Download PDFPDF
Prophylactic propranolol for prevention of ROP and visual outcome at 1 year (PreROP trial)
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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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.
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:
    PreROP Trial - Intention to treat analysis and Hypoglycemia monitoring
    • Kishore P Sanghvi, Neonatologist Jaslok Hospital And Research Centre, Mumbai
    • Other Contributors:
      • Nandkishore S Kabra, Neonatologist

    Dear Editor
    We genuinely appreciate the readers keen interest in our paper and critical comments.1 Here are our clarifications regarding their comments.
    1. The readers have perhaps misunderstood the concept of “intention to treat analysis” and “per protocol analysis”.2 Infants were analysed as they were randomized in their respective groups (intention to treat analysis). Per protocol analysis excludes the patients who deviate from the protocol. In our study, we needed to exclude the infants who were lost to follow-up and therefore their outcomes were not known. We did not exclude them because there was a protocol deviation or violation.
    2. Blood dextrose levels were monitored as per unit protocol and once stable on full enteral feeds they were done once a week along with weekly routine blood evaluations up to discharge. No additional testing for blood sugars was done for the study.
    3. We believe that propranolol at lower doses of 0.5mg/kg/dose 12 hourly is unlikely to affect the normal vascularization in other organs. This drug has been previously used in newborns including preterm newborns for different indications. Till date there have been no reports of deranged neuro-developmental outcome attributed to propranolol. However, we agree with the readers thoughts that long term neuro-developmental outcome would have been useful but this was beyond the scope of this study.
    4. In our study, for babies born at 31-32 weeks post menstrual age the...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Letter to editor
    • Prathik Bandya, Assistant professor of Neonatology Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, Bangalore
    • Other Contributors:
      • Tapas Bandyopadhyay, Assistant Professor of Neonatology

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    We read with great interest the article by Sanghvi et al1 titled “Sanghvi KP, Kabra NS, Padhi P, Singh U, Dash SK, Avasthi BS. Prophylactic propranolol for prevention of ROP and visual outcome at 1 year (PreROP trial). Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017 Jan 13. pii: fetalneonatal-2016-311548. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311548. [Epub ahead of print]” published in your journal which concluded that prophylactic propranolol in the prescribed dose of 1 mg/kg/day showed a decreasing trend in all outcomes of ROP though statistically not significant. We appreciate that it was a double blinded study which tried to see the effect of propranolol prophylaxis on ROP prevention in lower doses without any serious adverse events.

    This trial was need based and addressed a very important and clinically relevant issue. However, we would like to address a few important concerns which came to our notice while reading through the article.

    The authors state that the analysis was planned according to intention to treat(ITT) analysis, but if we see the final analysis in flow diagram, the babies which were lost to follow up are not included in the analysis. Thus, it is not a ITT but a per protocol analysis.2

    The babies received study drug till 37 weeks or till complete vasularization of retina. Were blood dextrose levels monitored till this time? If the response is yes, then this would expose these tiny neonates to unnecessary daily pricks and pa...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.