Neonatal withdrawal syndrome: reaching epidemic proportions across the globe

School performance in children with prenatal drug exposure and out-of-home care in NSW, Australia: a retrospective population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prenatal drug exposure (PDE) is a global public health problem that is strongly associated with the need for child protection services, including placement into out-of-home care (OOHC). We aimed to assess school outcomes for children with PDE (both with and without neonatal abstinence syndrome [NAS]) and the association of school performance with OOHC.

METHODS

Using linked population health, OOHC, and school test data, we compared results on the Australian standardised curriculum-based test, the National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), for children with PDE who were born in New South Wales (NSW) between 2001 and 2020 and had completed at least one NAPLAN test between Jan 1, 2008, and June 30, 2021, administered in Year 3 (age 8-9 years), Year 5 (age 10-11 years), Year 7 (age 12-13 years), or Year 9 (age 14-15 years). Linked datasets included NSW Perinatal Data Collection (birth data), NSW Admitted Patient Data Collection (hospital diagnoses), NSW Education Standards Authority (NAPLAN scores), NSW Family and Community Services Dataset-KiDS Data Collection (OOHC information), NSW Mental Health Ambulatory Data Collection, and NSW Registry for Births, Deaths, and Marriages. The primary outcome was scoring above or below the National Minimum Standard (NMS) in any test domain (mathematics, language, writing, and spelling) at each year level, comparing the relative risk of scoring below NMS between children with and without PDE (and with or without NAS within the PDE group), and with and without OOHC contact. The association between OOHC on the likelihood of scoring above NMS was also investigated for PDE and non-PDE cohorts.

FINDINGS

The PDE cohort included 3836 children, and the non-PDE cohort included 897 487 children. Within the PDE cohort, 3192 children had a NAS diagnosis and 644 children had no NAS diagnosis. 1755 (45·8%) children with PDE required OOHC compared with 12 880 (1·4%) of 897 487 children without PDE. Children with PDE were more likely than children without PDE to score below NMS in any domain from Year 3 (risk ratio 2·72 [95% CI 2·58-2·76]) to Year 9 (2·36 [2·22-2·50]). Performance was similar regardless of a NAS diagnosis (Year 3: 0·96 [0·84-1·10]; Year 9: 0·98 [0·84-1·15]). The likelihood of scoring above NMS in Year 9 was reduced for children with PDE and without NAS (0·57 [0·45-0·73]) and NAS (0·58 [0·52-0·64]) compared with those without PDE, and also for children who received OOHC (0·60 [0·57-0·64]) compared with those without OOHC, when adjusted for confounders. Among children with PDE, those receiving OOHC had a similar likelihood of scoring above NMS compared with children who did not receive OOHC, from Year 3 (1·01 [0·92-1·11]) to Year 9 (0·90 [0·73-1·10]), when adjusted for confounding factors. By contrast, among children without PDE, those receiving OOHC were less likely to score above NMS than those who did not receive OOHC, from Year 3 (0·78 [0·76-0·80]) to Year 9 (0·58 [0·54-0·61]).

INTERPRETATION

Compared with children without PDE, school performance in children with PDE-regardless of whether they were diagnosed with NAS-is poor, and the gap widens with age. The risk of poor performance persists regardless of OOHC status. This finding underscores the need for all children with PDE to receive long-term, culturally sensitive, and proactive support to improve life success.

FUNDING

SPHERE Mindgardens Neuroscience Network, Australian Red Cross, Alpha Maxx Healthcare, Centre for Research Excellence for Integrated Health and Social Care, National Health and Medical Research Council, and University of Sydney.

Cost of neonatal abstinence syndrome: an economic analysis of English national data held in the National Neonatal Research Database

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) across neonatal units, explore healthcare utilisation and estimate the direct cost to the NHS.

DESIGN

Population cohort study.

SETTING

NHS neonatal units, using data held in the National Neonatal Research Database.

