BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:

Caffeine is effective in the treatment of apnea of prematurity. Although caffeine therapy has a benefit on gross motor skills in school-aged children, effects on neurobehavioral outcomes are not fully understood. We aimed to investigate effects of neonatal caffeine therapy in very low birth weight (500–1250 g) infants on neurobehavioral outcomes in 11-year-old participants of the Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity trial.

METHODS:

Thirteen academic hospitals in Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and Sweden participated in this part of the 11-year follow-up of the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Measures of general intelligence, attention, executive function, visuomotor integration and perception, and behavior were obtained in up to 870 children. The effects of caffeine therapy were assessed by using regression models.

RESULTS:

Neurobehavioral outcomes were generally similar for both the caffeine and placebo group. The caffeine group performed better than the placebo group in fine motor coordination (mean difference [MD] = 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7 to 5.1; P = .01), visuomotor integration (MD = 1.8; 95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7; P < .05), visual perception (MD = 2.0; 95% CI: 0.3 to 3.8; P = .02), and visuospatial organization (MD = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.0; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS:

Neonatal caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity improved visuomotor, visuoperceptual, and visuospatial abilities at age 11 years. General intelligence, attention, and behavior were not adversely affected by caffeine, which highlights the long-term safety of caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity in very low birth weight neonates.

What’s Known on This Subject:

Caffeine is effective in the treatment of apnea of prematurity. It increases the rate of survival without neurodevelopmental disability, reduces the rates of cerebral palsy and cognitive impairment in toddlers, and has benefits on gross motor skills in school-aged children.

What This Study Adds:

Neonatal caffeine therapy improved visuomotor, visuoperceptual, and visuospatial abilities at age 11 years. Adverse outcomes were not shown for neurobehavioral outcomes such as general intelligence, attention, executive function, and behavior.

Apnea of prematurity occurs in over 50% of preterm neonates1 and is most commonly treated with respiratory stimulants such as caffeine. However, short- and long-term effects of caffeine on the central nervous system are not clearly understood, with both neuroprotective2 and neurotoxic3 effects being reported in experimental evidence. In addition, caffeine may be indirectly associated with better developmental outcomes by reducing apnea and the duration of mechanical ventilation.4,5 

Researchers of the Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity (CAP) trial investigated the safety and effectiveness of caffeine therapy.6 This international, randomized, placebo-controlled trial has revealed that caffeine therapy reduced the rate of bronchopulmonary dysplasia and severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) before discharge.7,8 At 18 to 21 months’ corrected age, caffeine therapy increased the rate of survival without neurodevelopmental disability and reduced the rates of cerebral palsy and cognitive impairment.8 At the age of 5 years, evidence for the reduction in the rate of cerebral palsy with caffeine treatment was weaker, but improved motor function9 and a reduced risk of developmental coordination disorder (DCD) were demonstrated.10 Neonatal caffeine therapy did not affect functional impairment when assessed as a composite of poor academic performance, motor impairment, and behavior problems in 11-year-old children, but it reduced the risk of motor impairment.4 

Although rates of cognitive impairment did not differ between the caffeine and placebo groups at 5 years of age,9 long-term effects of caffeine therapy on specific neurobehavioral outcomes such as general intelligence, attention, executive function, visuomotor integration and perception, and behavior are still to be determined. Our aim in this study was to investigate the effects of neonatal caffeine therapy in very low birth weight infants (500–1250 g) on these neurobehavioral outcomes in 11-year-old participants of the CAP trial.

Infants with a birth weight of 500 to 1250 g were eligible for the CAP trial if they were considered to be candidates for methylxanthine therapy by their clinicians during the first 10 days of life; 2006 infants in 35 academic hospitals and 9 countries were enrolled in this double-blind trial between October 1999 and October 2004. Infants were randomly assigned to receive caffeine citrate or normal saline placebo until treatment of apnea of prematurity was no longer needed. Exclusion criteria, randomization procedures, and use of the study drug have been described previously.7 In short, exclusion criteria were (1) previous treatment with methylxanthines, (2) congenital abnormalities, and (3) likely unavailability for follow-up. Randomization was stratified according to the study center and was balanced in random blocks of 2 or 4 patients. A loading dose of 20 mg of caffeine citrate per kilogram of body weight was followed by a daily maintenance dose of 5 mg/kg. If apnea persisted, the dose could be increased to a maximum of 10 mg/kg per day. Infants received their first dose of the study drug at a median age of 3 days and were weaned off the study drug before reaching a median postmenstrual age of 35 weeks. Infants in the control group were treated with an equivalent volume of normal saline.

The primary outcome of the initial study was death before 18 months’ corrected age or survival with at least 1 of the following conditions: cerebral palsy, cognitive delay, severe hearing loss, or bilateral blindness. Caffeine reduced the rate of the combined outcome (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64 to 0.93).8 At 5-year follow-up, the evidence used to support a caffeine effect on the rate of survival without disability was weak, but secondary and post hoc analyses revealed lasting benefits of caffeine on motor performance.9,10 

Fourteen centers participated in the 11-year follow-up and provided data for the primary outcome (n = 457 participants in the caffeine group, n = 463 participants in the placebo group), which was a composite measure of functional impairment in at least 1 of the following 3 domains: academic performance, behavior, and motor skills. A 15th center in Sweden provided partial data for components of the primary outcome.4 The present analysis includes secondary outcomes of general intelligence, attention, executive function, visuomotor integration and perception, and behavior. Two centers administered only the 3 primary outcome measures, whereas the remaining 13 centers administered combinations of secondary outcome measures, depending on local resources. Consequently, the denominators vary among outcomes.

The 11-year follow-up was conducted between May 2011 and May 2016, and the target window for assessments was the year between the child’s 11th and 12th birthday. Efforts to locate and examine the children continued beyond this age when necessary.

Each phase of the study was approved by the relevant institutional ethics boards. Written informed consent was obtained from a parent or guardian of each child, and at the 11-year follow-up, assent was obtained from the child when appropriate. The children, their families, and all clinicians and researchers involved in the care of the participants and in the assessments of their outcomes remained unaware of the neonatal random assignments to caffeine or placebo treatment. Assessors were blinded to treatment allocation at all stages.

General intelligence was estimated with the full-scale IQ from the 4-subtest version of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence–II (WASI-II).11 The scale also generates a verbal comprehension index (a measure of verbal acquired knowledge and verbal reasoning abilities) and a perceptual reasoning index (a measure of visual perception organization and reasoning skills). The indices are age standardized (mean = 100; SD = 15), with higher scores reflecting higher intelligence. Cognitive impairment was defined as a full-scale IQ < 85 (<1 SD relative to the normative mean). Children who could not be assessed because of severe intellectual impairment or severe autism were coded as having a severe cognitive impairment.

