Ronald I Clyman1, Shampa Saha, Alan Jobe, William Oh. 1. Cardiovascular Research Institute and Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0544, USA. clymanr@peds.ucsf.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Two multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in premature infants (Ment et al, 1994 and TIPP, 2001) found beneficial effects of indomethacin prophylaxis on the incidences of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), PDA ligation, and severe intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). The Ment trial recommended the use of indomethacin prophylaxis. The TIPP trial failed to find a benefit in its primary outcome (improved survival/neurodevelopmental outcome); this negative result may have discouraged indomethacin prophylaxis use. STUDY DESIGN: We used the National Institute of Child Health and Development's Neonatal Network Registry to determine the association between the 2 trials and the use of indomethacin prophylaxis. We also statistically assessed the assumptions that led to the TIPP trial's negative results. RESULTS: Use of indomethacin prophylaxis among network clinicians increased after publication of the Ment trial and decreased after the TIPP trial. Analysis of the TIPP trial showed that the primary outcome's anticipated effect size (> or = 20%) was too large; a smaller effect size (< 3%) would have been more appropriate based on the incidence of ICH in their population and its association with neurodevelopmental outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Two multicenter RCTs were associated with changes in indomethacin prophylaxis. After the Ment trial, the use of indomethacin prophylaxis increased. After the TIPP trial, which reported negative results based on an excessively large anticipated effect size, its use decreased.
OBJECTIVES: Two multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in premature infants (Ment et al, 1994 and TIPP, 2001) found beneficial effects of indomethacin prophylaxis on the incidences of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), PDA ligation, and severe intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). The Ment trial recommended the use of indomethacin prophylaxis. The TIPP trial failed to find a benefit in its primary outcome (improved survival/neurodevelopmental outcome); this negative result may have discouraged indomethacin prophylaxis use. STUDY DESIGN: We used the National Institute of Child Health and Development's Neonatal Network Registry to determine the association between the 2 trials and the use of indomethacin prophylaxis. We also statistically assessed the assumptions that led to the TIPP trial's negative results. RESULTS: Use of indomethacin prophylaxis among network clinicians increased after publication of the Ment trial and decreased after the TIPP trial. Analysis of the TIPP trial showed that the primary outcome's anticipated effect size (> or = 20%) was too large; a smaller effect size (< 3%) would have been more appropriate based on the incidence of ICH in their population and its association with neurodevelopmental outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Two multicenter RCTs were associated with changes in indomethacin prophylaxis. After the Ment trial, the use of indomethacin prophylaxis increased. After the TIPP trial, which reported negative results based on an excessively large anticipated effect size, its use decreased.
Authors: Barbara Schmidt; Elizabeth V Asztalos; Robin S Roberts; Charlene M T Robertson; Reginald S Sauve; Michael F Whitfield Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: L R Ment; C C Duncan; R A Ehrenkranz; C S Kleinman; K J Taylor; D T Scott; P Gettner; E Sherwonit; J Williams Journal: J Pediatr Date: 1988-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: H S Bada; R S Green; M Pourcyrous; C W Leffler; S B Korones; H L Magill; K Arheart; C W Fitch; G D Anderson; G Somes Journal: J Pediatr Date: 1989-10 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: E S Bandstra; B M Montalvo; R N Goldberg; I Pacheco; P L Ferrer; J Flynn; J B Gregorios; E Bancalari Journal: Pediatrics Date: 1988-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: L R Ment; C C Duncan; R A Ehrenkranz; C S Kleinman; B R Pitt; K J Taylor; D T Scott; W B Stewart; P Gettner Journal: J Pediatr Date: 1985-12 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: T D Nelin; E Pena; T Giacomazzi; S Lee; J W Logan; M Moallem; R Bapat; E G Shepherd; L D Nelin Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Barbara Schmidt; Mary Seshia; Seetha Shankaran; Lindsay Mildenhall; Jon Tyson; Kei Lui; Tai Fok; Robin Roberts Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2011-07
Authors: Yigit S Guner; Matthew T Harting; Kelly Fairbairn; Patrick T Delaplain; Lishi Zhang; Yanjun Chen; Mustafa H Kabeer; Peter Yu; John P Cleary; James E Stein; Charles Stolar; Danh V Nguyen Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Jonathan L Slaughter; Patricia B Reagan; Roopali V Bapat; Thomas B Newman; Mark A Klebanoff Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 3.183