BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Methadone and morphine are commonly administered medications for neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS). Infants are increasingly treated with as-needed or “pro re nata” (PRN) medication. The optimal pharmacologic agent for PRN treatment of NOWS has not been examined. This study’s objective is to compare NOWS hospital outcomes between infants treated with PRN methadone versus morphine.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of infants pharmacologically treated for NOWS across 4 Massachusetts hospitals between January 2018 and February 2021. Infants born ≥36 weeks gestation with prenatal opioid exposure treated with PRN methadone or morphine were included. Mixed effects logistic and linear regression models were employed to evaluate differences in transition rates to scheduled dosing, length of stay, and number of PRN doses administered depending on PRN treatment agent.

RESULTS

There were 86 infants in the methadone group and 52 in the morphine group. There were no significant differences in NOWS hospital outcomes between groups in adjusted models: transition to scheduled dosing (methadone 31.6% vs morphine 28.6%, adjusted odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87–1.19), mean length of stay (methadone 15.5 vs morphine 14.3 days, adjusted risk ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.80–1.41), and the mean number of PRN doses (methadone 2.3 vs morphine 3.4, adjusted risk ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.41–1.02). There was an association with nonpharmacologic care practices and improved NOWS hospital outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in NOWS hospitalization outcomes based on pharmacologic agent type; nonpharmacologic care practices were most strongly associated with improved NOWS hospitalization outcomes.

Infants born to mothers with opioid use in pregnancy are at risk for experiencing neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS), a syndrome characterized by symptoms of central nervous system and autonomic dysregulation, including tremors, hyperthermia, sweating, irritability, poor sleep, poor feeding, and gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea.1  Concurrent with the worsening opioid epidemic among the US adult population, the incidence of NOWS increased exponentially with an estimated 8.8 per 1000 live US hospital births affected as of 2016.1  Appropriate treatment of infants experiencing NOWS includes first-line therapy with nonpharmacologic interventions, including optimal rooming-in with the caregiver, breastfeeding, and a low-stimulation environment.24  Some infants also require pharmacologic treatment if they are unresponsive to initial nonpharmacologic care measures. However, there remains great variability in NOWS treatment protocols across US centers.5,6 

For infants who do receive pharmacologic treatment, the most commonly used primary pharmacologic agents for NOWS among US centers are methadone and morphine with morphine administered to ∼90% and methadone administered to ∼10% of pharmacologically treated newborns.4,6  Other opioids, such as buprenorphine, are also employed as primary pharmacologic agents for NOWS treatment, although less commonly.4  Morphine is an agonist at the μ and κ opioid receptors, and is primarily metabolized through hepatic glucuronidation and eliminated by the kidney, with variable clearance depending on factors such as gestational age and birth weight.7  Morphine for the treatment of NOWS is typically administered every 3 to 4 hours with a typical onset of action of 30 minutes and a typical half-life in neonates of 7.6 hours.8  Methadone is a μ opioid receptor agonist that is primarily metabolized by cytochrome P450 enzymes in the liver, with highly variable enzyme activity levels in the neonatal period.9,10  The higher fat solubility, protein binding, and volume of distribution of methadone results in a typical onset of action of 30 to 60 minutes and a longer half-life of 19 hours with significant variability.8  There is a wide range of neonatal methadone dosing regimens, ranging from every 6 to every 24 hours, with most centers utilizing every 6- to 8-hour dosing.11 

Historically, both morphine and methadone have been administered on a scheduled basis, sometimes in combination with a second-line agent for more severe withdrawal symptoms; however, evidence regarding the optimal pharmacologic NOWS treatment agent when administered on a scheduled dosing regimen is conflicting.2  In addition, previous studies using the same medication have widely different reported lengths of hospital stay (LOS), highlighting a lack of consistency between institutions and medication protocols.4 

Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants and children affected by NOWS require further investigation with many confounding variables contributing, making it difficult to assign causality to any particular outcome. Evidence also exists that higher amounts of postnatal opioid exposure in the neonatal period may be associated with worse cognitive outcomes.12  Given the concerns about neonatal opioid exposure, the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly advises early utilization of nonpharmacologic care for all neonates affected by prenatal opioid exposure, but also acknowledges that in certain clinical circumstances, pharmacologic treatment is indicated to lessen severe withdrawal symptoms and resultant complications such as excessive weight loss, poor sleep, and state regulation.1  The use of pro re nata (PRN) dosing in infants with NOWS is increasingly being used, with several studies revealing shortened LOS and duration of pharmacologic treatment with either PRN methadone or morphine; however, the optimal PRN pharmacologic agent for NOWS treatment is unknown.1316 

Accordingly, the goal of this study was to examine differences in key hospitalization outcomes between neonates receiving methadone versus morphine on a PRN basis for the treatment of NOWS. We hypothesized that there is likely no major difference in key NOWS hospitalization outcomes associated with pharmacologic agent choice of PRN methadone versus PRN morphine.

We performed a retrospective cohort review of infants pharmacologically treated for NOWS at 4 Massachusetts hospitals between 2017 and 2021. This project was a secondary analysis of data collected by the Massachusetts Perinatal Quality Improvement Network (PNQIN). PNQIN is a perinatal quality collaborative that includes birthing hospitals as well as the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Department of Children and Families, and Health Policy Commission.17  Participation in PNQIN is voluntary. Since 2017, PNQIN has coordinated a statewide quality improvement initiative focused on improving care for infants affected by NOWS. Hospital teams choosing to participate in this initiative abstract and enter patient-level data into a statewide deidentified REDCap database, including information on maternal demographics, maternal drug exposures, birth demographics, NOWS care protocols, NOWS pharmacologic treatment, and hospital readmissions. Individual hospital teams are multidisciplinary and include physicians, nurses, social workers, lactation specialists, and others.

