Oral morphine weaning for neonatal abstinence syndrome at home compared with in-hospital: an observational cohort study

Considerations and Determinants of Discharge Decisions among Prenatal Substance Exposed Infants

Limited research has examined a comprehensive set of predictors when evaluating discharge placement decisions for infants exposed to substances prenatally. Using a previously validated medical record data extraction tool, the current study examined prenatal substance exposure, infant intervention (i.e., pharmacologic, or non-pharmacologic), and demographic factors (e.g., race and ethnicity and rurality) as predictors of associations with discharge placement in a sample from a resource-poor state (N = 136; 69.9% Non-Hispanic White). Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to examine whether different classes emerged and how classes were differentially related to discharge placement decisions. Logistic regressions were used to determine whether each predictor was uniquely associated with placement decisions. Results of the LCA yielded a two-class solution comprised of (1) a Low Withdrawal Risk class, characterized by prenatal exposure to substances with low risk for neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) and non-pharmacologic intervention, and (2) a High Withdrawal Risk class, characterized by a high risk of NAS and pharmacologic intervention. Classes were not related to discharge placement decisions. Logistic regressions demonstrated that meth/amphetamine use during pregnancy was associated with greater odds of out of home placement above other substance types. Future research should replicate and continue examining the clinical utility of these classes.

A case-control study comparing rates and diagnoses of hospital readmission in infants affected by neonatal abstinence syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome/neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NAS/NOWS), a withdrawal syndrome from opioids and other substances resulting from intrauterine exposure, have been increasing exponentially in the U.S. To improve health outcomes, it is important to understand population health risks, including rehospitalization and related diagnoses, using current data. This study will compare and describe the rates of rehospitalization, the demographic characteristics and the rehospitalization diagnoses and age at diagnosis between the infants affected by NAS/NOWS to those sampled who were unaffected. This study will also describe the frequency of NAS/NOWS births per year along with a yearly comparison of readmissions in those affected by NAS/NOWS to those who were not (2016-2020).

METHODS

Health claims data were used to conduct a case/control study. Diagnosis codes for neonatal withdrawal syndrome/NAS/NOWS (P04.49 or P96.1 and P96.1 alone) from 1 October 2015 to 1 June 2021 were extracted, and controls were case-matched based on month/year of birth. Rehospitalizations following birth and the related diagnoses were described and grouped using the Agency of Healthcare Research Quality Clinical Classifications Software Refined Frequency distribution. The chi-square test of association and generalized estimating equation modeling were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Infants affected by NAS/NOWS are 2.7 times more likely to have a rehospitalization. White, non-Hispanic neonates (OR = 1.5; p = .007) and those infants residing in rural areas (OR = 1.9; p < .001) were disproportionately affected. We identified a host of admission diagnoses with increased prevalence in infants affected by NAS/NOWS when compared to those who were not affected (e.g. infectious diseases, feeding disorders).

CONCLUSIONS

Infants with NAS/NOWS are at increased risk of rehospitalization with a host of diagnoses, and specific demographic groups (White, rural) are more highly affected.

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.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Treatment of Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome: A Review

This study assessed the economic evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of infants with neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS). Six databases were searched up to October 2020 for peer-reviewed studies. After titles and abstracts were screened, 79 studies remained for full-text review, and finally, 8 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist. The review showed significant limitations in these studies, with one study being rated as good and the remaining seven studies as of poor quality. There are methodological issues that require addressing, including a lack of detail on cost categories, a robust investigation of uncertainty, and extending the time horizon to consider longer-term outcomes beyond the initial birth hospitalization. Despite these limitations, existing evidence suggests non-pharmacological strategies such as rooming-in were associated with a shorter hospital stay and a decreased need for pharmacological treatment, thereby lowering hospitalization costs. The review highlights the paucity of high-quality studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of intervention strategies for NOWS. There is also a lack of evidence on long-term outcomes associated with NOWS and the treatment of NOWS. The inclusion of economic analyses in future studies will provide evidence to inform policymakers on resource allocation decisions for this patient population.

