Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science
Visual outcome in infants born to drug-misusing mothers prescribed methadone in pregnancy Laura McGlone,1 Ruth Hamilton,2,3 Daphne L McCulloch,4 Jane R MacKinnon,5 Michael Bradnam,2,3 Helen Mactier6 For numbered affiliations see end of article. Correspondence to Dr Laura McGlone, Neonatal Unit, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Dalnair Street, Yorkhill, Glasgow G38SJ, UK; [email protected] Received 4 July 2013 Revised 6 September 2013 Accepted 23 September 2013 Published Online First 18 November 2013
ABSTRACT Background Flash visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were abnormal in a cohort of 100 neonates exposed to maintenance methadone in utero. This prospective cohort study now describes clinical visual and electrophysiological outcomes at 6 months. Methods Visual assessment included modified Atkinson test battery; strabismus, nystagmus, reduced visual acuity, delayed visual maturation or refractive error (>3 dioptres) defined a fail. Pattern-onset VEPs were recorded to 1200 , 600 and 150 checks. Results 81 drug-exposed and 26 comparison infants (79% and 52% of the original cohorts) were assessed at a median age of 27 weeks (range 26–30). 90% of drug-exposed infants had been additionally exposed to illicit drugs and 41% to excess alcohol in utero. 40% of the drug-exposed cohort failed clinical visual assessment: the relative risk of abnormal assessment was 5.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 20; p=0.02). Nystagmus was particularly common. VEP peak times were slower and amplitudes smaller in drug-exposed infants, of whom 70% had one or more abnormal VEP parameter. Abnormal visual outcome at 6 months was not associated with the pattern of additional drug exposure or a history of neonatal abstinence. Conclusions Abnormal visual electrophysiology in infants born to drug-misusing mothers prescribed maintenance methadone persists to 6 months of age, and is associated with abnormal clinical visual assessment.
INTRODUCTION
To cite: McGlone L, Hamilton R, McCulloch DL, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. 238
Illicit drug use in pregnancy is a significant medical and social problem with an estimated 250 000– 350 000 children of known problem drug users currently living in the UK.1 Management of maternal opioid misuse includes prescription of maintenance methadone, a synthetic opioid which stabilises lifestyle, lessens risk-taking behaviour and reduces the incidence of preterm birth and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR).2–4 There is increasing evidence that maternal drug misuse during pregnancy has adverse effects on infant visual outcome.5–10 Reported visual abnormalities include nystagmus, strabismus, reduced visual acuity, delayed visual maturation (DVM), impaired voluntary eye movements and absent binocular vision5–10 but the majority of studies published to date have been small and confounded by the effects of IUGR and social deprivation.5–9 Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be used to assess the maturity and integrity of the visual system even in relatively uncooperative infants11 and in a prospective cohort study of 100 infants exposed to
maintenance methadone in utero we demonstrated abnormal flash VEPs in the newborn period compared with non-exposed infants matched for birth weight and social deprivation.12 The objectives of this study were to describe the clinical visual outcomes and pattern VEPs at 6 months of age in this cohort.
METHODS This prospective cohort study was conducted at the Princess Royal Maternity in Glasgow. Eligible infants were recruited within the first 3 days of life from drug-misusing mothers prescribed substitute methadone during pregnancy, and were born between October 2008 and April 2010.12 Exclusion criteria were birth before 36 completed weeks of gestation, congenital ocular abnormality and/or significant neonatal illness. For comparative purposes, healthy, non-maternal drug-exposed infants were recruited from the postnatal wards of the same maternity unit. To correct for any potential confounding effect of birth weight, gestation or socioeconomic status, the comparison infants were matched as follows: completed week of gestation, birth weight ±250 g and socio-economic group deprivation index score (DEPCAT) ±1.12 Data collected in the neonatal period included maternal and neonatal demographics and the incidence and severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Details regarding study size are given in the paper describing neonatal outcomes from this cohort.12 Infants underwent twice daily assessment for NAS by trained midwifery staff and were scored using a modified Lipsitz score.12 NAS was defined as symptoms severe enough to require pharmacological treatment as defined by local protocol. Ethics approval was obtained prior to study commencement and informed written parental consent obtained for all participants.
Drug exposure and toxicology A confidential maternal interview was conducted immediately after study recruitment regarding drug use during pregnancy (LMcG). Maternal urine samples were collected routinely at the first antenatal hospital visit, usually at 12–16 weeks gestation, and infant urine and meconium were obtained as soon as possible after delivery. Maternal and infant urine samples were analysed using enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique assays run to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration guidelines on an Abbott Architect Analyser.13 Assays included methadone, opioids, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, cannabinoids and cocaine metabolites. Meconium samples
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science were analysed in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Science at the University of Glasgow using ELISA screening plus solid phase and liquid–liquid extraction followed by GC-mass spectrometry (MS) and LC-MS-MS for selected positives.13 Infants were classified into one of five drug exposure groups (table 1); meconium samples were also analysed for fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEEs) to identify infants exposed to excess alcohol in utero. A cut-off value of >10 000 ng/g of meconium was used to signify excess alcohol consumption in pregnancy.14
Six-month assessment All infants were invited for evaluation at 6 months of age, undertaken jointly by a paediatrician (LMcG) and one of two experienced optometrists. The latter was blinded to the infant’s group and clinical course. Follow-up assessment included: measurement of weight and occiptofrontal circumference (OFC); clinical visual assessment; and pattern-onset VEPs. Clinical visual assessment was undertaken using a modification of the Atkinson test battery of child development for examining functional vision.15 The Atkinson battery is a series of visual tests providing an integrated assessment of infant and children’s functional visual capacities drawn from practice in ophthalmology, orthoptics and developmental psychology. It provides normative data for various age groups and pass/fail criteria for each test, allowing normal visual development to be defined. Tests included: pupil response to light, diffuse light reaction, lateral tracking and observation for nystagmus, Hirshberg’s test, lateral field testing by peripheral refixation, convergence of eyes to an approaching object, defensive blink to approaching object, visual following of a falling toy, batting and reaching, near (Mohindra) retinoscopy, dynamic retinoscopy and the Cardiff acuity card test based on fixation preference. Cardiff cards are used widely in UK orthoptic practice because the vanishing optotype design gives high success rates in difficult-to-test groups, and acuities agree well with grating tests.16 Normative Cardiff acuity data show binocular acuities of 0.3–1.0 logMAR (Snellen 6/12–6/60) in 6-month-old children.16 Cardiff cards use vertical fixation preference; consequently, horizontal nystagmus does not confound the visual acuity measurement. Non-cycloplegic near retinoscopy was used to screen for media opacities and refractive errors. Retinoscopy reflexes were neutralised with handheld lenses in a dark room.17 In addition, the amplitude of accommodation was assessed with dynamic retinoscopy in a dim room using an accommodative fixation target.18 Infants were classified as ‘pass’, ‘fail’ or ‘borderline’: those with a fail or borderline assessment were referred to a paediatric ophthalmologist. A fail was defined as the presence of strabismus, nystagmus, reduced visual acuity or a refractive error of greater than 3 dioptres which was later confirmed on cycloplegic refraction and required correction with glasses. Visual acuity from the comparison group was used to define normal acuity for this age
Table 1 Drug exposure group based on history and toxicology Group
Drug exposure
1 2 3 4 5
Opioids only Opioids and cannabis Opioids and benzodiazepines Opioids, benzodiazepines and cannabis Opioids and other drug exposure including stimulants (cocaine and/or amphetamines)
group: median acuity was 0.70 logMAR, with a range of 0.50– 0.90 logMAR (Snellen 6/30, range 6/19–6/48). The poorest visual acuity, 0.90 logMAR (Snellen 6/48), was defined as the lower limit of normal. A borderline assessment was defined as minor visual abnormalities, refractive error which could not be confirmed by an ophthalmologist due to failure to attend following referral or moderate refractive error confirmed by an ophthalmologist, but not prescribed glasses and remaining under follow-up. DVM was diagnosed retrospectively in infants who had absent visual responses from birth then subsequently developed normal visual behaviour in the first 6 months of life. VEPs were recorded from the occipital scalp using silver-silver-chloride electrodes placed according to international standards.19 An Espion visual electrophysiology system (Diagnosys LLC, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA) was used to generate stimuli and record VEPs. Stimuli were black and white checkerboard onsets with check widths of 150 , 600 and 1200 alternating with a diffuse grey background of equal luminance and colour presented at one reversal per second. Six-month-old infants with normal vision were expected to demonstrate a VEP to the smallest (150 ) check size. Between 30 and 100 trials were acquired; this was repeated for each check size to assess reproducibility. All VEPs were independently assessed by an observer (RH) blinded to the infant’s group and clinical course. VEPs were categorised as present or absent: if present, the amplitudes and peak times of the major peak of the onset VEPs (C2) were measured. Absent VEPs were accorded amplitudes of zero and a worst peak time to avoid favourable group bias by elimination (rounded up to the nearest 10 ms from the longest peak time when a peak was present). Normal limits were defined using 95% reference intervals of the parameters measured from the comparison infants’ onset VEPs.
