Published online August 1, 2005
PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 2 August 2005, pp. 392-399 (doi:10.1542/10.1542/peds.2004-2783)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bloom, B. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bloom, B. T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Premature & Newborn
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison of Infasurf (Calfactant) and Survanta (Beractant) in the Prevention and Treatment of Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Barry T. Bloom, MD*, Reese H. Clark, MD{ddagger} for the Infasurf Survanta Clinical Trial Group

* Department of Pediatrics, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Wichita, Kansas
{ddagger} Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc, Sunrise, Florida

Background. In biophysical and animal testing, Infasurf develops lower surface tension and restores total surfactant activity better than Survanta.

Methods. We performed 2 prospective, randomized, masked clinical trials; 1 trial used a prophylactic strategy aimed at prevention of respiratory distress syndrome (prophylaxis trial) for infants who were born between 23 weeks, 0 days and 29 weeks, 6 days of gestation, and the second trial used a treatment strategy (treatment trial) for intubated infants with a birth weight of 401 to 2000 g who required fractional inspired oxygen of >0.4 to maintain an arterial oxygen saturation of >90% (or an arterial/alveolar oxygen ratio of <0.2) at any time before 36 hours of age. Our purpose was to determine if Infasurf (calfactant) was more effective than Survanta (beractant) at increasing the proportion of patients alive and not receiving supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. Informed, written, parental consent was required, and protocols were approved by the institutional review boards of all participating institutions. The dose of surfactant was 4 mL/kg (100 mg/kg) for Survanta and 3 mL/kg (105 mg/kg) for Infasurf for both trials. The assigned drug was drawn into 2 masked syringes and administered by a health care professional who, in most cases, was not directly responsible for caring for the patient. A maximum of 3 repeat treatments, at least 6 hours apart, were permitted if the neonate required fractional inspired oxygen of >0.30 to maintain an arterial oxygen saturation of >90% (or an arterial/alveolar oxygen ratio of 0.33) and the infant remained intubated for respiratory distress syndrome.

Results. Both trials were halted for not meeting enrollment targets after a 32-month recruitment period. The decision to end recruitment was made after the interim analysis of the treatment trial. We enrolled 749 infants in the prophylaxis trial and 1361 infants in the treatment trial. The primary outcome (alive and not receiving supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age) rate in the prophylaxis trial was 52.1% for group 1 and 52.4% for group 2. In the treatment trial, the primary outcome rate was 58.7% in group 1 and 56.8% in group 2. Based on sample-size requirements for a conclusion of similarity, and the lack of statistical significance to the differences noted in the primary outcome, we have chosen not to break the investigator blind but to report the results as groups 1 and 2.

Conclusion. Early trial closure prevents us from either accepting or rejecting our null hypothesis.


Key Words: neonate • respiratory failure • surfactant • chronic lung disease


Accepted Mar 24, 2005.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
EDUCATION AND PRACTICEHome page
D G Sweet and H L Halliday
The use of surfactants in 2009
Arch. Dis. Child. Ed. Pract., June 1, 2009; 94(3): 78 - 83.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PediatricsHome page
F. Moya, S. Sinha, J. Gadzinowski, R. D'Agostino, R. Segal, C. Guardia, J. Mazela, G. Liu, and on behalf of the SELECT and STAR Study Investigato
One-Year Follow-up of Very Preterm Infants Who Received Lucinactant for Prevention of Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Results From 2 Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Trials
Pediatrics, June 1, 2007; 119(6): e1361 - e1370.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
M. Ghodrat
Lung surfactants.
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., August 15, 2006; 63(16): 1504 - 1521.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]