Abstract:Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother–infant relationship, sleep–wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems. To assess the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative versus control (placebo, usual treatment or non‐pharmacological treatment) for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids and determine which type of sedative is most effective and safe for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids. We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi‐randomised trials We included trials enrolling infants with NAS born to mothers with an opioid dependence with more than 80% follow‐up and using randomised, quasi‐randomised and cluster‐randomised allocation to sedative or control. Three review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 10 trials (581 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. There were multiple comparisons of different sedatives and regimens. There were limited data available for use in sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias. Phenobarbital versus supportive care: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with phenobarbital and supportive care versus supportive care alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 7.94; 62 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). No infant had a clinical seizure. The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and treatment from use of phenobarbital (hospitalisation: mean difference (MD) 20.80, 95% CI 13.64 to 27.96; treatment: MD 17.90, 95% CI 11.98 to 23.82; both 62 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus diazepam: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus diazepam (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.62; 139 participants; 2 studies; low‐certainty evidence). The studies did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation and treatment (hospitalisation: MD 3.89, 95% CI –1.20 to 8.98; 32 participants; treatment: MD 4.30, 95% CI –0.73 to 9.33; 31 participants; both low‐certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 138 participants; 2 studies; very low‐certainty evidence), and no infant had a seizure. The studies did not report mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation (MD 7.00, 95% CI –3.51 to 17.51; 87 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and 0/100 infants had an adverse event. Phenobarbital and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported no infants with treatment failure and no clinical seizures in either group (low‐certainty evidence). The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be a reduction in days' hospitalisation for infants treated with phenobarbital and opioid (MD –43.50, 95% CI –59.18 to –27.82; 20 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Clonidine and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with clonidine and dilute tincture of opium (DTO) versus DTO alone (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 80 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). All five infants with treatment failure were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in seizures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68; 80 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). All three infants with seizures were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in mortality after discharge (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 131.28; 80 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). All three deaths were in the clonidine and DTO group. The study did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be little or no difference in days' treatment (MD –4.00, 95% CI –8.33 to 0.33; 80 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). One adverse event occurred in the clonidine and DTO group. There may be little or no difference in rebound NAS after stopping treatment, although all seven cases were in the clonidine and DTO group. Clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid: there may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.25; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). One study reported one infant -Abstract Truncated-

Clonidine Clearance Matures Rapidly During the Early Postnatal Period: a Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis in Newborns with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

Clonidine as Monotherapy for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome: A Randomized Trial

Stability study of a clonidine oral solution in a novel vehicle designed for pediatric patients

Physicochemical and Microbiological Stability of Compounded Clonidine Hydrochloride Oral Liquid Dosage Forms in PCCA Base, SuspendIt®

Effects of transdermal clonidine in young and elderly patients with mild hypertension: evaluation by three noninvasive methods of blood pressure measurement

Population pharmacokinetics of cisapride in neonates

Physicochemical and microbiological stability of two new oral liquid formulations of clonidine hydrochloride for pediatric patients

Identification of a Conversion Factor for Dexmedetomidine to Clonidine Transitions

In Vitro and in Vivo Characterization of A Newly Developed Clonidine Transdermal Patch for Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children

Effects of a newly developed transdermal clonidine delivery system (M-5041T) on EEG sleep-wake cycle in relation to plasma concentration in rabbits

Sedatives for opioid withdrawal in newborn infants.

Inpatient Growth in Infants Requiring Pharmacologic Treatment for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome

Changes in plasma and urinary norepinephrine following transdermal clonidine in spontaneously hypertensive rats

The USA experience with the clonidine transdermal therapeutic system

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of oral (Catapres) and transdermal (M-5041T) clonidine in healthy subjects

Effects of clonidine on diuretic response in ascitic patients with cirrhosis and activation of sympathetic nervous system

Salivary Therapeutic Monitoring of Buprenorphine in Neonates After Maternal Sublingual Dosing Guided by Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling

Effects of 24 CYP2D6 Variants Found in Chinese Population on the Metabolism of Clonidine in Vitro

280: Pregnancy Alters the Pharmacokinetics of Sublingual Buprenorphine

Drug Clearance in Neonates: A Combination of Population Pharmacokinetic Modelling and Machine Learning Approaches to Improve Individual Prediction

Long-term treatment with transdermal clonidine in mild hypertension