Visuomotor integration, visual perception, and fine motor coordination were assessed with the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI), sixth edition12 (mean = 100; SD = 15). The digit span subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–IV (WISC-IV)13 was administered to assess working memory (mean = 7; SD = 3). Attention was assessed by using subtests from the Test of Everyday Attention for Children (TEA-Ch; mean = 7; SD = 3),14 including Sky Search (selective attention), Score! (sustained attention), Creature Counting (shifting attention), and Sky Search Dual Task (divided attention). The Rey complex figure test (RCF) was administered to assess planning and organizational aspects of executive function,15 with performance assessed according to accuracy and organizational strategy.16 The RCF delayed recall test was administered to assess the child’s capacity to remember a drawn figure without cues after a 20- to 30-minute interval. Higher scores reflected better functional outcome in all of the abovementioned measures. Age standardized scores were used with the exception of the RCF, for which reliable norms are not available. Impairment in visuomotor integration, visual perception, fine motor coordination, working memory, attention, and executive function was defined as a performance <1 SD relative to the normative mean of the respective test.

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), a parent-completed rating scale, was used to assess the everyday behavioral manifestations of children’s executive control functions.17 The Global Executive Composite (GEC), Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI), and Metacognition Index scores were reported. Parents also completed the Conners 3 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Index,18 which consists of 10 items that best differentiate children with ADHD from the general population. Age-standardized T-scores (mean = 50; SD = 10) are generated for both of these parent-reported behavior questionnaires, with elevated scores indicating greater problematic behaviors. Behavioral impairment was defined as a score >1 SD compared with the mean of the normative sample.

Because randomization was stratified according to study center, the analyses were adjusted with the use of a multiple linear regression model that included terms for treatment and center (results from smaller centers were combined). The regression coefficient associated with treatment in the fitted model yielded a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment effect expressed as the mean difference (MD) between the study groups. Impairment rates were analyzed with equivalent logistic regression models, with the adjusted treatment effect expressed as an OR. The quotient of the estimated coefficient of the treatment effect and its SE were used as a z-test statistic for the null hypothesis of no treatment effect. After a reviewer’s comment was received, a post hoc analysis was conducted to examine the contribution of severe ROP to visuomotor performance. A linear regression model was used with an interaction term to test for the consistency of the caffeine effect between children with and without severe ROP. All P values were 2-sided and considered significant if P < .05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. SAS version 9.4 was used (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC).

In Fig 1, we show the number of infants who were enrolled in the original trial, the number of children who were eligible for the current study in 13 sites, and the number of children who completed each of the outcome measures. A total of 870 children contributed data for at least 1 measurement instrument. Characteristics of these 870 children and their families are given in Table 1. Groups were comparable in age and school attendance at follow-up, as well as the characteristics of their primary caregivers and families.

FIGURE 1

Instrument completion rates. aPrimary score available. bCompletion rate by instrument.

FIGURE 1

Instrument completion rates. aPrimary score available. bCompletion rate by instrument.

Close modal
TABLE 1

Characteristics of the Children and Their Families

CharacteristicsCaffeine Group (n = 432)Placebo Group (n = 438)P
Children at birth    
 Mean birth wt (SD), g 967 (181) 956 (182) .39 
 Mean gestational age (SD), wk 27.3 (1.7) 27.3 (1.8) .48 
 Female sex, No. (%) 222 (51.4) 199 (45.4) .08 
 Birth wt <10th percentile for gestational age, No. (%)a 59 (13.7) 67 (15.3) .49 
 Exposure to antenatal corticosteroids, No. (%) 390 (90.3) 394 (90.0) .95 
 Singleton birth, No. (%) 297 (68.8) 315 (71.9) .31 
Outcomes at 18 mo    
 Disability, No./total No. (%)b 122/418 (29.2) 153/424 (36.1) .03 
 Cerebral palsy, No./total No. (%) 14/427 (3.3) 27/433 (6.2) .04 
 Moderate cognitive delay, No./total No. (%)c 113/416 (27.2) 133/423 (31.4) .17 
 Severe cognitive delay, No./total No. (%)d 38/416 (9.1) 52/423 (12.3) .14 
 Severe ROP, No./total No. (%)e 18/432 (4.2) 26/438 (5.9) .23 
Outcomes at 5 y    
 Disability, No./total No. (%)f 56/415 (13.5) 72/411 (17.5) .11 
 Motor impairment, No./total No. (%)g 5/424 (1.2) 13/425 (3.1) .06 
 Cognitive impairment, No./total No. (%)h 18/417 (4.3) 12/421 (2.9) .25 
 Full-scale IQ, mean (SD) 100 (16) 99 (15) .10 
 Behavior problem, No./total No. (%)i 23/415 (5.5) 29/413 (7.0) .38 
11-y follow-up    
 Median age (IQR), y 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) .88 
 Schooling    
  Mainstream school (public or private), No. (%) 418 (96.8) 424 (96.8) .63 
  Special education facility, No. (%) 10 (2.3) 11 (2.5)  
  Homeschool, No. (%) 4 (0.9) 2 (0.5)  
  Hospital or chronic care facility, No. (%) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.2)  
 Primary caregivers and family arrangements at follow-up    
  Relationship to child    
   Biological mother, No. (%) 369 (85.4) 379 (86.5) .23 
   Biological father, No. (%) 47 (10.9) 51 (11.6)  
   Other or unknown, No. (%) 16 (3.7) 8 (1.8)  
 Race    
  White, No. (%) 350 (81.0) 355 (81.1) .70 
  Black, No. (%) 14 (3.2) 18 (4.1)  
  Asian, No. (%) 45 (10.4) 44 (10.0)  
  Indigenous, No. (%) 11 (2.5) 14 (3.2)  
  Other or unknown, No. (%) 12 (2.8) 7 (1.6)  
 Level of caregiver education    
  Did not finish high school or Eq, No. (%) 83 (19.2) 89 (20.3) .53 
  Completed high school or Eq, No. (%) 86 (19.9) 91 (20.8)  
  Some college or university, No. (%) 75 (17.4) 60 (13.7)  
  College or university graduate, No. (%) 188 (43.5) 198 (45.2)  
 Family arrangement    
  Single parent, No. (%) 56 (13.0) 52 (11.9) .44 
  Single parent with partner closely involved, No. (%) 39 (9.0) 28 (6.4)  
  2-parent family, No. (%) 319 (73.8) 341 (77.9)  
  Other or unknown, No. (%) 18 (4.2) 17 (3.9)  
 Other children <18 y old living in the household, median (IQR) 1 (1, 2) 1 (1, 2) .61 
 Family’s main source of financial support    
  Earnings from employment or self-employment, No. (%) 374 (86.6) 390 (89.0) .12 
  Government benefits (excluding pensions), No. (%) 41 (9.5) 37 (8.4)  
  Other, No. (%) 10 (2.3) 2 (0.5)  
CharacteristicsCaffeine Group (n = 432)Placebo Group (n = 438)P
Children at birth    
 Mean birth wt (SD), g 967 (181) 956 (182) .39 
 Mean gestational age (SD), wk 27.3 (1.7) 27.3 (1.8) .48 
 Female sex, No. (%) 222 (51.4) 199 (45.4) .08 
 Birth wt <10th percentile for gestational age, No. (%)a 59 (13.7) 67 (15.3) .49 
 Exposure to antenatal corticosteroids, No. (%) 390 (90.3) 394 (90.0) .95 
 Singleton birth, No. (%) 297 (68.8) 315 (71.9) .31 
Outcomes at 18 mo    
 Disability, No./total No. (%)b 122/418 (29.2) 153/424 (36.1) .03 
 Cerebral palsy, No./total No. (%) 14/427 (3.3) 27/433 (6.2) .04 
 Moderate cognitive delay, No./total No. (%)c 113/416 (27.2) 133/423 (31.4) .17 
 Severe cognitive delay, No./total No. (%)d 38/416 (9.1) 52/423 (12.3) .14 
 Severe ROP, No./total No. (%)e 18/432 (4.2) 26/438 (5.9) .23 
Outcomes at 5 y    
 Disability, No./total No. (%)f 56/415 (13.5) 72/411 (17.5) .11 
 Motor impairment, No./total No. (%)g 5/424 (1.2) 13/425 (3.1) .06 
 Cognitive impairment, No./total No. (%)h 18/417 (4.3) 12/421 (2.9) .25 
 Full-scale IQ, mean (SD) 100 (16) 99 (15) .10 
 Behavior problem, No./total No. (%)i 23/415 (5.5) 29/413 (7.0) .38 
11-y follow-up    
 Median age (IQR), y 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) .88 
 Schooling    
  Mainstream school (public or private), No. (%) 418 (96.8) 424 (96.8) .63 
  Special education facility, No. (%) 10 (2.3) 11 (2.5)  
  Homeschool, No. (%) 4 (0.9) 2 (0.5)  
  Hospital or chronic care facility, No. (%) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.2)  
 Primary caregivers and family arrangements at follow-up    
  Relationship to child    
   Biological mother, No. (%) 369 (85.4) 379 (86.5) .23 
   Biological father, No. (%) 47 (10.9) 51 (11.6)  
   Other or unknown, No. (%) 16 (3.7) 8 (1.8)  
 Race    
  White, No. (%) 350 (81.0) 355 (81.1) .70 
  Black, No. (%) 14 (3.2) 18 (4.1)  
  Asian, No. (%) 45 (10.4) 44 (10.0)  
  Indigenous, No. (%) 11 (2.5) 14 (3.2)  
  Other or unknown, No. (%) 12 (2.8) 7 (1.6)  
 Level of caregiver education    
  Did not finish high school or Eq, No. (%) 83 (19.2) 89 (20.3) .53 
  Completed high school or Eq, No. (%) 86 (19.9) 91 (20.8)  
  Some college or university, No. (%) 75 (17.4) 60 (13.7)  
  College or university graduate, No. (%) 188 (43.5) 198 (45.2)  
 Family arrangement    
  Single parent, No. (%) 56 (13.0) 52 (11.9) .44 
  Single parent with partner closely involved, No. (%) 39 (9.0) 28 (6.4)  
  2-parent family, No. (%) 319 (73.8) 341 (77.9)  
  Other or unknown, No. (%) 18 (4.2) 17 (3.9)  
 Other children <18 y old living in the household, median (IQR) 1 (1, 2) 1 (1, 2) .61 
 Family’s main source of financial support    
  Earnings from employment or self-employment, No. (%) 374 (86.6) 390 (89.0) .12 
  Government benefits (excluding pensions), No. (%) 41 (9.5) 37 (8.4)  
  Other, No. (%) 10 (2.3) 2 (0.5)  

