Bayesian statistical inference enhances the interpretation of contemporary randomized controlled trialsJ Clin EpidemiolYear: 20096211321.e518947971|
|19.||Vohr BR,Wright LL,Poole WK,McDonald SA. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of ELBW infants <32 weeks’ gestation between 1993 and 1998PediatricsYear: 2005116363564316143580|
|20.||Bayley N. Bayley Scales of infant development IINew YorkPsychological CorporationYear: 1993|
|21.||Palisano R,Rosenbaum P,Walter S,Russell D,Wood E,Galuppi B. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsyDev Med Child NeurolYear: 19973942142239183258|
|22.||Hack M,Taylor HG,Drotar D,Schluchter M,Cartar L,Wilson-Costello D,et al. Poor predictive validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for cognitive function of ELBW children at school agePediatricsYear: 20051163334116061586|
|23.||Tyson JE,Parikh NA,Langer J,Green C,Higgins RD. Intensive care for extreme prematurity--moving beyond gestational ageN Engl J MedYear: 20083581616728118420500|
|24.||Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisonsEpidemiologyYear: 1990114362081237|
|25.||Dixon DO,Simon R. Bayesian Subset AnalysisBiometricsYear: 19914738718811742443|
|26.||Sinclair JC,Haughton DE,Bracken MB,Horbar JD,Soll RF. Cochrane neonatal systematic reviews: a survey of the evidence for neonatal therapiesClin PerinatolYear: 200330228530412875355|
|27.||Jones HE,Ohlssen DI,Neuenschwander B,Racine A,Branson M. Bayesian models for subgroup analysis in clinical trialsClin TrialsYear: 2011821294321282293|
|28.||Sung L,Hayden J,Greenberg ML,Koren G,Feldman BM,Tomlinson GA. Seven items were identified for inclusion when reporting a Bayesian analysis of a clinical studyJ Clin EpidemiolYear: 20055826126815718115|
|29.||Silverman WA. Human experimentation in perinatologyClin PerinatolYear: 198714403163595061|
|30.||Kraemer HC,Frank E. Evaluation of comparative treatment trials. Assessing clinical benefits and risks for patients, rather than statistical effects on measuresJAMAYear: 2010304668368420699462|
|31.||Oxman A,Guyatt G. Guyatt G,Drummond RSummarizing the evidence: when to believe a subgroup analysisUsers’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practiceChicagoAMA PressYear: 200255365|
|32.||McGrayne SB. The theory that would not dieYale University PressNew HavenYear: 2011|
|33.||Goodman SN. Introduction to Bayesian methods I: measuring the strength of evidenceClin TrialsYear: 2005242829016281426|
|34.||Torrance GW,Feeny DH,Furlong WJ,Barr RD,Zhang Y,Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification: Health Utilities Index Mark 2Med CareYear: 19963477027228676608|
|35.||Saigal S,Stoskopf BL,Burrows E,Streiner DL,Rosenbaum PL. Stability of maternal preferences for pediatric health states in the perinatal period and 1 year laterArch Pediatr Adolesc MedYear: 2003157326126912622676|
|36.||Oh W,Stevenson DK,Tyson JE,Morris BH,Ahlfors CE,Bender GJ,et al. Influence of clinical status on the association between plasma total and unbound bilirubin and death or adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in ELBW infantsActa PaediatrYear: 2010995673820105142|
|37.||Watchko JF,Maisels MJ. Enduring controversies in the management of hyperbilirubinemia in preterm infantsSem Fetal Neonatal MedYear: 20101513640|
|38.||Wong RJ,Bhutani VK,Vreman HJ,Stevenson DK. Tin mesoporphyrin for the prevention of severe neonatal hyperbilirubinemiaNeo ReviewsYear: 2007827784|
Keywords: Phototherapy, bilirubin, severity of illness, ELBW infant, impairment, randomized clinical trial, statistical interaction, Bayesian analysis.
Previous Document: Hemodialysis with a Dialyzer Loaded with Argatroban May Be Performed in vivo without a Systemic Anti...
Next Document: Amphetamines, the pregnant woman and her children: a review.