These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Doxapram Treatment for Apnea of Prematurity: A Systematic Review.
    Author: Vliegenthart RJ, Ten Hove CH, Onland W, van Kaam AH.
    Journal: Neonatology; 2017; 111(2):162-171. PubMed ID: 27760427.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Apnea of prematurity (AOP) is a common complication of preterm birth, for which caffeine is the first treatment of choice. In case of persistent AOP, doxapram has been advocated as an additional therapy. OBJECTIVE: To identify and appraise all existing evidence regarding efficacy and safety of doxapram use for AOP in infants born before 34 weeks of gestational age. METHODS: All studies reporting on doxapram use for AOP were identified by searching electronic databases, references from relevant studies, and abstracts from the Societies for Pediatric Research. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality, and extracted data on study design, patient characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The randomized controlled trials showed less apnea during doxapram treatment when compared to placebo, but no difference in treatment effect when compared to theophylline. No serious adverse effects were reported. We identified 28 observational studies consisting mainly of cohort studies and case series (n = 1,994). There was considerable heterogeneity in study design and quality. Most studies reported a positive effect of doxapram on apnea rate. A few studies reported on long-term outcomes with conflicting results. A range of possible doxapram-related short-term adverse effects were reported, sometimes associated with the use of higher doses. CONCLUSION: Based on the limited number of studies and level of evidence, no firm conclusions on the efficacy and safety of doxapram in preterm infants can be drawn. For this reason, routine use cannot be recommended. A large multicenter randomized controlled trial is urgently needed to provide more conclusive evidence.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]