These data are for the 870 children who completed data for at least one measurement instrument. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Eq, equivalent.

a

The 10th percentile for gestational age in a normal population was reported by Kramer et al.19 

b

Disability at 18 mo was defined as at least 1 of cerebral palsy, moderate cognitive delay, deafness, or blindness.

c

Moderate cognitive delay was defined as a Mental Development Index score of <85 on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, second edition.

d

Severe cognitive delay was defined as a Mental Development Index score of <70 on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, second edition.

e

Severe ROP was defined as unilateral or bilateral stage 4 or 5 disease or as receipt of retinal therapy in at least 1 eye.

f

Disability at 5 y of age was defined as at least 1 of motor impairment, cognitive impairment, behavior problems, poor general health, deafness, or blindness.

g

Motor impairment was defined as a Gross Motor Function Classification System level of >2.

h

Cognitive impairment was defined as a full-scale IQ of <70 on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–III.

i

A behavior problem was defined as a Total Problem T score of >69 on the Child Behavior Checklist.

Neurobehavioral outcomes were broadly similar between the caffeine and placebo groups, although mean scores were higher on most scales in the caffeine group. Evidence for group differences was strongest for visuomotor integration (MD = 1.8; 95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7; P < .05), visual perception (MD = 2.0; 95% CI: 0.3 to 3.8; P = .02), fine motor coordination (MD = 2.9; 95% CI: 0.7 to 5.1; P = .01), and RCF copy accuracy (MD = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.0; P = .003). For the parent-rated behavior questionnaires, there was little evidence for group differences (Table 2).

