Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 28 January 2003
- Published on: 1 October 2001
- Published on: 30 August 2001
- Published on: 28 January 2003Use of rhG-CSF for VLBW babies with presumed sepsis and neutropoeniaShow More
Dear Editor
We read with great enthusiasm the article on use of rhG-CSF for treatment of sepsis in VLBW by Bedford et al.[1] It emphasises the previous studies on the subject of potential use of rhG-CSF in management of neonatal sepsis, especially given its fewer side effects and its significant effect on neutrophil counts.
While it is true that VLBW neonates have low neutrophil counts and storage pool...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 1 October 2001Re: Recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor therapy in neonatesShow More
Dear Editor,
We thank Drs Jog and Patole for their extremely valid comments regarding our paper, which provide us with the opportunity to share the information requested. The complete dataset was omitted in the interests of brevity and summarised in the statement that there were no significant differences in maternal and peripartum characteristics between the two groups.
Antenatal steroids were administe...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 30 August 2001Recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor therapy in neonatesDear Editor,Show More
We read with interest the article by Bedford Russell et al on the use of rhG-CSF in very low birth weight neonates with presumed sepsis in a prospective randomised, placebo controlled trial. [1] Considering that the safety (primary objective) and efficacy of rhG-CSF (secondary outcome) was evaluated by factors like worsening of respiratory distress syndrome or chronic lung disease (CLD), thrombocytopenia, ri...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.