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

Advances in the Care of Infants With Prenatal Opioid Exposure and Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome

A significant number of advances have been made in the last 5 years with respect to the identification, diagnosis, assessment, and management of infants with prenatal opioid exposure and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) from birth to early childhood. The primary objective of this review is to summarize major advances that will inform the clinical management of opioid-exposed newborns and provide an overview of NOWS care to promote the implementation of best practices. First, advances with respect to standardizing the clinical diagnosis of NOWS will be reviewed. Second, the most commonly used assessment strategies are discussed, with a focus on presenting new quality improvement and clinical trial data surrounding the use of the new function-based assessment Eat, Sleep, and Console approach. Third, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment modalities are reviewed, highlighting clinical trials that have compared the use of higher calorie and low lactose formula, vibrating crib mattresses, morphine compared with methadone, buprenorphine compared with morphine or methadone, the use of ondansetron as a medication to prevent the need for NOWS opioid pharmacologic treatment, and the introduction of symptom-triggered dosing compared with scheduled dosing. Fourth, maternal, infant, environmental, and genetic factors that have been found to be associated with NOWS severity are highlighted. Finally, emerging recommendations on postdelivery hospitalization follow-up and developmental surveillance are presented, along with highlighting ongoing and needed areas of research to promote infant and family well-being for families impacted by opioid use.

Heterogeneity and Gaps in Reporting Primary Outcomes From Neonatal Trials

OBJECTIVES

Clear outcome reporting in clinical trials facilitates accurate interpretation and application of findings and improves evidence-informed decision-making. Standardized core outcomes for reporting neonatal trials have been developed, but little is known about how primary outcomes are reported in neonatal trials. Our aim was to identify strengths and weaknesses of primary outcome reporting in recent neonatal trials.

METHODS

Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted.

RESULTS

Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials.

CONCLUSION

With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Breastfeeding Infants in Women with Opioid Use Disorder

ABSTRACT

An interprofessional approach from healthcare professionals can assist the woman with opioid use disorder (OUD) to become free of using opioids during pregnancy and beyond. These vulnerable women and their newborns need extended community support. The purpose of this article is to provide foundational information and standards that support the collaboration of community professionals in providing healthcare and treatment options for the woman with OUD to promote the family unit remaining together, support bonding, and encourage lactation/breastfeeding. Women with OUD need guidance from Christian nurses and the community as they transition to sobriety, motherhood, and breastfeeding.

Pharmacometric dose optimization of buprenorphine in neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome

Results from Blinded Buprenorphine OR Neonatal morphine solution (BBORN), a previous phase III trial in infants with neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS), demonstrated that sublingual buprenorphine resulted in a shorter duration of treatment and shorter length of hospital stay than the comparator, oral morphine. Objectives of Buprenorphine Pharmacometric Open Label Research study of Drug Exposure (BPHORE), a new trial with buprenorphine in a similar population, were to (1) optimize initial dose, up-titration to achieve symptom control and weaning steps of pharmacologic treatment and (2) investigate safety of the revised regimen. A pharmacodynamic model linked buprenorphine exposure to NOWS symptom scores. Adaptive dose regimens were simulated using BBORN results to compare dosing regimens for times to stabilization, weaning, and cessation. A clinical trial using model informed doses (BPHORE), was conducted. Simulations indicated benefits in time to stabilization and weaning when up-titration rates increased to 30%. Stabilization time was not greatly impacted by the starting dose. Time to wean and time to cessation were dose dependent. A weaning rate of 25% shortened time to cessation. Ten infants were enrolled in BPHORE using buprenorphine starting dose of 24 µg/kg/day, 33% titration, and 15% wean rate. Five subjects required adjuvant therapy. Half-maximal effective concentration (EC₅₀ ) values indicated maximum buprenorphine doses did not generate maximal effect size, suggesting potential efficacy of a further increased dose if a goal was to reduce the use of adjunct agents. Simulations indicated that further benefits can be gained by increasing starting doses of buprenorphine and increasing wean rates. Use of a model-based analysis to provide focused guidelines for care can be used with goals of reducing treatment time and hospital stays in infants with NOWS.

