Lessons learned from a comparison of evidence-based research in pregnant opioid-dependent women

Maintenance agonist treatments for opiate-dependent pregnant women

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital delivery, a fourfold increase in opioid use is reported from 1999 to 2014 (Haight 2018). Heroin crosses the placenta, and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with a psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions alone for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment, and reducing the use of substances.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to February 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of any pharmacological maintenance treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high dropout rate (30% to 40%), and this was unbalanced between groups. Methadone versus buprenorphine: There was probably no evidence of a difference in the dropout rate from treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.20, three studies, 223 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in the use of primary substances between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.68, two studies, 151 participants, low-quality evidence). Birth weight may be higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that reported data MD;-530.00 g, 95%CI -662.78 to -397.22 (one study, 19 particpants) and MD: -215.00 g, 95%CI -238.93 to -191.07 (one study, 131 participants) although the results could not be pooled due to very high heterogeneity (very low-quality of evidence). The third study reported that there was no evidence of a difference. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the APGAR score (MD: 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03, two studies,163 participants, low-quality evidence). Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, may not differ between groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to1.63, three studies, 166 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the number of mothers with serious adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.83, 175 participants, low-quality evidence) and we found there may be no difference in the numbers of newborns with serious AEs (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.59, 38.49,131 participants, low-quality evidence). Methadone versus slow-release morphine: There were no dropouts in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine may be superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants, low-quality evidence). In the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine, no side effects were reported for the mother. In contrast, one child in the methadone group had central apnoea, and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea (low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Methadone and buprenorphine may be similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.

Buprenorphine compared with methadone to treat pregnant women with opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety in the mother, fetus and child

AIMS

To assess the safety of buprenorphine compared with methadone to treat pregnant women with opioid use disorder.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational cohort studies (OBS) that compared buprenorphine with methadone for treating opioid-dependent pregnant women. Two reviewers assessed independently the titles and abstracts of all search results and full texts of potentially eligible studies reporting original data for maternal/fetal/infant death, preterm birth, fetal growth outcomes, fetal/congenital anomalies, fetal/child neurodevelopment and/or maternal adverse events. We ascertained each study's risk of bias using validated instruments and assessed the strength of evidence for each outcome using established methods. We computed effect sizes using random-effects models for each outcome with two or more studies.

RESULTS

Three RCTs (n = 223) and 15 cohort OBSs (n = 1923) met inclusion criteria. In meta-analyses using unadjusted data and methadone as comparator, buprenorphine was associated with lower risk of preterm birth [RCT risk ratio (RR) = 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.18, 0.91; OBS RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.50, 0.90], greater birth weight [RCT weighted mean difference (WMD) = 277 g, 95% CI = 104, 450; OBS WMD = 265 g, 95% CI = 196, 335] and larger head circumference [RCT WMD = 0.90 cm, 95% CI = 0.14, 1.66; OBS WMD = 0.68 cm, 95% CI = 0.41, 0.94]. No treatment differences were observed for spontaneous fetal death, fetal/congenital anomalies and other fetal growth measures, although the power to detect such differences may be inadequate due to small sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderately strong evidence indicates lower risk of preterm birth, greater birth weight and larger head circumference with buprenorphine treatment of maternal opioid use disorder during pregnancy compared with methadone treatment, and no greater harms.

Monitoring neonatal abstinence syndrome in buprenorphine-exposed in vitro fertilization twins: A case study

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have reported on the pregnancies and outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in special subpopulations; however, there is a lack of studies on opioid-exposed IVF-conceived neonates.

CASE PRESENTATION

A young adult IVF-pregnant woman was maintained on buprenorphine throughout pregnancy and received follow-up from the addiction clinic from estimated gestational week 32. She delivered healthy dichorionic twins via cesarean section at 38 weeks gestational age (buprenorphine dose at time of delivery: 16 mg). All maternal supervised urinalysis taken as of gestational week 32 were negative for concomitant substances (prior to treatment initiation at the addiction clinic, only self-reports of abstinence from concomitant substances were available). Both healthy children (male birth weight: 3140 g, female birth weight: 2650 g) developed an unusual course of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) requiring extensive treatment (total morphine dose male: 22 mg, and female: 26.75 mg; length of treatment: 33 and 34 days, respectively; duration of hospitalization: 40 days).

