使用达贝泊汀和促红细胞生成素对早产儿进行学龄前评估。

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES Journal of Marriage and Family Pub Date : 2016-03-01 Epub Date: 2016-02-15 DOI:10.1542/peds.2015-3859
Robin K Ohls, Daniel C Cannon, John Phillips, Arvind Caprihan, Shrena Patel, Sarah Winter, Michael Steffen, Ronald A Yeo, Richard Campbell, Susan Wiedmeier, Shawna Baker, Sean Gonzales, Jean Lowe
{"title":"使用达贝泊汀和促红细胞生成素对早产儿进行学龄前评估。","authors":"Robin K Ohls, Daniel C Cannon, John Phillips, Arvind Caprihan, Shrena Patel, Sarah Winter, Michael Steffen, Ronald A Yeo, Richard Campbell, Susan Wiedmeier, Shawna Baker, Sean Gonzales, Jean Lowe","doi":"10.1542/peds.2015-3859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We previously reported improved neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years among infants treated with the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) darbepoetin alfa (darbepoetin) or erythropoietin. Here we characterize 4-year outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Former preterm infants randomly assigned to receive darbepoetin (10 μg/kg, once per week), erythropoietin (400 U/kg, 3 times/week), or placebo through 35 weeks' postconceptual age were evaluated at 3.5 to 4 years of age. For comparison, healthy children formerly delivered full term (term controls [TCs]) were also recruited. All participants were assessed by using measures of full-scale IQ (FSIQ) and general language from the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Third Edition, and an overall measure of executive function, on the basis of tests evaluating inhibitory control and spatial working memory. Rates of neurodevelopmental impairment were compared across groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Multivariate analysis of variance compared children randomly assigned to ESAs (n = 39), placebo (n =14), and TCs (n = 24). FSIQ and performance IQ were significantly higher in the ESA group than in the placebo group (FSIQ: 91.1 ± 17.5 vs 79.2 ± 18.5, P = .036; performance IQ: 93.0 ± 17.0 vs 79.5 ± 19.5, P = .018). Follow-up analyses revealed that the children receiving ESAs performed better than those who received placebo on executive function tasks. The ESA group's performance was below that of TCs, but the results did not reach significance on executive function. The incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment was greater in the placebo group than in the ESA group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ESA-treated infants had better cognitive outcomes and less developmental impairment at 3.5 to 4 years of age compared with placebo-treated infants. ESAs show promise in improving long-term cognitive outcomes of infants born prematurely.</p>","PeriodicalId":48440,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Marriage and Family","volume":"79 1","pages":"e20153859"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771132/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preschool Assessment of Preterm Infants Treated With Darbepoetin and Erythropoietin.\",\"authors\":\"Robin K Ohls, Daniel C Cannon, John Phillips, Arvind Caprihan, Shrena Patel, Sarah Winter, Michael Steffen, Ronald A Yeo, Richard Campbell, Susan Wiedmeier, Shawna Baker, Sean Gonzales, Jean Lowe\",\"doi\":\"10.1542/peds.2015-3859\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We previously reported improved neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years among infants treated with the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) darbepoetin alfa (darbepoetin) or erythropoietin. Here we characterize 4-year outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Former preterm infants randomly assigned to receive darbepoetin (10 μg/kg, once per week), erythropoietin (400 U/kg, 3 times/week), or placebo through 35 weeks' postconceptual age were evaluated at 3.5 to 4 years of age. For comparison, healthy children formerly delivered full term (term controls [TCs]) were also recruited. All participants were assessed by using measures of full-scale IQ (FSIQ) and general language from the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Third Edition, and an overall measure of executive function, on the basis of tests evaluating inhibitory control and spatial working memory. Rates of neurodevelopmental impairment were compared across groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Multivariate analysis of variance compared children randomly assigned to ESAs (n = 39), placebo (n =14), and TCs (n = 24). FSIQ and performance IQ were significantly higher in the ESA group than in the placebo group (FSIQ: 91.1 ± 17.5 vs 79.2 ± 18.5, P = .036; performance IQ: 93.0 ± 17.0 vs 79.5 ± 19.5, P = .018). Follow-up analyses revealed that the children receiving ESAs performed better than those who received placebo on executive function tasks. The ESA group's performance was below that of TCs, but the results did not reach significance on executive function. The incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment was greater in the placebo group than in the ESA group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ESA-treated infants had better cognitive outcomes and less developmental impairment at 3.5 to 4 years of age compared with placebo-treated infants. ESAs show promise in improving long-term cognitive outcomes of infants born prematurely.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48440,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Marriage and Family\",\"volume\":\"79 1\",\"pages\":\"e20153859\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771132/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Marriage and Family\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3859\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/2/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Marriage and Family","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3859","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们曾报道过使用红细胞生成刺激剂(ESAs)darbepoetin alfa(darbepoetin)或促红细胞生成素治疗的婴儿在2岁时神经发育结果有所改善。在此,我们对 4 年的结果进行了分析:在受孕后 35 周的早产儿中随机分配接受达贝拉铂(10 μg/kg,每周一次)、促红细胞生成素(400 U/kg,每周 3 次)或安慰剂治疗,并在 3.5 到 4 岁时进行评估。为了进行比较,还招募了以前足月分娩的健康儿童(足月对照组 [TCs])。所有参与者都接受了韦氏学前和小学智力量表(第三版)中的全量表智商(FSIQ)和一般语言测试,以及以抑制控制和空间工作记忆测试为基础的执行功能综合测试。对各组儿童的神经发育障碍率进行了比较:多变量方差分析比较了随机分配给ESAs(39人)、安慰剂(14人)和TC(24人)的儿童。ESA组的FSIQ和表现智商明显高于安慰剂组(FSIQ:91.1 ± 17.5 vs 79.2 ± 18.5,P = .036;表现智商:93.0 ± 17.0 vs 79.5 ± 19.5,P = .018)。后续分析显示,接受ESA治疗的儿童在执行功能任务上的表现优于接受安慰剂治疗的儿童。ESA组的表现低于TC组,但在执行功能方面的结果并不显著。安慰剂组神经发育障碍的发生率高于ESA组:结论:与接受安慰剂治疗的婴儿相比,接受ESA治疗的婴儿在3.5至4岁时认知能力更好,发育障碍更少。ESAs有望改善早产儿的长期认知能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Preschool Assessment of Preterm Infants Treated With Darbepoetin and Erythropoietin.