Opioid Treatment for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome: Current Challenges and Future Approaches

Chronic intrauterine exposure to psychoactive drugs often results in neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS). When nonpharmacologic measures are insufficient in controlling NOWS, morphine, methadone, and buprenorphine are first-line medications commonly used to treat infants with NOWS because of in utero exposure to opioids. Research suggests that buprenorphine may be the leading drug therapy used to treat NOWS when compared with morphine and methadone. Currently, there are no consensus or standardized treatment guidelines for medications prescribed for NOWS. Opioids used to treat NOWS exhibit large interpatient variability in pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) response in neonates. Organ systems undergo rapid maturation after birth that may alter drug disposition and exposure for any given dose during development. Data regarding the PK and PD of opioids in neonates are sparse. Pharmacometric methods such as physiologically based pharmacokinetic and population pharmacokinetic modeling can be used to explore factors predictive of some of the variability associated with the PK/PD of opioids in newborns. This review discusses the utility of pharmacometric techniques for enhancing precision dosing in infants requiring opioid treatment for NOWS. Applying these approaches may contribute to optimizing the outcome by reducing cumulative drug exposure, mitigating adverse drug effects, and reducing the burden of NOWS in neonates.

Non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of substance use, both prescribed and non-prescribed, is increasing in many areas of the world. Substance use by women of childbearing age contributes to increasing rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) is a newer term describing the subset of NAS related to opioid exposure. Non-pharmacological care is the first-line treatment for substance withdrawal in newborns. Despite the widespread use of non-pharmacological care to mitigate symptoms of NAS, there is not an established definition of, and standard for, non-pharmacological care practices in this population. Evaluation of safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological practices could provide clear guidance for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological treatment of infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal on the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment for symptom management. Comparison 1: in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal, does non-pharmacological treatment reduce the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment? Comparison 2: in infants receiving pharmacological treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal, does concurrent non-pharmacological treatment reduce duration of pharmacological treatment, maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication, and length of hospitalization?

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; and CINAHL on 11 October 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials comparing single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions to no non-pharmacological treatment or different single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions. We assessed non-pharmacological interventions independently and in combination based on sufficient similarity in population, intervention, and comparison groups studied. We categorized non-pharmacological interventions as: modifying environmental stimulation, feeding practices, and support of the mother-infant dyad. We presented non-randomized studies identified in the search process narratively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization and pharmacological treatment with one or more doses of opioid or sedative medication. Primary outcomes in infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization, length of pharmacological treatment with opioid or sedative medication, and maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs (353 infants) in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated between 1975 and 2018. We identified no RCTs in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low to low. We also identified and excluded 34 non-randomized studies published between 2005 and 2018, including 29 in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated and five in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. We identified seven preregistered interventional clinical trials that may qualify for inclusion at review update when complete. Of the six RCTs, four studies assessed modifying environmental stimulation in the form of a mechanical rocking bed, prone positioning, non-oscillating waterbed, or a low-stimulation nursery; one study assessed feeding practices (comparing 24 kcal/oz to 20 kcal/oz formula); and one study assessed support of the maternal-infant dyad (tailored breastfeeding support). There was no evidence of a difference in length of hospitalization in the one study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation (mean difference [MD) -1 day, 95% confidence interval [CI) -2.82 to 0.82; 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and the one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (MD -8.9 days, 95% CI -19.84 to 2.04; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies of feeding practices evaluated the length of hospitalization. There was no evidence of a difference in use of pharmacological treatment in three studies of modifying environmental stimulation (typical risk ratio [RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 92 infants; low-certainty evidence), one study of feeding practices (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.33; 49 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Reported secondary outcomes included neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, days to regain birth weight, and weight nadir. One study of support of the maternal-infant dyad reported NICU admission (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study of feeding practices reported days to regain birth weight (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI 2.76 to 0.56; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation reported weight nadir (MD -0.28, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.59; 194 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and one study of feeding practices reported weight nadir (MD -0.8, 95% CI -2.24 to 0.64; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns affects important clinical outcomes including length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment based on the six included studies. The outcomes identified for this review were of very low- to low-certainty evidence. Combined analysis was limited by heterogeneity in study design and intervention definitions as well as the number of studies. Many prespecified outcomes were not reported. Although caregivers are encouraged by experts to optimize non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns prior to initiating pharmacological care, we do not have sufficient evidence to inform specific clinical practices. Larger well-designed studies are needed to determine the effect of non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns.

