Dataset Information

A Retrospective Cohort Study Examining the Utility of Perinatal Urine Toxicology Testing to Guide Breastfeeding Initiation.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

National guidelines advise against breastfeeding for women who use nonprescribed substances in the third trimester. This reduces the number of women who are supported in breastfeeding initiation despite limited evidence on the prognostic value of third trimester substance use. We sought to examine the degree to which prenatal nonprescribed substance use is associated with non-prescribed use postpartum.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with opioid use disorder on methadone or buprenorphine between 2006 and 2015. Nonprescribed use was defined by a positive urine drug testing (UDT). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated comparing 3 prenatal periods with postpartum UDT results. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the extent to which prenatal nonprescribed use was associated with postpartum use.

Results

Included were 545 deliveries by 503 women. Mean age was 28.3 years, 88% were White/non-Hispanic, 93% had public insurance, and 43% received adequate prenatal care. The predictive value of UDT's 90 to 31 days before delivery, 30 to 0 days before delivery, and at delivery showed low sensitivity (44, 26, 27%, respectively) and positive predictive value (36, 36, 56%, respectively), but higher negative predictive value (80, 85, and 78%, respectively), P-values all <0.05. In the final adjusted model, only nonprescribed use at delivery was significantly associated with postpartum nonprescribed use.

Conclusions

Nonprescribed use at delivery was most strongly associated with postpartum use compared with earlier time periods currently prioritized in guidelines. In women with opioid use disorder prenatal UDT results alone are insufficient to guide breastfeeding decisions.

SUBMITTER: Harris M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8044259 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Several pain management guidelines recommend regular urine drug testing (UDT) in patients who are being treated with chronic opioid analgesic therapy (COAT) to monitor compliance and improve safety. Guidelines also recommend more frequent testing in patients who are at high risk of adverse events related to COAT; however, there is no consensus on how to identify high-risk patients or on the testing frequency that should be used. Using previously described clinical risk factors for UDT results that are inconsistent with the prescribed COAT, we developed a web-based tool to adjust drug testing frequency in patients treated with COAT. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to evaluate a risk stratification tool, the UDT Randomizer, to adjust UDT frequency in patients treated with COAT. METHODS:Patients were stratified using an algorithm based on readily available clinical risk factors into categories of presumed low, moderate, high, and high+ risk of presenting with UDT results inconsistent with the prescribed COAT. The algorithm was integrated in a website to facilitate adoption across practice sites. To test the performance of this algorithm, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients treated with COAT between June 2016 and June 2017. The primary outcome was compliance with the prescribed COAT as defined by UDT results consistent with the prescribed COAT. RESULTS:979 drug tests (867 UDT, 88.6%; 112 oral fluid testing, 11.4%) were performed in 320 patients. An inconsistent drug test result was registered in 76/979 tests (7.8%). The incidences of inconsistent test results across the risk tool categories were 7/160 (4.4%) in the low risk category, 32/349 (9.2%) in the moderate risk category, 28/338 (8.3%) in the high risk category, and 9/132 (6.8%) in the high+ risk category. Generalized estimating equation analysis demonstrated that the moderate risk (odds ratio (OR) 2.1, 95% CI 0.9-5.0; P=.10), high risk (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.8-5.0; P=.14), and high risk+ (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.7-5.6; P=.20) categories were associated with a nonsignificantly increased risk of inconsistency vs the low risk category. CONCLUSIONS:The developed tool stratified patients during individual visits into risk categories of presenting with drug testing results inconsistent with the prescribed COAT; the higher risk categories showed nonsignificantly higher risk compared to the low risk category. Further development of the tool with additional risk factors in a larger cohort may further clarify and enhance its performance.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough breastfeeding is almost universal in Ethiopia, only 52% newborns benefited from early initiation in 2011. Early initiation is one of the recommended interventions for saving newborn lives but its potential seems not yet realized for Ethiopian newborns and there is a need for continued efforts to increase coverage. To do so, it is also relevant to focus on consistent and accurate reporting of coverage in early initiation. WHO recommends the question "how long after birth did you first put [name] to the breast?" in order to assess coverage in early initiation. It is designed to measure the time after birth when the mother attempted to initiate breastfeeding regardless of whether breast milk had arrived or not. However, it is unclear how mothers perceive this question and what their responses of time refer to. In this study, we assessed Ethiopian mothers' perception about the question assessing early initiation.MethodsCognitive interviews were conducted between April and May 2013 with eligible mothers in Basona and Debrebirhan woredas (districts), 120 km away from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ResultsA total of 49 mothers, most from Basona (n = 36) and the rest from Debrebirhan woredas (n = 13) were interviewed. No probes or follow on questions were required for mothers to understand what the WHO recommended question was about. However, further probing was needed to ascertain what maternal responses of time refer to. Accordingly, mothers' response about the timing of early initiation was related to the first time the newborn received breast milk rather than their first attempt to initiate breastfeeding. In addition, considerable probing was required to approximate and code responses of time based on the WHO coding format because some mothers were unable to assess time in minutes or hours.ConclusionThe existing question is not adequate to identify intended attempts of mothers to initiate breastfeeding. We recommend revising the question as "how long after birth did you first put [name] to the breast even if your breast milk did not arrive yet?" Standard probes or follow on questions are required to avoid subjective interpretation of the indicator.