Aromatherapy as an adjunctive therapy for neonatal abstinence syndrome: A pilot study

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome/Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome: An Ecological View of Non-Pharmacologic Interventions for Feeding Success

The number of infants diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) has increased. The expression of NAS/NOWS symptoms differs and typically begins within the first few days of life, considered a critical period for feeding skill establishment, nourishment, and attachment. Non-pharmacologic interventions may be deployed to reduce or eliminate the need for replacement opioids while targeting outcomes like feeding dysfunction. Critical care providers can benefit from a structured examination of disordered feeding experiences to inform their selection of non-pharmacologic interventions. This structure can be provided using the Ecology of Human Performance model.

Race and Ethnicity of Infants Enrolled in Neonatal Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

Representativeness of populations within neonatal clinical trials is crucial to moving the field forward. Although racial and ethnic disparities in research inclusion are well documented in other fields, they are poorly described within neonatology.

Objective

To describe the race and ethnicity of infants included in a sample of recent US neonatal clinical trials and the variability in this reporting.

Evidence Review

A systematic search of US neonatal clinical trials entered into Cochrane CENTRAL 2017 to 2021 was conducted. Two individuals performed inclusion determination, data extraction, and quality assessment independently with discrepancies adjudicated by consensus.

Findings

Of 120 studies with 14 479 participants that met the inclusion criteria, 75 (62.5%) included any participant race or ethnicity data. In the studies that reported race and ethnicity, the median (IQR) percentage of participants of each background were 0% (0%-1%) Asian, 26% (9%-42%) Black, 3% (0%-12%) Hispanic, 0% (0%-0%) Indigenous (eg, Alaska Native, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian), 0% (0%-0%) multiple races, 57% (30%-68%) White, and 7% (1%-21%) other race or ethnicity. Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous participants were underrepresented, while White participants were overrepresented compared with a reference sample of the US clinical neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) population from the Vermont Oxford Network. Many participants were labeled as other race or ethnicity without adequate description. There was substantial variability in terms and methods of reporting race and ethnicity data. Geographic representation was heavily skewed toward the Northeast, with nearly one-quarter of states unrepresented.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that neonatal research may perpetuate inequities by underrepresenting Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous neonates in clinical trials. Studies varied in documentation of race and ethnicity, and there was regional variation in the sites included. Based on these findings, funders and clinical trialists are advised to consider a 3-point targeted approach to address these issues: prioritize identifying ways to increase diversity in neonatal clinical trial participation, agree on a standardized method to report race and ethnicity among neonatal clinical trial participants, and prioritize the inclusion of participants from all regions of the US in neonatal clinical trials.

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.