Statistics Categorical outcomes were compared between groups using χ2 tests or Fisher’s exact tests where numbers were small. Numerical data were tested for normality using Anderson– Darling tests and found to be of skewed distribution; comparisons between groups were therefore done with Mann–Whitney tests and comparisons between subgroups done with Kruskall– Wallis tests with Dunnet’s post hoc test comparisons. Logistic regression models were used to correct for the potential confounding effect of alcohol exposure on visual outcomes.
RESULTS A total of 107 infants were seen for assessment at 6 months of age: 81 drug-exposed infants and 26 comparison infants. This represented 79% and 52% respectively of the cohorts recruited at birth. Details of the neonatal outcomes of this cohort have been reported previously.12 Reasons for non-attendance included: parent/carer uncontactable (56%), did not attend a prearranged appointment on two or more occasions (24%), geographically unable to attend (7%) and declined follow-up participation (13%). The birth demographic characteristics of those comparison infants who did not attend for follow-up did not differ from those of infants who were followed up: birth weight (twosample t test p=0.45), OFC (two-sample t test p=0.71), gestation (Mann–Whitney test p=0.98), 5-min Apgar score (Mann– Whitney test p=0.26) and DEPCAT score (Mann–Whitney test p=0.26). Median age at follow-up was 27 weeks (range 26–30) for both drug-exposed and comparison groups. Mean weight and head circumference at the 6-month follow-up were slightly less
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
239
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science in the drug-exposed infants, but the differences were not significant: weight 7.52 kg (SD 1.05) versus 7.94 kg (SD 1.09) (comparison infants), two-sample t test p=0.11; head circumference 43.3 cm (SD 1.5) versus 43.8 cm (SD 1.9) (comparison infants), two-sample t test p=0.15.
Drug and alcohol exposure The majority of the methadone-exposed infants (73/81; 90%) had also been exposed to illicit drugs in utero including opioids (75%), benzodiazepines (67%), cannabis (64%) and stimulants (26%). In all, 20 out of 46 infants tested (43%) and seen at 6 months of age had elevated FAEEs in meconium indicative of exposure to excess alcohol in utero. Three comparison infants (3/18 tested, 17%) had elevated FAEEs in meconium and two infants’ samples tested positive for cannabis. No infant had a clinical diagnosis of fetal alcohol syndrome.
Visual assessment Overall, 32 (40%) of the drug-exposed cohort failed the visual assessment (table 2). All infants had visual acuity measured in a standardised way and we were confident that any motor or developmental abnormalities did not interfere with this. Horizontal nystagmus was present in nine of the drug-exposed cohort (11%); it was manifest in five infants, and in four infants nystagmus had a latent component with associated strabismus (also known as fusion maldevelopment nystagmus syndrome). One of these nine infants with nystagmus had no opioid exposure other than methadone (study # 155) and one had no benzodiazepine exposure (study # 40). Strabismus was detected in 20 drug-exposed infants (25%) of whom 12 infants had an exotropia and eight had an esotropia. Reduced visual acuity (>0.90 logMAR) was detected in 18 drug-exposed infants (22%) and associated with other ophthalmic abnormalities in 11 of these infants. Confirmed DVM was present in two infants and presumed in eight infants (a history of visual inattentiveness given by the parents/carers). After correcting for excess in utero alcohol exposure using a logistic regression model, significantly more drug-exposed infants failed the visual assessment than comparison infants: 32/ 81 versus 2/26; p=0.007. The relative risk of an abnormal visual assessment in drug-exposed infants was 5.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 20, p=0.02) giving an attributable risk of 80%. There was no association between a failed 6-month visual assessment and NAS: χ2 test; p=0.239. There was no significant difference in the proportion of drug-exposed infants in each of the five different drug exposure groups who failed the visual assessment: χ2 test; p=0.528. A further nine drug-exposed infants (11%) fulfilled criteria for borderline visual assessment; these were infants with refractive errors not assessed by an ophthalmologist (two infants), moderate refractive errors not prescribed glasses (three infants), exophoria (two infants), anisocoria (one infant) and absent blink response (one infant). Two infants (8%) in the comparison group failed the visual assessment: one infant had an intermittent esotropia and one had a refractive error.
VEPs VEPs were recorded from 105/107 infants at 6 months of age (79 cases, 26 comparisons) (figure 1). VEPs to all three check sizes were present from all comparison infants. Three of the 79 (4%) drug-exposed infants had no VEP to 600 checks (figure 2). The visual acuities in these three infants were 0.70, 1.20 and 1.92 logMAR (normal range 0.50–0.90 logMAR); two of these 240
infants also had nystagmus (study # 61, 10 and 155, table 2). Overall, 19 drug-exposed infants (27%) had non-detectable VEP to 150 checks (figure 2). Acuities of infants with absent 150 VEPs did not differ significantly from those with 150 VEPs present (medians of 0.80 vs 0.70 logMAR, Mann–Whitney U test, p=0.9). Two infants with absent 150 VEPs had nystagmus (study # 147 and 14, table 2). The difference between drug-exposed infants and comparison infants with regard to the likelihood of having a VEP to the smallest (150 ) check size was highly significant (51/70 vs 24/24, Fisher’s exact test p=0.006). Drug-exposed infants had median VEP peak times 16, 9 and 20 ms slower than those of the comparison infants to 1200 , 600 and 150 checks, respectively, and median VEP amplitudes were 2, 10 and 7 mV smaller to 1200 , 600 and 150 checks, respectively (table 3, figure 3). Comparison infants’ VEPs were used to define limits of normality: an absent response to any check size was classified as abnormal and upper 97.5 centile VEP peak times and lower 2.5 centile VEP amplitudes were used as normative cut-off values (figure 3). Using these definitions, 19/67 (28%), 38/77 (49%) and 26/70 (37%) of drug-exposed infants had abnormal 1200 , 600 and 150 VEPs, respectively. Overall, 55/79 (70%) drug-exposed infants had one or more abnormal VEP parameter. VEP parameters were compared between infants in the five different drug exposure groups with the comparison infants added as a sixth group. Group differences existed for 600 VEP amplitude, 150 VEP amplitude and 150 peak time (Kruskal– Wallis, p=0.03, p=0.03 and p=0.01, respectively). Post hoc Mann–Whitney comparisons with Bonferroni corrections revealed significant differences only between the comparison group and drug-exposed groups 1, 2 and 4 (figure 4). VEP abnormalities were no more common in infants who had developed NAS (24/41) than those who did not (31/40) (Fisher exact test, p=0.1), nor did group median amplitudes or latencies differ between those drug-exposed infants who had developed NAS and those who did not.
DISCUSSION Substitute methadone is currently the recommended treatment for pregnant opioid-dependent women,1 4 with advantages for mother and baby including stabilisation of maternal lifestyle and reduced incidence of IUGR.2–4 The disadvantages of methadone use during pregnancy include an increased incidence of NAS3 4 and likely detrimental effects upon infant visual development.5–9 12 The latter has been reported only relatively recently, mostly in small case series, and has not been properly quantified to date.5–7 9 12 This follow-up study of 81 maternal drug-exposed infants is the first cohort study to have comprehensively assessed visual development in infancy and to have been able to explore associations between specific in utero drug and alcohol exposure and early infant visual development. The most common abnormalities detected were strabismus (25%), reduced visual acuity (22%) and nystagmus (11%) and the fivefold increased risk of failing the 6-month visual assessment for drug-exposed infants persisted after correcting for excess alcohol exposure in utero. The prevalence of strabismus is 2.1% in 3-year-old children,20 10-fold lower than in our drug-exposed group. Nystagmus is rare in the general population with an estimated incidence of 0.24% in the UK.21 The majority of nystagmus cases in early infancy are associated with visual impairment, neurological or retinal disease and the incidence of idiopathic infantile nystagmus extremely low at only 1.9 cases per 10 000 population (0.019%). In general, nystagmus presenting in an infant before 6 months of age is mainly
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
In utero drug exposure, neonatal VEP finding and visual findings at 6 months for the 32 drug-exposed infants who failed the visual assessment
Neonatal findings
6 months visual assessment
Drug group
Opiate in addition to Excess methadone? BDZ? Stimulants? Cannabis? alcohol?