TABLE 2

Neurobehavioral Outcomes

OutcomeMax naCaffeine GroupPlacebo GroupUnadjusted MD (95% CI)MD Adjusted for Center (95% CI)PMD Adjusted for Center and Patient Characteristics (95% CI)b
nMean ± SDnMean ± SD
Fine motor skills 1065         
 Beery VMI  409 90.7 ± 13.1 406 88.9 ± 13.8 1.8 (−0.1 to 3.6) 1.8 (0.0 to 3.7) < .05 1.5 (−0.3 to 3.3) 
 Visual perception  407 97.7 ± 12.9 397 95.6 ± 13.4 2.1 (0.2 to 3.9) 2.0 (0.3 to 3.8) .02 1.9 (0.1 to 3.6) 
 Motor coordination  406 90.8 ± 15.8 397 88.0 ± 17.0 2.9 (0.6 to 5.2) 2.9 (0.7 to 5.1) .01 2.3 (0.1 to 4.4) 
General intelligence (WASI-II) 1041         
 Full-scale IQ  392 97.0 ± 14.9 393 95.5 ± 14.7 1.5 (−0.5 to 3.6) 1.6 (−0.5 to 3.6) .14 1.4 (−0.6 to 3.3) 
 Verbal comprehension  392 97.8 ± 15.5 394 97.0 ± 14.9 0.9 (−1.3 to 3.0) 0.9 (−1.2 to 3.0) .39 0.7 (−1.4 to 2.7) 
 Perceptional reasoning  392 96.8 ± 14.9 395 95.2 ± 14.9 1.6 (−0.5 to 3.7) 1.6 (−0.5 to 3.6) .13 1.4 (−0.6 to 3.4) 
Attention          
 TEA-Ch 1065         
  Selective, Sky Search  404 10.8 ± 3.1 400 10.8 ± 3.1 0.0 (−0.4 to 0.4) 0.0 (−0.4 to 0.4) .96 0.0 (−0.5 to 0.4) 
  Sustained, Score!  402 8.5 ± 3.6 399 8.2 ± 3.6 0.3 (−0.2 to 0.8) 0.3 (−0.2 to 0.8) .21 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.7) 
  Divided, Sky Search DT  395 6.8 ± 3.3 390 6.5 ± 3.4 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.7) 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.7) .36 0.1 (−0.3 to 0.6) 
  Task decrement shifting, Creature Counting  396 9.3 ± 3.2 393 9.2 ± 3.3 0.1 (−0.3 to 0.6) 0.1 (−0.3, 0.5) .65 0.0 (−0.4 to 0.5) 
 Conners ADHD index 1114         
  T-score  429 61.5 ± 18.2 435 60.7 ± 18.4 0.7 (−1.7 to 3.2) 0.6 (−1.8 to 3.0) .61 1.2 (−1.2 to 3.5) 
  Probability score  429 45.2 ± 33.5 435 43.6 ± 33.5 1.6 (−2.9 to 6.0) 1.3 (−3.1 to 5.8) .56 2.4 (−1.9 to 6.7) 
Executive function          
 RCF 1065         
  Copy score  405 22.8 ± 5.3 400 21.6 ± 6.1 1.1 (0.4 to 1.9) 1.2 (0.4 to 2.0) .003 1.1 (0.3 to 1.8) 
  Recall score  406 12.6 ± 5.1 399 12.0 ± 5.8 0.5 (−0.2 to 1.3) 0.6 (−0.1 to 1.3) .11 0.5 (−0.3 to 1.2) 
  Strategy score  392 4.0 ± 1.0 387 4.0 ± 1.1 0.0 (−0.1 to 0.2) 0.0 (−0.1 to 0.2) .56 0.0 (−0.1 to 0.2) 
 BRIEF parent T-scores 1114         
  GEC  429 55.9 ± 12.5 434 54.8 ± 12.3 1.2 (−0.5 to 2.8) 1.1 (−0.5 to 2.8) .18 1.4 (−0.3 to 3.0) 
  Metacognition index  429 55.8 ± 11.7 434 54.7 ± 11.6 1.1 (−0.5 to 2.7) 1.1 (−0.5 to 2.6) .19 1.2 (−0.3 to 2.7) 
  BRI  431 54.9 ± 13.6 436 53.9 ± 13.2 1.0 (−0.8 to 2.8) 1.0 (−0.8 to 2.7) .30 1.3 (−0.5 to 3.0) 
 WISC-IV digit span 1041         
  Digit span forward  405 8.8 ± 3.4 406 8.6 ± 3.3 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.7) 0.3 (−0.1 to 0.7) .16 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) 
  Digit span backward  405 8.4 ± 2.9 406 8.2 ± 2.9 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) .27 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) 
OutcomeMax naCaffeine GroupPlacebo GroupUnadjusted MD (95% CI)MD Adjusted for Center (95% CI)PMD Adjusted for Center and Patient Characteristics (95% CI)b
nMean ± SDnMean ± SD
Fine motor skills 1065         
 Beery VMI  409 90.7 ± 13.1 406 88.9 ± 13.8 1.8 (−0.1 to 3.6) 1.8 (0.0 to 3.7) < .05 1.5 (−0.3 to 3.3) 
 Visual perception  407 97.7 ± 12.9 397 95.6 ± 13.4 2.1 (0.2 to 3.9) 2.0 (0.3 to 3.8) .02 1.9 (0.1 to 3.6) 
 Motor coordination  406 90.8 ± 15.8 397 88.0 ± 17.0 2.9 (0.6 to 5.2) 2.9 (0.7 to 5.1) .01 2.3 (0.1 to 4.4) 
General intelligence (WASI-II) 1041         
 Full-scale IQ  392 97.0 ± 14.9 393 95.5 ± 14.7 1.5 (−0.5 to 3.6) 1.6 (−0.5 to 3.6) .14 1.4 (−0.6 to 3.3) 
 Verbal comprehension  392 97.8 ± 15.5 394 97.0 ± 14.9 0.9 (−1.3 to 3.0) 0.9 (−1.2 to 3.0) .39 0.7 (−1.4 to 2.7) 
 Perceptional reasoning  392 96.8 ± 14.9 395 95.2 ± 14.9 1.6 (−0.5 to 3.7) 1.6 (−0.5 to 3.6) .13 1.4 (−0.6 to 3.4) 
Attention          
 TEA-Ch 1065         
  Selective, Sky Search  404 10.8 ± 3.1 400 10.8 ± 3.1 0.0 (−0.4 to 0.4) 0.0 (−0.4 to 0.4) .96 0.0 (−0.5 to 0.4) 
  Sustained, Score!  402 8.5 ± 3.6 399 8.2 ± 3.6 0.3 (−0.2 to 0.8) 0.3 (−0.2 to 0.8) .21 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.7) 
  Divided, Sky Search DT  395 6.8 ± 3.3 390 6.5 ± 3.4 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.7) 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.7) .36 0.1 (−0.3 to 0.6) 
  Task decrement shifting, Creature Counting  396 9.3 ± 3.2 393 9.2 ± 3.3 0.1 (−0.3 to 0.6) 0.1 (−0.3, 0.5) .65 0.0 (−0.4 to 0.5) 
 Conners ADHD index 1114         
  T-score  429 61.5 ± 18.2 435 60.7 ± 18.4 0.7 (−1.7 to 3.2) 0.6 (−1.8 to 3.0) .61 1.2 (−1.2 to 3.5) 
  Probability score  429 45.2 ± 33.5 435 43.6 ± 33.5 1.6 (−2.9 to 6.0) 1.3 (−3.1 to 5.8) .56 2.4 (−1.9 to 6.7) 
Executive function          
 RCF 1065         
  Copy score  405 22.8 ± 5.3 400 21.6 ± 6.1 1.1 (0.4 to 1.9) 1.2 (0.4 to 2.0) .003 1.1 (0.3 to 1.8) 
  Recall score  406 12.6 ± 5.1 399 12.0 ± 5.8 0.5 (−0.2 to 1.3) 0.6 (−0.1 to 1.3) .11 0.5 (−0.3 to 1.2) 
  Strategy score  392 4.0 ± 1.0 387 4.0 ± 1.1 0.0 (−0.1 to 0.2) 0.0 (−0.1 to 0.2) .56 0.0 (−0.1 to 0.2) 
 BRIEF parent T-scores 1114         
  GEC  429 55.9 ± 12.5 434 54.8 ± 12.3 1.2 (−0.5 to 2.8) 1.1 (−0.5 to 2.8) .18 1.4 (−0.3 to 3.0) 
  Metacognition index  429 55.8 ± 11.7 434 54.7 ± 11.6 1.1 (−0.5 to 2.7) 1.1 (−0.5 to 2.6) .19 1.2 (−0.3 to 2.7) 
  BRI  431 54.9 ± 13.6 436 53.9 ± 13.2 1.0 (−0.8 to 2.8) 1.0 (−0.8 to 2.7) .30 1.3 (−0.5 to 3.0) 
 WISC-IV digit span 1041         
  Digit span forward  405 8.8 ± 3.4 406 8.6 ± 3.3 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.7) 0.3 (−0.1 to 0.7) .16 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) 
  Digit span backward  405 8.4 ± 2.9 406 8.2 ± 2.9 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) .27 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) 

DT, Dual Task

a

Number of randomly assigned children not known to have died before follow-up who were eligible for assessment with the designated instrument.

b

The MD was adjusted for the gestational age and sex of the child, antenatal administration of corticosteroids, multiple births, and the primary caregiver’s education at the time of the assessment.

