Tag: Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome

  • Every 15 Minutes A Baby Dependent On Opioids Is Born

    Every 15 Minutes A Baby Dependent On Opioids Is Born

    New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof says drug executives should be held accountable for the growing number of infants born addicted to opioids.

    Instead of being lovingly swaddled and rocked in the first day of life, thousands of American infants are being treated for opioid withdrawal almost immediately after birth, a condition caused by exposure to opioids when they were in the womb. 

    At Charleston Area Medical Center in Charleston, West Virginia, neonatologist Stefan Maxwell says that up to 14 percent of babies are born dependent on opioids, according to The New York Times. Often, these infants experience painful and dangerous withdrawal symptoms that themselves need to be treated with opioids like methadone or morphine that can be tapered over the course of weeks. 

    “He’s frantic,” Maxwell said of one infant. “Baby isn’t sleeping, isn’t eating, isn’t growing. It’s a disaster.”

    Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS)

    Writing for the Times, columnist Nicholas Kristof detailed the prevalence of neonatal abstinence syndrome. The rise in rates of the condition can’t just be blamed on women who use drugs while pregnant. A system that peddled opioids and a healthcare system that woefully underfunds treatment are also to blame, he writes.  

    “Pharmaceutical executives are battling lawsuits by blaming drug users. I wish those executives had to cuddle these infants who, partly because of their reckless greed, suffer so much,” Kristof writes. “These drug-addicted newborns are suffering partly because of Johnson & Johnson, McKinsey, Purdue Pharma, McKesson and many other companies; these babies are a reminder of why corporate regulation is essential.”

    Neonatologist Cody Smith, who practices at Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, West Virginia, said most mothers are helpless in the face of addiction. Nearly all of them have unplanned pregnancies, and few have the resources to deal with their own trauma and mental health conditions, so they continue to use opioids while pregnant. 

    “Lots of these moms are very well meaning,” he said. “The vast majority of these moms love their babies, and they feel a tremendous amount of guilt.”

    Toll on Healthcare Providers

    Maxwell said that caring for infants in such destress can take a toll on healthcare providers. “Nurses are in tears at the end of a shift,” he said. 

    Kristof calls for punishing those at the root of the addiction epidemic, as well as providing support for vulnerable women and babies. 

    “We need accountability, as well as deterrence,” he writes. “That means sending executives to prison along with other big drug dealers, and ensuring that shareholders in these companies suffer as well.”

    He continues, “Anyone doubting the need for tougher accountability, and for a far more robust public health approach to address drug use, should visit one of these nurseries and see babies suffering withdrawal.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Using Naltrexone During Pregnancy Can Benefit Infants, Moms

    Using Naltrexone During Pregnancy Can Benefit Infants, Moms

    A new study found that naltrexone was more effective than buprenorphine at preventing overdose during pregnancy.

    Using naltrexone to treat pregnant women who have opioid use disorder can benefit both mother and child and reduce the chances of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), according to a study released this week. 

    The study, published in the journal Clinical Therapeutics, compared outcomes for mothers and babies when the mothers were treated with naltrexone (known by the brand name Vivitrol), compared with a group of mothers who were treated with buprenorphine.

    Naltrexone vs. Buprenorphine

    The study was small, with just six mothers treated with naltrexone and 12 treated with buprenorphine. However, the results were powerful. They showed that none of the infants whose mothers had been treated with naltrexone experienced neonatal abstinence syndrome.

    On the other hand, 92% of the infants whose mothers used buprenorphine showed signs of neonatal abstinence syndrome, and 46% required medications to treat their withdrawal symptoms. 

    Eighty-three percent of mothers treated with naltrexone were able to initiate breastfeeding. 

    The study also found that naltrexone was more effective at preventing overdose during pregnancy, which is one of the biggest risk factors for the health of women and their fetuses.

    All of the women taking naltrexone abstained from illicit opioid use during their pregnancy, but 23% of the women being treated with buprenorphine relapsed during their pregnancy. The authors noted in a news release that the most important aspect of treating opioid use disorder during pregnancy is keeping the mothers stable on their medication to decrease any risk of relapse.

    “While these study results are preliminary, the outcomes we observed for both mother and baby when naltrexone is used to treat opioid use disorder during pregnancy are promising,” said study author Dr. Elisha Wachman, a neonatologist at Boston Medical Center. 

    Wachman said that there needs to be more study that compares long-term outcomes.

    “Our findings support the need for a larger multi-center study examining the long-term maternal and child safety and efficacy outcomes of naltrexone during pregnancy,” she said. “If those studies yield positive outcomes for both mother and baby, continuing women on naltrexone during their pregnancy could be another safe approach to treat opioid use disorder.”

    Over the past 10 years, the number of babies born dependent on opioids has increased five-fold. For these infants, the symptoms of neonatal abstinence syndrome appear in the first few days of life, and can include trouble eating, muscle rigidity, and an inability to be soothed.

