Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Cochrane review finds very low-certainty evidence on IGF-1 for ROP in preterm infantsPremature Babies and Eye Disease: A Hopeful Treatment Hits a Wall

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that very low-certainty evidence from a Cochrane review shows no significant effect of IGF-1 on ROP outcomes in preterm infants.

This is a Cochrane systematic review of two randomized controlled trials involving 140 preterm infants at 23 weeks' to 27 weeks plus six days' gestational age in well-resourced settings. The review assessed treatment with IGF-1 (as mecasermin rinfabate) starting on the first day of life, compared to standard care or placebo, for preventing or treating retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). The primary outcome was development of Type 1 ROP or ROP requiring treatment.

The authors synthesized that IGF-1 treatment showed no significant effect on the primary outcome (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.35; P = 0.90). Similarly, no significant effects were found for ROP ≥ stage 3 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.65; P = 0.52), ROP of any severity (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.80; P = 0.12), serious adverse events (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.47; P = 0.15), mortality (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.99; P = 0.23), or hypoglycemia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.63; P = 0.99).

The review noted substantial limitations, including small total enrollment, substantial risk of bias (both studies had high risk in two domains), and industry funding for both trials. A post-hoc sensitivity analysis suggested a possible increase in serious adverse events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.62, P = 0.05), but this is not definitive.

The authors emphasize that the evidence is very uncertain, and no conclusions can be drawn about the effects of IGF-1 on ROP prevention or treatment, or on serious adverse events, mortality, or hypoglycemia in this population. Practice relevance was not reported.

When a Baby Is Born Too Soon, the Eyes Pay a Price

Picture a baby born at just 24 weeks — nearly four months early. Nearly every organ is still developing. The lungs need support. The brain needs protection. And the eyes? They face a particular danger that most people have never heard of.

That danger is called retinopathy of prematurity — and it can steal a child's sight before they ever see the world clearly.

A Condition That Affects the Tiniest Patients

Retinopathy of prematurity, or ROP, happens when abnormal blood vessels grow in the developing retina (the light-sensing layer at the back of the eye). In severe cases, those vessels pull the retina away from the eye wall — a retinal detachment that can cause permanent blindness.

ROP is one of the leading causes of childhood blindness worldwide. The more premature the baby, the higher the risk. Babies born before 28 weeks are especially vulnerable.

Why a Growth Factor Seemed Promising

Before birth, a hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) plays a key role in helping blood vessels in the eye develop properly. Think of IGF-1 as a traffic director — it tells the blood vessels where to go and how fast to grow.

When a baby is born too early, IGF-1 levels drop sharply. Without that signal, blood vessel development goes haywire. Researchers wondered: what if we could give premature babies IGF-1 to replace what they're missing and keep their eye vessels on the right track?

What the Studies Actually Tested

A Cochrane review — one of the most rigorous types of medical evidence summaries — analyzed two randomized controlled trials (studies where patients are randomly assigned to a treatment or a comparison group). Together, those trials enrolled 140 extremely premature infants born between 23 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

Starting on the first day of life, infants received either intravenous IGF-1 (directly into a vein) or standard care, and were followed until they reached the equivalent of 40 weeks of pregnancy.

What They Found — and Didn't Find

The honest answer? Researchers couldn't tell.

The results showed no clear difference between IGF-1 and standard care for preventing ROP of any severity. The treatment didn't clearly reduce the worst form of ROP — the kind that requires intervention — and it didn't clearly prevent any ROP at all.

This doesn't mean IGF-1 is useless — it means the studies were too small to give a reliable answer.

There was also a concerning signal. In one of the larger trials, babies who received IGF-1 appeared to experience more serious adverse events (unexpected medical complications) than those who didn't. This isn't definitive, but it's not something that can be ignored.

That's Not the Full Story

The evidence from both studies was rated as "very low certainty" — the lowest level on the standard evidence scale used in medicine. That rating reflects two problems: the studies were small, and both had significant flaws in how they were designed. Both were also funded by the company that makes the IGF-1 product, which can introduce bias even in well-intentioned research.

In short, we simply don't know enough yet.

If you have a premature baby in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), IGF-1 is not a standard treatment for ROP at this time. Current standard care includes regular eye exams by a specialist, and if ROP progresses, treatments like laser therapy or anti-VEGF injections (medications that slow abnormal blood vessel growth) are available.

Talk to your NICU team if you have concerns about your baby's eye health. They will monitor your baby closely throughout their hospital stay.

Limitations to Keep in Mind

The main limitation here is the small number of babies studied — just 140 across two trials. This is far too few to detect small but meaningful differences in outcomes, especially for a serious condition like ROP. The trials were also conducted in well-resourced hospital settings in Europe and North America, so results may not apply in lower-resource environments.

