{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02457627118644068, 'fraction_numerical': 0.000847457627118644, 'mean_word_length': 5.524861878453039, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Surfactant-Replacement Therapy for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the Preterm and Term Neonate: Congratulations and Corrections

To the Editor. —

We would like to express our congratulations to Dr Engle and the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn on the publication of their clinical report “Surfactant-Replacement Therapy for Respiratory Distress in the Preterm and Term Neonate.” Overall, this document was comprehensive in scope yet sufficiently detailed and referenced to provide practical, evidence-based guidance to the clinician who renders neonatal care. However, the attempt to summarize information from so many studies has led to inaccurate statements that, if left uncorrected, are misleading.

The report stated that “[w]hen compared with infants receiving the animal-derived surfactants beractant and poractant alfa, infants receiving lucinactant were found to have similar rates of mortality and morbidity from respiratory distress syndrome [RDS].”1 One of the studies cited in connection with this statement is the Safety and Effectiveness of Lucinactant Versus Exosurf in a Clinical Trial of RDS in Premature Infants (SELECT) study. …