Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 23 January 2006
- Published on: 3 January 2006
- Published on: 20 December 2005
- Published on: 23 January 2006RSV infection in prematurely born infantsShow More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 3 January 2006RSV infection in prematurely born infantsShow More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 20 December 2005Consideration of Palivizumab not justifiedShow More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.