    Up to 80% of babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome require medications—including morphine, methadone and buprenorphine—to treat their symptoms. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Pregnant and Scared to Get Treatment: When Conception Meets Addiction

    Pregnant and Scared to Get Treatment: When Conception Meets Addiction

    If one needs proof that addiction is a disease and not a moral failing, look into the eyes of a woman who knows her behavior is harming her baby but still can’t stop.

    With one in three individuals with opioid use disorder passing through the criminal justice system annually, court dockets across the country are overflowing with cases of illegal behavior fueled by addiction. Though such cases wrangle with the complexities of punishing individuals afflicted with what is increasingly seen as a disease that erodes free will, they are the bread and butter of the legal system. However, the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case known as In the Interest of L.J.B. adds another level of intricacy to the court’s decision-making process. The question asked in the case—Does drug use during pregnancy constitute child abuse? —is unpleasant to contemplate, but it is one of absolute importance.

    The defendant in the case, a woman referred to as A.A.R., tested positive for illicit opioids, benzodiazepines, and marijuana when she gave birth to her infant, L.J.B., in January 2017. L.J.B. then required 19 days of inpatient treatment for drug withdrawal and was placed in the custody of Children and Youth Services, which alleged that her mother’s drug use during pregnancy was child abuse. On December 28, in a 5-2 decision, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of L.J.B.’s mother, stating that Pennsylvania’s child abuse law clearly excludes fetuses in its definition of a child. While the issue may be settled in Pennsylvania, there is little doubt that similar cases will be heard across the country amidst the opioid epidemic.

    Pregnant Women with Opioid Addiction — Overlooked and Undertreated

    The case of L.J.B. and her mother has drawn national attention to women who simultaneously carry a child and the burden of an addiction—a group that has often been overlooked or ignored in the national discussions about the opioid epidemic. Few individuals in our society bear such a stigma as these women. As an addiction psychiatrist, I’ve heard harsher judgment passed on these patients—even from fellow healthcare workers—than on any others. This stigma permeates our medical and legal systems, creating dire consequences not only for these women, but also for their unborn children.

    Pregnancy is unparalleled in its ability to motivate women towards healthier behavior, but approximately four percent of pregnant women still use addictive drugs. When I’m asked to evaluate a woman who is pregnant, I know her disease is severe before I’ve even laid eyes on her. If one needs proof that addiction is a disease and not a moral failing, look into the eyes of a woman who knows her behavior is harming her baby but still can’t stop. There is no better example of the ability of a chemical to overpower the deepest-rooted human instincts.

    A recent report released by the CDC revealed that opioid addiction among women in labor quadrupled from 1999 to 2014, signifying the need for immediate action. Opioid addiction during pregnancy can create many problems for mother and child, including preterm labor, neonatal abstinence syndrome, and even fetal death. Tragically, pregnant women with addictions are less likely to receive prenatal care. Aware of society’s disdain, many don’t want to be stigmatized at the doctor’s office. Some mothers-to-be can’t even find a physician willing to treat them, and others are afraid of being reported to authorities due to laws that have arisen out of prejudice and misinformation.

    Harsh Laws Harm Mother and Child

    Twenty-three states already consider drug use during pregnancy child abuse. In three states, it’s grounds for involuntary civil commitment. Though some people think such laws deter women from using drugs during pregnancy, they don’t. If a woman’s addiction is so severe that it is active during pregnancy, laws that threaten arrest or loss of custody will not bring about remission. They also rarely bring about legal punishment, since the charges are dismissed or the convictions are overturned 85 percent of the time.

    All that these laws do is cause pregnant women with addictions to avoid prenatal care visits or forego them all together. Tennessee discovered this the hard way, when it passed a law in 2014 making drug use during pregnancy punishable by up to a year in prison. The number of pregnant women seeking treatment for addictions fell drastically because they were too afraid of the legal ramifications. Thankfully, the law expired in 2016, but Tennessee’s legislature is now considering passage of a similar bill.

    How to Help Pregnant Women with Addictions and Their Children

    If our actual desire is to help pregnant women with addictions and their children, there are effective actions we can take. We can start with repealing counterproductive laws, and, as funding is being allocated to counter the opioid epidemic, we can earmark portions of it for these patients and create more treatment options for them. Only 19 states have programs specifically targeting the unique needs of pregnant women, and only 17 provide them with priority access to state-funded addiction treatment programs.

    Healthcare providers can help by addressing their own stigma and stepping up to provide treatment to this vulnerable group. These women already face significant barriers to care, so finding a willing and caring healthcare provider shouldn’t be another challenge to overcome. There are also ways to avoid tragic situations like this in the first place. Out of all pregnancies in women with opioid addictions, eighty-six percent are unintended, so ensuring access to affordable and effective family planning services is essential.

    For addicted women with unborn children, an invitation into care is far more effective than any legal threat we can muster. Let’s dispense with negative attitudes and legal barriers that keep these patients from seeking treatment. Ensuring that help is available when needed is the way forward, because the only way to aid an unborn child is to help its mother, regardless of how her actions might make us feel. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • New Bill Targets Pregnant Women With Addiction

    New Bill Targets Pregnant Women With Addiction

    “This bill’s intent is to protect babies, period,” said the Tennessee bill’s original sponsor. 