Differences of impairment rates between groups revealed a similar pattern, with lower odds of impairment in the caffeine group for visuomotor integration (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.99; P = .04), visual perception (OR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.92; P = .02), and fine motor coordination (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.92; P = .01) compared with the placebo group (Table 3).

TABLE 3

Rates of Impairment in Neurobehavioral Outcome

OutcomeThreshold ScoreaNo./Total No. (%)OR (95% CI)
Caffeine Group Impairment RatePlacebo Group Impairment RateUnadjustedAdjusted for CenterPAdjusted for Center and Patient Characteristicsb
Fine motor skills        
 Beery VMI <85 108/409 (26.4) 133/406 (32.8) 0.74 (0.54 to 1.00) 0.74 (0.55 to 0.99) .04 0.77 (0.57 to 1.04) 
 Visual perception <85 54/407 (13.3) 77/397 (19.4) 0.64 (0.44 to 0.93) 0.63 (0.43 to 0.92) .02 0.64 (0.43 to 0.95) 
 Motor coordination <85 122/406 (30.0) 151/397 (38.0) 0.70 (0.52 to 0.94) 0.69 (0.52 to 0.92) .01 0.73 (0.54 to 0.98) 
General intelligence (WASI-II)        
 Full-scale IQ <85 76/392 (19.4) 86/393 (21.9) 0.86 (0.61 to 1.21) 0.87 (0.61 to 1.23) .43 0.89 (0.62 to 1.27) 
 Verbal comprehension <85 72/392 (18.4) 69/394 (17.5) 1.06 (0.74 to 1.53) 1.11 (0.77 to 1.59) .59 1.13 (0.77 to 1.64) 
 Perceptional reasoning <85 79/392 (20.2) 95/395 (24.1) 0.80 (0.57 to 1.12) 0.78 (0.55 to 1.10) .16 0.80 (0.56 to 1.13) 
Attention        
 TEA-Ch        
  Selective, Sky Search <7 36/404 (8.9) 37/400 (9.3) 0.96 (0.59 to 1.55) 0.97 (0.59 to 1.58) .89 1.02 (0.62 to 1.67) 
  Sustained, Score! <7 125/402 (31.1) 141/399 (35.3) 0.83 (0.62 to 1.11) 0.84 (0.62 to 1.12) .23 0.87 (0.64 to 1.16) 
  Divided, Sky Search DT <7 146/395 (37.0) 152/390 (39.0) 0.92 (0.69 to 1.23) 0.93 (0.69 to 1.24) .61 0.97 (0.72 to 1.31) 
  Shifting, creature counting <7 84/396 (21.2) 86/393 (21.9) 0.96 (0.68 to 1.35) 0.99 (0.70 to 1.41) .96 1.08 (0.75 to 1.56) 
 Conners ADHD index        
  T-score >80 178/429 (41.5) 170/435 (39.1) 1.11 (0.84 to 1.45) 1.08 (0.82 to 1.41) .60 1.15 (0.87 to 1.53) 
  Probability score >80 144/429 (33.6) 143/435 (32.9) 1.03 (0.78 to 1.37) 1.00 (0.75 to 1.31) .98 1.05 (0.79 to 1.40) 
Executive function        
 RCF        
  Copy score <1 SDc 385/405 (95.1) 383/400 (95.8) 0.85 (0.44 to 1.66) 0.83 (0.43 to 1.62) .59 0.82 (0.42 to 1.61) 
  Recall score <1 SDc 296/406 (72.9) 296/399 (74.2) 0.94 (0.68 to 1.28) 0.91 (0.67 to 1.25) .57 0.96 (0.70 to 1.31) 
 BRIEF parent T-scores        
  GEC >60 137/429 (31.9) 130/434 (30.0) 1.10 (0.82 to 1.46) 1.08 (0.80 to 1.45) .62 1.11 (0.82 to 1.51) 
  Metacognition index >60 144/429 (33.6) 125/434 (28.8) 1.25 (0.94 to 1.67) 1.23 (0.92 to 1.65) .16 1.29 (0.95 to 1.73) 
  BRI >60 125/431 (29.0) 112/436 (25.7) 1.18 (0.88 to 1.59) 1.18 (0.87 to 1.60) .29 1.24 (0.90 to 1.69) 
 WISC-IV digit span        
  Digit span forward <7 118/405 (29.1) 125/406 (30.8) 0.92 (0.68 to 1.25) 0.90 (0.65 to 1.23) .50 0.92 (0.67 to 1.28) 
  Digit span backward <7 112/405 (27.7) 126/406 (31.0) 0.85 (0.63 to 1.15) 0.83 (0.61 to 1.14) .25 0.86 (0.63 to 1.18) 
OutcomeThreshold ScoreaNo./Total No. (%)OR (95% CI)
Caffeine Group Impairment RatePlacebo Group Impairment RateUnadjustedAdjusted for CenterPAdjusted for Center and Patient Characteristicsb
Fine motor skills        
 Beery VMI <85 108/409 (26.4) 133/406 (32.8) 0.74 (0.54 to 1.00) 0.74 (0.55 to 0.99) .04 0.77 (0.57 to 1.04) 
 Visual perception <85 54/407 (13.3) 77/397 (19.4) 0.64 (0.44 to 0.93) 0.63 (0.43 to 0.92) .02 0.64 (0.43 to 0.95) 
 Motor coordination <85 122/406 (30.0) 151/397 (38.0) 0.70 (0.52 to 0.94) 0.69 (0.52 to 0.92) .01 0.73 (0.54 to 0.98) 
General intelligence (WASI-II)        
 Full-scale IQ <85 76/392 (19.4) 86/393 (21.9) 0.86 (0.61 to 1.21) 0.87 (0.61 to 1.23) .43 0.89 (0.62 to 1.27) 
 Verbal comprehension <85 72/392 (18.4) 69/394 (17.5) 1.06 (0.74 to 1.53) 1.11 (0.77 to 1.59) .59 1.13 (0.77 to 1.64) 
 Perceptional reasoning <85 79/392 (20.2) 95/395 (24.1) 0.80 (0.57 to 1.12) 0.78 (0.55 to 1.10) .16 0.80 (0.56 to 1.13) 
Attention        
 TEA-Ch        
  Selective, Sky Search <7 36/404 (8.9) 37/400 (9.3) 0.96 (0.59 to 1.55) 0.97 (0.59 to 1.58) .89 1.02 (0.62 to 1.67) 
  Sustained, Score! <7 125/402 (31.1) 141/399 (35.3) 0.83 (0.62 to 1.11) 0.84 (0.62 to 1.12) .23 0.87 (0.64 to 1.16) 
  Divided, Sky Search DT <7 146/395 (37.0) 152/390 (39.0) 0.92 (0.69 to 1.23) 0.93 (0.69 to 1.24) .61 0.97 (0.72 to 1.31) 
  Shifting, creature counting <7 84/396 (21.2) 86/393 (21.9) 0.96 (0.68 to 1.35) 0.99 (0.70 to 1.41) .96 1.08 (0.75 to 1.56) 
 Conners ADHD index        
  T-score >80 178/429 (41.5) 170/435 (39.1) 1.11 (0.84 to 1.45) 1.08 (0.82 to 1.41) .60 1.15 (0.87 to 1.53) 
  Probability score >80 144/429 (33.6) 143/435 (32.9) 1.03 (0.78 to 1.37) 1.00 (0.75 to 1.31) .98 1.05 (0.79 to 1.40) 
Executive function        
 RCF        
  Copy score <1 SDc 385/405 (95.1) 383/400 (95.8) 0.85 (0.44 to 1.66) 0.83 (0.43 to 1.62) .59 0.82 (0.42 to 1.61) 
  Recall score <1 SDc 296/406 (72.9) 296/399 (74.2) 0.94 (0.68 to 1.28) 0.91 (0.67 to 1.25) .57 0.96 (0.70 to 1.31) 
 BRIEF parent T-scores        
  GEC >60 137/429 (31.9) 130/434 (30.0) 1.10 (0.82 to 1.46) 1.08 (0.80 to 1.45) .62 1.11 (0.82 to 1.51) 
  Metacognition index >60 144/429 (33.6) 125/434 (28.8) 1.25 (0.94 to 1.67) 1.23 (0.92 to 1.65) .16 1.29 (0.95 to 1.73) 
  BRI >60 125/431 (29.0) 112/436 (25.7) 1.18 (0.88 to 1.59) 1.18 (0.87 to 1.60) .29 1.24 (0.90 to 1.69) 
 WISC-IV digit span        
  Digit span forward <7 118/405 (29.1) 125/406 (30.8) 0.92 (0.68 to 1.25) 0.90 (0.65 to 1.23) .50 0.92 (0.67 to 1.28) 
  Digit span backward <7 112/405 (27.7) 126/406 (31.0) 0.85 (0.63 to 1.15) 0.83 (0.61 to 1.14) .25 0.86 (0.63 to 1.18) 

