Sedatives for opiate withdrawal in newborn infants

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.

Study design and rationale for a randomized controlled trial to assess effectiveness of stochastic vibrotactile mattress stimulation versus standard non-oscillating crib mattress for treating hospitalized opioid-exposed newborns

The incidence of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) continues to rise and there remains a critical need to develop non-pharmacological interventions for managing opioid withdrawal in newborns. Objective physiologic markers of opioid withdrawal in the newborn remain elusive. Optimal treatment strategies for improving short-term clinical outcomes and promoting healthy neurobehavioral development have yet to be defined. This dual-site randomized controlled trial (NCT02801331) is designed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of stochastic vibrotactile stimulation (SVS) for reducing withdrawal symptoms, pharmacological treatment, and length of hospitalization, and for improving developmental outcomes in opioid-exposed neonates. Hospitalized newborns (n = 230) receiving standard clinical care for prenatal opioid exposure will be randomly assigned within 48-hours of birth to a crib with either: 1) Intervention (SVS) mattress: specially-constructed SVS crib mattress that delivers gentle vibrations (30-60 Hz, ~12 μm RMS surface displacement) at 3-hr intervals; or 2) Control mattress (treatment as usual; TAU): non-oscillating hospital-crib mattress. Infants will be studied throughout their hospitalization and post discharge to 14-months of age. The study will compare clinical measures (i.e., withdrawal scores, cumulative dose and duration of medications, velocity of weight gain) and characteristic progression of physiologic activity (i.e., limb movement, cardio-respiratory, temperature, blood-oxygenation) throughout hospitalization between opioid-exposed infants who receive SVS and those who receive TAU. Developmental outcomes (i.e., physical, social, emotional and cognitive) within the first year of life will be evaluated between the two study groups. Findings from this randomized controlled trial will determine whether SVS reduces in-hospital severity of NAS, improves physiologic function, and promotes healthy development.

Methadone toxicity and possible induction and enhanced elimination in a premature neonate

INTRODUCTION

Reports describing methadone overdose in adult and pediatric patient populations are not uncommon. Reports in the preterm neonate patient population, however, are infrequent even though the utilization of methadone in that population continues to increase. Significant age-related pharmacokinetic differences complicate the management of methadone overdose in neonates, and literature involving methadone toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics in pediatric and neonate populations is largely limited.

CASE REPORT

The clinical course and pharmacologic data of a massive methadone overdose in a 20-day-old male neonate is described, and a contemporary review of developmental pharmacology is presented.

DISCUSSION

As clinicians continue to use methadone in neonates, they should be aware of the many significant peculiarities regarding its toxicology and pharmacology in that patient population.

Home visits during pregnancy and after birth for women with an alcohol or drug problem

BACKGROUND

One potential method of improving outcome for pregnant or postpartum women with a drug or alcohol problem is with home visits.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of home visits during pregnancy and/or after birth for women with a drug or alcohol problem.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 November 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 30 November 2011), CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2011) and PsycINFO (1974 to 30 November 2011) supplemented by searches of citations from previous reviews and trials and contact with experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies using random or quasi-random allocation of pregnant or postpartum women with a drug or alcohol problem to home visits. Trials enrolling high-risk women of whom more than 50% were reported to use drugs or alcohol were also eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors performed assessments of trials independently. We performed statistical analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies (reporting 803 mother-infant pairs) compared home visits mostly after birth with no home visits. Visitors included community health nurses, paediatric nurses, trained counsellors, paraprofessional advocates, midwives and lay African-American women. Several studies had significant methodological limitations. There was no significant difference in continued illicit drug use (three studies, 384 women; risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.24), continued alcohol use (three studies, 379 women; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.46), failure to enrol in a drug treatment program (two studies, 211 women; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.94), not breastfeeding at six months (two studies, 260 infants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10), incomplete six-month infant vaccination schedule (two studies, 260 infants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.32), the Bayley Mental Development Index (three studies, 199 infants; mean difference 2.89, 95% CI -1.17 to 6.95) or Psychomotor Index (MD 3.14, 95% CI -0.03 to 6.32), child behavioural problems (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.01), infants not in care of biological mother (two studies, 254 infants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.39), non-accidental injury and non-voluntary foster care (two studies, 254 infants; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.23) or infant death (three studies, 288 infants; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.16). Individual studies reported a significant reduction in involvement with child protective services (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74) and failure to use postpartum contraception (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.82).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of home visits for pregnant or postpartum women with a drug or alcohol problem. Further large, high-quality trials are needed.

