MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4311524569 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010061.pub5

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for patent ductus arteriosus in preterm or low birth weight infants

2022· review· en· W4311524569 sur OpenAlexaff
Bonny Jasani, Souvik Mitra, Prakesh S. Shah

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute for Health and Care Research
Mots-clésMedicineDuctus arteriosusPlaceboRandomized controlled trialLow birth weightNecrotizing enterocolitisCochrane LibraryNumber needed to treatPediatricsAcetaminophenRelative riskPregnancyAnesthesiaInternal medicineConfidence interval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The different management strategies for patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants are expectant management, surgery, or medical treatment with non-selective cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested that paracetamol may be an effective and safe agent for the closure of a PDA. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of paracetamol as monotherapy or as part of combination therapy via any route of administration, compared with placebo, no intervention, or another prostaglandin inhibitor, for prophylaxis or treatment of an echocardiographically-diagnosed PDA in preterm or low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three trials registers on 13 October 2021, and one other database on 1 March 2022. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs in which paracetamol (single-agent or combination therapy) was compared to no intervention, placebo, or other agents used for closure of PDA, irrespective of dose, duration, and mode of administration in preterm infants. Two independent authors reviewed the search results and made a final selection of potentially eligible articles through discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed data collection and analyses in accordance with the methods of Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: failure of ductal closure after the first course of treatment; all-cause mortality during initial hospital stay; and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we included 27 studies enrolling 2278 infants. We considered the overall risk of bias in the 27 studies to vary from low to unclear. We identified 24 ongoing studies. Paracetamol versus ibuprofen There was probably little to no difference between paracetamol and ibuprofen for failure of ductal closure after the first course (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.18; 18 studies, 1535 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference between paracetamol and ibuprofen for all-cause mortality during hospital stay (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.48; 8 studies, 734 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and for NEC (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.94; 10 studies, 1015 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Paracetamol versus indomethacin There was little to no difference between paracetamol and indomethacin for failure of ductal closure after the first course (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.33; 4 studies, 380 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference between paracetamol and indomethacin for all-cause mortality during hospital stay (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.92; 2 studies, 114 infants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of NEC may be lower in the paracetamol group (3.7%) versus the indomethacin group(9.2%) (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.96; 4 studies, 384 infants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic paracetamol versus placebo/no intervention Prophylactic paracetamol (17%) compared to placebo/no intervention (61%) may reduce failure of ductal closure after one course (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.42; 3 studies, 240 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference between prophylactic paracetamol and placebo/no intervention for all-cause mortality during hospital stay (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.44; 3 studies, 240 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on NEC. Early paracetamol treatment versus placebo/no intervention Early paracetamol treatment (28%) compared to placebo/no intervention (79%) may reduce failure of ductal closure after one course when used before 14 days' postnatal age (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.53; 2 studies, 127 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on all-cause mortality during hospital stay or NEC. Late paracetamol treatment versus placebo/no intervention There was little to no difference between late paracetamol and placebo for failure of ductal closure after one course of treatment when used at or after 14 days' postnatal age (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.01; 1 study, 55 infants; low-certainty evidence) or NEC (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.76; 1 study, 55 infants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for all-cause mortality during hospital stay. Paracetamol combined with ibuprofen versus ibuprofen combined with placebo or no intervention There was little to no difference between paracetamol plus ibuprofen compared to ibuprofen plus placebo or no intervention for failure of ductal closure after the first course (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 studies, 111 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference between paracetamol plus ibuprofen compared to ibuprofen plus placebo or no intervention for NEC (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.45; 1 study, 24 infants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for all-cause mortality during hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that there is probably little or no difference in effectiveness between paracetamol and ibuprofen; low-certainty evidence suggests that there is probably little or no difference in effectiveness between paracetamol and indomethacin; low-certainty evidence suggests that prophylactic paracetamol may be more effective than placebo/no intervention; low-certainty evidence suggests that early paracetamol treatment may be more effective than placebo/no intervention; low-certainty evidence suggests that there is probably little or no difference between late paracetamol treatment and placebo, and probably little or no difference in effectiveness between the combination of paracetamol plus ibuprofen versus ibuprofen alone for the closure of PDA after the first course of treatment. The majority of neonates included in these studies were of moderate preterm gestation. Thus, establishing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for PDA treatment in extremely low birth weight (ELBW: birth weight < 1000 grams) and extremely low gestational age neonates (ELGANs < 28 weeks' gestation) requires further studies.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,313
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0130,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,150
Tête enseignante GPT0,370
Écart entre enseignants0,220 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations42
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207