DT, Dual Task.

a

Threshold score used to define impairment for the respective instrument. For all tests, this corresponded to 1 SD below or above the mean of the normative sample, depending on the test.

b

The OR was adjusted for the gestational age and sex of the child, antenatal administration of corticosteroids, multiple births, and the primary caregiver's education at the time of the assessment.

c

Threshold scores are age-dependent.

In the post hoc analysis conducted to examine the contribution of the indirect effect of caffeine on the visuomotor domain through the reduction of severe ROP, children with severe ROP showed significantly worse performance in all Beery subscales (Beery VMI: no severe ROP mean = 90.1, severe ROP mean = 84.3). However, when severe ROP was included in the regression model (Table 2), the observed reduction in severe ROP associated with caffeine explained only a small percentage (between 4.1% and 6.5%, depending on the subscale) of the overall caffeine effect on the visuomotor abilities at 11 years of age. When an interaction term was included in an additional model to test for the consistency of the caffeine effect between children with and without severe ROP, no significant subgroup interaction was shown.

Neonatal caffeine citrate therapy is one of the most common therapies in neonatal medicine,20 and it is essential that the long-term benefits and risks of this therapy are understood. In this study, in which we examined the effects of neonatal caffeine therapy on neurobehavioral outcomes, we demonstrated that caffeine therapy had specific long-term benefits for fine motor coordination, visuomotor integration, visual perception, and visuospatial organization. There was little evidence for differences between the caffeine and placebo groups on tests of general intelligence, attention, executive function, and behavior. Thus, we found specific benefits of neonatal caffeine therapy in the visuomotor domain and no evidence of harmful effects on neurobehavioral outcomes up to 11 years of age.

The caffeine benefit we observed in fine motor coordination and visuomotor integration is consistent with our previously reported associations of neonatal caffeine therapy with a reduced risk for motor impairment at 18 months,8 5 years,9 and 114 years, improved fine motor coordination at 5 years,9 and lower rates of DCD at 5 years.10 The positive effect of caffeine therapy on motor development for very preterm and very low birth weight infants is important clinically because this population is ∼10 times more likely to develop cerebral palsy21 and 3 to 4 times more likely to develop DCD than term newborns.22 It is well established that motor impairment is associated with behavioral difficulties, low self-esteem, poor social skills, and academic underachievement23; however, we found no evidence that neonatal caffeine therapy benefits behavior or academic achievement.4 It is possible that the modest motor gains observed in the caffeine group were not sufficient to influence academic achievement and behavioral outcomes or that different mechanisms are involved. Gains in other domains, such as self-esteem and social skills, are possible but need further study.

An astute comment from a reviewer and the evidence of improved visuomotor integration, visual perception, and visuospatial organization in the caffeine group prompted us to consider the contribution of severe ROP. Consistent with previous reports,24,26 children with severe ROP were at increased risk for visuomotor difficulties compared with children without severe ROP. However, in our post hoc analysis, it was indicated that only a small proportion of the overall beneficial caffeine effect on visuomotor performance could be attributed to the reduction of severe ROP by caffeine.

It is possible that improved visual perception and organization after caffeine therapy is related to the lower number of children with DCD in the caffeine group10 because DCD has been associated with decreased visual perception and visuomotor integration.27 We have previously described reduced diffusion in cerebral white matter in the newborn brain at term-equivalent age in infants treated with caffeine compared with infants in the placebo group,28 and thus an alternative possibility is that white matter changes are restricted to early mature cortical regions and sensory functions.

Caffeine may have a neuroprotective effect,2 which leads to specific functional improvements, although the short- and long-term effects of caffeine on the central nervous system are not clearly understood.29 Methylxanthines have been described to inhibit adenosine receptors, thereby compromising the role of adenosine as an important neuromodulator.30 In addition, rodent studies revealed altered astrocytogenesis in neonates after caffeine treatment.31 However, caffeine has been shown to potentiate neural plasticity at the level of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, resulting in altered morphology of neural synapses and increased size of dendritic spines.32,33 Moreover, caffeine administration in hypoxia-exposed neonatal pups was associated with enhanced myelination and reduced ventriculomegaly.34,35 This is consistent with our neonatal MRI study in which reduced diffusion in cerebral white matter was demonstrated, reflecting improved white matter microstructural development.28 

No other study has been conducted in which researchers assessed the long-term effects of caffeine therapy on general intelligence, attention, executive function, visuoperception, and behavior. Conducting this 11-year follow-up was challenging, given the large number of centers in the trial and the different languages spoken by participants. Thirteen centers provided data for the present secondary analyses in addition to the primary composite outcome. This resulted in an ascertainment rate of 78% (870 of 1114 potentially eligible surviving children) for the neurobehavioral outcomes. Despite this less than ideal ascertainment rate, the main birth characteristics and childhood outcomes were comparable between the group that was assessed at 11 years and the larger cohort assessed at earlier stages. Therefore, we are confident that the outcomes of the whole cohort are reflected in the present results with sufficient accuracy.

Neonatal caffeine therapy was associated with better visuomotor, visuoperceptual, and visuospatial abilities at 11 years of age in children born at very low birth weight. None of the secondary outcomes reported in this study were adversely affected by caffeine. This highlights the long-term safety and efficacy of caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity in very low birth weight neonates.