Thirty-seven level I, II, and III birthing hospitals are participating in the PNQIN NOWS initiative. At time of delivery, 83% of pregnant women with opioid use disorder in the network are receiving medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD).17,18  The majority of participating hospitals (including our 4 hospitals) follow institution-specific guidelines for the management of pregnant people with opioid use disorder and infants at risk for NOWS. The statewide quality improvement project was deemed nonhuman subjects research by the PNQIN leadership team hospitals institutional review boards, with all participating sites having a data use agreement with PNQIN for data sharing. For this study, we examined the 4 hospitals that had transitioned from scheduled opioid dosing to PRN dosing before the study time period with complete data in the database. The 4 sites had transitioned from scheduled to PRN dosing as part of the implementation of eat, sleep, console (ESC) assessment and management protocols. All sites underwent standardized training workshops organized by PNQIN and adapted the formal ESC NOWS Care Tool (2nd Edition), with the associated educational manuals, training cases, and reliability tools.19,20 

Three of the 4 study centers administered morphine as the primary PRN pharmacologic agent and 1 center administered methadone as the primary PRN pharmacologic agent. Pharmacologic treatment protocols are included in Supplemental Table 4. All hospitals had enthusiastically adopted and ensured extensive staff education about the ESC tool before the study time period and had defined parameters for when infants would transition from PRN dosing to scheduled opioid dosing (Supplemental Table 4). Infants receiving frequent PRN dosing (range 3–6 doses in a specified time frame, usually within 24–48 hours) with continued symptoms of withdrawal were placed on scheduled opioids to adequately control symptoms and subsequently required an opioid taper to avoid iatrogenic withdrawal. All 4 hospitals practiced a rooming-in model of care in which infants were able to stay with their parent for the duration of infant hospitalization, even after maternal hospital discharge, with a nonpharmacologic care bundle in place. Specifics of the nonpharmacologic care bundles used at the 4 centers are listed in Supplemental Table 4. All infants are monitored in-hospital for at least 24 to 48 hours after the final dose of opioid medication for NOWS treatment before being discharged.

Infants born ≥36 weeks gestation with prenatal opioid exposure (nonprescribed or prescribed MOUD) and requiring pharmacologic therapy with initial receipt of PRN dosing were included. Infants born to mothers receiving naltrexone during their pregnancy were excluded because this medication is not associated with NOWS. All data were reviewed to ensure completeness, and site leaders were contacted regarding incomplete data before final analyses.

Maternal variables examined include birth hospital, race/ethnicity, age at delivery, MOUD exposure, and use of any nonprescribed drugs, nicotine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and/or benzodiazepines. Nonprescribed drug use was defined as any unprescribed use of opioid medications or substances of abuse during the pregnancy, excluding nonprescribed use that only occurred in the first trimester, as documented in the medical record by patient history or toxicology screenings. Psychiatric medication and nicotine exposure were defined as any use during the pregnancy per medical record review. Infant variables examined include infant sex, gestational age at delivery, birth weight, infant care location, eligibility to receive mother’s breastmilk, receipt of mother’s breastmilk in hospital and at discharge, discharge from the hospital with a biological parent, and any 30-day readmission or emergency department visit. Breastfeeding eligibility criteria were hospital-specific but, in general, relied on a commitment to an addiction recovery program, prenatal care, and negative toxicology screening for unprescribed substances around the time of delivery.

Our primary outcome measures include the percentage of infants who transitioned to scheduled opioid medication dosing, hospital LOS, and the number of PRN doses administered to infants treated with PRN methadone versus PRN morphine. Additional measures and maternal covariates included maternal MOUD exposure, infant care location, any breastfeeding in hospital and at discharge, infant sex, and maternal exposure to nonprescribed substances, nicotine, SSRIs, and/or benzodiazepines.

Mixed effects logistic and linear regression models were employed to evaluate differences in transition rate to scheduled opioid dosing, LOS, and the number of PRN doses administered to infants treated with PRN methadone versus PRN morphine. Infants treated with morphine were used as the reference group. We examined covariates for association with key NOWS outcome measures and examined differences in these covariates between treatment groups. Adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported in the final model, taking into account key covariates that met statistical significance. We used multivariable mixed effects linear regression models and adjusted for fixed effects covariates and adjusted for hospital site to estimate site-specific effects. In unadjusted analyses, models accounted for hospital-level random effects. All analyses were performed by using SAS statistical software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc).

Of 138 total infants, 86 infants were treated with PRN methadone and 52 were treated with PRN morphine. During the study period, 38.4% of infants received pharmacologic treatment. There were no significant differences between methadone and morphine groups in maternal race/ethnicity or maternal age at delivery, with a majority of mothers identifying as non-Hispanic White (Table 1). No significant differences between mothers of infants in the methadone versus morphine groups were noted regarding maternal nonprescribed drug use, nicotine use, SSRI use, or benzodiazepine use (Table 1). There were no significant differences in infant demographics between the methadone and morphine groups (Table 1). There was a significant difference in the number of infants treated with methadone who received care on the pediatrics unit compared with those receiving morphine because of differences in institutional NOWS protocols (Table 1). No significant differences in eligibility to receive mother’s breastmilk or infant’s receipt of mother’s breastmilk in hospital and at time of discharge between methadone and morphine groups were identified. There were also no significant differences in infants discharged from the hospital with a biological parent or 30-day readmission/emergency department visit rate between groups.