    A bill that calls for the punishment of women who use drugs while pregnant is being introduced to the Tennessee legislature.

    House Bill 1168 was recently filed by Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver (R-Lancaster) and Sen. Janice Bowling (R-Tullahoma). The bill states that if a woman uses an illegal narcotic while pregnant and if the child is born harmed or drug-dependent, the mother could be charged with assault.

    The bill does allow that if the woman completes an addiction recovery program, the charges may be lessened.

    The term “addicted babies” is used in the bill but is considered inaccurate and stigmatizing.

    Dr. Jana Burson, an opioid addiction treatment specialist and outspoken advocate for methadone and buprenorphine, explains the issue: “According to our definition of addiction… you have to have the psychological component of craving or obsession. By definition infants are not able to experience addiction.”

    “This bill’s intent is to protect babies, period,” State Rep. Weaver said. “The number of babies born addicted to drugs, it has not decreased. It has exponentially increased.”

    Voices raised against the bill include Erika Lathon, public relations manager of Addiction Campuses. “We believe that perhaps the bill is well-intentioned, we all want to compel pregnant women who have an addiction to reach out and get treatment and to get help to get into an effective program, but we believe this law could really do the opposite.”

    Lathon would like to see money invested into addiction treatment rehabilitation centers and other drug addiction outreach programs. “Rather than throwing them into jail and then giving them a bunch of legal problems to deal with, a child going into foster care. All of these things is going to cost taxpayers more money on the back end,” Lathon pointed out.

    “A pregnant woman who is battling an addiction is already facing a tremendous amount of stigma and has a number of problems to deal with and then you add on top of that the possibility of her being prosecuted and thrown into jail, we believe that is going to push them further away, make the woman less likely to say, ‘Yes I have a problem, yes I’m addicted, yes I need help,’” Lathon said.

    WTHR reported that if the bill is made into law, it will go into effect on July 1.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • The Problem with "Addicted Babies"

    The Problem with "Addicted Babies"

    The “addicted baby” issue is not simply linguistic. You’re not just contributing to stigma when you use this term, you’re misrepresenting medical facts.

    “She was born addicted, but without methadone, she may never have been born at all.”

    That was the last sentence of my first published article with a major media outlet, Vox. The story was about giving birth to my elder daughter while on methadone. The “she” was my newborn daughter. I was terrified to “come out” as a methadone patient, something I’d hid from my family and friends even through my daughter’s prolonged hospitalization and the child welfare investigation that was triggered by her neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), but I was also excited to be published by Vox — and rightfully so. This story would effectively launch my freelance writing and journalism career. What I didn’t realize at the time was that my first big article was factually inaccurate.

    It’s embarrassing, now that I know better, to realize I contributed to a harmful, widespread misunderstanding of addiction as equivalent to dependency. My editor on that story and I have since agreed to a correction in the terminology — but this story garnered enough attention to end up in my then-treatment counselor’s addiction newsletter and to land me a spot on the NPR podcast All Sides With Ann Fisher. Both appearances were well before that correction was made.

    A story that once brought me immense pride now fills me with shame as I remember the stigmatizing mistake I made when I first wrote it, but I remind myself that it was a personal essay — my first major one — and I was simply echoing the language I’d heard over and over again everywhere, from the neonatal intensive care unit where my daughter was treated for NAS to NBC, and even former incarnations of the New York Times. What some of these outlets are finally realizing is that reporting infants as “born addicted to drugs” is, effectively, fake news.

    Doctor Jana Burson, an opioid addiction treatment specialist and outspoken advocate for methadone and buprenorphine, summarizes the issue like this: “According to our definition of addiction…you have to have the psychological component of craving or obsession. By definition infants are not able to experience addiction.”

    Have you ever seen a baby beg for more morphine from her crib, or crawl across the NICU to snatch a dose from another infant? Do you see evidence that they are ruminating over opioids, or that they even understand their discomfort is tied to opioids? Do any infants ever require methadone or buprenorphine maintenance once their physical dependency symptoms have declined, in order to manage psychological addiction and prevent harmful, compulsive drug use?

    Of course, the answer to all of these questions is “No.” Infants born to mothers taking prescribed or non-prescribed opioids are sometimes born with a physical dependency on opioids. This means they will experience physical withdrawal, and may require extra comfort and possibly even titrated doses of opioids to wean them down. Their bodies will tense up, they’ll be extra cranky and have loose stools, and other symptoms of physical distress. It’s a painful experience, and my heart broke watching my own daughter go through it, but the fact remains: neither my daughter nor any other infant is born with an addiction.