     
  • ADHD

    attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

  •  
  • BRI

    Behavioral Regulation Index

  •  
  • BRIEF

    Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function

  •  
  • CAP

    Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity

  •  
  • CI

    confidence interval

  •  
  • DCD

    developmental coordination disorder

  •  
  • GEC

    Global Executive Composite

  •  
  • MD

    mean difference

  •  
  • OR

    odds ratio

  •  
  • RCF

    Rey complex figure test

  •  
  • ROP

    retinopathy of prematurity

  •  
  • TEA-Ch

    Test of Everyday Attention for Children

  •  
  • VMI

    visual-motor integration

  •  
  • WASI-II

    Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence–II

  •  
  • WISC-IV

    Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–IV

Dr Mürner-Lavanchy contributed to the interpretation of data and drafted the initial manuscript; Prof Doyle conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, contributed to the interpretation of data, and drafted the initial manuscript; Profs Schmidt and Anderson conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, obtained funding, contributed to the interpretation of data, and drafted the initial manuscript; Prof Roberts conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, obtained funding, conducted the statistical analyses, contributed to the interpretation of data, and drafted the initial manuscript; Dr Asztalos coordinated and supervised data collection and obtained funding; Ms Costantini coordinated and supervised data collection, contributed to the interpretation of data, and drafted the initial manuscript; Prof Davis and Dr Tin conceptualized and designed the study and coordinated and supervised data collection; Prof Dewey conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, obtained funding, and contributed to the interpretation of data; Ms D’Ilario coordinated and supervised data collection; Drs Grunau, Moddemann, and Solimano conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, and obtained funding; Prof Ohlsson conceptualized and designed the study and obtained funding; Mr Nelson coordinated and supervised data collection, and contributed to the interpretation of data; and all authors reviewed and revised the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT00182312) and with the ISRCTN Register (http://isrctn.org) (identifier ISRCTN44364365).

FUNDING: Supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP 102601).

The following investigators and research staff contributed to the 11-year follow-up of the CAP trial participants. Study sites are listed according to the number of infants they enrolled. The list comprises authors and nonauthor contributors: McMaster University Medical Centre (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada): Barbara Schmidt, MD, MSc, Judy D’Ilario, RN, Joanne Dix, RN, BScN, MSN, Beth Anne Adams, PhD, and Erin Warriner, PhD, CPsych; The Royal Women’s Hospital (Melbourne, Australia): Lex Doyle, MD, MSc, Peter Anderson, PhD, Catherine Callanan, RN, RM, Noni Davis, MBBS, Marion McDonald, RN, Julianne Duff, B Med Sci, MB, BS, Elaine Kelly, MA, MAPsS, LACST, MAASH, CPSP, and Esther Hutchinson, DPsych; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center (Toronto, Canada): Elizabeth Asztalos, MD, MSc, Denise Hohn, BScOT, OTReg (Ontario, Canada), Afsheen Ayaz, MSc, MBBS, and Jared Allen, PhD; Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Adelaide, Australia: Ross Haslam, MBBS, Louise Goodchild, RN, and Rosslyn Marie Lontis, RN, RM, NICC, Dip of Nursing (Community Health), BN; Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne, Australia: Gillian Opie, MBBS, IBCLC, Heather Woods, RN, RM, Elaine Kelly, MA, MAPsS, LACST, MAASH, CPSP, Emma Marchant, RN, Emma Magrath, MBBS, MHth&MedLaw, and Amanda Williamson, MPsy; Children’s & Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Ruth E. Grunau, PhD, Anne Synnes, MDCM, MHSC, Alfonso Solimano, MD, Arsalan Butt, MSc, and Julie Petrie, PhD; Foothills Hospital and Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Reginald S. Sauve, MD, MPH, Deborah Dewey, PhD, Heather Christianson, BA, Deborah Anseeuw-Deeks, BN, and Sue Makarchuk, MA; St. Boniface Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Diane Moddemann, MD, MEd, Valerie Debooy, RN, Naomi Granke, RN, CCRP, and Jane Bow, PhD, CPsych; Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden: Eric Herlenius, MD, PhD, Lena Legnevall, RN, BSc, Birgitta Böhm, PhD, Britt-Marie BergStröm, BSc, Sofia Stålnacke, BSc, and Stéphanie Sundén-Cullberg, BSc; The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom: Win Tin, MD; Royal Maternity Hospital Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom: Clifford Mayes, MD, Christopher McCusker, MSc, PhD CPsych, and Una Robinson, MB BCh BAO; Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom: Nicholas Embleton, MD; Northern Neonatal Initiatives, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom: Win Tin, MD and Joanna Carnell, PhD; Steering Committee for 11-Year Follow-Up: Barbara Schmidt (Chair), MD, MSc, McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) and University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Peter J. Anderson, PhD, University of Melbourne (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), Elizabeth V. Asztalos, MD, MSc, University of Toronto (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), Peter G. Davis, MD, University of Melbourne (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), Deborah Dewey, PhD, University of Calgary (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), Lex W. Doyle, MD, University of Melbourne (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), Ruth E. Grunau, PhD, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), Diane Moddemann, MD, MEd, University of Manitoba (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada), Arne Ohlsson, MD, MSc, University of Toronto (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), Robin S. Roberts, MSc, McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada), Alfonso Solimano, MD, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), and Win Tin, MD, The James Cook University Hospital (Middlesbrough, United Kingdom); Neonatal Trials Group, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Robin S. Roberts, MSc, Lorrie Costantini, BA, Judy D’Ilario, RN, and Harvey Nelson, MSc.

We are indebted to the physicians, psychometricians, psychologists, research coordinators, and all other staff who made this study possible, and most importantly, to the children and their families who participated in this follow-up study.

