Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Aug;22(4):399-408.
doi: 10.1007/s40272-020-00404-4.

Caffeine for the Treatment of Apnea in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Overview of Meta-Analyses

Eilan Alhersh  1 , Dina Abushanab  2   3 , Samaher Al-Shaibi  1 , Daoud Al-Badriyeh  4
Affiliations

Caffeine for the Treatment of Apnea in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Overview of Meta-Analyses

Eilan Alhersh et al. Paediatr Drugs. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Caffeine is a common treatment for neonatal intensive care management of the developmental complication of apnea of prematurity in preterm infants. There are several systematic reviews (SRs) on the performance of caffeine in the treatment of apnea. The evidence provided by those, however, is depressed by an information overload due to high heterogeneity in the characteristics as well as the quality of these SRs.

Objective: The aim was to provide a systematic overview of SRs on the use of caffeine for the management of neonatal apnea. Such overviews are a recent method used to assess and filter top evidence among SRs, enabling enhanced access to targeted information of interest.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted via EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and PubMed since inception to January 2020. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and data extraction, and assessed the quality of methods and the risk of bias in included SRs based on A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tools. Extracted data related to study type, characteristics, patients, intervention, comparator, regimen, and outcome measures.

Results: Seven SRs with meta-analyses (SRMAs) were included in the current overview, involving a total of 63,315 neonates. SRMAs included randomized clinical and observational studies, with various types of patients, comparators, and outcomes. The quality of SRMAs ranged from critically low (n = 1), low (n = 1), moderate (n = 2), to high (n = 3), and the risk of bias was unclear (n = 2), low (n = 4), and high (n = 1). The effectiveness of caffeine with regard to treatment success and the rate of apnea was not significantly different from that of theophylline or doxapram in two SRMAs. Against control, in one SRMA, while caffeine reduced the rate of failure as well as the need for pressure ventilation, it did not significantly reduce mortality. This comparative effectiveness of caffeine was based on high-quality SRMAs with a low risk of bias. The effectiveness against apnea seems to be enhanced via the administration of early (0-2 days) or high doses of caffeine in one and three SRMAs, respectively. This, nevertheless, was based on lower-quality SRMAs with a higher risk of bias. Safety outcomes were mostly based on comparative SRMAs of different drug regimens, whereby, less tachycardia and lower risk for complications were reported with lower and earlier caffeine administrations, respectively. The evidence behind this, however, was limited in quantity and quality.

Conclusion: While limited in quantity, there is evidence of non-inferior effectiveness of caffeine against other methylxanthines or doxapram for the management of apnea in neonates. Owing to the limited quality, however, limited evidence exists in support of an optimal administration regimen for caffeine. Further controlled studies are, therefore, needed to confirm the comparative usefulness of caffeine as well as to assess its different potential regimens, including in relation to safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

For all authors (Eilan Alhersh, Dina Abushanab, Samaher Al-Shaibi, and Daoud Al-Badriyeh), there is nothing to declare with regard to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Systematic reviews inclusion. CDSR Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Quality assessment of included systematic reviews (SRs) based on A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Risk of bias assessment of included systematic reviews (SRs) based on ROBIS
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Finer NN, Barrington KJ, Hayes BJ, Hugh A. Obstructive, mixed, and central apnea in the neonate: physiologic correlates. J Pediatr. 1992;121(6):943–950. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3476(05)80349-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kondamudi NP, Wilt AS. Infant apnea. Florida: StatPearls Publishing; 2020. - PubMed
    1. Aujard Y. Caffeine in the treatment of apnea in premature infants. Arch Fr Pediatr. 1990;47(10):763. - PubMed
    1. Kreutzer K, Bassler D. Caffeine for apnea of prematurity: a neonatal success story. Neonatology. 2014;105(4):332–336. doi: 10.1159/000360647. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schmidt B, Roberts RS, Davis P, Doyle LW, Barrington KJ, Ohlsson A, Solimano A, Tin W. Caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(20):2112–2121. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa054065. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms