Opiate v CNS depressant therapy in neonatal drug abstinence syndrome

Opioid treatment for opioid withdrawal in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of using an opioid for treatment of NAS due to withdrawal from opioids in newborn infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs which enrolled infants born to mothers with opioid dependence and who were experiencing NAS requiring treatment with an opioid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials (1110 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. Seven studies at low risk of bias were included in sensitivity analysis. Opioid versus no treatment / usual care: a single trial (80 infants) of morphine and supportive care versus supportive care alone reported no difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 4.07; very low certainty evidence). No infant had a seizure. The trial did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. Morphine increased days hospitalisation (mean difference (MD) 15.00, 95% CI 8.86 to 21.14; very low certainty evidence) and treatment (MD 12.50, 95% CI 7.52 to 17.48; very low certainty evidence), but decreased days to regain birthweight (MD -2.80, 95% CI -5.33 to -0.27) and duration (minutes) of supportive care each day (MD -197.20, 95% CI -274.15 to -120.25). Morphine versus methadone: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.67; 2 studies, 147 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study reported no difference in days hospitalisation (MD 1.40, 95% CI -3.08 to 5.88; 116 infants; low certainty evidence), whereas data from two studies found an increase in days treatment (MD 2.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.21; 147 infants; low certainty) for infants treated with morphine. A single study reported no difference in breastfeeding, adverse events, or out of home placement. Morphine versus sublingual buprenorphine: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; 3 studies, 113 infants; very low certainty evidence). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. There was moderate certainty evidence of an increase in days hospitalisation (MD 11.45, 95% CI 5.89 to 17.01; 3 studies, 113 infants), and days treatment (MD 12.79, 95% CI 7.57 to 18.00; 3 studies, 112 infants) for infants treated with morphine. A single adverse event (seizure) was reported in infants exposed to buprenorphine. Morphine versus diluted tincture of opium (DTO): a single study (33 infants) reported no difference in days hospitalisation, days treatment or weight gain (low certainty evidence). Opioid versus clonidine: a single study (31 infants) reported no infant with treatment failure in either group. This study did not report seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. This study did not report adverse events. Opioid versus diazepam: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80; 2 studies, 86 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study of 34 infants comparing methadone versus diazepam reported no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment (very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Opioid versus phenobarbital: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74; 6 studies, 458 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found a reduction in treatment failure in trials titrating morphine to ≧ 0.5 mg/kg/day (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45; 3 studies, 230 infants), whereas a single study using morphine < 0.5 mg/kg/day reported no difference compared to use of phenobarbital (subgroup difference P = 0.05). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study (111 infants) of paregoric versus phenobarbital reported seven infants with seizures in the phenobarbital group, whereas no seizures were reported in two studies (170 infants) comparing morphine to phenobarbital. There was no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. A single study (96 infants) reported no adverse events in either group. Opioid versus chlorpromazine: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of morphine versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; 1 study, 90 infants; moderate certainty evidence). No seizures were reported in either group. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days treatment. This trial reported no adverse events in either group. None of the included studies reported time to control of NAS. Data for duration and severity of NAS were limited, and we were unable to use these data in quantitative synthesis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to supportive care alone, the addition of an opioid may increase duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but may reduce days to regain birthweight and the duration of supportive care each day. Use of an opioid may reduce treatment failure compared to phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. Use of an opioid may have little or no effect on duration of hospitalisation or treatment compared to use of phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. The type of opioid used may have little or no effect on the treatment failure rate. Use of buprenorphine probably reduces duration of hospitalisation and treatment compared to morphine, but there are no data for time to control NAS with buprenorphine, and insufficient evidence to determine safety. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of clonidine.

Sedatives for opioid withdrawal in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative versus control (placebo, usual treatment or non-pharmacological treatment) for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids and determine which type of sedative is most effective and safe for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials enrolling infants with NAS born to mothers with an opioid dependence with more than 80% follow-up and using randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised allocation to sedative or control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (581 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. There were multiple comparisons of different sedatives and regimens. There were limited data available for use in sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias. Phenobarbital versus supportive care: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with phenobarbital and supportive care versus supportive care alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 7.94; 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No infant had a clinical seizure. The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and treatment from use of phenobarbital (hospitalisation: mean difference (MD) 20.80, 95% CI 13.64 to 27.96; treatment: MD 17.90, 95% CI 11.98 to 23.82; both 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus diazepam: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus diazepam (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.62; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation and treatment (hospitalisation: MD 3.89, 95% CI -1.20 to 8.98; 32 participants; treatment: MD 4.30, 95% CI -0.73 to 9.33; 31 participants; both low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 138 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and no infant had a seizure. The studies did not report mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation (MD 7.00, 95% CI -3.51 to 17.51; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 0/100 infants had an adverse event. Phenobarbital and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported no infants with treatment failure and no clinical seizures in either group (low-certainty evidence). The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be a reduction in days' hospitalisation for infants treated with phenobarbital and opioid (MD -43.50, 95% CI -59.18 to -27.82; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Clonidine and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with clonidine and dilute tincture of opium (DTO) versus DTO alone (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All five infants with treatment failure were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in seizures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three infants with seizures were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in mortality after discharge (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 131.28; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three deaths were in the clonidine and DTO group. The study did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be little or no difference in days' treatment (MD -4.00, 95% CI -8.33 to 0.33; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One adverse event occurred in the clonidine and DTO group. There may be little or no difference in rebound NAS after stopping treatment, although all seven cases were in the clonidine and DTO group. Clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid: there may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.25; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported one infant in the clonidine and morphine group had a seizure, and there were no infant mortalities. The studies did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid(hospitalisation: MD 7.13, 95% CI 6.38 to 7.88; treatment: MD 7.57, 95% CI 3.97 to 11.17; both 2 studies, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.40; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was oversedation only in the phenobarbital and morphine group; and hypotension, rebound hypertension and rebound NAS only in the clonidine and morphine group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital increases duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but reduces days to regain birthweight and duration of supportive care each day compared to supportive care alone. There is low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to diazepam and very low-certainty evidence that  phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to chlorpromazine. There is low-certainty evidence of an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid compared to phenobarbital and opioid. There are insufficient data to determine the safety and incidence of adverse events for infants treated with combinations of opioids and sedatives including phenobarbital and clonidine.

Pharmacological Treatments for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare pharmacological therapies for neonatal abstinence syndrome.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of Medline (1946-June 2018), Embase (1974-June 2018), Cochrane CENTRAL (1966-June 2018), Web of Science (1900-June 2018), and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2018).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome alone or in combination with adjuvant treatments. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and data were pooled with fixed-effect models as a result of the low number of trials that were included in the analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the length of treatment. The length of stay, need for adjuvant therapy, and adverse events were considered as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials (N = 1072) were eligible for inclusion. The treatments that were included in the length of treatment analysis were buprenorphine, clonidine, diluted tincture of opium and clonidine, diluted tincture of opium, morphine, methadone, and phenobarbital. Sublingual buprenorphine was considered the optimal treatment for a reduction in the length of treatment (days: mean difference vs morphine, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.97 to -7.58]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) and length of stay (days: mean difference vs morphine, -11.43 [95% CI, -16.95 to -5.82]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) but not the need for adjuvant treatment (odds ratio vs morphine, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.46-3.44]; median rank, 3 [5-1]). The results were robust to bias but sensitive to imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The current evidence suggests that buprenorphine is the optimal treatment for neonatal abstinence treatment, but limitations are considerable and wide-scale adoption requires a large multisite trial. Morphine, which is considered standard of care in most hospitals, was the lowest-ranked opioid for length of treatment and length of stay.

Effects of Clonidine on Withdrawal From Long-term Dexmedetomidine in the Pediatric Patient

OBJECTIVE

To compare withdrawal symptoms among pediatric intensive care patients receiving clonidine to those not receiving clonidine while being weaned from long-term dexmedetomidine.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluated Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 (WAT-1) scores and hemodynamic parameters in pediatric patients on dexmedetomidine for 5 days or longer between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012. The primary objective was to compare withdrawal symptoms based on the number of elevated WAT-1 scores among patients on clonidine to those not on clonidine, while being weaned from long-term dexmedetomidine. The secondary objective was to describe withdrawal symptoms associated with long-term dexmedetomidine use.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients (median age, 1.5 years; interquartile range [IQR], 0.67-3.3) received 20 treatment courses of dexmedetomidine for at least 5 days. Clonidine was received by patients during 12 of the treatment courses. The patients in the clonidine group had an average of 0.8 (range, 0-6) elevated WAT-1 scores 24 hours post wean compared to an average of 3.2 (0-8) elevated WAT-1 scores in the no clonidine group (p = 0.49). There were no significant difierences between prewean and postwean systolic or diastolic blood pressures among the 2 groups. The average heart rate during the postwean period was 112 beats per minute (bpm) (range, 88.5-151.5) in the clonidine group compared to 138.4 bpm (range, 117.8-168.3) in the no clonidine group (p = 0.003). In the clonidine group, the mean change in heart rate postwean compared to prewean was an increase of 3.6 bpm (range, -39.6 to 47.5), compared to a mean increase of 29.9 bpm (range, 5.5-74.7) in the no clonidine group (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difierence in WAT-1 scores between groups, with the clonidine group displaying a trend towards fewer elevated WAT-1 scores during the 24 hours post dexmedetomidine wean. Patients who received clonidine had significantly lower heart rates than the no clonidine group.

Neonatal abstinence syndrome--postnatal ward versus neonatal unit management

AIM

The aim of this cohort study was to test the hypothesis that caring for infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) with their mothers on the postnatal ward rather than admit them to the neonatal unit would reduce treatment duration and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The outcomes of infants with NAS cared for in 2002-2005 (Group A, n = 42) and 2006-2007 (Group B, n = 18) were compared. Group A infants were admitted to the neonatal unit for assessment and treatment as necessary, but Group B infants remained on the postnatal ward with their mother. Sixty infants (median gestational age 39, range 26-42 weeks) were included in the study. The proportion of infants in Group B compared to Group A requiring treatment for NAS was lower (45% versus 11%, p = 0.012) and the durations of treatment (mean 12.7 versus 7.3 days, p = 0.05) and hospital stay (mean 19.8 versus 15.9 days, p = 0.012) were shorter in Group B. No infant in either group was readmitted within the next 2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest caring for infants with NAS on the postnatal ward rather than the neonatal unit reduces the need for treatment and duration of hospital stay.

Can methadone concentrations predict the severity of withdrawal in infants at risk of neonatal abstinence syndrome?

AIM

To assess the usefulness of cord and serum methadone concentrations at 2 days of age in predicting the severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) in infants whose mothers received methadone during pregnancy.

METHODS

After informed consent, infants were enrolled if they were delivered at 35 weeks gestation or greater. Relevant information was collected from maternal notes. A sample of cord blood was taken at delivery, with a follow up sample at 48 hours of age. The samples were analysed in batches, and the results were unavailable to the attending clinical staff. Infants were treated for NAS on clinical grounds according to a standardised scoring system.

RESULTS

Twenty five of 36 eligible infants over the 21 month period of the study were enrolled. Of these, 12 required treatment for NAS. Maternal methadone dose did not predict the need for treatment. However, infants who required treatment had significantly lower methadone concentrations in cord blood than the group who did not receive treatment (31 v 88 ng/ml respectively; p = 0.029). Paired blood samples for methadone concentrations were available for 17 infants. All but one of the 12 infants who required treatment had undetectable concentrations of methadone in the postnatal sample, whereas the median postnatal methadone concentration in untreated infants was 23 ng/ml (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Methadone concentrations taken from cord blood may identify infants at greater risk of neonatal withdrawal and therefore requiring treatment.

Treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is suffered by infants withdrawing from substances on which they have become physically dependent after in utero exposure. They may require prolonged treatment and spend weeks or even months in hospital. A wide range of drugs have been used to treat NAS. The efficacy of few, however, have been adequately investigated. Evidence suggests that opioids are the most appropriate, at least in infants exposed to diamorphine or methadone. In all "head to head" trials, diazepam has been shown to be ineffective. Morphine and methadone are currently the most commonly prescribed opioids to treat NAS, but randomised trials have not been undertaken to determine which is the more beneficial. Many infants with NAS have been exposed to multiple substances in utero. Further research is required into whether a single opiate or a multiple drug regimen is the best option for such patients.

Diluted tincture of opium (DTO) and phenobarbital versus DTO alone for neonatal opiate withdrawal in term infants

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that treatment of neonatal opiate withdrawal (NOW) in the term infant with diluted tincture of opium (DTO) and phenobarbital was superior to treatment with DTO alone.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a partially randomized, controlled trial in which 20 term infants exposed to methadone and/or heroin in utero were studied. The severity of NOW was assessed by using the Finnegan scoring system. Infants were assigned to either DTO and placebo (n = 10) or DTO and phenobarbital (n = 10) when medication was required. The primary outcome variable was the duration of hospitalization. Severity of withdrawal and hospital cost were secondary outcome variables.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the gestational age, growth variables, maternal methadone dose, or age at enrollment between the 2 groups. The duration of hospitalization was reduced by 48% (79-38 days) (P <.001) and hospital cost per patient reduced by $35,856 (P <.001) for the DTO and phenobarbital group. Furthermore, these infants spent less time with severe withdrawal (P <.04), more time with mild withdrawal (P <.03), and required a lower maximum daily DTO dose (P <.009) when compared with the DTO-only group. The average duration of outpatient phenobarbital use was 3.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined use of DTO and phenobarbital resulted in a shorter duration of hospitalization, less severe withdrawal, and reduced hospital cost. This combination may be a preferred regimen for the treatment of NOW.

Hyperphagia in neonates withdrawing from methadone

AIMS

To examine whether hyperphagia is a clinically significant problem in infants born to women receiving methadone maintenance.

METHODS

The volume of feeds, changes in infant body weight, as well as occurrence of adverse clinical effects in infants withdrawing from methadone were studied during the first month of life. A retrospective chart review was conducted for all infants at San Francisco General between 1992 and 1995, born to women receiving methadone maintenance during their pregnancy. Forty four infants were identified and the data obtained from hospital medical records. The daily oral intake of these infants was recorded during the first month of life. The incidence of hyperphagia (oral intake > 190 cc/kg/day) was measured. Associations between infant oral intake and maternal methadone dose were studied using correlation analysis as well as Anova for repeated measures. Adverse clinical symptoms were also recorded. A subset of premature infants was studied separately.

RESULTS

The incidence of hyperphagia was 26% by day 8 and 56% by day 16 of life in the infants. Hyperphagia was not associated with maternal methadone dose or with infant withdrawal scores. Infants who were hyperphagic lost significantly more weight during the first week of life than those who were not. Despite significantly greater intake, the hyperphagic infants did not gain weight more rapidly during the first month of life compared with those infants with lower oral intake. Infants who were hyperphagic (maximum intake of 290 cc/kg/day) did not experience increased vomiting, aspiration, diarrhoea, or abdominal distention.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperphagia is commonly found in infants withdrawing from methadone and can be persistent in a significant number. Hyperphagia was not associated with either increased neonatal weight gain or with adverse gastrointestinal consequences. Hyperphagia may occur in infants withdrawing from methadone who have high metabolic demands due to clinical signs not controlled by opiate treatment.

Congenital hypothyroidism and neonatal withdrawal syndrome

We describe a neonate born of drug dependent parents. This observation documents the variability of expression in the neonatal abstinence syndrome and the interaction with an additional disease.

CONCLUSION

The neonatal abstinence syndrome was masked by congenital hypothyroidism until thyroxine treatment had normalised cellular metabolism.