DISCUSSION

The highly severe and long-lasting NAS in both neonates represents a very unusual course following an uneventful pregnancy, and influencing iatrogenic factors cannot be ruled out. Given the multiple variables influencing infant outcomes, this highlights the importance of high-quality, evidence-based standard operating procedures, which (1) are initiated as early as possible during pregnancy to minimize risk factors for adverse infant outcomes, such as concomitant substance use during pregnancy; (2) support the substance-dependent woman throughout the postpartum period, especially in cases of multiple and/or IVF-conceived pregnancies, where additional challenges may arise; and (3) consider the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Retention in medication-assisted treatment for opiate dependence: A systematic review

Retention in medication-assisted treatment among opiate-dependent patients is associated with better outcomes. This systematic review (55 articles, 2010-2014) found wide variability in retention rates (i.e., 19%-94% at 3-month, 46%-92% at 4-month, 3%-88% at 6-month, and 37%-91% at 12-month follow-ups in randomized controlled trials), and identified medication and behavioral therapy factors associated with retention. As expected, patients who received naltrexone or buprenorphine had better retention rates than patients who received a placebo or no medication. Consistent with prior research, methadone was associated with better retention than buprenorphine/naloxone. And, heroin-assisted treatment was associated with better retention than methadone among treatment-refractory patients. Only a single study examined retention in medication-assisted treatment for longer than 1 year, and studies of behavioral therapies may have lacked statistical power; thus, studies with longer-term follow-ups and larger samples are needed. Contingency management showed promise to increase retention, but other behavioral therapies to increase retention, such as supervision of medication consumption, or additional counseling, education, or support, failed to find differences between intervention and control conditions. Promising behavioral therapies to increase retention have yet to be identified.

Substance abuse/dependence treatment: a European perspective

During the past decade, substantial progress has been made in the field of addiction medicine in Europe, particularly regarding the development of new treatment interventions, resulting in a wide range of therapeutic options for patients with substance use disorders. However, not all interventions are evidence based. Patients with cannabis and cocaine/amphetamine use disorders and special patient populations especially lack evidence-based treatment recommendations. Many patients undergo treatment that has not been scientifically evaluated for quality and efficacy. Moreover, there are large disparities regarding availability and treatment access across Europe, with the new member states of the European Union (EU) reporting long waiting lists and low treatment coverage. Even in Austria, which ranks among the countries with relatively high treatment coverage and good diversification of treatment in opioid maintenance therapy due to the availability of methadone, buprenorphine, and slow-release oral morphine (SROM), a considerable population of untreated or inadequately treated patients exists. Treatment for substance use disorders in Europe still has scope for improvement in terms of treatment availability and access, which is ideally provided by further development and implementation of evidence-based interventions.

Psychosocial interventions for pregnant women in outpatient illicit drug treatment programs compared to other interventions

BACKGROUND

Illicit drug use in pregnancy is a complex social and public health problem. The consequences of drug use in pregnancy are high for both the woman and her child. Therefore, it is important to develop and evaluate effective treatments. There is evidence for the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in drug treatment but it is unclear whether they are effective in pregnant women. This is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in pregnant women enrolled in illicit drug treatment programmes on birth and neonatal outcomes, on attendance and retention in treatment, as well as on maternal and neonatal drug abstinence. In short, do psychosocial interventions translate into less illicit drug use, greater abstinence, better birth outcomes, or greater clinic attendance?

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the original literature search in May 2006 and performed the search update up to January 2015. For both review stages (original and update), we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trial's register (May 2006 and January 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1); PubMed (1996 to January 2015); EMBASE (1996 to January 2015); and CINAHL (1982 to January 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing any psychosocial intervention vs. a control intervention that could include pharmacological treatment, such as methadone maintenance, a different psychosocial intervention, counselling, prenatal care, STD counselling and testing, transportation, or childcare.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We performed analyses based on three comparisons: any psychosocial intervention vs. control, contingency management (CM) interventions vs. control, and motivational interviewing based (MIB) interventions vs.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, we included 14 studies with 1298 participants: nine studies (704 participants) compared CM vs. control, and five studies (594 participants) compared MIB interventions vs.

CONTROL

We did not find any studies that assessed other types of psychosocial interventions. For the most part, it was unclear if included studies adequately controlled for biases within their studies as such information was not often reported. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies relating to participant selection, allocation concealment, personnel and outcome assessor blinding, and attrition.The included trials rarely captured maternal and neonatal outcomes. For studies that did measure such outcomes, no difference was observed in pre-term birth rates (RR 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.51; three trials, 264 participants, moderate quality evidence), maternal toxicity at delivery (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.65; two trials, 217 participants, moderate quality evidence), or low birth weight (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.43; one trial, 160 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, the results did show that neonates remained in hospital for fewer days after delivery in CM intervention groups (RR -1.27, 95% CI -2.52 to -0.03; two trials, 103 participants, moderate quality evidence). There were no differences observed at the end of studies in retention or abstinence (as assessed by positive drug test at the end of treatment) in any psychosocial intervention group compared to control (Retention: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06, nine trials, 743 participants, low quality evidence; and Abstinence: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.73, three trials, 367 participants, low quality evidence). These results held for both CM and MIB combined. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to moderate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The present evidence suggests that there is no difference in treatment outcomes to address drug use in pregnant women with use of psychosocial interventions, when taken in the presence of other comprehensive care options. However, few studies evaluated obstetrical or neonatal outcomes and rarely did so in a systematic way, making it difficult to assess the effect of psychosocial interventions on these clinically important outcomes. It is important to develop a better evidence base to evaluate psychosocial modalities of treatment in this important population.