PARTICIPANTS

Infants born between 2012 and 2017, admitted to a neonatal unit in England, receiving a diagnosis of NAS (n=6411).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence, direct annual cost of care (£, 2016-2017 prices), duration of neonatal unit stay (discharge HR), predicted additional cost of care, and odds of receiving pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

Of 524 334 infants admitted during the study period, 6411 had NAS. The incidence (1.6/1000 live births) increased between 2012 and 2017 (β=0.07, 95% CI (0 to 0.14)) accounting for 12/1000 admissions and 23/1000 cot days nationally. The direct cost of care was £62 646 661 over the study period. Almost half of infants received pharmacotherapy (n=2631; 49%) and their time-to-discharge was significantly longer (median 18.2 vs 5.1 days; adjusted HR (aHR) 0.16, 95% CI (0.15 to 0.17)). Time-to-discharge was longer for formula-fed infants (aHR 0.73 (0.66 to 0.81)) and those discharged to foster care (aHR 0.77 (0.72 to 0.82)). The greatest predictor of additional care costs was receipt of pharmacotherapy (additional mean adjusted cost of £8420 per infant).

CONCLUSIONS

This population study highlights the substantial cot usage and economic costs of caring for infants with NAS on neonatal units. A shift in how healthcare systems provide routine care for NAS could benefit infants and families while alleviating the burden on services.

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.

Narcotic-Sparing Approaches and the Shift Toward Paracetamol in Neonatal Intensive Care

Effective analgesia in neonates is relevant not only because of ethical aspects or empathy, but it is a crucial and integral part of medical and nursing care. However, there is also emerging evidence - although mainly in animal models - on the relation between the exposure to narcotics and impaired neurodevelopmental outcome, resulting in a CATCH-22 scenario. Consequently, a balanced approach is needed with the overarching intention to attain adequate pain management with minimal side effects. Despite the available evidence-based guidance on narcotics in ventilated neonates, observations on drug utilization still suggest an overall increase in exposure with extensive variability between units. This increased exposure over time and the extensive variability is concerning given the limited evidence of benefits and potential harm.Implementation strategies are effective to reduce exposure to narcotics but result in increased paracetamol exposure. We therefore summarized the evidence on paracetamol use in procedural pain management, in minor to moderate as well as major pain syndromes in neonates. While there are sufficient data on short-term safety, there are still concerns on long-term side effects. These concerns relate to neurobehavioral outcome, atopy or fertility, and are at present mainly driven by epidemiological perinatal observations, together with postulated mechanisms.We conclude that future clinical research objectives should still focus on the need to develop better assessment tools to quantify pain and on the need for high-quality data on long-term outcome of therapeutic interventions - also for paracetamol - and exploration of the mechanisms involved.

Treatment of opioid withdrawal in neonates with morphine, phenobarbital, or chlorpromazine: a randomized double-blind trial

Three suitable compounds (morphine, chlorpromazine, and phenobarbital) to treat neonatal abstinence syndrome were compared in a prospective multicenter, double-blind trial. Neonates exposed to opioids in utero were randomly allocated to one of three treatment groups. When a predefined threshold of a modified Finnegan score was reached, treatment started and increased stepwise until symptoms were controlled. If symptoms could not be controlled with the predefined maximal dose of a single drug, a second drug was added. Among 143 infants recruited, 120 needed pharmacological treatment. Median length of treatment for morphine was 22 days (95% CI 18 to 33), for chlorpromazine 25 days (95% CI 21 to 34), and for phenobarbital 32 days (95% CI 27 to 38) (p = ns). In the morphine group, only 3% of infants (1/33) needed a second drug; in the chlorpromazine group, this proportion was 56% (24/43), and in the phenobarbital group 30% (13/44).Conclusion: None of the drugs tested for treating neonatal abstinence syndrome resulted in a significantly shorter treatment length than the others. As morphine alone was able to control symptoms in almost all infants, it may be preferred to the two other drugs but should still be tested against more potent opioids such as buprenorphine.Trial registration: At ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02810782 (registered retrospectively).What is Known:• Neonates exposed to opiates in utero and presenting with withdrawal symptoms should first be treated by non-pharmacological supportive measures.• In those who fail, drugs have to be given, but there is controversy which drug is best.What is New:• Among three candidates, morphine, chlorpromazine and phenobarbital, none resulted in significantly shorter treatment time.• As morphine alone was able to control symptoms in almost all infants, it may be preferred to the two other drugs.

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.