    An infant capable of experiencing addiction would be remarkable for reasons far beyond the addiction; she would have capabilities of thought, expression, and action so far advanced beyond any infant born thus far that the government would probably snatch her up for extraterrestrial gene testing! In all seriousness, a baby who could ruminate about drugs, understand consequences, and then intentionally self-administer drugs despite those consequences would be a genius with super-strength. This baby is impossible outside of the X-Men Universe.

    So why do so many media outlets, legal professionals, and even some treatment providers continue to use this incorrect language? In part, it’s probably due to the very thing that makes the language problematic: it’s highly stigmatizing. And stigmatizing, unfortunately, equals drama. Which headline grabs your attention more? “The Number of Babies Born Addicted to Drugs Skyrockets” or “Babies Born with Opioid Dependencies on the Rise.” One is true, one is not, but the one that is not will probably get many more clicks. The consequences of this mischaracterization go beyond delivering incorrect information. “Any time you misstate facts or exaggerate, as many news outlets have, it increases the stigma and makes the problem worse because mothers feel more shame and they’re less likely to seek care…they’ll get less prenatal care because of it,” says Burson.

    Sensationalizing a medical disorder to sell papers or clicks has other real world consequences. Many medications have the potential to cause dependency and for that dependency to transfer from a pregnant woman to her baby. But we don’t say that babies born to moms taking anti-depressants are drug addicted, even though some of them will also experience a mild form of NAS. So why do we say it about babies born to moms who take methadone or buprenorphine, which are the gold standard of care for opioid use disorder for pregnant and non-pregnant patients?

    When you make a mother feel like she is going to turn her child into a “drug addict” by taking these medicines, you scare her from seeking treatment. The problem with that, of course, is that she remains at high risk for illicit drug use, which may cause a dependency in her child but also has other complications, like a heightened risk of miscarriage or stillbirth.

    Pregnant women aren’t the only ones who are harmed by the false equation of addiction with dependence. A lot of people think that people who take methadone or buprenorphine are just trading one addiction for another. In fact, methadone and buprenorphine will continue an opioid dependency, but are evidence-based treatments for opioid addiction approved by the World Health Organization and the FDA.

    This misconception leaks into correctional facilities and drug courts. Most jails and prisons forcibly detox methadone and buprenorphine patients, and many drug court judges disallow their use, even going so far as to order patients to taper off their medication. The false equivalency also harms other opioid patients. Across the country, people who require opioids to manage pain are being taken off their medications as doctors scamper to avoid being labeled “pill mills” or enablers of addiction. In some cases, the pain and withdrawal are so unbearable, these patients commit suicide.

    Because of this stigma, the debate about whether the press should use the term “addicted baby” has been lumped in with other language-centered debates, like whether or not the word “addict” is offensive. Personally, I think that news outlets should absolutely use person-first and medically-based language when talking about people who experience addiction. “Person with a substance use disorder” is a little clunkier than “addict,” but it’s worth it to relieve the sting and prejudice that’s associated with “addict.” But the “addicted baby” issue is not simply linguistic. You’re not just contributing to stigma when you use this term, you’re misrepresenting medical facts.

    It is the job of the press to disseminate the truth. Sometimes mistakes get made, like in my personal essay for Vox when I referred to my daughter as having been born addicted. That’s why we have a process for submitting corrections. When news outlets use terms like “drug addicted babies” or “baby addicts,” they’re misrepresenting the truth, which means they’re not doing their job

    If ever a “baby addict” comes into existence, there will be a far bigger story than the one about her addiction. Until we enter the age of superhumans, however, it is imperative that media outlets perform the most basic function of their job by delivering the actual facts. Babies born to mothers on methadone, buprenorphine, or other opioids may be born with a dependency on opioids. They are not born addicted.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Lawsuits Aim To Benefit Kids Born Dependent On Opioids

    Lawsuits Aim To Benefit Kids Born Dependent On Opioids

    One West Virginia law firm is reviewing up to 200 cases of children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). 

    Last year, dozens of lawsuits were filed against pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors for the role they play in the opioid crisis.

    Many were filed by states and cities in an attempt to recoup the costs they’ve shouldered as the result of what they say were irresponsible prescribing and misleading marketing of opioid pain pills. 

    Now, a movement is at hand to try to recoup damages for the hundreds of infants born dependent on opioids, many of whom will have life-long health affects. 

    “I really think that we lose the real human toll that the opioid crisis has taken if we’re not bringing cases on behalf of actual human beings who were victimized by the flood of pills that were pumped in here,” Booth Goodwin, an attorney in Charleston, West Virginia, told The Charleston Gazette-Mail.

    Goodwin’s firm, Goodwin & Goodwin LLP, is reviewing up to 200 cases of children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). 

    Goodwin has already lodged a lawsuit on behalf of Andriana Riling, an 11-year-old from West Virginia who has NAS and is being raised by her grandparents.

    “Her case is just kind of typical for what you hear from throughout Southern West Virginia,” Goodwin said. “She lost her father even before she was born in a drug-related car accident. Her birth mother is hopelessly addicted to pills and opioids in general.”