Update on the pharmacologic management of neonatal abstinence syndrome

Although a statement on Neonatal Drug Withdrawal was published in 1998 by the American Academy of Pediatrics, pharmacologic management of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) remains a challenge. Published clinical trials are limited, restricting treatment decision making to practitioner's experience and preference rather than evidence-based medicine. To optimize withdrawal symptom prevention, drug selection is often based on the offending agent (opioids versus polysubstance exposure), clinical presentation, mechanism of action (agonist versus partial agonist/antagonist, receptor effects), pharmacokinetic parameters and available drug formulations. This review addresses risk factors and pathophysiology of NAS, summarizes parameters of common drugs used for the management of NAS, and reviews published literature of standard therapies as well as newer agents. Based on the current literature, paregoric is no longer recommended and oral morphine solutions remain the mainstay of therapy for opiate withdrawal. Other potential therapies include methadone, buprenorphine, phenobarbital and clonidine with the latter two agents as adjunctive therapies.

Revised dose schema of sublingual buprenorphine in the treatment of the neonatal opioid abstinence syndrome

AIMS

More than half of infants exposed to opioids in utero develop neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) of severity to require pharmacological therapy. Current treatments are associated with prolonged hospitalization. We sought to optimize the dose of sublingual buprenorphine in the treatment of NAS.

DESIGN

Randomized, Phase 1, open-label, active-control clinical trial comparing sublingual buprenorphine to oral morphine.

SETTING

Large, urban, tertiary care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four term infants requiring pharmacological treatment for NAS.

MEASUREMENTS

Outcomes were neonatal safety, length of treatment and length of hospitalization.

FINDINGS

Sublingual buprenorphine was safe and effective. Infants treated with buprenorphine had a 23-day length of treatment compared to 38 days for those treated with morphine (P = 0.01), representing a 40% reduction. Length of hospital stay in the buprenorphine group was reduced 24%, from 42 to 32 days (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Sublingual buprenorphine was safe in NAS, with a substantial efficacy advantage over standard of care therapy with oral morphine.

Opiate treatment for opiate withdrawal in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of using an opiate compared to a sedative or non-pharmacological treatment for treatment of NAS due to withdrawal from opiates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The review was updated in 2010 with additional searches CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE supplemented by searches of conference abstracts and citation lists of published articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of opiate treatment in infants with NAS born to mothers with opiate dependence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed study quality and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies enrolling 645 infants met inclusion criteria. There were substantial methodological concerns in all studies comparing an opiate with a sedative. Two small studies comparing different opiates were of good methodology.Opiate (morphine) versus supportive care (one study): A reduction in time to regain birth weight and duration of supportive care and a significant increase in hospital stay was noted.Opiate versus phenobarbitone (four studies): Meta-analysis found no significant difference in treatment failure. One study reported opiate treatment resulted in a significant reduction in treatment failure in infants of mothers using only opiates. One study reported a significant reduction in days treatment and admission to the nursery for infants receiving morphine. One study reported a reduction in seizures, of borderline statistical significance, with the use of opiate.Opiate versus diazepam (two studies): Meta-analysis found a significant reduction in treatment failure with the use of opiate.Different opiates (six studies): there is insufficient data to determine safety or efficacy of any specific opiate compared to another opiate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Opiates compared to supportive care may reduce time to regain birth weight and duration of supportive care but increase duration of hospital stay. When compared to phenobarbitone, opiates may reduce the incidence of seizures but there is no evidence of effect on treatment failure. One study reported a reduction in duration of treatment and nursery admission for infants on morphine. Compared to diazepam, opiates reduce the incidence of treatment failure. A post-hoc analysis generates the hypothesis that initial opiate treatment may be restricted to infants of mothers who used opiates only. In view of the methodologic limitations of the included studies the conclusions of this review should be treated with caution.