Prenatal opioid exposure heightens sympathetic arousal and facial expressions of pain/distress in term neonates at 24-48 hours post birth

Purpose: The rising issue of opioid use during pregnancy poses an increased risk of fetal exposure to opioids in-utero and the development of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). The cessation of exposure to opioids upon birth causes elevated levels of norepinephrine in the circulation enhancing sympathetic arousal. Skin conductance (SC) detects sympathetic-mediated sweating while the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) depicts facial expressions of stress and pain. We hypothesize that there will be a direct correlation between SC and NFCS scores, such that neonates with prenatal opioid exposure will have higher SC and facial responses to pain/stress as compared with healthy neonates without prenatal opioid exposure.Objective: This study evaluates the utility of SC and the NFCS in the objective assessment of early postnatal pain response in opioid-exposed and non-opioid exposed neonates.Methods: This prospective, single-center, pilot study enrolled opioid-exposed term neonates (>37 weeks) and healthy controls. Subjects were observed within 24-48 hours post-birth (and prior to opioid withdrawal) for pain at baseline, during, and post-heel lance/squeeze (HLS) with simultaneously measured SC and videotaped facial expressions. SC data included electro-dermal responses over time (EDR/second) and the average amplitude of responses (mean of peaks [MP]). Video data were scored using the NFCS by two trained coders with inter-rater agreement >85%.Results: SC and NFCS scores were significantly associated with both groups. The opioid-exposed neonates had significantly higher skin conductance indices, EDR/sec for the HLS phase, and MP for HLS and post phases as compared with controls (p < .05). Opioid-exposed neonates demonstrated higher NFCS at baseline (p = .003).Conclusions: Prenatal opioid exposure was associated with heightened sympathetic arousal during both pain and recovery phases and higher facial expressions of pain/distress at baseline only. A multimodal system of assessment may be useful in understanding the complexity and severity of opioid withdrawal associated with NAS.

Breastfeeding and the substance-exposed mother and baby

BACKGROUND

Breastfeeding rates are typically low for women with a substance-use disorder. This is despite the specific benefits of breastfeeding to alleviate the severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome and the well-documented generic advantages. This study explored the feasibility of in-hospital, tailored breastfeeding support for the substance-exposed mother and baby.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods feasibility study undertaken in Scotland from April 2014 to May 2015. Women with a substance-use disorder either received standard Baby-Friendly Initiative care only or were given additional support which included a dedicated breastfeeding support worker, personalized capacity-building approach, and a low-stimuli environment for 5 days. Feasibility outcome measures were maternal recruitment, satisfaction and acceptability of support, breastfeeding on fifth postnatal day, and severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome.

RESULTS

Fourteen mother-infant dyads participated. Intervention participants demonstrated higher rates of continued breastfeeding and reported a greater degree of satisfaction with support and confidence in their breastfeeding ability. Maternal experience of health care practices, attitudes, and postnatal environment influenced their perceptions of breastfeeding support. Breastfed infants were less likely to require pharmacotherapy for neonatal withdrawal and had a shorter hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight the feasibility of tailored breastfeeding support for the substance-exposed mother and baby and endorse the promotion and support of breastfeeding for this group. Future research should include a statistically powered randomized controlled trial to evaluate clinical efficacy.

Educational Disabilities Among Children Born With Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is a postnatal drug withdrawal syndrome that can occur after intrauterine opioid exposure. Adverse neurobehavioral outcomes have been documented in infants with NAS; however, educational outcomes have not been thoroughly examined. We analyzed Tennessee data to understand the need for special educational services among infants who are born with NAS.

METHODS

By using Tennessee Medicaid and birth certificate data, infants who were born in Tennessee between 2008 and 2011 with a history of NAS were matched (1:3) to infants who were born during the same period without a history of NAS. Groups were matched on the basis of sex, race and/or ethnicity, age, birth region of residence, and Medicaid enrollment status. Data were linked to Tennessee Department of Education special education data during early childhood (3-8 years of age). Conditional multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations between NAS and selected special education outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1815 children with a history of NAS and 5441 children without NAS were assessed. Children with NAS were significantly more likely to be referred for a disability evaluation (351 of 1815 [19.3%] vs 745 of 5441 [13.7%]; P < .0001), to meet criteria for a disability (284 of 1815 [15.6%] vs 634 of 5441 [11.7%]; P < .0001), and to require classroom therapies or services (278 of 1815 [15.3%] vs 620 of 5441 [11.4%]; P < .0001). These findings were sustained in a multivariable analysis, with multiple models controlling for maternal tobacco use, maternal education status, birth weight, gestational age, and/or NICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this novel analysis linking health and education data revealed that children with a history of NAS were significantly more likely to have a subsequent educational disability.