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.

Outcome reporting in neonates experiencing withdrawal following opioid exposure in pregnancy: a systematic review

Background

Neonatal withdrawal secondary to in utero opioid exposure is a growing global concern stressing the psychosocial well-being of affected families and scarce hospital resources. In the ongoing search for the most effective treatment, randomized controlled trials are indispensable. Consistent outcome selection and measurement across randomized controlled trials enables synthesis of results, fostering the translation of research into practice. Currently, there is no core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, definition and reporting. This study identifies the outcomes currently reported in the literature for neonates experiencing withdrawal following opioid exposure during pregnancy.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central was conducted to identify all primary research studies (randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, case-controlled studies, uncontrolled trials, observational cohort studies, clinical practice guidelines and case reports) reporting outcomes for interventions used to manage neonatal abstinence syndrome between July 2007 and July 2017. All “primary” and “secondary” neonatal outcomes were extracted by two independent reviewers and were assigned to one of OMERACT’s core areas of “pathophysiological manifestation”, “life impact”, “resource use”, “adverse events”, or “death”.

Results

Forty-seven primary research articles reporting 107 “primary” and 127 “secondary” outcomes were included. The most frequently reported outcomes were “duration of pharmacotherapy” (68% of studies, N = 32), “duration of hospital stay” (66% of studies, N = 31) and “withdrawal symptoms” (51% of studies, N = 24). The discrepancy between the number of times an outcome was reported and the number of articles was secondary to the use of composite outcomes. Frequently reported outcomes had heterogeneous definitions or were not defined by the study and were measured at different times. Outcomes reported in the literature to date were mainly assigned to the core areas “pathophysiologic manifestations” or “resource use”. No articles reported included parent or former patient involvement in outcome selections.

Conclusions

Inconsistent selection and definition of primary and secondary outcomes exists in the present literature of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for managing opioid withdrawal in neonates. No studies involved parents in the process of outcome selection. These findings hinder evidence synthesis to generate clinically meaningful practice guidelines. The development of a specific core outcome set is imperative.

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Review of Epidemiology, Care Models, and Current Understanding of Outcomes

The incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome owing to prenatal opioid exposure has grown rapidly in recent decades and it disproportionately affects rural, non-white, and public insurance-dependent populations. Treatment consists of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions with wide variability in approaches across the United States. Standardizing clinical assessment, minimizing unnecessary interruptions, and prioritizing nonpharmacologic and family-centered care seems to improve hospital outcomes. Neonatal abstinence syndrome may have long-term developmental and biological effects, but understanding is limited owing in part confounding biosocial factors. Early intervention and longitudinal support of the infant and family promote better outcomes.

Pharmacologic Management of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Using a Protocol

BACKGROUND

The opioid epidemic in the United States has reached unprecedented proportions with far-reaching impacts on the most vulnerable population. The number of neonates born addicted to opioids has grown exponentially over the last several decades, leading to increased neonatal intensive care unit admissions and rising healthcare costs. Recent studies have yielded mixed results regarding which medication is most effective at relieving the symptoms of opioid withdrawal and reducing the weaning timeframe for babies with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS).

PURPOSE

To explore and compare the effectiveness of morphine versus methadone in the treatment for NAS using a standardized protocol.

METHOD

A literature search of PubMed and CINAHL was performed. The search yielded 10 quantitative studies that were analyzed for potential practice changes.

CONCLUSION

Based on current literature, following a standardized, stringent weaning protocol is more beneficial than the pharmacologic agent used. Studies reveal shorter weaning times and hospital stays in almost every group that followed rigid guidelines.

IMPLICATION FOR RESEARCH

Although current studies are promising for the desired outcome, more research is needed to develop appropriate protocol-based weaning regimens for management of NAS.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

As the occurrence of NAS continues to rise, its management must vigorously meet the challenges of the diagnosis. Institutions should reevaluate their current protocols based on reassuring data showing that stringent guidelines using morphine or methadone can improve clinical outcomes, reduce hospital length, and lower healthcare costs.