    The lawsuit alleges that Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Solutions and Pharmaceuticals, McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen and Mallinckrodt all bear responsibility for Riling’s condition for their role in making and distributing the opioids that Riling’s mother took during her pregnancy. 

    Although most of the lawsuits against the opioid manufacturers and distributors have been lumped together under the jurisdiction of a federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio, Goodwin argues that cases involving children with NAS should remain separate so that the unique details of each case can be shown, rather than lumping them together in a class action suit. 

    “Each one of them is affected a little bit different,” he said. “And we want to make sure that we focus on each one of these individual children.”

    He said that the individual cases will focus more on the specific ways these children have been affected by the practices of the companies that are named as defendants. The federal case in Ohio will focus more on the overarching — and perhaps illegal — practices that companies had in place. Because of that, Goodwin’s firm filed a motion to keep Riling’s case from being combined with the Cleveland cases. 

    “The complaint contains very specific allegations, unique to this case, with respect to prescribing doctors and pharmacies,” attorneys wrote when they requested that the case be heard separately. “Although there are generalized facts at issue in both [the Cleveland cases] and the Rilings’ case regarding the reprehensible conduct of the defendants, this overlap is minor.”

    They continued, “[The Cleveland cases] potentially involve comparative fault on the part of the plaintiffs, while Riling, a child born opioid dependent, is an innocent victim who is inherently and completely blameless.”

    While Goodwin waits to hear whether the case will be heard on its own, his law firm is continuing to look for children with NAS, which affected up to 5% of births in West Virginia during the peak years of the opioid epidemic. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Promising New Treatments for Opioid-Dependent Babies

    Promising New Treatments for Opioid-Dependent Babies

    Compassionate care for the mothers was crucial to positive outcomes for opioid-dependent babies.

    I gave birth to my daughter in late January of 2014. It was the kind of birth you see in the movies—the contractions started hard and grew closer together within moments. By the time I realized I was in labor, I was already in too much pain to walk. I began needing to push while my husband was on the phone calling for an ambulance. The 911 operator had to walk him through the beginning of my daughter’s delivery. Luckily, paramedics showed up to take over while she was still crowning. The lieutenant who delivered her said it was her first completed childbirth. I will never forget holding my newborn daughter in the elevator while we rode down to the ambulance, or how the entire labor and delivery staff burst into applause when we wheeled into the hospital. But the joy and pride of my wild, badass childbirth was quickly replaced by a deep sense of guilt.

    Within hours, my daughter began showing symptoms of opioid withdrawal—symptoms like rigid limbs, sneezing, and a sharp, screeching cry that burrowed into my belly and filled me with self-loathing. The withdrawal was from methadone, which I was prescribed and taking under a doctor’s supervision. Methadone has been the gold standard of care for pregnant people with opioid dependencies since the 1960s. I did the right thing. Still, watching my newborn daughter go through withdrawal was excruciating. Unfortunately, the treatment she and I received at the hospital—after that initial congratulatory applause—did not make the experience easier.

    My daughter’s level of discomfort was rated using the same system used by the majority of U.S. hospitals. It’s called the Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Scoring Tool (though its inventor, Dr. Loretta Finnegan, notes with a laugh that her name was tacked onto it later without her knowledge). It consists of a comprehensive list of observable newborn withdrawal symptoms. Hospital staff, usually treating nurses, observe the babies every four hours and tally up the number of listed symptoms they observe. Each symptom is a point, and the overall score for that observation period is used to determine how to move forward with treatment. Usually a score above eight means the infant should begin an opiate wean, or have his dose raised if he has already been started on medication.

    The scoring system is the product of meticulous observations recorded by Finnegan in the early 1970s, when babies were dying from opioid withdrawal simply because nobody knew how to define and treat it. But in 2014, when my daughter was subject to it, and when her scores caused her to be sent to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) to be medicated with titrated doses of morphine for over a month by staff who were less than welcoming to me, I resented the Finnegan Score. Other methadone and buprenorphine-dependent mothers whom I have spoken with have related similar discontent with the system. Usually, the complaints center around variability between the way that different nurses score the babies, or at having their babies sent to the NICU. It turns out, the way some of these hospitals use the scoring system is not in keeping with best practice, according to its creator.

    Loretta Finnegan, who is now the Executive Officer of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, says that inter-rater reliability is key to correct usage of the tool, and recommends that hospitals which use it conduct re-orientations “a minimum of every six months.” She also doesn’t believe that the modern NICU set-up is appropriate for babies who are experiencing NAS without other complications. In fact, she says that “the NICU is the worst place for these babies,” because of the overstimulation caused by the noise and bright lights. Finnegan puts out a training manual, and gives recommendations for the care of infants include swaddling, non-nutritive sucking, decreased stimulation, and plenty of access to mom. When she was doing her clinical work in Philadelphia, she says they “had [their] moms come in every day,” and that “compassionate care for the mothers” was crucial to positive outcomes for the babies. If I had received treatment more in line with Finnegan’s protocols, I probably would have resented the scoring system—and my daughter’s extended hospital stay—a lot less, and I suspect that other mothers would agree.