20
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
48
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
61
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
69
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
10
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
14
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
18
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
141
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
149
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
74
5
✓
41
4
✓
✓
✓
7
4
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
4
✓
✓
✓
NT
✓
NT
✓
NAS requiring treatment?
Abnormal neonatal flash VEP?
Study no
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
1.20
Esotropia
No strabismus
✓
✓
1.10
Intermittent exotropia
DNA
✓
1.92
Exotropia
FMNS
✓
1.30
Esotropia
Manifest
✓
1.00
✓
0.80
Alternating esotropia
✓
✓
0.70
Intermittent exotropia
Astigmatism
No strabismus
✓
0.80
Esotropia
Hyperopic astigmatism
DNA
✓
✓ ✓
✓
77
4
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
81
4
✓
✓
✓
NT
✓
4
✓
✓
✓
NT
✓
105
4
✓
✓
✓
30
4
✓
✓
155
4
✓
✓
112
3
✓
✓
31
3
✓
✓
NT
114
3
✓
✓
143
3
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
NT
✓
NR
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2
40
1
56
1
92
1
✓
0.60
Intermittent exotropia
NR
1.00
✓
0.70
✓ ✓
NT
✓
✓
NT
✓
✓
Manifest Alternating esotropia
✓
Esotropia; FMNS Myopic astigmatism
Manifest Alternating exotropia
Hyperopia Manifest
No strabismus; normal acuity
0.80
Intermittent exotropia
Hyperopic astigmatism
Esotropia
Hyperopia
1.20
DNA
0.80
Manifest
Astigmatism
✓
✓
NT ✓
FMNS; exotropia
Intermittent exotropia
1.00 ✓
DNA Normal acuity
Esotropia
0.70 ✓
FMNS
0.80
0.70
✓ ✓
Hyperopia
DNA
1.00
DNA
1.20
Intermittent exotropia
FMNS
1.00
Intermittent exotropia
Anisometropic hyperopia
No strabismus
0.40
Intermittent exotropia
Antimetropia
DNA
241
BDZ, benzodiazepines; DVM, delayed visual maturation; FMNS, fusion maldevelopment nystagmus syndrome; NAS, neonatal abstinence syndrome; NR, not recorded; NT, not tested; VEP, visual evoked potential.
Clinical science
2
32
Alternating esotropia
1.00
✓
NT
FMNS
Intermittent exotropia
0.80
1.20
✓
49
DNA Exotropia
0.80 NR ✓
NT
Normal acuity
1.00
✓
✓
✓
Normal acuity
1.00 1.18
✓
86
✓
FMNS (horizontal pendular)
✓
✓
✓
Hyperopic astigmatism
✓
✓
✓
DNA
✓
✓
✓
3
DNA Hyperopia
1.00
4
2
Exotropia
1.00
✓
4
147
0.50
New or different findings on Nystagmus? Refractive error? subsequent ophthalmic review
✓
8
21
Strabismus?
✓
✓
NT
Visual acuity (LogMAR)
✓
43
✓
Abnormal DVM? pattern-onset VEP?
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Table 2
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science
Figure 1 Typical pattern-onset visual evoked potentials (VEPs) to each of the check sizes from comparison infants (top) and drug-exposed infants (bottom). The VEPs illustrated have parameters most closely matching the medians for each check size and group.
due to congenital idiopathic nystagmus or anterior visual pathway abnormalities. Both sensory deprivation (eg, due to bilateral cataracts or macular maldevelopment) and abnormality of the optic nerve or chiasm will generate nystagmus due to reduced vision. Posterior visual pathway abnormalities do not tend to be associated with nystagmus. It should be noted however that population estimates of nystagmus do not capture cases of fusion maldevelopment nystagmus syndrome if the nystagmus is latent ( present only with uniocular viewing).21 Even after excluding cases with latent nystagmus the incidence of manifest infantile nystagmus in infants exposed to methadone and/or other substances of abuse in utero was 300-fold higher than in the general population. We found no association between visual outcome and the pattern of drug exposure in utero, suggesting that all drug-exposed infants are at risk although the common factor in all these cases was in utero
methadone exposure. Comprehensive toxicology indicated that only eight of the 81 cases were exposed to methadone alone, two of whom failed the visual assessment (study # 56 and 92, table 2). These data are too few to determine whether methadone alone might cause visual abnormalities. The fact that VEP abnormalities previously reported in the newborn period persisted to 6 months of age in conjunction with clinical visual abnormalities suggests a teratogenic effect of prenatal drug exposure on the developing visual system. It is unlikely that absent or abnormal VEPs resulted from reduced acuity with the pattern stimulus beyond the infant’s resolution threshold, as acuities did not differ between those infants with absent or present VEPs to the smallest checks. Furthermore, drug-exposed infants’ VEPs—when present—demonstrated smaller and slower peaks than those of the comparison infants. Although nystagmus alters the pattern VEP, the choice of pattern-onset VEPs rather than pattern-reversal VEPs is likely to have minimised this effect.22 It appears therefore that the VEP abnormalities noted are not a direct consequence of reduced acuity, and that in utero drug exposure has altered the functioning of visual pathways and/or cerebral sources of VEPs.
Table 3
Pattern-onset VEPs: cases and comparisons Cases*
C2 peak time (ms) 115 1200 115 600 128 150 C2 amplitude (mV) 24 1200 24 600 10 150
Figure 2 Comparison of presence of pattern-onset visual evoked potentials between cases and comparison infants. Error bars show the 95% CI of the proportion. 242
Comparisons*
p Value†
(83–193) (83–210)* (80–210)†
99 (88–142) 106 (85–127) 108 (80–157)
0.019 0.036 0.0002
(15–33) (19–34)* (10–20)†
26 (8–54) 34 (12–59) 17 (2–30)
0.091 0.003 0.003
*Data are medians with ranges given in brackets. Absent VEPs from cases are treated as having amplitudes of 0 mV and C2 peak times of 210 ms for 600 (N=3) and for 150 check sizes (N=19). †p Values from Mann–Whitney tests. VEPs, visual evoked potentials.
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science
Figure 3 Pattern-onset visual evoked potential (VEP) data for cases (open circles) and comparison infants (grey circles). For each infant, C2 amplitude is plotted versus C2 peak time. Grey lines indicate the upper 97.5 centiles ( peak times) and lower 2.5 centiles (amplitudes) of VEPs from comparison infants. Non-detectable VEPs are illustrated on the x-axis at zero amplitude and 210 ms.