1
Finer
NN
,
Higgins
R
,
Kattwinkel
J
,
Martin
RJ
.
Summary proceedings from the apnea-of-prematurity group.
Pediatrics
.
2006
;
117
(
3, pt 2
):
S47
S51
[PubMed]
2
Abdel-Hady
H
,
Nasef
N
,
Shabaan
AE
,
Nour
I
.
Caffeine therapy in preterm infants.
World J Clin Pediatr
.
2015
;
4
(
4
):
81
93
[PubMed]
3
Dunwiddie
TV
,
Masino
SA
.
The role and regulation of adenosine in the central nervous system.
Annu Rev Neurosci
.
2001
;
24
(
1
):
31
55
[PubMed]
4
Schmidt
B
,
Roberts
RS
,
Anderson
PJ
, et al;
Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity (CAP) Trial Group
.
Academic performance, motor function, and behavior 11 years after neonatal caffeine citrate therapy for apnea of prematurity: an 11-year follow-up of the CAP randomized clinical trial.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2017
;
171
(
6
):
564
572
[PubMed]
5
Walsh
MC
,
Morris
BH
,
Wrage
LA
, et al;
National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network
.
Extremely low birthweight neonates with protracted ventilation: mortality and 18-month neurodevelopmental outcomes.
J Pediatr
.
2005
;
146
(
6
):
798
804
[PubMed]
6
Schmidt
B
.
Methylxanthine therapy in premature infants: sound practice, disaster, or fruitless byway?
J Pediatr
.
1999
;
135
(
4
):
526
528
[PubMed]
7
Schmidt
B
,
Roberts
RS
,
Davis
P
, et al;
Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity Trial Group
.
Caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity.
N Engl J Med
.
2006
;
354
(
20
):
2112
2121
[PubMed]
8
Schmidt
B
,
Roberts
RS
,
Davis
P
, et al;
Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity Trial Group
.
Long-term effects of caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity.
N Engl J Med
.
2007
;
357
(
19
):
1893
1902
[PubMed]
9
Schmidt
B
,
Anderson
PJ
,
Doyle
LW
, et al;
Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity (CAP) Trial Investigators
.
Survival without disability to age 5 years after neonatal caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity.
JAMA
.
2012
;
307
(
3
):
275
282
[PubMed]
10
Doyle
LW
,
Schmidt
B
,
Anderson
PJ
, et al;
Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity Trial investigators
.
Reduction in developmental coordination disorder with neonatal caffeine therapy.
J Pediatr
.
2014
;
165
(
2
):
356
359.e2
[PubMed]
11
Wechsler
D
.
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence–Second Edition (WASI-II)
.
San Antonio, TX
:
NCS Pearson
;
2011
12
Beery
KE
,
Beery
NA
.
The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration: Administration, Scoring, and Teaching Manual
. 6th ed.
Minneapolis, MN
:
NCS Pearson
;
2010
13
Wechsler
D
.
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
. 4th ed.
San Antonio, TX
:
Pearson Assessment
;
2003
14
Manly
T
,
Robertson
IH
,
Anderson
V
,
Nimmo-Smith
I
.
TEA-Ch: The Test of Everyday Attention for Children Manual
.
Bury St. Edmunds, United Kingdom
:
Thames Valley Test Company Limited
;
1999
15
Rey
A
.
L’examen clinique en psychologique dans les cas d’encephalopathic traumatique.
Arch Psychol
.
1941
;
28
:
286
340
16
Anderson
P
,
Anderson
V
,
Garth
J
.
Assessment and development of organizational ability: the Rey Complex Figure Organizational Strategy Score (RCF-OSS).
Clin Neuropsychol
.
2001
;
15
(
1
):
81
94
[PubMed]
17
Gioia
GA
,
Isquith
PK
,
Retzlaff
PD
,
Espy
KA
.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in a clinical sample.
Child Neuropsychol
.
2002
;
8
(
4
):
249
257
[PubMed]
18
Conners
CK
.
Conners 3rd Edition Manual
.
Toronto, ON
:
Multi-Health Systems
;
2008
19
Kramer
MS
,
Platt
RW
,
Wen
SW
, et al;
Fetal/Infant Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System
.
A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age.
Pediatrics
.
2001
;
108
(
2
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/108/2/e35
[PubMed]
20
Robertson
CMT
,
Watt
MJ
,
Dinu
IA
.
Outcomes for the extremely premature infant: what is new? And where are we going?
Pediatr Neurol
.
2009
;
40
(
3
):
189
196
[PubMed]
21
Vincer
MJ
,
Allen
AC
,
Allen
VM
,
Baskett
TF
,
O’Connell
CM
.
Trends in the prevalence of cerebral palsy among very preterm infants (<31 weeks’ gestational age).
Paediatr Child Health
.
2014
;
19
(
4
):
185
189
[PubMed]
22
Williams
J
,
Lee
KJ
,
Anderson
PJ
.
Prevalence of motor-skill impairment in preterm children who do not develop cerebral palsy: a systematic review.
Dev Med Child Neurol
.
2010
;
52
(
3
):
232
237
[PubMed]
23
Roberts
G
,
Anderson
PJ
,
Davis
N
,
De Luca
C
,
Cheong
J
,
Doyle
LW
;
Victorian Infant Collaborative Study Group
.
Developmental coordination disorder in geographic cohorts of 8-year-old children born extremely preterm or extremely low birthweight in the 1990s.
Dev Med Child Neurol
.
2011
;
53
(
1
):
55
60
[PubMed]
24
Molloy
CS
,
Anderson
PJ
,
Anderson
VA
,
Doyle
LW
.
The long-term outcome of extremely preterm (<28 weeks’ gestational age) infants with and without severe retinopathy of prematurity.
J Neuropsychol
.
2016
;
10
(
2
):
276
294
[PubMed]
25
Schmidt
B
,
Davis
PG
,
Asztalos
EV
,
Solimano
A
,
Roberts
RS
.
Association between severe retinopathy of prematurity and nonvisual disabilities at age 5 years.
JAMA
.
2014
;
311
(
5
):
523
525
[PubMed]
26
Msall
ME
,
Phelps
DL
,
DiGaudio
KM
, et al;
on behalf of the Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group
.
Severity of neonatal retinopathy of prematurity is predictive of neurodevelopmental functional outcome at age 5.5 years.
Pediatrics
.
2000
;
106
(
5
):
998
1005
[PubMed]
27
Van Waelvelde
H
,
De Weerdt
W
,
De Cock
P
,
Smits-Engelsman
BC
.
Association between visual perceptual deficits and motor deficits in children with developmental coordination disorder.
Dev Med Child Neurol
.
2004
;
46
(
10
):
661
666
[PubMed]
28
Doyle
LW
,
Cheong
J
,
Hunt
RW
, et al
.
Caffeine and brain development in very preterm infants.
Ann Neurol
.
2010
;
68
(
5
):
734
742
[PubMed]
29
Atik
A
,
Harding
R
,
De Matteo
R
, et al
.
Caffeine for apnea of prematurity: effects on the developing brain.
Neurotoxicology
.
2017
;
58
:
94
102
[PubMed]
30
Millar
D
,
Schmidt
B
.
Controversies surrounding xanthine therapy.
Semin Neonatol
.
2004
;
9
(
3
):
239
244
[PubMed]
31
Desfrere
L
,
Olivier
P
,
Schwendimann
L
,
Verney
C
,
Gressens
P
.
Transient inhibition of astrocytogenesis in developing mouse brain following postnatal caffeine exposure.
Pediatr Res
.
2007
;
62
(
5
):
604
609
[PubMed]
32
Yoshimura
H
.
The potential of caffeine for functional modification from cortical synapses to neuron networks in the brain.
Curr Neuropharmacol
.
2005
;
3
(
4
):
309
316
[PubMed]
33
Connolly
S
,
Kingsbury
TJ
.
Caffeine modulates CREB-dependent gene expression in developing cortical neurons.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun
.
2010
;
397
(
2
):
152
156
[PubMed]
34
Rivkees
SA
,
Wendler
CC
.
Adverse and protective influences of adenosine on the newborn and embryo: implications for preterm white matter injury and embryo protection.
Pediatr Res
.
2011
;
69
(
4
):
271
278
[PubMed]
35
Back
SA
,
Craig
A
,
Luo
NL
, et al
.
Protective effects of caffeine on chronic hypoxia-induced perinatal white matter injury.
Ann Neurol
.
2006
;
60
(
6
):
696
705
[PubMed]

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.