Breastfeeding support and opiate dependence: A think aloud study

OBJECTIVE

international guidelines recommend the promotion and protection of breastfeeding for the substance exposed mother and baby. Yet few studies have explored the facilitators, moderators and barriers to successful breastfeeding for women enrolled on opiate maintenance treatment, or suggested targeted support strategies. The aim of this study was to explore the views of women with opiate dependence on proposed elements for inclusion in a breastfeeding support intervention.

DESIGN

a qualitative study using think aloud technique.

SETTING

tertiary maternity hospital in the North-East of Scotland. Interviews conducted between November 2013 and March 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

6 opiate dependent women within 6 months of giving birth. Participants were enrolled on opiate medication treatment during their pregnancy, had initiated breastfeeding and accessed in-hospital breastfeeding support.

FINDINGS

an intervention founded on practical, informational and environmental elements was endorsed as supportive of continued breastfeeding of an infant at risk of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome. Opiate dependent women were more receptive to strategies promoting a person-centered approach that were specific to their individualized infant feeding needs and delivered within an emotionally supportive environment. Barriers to the acceptability of breastfeeding advice included discouraging, prescriptive and judgemental healthcare actions and attitudes.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

there are distinct facilitators, modifiers and barriers to breastfeeding within the context of opiate exposure. Using this awareness to underpin the key features of the design should enhance maternal receptiveness, acceptability and usability of the support intervention.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

additional and tailored support interventions are required to meet the specific needs of breastfeeding an infant experiencing opiate withdrawal. The elimination of disempowering institutional actions and attitudes is imperative if a conducive environment in which opiate dependent women feel supported is to be achieved.

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome and High School Performance

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Little is known of the long-term, including school, outcomes of children diagnosed with Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) (International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Problems [10th Edition], Australian Modification, P96.1).

METHODS

Linked analysis of health and curriculum-based test data for all children born in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, between 2000 and 2006. Children with NAS (n = 2234) were compared with a control group matched for gestation, socioeconomic status, and gender (n = 4330, control) and with other NSW children (n = 598 265, population) for results on the National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy, in grades 3, 5, and 7.

RESULTS

Mean test scores (range 0-1000) for children with NAS were significantly lower in grade 3 (359 vs control: 410 vs population: 421). The deficit was progressive. By grade 7, children with NAS scored lower than other children in grade 5. The risk of not meeting minimum standards was independently associated with NAS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-2.7), indigenous status (aOR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.2-2.3), male gender (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4), and low parental education (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6), with all Ps < .001.

CONCLUSIONS

A neonatal diagnostic code of NAS is strongly associated with poor and deteriorating school performance. Parental education may decrease the risk of failure. Children with NAS and their families must be identified early and provided with support to minimize the consequences of poor educational outcomes.

A core outcome set for neonatal abstinence syndrome: study protocol for a systematic review, parent interviews and a Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is increasing globally resulting in an increased incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes and health system costs. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of NAS prevention and management strategies is very weak and further research initiatives are critically needed to support meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. In NAS research, the choice of outcomes and the use of valid, responsive and feasible measurement instruments are crucial. There is currently no consensus and evidence-based core outcome set (COS) for NAS.

METHODS/DESIGN

The development of the NAS-COS will include five stages led by an international Multidisciplinary Steering Committee: (1) qualitative interviews with parents/families and a systematic review (SR) to identify items for inclusion in a COS. The SR will also identify participants for the Delphi survey, (2) a three-round Delphi survey to gain expert opinion on the importance of health outcomes influencing NAS management decisions, (3), a consensus meeting to finalize the items and definitions with experts and COS users, (4) feasibility and pilot testing, development of the COS and explanatory document and (5) implementation planning.

DISCUSSION

Since standardized outcome measurement and reporting will improve NAS clinical research consistency, efficacy and impact, this COS will reflect the minimum set of health outcomes which should be measured in trials evaluating interventions for preventing or treating NAS.