The high prevalence of strabismus, coupled with the preponderance of fusion maldevelopment nystagmus, suggests that affected infants have impaired development of binocular fusion.23 Loss of binocular connections within striate cortex (area V1) causes fusion maldevelopment nystagmus,24 and could explain the smaller neonatal VEPs seen in the current drug-exposed cohort shortly after birth.12 Binocular vision was absent in 42% of a similar cohort of drug-exposed children at 5 years of age,9 and further follow-up of the current cohort will investigate binocular vision. Strengths of this study include the large sample size, the prospective nature of data collection and the comprehensive pattern of drug exposure obtained. This is especially relevant as the majority of studies investigating longer-term outcomes in infants exposed to drug misuse in utero rely on retrospective collection of drug exposure data. Objective assessment of excess in utero alcohol exposure, via meconium FAEE analysis, allowed us to correct for any potential confounding effect of alcohol exposure
on visual and developmental outcomes. The optometrist undertaking the visual assessment and medical physicist analysing the VEPs were blinded to the infant’s drug exposure and neonatal course, thus minimising any bias in interpretation of results. The extensive toxicology undertaken during pregnancy and in the newborn period meant that each infant’s drug exposure could be accurately defined, reducing the errors inherent in maternal history taking. The bias of loss to follow-up was minimised by the high retention rate of drug-exposed infants; although there was a higher loss to follow-up of comparison infants, there were no significant differences in demographic characteristics between those comparison infants who were followed up and those who could not be followed up. The incidence of visual abnormalities described in our comparison population is very similar to that described in larger populations,20 21 supporting the validity of our testing techniques. Drug-exposed and comparison infants were not significantly different in terms of sex, gestation, weight and OFC at 6 months
Figure 4 Median pattern-onset visual evoked potential (VEP) data for each drug group (labelled 1–5) and for comparison infants (labelled c) are plotted for each check size. Amplitudes are shown in the upper panel and peak times in the lower panel. Error bars are median absolute deviations. Significant group differences are indicated with an asterisk. Absent VEPs from cases are treated as having amplitudes of 0 mV and C2 peak times of 210 ms for 600 (N=3) and for 150 check sizes (N=19). McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
243
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science of age, thus excluding the confounding effects of preterm birth and IUGR. It is possible that our comparison group were at a higher risk of visual abnormalities than the general infant population due to the history of maternal social deprivation, smoking and alcohol consumption in pregnancy. This may have had an effect of underestimating the degree of visual system damage in the drug-exposed population. We propose a cause–effect relationship between in utero drug exposure and infant visual abnormalities, which is supported by the strength of association (relative risk 5.1).25 A cause–effect relationship is also biologically credible: several animal studies have demonstrated a detrimental effect of prenatal methadone exposure on cerebral neurotransmitters and nerve growth factor which could have an adverse effect on early visual processing.26–28 Our findings are also consistent with other published studies in the literature, using different methods, geographic settings and populations.5 6 9 Assuming this causal effect of in utero drug exposure, over 80% of clinical visual abnormalities could be potentially eliminated if infants were not prenatally exposed. Buprenorphine is a synthetic opiate, which has been shown to be an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence.29 It has theoretical advantages over methadone in the treatment of opiate addiction in pregnancy due to reduced placental transfer, ceiling effect at higher doses and lesser withdrawal symptoms. Published data on the use of buprenorphine in pregnancy suggest a good safety profile and reduced length of hospital stay and duration of treatment for NAS compared with methadone maintenance.30 There is some evidence to suggest a potential advantage for buprenorphine in terms of infant neural development:31 Whitham et al described pattern-reversal VEPs recorded at 4 months of age in infants who had been exposed to methadone or buprenorphine in utero compared with control infants and found that the methadone-exposed infants had significantly delayed latencies compared with both buprenorphine-exposed infants and controls. Possible explanations for this include differing effects on embryonic neurotransmitter systems and differing placental transfer of the two drugs. In summary, infants born to drug-misusing mothers prescribed maintenance methadone during pregnancy are at increased risk of visual problems in infancy, particularly fusion maldevelopment nystagmus syndrome, strabismus and reduced visual acuity. Early visual assessment should be undertaken for all infants born to drug-misusing mothers, although the optimal timing of this assessment is not clear. Future studies should investigate alternatives to methadone for maintenance treatment of pregnant opiate-dependent women. Studies comparing maintenance methadone versus maintenance buprenorphine for pregnant opiate-dependent women must take into account comprehensive long-term visual outcomes for the infant.
Contributors LMcG was involved in study design, recruited all patients, collected samples and data, undertook assessments, analysed results and drafted the manuscript. RH and DLMcC were involved in study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting/revising the manuscript. JMacK and MB were involved in study conception and design and revising the manuscript. HM was involved in study design, interpretation of data and revising the manuscript. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript and revised manuscript.
Author affiliations 1 Neonatal Unit, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow, UK 2 Departments of Clinical Physics, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow, UK 3 College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK 4 Department of Vision Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK 5 Department of Ophthalmology, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness and previously Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow, UK 6 Neonatal Unit, Princess Royal Maternity, Glasgow, UK
19
Acknowledgements We wish to thank Gail Cooper, Huda Hassan and Bill Borland for analysing the toxicology samples for this study. We are grateful to Angie Groundland and Michelle McIntosh for performing the visual assessments. We also wish to thank Mr Richard Boulton for his help with VEP recordings and data management. 244
Funding Yorkhill Children’s Charity (formerly the Yorkhill Children’s Foundation), Tenovus Scotland. Competing interests None. Ethics approval West of Scotland research ethics committee. Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
REFERENCES 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9
10
11 12 13
14
15 16
17 18
20
21 22 23
24 25
Hidden Harm. The report of the enquiry by the advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. London: UK Home Office, 2003. ISBN: 1-88473 035-2. Burns L, Mattick RP, Lim K, et al. Methadone in pregnancy: treatment retention and neonatal outcomes. Addiction 2007;102:264–70. Dryden C, Young D, Hepburn M, et al. Maternal methadone use in pregnancy: factors associated with the development of neonatal abstinence syndrome and implications for healthcare resources. BJOG 2009;116:665–71. Mactier H. The management of heroin misuse in pregnancy: time for a rethink? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011;96:F457–60. Gill AC, Oei J, Lewis NL, et al. Strabismus in infants of opiate-dependent mothers. Acta Paediatrica 2003;92:379–85. Mulvihill AO, Cackett PD, George ND, et al. Nystagmus secondary to drug exposure in utero. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:613–15. Hamilton R, McGlone L, MacKinnon JR, et al. Ophthalmic, clinical and visual electrophysiological findings in children born to mothers prescribed substitute methadone in pregnancy. Br J Ophthalmol 2010;94:696–700. McGlone L, Mactier H, Weaver LT. Drug misuse in pregnancy: losing sight of the baby? Arch Dis Child 2009;94:708–12. Spiteri Cornish K, Hrabovsky M, Scott NW, et al. The short- and long-term effects on the visual system of children following exposure to maternal substance misuse in pregnancy. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156:190–4. Konijnenberg C, Melinder A. Neurodevelopmental investigation of the mirror neurone syndrome in children of women receiving opioid maintenance therapy during pregnancy. Addiction 2012;108:154–60. Taylor MJ, McCulloch DL. Visual evoked potentials in infants and children. J Clin Neurophysiol 1992;9:357–72. McGlone L, Hamilton R, McCulloch DL, et al. Neonatal visual evoked potentials in infants born to mothers prescribed methadone. Pediatrics 2013;131:e857–63. McGlone L, Mactier H, Hassan H, et al. In utero drug and alcohol exposure in infants born to mothers prescribed maintenance methadone. In press: accepted for publication in Arch Dis Child 2013;98:F542–4. Gareri J, Lynn H, Handley M, et al. Prevalence of fetal ethanol exposure in a regional population-based sample by meconium analysis of fatty acid ethyl esters. Ther Drug Monit 2008;30:239–45. Atkinson J, Anker S, Rae S, et al. A test battery of child development for examining functional vision (ABCDEFV). Strabismus 2002;10:245–69. Sharma P, Bairagi D, Sachdeva MM, et al. Comparative evaluation of teller and cardiff acuity tests in normals and unilateral amblyopes in under-two-year-olds. Indian J Ophthalmol 2003;51:341–5. Al-Bagdady M, Murphy PJ, Woodhouse JM, et al. Development and distribution of refractive error in children with Down’s syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol 2011;95:1091–7. Woodhouse JM, Cregg M, Gunter HL, et al. The effect of age, size of target, and cognitive factors on accommodative responses of children with Down syndrome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000:41:2479–85. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, et al. ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update). Doc Ophthalmol 2010;120:111–19. Pathai S, Cumberland PM, Rahi JS, et al. Prevalence of and early life influences on childhood strabismus: findings from the Millenium cohort study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010;164:250–7. Sarvananthan N, Surendran M, Roberts EO, et al. The prevalence of nystagmus: the Leicestershire nystagmus survey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:5201–6. Saunders KJ, Brown G, McCulloch DL. Pattern onset visual evoked potentials: more useful than reversal for patients with nystagmus. Doc Ophthalmol 1998;94:265–74. Richards M, Wong A, Foeller P, et al. Duration of binocular decorrelation predicts the severity of latent (fusion maldevelopment) nystagmus in strabismic macaque monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:1872–8. Tychsen L, Richards M, Wong A, et al. The neural mechanism for latent (fusion maldevelopment) nystagmus. J Neuroophthalmol 2010;30:276–83. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Epidemiology in medicine. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 1987:39–43.