TABLE 1

Comparison of Baseline Characteristics by Receipt of Methadone Versus Morphine for “As-Needed” Pharmacologic Agent for NOWS

CharacteristicOverall, N = 138Methadone Group, N = 86Morphine Group, N = 52P
Maternal variables     
 Center, n (%)    <.001 
  A 29 (21) 0 (0.0) 29 (55.8)  
  B 15 (10.9) 0 (0.0) 15 (28.9)  
  C 8 (5.8) 0 (0.0) 8 (15.4)  
  D 86 (62.3) 86 (100) 0 (0.0)  
 Maternal race/ethnicity, n (%)    .05 
  Hispanic 11 (8.0) 5 (5.8) 6 (11.5)  
  Non-Hispanic Black 7 (5.1) 7 (8.1) 0 (0.0)  
  Non-Hispanic White 105 (76.1) 62 (72.1) 43 (82.7)  
 Other 11 (8.0) 8 (9.3) 3 (5.8)  
  Unknown 4 (2.9) 4 (4.7) 0 (0.0)  
 Age at time of delivery, y, mean (SD) 31.5 (4.1) 31.2 (4.3) 31.8 (3.9) .45 
 Maternal MOUD exposure. n (%)     
  Methadone only 77 (55.8) 53 (61.6) 24 (46.2) .12 
  Buprenorphine only 51 (37) 29 (33.7) 22 (42.3)  
  Othera 10 (7.3) 4 (4.7) 6 (11.5)  
 Any maternal nonprescribed drug use, n (%) 71 (51.5) 47 (54.7) 24 (46.2) .32 
 Maternal nicotine exposure, n (%) 81 (58.7) 53 (61.6) 28 (53.9) .37 
 Maternal SSRI exposure, n (%) 25 (18.1) 19 (22.1) 6 (11.5) .12 
 Maternal benzodiazepine exposure, n (%) 32 (23.2) 24 (27.9) 8 (15.4) .08 
Infant variables     
 Infant sex female, n (%) 62 (44.9) 36 (41.9) 26 (50.0) .50 
 Gestational age at delivery, wks, mean (SD) 38.4 (1.5) 38.3 (1.5) 38.4 (1.4) .62 
 Birth weight, g, mean (SD) 3009.3 (470.5) 3020.7 (457.9) 2990.3 (494.5) .71 
 Care location, n (%)     
  Level 1 nursery 118 (85.5) 79 (91.9) 39 (75.0) .006 
  Level 2/3 SCN or NICU 53 (38.4) 30 (34.9) 23 (44.2) .26 
  Pediatrics 102 (73.9) 74 (86.1) 28 (53.9) <.001 
 Opioid treatment days, median (IQR) 3.0 (1–14) 2.5 (1–14) 4.0 (1–12) .82 
 Eligible to receive mother's breastmilk, n (%) 80 (58.0) 51 (59.3) 29 (55.8) .67 
 Received mother's breastmilk in hospital (of all eligible), n (%) 59 (73.8) 36 (70.6) 23 (79.3) .38 
 Received mother's breastmilk at discharge (of all eligible), n (%) 50 (62.5) 30 (58.8) 20 (69.0) .37 
 Home with biological parent, n (%) 82 (59.4) 48 (55.8) 34 (65.4) .27 
 Any 30-d readmission ED visit, n (%) 8 (5.8) 7 (8.1) 1 (2.0) .25 
CharacteristicOverall, N = 138Methadone Group, N = 86Morphine Group, N = 52P
Maternal variables     
 Center, n (%)    <.001 
  A 29 (21) 0 (0.0) 29 (55.8)  
  B 15 (10.9) 0 (0.0) 15 (28.9)  
  C 8 (5.8) 0 (0.0) 8 (15.4)  
  D 86 (62.3) 86 (100) 0 (0.0)  
 Maternal race/ethnicity, n (%)    .05 
  Hispanic 11 (8.0) 5 (5.8) 6 (11.5)  
  Non-Hispanic Black 7 (5.1) 7 (8.1) 0 (0.0)  
  Non-Hispanic White 105 (76.1) 62 (72.1) 43 (82.7)  
 Other 11 (8.0) 8 (9.3) 3 (5.8)  
  Unknown 4 (2.9) 4 (4.7) 0 (0.0)  
 Age at time of delivery, y, mean (SD) 31.5 (4.1) 31.2 (4.3) 31.8 (3.9) .45 
 Maternal MOUD exposure. n (%)     
  Methadone only 77 (55.8) 53 (61.6) 24 (46.2) .12 
  Buprenorphine only 51 (37) 29 (33.7) 22 (42.3)  
  Othera 10 (7.3) 4 (4.7) 6 (11.5)  
 Any maternal nonprescribed drug use, n (%) 71 (51.5) 47 (54.7) 24 (46.2) .32 
 Maternal nicotine exposure, n (%) 81 (58.7) 53 (61.6) 28 (53.9) .37 
 Maternal SSRI exposure, n (%) 25 (18.1) 19 (22.1) 6 (11.5) .12 
 Maternal benzodiazepine exposure, n (%) 32 (23.2) 24 (27.9) 8 (15.4) .08 
Infant variables     
 Infant sex female, n (%) 62 (44.9) 36 (41.9) 26 (50.0) .50 
 Gestational age at delivery, wks, mean (SD) 38.4 (1.5) 38.3 (1.5) 38.4 (1.4) .62 
 Birth weight, g, mean (SD) 3009.3 (470.5) 3020.7 (457.9) 2990.3 (494.5) .71 
 Care location, n (%)     
  Level 1 nursery 118 (85.5) 79 (91.9) 39 (75.0) .006 
  Level 2/3 SCN or NICU 53 (38.4) 30 (34.9) 23 (44.2) .26 
  Pediatrics 102 (73.9) 74 (86.1) 28 (53.9) <.001 
 Opioid treatment days, median (IQR) 3.0 (1–14) 2.5 (1–14) 4.0 (1–12) .82 
 Eligible to receive mother's breastmilk, n (%) 80 (58.0) 51 (59.3) 29 (55.8) .67 
 Received mother's breastmilk in hospital (of all eligible), n (%) 59 (73.8) 36 (70.6) 23 (79.3) .38 
 Received mother's breastmilk at discharge (of all eligible), n (%) 50 (62.5) 30 (58.8) 20 (69.0) .37 
 Home with biological parent, n (%) 82 (59.4) 48 (55.8) 34 (65.4) .27 
 Any 30-d readmission ED visit, n (%) 8 (5.8) 7 (8.1) 1 (2.0) .25 