Background: We previously reported improved neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years among infants treated with the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) darbepoetin alfa (darbepoetin) or erythropoietin. Here we characterize 4-year outcomes.

Methods: Former preterm infants randomly assigned to receive darbepoetin (10 μg/kg, once per week), erythropoietin (400 U/kg, 3 times/week), or placebo through 35 weeks' postconceptual age were evaluated at 3.5 to 4 years of age. For comparison, healthy children formerly delivered full term (term controls [TCs]) were also recruited. All participants were assessed by using measures of full-scale IQ (FSIQ) and general language from the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Third Edition, and an overall measure of executive function, on the basis of tests evaluating inhibitory control and spatial working memory. Rates of neurodevelopmental impairment were compared across groups.

Results: Multivariate analysis of variance compared children randomly assigned to ESAs (n = 39), placebo (n =14), and TCs (n = 24). FSIQ and performance IQ were significantly higher in the ESA group than in the placebo group (FSIQ: 91.1 ± 17.5 vs 79.2 ± 18.5, P = .036; performance IQ: 93.0 ± 17.0 vs 79.5 ± 19.5, P = .018). Follow-up analyses revealed that the children receiving ESAs performed better than those who received placebo on executive function tasks. The ESA group's performance was below that of TCs, but the results did not reach significance on executive function. The incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment was greater in the placebo group than in the ESA group.

Conclusions: ESA-treated infants had better cognitive outcomes and less developmental impairment at 3.5 to 4 years of age compared with placebo-treated infants. ESAs show promise in improving long-term cognitive outcomes of infants born prematurely.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: For more than 70 years, Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF) has been a leading research journal in the family field. JMF features original research and theory, research interpretation and reviews, and critical discussion concerning all aspects of marriage, other forms of close relationships, and families.In 2009, an institutional subscription to Journal of Marriage and Family includes a subscription to Family Relations and Journal of Family Theory & Review.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Introduction to mid-decade Special Issue on Theory and Methods The ties that bind: Questions for studying families in neighborhood contexts Issue Information Looking beyond marital status: What we can learn from relationship status measures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1