Azithromycin and Other Macrolides for Prevention of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ureaplasma spp. infection has been associated with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm infants. Macrolides have been used for the treatment of Ureaplasma spp. infection, with an intention to prevent BPD. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the use of macrolides in the prevention of BPD in preterm infants. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, abstracts of the major pediatric society meetings and bibliographies of retrieved articles. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of macrolides therapy on BPD in preterm infants. A random/fixed-effect model was used to synthesize predefined outcomes. RESULTS: Six studies involving 469 preterm infants were eligible for the analysis. Macrolides when used prophylactically (4 studies) did not show significant reduction in BPD (risk ratio, RR, 0.88, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.75-1.03), death (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.01) or in the composite outcome of BPD/death. Similarly, there was no significant reduction in BPD (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31-1.31) or the composite outcome of BPD/death (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.05-3.13), when macrolides were used in Ureaplasma-positive infants. However, prophylactic azithromycin therapy (3 studies) was associated with significant reduction in BPD (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.97; number needed to treat, NNT, 10) and composite outcome of BPD/death (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.97; NNT 10). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates prophylactic azithromycin therapy was associated with statistically significant reduction in BPD and the composite outcome of BPD/death in preterm infants. However, given the limited information on pharmacokinetics and potential harmful effects, further studies should be done before routine use of azithromycin in the neonatal population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".