    But besides providing better training to staff who are using the current standard NAS protocol, there are a couple of promising new tools for NAS that could help decrease hospital stays for infants, and promote better trust between parents and hospital staff. One of these tools, developed by Matthew Grossman, M.D., an assistant professor of pediatrics at Yale School of Medicine, is called “Eat, Sleep, Console.”

    Renee Rushka gave birth to her daughter in July 2018, while taking methadone prescribed for opioid addiction. Her daughter was treated for NAS at Danbury Hospital in Connecticut. She says that they used the Finnegan NAS Scoring System to assess her baby, but they also performed another form of assessment. Although she says she never heard the term “Eat, Sleep, Console,” and she can’t remember the exact measures, she describes a protocol that sounds very much like the system first developed and researched by Grossman in 2014.

    Grossman’s system essentially measures exactly what the name implies—whether the baby is eating at least one ounce of milk, whether the baby can sleep for an hour straight, and whether she can be consoled within 10 minutes of becoming fussy. The protocol suggests maternal contact and non-pharmacological approaches whenever possible. Pharmacological intervention is indicated based on the infant’s level of functioning and comfort, rather than with the goal of reducing all withdrawal symptoms. According to Grossman’s trial conducted at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital, only 12% of infants required morphine therapy, as opposed to 61% using the Finnegan system (though the study does not tell us whether they used it the way Finnegan herself recommends), and it significantly reduced the length of stay for many of the babies.

    Rushka reports that her experience with the combined Finnegan and ESC-like approach was extremely positive. She brought her baby home, healthy, after five days, having required zero medication intervention. She also notes that she did not feel judged by the staff, and even recalls receiving compliments and affirmations about her recovery—pointing toward the compassionate, inclusive approach that both Finnegan and Grossman deem crucial to the care of opioid-dependent infants. Finnegan expresses concerns that inter-rater reliability might also be an issue should ESC become more wide-spread, in part because of the design simplicity. But she’s definitely in favor of various treatments being designed for NAS. “In most diseases there are many ways to treat them,” she notes, adding, “I just need to see more proof [that ESC works.]”

    Another promising new tool for treating NAS takes a surprising form. It’s a crib called SNOO, whose designer was not initially thinking about NAS at all—his goal was to reduce Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Pediatrician Harvey Karp says that the crib can not only sense when a baby is in distress, but also what level of distress he’s experiencing—and will rock and emit soothing sounds to help calm the baby, similar to a human caregiver, but all while the real caregiver gets some much-needed rest. Karp says that “NAS babies are more skewed to the irritable side,” then, “the more sciencey way of saying it is that they have poor state control…basically you take a child with terrible state control and give them the rhythmic stimulation they need to get down to a calmer state…it’s so important to our neurology that even adults calm down this way; it’s not an accident we fall asleep in planes, trains, and cars. It’s an echo to this ancient, ancient response to the normal womb sensation.”

    Currently, Mark Waltzman, Chief of Pediatrics at South Shore Hospital in Boston, is conducting a study to test the efficacy of the SNOO in reducing distress in babies with NAS. He’s also using Grossman’s Eat, Sleep, Console tool to assess the babies’ level of discomfort. Waltzman’s study is still enrolling, so there’s no data available yet, but he is hopeful that SNOO will offer a relatively simple, non-pharmacological approach to treating the discomfort associated with NAS.

    It has been almost five years since my elder daughter was treated for NAS. Mothers across the country still report complaints similar to the ones I had then—but there are also moms like Rushka who are finding community and support in the hospitals where their babies are being treated. Regardless of the outcome of Waltzman’s SNOO trial, or further testing for Grossman’s Eat, Sleep, Console tool, the fact that this kind of diverse attention is being paid toward NAS—and alongside it a resurgence of the compassion toward the mothers that Finnegan first championed in the 70s—gives me a sense of much-needed hope. Maybe attitudes about addiction are making a positive shift within the medical community. Maybe, in the future, experiences like mine will be obsolete, and all opioid-dependent mothers and infants will have the compassionate care and affirmative respect enjoyed by Rushka and her daughter.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • FDA Tries To Blame Kratom In Newborn Withdrawal Case

    FDA Tries To Blame Kratom In Newborn Withdrawal Case

    The agency claims it is aware of four other NAS cases involving infants exposed to kratom in utero.

    A new case report published in the journal Pediatrics suggests that kratom was the cause of a newborn’s withdrawal symptoms. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other naysayers of the herbal supplement say this is a prime example of kratom’s potential for abuse and addiction, researchers say there’s not enough information to draw any hard conclusions.

    According to the case report, a former oxycodone user gave birth to a boy who showed signs of drug withdrawal—he was jittery, screaming, and required a morphine treatment to stay alive.

    The mother reported that she had used oxycodone for almost a decade. But she completed a treatment program and was off the drugs during her pregnancy. Indeed, no opioids were detected in a drug test.