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science 26
27 28
Guo HZ, Enters EK, McDowell KP, et al. The effects of prenatal exposure to methadone on neurotransmitters in neonatal rats. Brain Res Dev Brain Res 1990;57:296–8. Wu VW, Mo Q, Yabe T, et al. Perinatal opioids reduce straital nerve growth factor content in rat striatum. Eur J Pharmacol 2001;414:211–14. Pertschuk LP, Sher JH, Ford DH. A morphological comparison of the regional distribution of methadone in human and rat brain as demonstrated by immunofluorescence. Drug Alcohol Depend 1976;1:247–54.
29
30 31
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Mattick RP, Kimber J, Breen C, et al. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; (2):CD002207. Jones HE, Kaltenbach K, Heil SH, et al. Neonatal abstinence syndrome after methadone or buprenorphine exposure. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2320–31. Whitham JN, Spurrier NJ, Sawyer MG, et al. The effects of prenatal exposure to buprenorphine or methadone on infant visual evoked potentials. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2010;32:280–8.
245
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Visual outcome in infants born to drug-misusing mothers prescribed methadone in pregnancy Laura McGlone, Ruth Hamilton, Daphne L McCulloch, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014 98: 238-245 originally published online November 18, 2013
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Updated information and services can be found at: http://bjo.bmj.com/content/98/2/238.full.html
These include:
References
This article cites 27 articles, 9 of which can be accessed free at: http://bjo.bmj.com/content/98/2/238.full.html#ref-list-1
Email alerting service
Topic Collections
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections Optic nerve (630 articles) Optics and refraction (447 articles) Epidemiology (883 articles) Muscles (224 articles) Neurology (1190 articles)
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
Clinical science
Visual outcome in infants born to drug-misusing mothers prescribed methadone in pregnancy Laura McGlone,1 Ruth Hamilton,2,3 Daphne L McCulloch,4 Jane R MacKinnon,5 Michael Bradnam,2,3 Helen Mactier6 For numbered affiliations see end of article. Correspondence to Dr Laura McGlone, Neonatal Unit, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Dalnair Street, Yorkhill, Glasgow G38SJ, UK; [email protected] Received 4 July 2013 Revised 6 September 2013 Accepted 23 September 2013 Published Online First 18 November 2013
ABSTRACT Background Flash visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were abnormal in a cohort of 100 neonates exposed to maintenance methadone in utero. This prospective cohort study now describes clinical visual and electrophysiological outcomes at 6 months. Methods Visual assessment included modified Atkinson test battery; strabismus, nystagmus, reduced visual acuity, delayed visual maturation or refractive error (>3 dioptres) defined a fail. Pattern-onset VEPs were recorded to 1200 , 600 and 150 checks. Results 81 drug-exposed and 26 comparison infants (79% and 52% of the original cohorts) were assessed at a median age of 27 weeks (range 26–30). 90% of drug-exposed infants had been additionally exposed to illicit drugs and 41% to excess alcohol in utero. 40% of the drug-exposed cohort failed clinical visual assessment: the relative risk of abnormal assessment was 5.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 20; p=0.02). Nystagmus was particularly common. VEP peak times were slower and amplitudes smaller in drug-exposed infants, of whom 70% had one or more abnormal VEP parameter. Abnormal visual outcome at 6 months was not associated with the pattern of additional drug exposure or a history of neonatal abstinence. Conclusions Abnormal visual electrophysiology in infants born to drug-misusing mothers prescribed maintenance methadone persists to 6 months of age, and is associated with abnormal clinical visual assessment.
INTRODUCTION
To cite: McGlone L, Hamilton R, McCulloch DL, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. 238
Illicit drug use in pregnancy is a significant medical and social problem with an estimated 250 000– 350 000 children of known problem drug users currently living in the UK.1 Management of maternal opioid misuse includes prescription of maintenance methadone, a synthetic opioid which stabilises lifestyle, lessens risk-taking behaviour and reduces the incidence of preterm birth and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR).2–4 There is increasing evidence that maternal drug misuse during pregnancy has adverse effects on infant visual outcome.5–10 Reported visual abnormalities include nystagmus, strabismus, reduced visual acuity, delayed visual maturation (DVM), impaired voluntary eye movements and absent binocular vision5–10 but the majority of studies published to date have been small and confounded by the effects of IUGR and social deprivation.5–9 Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be used to assess the maturity and integrity of the visual system even in relatively uncooperative infants11 and in a prospective cohort study of 100 infants exposed to
maintenance methadone in utero we demonstrated abnormal flash VEPs in the newborn period compared with non-exposed infants matched for birth weight and social deprivation.12 The objectives of this study were to describe the clinical visual outcomes and pattern VEPs at 6 months of age in this cohort.
METHODS This prospective cohort study was conducted at the Princess Royal Maternity in Glasgow. Eligible infants were recruited within the first 3 days of life from drug-misusing mothers prescribed substitute methadone during pregnancy, and were born between October 2008 and April 2010.12 Exclusion criteria were birth before 36 completed weeks of gestation, congenital ocular abnormality and/or significant neonatal illness. For comparative purposes, healthy, non-maternal drug-exposed infants were recruited from the postnatal wards of the same maternity unit. To correct for any potential confounding effect of birth weight, gestation or socioeconomic status, the comparison infants were matched as follows: completed week of gestation, birth weight ±250 g and socio-economic group deprivation index score (DEPCAT) ±1.12 Data collected in the neonatal period included maternal and neonatal demographics and the incidence and severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Details regarding study size are given in the paper describing neonatal outcomes from this cohort.12 Infants underwent twice daily assessment for NAS by trained midwifery staff and were scored using a modified Lipsitz score.12 NAS was defined as symptoms severe enough to require pharmacological treatment as defined by local protocol. Ethics approval was obtained prior to study commencement and informed written parental consent obtained for all participants.
Drug exposure and toxicology A confidential maternal interview was conducted immediately after study recruitment regarding drug use during pregnancy (LMcG). Maternal urine samples were collected routinely at the first antenatal hospital visit, usually at 12–16 weeks gestation, and infant urine and meconium were obtained as soon as possible after delivery. Maternal and infant urine samples were analysed using enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique assays run to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration guidelines on an Abbott Architect Analyser.13 Assays included methadone, opioids, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, cannabinoids and cocaine metabolites. Meconium samples
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science were analysed in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Science at the University of Glasgow using ELISA screening plus solid phase and liquid–liquid extraction followed by GC-mass spectrometry (MS) and LC-MS-MS for selected positives.13 Infants were classified into one of five drug exposure groups (table 1); meconium samples were also analysed for fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEEs) to identify infants exposed to excess alcohol in utero. A cut-off value of >10 000 ng/g of meconium was used to signify excess alcohol consumption in pregnancy.14
Six-month assessment All infants were invited for evaluation at 6 months of age, undertaken jointly by a paediatrician (LMcG) and one of two experienced optometrists. The latter was blinded to the infant’s group and clinical course. Follow-up assessment included: measurement of weight and occiptofrontal circumference (OFC); clinical visual assessment; and pattern-onset VEPs. Clinical visual assessment was undertaken using a modification of the Atkinson test battery of child development for examining functional vision.15 The Atkinson battery is a series of visual tests providing an integrated assessment of infant and children’s functional visual capacities drawn from practice in ophthalmology, orthoptics and developmental psychology. It provides normative data for various age groups and pass/fail criteria for each test, allowing normal visual development to be defined. Tests included: pupil response to light, diffuse light reaction, lateral tracking and observation for nystagmus, Hirshberg’s test, lateral field testing by peripheral refixation, convergence of eyes to an approaching object, defensive blink to approaching object, visual following of a falling toy, batting and reaching, near (Mohindra) retinoscopy, dynamic retinoscopy and the Cardiff acuity card test based on fixation preference. Cardiff cards are used widely in UK orthoptic practice because the vanishing optotype design gives high success rates in difficult-to-test groups, and acuities agree well with grating tests.16 Normative Cardiff acuity data show binocular acuities of 0.3–1.0 logMAR (Snellen 6/12–6/60) in 6-month-old children.16 Cardiff cards use vertical fixation preference; consequently, horizontal nystagmus does not confound the visual acuity measurement. Non-cycloplegic near retinoscopy was used to screen for media opacities and refractive errors. Retinoscopy reflexes were neutralised with handheld lenses in a dark room.17 In addition, the amplitude of accommodation was assessed with dynamic retinoscopy in a dim room using an accommodative fixation target.18 Infants were classified as ‘pass’, ‘fail’ or ‘borderline’: those with a fail or borderline assessment were referred to a paediatric ophthalmologist. A fail was defined as the presence of strabismus, nystagmus, reduced visual acuity or a refractive error of greater than 3 dioptres which was later confirmed on cycloplegic refraction and required correction with glasses. Visual acuity from the comparison group was used to define normal acuity for this age
Table 1 Drug exposure group based on history and toxicology Group
Drug exposure
1 2 3 4 5
Opioids only Opioids and cannabis Opioids and benzodiazepines Opioids, benzodiazepines and cannabis Opioids and other drug exposure including stimulants (cocaine and/or amphetamines)
group: median acuity was 0.70 logMAR, with a range of 0.50– 0.90 logMAR (Snellen 6/30, range 6/19–6/48). The poorest visual acuity, 0.90 logMAR (Snellen 6/48), was defined as the lower limit of normal. A borderline assessment was defined as minor visual abnormalities, refractive error which could not be confirmed by an ophthalmologist due to failure to attend following referral or moderate refractive error confirmed by an ophthalmologist, but not prescribed glasses and remaining under follow-up. DVM was diagnosed retrospectively in infants who had absent visual responses from birth then subsequently developed normal visual behaviour in the first 6 months of life. VEPs were recorded from the occipital scalp using silver-silver-chloride electrodes placed according to international standards.19 An Espion visual electrophysiology system (Diagnosys LLC, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA) was used to generate stimuli and record VEPs. Stimuli were black and white checkerboard onsets with check widths of 150 , 600 and 1200 alternating with a diffuse grey background of equal luminance and colour presented at one reversal per second. Six-month-old infants with normal vision were expected to demonstrate a VEP to the smallest (150 ) check size. Between 30 and 100 trials were acquired; this was repeated for each check size to assess reproducibility. All VEPs were independently assessed by an observer (RH) blinded to the infant’s group and clinical course. VEPs were categorised as present or absent: if present, the amplitudes and peak times of the major peak of the onset VEPs (C2) were measured. Absent VEPs were accorded amplitudes of zero and a worst peak time to avoid favourable group bias by elimination (rounded up to the nearest 10 ms from the longest peak time when a peak was present). Normal limits were defined using 95% reference intervals of the parameters measured from the comparison infants’ onset VEPs.