ED, emergency department, IQR, interquartile range; SCN, special care nursery.

a

Nonprescribed opioid exposure.

There were differences by center in pharmacologic treatment rates (34.0% at Center A, 39.3% at Center B, 25.8% at Center C, and 43.7% at Center D; P = .03); however, when comparing centers that used methadone versus morphine, the difference was not statistically significant (43.7% versus 33.0%, P = .05). In assessing for differences in nonpharmacologic care variables, there were no significant differences in rooming-in after maternal discharge among the 4 centers; however, some differences were noted in rooming-in rates before maternal discharge and breastfeeding initiation rates (Supplemental Table 4). However, when comparing the morphine centers (A, B, and C) to the methadone center (D), there were no statistically significant differences in rooming-in rates before (73.1% vs 82.5%, P = .08) or after maternal discharge (63.1% vs 61.7%, P = .85).

There was no significant difference in mean LOS between groups in adjusted and unadjusted models (adjusted for maternal MOUD, NICU utilization, breastfeeding, nonprescribed drug exposure, benzodiazepine exposure, hospital random effects), respectively (adjusted: risk ratio [RR] 1.12, 95% CI 0.80–1.43) (Table 2). LOS was significantly shorter in the infants treated with PRN opioids alone (mean 10.4 days [standard deviation (SD) 4.7] for morphine and mean 11.3 days [SD 4.4] for methadone) compared with those who transitioned to scheduled opioids (mean 24.5 days [SD 7.9] for morphine and mean 28.8 days [SD 12.3] for morphine). No significant differences were observed in the average number of PRN doses received in the methadone versus the morphine groups (adjusted: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41–1.02). Lastly, no significant differences in rates of transition to scheduled dosing were observed between the methadone versus the morphine groups (adjusted: odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.88–1.19) (Table 2).

TABLE 2

Methadone-Morphine Main NOWS Outcomes Comparison

Methadone-Morphine Comparison
UnadjustedAdjusted
OutcomeMethadone, n = 86Morphine, n = 52Statistic (95% CI)PStatistic (95% CI)P
LOS, mean (SD) 17.2 (11.5) 14.5 (8.6) RR 1.18 (0.84–1.64) .33 RR 1.12 (0.80–1.43) .37 
Number PRN doses, mean (SD) 2.3 (1.5) 3.4 (3.5) RR 0.67 (0.36–1.25) .21 RR 0.65 (0.41–1.02) .06 
Conversion to standing opioids, n (%) 30 (34.9) 15 (28.9) OR 1.39 (0.81–2.39) .23 OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19) .76 
Methadone-Morphine Comparison
UnadjustedAdjusted
OutcomeMethadone, n = 86Morphine, n = 52Statistic (95% CI)PStatistic (95% CI)P
LOS, mean (SD) 17.2 (11.5) 14.5 (8.6) RR 1.18 (0.84–1.64) .33 RR 1.12 (0.80–1.43) .37 
Number PRN doses, mean (SD) 2.3 (1.5) 3.4 (3.5) RR 0.67 (0.36–1.25) .21 RR 0.65 (0.41–1.02) .06 
Conversion to standing opioids, n (%) 30 (34.9) 15 (28.9) OR 1.39 (0.81–2.39) .23 OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19) .76 

Unadjusted model: mixed effects linear regression adjusting for hospital-level random effects. Adjusted model: multivariable mixed effects linear regression adjusting for maternal MOUD, NICU/SCN utilization, any breastfeeding in hospital, nonprescribed drug exposure, benzodiazepine exposure, hospital-level random effects.

Several covariates were associated with significant differences in hospital LOS, the number of PRN doses received, and rates of conversion to scheduled dosing (Table 3). There were significant differences in NOW outcomes when mothers had received MOUD with methadone, infants received care within the NICU, and when breastfeeding occurred during the hospitalization and at discharge (Table 3). Lastly, the analysis of additional maternal exposures on key NOWS outcomes revealed differences in all 3 NOWS outcomes in the setting of maternal nonprescribed drug use and maternal benzodiazepine exposure during pregnancy (Table 3).