Continuous intravenous to oral morphine switch in very premature ventilated infants: A retrospective study on efficacy, efficiency, and tolerability

Background

Continuous intravenous (IV) morphine is commonly used in ventilated neonates. Oral route is theoretically feasible but data on oral morphine in ventilated premature infants are lacking.

Objective

To assess the efficacy, efficiency, and tolerability of a continuous intravenous to oral morphine switch protocol.

Design

Retrospective study.

Setting

Single level III center's neonatal intensive care unit.

Patients

Ventilated premature infants hospitalized in the NICU in 2016 and 2017, receiving continuous IV morphine with an expected ventilation course of at least 72 more hours. We excluded patients treated for withdrawal syndrome or palliative care.

Interventions

Continuous IV to oral morphine switch with the same initial cumulated daily dose.

Main outcome measures

Pain scores (ComfortNeo scale) and morphine doses were analyzed over time using Friedman's test in the 24 hours preceding and the 48 hours following the oral switch. Adverse effects attributable to opioids were collected.

Results

Seventeen infants were included with a median [IQR] gestational age at birth of 25.9 [24.6‐26.9] weeks and a median postnatal age at oral switch of 30 [22‐36] days. One patient's intravenous treatment had to be resumed because of a high ComfortNeo score. All others remained on oral morphine. No significant change over time was observed for ComfortNeo scores (P = .15). Median [IQR] doses were 13.5 [10‐20] µg/kg/h in the IV period and significantly increased to 15 [10‐25] µg/kg/h in the oral period (P = .009). No short‐term respiratory, digestive, or urinary adverse event was observed. After a median [IQR] duration of 13 [4‐20] days of oral morphine treatment, 11 (65%) patients showed signs of withdrawal. Upon hospital discharge, 16 infants (94%) had bronchopulmonary dysplasia and none had severe cerebral abnormality on brain imaging.

Conclusion

Oral morphine might be useful in ventilated neonates in the NICU but deserves further studies and additional safety assessment.

Systematic mixed-study review of nonpharmacological management of neonatal abstinence syndrome

BACKGROUND

Neonatal abstinence syndrome is a multisystem disorder resulting from exposure to maternal addictive substance use in pregnancy. Withdrawal is characterized by neonatal tremors, feeding difficulties, and sleep disruption. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the nonpharmacological management of infants at risk of neonatal abstinence syndrome after prenatal exposure.

METHODS

A systematic mixed-study review was conducted. A search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, AMED, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was performed for relevant articles published between January 2007 and June 2018. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and thematic analysis undertaken. The findings were synthesized as a narrative summary.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review, of which nine were quality improvement initiatives and five explored complementary therapies. The most common components of nonpharmacological management were consolation therapy and rooming-in of mother and baby. Implementation strategies incorporated family integrated care and practitioner training in the evaluation of neonatal withdrawal. When nonpharmacological management was applied, there was a reduction in the need for pharmacotherapy and a shorter hospital stay for newborns. Potential barriers to effective management included unreliable assessment tools, judgmental practitioner attitudes, and limited breastfeeding promotion.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing and optimizing nonpharmacological management for the infant at risk of neonatal abstinence syndrome improves outcomes by reducing their length of hospital stay and the need for pharmacotherapy.

Outpatient healthcare access and utilization for neonatal abstinence syndrome children: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically assess the literature regarding postnatal healthcare utilization and barriers/facilitators of healthcare in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) children.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsychINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science to identify peer-reviewed research. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed articles reporting on broad aspects of primary and specialty healthcare utilization and access in NAS children. Three investigators independently reviewed all articles and extracted data. Study bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale and the National Institute of Health Study Quality Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

This review identified 14 articles that met criteria. NAS children have poorer outpatient appointment adherence and have a higher rate of being lost to follow-up. These children have overall poorer health indicated by a significantly higher risk of ER visits, hospital readmission, and early childhood mortality compared with non-NAS infants. Intensive multidisciplinary support provided through outpatient weaning programs facilitates healthcare utilization and could serve as a model that could be applied to other healthcare fields to improve the health among this population.