Statistics Categorical outcomes were compared between groups using χ2 tests or Fisher’s exact tests where numbers were small. Numerical data were tested for normality using Anderson– Darling tests and found to be of skewed distribution; comparisons between groups were therefore done with Mann–Whitney tests and comparisons between subgroups done with Kruskall– Wallis tests with Dunnet’s post hoc test comparisons. Logistic regression models were used to correct for the potential confounding effect of alcohol exposure on visual outcomes.
RESULTS A total of 107 infants were seen for assessment at 6 months of age: 81 drug-exposed infants and 26 comparison infants. This represented 79% and 52% respectively of the cohorts recruited at birth. Details of the neonatal outcomes of this cohort have been reported previously.12 Reasons for non-attendance included: parent/carer uncontactable (56%), did not attend a prearranged appointment on two or more occasions (24%), geographically unable to attend (7%) and declined follow-up participation (13%). The birth demographic characteristics of those comparison infants who did not attend for follow-up did not differ from those of infants who were followed up: birth weight (twosample t test p=0.45), OFC (two-sample t test p=0.71), gestation (Mann–Whitney test p=0.98), 5-min Apgar score (Mann– Whitney test p=0.26) and DEPCAT score (Mann–Whitney test p=0.26). Median age at follow-up was 27 weeks (range 26–30) for both drug-exposed and comparison groups. Mean weight and head circumference at the 6-month follow-up were slightly less
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
239
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science in the drug-exposed infants, but the differences were not significant: weight 7.52 kg (SD 1.05) versus 7.94 kg (SD 1.09) (comparison infants), two-sample t test p=0.11; head circumference 43.3 cm (SD 1.5) versus 43.8 cm (SD 1.9) (comparison infants), two-sample t test p=0.15.
Drug and alcohol exposure The majority of the methadone-exposed infants (73/81; 90%) had also been exposed to illicit drugs in utero including opioids (75%), benzodiazepines (67%), cannabis (64%) and stimulants (26%). In all, 20 out of 46 infants tested (43%) and seen at 6 months of age had elevated FAEEs in meconium indicative of exposure to excess alcohol in utero. Three comparison infants (3/18 tested, 17%) had elevated FAEEs in meconium and two infants’ samples tested positive for cannabis. No infant had a clinical diagnosis of fetal alcohol syndrome.
Visual assessment Overall, 32 (40%) of the drug-exposed cohort failed the visual assessment (table 2). All infants had visual acuity measured in a standardised way and we were confident that any motor or developmental abnormalities did not interfere with this. Horizontal nystagmus was present in nine of the drug-exposed cohort (11%); it was manifest in five infants, and in four infants nystagmus had a latent component with associated strabismus (also known as fusion maldevelopment nystagmus syndrome). One of these nine infants with nystagmus had no opioid exposure other than methadone (study # 155) and one had no benzodiazepine exposure (study # 40). Strabismus was detected in 20 drug-exposed infants (25%) of whom 12 infants had an exotropia and eight had an esotropia. Reduced visual acuity (>0.90 logMAR) was detected in 18 drug-exposed infants (22%) and associated with other ophthalmic abnormalities in 11 of these infants. Confirmed DVM was present in two infants and presumed in eight infants (a history of visual inattentiveness given by the parents/carers). After correcting for excess in utero alcohol exposure using a logistic regression model, significantly more drug-exposed infants failed the visual assessment than comparison infants: 32/ 81 versus 2/26; p=0.007. The relative risk of an abnormal visual assessment in drug-exposed infants was 5.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 20, p=0.02) giving an attributable risk of 80%. There was no association between a failed 6-month visual assessment and NAS: χ2 test; p=0.239. There was no significant difference in the proportion of drug-exposed infants in each of the five different drug exposure groups who failed the visual assessment: χ2 test; p=0.528. A further nine drug-exposed infants (11%) fulfilled criteria for borderline visual assessment; these were infants with refractive errors not assessed by an ophthalmologist (two infants), moderate refractive errors not prescribed glasses (three infants), exophoria (two infants), anisocoria (one infant) and absent blink response (one infant). Two infants (8%) in the comparison group failed the visual assessment: one infant had an intermittent esotropia and one had a refractive error.
VEPs VEPs were recorded from 105/107 infants at 6 months of age (79 cases, 26 comparisons) (figure 1). VEPs to all three check sizes were present from all comparison infants. Three of the 79 (4%) drug-exposed infants had no VEP to 600 checks (figure 2). The visual acuities in these three infants were 0.70, 1.20 and 1.92 logMAR (normal range 0.50–0.90 logMAR); two of these 240
infants also had nystagmus (study # 61, 10 and 155, table 2). Overall, 19 drug-exposed infants (27%) had non-detectable VEP to 150 checks (figure 2). Acuities of infants with absent 150 VEPs did not differ significantly from those with 150 VEPs present (medians of 0.80 vs 0.70 logMAR, Mann–Whitney U test, p=0.9). Two infants with absent 150 VEPs had nystagmus (study # 147 and 14, table 2). The difference between drug-exposed infants and comparison infants with regard to the likelihood of having a VEP to the smallest (150 ) check size was highly significant (51/70 vs 24/24, Fisher’s exact test p=0.006). Drug-exposed infants had median VEP peak times 16, 9 and 20 ms slower than those of the comparison infants to 1200 , 600 and 150 checks, respectively, and median VEP amplitudes were 2, 10 and 7 mV smaller to 1200 , 600 and 150 checks, respectively (table 3, figure 3). Comparison infants’ VEPs were used to define limits of normality: an absent response to any check size was classified as abnormal and upper 97.5 centile VEP peak times and lower 2.5 centile VEP amplitudes were used as normative cut-off values (figure 3). Using these definitions, 19/67 (28%), 38/77 (49%) and 26/70 (37%) of drug-exposed infants had abnormal 1200 , 600 and 150 VEPs, respectively. Overall, 55/79 (70%) drug-exposed infants had one or more abnormal VEP parameter. VEP parameters were compared between infants in the five different drug exposure groups with the comparison infants added as a sixth group. Group differences existed for 600 VEP amplitude, 150 VEP amplitude and 150 peak time (Kruskal– Wallis, p=0.03, p=0.03 and p=0.01, respectively). Post hoc Mann–Whitney comparisons with Bonferroni corrections revealed significant differences only between the comparison group and drug-exposed groups 1, 2 and 4 (figure 4). VEP abnormalities were no more common in infants who had developed NAS (24/41) than those who did not (31/40) (Fisher exact test, p=0.1), nor did group median amplitudes or latencies differ between those drug-exposed infants who had developed NAS and those who did not.