TABLE 3

Effect of Covariates on Key NOWS Outcomes

CovariatesHospital LOS, dNumber PRN DosesConverted to Standing Opioids
Mean (SD)Risk Ratio95% CIPMean (SD)Risk Ratio95% CIPN (%)Odds Ratio95% CIP
Maternal MOUD exposure             
 Methadone 18.2 (10.9) 1.46 1.41–1.51 <.001 2.5 (2.3) 0.98 0.78–1.24 .896 32 (41.6) 3.86 2.20–6.72 <.001 
 Buprenorphine 12.5 (9.5) Ref — — 2.7 (1.9) Ref — — 8 (15.7) Ref — — 
 Othera 19.2 (7.1) 1.54 1.22–1.96 <.001 4.3 (4.7) 1.35 0.98–1.86 .067 5 (50.0) 5.20 3.23–8.37 <.001 
NICU/SCN             
 Yes 19.6 (12.2) 1.40 1.22–1.60 <.001 3.7 (3.5) 1.47 1.09–1.97 .012 22 (41.5) 1.88 1.55–2.29 <.001 
 No 14.0 (8.7) Ref — — 2.1 (1.1) Ref — — 23 (27.1) Ref — — 
Breastfeeding in hospital             
 Yes 13.7 (8.6) 0.75 0.73–0.76 <.001 2.6 (1.7) 0.92 0.85–1.01 .066 17 (27.9) 0.69 0.47–1.01 .02 
 No 18.1 (11.5) Ref — — 2.8 (2.8) Ref — — 28 (36.4) Ref — — 
Breastfeeding at discharge             
 Yes 13.3 (9.0) 0.74 0.66–0.84 <.001 2.6 (1.7) 0.94 0.83–1.07 .356 13 (26.0) 0.62 0.40–0.96 .02 
 No 17.8 (11.0) Ref — — 2.8 (2.7) Ref — — 32 (36.4) Ref — — 
Infant sex             
 Female 15.3 (9.0) 0.88 0.80–0.96 .007 3.0 (3.0) 0.87 0.74–1.03 .105 22 (35.5) 1.32 1.09–1.61 .005 
 Male 16.8 (11.6) Ref — — 2.5 (1.8) Ref — — 22 (29.3) Ref — — 
Maternal nonprescribed drug exposure             
 Yes 19.5 (12.0) 1.53 1.39–1.70 <.001 3.2 (3.0) 1.39 1.12–1.72 .003 31 (43.7) 2.97 2.34–3.76 <.001 
 No 12.6 (7.3) Ref — — 2.1 (1.4) Ref — — 14 (20.9) Ref — — 
Maternal nicotine exposure             
 Yes 15.9 (10.1) 0.95 0.73–1.23 .693 2.8 (2.8) 1.03 0.79–1.35 .824 24 (29.6) 0.74 0.50–1.08 .11 
 No 16.5 (11.1) Ref — — 2.5 (1.8) Ref — — 21 (36.8) Ref — — 
Maternal SSRI exposure             
 Yes 17.2 (10.7) 1.06 0.84–1.34 .630 3.2 (3.4) 1.27 0.97–1.67 .081 10 (40.0) 1.57 0.57–4.28 .37 
 No 14.9 (8.3) Ref — — 2.6 (2.1) Ref — — 35 (31.0) Ref — — 
Maternal benzodiazepine exposure             
 Yes 21.9 (15.2) 1.51 1.37–1.67 <.001 3.2 (3.3) 1.23 1.20–1.27 <.001 15 (46.9%) 2.29 1.64–3.18 <.001 
 No 14.4 (7.8) Ref — — 2.6 (2.1) Ref — — 30 (28.3%) Ref — — 
CovariatesHospital LOS, dNumber PRN DosesConverted to Standing Opioids
Mean (SD)Risk Ratio95% CIPMean (SD)Risk Ratio95% CIPN (%)Odds Ratio95% CIP
Maternal MOUD exposure             
 Methadone 18.2 (10.9) 1.46 1.41–1.51 <.001 2.5 (2.3) 0.98 0.78–1.24 .896 32 (41.6) 3.86 2.20–6.72 <.001 
 Buprenorphine 12.5 (9.5) Ref — — 2.7 (1.9) Ref — — 8 (15.7) Ref — — 
 Othera 19.2 (7.1) 1.54 1.22–1.96 <.001 4.3 (4.7) 1.35 0.98–1.86 .067 5 (50.0) 5.20 3.23–8.37 <.001 
NICU/SCN             
 Yes 19.6 (12.2) 1.40 1.22–1.60 <.001 3.7 (3.5) 1.47 1.09–1.97 .012 22 (41.5) 1.88 1.55–2.29 <.001 
 No 14.0 (8.7) Ref — — 2.1 (1.1) Ref — — 23 (27.1) Ref — — 
Breastfeeding in hospital             
 Yes 13.7 (8.6) 0.75 0.73–0.76 <.001 2.6 (1.7) 0.92 0.85–1.01 .066 17 (27.9) 0.69 0.47–1.01 .02 
 No 18.1 (11.5) Ref — — 2.8 (2.8) Ref — — 28 (36.4) Ref — — 
Breastfeeding at discharge             
 Yes 13.3 (9.0) 0.74 0.66–0.84 <.001 2.6 (1.7) 0.94 0.83–1.07 .356 13 (26.0) 0.62 0.40–0.96 .02 
 No 17.8 (11.0) Ref — — 2.8 (2.7) Ref — — 32 (36.4) Ref — — 
Infant sex             
 Female 15.3 (9.0) 0.88 0.80–0.96 .007 3.0 (3.0) 0.87 0.74–1.03 .105 22 (35.5) 1.32 1.09–1.61 .005 
 Male 16.8 (11.6) Ref — — 2.5 (1.8) Ref — — 22 (29.3) Ref — — 
Maternal nonprescribed drug exposure             
 Yes 19.5 (12.0) 1.53 1.39–1.70 <.001 3.2 (3.0) 1.39 1.12–1.72 .003 31 (43.7) 2.97 2.34–3.76 <.001 
 No 12.6 (7.3) Ref — — 2.1 (1.4) Ref — — 14 (20.9) Ref — — 
Maternal nicotine exposure             
 Yes 15.9 (10.1) 0.95 0.73–1.23 .693 2.8 (2.8) 1.03 0.79–1.35 .824 24 (29.6) 0.74 0.50–1.08 .11 
 No 16.5 (11.1) Ref — — 2.5 (1.8) Ref — — 21 (36.8) Ref — — 
Maternal SSRI exposure             
 Yes 17.2 (10.7) 1.06 0.84–1.34 .630 3.2 (3.4) 1.27 0.97–1.67 .081 10 (40.0) 1.57 0.57–4.28 .37 
 No 14.9 (8.3) Ref — — 2.6 (2.1) Ref — — 35 (31.0) Ref — — 
Maternal benzodiazepine exposure             
 Yes 21.9 (15.2) 1.51 1.37–1.67 <.001 3.2 (3.3) 1.23 1.20–1.27 <.001 15 (46.9%) 2.29 1.64–3.18 <.001 
 No 14.4 (7.8) Ref — — 2.6 (2.1) Ref — — 30 (28.3%) Ref — — 

