Responses

Download PDFPDF

Prospective study of healthcare utilisation and respiratory morbidity due to RSV infection in prematurely born infants
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    RSV infection in prematurely born infants
    • Anne Greenough, Professor of Neonatology and Clinical Respiratory Physiology
    • Other Contributors:
      • Dr Simon Broughton

    RSV infection in prematurely born infants

    We thank Drs Clifford and Deshpande for their comments on our paper [1]. Both are concerned about the cost-effectiveness of Palivizumab. Our paper, however, was not about the cost-effectiveness of Palivizumab but to examine prospectively healthcare utilisation and respiratory morbidity due to RSV infection in prematurely born infants. Importantly, we demonstrated an...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    RSV infection in prematurely born infants

    Dear Editor,

    I read with interest the article by Broughton et al, and wish to offer following comments.

    1. The duration of oxygen therapy (in both Table 1 and the text) ranges from 30 to 107 weeks, thus qualifying every baby in the cohort as having BPD. Even if this was in days, it would make every baby oxygen dependent 28 days after birth, c...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Consideration of Palivizumab not justified

    Dear Editor,

    Broughton and colleagues state that consideration should be given to use of prophylactic palivizumab to infants born at less than 32 weeks in the case of maternal smoking or even if they have siblings. The authors however present no data from their own or other studies to indicate that this would be in any way cost effective or justified. Certainly the word "consider" is fortunate given the stated fu...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.