DISCUSSION Substitute methadone is currently the recommended treatment for pregnant opioid-dependent women,1 4 with advantages for mother and baby including stabilisation of maternal lifestyle and reduced incidence of IUGR.2–4 The disadvantages of methadone use during pregnancy include an increased incidence of NAS3 4 and likely detrimental effects upon infant visual development.5–9 12 The latter has been reported only relatively recently, mostly in small case series, and has not been properly quantified to date.5–7 9 12 This follow-up study of 81 maternal drug-exposed infants is the first cohort study to have comprehensively assessed visual development in infancy and to have been able to explore associations between specific in utero drug and alcohol exposure and early infant visual development. The most common abnormalities detected were strabismus (25%), reduced visual acuity (22%) and nystagmus (11%) and the fivefold increased risk of failing the 6-month visual assessment for drug-exposed infants persisted after correcting for excess alcohol exposure in utero. The prevalence of strabismus is 2.1% in 3-year-old children,20 10-fold lower than in our drug-exposed group. Nystagmus is rare in the general population with an estimated incidence of 0.24% in the UK.21 The majority of nystagmus cases in early infancy are associated with visual impairment, neurological or retinal disease and the incidence of idiopathic infantile nystagmus extremely low at only 1.9 cases per 10 000 population (0.019%). In general, nystagmus presenting in an infant before 6 months of age is mainly
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
In utero drug exposure, neonatal VEP finding and visual findings at 6 months for the 32 drug-exposed infants who failed the visual assessment
Neonatal findings
6 months visual assessment
Drug group
Opiate in addition to Excess methadone? BDZ? Stimulants? Cannabis? alcohol?
20
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
48
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
61
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
69
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
10
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
14
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
18
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
141
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
149
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
74
5
✓
41
4
✓
✓
✓
7
4
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
4
✓
✓
✓
NT
✓
NT
✓
NAS requiring treatment?
Abnormal neonatal flash VEP?
Study no
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
1.20
Esotropia
No strabismus
✓
✓
1.10
Intermittent exotropia
DNA
✓
1.92
Exotropia
FMNS
✓
1.30
Esotropia
Manifest
✓
1.00
✓
0.80
Alternating esotropia
✓
✓
0.70
Intermittent exotropia
Astigmatism
No strabismus
✓
0.80
Esotropia
Hyperopic astigmatism
DNA
✓
✓ ✓
✓
77
4
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
81
4
✓
✓
✓
NT
✓
4
✓
✓
✓
NT
✓
105
4
✓
✓
✓
30
4
✓
✓
155
4
✓
✓
112
3
✓
✓
31
3
✓
✓
NT
114
3
✓
✓
143
3
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
NT
✓
NR
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2
40
1
56
1
92
1
✓
0.60
Intermittent exotropia
NR
1.00
✓
0.70
✓ ✓
NT
✓
✓
NT
✓
✓
Manifest Alternating esotropia
✓
Esotropia; FMNS Myopic astigmatism
Manifest Alternating exotropia
Hyperopia Manifest
No strabismus; normal acuity
0.80
Intermittent exotropia
Hyperopic astigmatism
Esotropia
Hyperopia
1.20
DNA
0.80
Manifest
Astigmatism
✓
✓
NT ✓
FMNS; exotropia
Intermittent exotropia
1.00 ✓
DNA Normal acuity
Esotropia
0.70 ✓
FMNS
0.80
0.70
✓ ✓
Hyperopia
DNA
1.00
DNA
1.20
Intermittent exotropia
FMNS
1.00
Intermittent exotropia
Anisometropic hyperopia
No strabismus
0.40
Intermittent exotropia
Antimetropia
DNA
241
BDZ, benzodiazepines; DVM, delayed visual maturation; FMNS, fusion maldevelopment nystagmus syndrome; NAS, neonatal abstinence syndrome; NR, not recorded; NT, not tested; VEP, visual evoked potential.
Clinical science
2
32
Alternating esotropia
1.00
✓
NT
FMNS
Intermittent exotropia
0.80
1.20
✓
49
DNA Exotropia
0.80 NR ✓
NT
Normal acuity
1.00
✓
✓
✓
Normal acuity
1.00 1.18
✓
86
✓
FMNS (horizontal pendular)
✓
✓
✓
Hyperopic astigmatism
✓
✓
✓
DNA
✓
✓
✓
3
DNA Hyperopia
1.00
4
2
Exotropia
1.00
✓
4
147
0.50
New or different findings on Nystagmus? Refractive error? subsequent ophthalmic review
✓
8
21
Strabismus?
✓
✓
NT
Visual acuity (LogMAR)
✓
43
✓
Abnormal DVM? pattern-onset VEP?
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Table 2
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science
Figure 1 Typical pattern-onset visual evoked potentials (VEPs) to each of the check sizes from comparison infants (top) and drug-exposed infants (bottom). The VEPs illustrated have parameters most closely matching the medians for each check size and group.
due to congenital idiopathic nystagmus or anterior visual pathway abnormalities. Both sensory deprivation (eg, due to bilateral cataracts or macular maldevelopment) and abnormality of the optic nerve or chiasm will generate nystagmus due to reduced vision. Posterior visual pathway abnormalities do not tend to be associated with nystagmus. It should be noted however that population estimates of nystagmus do not capture cases of fusion maldevelopment nystagmus syndrome if the nystagmus is latent ( present only with uniocular viewing).21 Even after excluding cases with latent nystagmus the incidence of manifest infantile nystagmus in infants exposed to methadone and/or other substances of abuse in utero was 300-fold higher than in the general population. We found no association between visual outcome and the pattern of drug exposure in utero, suggesting that all drug-exposed infants are at risk although the common factor in all these cases was in utero
methadone exposure. Comprehensive toxicology indicated that only eight of the 81 cases were exposed to methadone alone, two of whom failed the visual assessment (study # 56 and 92, table 2). These data are too few to determine whether methadone alone might cause visual abnormalities. The fact that VEP abnormalities previously reported in the newborn period persisted to 6 months of age in conjunction with clinical visual abnormalities suggests a teratogenic effect of prenatal drug exposure on the developing visual system. It is unlikely that absent or abnormal VEPs resulted from reduced acuity with the pattern stimulus beyond the infant’s resolution threshold, as acuities did not differ between those infants with absent or present VEPs to the smallest checks. Furthermore, drug-exposed infants’ VEPs—when present—demonstrated smaller and slower peaks than those of the comparison infants. Although nystagmus alters the pattern VEP, the choice of pattern-onset VEPs rather than pattern-reversal VEPs is likely to have minimised this effect.22 It appears therefore that the VEP abnormalities noted are not a direct consequence of reduced acuity, and that in utero drug exposure has altered the functioning of visual pathways and/or cerebral sources of VEPs.
Table 3
Pattern-onset VEPs: cases and comparisons Cases*
C2 peak time (ms) 115 1200 115 600 128 150 C2 amplitude (mV) 24 1200 24 600 10 150
Figure 2 Comparison of presence of pattern-onset visual evoked potentials between cases and comparison infants. Error bars show the 95% CI of the proportion. 242
Comparisons*
p Value†
(83–193) (83–210)* (80–210)†
99 (88–142) 106 (85–127) 108 (80–157)
0.019 0.036 0.0002
(15–33) (19–34)* (10–20)†
26 (8–54) 34 (12–59) 17 (2–30)
0.091 0.003 0.003
*Data are medians with ranges given in brackets. Absent VEPs from cases are treated as having amplitudes of 0 mV and C2 peak times of 210 ms for 600 (N=3) and for 150 check sizes (N=19). †p Values from Mann–Whitney tests. VEPs, visual evoked potentials.