Unadjusted model: ,ixed effects linear regression adjusting for hospital-level random effects.

Ref, reference group; SCN, special care nursery; —, not applicable.

a

Nonprescribed opioid exposure.

In a small, retrospective cohort across multiple sites, we found no significant differences in key NOWS hospital outcomes in infants treated with methadone versus morphine on a PRN basis. Infants in both the methadone and morphine groups had similar LOS, the number of PRN doses received, and rates of conversion to scheduled opioid dosing. However, the effect of several important covariates such as breastfeeding, infant care location, and maternal factors like nonprescribed substance or benzodiazepine exposure, on these key NOWS outcomes were significant. These modifiable hospital cultural factors and maternal variables were associated with differences in NOWS outcomes more so than which medication was elected to treat NOWS. This knowledge offers opportunities for improvement in the care of infants affected by NOWS by highlighting modifiable risk factors that can be addressed prenatally and postnatally to improve neonatal outcomes.

Our study is unique in that we compared as-needed methadone and morphine treatment in infants assessed with the ESC Care Tool, whereas previous studies have all used a Finnegan-based or similar (MOTHER scale, a modified Finnegan scoring tool) assessment tools.21,22  These approaches differ significantly in that ESC is a function-based approach that centers on nonpharmacologic care interventions and the 3 core infant functional domains of eating, sleeping, and ability to console, whereas the Finnegan approach is a numeric scoring system that accounts for a wider range of signs and symptoms of withdrawal with typical cut-off scores for initiating and titrating medication.16,23,24  Our results differ from the 2 previous RCTs that compared scheduled methadone and morphine dosing, in which NOWS management was guided by a Finnegan-based approach and results revealed that methadone was associated with shorter LOS. We speculate that methadone’s longer half-life compared with that of morphine is beneficial when administered on a standing (scheduled) basis, but differences in half-life may not significantly alter short-term key NOWS outcomes when these pharmacologic agents are administered on a PRN basis.

The total hospital LOS in our study is similar to other studies that used scheduled methadone and morphine, likely related to the number of infants who were converted to scheduled dosing and the high percentage of infants exposed to long-acting MOUD and polypharmacy in our cohort.16  Those infants who were successfully treated with the PRN approach had a much shorter LOS compared with those converted to standing dosing. As hospitals optimize their PRN treatment approaches, the number of infants who are successfully treated with PRN dosing alone will likely increase.

Interestingly, our results reveal that female sex is associated with decreased LOS, in keeping with current literature that suggests that male infants tend to exhibit more severe NOWS symptomatology and may be more likely to require pharmacologic treatment.25  To our surprise, we also found that female sex was associated with increased odds of conversion to standing dosing and warrants further exploration. Our results are also consistent with other previous studies revealing the association of maternal methadone exposure with longer hospitalizations and length of pharmacologic treatment when compared with buprenorphine and the association of breastfeeding and rooming-in on improved NOWS outcomes.4,18,2628  In addition, our study results are consistent with previous reports that have revealed that polypharmacy exposure is associated with worse NOWS hospital outcomes, likely related in part to the medications and in part related to barriers to rooming-in and optimal nonpharmacologic care in these higher-risk dyads.28,29 

The strengths of this study include the analysis of key outcomes across multiple sites, each having transitioned to the use of PRN pharmacologic agent administration around the same time period. Additionally, our study adjusted for hospital-level random effects that may otherwise affect the outcome. Our results corroborate existing literature regarding the benefits of nonpharmacologic care for infants affected by NOWS and also contribute to the relatively sparse body of literature pertaining to the choice of pharmacologic agent for the treatment of NOWS when administering medication on a PRN basis.