Strategies for the Prevention and Treatment of Iatrogenic Withdrawal from Opioids and Benzodiazepines in Critically Ill Neonates, Children and Adults: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients are at high risk of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS), due to exposure to high doses or prolonged periods of opioids and benzodiazepines.

PURPOSE

To examine pharmacological management strategies designed to prevent and/or treat IWS from opioids and/or benzodiazepines in critically ill neonates, children and adults.

METHODS

We included non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reporting on interventions to prevent or manage IWS in critically ill neonatal, paediatric and adult patients. Database searching included: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane databases, TRIP, CMA Infobase and NICE evidence. Additional grey literature was examined. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Data collected included: population, definition of opioid, benzodiazepine or mixed IWS, its assessment and management (drug or strategy, route of administration, dosage and titration), previous drug exposures and outcomes measures. Methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSI. A qualitative synthesis of the results is provided. For the subset of studies evaluating multifaceted protocolised care, we meta-analysed results for 4 outcomes and examined the quality of evidence using GRADE post hoc.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were eligible, including 10 NRSI and 3 RCTs; 11 of these included neonatal and paediatric patients exclusively. Eight studies evaluated multifaceted protocolised interventions, while 5 evaluated individual components of IWS management (e.g. clonidine or methadone at varying dosages, routes of administration and duration of tapering). IWS was measured using an appropriate tool in 6 studies. Ten studies reported upon occurrence of IWS, showing significant reductions (n = 4) or no differences (n = 6). Interventions failed to impact duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and adverse effects. Impact on opioid and/or benzodiazepine total doses and duration showed no differences in 4 studies, while 3 showed opioid and benzodiazepine cumulative doses were significantly reduced by 20-35% and 32-66%, and treatment durations by 1.5-11 and 19 days, respectively. Variable effects on intervention drug exposures were found. Weaning durations were reduced by 6-12 days (n = 4) for opioids and/or methadone and by 13 days (n = 1) for benzodiazepines. In contrast, two studies using interventions centred on transition to enteral routes or longer tapering durations found significant increases in intervention drug exposures. Interventions had overall non-significant effects on additional drug requirements (except for one study). Included studies were at high risk of bias, relating to selection, detection and reporting bias.

CONCLUSION

Interventions for IWS management fail to impact duration of mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay, while effect on occurrence of IWS and drug exposures is inconsistent. Heterogeneity in the interventions used and methodological issues, including inappropriate and/or subjective identification of IWS and bias due to study design, limited the conclusions.

A Core Outcome Set for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome

BACKGROUND

As rates of neonatal opioid withdrawal are increasing, the need for research to evaluate new treatments is growing. Large heterogeneity exists in health outcomes reported in current literature. Our objective is to develop an evidence-informed and consensus-based core outcome set in neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS-COS) for use in studies and clinical practice.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary steering committee was established. A systematic review and a 3-round Delphi was performed with open-ended and score-based assessments of the importance of each outcome to inform clinical management of neonatal opioid withdrawal. Interviews were conducted with parents and/or caregivers on outcome importance. Finally, a consensus meeting with diverse stakeholders was held to review all data from all sources and establish a core set of outcomes with definitions.

RESULTS

The NOWS-COS was informed by 47 published studies, 41 Delphi participants, and 6 parent interviews. There were 63 outcomes evaluated. Final core outcomes include (1) pharmacologic treatment, (2) total dose of opioid treatment, (3) duration of treatment, (4) adjuvant therapy, (5) feeding difficulties, (6) consolability, (7) time to adequate symptom control, (8) parent-infant bonding, (9) duration of time the neonate spent in the hospital, (10) breastfeeding, (11) weight gain at hospital discharge, (12) readmission to hospital for withdrawal, and (13) neurodevelopment.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed an evidence-informed and consensus-based core outcome set. Implementation of this core outcome set will reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate evidence-based decision-making. Future research will disseminate all the findings and pilot test the validity of the NOWS-COS in additional countries and populations to increase generalizability and impact.