CONCLUSIONS

This review investigated the difficulties in accessing outpatient care as well as the utilization of such care for NAS infants. NAS infants tend to have decreased access to and utilization of outpatient healthcare following hospital birth discharge. Outpatient weaning programs have proven to be effective; however, these programs require intensive resources and care coordination that has yet to be implemented into other healthcare areas for NAS children.

Interventions for the Treatment of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome

The growing incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) among newborns is a public health crisis that is a sequela of the national opioid crisis. When fetuses are exposed to opioids in utero, whether through prescription pain medication, illicit substances, or supervised medication-assisted opioid treatment, neonates can experience withdrawal symptoms shortly after birth. Opioid withdrawal manifests with symptoms of central nervous system and autonomic nervous system dysfunction. Treatment of NAS begins with nonpharmacologic interventions, and if a neonate requires more intensive treatment, care will escalate to include pharmacologic treatments, including morphine, methadone, and buprenorphine. When pharmacologic therapy begins, nonpharmacologic intervention is not ceased; rather, the two are used in conjunction in an attempt to reduce the amount of medication required for successful treatment. Herein we review nonpharmacologic nursing interventions, discuss the most common pharmacologic treatments for NAS, and present practice implications for nurses who work with childbearing families.

Models of care for neonatal abstinence syndrome: What works?

Opioid use disorders and the prescription of long-acting medications for their treatment have increased dramatically over the last decade among pregnant women. Newborns who experience prolonged in utero opioid exposure may develop neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Until recently, much of the focus on improving care for NAS has been on pharmacologically-based care models. Recent studies have illustrated the benefits of rooming-in and parental presence on NAS outcomes. Single center Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives demonstrate the benefits of non-pharmacologic care bundles and symptom prioritization in decreasing the proportion of infants pharmacologically treated and length of hospital stay. Little remains known about the impact of these varied cared models on maternal-infant attachment and mental health. In this review article, we will propose an optimal model of care to improve short- and long-term outcomes for newborns, their mothers and families, and perinatal care systems.

Neonatal abstinence syndrome

Neonates exposed prenatally to opioids will often develop a collection of withdrawal signs known as neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). The incidence of NAS has substantially increased in recent years placing an increasing burden on the healthcare system. Traditional approaches to assessment and management have relied on symptom-based scoring tools and utilization of slowly decreasing doses of medication, though newer models of care focused on non-pharmacologic interventions and rooming-in have demonstrated promise in reducing length of hospital stay and medication usage. Data on long-term outcomes for both traditional and newer approaches to care of infants with NAS is limited and an important area of future research. This review will examine the history, incidence and pathophysiology of NAS. We will also review diagnostic screening approaches, scoring tools, differing management approaches and conclude with recommendations for continued work to improve the care of infants with NAS.

Outpatient pharmacologic weaning for neonatal abstinence syndrome: a systematic review

Aim

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the literature regarding the effectiveness and safety of outpatient pharmacologic weaning for infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS).

Background

NAS is a multi-system disorder observed in infants experiencing withdrawal from opioid exposure in utero. Infants requiring pharmacologic treatment to manage withdrawal, traditionally receive treatment as a hospital inpatient resulting in lengthy hospitalization periods. However, there is evidence to suggest that some healthcare institutions are continuing outpatient pharmacologic weaning for select infants in a home environment. As there is no standard of care to guide outpatient weaning, assessment of the safety and effectiveness of this approach is warranted.

Method

A systematic review of outpatient weaning for infants with NAS was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Nursing and Allied Health, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine, Web of Science, Medline, and PsychINFO. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) reported original data on outcomes related to the effectiveness or safety of outpatient weaning for infants with NAS, (2) infants were discharged from hospital primarily receiving opioid pharmacologic treatment for NAS, (3) the method included quantitative designs that included an inpatient comparison group, and (4) articles were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal.

