ArticleThe journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG
Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Retrospective Cost Analysis.
Article in The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health Economic Studies of Surfactant Replacement Therapy in Neonates with Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of efficacy between beractant and poractant alfa in respiratory distress syndrome among preterm infants (28-33Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Trial
- Which surfactant is cost-effective in Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome?Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Comparing the clinical and economic efficiency of four natural surfactants in treating infants with respiratory distress syndrome.PloS one · 2023Article
- Surfactant Stock Optimization for Cost Minimization in Neonatal Intensive Care Units.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Cost of nitric oxide therapy in neonates.BMJ paediatrics open · 2020Article
- Analysis of diagnosing neonatal respiratory distress syndrome with lung ultrasound score.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objectives of this study were to determine the average medication cost per patient of poractant alfa and beractant, and to compare the outcomes of treatment with these agents.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, observational, cohort study of patients who received surfactant, before and after an institutional formulary change from beractant to poractant alfa. The primary outcome was the average medication cost per case. Secondary measures were clinical outcomes, including duration of respiratory support, length of hospital stay, and the occurrence of complications.
resultsA total of 114 patients were enrolled; 38 were treated with poractant alfa and 76 patients were treated with beractant. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The average medication cost per patient was $1756.44 ± $1030.06 and $1329.78 ± $705.64 for poractant alfa and beractant, respectively (p = 0.011). Patients treated with poractant alfa had a shorter length of stay (45.0 ± 30.5 days) than patients treated with beractant (65.1 ± 37.1 days) (p = 0.010). Rates of pneumothoraces, pulmonary hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, and mortality did not differ significantly between groups.
conclusionsWe found an unanticipated increase in drug cost with poractant alfa compared to beractant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.