Larger, better-designed trials are needed before IGF-1 can be recommended — or ruled out — as a treatment for ROP. Researchers and clinicians will be watching future studies closely. The idea behind IGF-1 therapy is still biologically sound, but sound ideas need rigorous proof before they can be offered to the most fragile patients. That proof doesn't yet exist.

Study Details

Study typeSystematic review
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Rationale Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a disorder of the developing retina in which abnormal proliferation of retinal blood vessels may lead to severe visual compromise or retinal detachment in infants born preterm. Insulin‐like growth factor‐1 (IGF‐1) promotes normal retinal vessel growth in utero; however, IGF‐1 levels fall substantially following preterm birth. By returning IGF‐1 to in utero levels, postnatal treatment with IGF‐1 may interrupt ROP pathogenesis, preventing disease or reducing its severity. Objectives To compare treatment with IGF‐1 to standard care or placebo for the prevention of retinopathy of prematurity or treatment of early retinopathy of prematurity. Search methods We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2025, in the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), Epistemonikos, clinical trials registries (US National Library of Medicine Clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization’s International Trials Registry Platform, and ISRCTN Registry), together with reference checking and citation searching to identify studies that are included in this review. The latest search date was 10 March 2025. Eligibility criteria We considered all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster‐RCTs, and quasi‐RCTs comparing IGF‐1 with standard care or placebo for the prevention of ROP or treatment of early ROP in preterm infants. We planned to exclude cross‐over randomized trials. Outcomes Our outcomes of interest were: • Development of Type 1 ROP, defined as ROP requiring treatment at any time during the birth hospitalization or outpatient follow‐up • Development of ROP ≥ stage 3 at any time during the birth hospitalization or outpatient follow‐up • Development of ROP of any severity at any time during the birth hospitalization or outpatient follow‐up • Occurrence of one or more serious adverse events (SAEs) at any time during the birth hospitalization • Mortality during the birth hospitalization • Hypoglycemia during the birth hospitalization Risk of bias We used the original Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 tool (RoB 1) to assess possible bias in the included studies. Synthesis methods Dichotomous data were reported using risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we synthesized results for each outcome using meta‐analysis with fixed‐effect models. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Included studies We included two studies totaling 140 participants. Both included studies were parallel‐group RCTs performed between 2011 and 2016 enrolling extremely preterm infants in well‐resourced settings in Europe and North America. The two published primary study references describe a two‐center RCT (n = 19) and a 20‐center RCT (n = 121) comparing treatment starting on the first day of life with intravenous IGF‐1 (as mecasermin rinfabate) to standard care for prevention of ROP in newborn infants at 23 weeks' to 27 weeks plus six days' gestational age with follow‐up through 40 weeks' postmenstrual age. Synthesis of results Type 1 ROP/ROP requiring treatment Evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of treatment with IGF‐1 as compared to standard care/placebo for preventing development of Type 1 ROP/ROP requiring treatment (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.35; P = 0.90; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 116 infants; very low‐certainty evidence). ROP ≥ stage 3 Evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of treatment with IGF‐1 as compared to standard care/placebo for preventing development of severe ROP (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.65; P = 0.52; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 116 infants; very low‐certainty evidence). ROP of any severity Evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of treatment with IGF‐1 as compared to standard care/placebo for preventing development of ROP of any severity (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.80; P = 0.12; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 116 infants; very low‐certainty evidence). SAEs during the birth hospitalization Evidence is very uncertain regarding the safety of treatment with IGF‐1 as compared to standard care/placebo as reflected by the occurrence of one or more SAEs during the birth hospitalization in preterm infants (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.47; P = 0.15; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 140 infants; very low‐certainty evidence). Post‐hoc sensitivity analysis including only the larger RCT demonstrated an increased risk of experiencing one or more SAEs with IGF‐1 compared to controls (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.62, P = 0.05; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.33, P = 0.04; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5.9; I2 = not applicable; 1 RCT, 121 infants; very low‐certainty evidence). All‐cause mortality during the birth hospitalization Evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of treatment with IGF‐1 as compared to standard care/placebo on all‐cause mortality during the birth hospitalization in preterm infants (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.99; P = 0.23; I2 = not applicable; 1 RCT, 121 infants; very low‐certainty evidence). Hypoglycemia during the birth hospitalization Evidence is very uncertain regarding the safety of treatment with IGF‐1 as compared to standard care/placebo as reflected by the incidence of hypoglycemia in preterm infants during the birth hospitalization (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.63; P = 0.99; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 infants; very low‐certainty evidence). We assessed all results to be of very low certainty due to small total enrollment and substantial risk of bias. Both included studies had a high risk of bias in two domains. In addition, both were funded by industry. Authors' conclusions The available data are of very low certainty, and so we are not able to draw conclusions about the effects of treatment with IGF‐1 in preterm infants for preventing or treating ROP, or about its effects on risk of serious adverse events, mortality, or hypoglycemia in this population. Funding This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. Registration Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013216 PICOs PICOs Population Intervention Comparison Outcome
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.