Objective: To search for recent clinical trials of neonatal surfactant treatment and report their findings. Methods: Recent was defined as published between 2000 and 2005. An online search on PubMed was made on 30th December 2005 using the following terms: surfactant treatment, clinical trials and neonate, with limits of years 2000 to 2005 and age – newborn from birth to 1 month. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs were prioritised and studies in children and animals were excluded from further analysis. Results: 175 papers were found in this search. Only about half of these papers were directly related to some aspect of surfactant treatment and of these just over one-half were either RCTs or systematic reviews of RCTs. Of the 34 RCTs of surfactant treatment, 3 were excluded as they involved children or animals rather than neonates. Twenty-nine trials studied preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and 2 were for meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) in term infants. The median sample sizes of these studies were RDS (92, range 19–1,361) and MAS (42, range 22–61). Eighteen of the RDS trials compared two or more surfactant preparations, the most frequently studied being Curosurf and Survanta but altogether 11 different surfactants were compared. These new RCTs need to be analysed by meta-analyses in systematic reviews. Twelve systematic reviews were found and these demonstrated the superiority of prophylactic over selective use of surfactant in babies <30 weeks, natural over synthetic surfactant and the absence of an increase in long-term developmental sequelae. Surfactant for MAS may reduce the severity of respiratory illness and the need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Of the non-randomised trials’ novel delivery methods, failure to use evidence-based guidelines and the benefit of surfactant for babies <25 weeks were the most interesting. Conclusions: Surfactant remains one of the most effective and safest interventions in neonatology. Prophylactic natural surfactant seems to be the most evidence-based treatment for babies <30 weeks. Of the newer synthetic surfactants, only Surfaxin has been compared with currently used surfactants and systematic reviews are needed to establish if it has a role in treatment of RDS.The improvement in outcome for babies <25 weeks has been due to a number of interventions: prenatal steroids, prenatal antibiotics and postnatal surfactant. Clinical trials of surfactant replacement in the neonate continue to be published with remarkable frequency.

Keywords:
Neonate, Respiratory distress syndrome, Meconium aspiration syndrome, Clinical trials, Systematic reviews, Surfactants
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
2006
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.