Methadone versus morphine treatment outcomes in neonatal abstinence syndrome: A meta-analysis

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Practices in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To survey current practices for the treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) among institutions in the United States to identify changes in national practice over time.

METHODS

Previous NAS management reports were referenced in the development of our 26-question electronic survey, which was distributed in the fall of 2019 to pediatric practitioners of 2 national clinical pharmacy organizations via email list servers. Not all questions required a response and responses from incomplete surveys were included. Institution demographics and NAS management strategies, including location of care, observation period, and inpatient and outpatient pharmacotherapy, were queried.

RESULTS

Seventy respondents representing institutions from all US geographic regions participated in the survey The most commonly reported inpatient observation durations were 3 (18 of 61, 29%) and 5 (22 of 61, 36%) days. Respondents indicated that neonates were typically transferred to the NICU if pharmacologic management was required (38 of 56, 68%). According to participants, first-line agents used for NAS management were morphine (45 of 56, 80%), methadone (5 of 56, 9%), clonidine (2 of 56, 4%), and buprenorphine (2 of 56, 4%). Among respondents, only 20% (11 of 56) reported that infants may be discharged home on pharmacotherapy, including morphine (n = 6), phenobarbital (n = 3), clonidine (n = 1), and methadone (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids are the most commonly used first-line agents for NAS management in the United States. The primary site of NAS management is the inpatient setting, as only 20% of institutions report discharging patients on pharmacotherapy.

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.

Shifting the care paradigm for opioid-exposed newborns in Southern Colorado

OBJECTIVE

Compare Eat, Sleep, Console (ESC) and limited opioid treatment on birth length of stay (LOS), postnatal opioid exposure, and 30-day re-hospitalizations in opioid-exposed newborns (OENs) in two hospital systems.

STUDY DESIGN

Quality improvement teams supported change from scheduled methadone using Finnegan scores to standardized non-pharmacologic support using ESC. Intermittent morphine was used only if needed. Statistical process control charts examined changes over time.

RESULT

Between 2017 and 2019 we treated 280 OENs ≥35 weeks' gestation, 101 and 179 per hospital. Post-ESC, LOS decreased 51.2% (16.8-8.2 days), postnatal opioid treatment decreased from 64.1 to 29.9%; percent decline in both hospitals was similar. 30-day re-hospitalizations were 5/103 (4.8%) pre-ESC, and 7/177 (4.0%) post-ESC (p = 0.72, NS). Multiple substance co-exposures were common (226/280, 80.7%).

CONCLUSION

ESC and as needed morphine decreased LOS and postnatal opioid exposure for OENs in two hospital systems without increasing 30-day readmissions. ESC appears effective in OENs with multiple co-exposures.