Evaluating Definitions for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.
Journal
Pediatrics
ISSN: 1098-4275
Titre abrégé: Pediatrics
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376422
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
accepted:
25
09
2020
pubmed:
4
12
2020
medline:
11
5
2021
entrez:
3
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
National estimates indicate that the incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), a postnatal opioid withdrawal syndrome, increased more than fivefold between 2004 and 2016. There is no gold standard definition for capturing NAS across clinical, research, and public health settings. Our objective was to evaluate how different definitions of NAS modify the calculated incidence when applied to a known population of opioid-exposed infants. Data for this retrospective cohort study were obtained from opioid-exposed infants born at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in 2018. Six commonly used clinical and surveillance definitions of opioid exposure and NAS were applied to the study population and evaluated for accuracy in assessing clinical withdrawal. A total of 121 opioid-exposed infants met the criteria for inclusion in our study. The proportion of infants who met criteria for NAS varied by predefined definition, ranging from 17.4% for infants who received morphine to 52.8% for infants with the diagnostic code for opioid exposure. Twenty-eight infants (23.1%) received a clinical diagnosis of NAS by a medical provider, and 38 (34.1%) received the diagnostic code for NAS at discharge. We found significant variability in the incidence of opioid exposure and NAS among a single-center population using 6 common definitions. Our findings suggest a need to develop a gold standard definition to be used across clinical, research, and public health surveillance settings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
National estimates indicate that the incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), a postnatal opioid withdrawal syndrome, increased more than fivefold between 2004 and 2016. There is no gold standard definition for capturing NAS across clinical, research, and public health settings. Our objective was to evaluate how different definitions of NAS modify the calculated incidence when applied to a known population of opioid-exposed infants.
METHODS
Data for this retrospective cohort study were obtained from opioid-exposed infants born at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in 2018. Six commonly used clinical and surveillance definitions of opioid exposure and NAS were applied to the study population and evaluated for accuracy in assessing clinical withdrawal.
RESULTS
A total of 121 opioid-exposed infants met the criteria for inclusion in our study. The proportion of infants who met criteria for NAS varied by predefined definition, ranging from 17.4% for infants who received morphine to 52.8% for infants with the diagnostic code for opioid exposure. Twenty-eight infants (23.1%) received a clinical diagnosis of NAS by a medical provider, and 38 (34.1%) received the diagnostic code for NAS at discharge.
CONCLUSIONS
We found significant variability in the incidence of opioid exposure and NAS among a single-center population using 6 common definitions. Our findings suggest a need to develop a gold standard definition to be used across clinical, research, and public health surveillance settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33268396
pii: peds.2020-007393
doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-007393
pmc: PMC7780959
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : K23 DA038720
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : R01 DA045729
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 May;39(5):764-767
pubmed: 32364857
JAMA. 2012 May 9;307(18):1934-40
pubmed: 22546608
J Perinatol. 2006 Jan 1;26(1):15-7
pubmed: 16355103
J Pediatr. 2018 Dec;203:185-189
pubmed: 30220442
JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Aug 1;172(8):741-748
pubmed: 29913015
Adv Neonatal Care. 2019 Apr;19(2):138-144
pubmed: 30855311
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1975 Jun;14(6):592-4
pubmed: 1126108
Hosp Pediatr. 2019 Aug;9(8):643-648
pubmed: 31366572
Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):
pubmed: 30514781
Curr Opin Pediatr. 2018 Apr;30(2):182-186
pubmed: 29346142
Pediatr Clin North Am. 2019 Apr;66(2):353-367
pubmed: 30819342
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015 Feb 13;64(5):125-8
pubmed: 25674995
Am J Public Health. 2019 Sep;109(9):1193-1197
pubmed: 31318590
J Pediatr. 2018 Aug;199:151-157.e1
pubmed: 29754866
Pediatrics. 2012 Feb;129(2):e540-60
pubmed: 22291123
Pediatrics. 2019 Mar;143(3):
pubmed: 30655335
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Jan 11;68(1):6-10
pubmed: 30629576
Pediatrics. 2014 Aug;134(2):e547-61
pubmed: 25070299
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Apr 1;3(4):e202275
pubmed: 32267513
Pediatrics. 2018 Apr;141(4):
pubmed: 29572288
Pediatrics. 2015 May;135(5):842-50
pubmed: 25869370
Acta Paediatr. 2019 Feb;108(2):271-274
pubmed: 29972601
Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):
pubmed: 30166364