    According to the woman’s husband, she had kratom tea every day to treat her withdrawal symptoms and help her sleep. Kratom, a plant that is native to Southeast Asia, has a fierce and loyal following of people who say it has helped them manage pain and treat opioid withdrawal.

    But people should practice caution, says lead author of the case report Dr. Whitney Eldridge, a neonatologist at BayCare Health System in Florida. “I fear that women making genuine commitments to overcome their dependency may develop a false sense of safety by using a substance that is advertised as a non-opioid alternative,” she said.

    As CNN notes, there is no explicit link between kratom and neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) made in the case report.

    There is not enough information to do so, says Dr. Andrew Kruegel, associate research scientist at Columbia University. “The main limitation is that we don’t know anything about the dosage that the mother was taking. Without that information, you can’t really extrapolate too much.” Nor was it verified—other than from the husband’s account—that the substance the mother was ingesting was indeed kratom.

    According to the FDA, the boy’s case “further illustrates the concerns the FDA has identified about kratom, including the potential for abuse and addiction.”

    The agency claims it is aware of four other NAS cases involving infants exposed to kratom in utero.

    In April, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb went so far as to state that “compounds in kratom make it so it isn’t just a plant—it’s an opioid.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Births Affected By Opioids Continue To Rise Among Rural Women

    Births Affected By Opioids Continue To Rise Among Rural Women

    “More than 60% of rural moms with opioid use disorder give birth locally. These rural hospitals may have more limited capacity to care for them and their babies.”

    The opioid epidemic has meant that more rural moms and babies are affected by drug abuse, often requiring specialized care at hospitals that are located far from home, according to a new study. 

    The study, published in the Journal of Rural Health, found that the numbers of mothers with opioid use disorder giving birth and infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome increased in rural hospitals, urban non-teaching hospitals and urban teaching hospitals. 

    Mothers who abuse opioids are at increased risks of complications during pregnancy and childbirth, including pre-term labor. At the same time, infants who are born dependent on opioids often have health issues that require a stay in the neonatal intensive care unit.

    This is significant because as the rates of maternal opioid abuse and neonatal abstinence syndrome increase, rural hospitals with fewer resources can be overwhelmed, and urban teaching hospitals—often with the best resources—see more patients from far away. 

    “Some of these rural moms, especially those with clinical complications, give birth in urban, teaching hospitals, often far from home,” said Katy Kozhimannil, associate professor in the University of Minnesota School of Public Health and director of the University of Minnesota Rural Health Research Center. “Yet, our study findings show that more than 60% of rural moms with opioid use disorder give birth locally. These rural hospitals may have more limited capacity to care for them and their babies.”

    The study found that many expectant moms with opioid use disorder are sent to urban teaching hospitals, suggesting that healthcare providers in rural settings have become adept at identifying patients with this condition and referring them to the appropriate level of care.

    In fact, rural women who gave birth in urban teaching hospitals had the highest rate of maternal opioid use disorder, at 8.9 per 1,000 deliveries, since high-risk patients are often referred to this setting. 

    However, since many women still have high-risk opioid-affected births at rural hospitals, Kozhimannil says more resources need to be made available in that setting. At rural hospitals, the rate of moms with opioid use disorder is 4.3 per 1,000 deliveries.

    “Recent policy and clinical efforts to address opioid-affected births have frequently focused on specialized capacity building within tertiary care settings, often urban teaching hospitals,” said Kozhimannil. “Yet, these results show that resources are also needed in rural hospitals that are caring for more and more opioid-affected moms and babies each year.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Should You Breastfeed Your Baby If You're on Methadone?

    Should You Breastfeed Your Baby If You're on Methadone?

    My daughter was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome but I was not allowed to nurse or have her in the room with me; the hospital staff said the methadone in my breast milk could be dangerous. They were wrong.

    Earlier this summer several news outlets reported on the death of an 11-week-old infant in Philadelphia by what appeared to be a drug overdose. The mother, who has been charged with criminal homicide, blamed the drug exposure on her breast milk. Although an autopsy revealed that the infant’s drug exposure also included amphetamine and methamphetamine, many news outlets chose to focus on the fact that the mother was a methadone patient. The death of an infant by drug exposure is unquestionably terrible; unfortunately, misleading articles make what is already a tragedy even worse by insinuating or directly stating that the methadone content in the breast milk was involved in the infant’s death.

    Stigma around methadone use in the United States has a long shadow. Prescribed primarily to treat opioid use disorder (but also sometimes for pain management), methadone is a long acting opioid that builds in the patient’s bloodstream to create a stable, non-euphoric equilibrium when used correctly. It is a highly effective form of both addiction treatment and harm reduction, shown to reduce overdose deaths by 50% or more. Unlike short acting opioids like heroin or morphine, methadone prevents patients from experiencing the physical chaos of sedation and withdrawal, and can help re-balance neurochemical changes that take place during active addiction. For decades, methadone has been considered the gold standard of treatment for opioid use disorder, including during and after pregnancy.