There are important limitations of this study. First, this was not a randomized control trial but rather a retrospective study limited by small sample size and center variability in protocol. Only 1 of the 4 included hospital sites prescribed methadone as the first-line PRN pharmacologic agent whereas the other 3 administered PRN morphine as their first-line agent, potentially biasing study results if there were institution-specific factors that also influenced outcomes. There may exist fundamental differences between the 4 hospital sites in our study because a combination of both academic and community hospitals was included. The criteria for transitioning from PRN to scheduled dosing differed between sites, although in general, they were in the 3 to 5 PRN dose range. Unmeasured confounding variables, including differences between hospitals in the ability of parents to remain at the bedside and the extent of implementation of nonpharmacologic interventions, could have contributed to differences in the need for PRN and the overall pharmacologic treatment rates. Despite this variability, the 4 hospitals included in this study have overall optimized the nonpharmacologic care of infants affected by NOWS through a statewide quality improvement initiative. Key NOWS hospitalization outcomes may differ in other hospital settings in which nonpharmacologic care practices are not as well-established or routinely used. The results of this study may therefore not be generalizable to a larger opioid-exposed neonatal population throughout the United States.

Our study results suggest that nonpharmacologic care practices are of utmost importance in the management of neonates affected by NOWS. However, we are still not able to identify which nonpharmacologic care practices were most efficacious or how they were applied to each eligible neonate both within and across the included hospital sites. Lastly, our study evaluates methadone versus morphine administered on a PRN basis but does not include other pharmacologic agents used for the treatment of NOWS, such as buprenorphine, and outcomes with these alternative agents may differ.

In summary, the study suggests that the choice of morphine versus methadone matters less in impacting NOWS hospitalization outcomes when administered as PRN dosing. Some hospitals may use more PRN doses compared with others, highlighting how hospital cultural factors play a major role in NOWS hospital outcomes. Our results also support existing literature revealing that efforts to optimize nonpharmacologic care practices like breastfeeding and infant care location outside of the NICU may help improve NOWS outcomes more than the administration of a specific pharmacologic agent, particularly for hospital sites that have a well-established and routine implementation of nonpharmacologic NOWS care bundles. The study results also reveal that there is a significant association between modifiable maternal factors such as prenatal nonprescribed drug exposure and benzodiazepine exposure and worse NOWS outcomes. This knowledge provides an opportunity to identify which infants and families could benefit from additional prenatal efforts for engagement, and postnatal efforts to improve first-line nonpharmacologic treatment to improve outcomes.

In conclusion, our study provides additional insight into NOWS pharmacologic agent choice provided on a PRN basis. The choice of pharmacologic agent (methadone versus morphine) may be less clinically relevant compared with an awareness of antenatal factors like nonprescribed drug exposure, benzodiazepine or SSRI exposure, and the utilization and optimization of nonpharmacologic care practices to improve hospitalization outcomes of neonates affected by NOWS. Future studies should continue to optimize and standardize PRN dosing protocols to increase the number of neonates who can be successfully treated with this approach.

FUNDING: This study was supported by grant funding from the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (CDC grant NU58DP006371). Dr Schiff was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse K23DA048169. The funder/sponsor did not participate in the work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

Dr Morrison wrote the first draft of the manuscript and participated in the conceptualization of the study design and study question; Dr MacMillan provided input into study methods and data analysis; Ms Melvin ensured all data entry was complete and performed all statistical analysis; Drs Singh, Murzycki, Van Vleet, and Rothstein contributed to study methods and design and helped compile and abstract data from our included hospital sites into the Massachusetts Perinatal Quality Improvement Network (PNQIN) database; Mr O’Shea abstracted data from one of our study sites into the PNQIN database and ensured data completeness; Dr Gupta helped with the development of PNQIN used for data collection for this study and contributed to study design; Dr Schiff provided expert opinion on the study methods, design, and data analysis and also made significant contributions to the development of this manuscript; Dr Wachman conceptualized the study design, provided oversight of data analysis, and made significant contributions to the development of this manuscript; and all authors provided critical review of the manuscript and approved the final version as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