Recruitment and retention of pregnant women into clinical research trials: an overview of challenges, facilitators, and best practices

Pregnant women are a vulnerable group who are needed in clinical research studies to advance prevention and treatment options for this population. Yet, pregnant women remain underrepresented in clinical research. Through the lens of the socioecological model, we highlight reported barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention of pregnant women in studies that sought their participation. We trace historical, policy-based reasons for the exclusion of pregnant women in clinical studies to present-day rationale for inclusion of this group. The findings highlight why it has been difficult to recruit and retain this population over time. A body of literature suggests that integrative sampling and recruitment methods that leverage the influence and reach of prenatal providers will overcome recruitment challenges. We argue that these strategies, in combination with building strong engagement with existing community-based organizations, will enable teams to more effectively promote and retain pregnant women in future longitudinal cohort studies.

Safe management of chronic pain in pregnancy in an era of opioid misuse and abuse

Safe and effective management of chronic pain in pregnancy is challenging. Use of over-the-counter analgesics, opioids, opioid substitution therapies, complementary and alternative therapies, antidepressants, and anxiolytics each have benefits and risks for the mother and neonate that must be considered. Because of their potency, opioids are often used despite associated risks for adverse effects, abuse, diversion, and addiction. Development of a pain management protocol for the counsel and care of pregnant women with pain is necessary.

Recent trends in treatment admissions for prescription opioid abuse during pregnancy

Prescription opioid abuse is a significant and costly public health problem among pregnant women in the United States. We investigated recent trends in substance abuse treatment admissions for prescription opioids during pregnancy using the Treatment Episodes Data Set. From 1992 to 2012 the overall proportion of pregnant admissions remained stable at 4%; however, admissions of pregnant women reporting prescription opioid abuse increased substantially from 2% to 28% especially in the south. Demographic characteristics of pregnant opioid admissions changed from 1992 to 2012 with younger, unmarried White non-Hispanic women, criminal justice referrals, and those with a psychiatric co-morbidity becoming more common (p<0.01). About a third received medication assisted therapy despite this being the standard of care for opioid abuse in pregnancy. While substance abuse treatment centers have increased treatment volume to address the increase in prescription opioid dependence among pregnant women, targeting certain risk groups and increasing utilization of medication assisted therapy should be emphasized.

Maintenance agonist treatments for opiate-dependent pregnant women

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Heroin crosses the placenta and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment and reducing the use of substances.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (September 2013), PubMed (1966 to September 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), reference lists of relevant papers, sources of ongoing trials, conference proceedings and national focal points for drug research. We contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any maintenance pharmacological treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high drop-out rate (30% to 40%) and this was unbalanced between groups.Methadone versus buprenorphine: the drop-out rate from treatment was lower in the methadone group (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.01, three studies, 223 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the use of primary substance between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.69, two studies, 151 participants). For both, we judged the quality of evidence as low. Birth weight was higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that could be pooled (mean difference (MD) -365.45 g (95% CI -673.84 to -57.07), two studies, 150 participants). The third study reported that there was no statistically significant difference. For APGAR score neither of the studies which compared methadone with buprenorphine found a significant difference. For both, we judged the quality of evidence as low. Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, did not differ significantly between groups. We judged the quality of evidence as very low.Methadone versus slow-release morphine: there was no drop-out in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine seemed superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants). We judged the quality of evidence as moderate.Only one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. For the mother there was no statistically significant difference; for the newborns in the buprenorphine group there were significantly fewer serious side effects.In the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine no side effects were reported for the mother, whereas one child in the methadone group had central apnoea and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find sufficient significant differences between methadone and buprenorphine or slow-release morphineto allow us to conclude that one treatment is superior to another for all relevant outcomes. While methadone seems superior in terms of retaining patients in treatment, buprenorphine seems to lead to less severe neonatal abstinence syndrome. Additionally, even though a multi-centre, international trial with 175 pregnant women has recently been completed and its results published and included in this review, the body of evidence is still too small to draw firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.