    But in spite of the demonstrated benefits of methadone and its pharmacological differences from commonly misused opioids, it has, for many years, acquired a popular status as “legal heroin.” Social media is flooded with memes mocking methadone patients or complaining that they don’t deserve “free methadone” when other drugs cost money (in fact, methadone has a price tag like any other medication). Even other people in recovery or the throes of active addiction disparage methadone, sometimes referring to it as “liquid handcuffs” because of the stringent regulations requiring daily trips to a clinic during the first several months of treatment.

    This stigma leaks into every aspect of patient care. For me, it prevented me from seeking treatment for years. I was terrified to get on methadone. Who would volunteer to be “handcuffed” by a treatment system? But when I learned I was pregnant, my doctors urged me to get on methadone. They said that attempting to withdraw from heroin would be dangerous for my developing baby, and continuing to use would be even riskier.

    I was reluctant, but I enrolled in a methadone maintenance program as my doctors advised. Because of that, I had a healthy, full-term pregnancy. But at the Florida-based hospital where my daughter was taken after a speedy, unplanned home birth, I was not allowed to breastfeed. My daughter suffered neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), a condition caused by opioid withdrawal that occurs in some babies whose mothers used methadone or other opioids while pregnant; she was dosed with morphine to wean her down from the methadone she received in utero, and the hospital staff told me that adding my methadone dose via breast milk could be dangerous. Because of that, my milk production dwindled, and my daughter—who stayed in the hospital over a month—never learned to properly latch. After she came home, she suffered colic, constipation, and sleep disturbances as we worked through various formulas trying to find one that was gentle on her stomach.

    But these negative ideas about methadone distribution in breast milk are flat out wrong. We know that methadone is a highly potent, long-acting opioid that is extremely dangerous if given to infants and children directly. No amount of methadone syrup should be administered to an infant or child by a parent or caregiver without physician approval. But studies have demonstrated that the amount of methadone that gets passed into breast milk is negligible, and will not harm an infant, even a newborn. A 2007 study of methadone-maintained mothers in addiction recovery found that methadone concentrations in breast milk remained minimal in the first four days postpartum, regardless of maternal dose, time of day after dosing, and type of breast milk being expressed. The daily amount of methadone ingestible by the infants did not rise above .09 mg per day. To help prevent even that slight fluctuation, John McCarthy, a practicing and teaching psychiatrist who has treated opioid-dependent pregnant and postpartum women for over 40 years, suggests splitting nursing mothers’ methadone doses in two—a measure that should have begun during pregnancy to help minimize the risk of NAS. “It’s not dangerous to nurse on a once a day dose, but it’s not the best way to give the medication. The baby should be given a smooth level of methadone.”

    Some people believe that breastfeeding an infant with NAS while on methadone will help decrease withdrawal symptoms by providing a minute amount of the same drug from which the infant is withdrawing. According to experts like Jana Burson, a doctor specializing in the treatment of opioid addiction, this belief is also false: “some mothers erroneously think their babies won’t withdraw if they breastfeed—that’s wrong. There’s not enough methadone in the breast milk to treat NAS.” Of course, breastfeeding a child who experiences NAS is beneficial, both because of the health benefits of breast milk, and because maternal contact is important for babies in distress. “Breastfeeding will help in the general sense that babies like to breastfeed and it’s calming, but not because babies are getting methadone in the breast milk.”

    Sandi C., a methadone-maintained mother based out of Massachusetts, breastfed her son for two and a half years, and plans on breastfeeding the baby she is currently expecting. Like me, Sandi was addicted to heroin when she learned she was pregnant. She began on buprenorphine, a partial-opioid agonist used similarly to methadone, and switched to methadone partway through her pregnancy. But her postnatal experience was different than mine.

    “I’m really fortunate that my area is really encouraging of breastfeeding,” says Sandi. “Actually, I wasn’t sure if I could breastfeed and [my doctor] said ‘definitely breastfeed, we encourage it.’” Like my daughter, Sandi’s son was diagnosed with NAS. But instead of being sent to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), her son was allowed to be in the hospital room with her, where Sandi could hold and breastfeed him as much as he needed. Her son was released after just two weeks, less than half the time my daughter spent in the NICU at our hospital in Florida. She continued to breastfeed at home until he was over two years old.

    “He never got sedated,” she recalls. “Everything was fine.”

    Just because methadone is safe for breastfeeding moms doesn’t mean the same is true for other drugs. If the Philadelphia baby’s death was in fact caused by what many outlets have called “drug-laced breast milk,” it would have been due to the amphetamines, not the methadone. Methamphetamine breast milk exposure has not been studied as extensively as methadone, but current recommendations are that lactating women should wait 48 hours after their last use of methamphetamine before resuming breastfeeding. Experts like Burson and McCarthy agree that mothers on methadone maintenance who are not using other substances can safely breastfeed. “All of the major medical groups recommend it,” Burson said, adding, “even on higher doses they all recommend that mothers on methadone breastfeed.”

    View the original article at thefix.com