Assessment of long-term neurodevelopmental outcome following trials of medicinal products in newborn infants

Neil Marlow, Lex W Doyle, Peter Anderson, Samantha Johnson, Varsha Bhatt-Mehta, Giancarlo Natalucci, Brian A Darlow, Jonathan M Davis, Mark A Turner, International Neonatal Consortium (INC), Neil Marlow, Lex W Doyle, Peter Anderson, Samantha Johnson, Varsha Bhatt-Mehta, Giancarlo Natalucci, Brian A Darlow, Jonathan M Davis, Mark A Turner, International Neonatal Consortium (INC)

Abstract

There is significant uncertainty over the role of assessment of long-term neurodevelopmental outcome (LTO) in neonatal clinical trials. A multidisciplinary working group was established to identify key issues in this area and to make recommendations about optimal approaches to evaluate LTO in therapeutic trials in newborns, which can be developed by sponsors and investigators with other key stakeholders. A key consideration for neonatal trials is the potential for the investigational product to cause widespread effects and drives the need to assess outcome in multiple organs. Thus investigators must assess whether the product has an impact on the brain and the potential for it to cause potential effects on LTO. Critically, is assessment of LTO an important direct therapeutic target or a safety outcome? Such decisions and outcomes need to be specific to the product being studied and use published data, only considering expert opinion when prior evidence does not exist. In designing the trial, the balance of benefits, costs, and burdens of assessments to the researcher and families need to be considered. Families and parent advocates should be involved in design and execution of the study. A framework is presented for use by all key stakeholders to determine the need, nature, and duration of LTO assessments in regulatory trials involving newborn infants.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Causal pathways to adverse long-term outcomes and needs for assessment. a Where the outcome is a direct consequence of the intervention, a formal evaluation of a defined long-term neurodevelopmental outcome (LTO) is necessary, tailored to detect the proposed effect. b Where the outcome is an indirect consequence of the intervention, it is safer to evaluate all domains of relevant LTOs
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Example of a consensus scheme for categorization of health status at 2 years of age, including neurodevelopmental outcomes
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Summary of proposals for long-term neurodevelopmental outcome assessment strategy

References

    1. Doyle LW, et al. Long term follow up of high risk children: who, why and how? BMC Pediatr. 2014;14:279. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-279.
    1. Azzopardi D, et al. Effects of hypothermia for perinatal asphyxia on childhood outcomes. New Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:140–149. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1315788.
    1. de Vries LS, Jongmans MJ. Long-term outcome after neonatal hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2010;95:F220–F224. doi: 10.1136/adc.2008.148205.
    1. Marlow N. Is survival and neurodevelopmental impairment at 2 years of age the gold standard outcome for neonatal studies? Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015;100:F82–F84. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306191.
    1. Bolton CE, et al. The EPICure study: association between hemodynamics and lung function at 11 years after extremely preterm birth. J. Pediatr. 2012;161:595–601. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.03.052.
    1. Marlow N. Measuring neurodevelopmental outcome in neonatal trials: a continuing and increasing challenge. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98:F554–F558. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2012-302970.
    1. Tin W, Wariyar UK, Hey EN. Selection biases invalidate current low birthweight weight-for-gestation standards. The Northern Neonatal Network. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1997;104:180–185. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11041.x.
    1. Wolke D, et al. Follow-up of preterm children: important to document dropouts. Lancet. 1995;345:447. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)90425-5.
    1. Callanan C, et al. Children followed with difficulty: how do they differ? J. Paediatr. Child Health. 2001;37:152–156. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1754.2001.00621.x.
    1. Moore T, et al. Neurological and developmental outcome in extremely preterm children born in England in 1995 and 2006: the EPICure studies. BMJ. 2012;345:e7961. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7961.
    1. Lum S, et al. Nature and severity of lung function abnormalities in extremely pre-term children at 11 years of age. Eur. Respir. J. 2011;37:1199–1207. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00071110.
    1. Anderson PJ, Doyle LW. Executive functioning in school-aged children who were born very preterm or with extremely low birth weight in the 1990s. Pediatrics. 2004;114:50–57. doi: 10.1542/peds.114.1.50.
    1. McEniery CM, et al. Cardiovascular consequences of extreme prematurity: the EPICure study. J. Hypertens. 2011;29:1367–1373. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328347e333.
    1. Linsell L, et al. Prognostic factors for behavioral problems and psychiatric disorders in children born very preterm or very low birth weight: a systematic review. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2016;37:88–102. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000238.
    1. Linsell L, et al. Prognostic factors for poor cognitive development in children born very preterm or with very low birth weight: a systematic review. JAMA Pediatrics. 2015;169:1162–1172. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2175.
    1. Linsell L, et al. Prognostic factors for cerebral palsy and motor impairment in children born very preterm or very low birthweight: a systematic review. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2016;58:554–569. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12972.
    1. BAPM/RCPCH Working Group. Classification of Health Status at 2 Years as a Perinatal Outcome. Report of a BAPM/RCPCH Working Group (British Association of Perinatal Medicine, London, 2008).

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir