Ethics of trial of effect of parental touch on relieving acute procedural pain in neonates
Denise Harrison,Mariana Bueno
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tp-24-324
2024-11-29
Translational Pediatrics
Abstract:Denise Harrison 1,2 , Mariana Bueno 3 1 Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; 2 School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; 3 Lawrence Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Comment on: Hauck AGV, van der Vaart M, Adams E, et al . Effect of parental touch on relieving acute procedural pain in neonates and parental anxiety (Petal): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in the UK. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2024;8:259-69. Keywords: Neonatal; pain; equipoise; placebo; randomised controlled trial (RCT) Submitted Aug 20, 2024. Accepted for publication Nov 06, 2024. Published online Nov 26, 2024. doi: 10.21037/tp-24-324 The multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of effect of parental touch on relieving acute procedural pain in neonates recently published in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Health (1) is a perfect example of a well-designed well conducted rigorous experimental trial of a neonatal pain reduction intervention, conducted at two sites in the United Kingdom. Indeed the quality of the trial was praised in a commentary associated with the publication (2). The study was considered in line with family centred care, as parents of the newborns, of which 35% were fathers, were involved in the delivery of the intervention (stroking the leg). However, this study raises a number of considerations for the optimal standards of trial design and conduct in acute pain in newborns. Considerations include the use of what needs to be considered 'usual care' based on current best evidence and recommendations for practice and processes, the principle of equipoise (3,4), and processes of obtaining informed consent. In this trial (1), the standard of care reported was as per 'local practice guidelines', which were swaddling and non-nutritive sucking. However these interventions have been reported to be less effective on their own compared to breastfeeding (5,6), skin to skin care (7) and small volumes of sweet tasting solutions, either sucrose or glucose (8-12). These three strategies have long been recommended for needle-related procedures in newborns in national and international clinical practice guidelines and standards (13-15), and have moderate to high levels of evidence based on their respective GRADE status as reported in systematic reviews (6,7,9). These strategies should therefore be considered as standard of care/usual care in neonatal pain studies. Yet, very little information on the extensive body of literature on these strategies has been included in this published study. Specifically, none of the systematic reviews of sucrose or glucose published over the years were discussed or cited in the reference list despite the extensive evidence from hundreds of trials and multiple systematic reviews (8-12). The lack of the use of known evidence-based pain management practices as standard of care in such newborn procedural pain studies calls into question the principle of equipoise, for this study as well as neonatal pain studies being conducted and published. The principle of equipoise involves "the state of genuine uncertainty on the part of the clinical investigator regarding the comparative therapeutic merits of each arm in the trial." (page 141) (16). In fact, it has been argued that we have had too many newborn procedural pain studies for well over a decade (17-19). Over a decade ago, Pediatrics published an ethics rounds on this exact question, titled "Should an IRB Approve a Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial of Analgesia for Procedural Pain in Neonates?" (20). At that time, Bellini stated "In conclusion, this trial is to be rejected because it exposes infants to avoidable pain, a behavior that is anachronistic for modern medicine" (page 551) (20). Yet, trials continue to be conducted and published. This commentary explores the bigger picture of the use of evidence by researchers in their quest to build further evidence. Firstly, as above, the authors of this study under discussion (1) state that the practice in the participating unit is swaddling and non-nutritive sucking. However, using normal unit practices as standard of care in a trial, when there are known more effective treatments, needs to be questioned. The value of new trials compared to implementation interventions or policy interventions, always needs to be weighed up. However, usual practices should always be based on the best available evidence where feasible and possible. This lack of use of best evidence for newborns undergoing painful procedures is not new to this single publication. In fact, there has been very little change in pain management practices during painful procedures for hospitalized newborns over the last 30 years (21). Responsibility needs to be move -Abstract Truncated-
pediatrics