Sedatives for opiate withdrawal in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opiate withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss and seizures. Treatments used to ameliorate symptoms and reduce morbidity include opiates, sedatives and non-pharmacological treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative compared to a non-opiate control for NAS due to withdrawal from opiates, and to determine which type of sedative is most effective and safe.

SEARCH STRATEGY

This update included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1, 2010), MEDLINE 1966 to April 2010 and abstracts of conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials enrolling infants with NAS born to mothers with an opiate dependence with > 80% follow-up and using random or quasi-random allocation to sedative or control. Control could include another sedative or non-pharmacological treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed study quality and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies enrolling 385 patients were included. There were substantial methodological concerns for most studies including the use of quasi-random allocation methods and sizeable, largely unexplained differences in reported numbers allocated to each group.One study reported phenobarbitone compared to supportive care alone did not reduce treatment failure or time to regain birthweight, but resulted in a significant reduction in duration of supportive care (MD -162.1 min/day, 95% CI -249.2, -75.1). Comparing phenobarbitone to diazepam, meta-analysis of two studies found phenobarbitone resulted in a significant reduction in treatment failure (typical RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24, 0.62). Comparing phenobarbitone with chlorpromazine, one study reported no significant difference in treatment failure.In infants treated with an opiate, one study reported addition of clonidine resulted in no significant difference in treatment failure, seizures or mortality. In infants treated with an opiate, one study reported addition of phenobarbitone significantly reduced the proportion of time infants had a high abstinence severity score, duration of hospitalisation and maximal daily dose of opiate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Infants with NAS due to opiate withdrawal should receive initial treatment with an opiate. Where a sedative is used, phenobarbitone should be used in preference to diazepam. In infants treated with an opiate, the addition of phenobarbitone or clonidine may reduce withdrawal severity. Further studies are needed to determine the role of sedatives in infants with NAS due to opiate withdrawal and the safety and efficacy of adding phenobarbitone or clonidine in infants treated with an opiate for NAS.

Use of clonidine in the prevention and management of neonatal abstinence syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is a complicated medical condition with treatment regimens that traditionally have included methadone and other opioids, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines. We describe a case series in which clonidine was used for the prevention and management of patients with NAS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medical records of infants treated with clonidine for NAS from January 2003 to March 2006 were reviewed for gestational age, birth weight, NAS score, dose of clonidine, duration of treatment, and additional medications required.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were identified. The mean gestational age was 30.1 weeks (range 24.4-40.7 weeks); three patients were full-term. Eleven had been on intravenous fentanyl for sedation; three were born to opioid-dependent mothers. All patients were treated with clonidine, administered in doses of 0.5-1.0 mcg/kg orally every 6 h. No patient received opioids. Mean duration of treatment was 6.8 days (range 4-15). Mean abstinence scores were 6.4 pretreatment (range 0-20) and 1.9 posttreatment (range 0-5). No patients suffered an adverse event (hypotension, bradycardia, excessive sedation, and oxygen desaturation) from clonidine administration, and no seizures were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that clonidine may be a reasonable alternative to more traditional agents used to prevent or treat NAS. We agree with the statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs that states that larger trials and pharmacologic data are needed before the routine use of clonidine can be recommended.

Clonidine as an adjunct therapy to opioids for neonatal abstinence syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine if oral clonidine would reduce the duration of opioid detoxification for neonatal abstinence syndrome.

METHODS

Infants with intrauterine exposure to methadone or heroin and neonatal abstinence syndrome (2 consecutive modified Finnegan scores of > or =9) were enrolled at 2 hospitals during 2002-2005 and followed until final hospital discharge. All enrolled infants (80) received oral diluted tincture of opium according to a standardized algorithm and were randomly assigned to receive oral clonidine (1 microg/kg every 4 hours) (40 infants) or placebo (40 infants). Primary outcome was duration of opioid therapy. Secondary outcomes included the amount of opium required to control symptoms, number of treatment failures, and differences in blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation.