Findings

The search identified 154 studies, of which 18 provided information related to NAS and outpatient weaning. After reviewing the remaining full-text studies, six studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. All studies identified that outpatient weaning for select infants was associated with shorter hospitalization compared with infants weaned in-hospital only and may be potentially effective in reducing associated healthcare costs. However, duration of pharmacologic treatment was longer in the outpatient weaning groups in the majority of the studies. Furthermore, adverse events were rare and compliance to follow-up treatment was high among those who received outpatient weaning.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2016

This paper is the thirty-ninth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2016 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia, stress and social status, tolerance and dependence, learning and memory, eating and drinking, drug abuse and alcohol, sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology, mental illness and mood, seizures and neurologic disorders, electrical-related activity and neurophysiology, general activity and locomotion, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions, cardiovascular responses, respiration and thermoregulation, and immunological responses.

Opioid and Benzodiazepine Weaning in Pediatric Patients: Review of Current Literature

Pediatric opioid and benzodiazepine withdrawal are avoidable complications of pain and sedation management that is well described in the literature. To prevent withdrawal from occurring, practitioners regularly use a steady decrease of pain and sedation medications, also known as a weaning or tapering schedule. The weaning schedule is highly variable based on clinician preference and is usually dependent on the clinician. The purposes of this review are to evaluate the current literature on the process of opioid and benzodiazepine weaning in pediatric patients and to assess the various standardized protocols used to decrease withdrawal occurrences. We conducted a search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Academic Search Premier, and PsycInfo databases. Studies were included if they described a wean or taper in pediatric patients aged 18 years or younger. Studies describing neonatal abstinence syndrome were excluded from the review. A total of 97 studies published between 2000 and 2014 were retrieved; of those, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were evaluated for selection of withdrawal assessment tool, wean protocol summary, preferred weaning agents, benzodiazepine withdrawal, and wean-at-home regimen. The most common opioid-weaning protocol approaches described a 10-20% dose decrease per day. Benzodiazepine weaning was not regularly standardized or described. The use of a standardized opioid-weaning protocol reduced withdrawal rates compared with nonstandardized weaning plans. Benzodiazepine weaning was inconsistently evaluated and may have affected study outcomes. Identified areas of improvement include the use of newer withdrawal assessment tools validated in the older pediatric population and standardized withdrawal assessment and reporting.

The economic burden of neonatal abstinence syndrome in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

While hospital charges related to neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) have increased recently, there are no data available regarding costs. Therefore, we sought to describe the NAS population and compare with the non-NAS population, determine the incidence of NAS in the United States and estimate the total annual costs and hospital days of NAS admissions, and estimate the incremental costs and length of stay of an NAS admission compared with a non-NAS admission.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study. Data were obtained from the Kids' Inpatient Database (2003-12). Survey-weighting was used to obtain national counts of NAS births. The incremental burden of costs and length of stay were estimated for NAS admissions and compared to non-NAS admissions.

SETTING

United States hospitals from states participating in the Kids' Inpatient Database (KID), a nationally representative sample of all-payer in-patient pediatric discharges.

PARTICIPANTS

Infants with a diagnosis of NAS (27 943) were identified from the KID using ICD-9-CM codes and compared with non-NAS infants (3 783 629).

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome measures were provider costs and length of stay for NAS and non-NAS admissions. Costs were calculated using cost-to-charge ratios and were adjusted for inflation to 2014 US dollars.

FINDINGS

Between 2003 and 2012, NAS admissions increased more than fourfold, resulting in a surge in annual costs from US$61 million and 67 869 hospital days in 2003 to nearly US$316 million and 291 168 hospital days in 2012. For an infant affected by NAS, the hospital stay was nearly 3.5 times as long (16.57 hospital days compared with 4.98 for a non-NAS patient, P < 0.001) and the costs more than three times greater (US$16 893 compared to US$5610 for a non-affected infant, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is increasing in the United States, and carries an enormous burden in terms of hospital days and costs. The number of US hospital admissions involving neonatal abstinence syndrome increased more than fourfold between the years 2003 and 2012. In 2012, neonatal abstinence syndrome cost nearly $316 million in the United States.