1.
Patrick
SW
,
Barfield
WD
,
Poindexter
BB
;
Committee on Fetus and Newborn, Committee on Substance Use and Prevention
.
Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome
.
Pediatrics
.
2020
;
146
(
5
):
e2020029074
2.
MacMillan
KDL
.
Neonatal abstinence syndrome: review of epidemiology, care models, and current understanding of outcomes
.
Clin Perinatol
.
2019
;
46
(
4
):
817
832
3.
Ryan
G
,
Dooley
J
,
Gerber Finn
L
,
Kelly
L
.
Nonpharmacological management of neonatal abstinence syndrome: a review of the literature
.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med
.
2019
;
32
(
10
):
1735
1740
4.
Wachman
EM
,
Schiff
DM
,
Silverstein
M
.
Neonatal abstinence syndrome: advances in diagnosis and treatment
.
JAMA
.
2018
;
319
(
13
):
1362
1374
5.
Piccotti
L
,
Voigtman
B
,
Vongsa
R
, et al
.
Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome: a developmental care approach
.
Neonatal Netw
.
2019
;
38
(
3
):
160
169
6.
Snowden
JN
,
Akshatha
A
,
Annett
RD
, et al
.
The ACT NOW clinical practice survey: gaps in the care of infants with neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome
.
Hosp Pediatr
.
2019
;
9
(
8
):
585
592
7.
Pacifici
GM
.
Metabolism and pharmacokinetics of morphine in neonates: a review
.
Clinics (São Paulo)
.
2016
;
71
(
8
):
474
480
8.
Lexicomp
.
Home: Lexicomp
.
Available at: online.lexi.com/lco/action/login. Accessed October 17, 2021
9.
Ferrari
A
,
Coccia
CPR
,
Bertolini
A
,
Sternieri
E
.
Methadone--metabolism, pharmacokinetics and interactions
.
Pharmacol Res
.
2004
;
50
(
6
):
551
559
10.
Ward
RM
,
Drover
DR
,
Hammer
GB
, et al
.
The pharmacokinetics of methadone and its metabolites in neonates, infants, and children
.
Paediatr Anaesth
.
2014
;
24
(
6
):
591
601
11.
Hall
ES
,
Meinzen-Derr
J
,
Wexelblatt
SL
.
Cohort analysis of a pharmacokinetic-modeled methadone weaning optimization for neonatal abstinence syndrome
.
J Pediatr
.
2015
;
167
(
6
):
1221
5.e1
12.
Yeoh
SL
,
Eastwood
J
,
Wright
IM
, et al
.
Cognitive and motor outcomes of children with prenatal opioid exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
JAMA Netw Open
.
2019
;
2
(
7
):
e197025
13.
Kocek
M
,
Wilcox
R
,
Crank
C
,
Patra
K
.
Evaluation of the relationship between opioid exposure in extremely low birth weight infants in the neonatal intensive care unit and neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years
.
Early Hum Dev
.
2016
;
92
:
29
32
14.
Grabski
DF
,
Vavolizza
RD
,
Lepore
S
, et al
.
A quality improvement intervention to reduce postoperative opiate use in neonates
.
Pediatrics
.
2020
;
146
(
6
):
e20193861
15.
Wachman
EM
,
Minear
S
,
Hirashima
M
, et al
.
Standard fixed-schedule methadone taper versus symptom-triggered methadone approach for treatment of neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome
.
Hosp Pediatr
.
2019
;
9
(
8
):
576
584
16.
Blount
T
,
Painter
A
,
Freeman
E
,
Grossman
M
,
Sutton
AG
.
Reduction in length of stay and morphine use for NAS with the “eat, sleep, console” method
.
Hosp Pediatr
.
2019
;
9
(
8
):
615
623
17.
Hwang
SS
,
Weikel
B
,
Adams
J
, et al
;
The Colorado Hospitals Substance Exposed Newborn Quality Improvement Collaborative
.
The Colorado hospitals substance exposed newborn quality improvement collaborative: standardization of care for opioid-exposed newborns shortens length of stay and reduces number of infants requiring opiate therapy
.
Hosp Pediatr
.
2020
;
10
(
9
):
783
791
18.
Grossman
MR
,
Lipshaw
MJ
,
Osborn
RR
,
Berkwitt
AK
.
A novel approach to assessing infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome
.
Hosp Pediatr
.
2018
;
8
(
1
):
1
6
19.
Perinatal-Neonatal Quality Improvement Network of Massachusetts Website
.
Home: Perinatal-Neonatal Quality Improvement Network of Masschusetts
.
Available at: pnqinma.org. Accessed October 17, 2021
20.
Singh
R
,
Houghton
M
,
Melvin
P
, et al
;
PNQIN Collaborative of Massachusetts
.
Predictors of pharmacologic therapy for neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome: a retrospective analysis of a statewide database
.
J Perinatol
.
2021
;
41
(
6
):
1381
1388
21.
Wachman
EM
,
Houghton
M
,
Melvin
P
, et al
.
A quality improvement initiative to implement the eat, sleep, console neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome care tool in Massachusetts’ PNQIN collaborative
.
J Perinatol
.
2020
;
40
(
10
):
1560
1569
22.
Wachman
EM
,
Grossman
M
,
Schiff
DM
, et al
.
Quality improvement initiative to improve inpatient outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome
.
J Perinatol
.
2018
;
38
(
8
):
1114
1122
23.
Schiff
DM
,
Grossman
MR
.
Beyond the Finnegan scoring system: novel assessment and diagnostic techniques for the opioid-exposed infant
.
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med
.
2019
;
24
(
2
):
115
120
24.
Finnegan
LP
,
Connaughton
JF
Jr
,
Kron
RE
,
Emich
JP
.
Neonatal abstinence syndrome: assessment and management
.
Addict Dis
.
1975
;
2
(
1-2
):
141
158
25.
Charles
MK
,
Cooper
WO
,
Jansson
LM
,
Dudley
J
,
Slaughter
JC
,
Patrick
SW
.
Male sex associated with increased risk of neonatal abstinence syndrome
.
Hosp Pediatr
.
2017
;
7
(
6
):
328
334
26.
Brogly
SB
,
Saia
KA
,
Walley
AY
,
Du
HM
,
Sebastiani
P
.
Prenatal buprenorphine versus methadone exposure and neonatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Am J Epidemiol
.
2014
;
180
(
7
):
673
686
27.
MacMillan
KDL
,
Rendon
CP
,
Verma
K
,
Riblet
N
,
Washer
DB
,
Volpe Holmes
A
.
Association of rooming-in with outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2018
;
172
(
4
):
345
351
28.
Patrick
SW
,
Slaughter
JC
,
Harrell
FE
Jr
, et al
.
Development and validation of a model to predict neonatal abstinence syndrome
.
J Pediatr
.
2021
;
229
:
154
160.e6
29.
Wachman
EM
,
Warden
AH
,
Thomas
Z
, et al
.
Impact of psychiatric medication co-exposure on neonatal abstinence syndrome severity
.
Drug Alcohol Depend
.
2018
;
192
:
45
50

Supplementary data