RESULTS

The median length of therapy was 27% shorter in the clonidine group (11 [95% confidence interval: 8-15 days]) than in the placebo group (15 days [95% confidence interval: 12-17 days]). In the clonidine group, 7 infants required restarting opium after initial discontinuation versus none in the placebo group, with the total length of treatment/observation remaining significantly less in the clonidine group. Higher dosages of opium were required by 40% of the infants in the placebo group versus 20% in the clonidine group. Treatment failures occurred in 12.5% of the infants in the placebo group versus none in the clonidine group. Hypertension, hypotension, bradycardia, or desaturations did not occur in either group. Three infants in the clonidine group died as a result of myocarditis, sudden infant death syndrome, and homicide, all after hospital discharge and before 6 months of age.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized, double-blind trial, adding clonidine to standard opioid therapy for detoxification from in utero exposure to methadone or heroin reduced the duration of pharmacotherapy for neonatal abstinence without causing short-term adverse cardiovascular outcomes. A larger trial is indicated to determine long-term safety.

Sublingual buprenorphine for treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

In utero exposure to drugs of abuse can lead to neonatal abstinence syndrome, a condition that is associated with prolonged hospitalization. Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid agonist used for treatment of adult detoxification and maintenance but has never been administered to neonates with opioid abstinence syndrome. The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and, to the extent possible in this size of study, the safety of sublingual buprenorphine in the treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome. Secondary goals were to evaluate efficacy relative to standard therapy and to characterize buprenorphine pharmacokinetics when sublingually administered.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, open-label, active-control study of sublingual buprenorphine for the treatment of opiate withdrawal. Thirteen term infants were allocated to receive sublingual buprenorphine 13.2 to 39.0 mug/kg per day administered in 3 divided doses and 13 to receive standard-of-care oral neonatal opium solution. Dose decisions were made by using a modified Finnegan scoring system.

RESULTS

Sublingual buprenorphine was largely effective in controlling neonatal abstinence syndrome. Greater than 98% of plasma concentrations ranged from undetectable to approximately 0.60 ng/mL, which is less than needed to control abstinence symptoms in adults. The ratio of buprenorphine to norbuprenorphine was larger than that seen in adults, suggesting a relative impairment of N-dealkylation. Three infants who received buprenorphine and 1 infant who received standard of care reached protocol-specified maximum doses and required adjuvant therapy with phenobarbital. The mean length of treatment for those in the neonatal-opium-solution group was 32 compared with 22 days for the buprenorphine group. The mean length of stay for the neonatal-opium-solution group was 38 days compared with 27 days for those in the buprenorphine group. Treatment with buprenorphine was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine administered via the sublingual route is feasible and apparently safe and may represent a novel treatment for neonatal abstinence syndrome.

Pharmacological therapy for analgesia and sedation in the newborn

Rapid advances have been made in the use of pharmacological analgesia and sedation for newborns requiring neonatal intensive care. Practical considerations for the use of systemic analgesics (opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, other drugs), local and topical anaesthetics, and sedative or anaesthetic agents (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, other drugs) are summarised using an evidence-based medicine approach, while avoiding mention of the underlying basic physiology or pharmacology. These developments have inspired more humane approaches to neonatal intensive care. Despite these advances, little is known about the clinical effectiveness, immediate toxicity, effects on special patient populations, or long-term effects after neonatal exposure to analgesics or sedatives. The desired or adverse effects of drug combinations, interactions with non-pharmacological interventions or use for specific conditions also remain unknown. Despite the huge gaps in our knowledge, preliminary evidence for the use of neonatal analgesia and sedation is available, but must be combined with a clear definition of clinical goals, continuous physiological monitoring, evaluation of side effects or tolerance, and consideration of long-term clinical outcomes.