Wide Variation Found in Care of Opioid-Exposed Newborns

OBJECTIVE

Standardized practices for the management of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) are associated with shorter lengths of stay, but optimal protocols are not established. We sought to identify practice variations for newborns with in utero chronic opioid exposure among hospitals in the Better Outcomes Through Research for Newborns (BORN) network.

METHODS

Nursery site leaders completed a survey about hospitals' policies and practices regarding care for infants with chronic opioid exposure (≥3 weeks).

RESULTS

The 76 (80%) of 95 respondent hospitals were in 34 states, varied in size (<500 to >8000 births and <10 to >200 opioid-exposed infants per year), with most affiliated with academic centers (89%). Most (80%) had protocols for newborn drug exposure screening; 90% used risk-based approaches. Specimens included urine (85%), meconium (76%), and umbilical cords (10%). Of sites (88%) with NAS management protocols, 77% addressed medical management, 72% nursing care, 72% pharmacologic treatment, and 58% supportive care. Morphine was the most common first-line pharmacotherapy followed by methadone. Observation periods for opioid-exposed newborns varied; 57% observed short-acting opioid exposure for 2 to 3 days, while 30% observed for ≥5 days. For long-acting opioids, 71% observed for 4 to 5 days, 19% for 2 to 3 days, and 8% for ≥7 days. Observation for NAS occurred mostly in level 1 nurseries (86%); however, most (87%) transferred to NICUs when pharmacologic treatment was indicated.

CONCLUSIONS

Most BORN hospitals had protocols for the care of opioid-exposed infants, but policies varied widely and characterized areas of needed research. Identification of variation is the first step toward establishing best practice standards to improve care for this rapidly growing population.

Neonatal abstinence syndrome: Pharmacologic strategies for the mother and infant

Opioid use in pregnancy has increased dramatically over the past decade. Since prenatal opioid use is associated with numerous obstetrical and neonatal complications, this now has become a major public health problem. In particular, in utero opioid exposure can result in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) which is a serious condition characterized by central nervous system hyperirritability and autonomic nervous system dysfunction. The present review seeks to define current practices regarding the approach to the pregnant mother and neonate with prenatal opiate exposure. Although the cornerstone of prenatal management of opioid dependence is opioid maintenance therapy, the ideal agent has yet to be definitively established. Pharmacologic management of NAS is also highly variable and may include an opioid, barbiturate, and/or α-agonist. Genetic factors appear to be associated with the incidence and severity of NAS. Establishing pharmacogenetic risk factors for the development of NAS has the potential for creating opportunities for "personalized genomic medicine" and novel, individualized therapeutic interventions.

Implementation of a Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Weaning Protocol: A Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the generalizability of stringent protocol-driven weaning in improving total duration of opioid treatment and length of inpatient hospital stay after treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 981 infants who completed pharmacologic treatment of NAS with methadone or morphine from January 2012 through August 2014. Before July 2013, 3 of 6 neonatology provider groups (representing Ohio's 6 children's hospitals) directed NAS nursery care by using group-specific treatment protocols containing explicit weaning guidelines. In July 2013, a standardized weaning protocol was adopted by all 6 groups. Statistical analysis was performed to identify effects of adoption of the multicenter weaning protocol on total duration of opioid treatment and length of hospital stay at the protocol-adopting sites and at the sites with preexisting protocol-driven weaning.

RESULTS

After adoption of the multicenter protocol, infants treated by the 3 groups previously without stringent weaning guidelines experienced shorter duration of opioid treatment (23.0 vs 34.0 days, P < .001) and length of inpatient hospital stay (23.7 vs 31.6 days, P < .001). Protocol-adopting sites also experienced a lower rate of adjunctive drug therapy (5% vs 21%, P = .004). Outcomes were sustained by the 3 groups who initially had specific weaning guidelines after multicenter adoption (duration of treatment = 17.0 days and length of hospital stay = 23.3 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of a stringent weaning protocol resulted in improved NAS outcomes, demonstrating generalizability of the protocol-driven weaning approach. Opportunity remains for additional protocol refinement.