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science
Figure 3 Pattern-onset visual evoked potential (VEP) data for cases (open circles) and comparison infants (grey circles). For each infant, C2 amplitude is plotted versus C2 peak time. Grey lines indicate the upper 97.5 centiles ( peak times) and lower 2.5 centiles (amplitudes) of VEPs from comparison infants. Non-detectable VEPs are illustrated on the x-axis at zero amplitude and 210 ms.
The high prevalence of strabismus, coupled with the preponderance of fusion maldevelopment nystagmus, suggests that affected infants have impaired development of binocular fusion.23 Loss of binocular connections within striate cortex (area V1) causes fusion maldevelopment nystagmus,24 and could explain the smaller neonatal VEPs seen in the current drug-exposed cohort shortly after birth.12 Binocular vision was absent in 42% of a similar cohort of drug-exposed children at 5 years of age,9 and further follow-up of the current cohort will investigate binocular vision. Strengths of this study include the large sample size, the prospective nature of data collection and the comprehensive pattern of drug exposure obtained. This is especially relevant as the majority of studies investigating longer-term outcomes in infants exposed to drug misuse in utero rely on retrospective collection of drug exposure data. Objective assessment of excess in utero alcohol exposure, via meconium FAEE analysis, allowed us to correct for any potential confounding effect of alcohol exposure
on visual and developmental outcomes. The optometrist undertaking the visual assessment and medical physicist analysing the VEPs were blinded to the infant’s drug exposure and neonatal course, thus minimising any bias in interpretation of results. The extensive toxicology undertaken during pregnancy and in the newborn period meant that each infant’s drug exposure could be accurately defined, reducing the errors inherent in maternal history taking. The bias of loss to follow-up was minimised by the high retention rate of drug-exposed infants; although there was a higher loss to follow-up of comparison infants, there were no significant differences in demographic characteristics between those comparison infants who were followed up and those who could not be followed up. The incidence of visual abnormalities described in our comparison population is very similar to that described in larger populations,20 21 supporting the validity of our testing techniques. Drug-exposed and comparison infants were not significantly different in terms of sex, gestation, weight and OFC at 6 months
Figure 4 Median pattern-onset visual evoked potential (VEP) data for each drug group (labelled 1–5) and for comparison infants (labelled c) are plotted for each check size. Amplitudes are shown in the upper panel and peak times in the lower panel. Error bars are median absolute deviations. Significant group differences are indicated with an asterisk. Absent VEPs from cases are treated as having amplitudes of 0 mV and C2 peak times of 210 ms for 600 (N=3) and for 150 check sizes (N=19). McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
243
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science of age, thus excluding the confounding effects of preterm birth and IUGR. It is possible that our comparison group were at a higher risk of visual abnormalities than the general infant population due to the history of maternal social deprivation, smoking and alcohol consumption in pregnancy. This may have had an effect of underestimating the degree of visual system damage in the drug-exposed population. We propose a cause–effect relationship between in utero drug exposure and infant visual abnormalities, which is supported by the strength of association (relative risk 5.1).25 A cause–effect relationship is also biologically credible: several animal studies have demonstrated a detrimental effect of prenatal methadone exposure on cerebral neurotransmitters and nerve growth factor which could have an adverse effect on early visual processing.26–28 Our findings are also consistent with other published studies in the literature, using different methods, geographic settings and populations.5 6 9 Assuming this causal effect of in utero drug exposure, over 80% of clinical visual abnormalities could be potentially eliminated if infants were not prenatally exposed. Buprenorphine is a synthetic opiate, which has been shown to be an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence.29 It has theoretical advantages over methadone in the treatment of opiate addiction in pregnancy due to reduced placental transfer, ceiling effect at higher doses and lesser withdrawal symptoms. Published data on the use of buprenorphine in pregnancy suggest a good safety profile and reduced length of hospital stay and duration of treatment for NAS compared with methadone maintenance.30 There is some evidence to suggest a potential advantage for buprenorphine in terms of infant neural development:31 Whitham et al described pattern-reversal VEPs recorded at 4 months of age in infants who had been exposed to methadone or buprenorphine in utero compared with control infants and found that the methadone-exposed infants had significantly delayed latencies compared with both buprenorphine-exposed infants and controls. Possible explanations for this include differing effects on embryonic neurotransmitter systems and differing placental transfer of the two drugs. In summary, infants born to drug-misusing mothers prescribed maintenance methadone during pregnancy are at increased risk of visual problems in infancy, particularly fusion maldevelopment nystagmus syndrome, strabismus and reduced visual acuity. Early visual assessment should be undertaken for all infants born to drug-misusing mothers, although the optimal timing of this assessment is not clear. Future studies should investigate alternatives to methadone for maintenance treatment of pregnant opiate-dependent women. Studies comparing maintenance methadone versus maintenance buprenorphine for pregnant opiate-dependent women must take into account comprehensive long-term visual outcomes for the infant.
Contributors LMcG was involved in study design, recruited all patients, collected samples and data, undertook assessments, analysed results and drafted the manuscript. RH and DLMcC were involved in study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting/revising the manuscript. JMacK and MB were involved in study conception and design and revising the manuscript. HM was involved in study design, interpretation of data and revising the manuscript. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript and revised manuscript.
Author affiliations 1 Neonatal Unit, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow, UK 2 Departments of Clinical Physics, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow, UK 3 College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK 4 Department of Vision Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK 5 Department of Ophthalmology, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness and previously Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow, UK 6 Neonatal Unit, Princess Royal Maternity, Glasgow, UK
19
Acknowledgements We wish to thank Gail Cooper, Huda Hassan and Bill Borland for analysing the toxicology samples for this study. We are grateful to Angie Groundland and Michelle McIntosh for performing the visual assessments. We also wish to thank Mr Richard Boulton for his help with VEP recordings and data management. 244
Funding Yorkhill Children’s Charity (formerly the Yorkhill Children’s Foundation), Tenovus Scotland. Competing interests None. Ethics approval West of Scotland research ethics committee. Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
REFERENCES 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9
10
11 12 13
14
15 16
17 18
20
21 22 23
24 25
Hidden Harm. The report of the enquiry by the advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. London: UK Home Office, 2003. ISBN: 1-88473 035-2. Burns L, Mattick RP, Lim K, et al. Methadone in pregnancy: treatment retention and neonatal outcomes. Addiction 2007;102:264–70. Dryden C, Young D, Hepburn M, et al. Maternal methadone use in pregnancy: factors associated with the development of neonatal abstinence syndrome and implications for healthcare resources. BJOG 2009;116:665–71. Mactier H. The management of heroin misuse in pregnancy: time for a rethink? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011;96:F457–60. Gill AC, Oei J, Lewis NL, et al. Strabismus in infants of opiate-dependent mothers. Acta Paediatrica 2003;92:379–85. Mulvihill AO, Cackett PD, George ND, et al. Nystagmus secondary to drug exposure in utero. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:613–15. Hamilton R, McGlone L, MacKinnon JR, et al. Ophthalmic, clinical and visual electrophysiological findings in children born to mothers prescribed substitute methadone in pregnancy. Br J Ophthalmol 2010;94:696–700. McGlone L, Mactier H, Weaver LT. Drug misuse in pregnancy: losing sight of the baby? Arch Dis Child 2009;94:708–12. Spiteri Cornish K, Hrabovsky M, Scott NW, et al. The short- and long-term effects on the visual system of children following exposure to maternal substance misuse in pregnancy. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156:190–4. Konijnenberg C, Melinder A. Neurodevelopmental investigation of the mirror neurone syndrome in children of women receiving opioid maintenance therapy during pregnancy. Addiction 2012;108:154–60. Taylor MJ, McCulloch DL. Visual evoked potentials in infants and children. J Clin Neurophysiol 1992;9:357–72. McGlone L, Hamilton R, McCulloch DL, et al. Neonatal visual evoked potentials in infants born to mothers prescribed methadone. Pediatrics 2013;131:e857–63. McGlone L, Mactier H, Hassan H, et al. In utero drug and alcohol exposure in infants born to mothers prescribed maintenance methadone. In press: accepted for publication in Arch Dis Child 2013;98:F542–4. Gareri J, Lynn H, Handley M, et al. Prevalence of fetal ethanol exposure in a regional population-based sample by meconium analysis of fatty acid ethyl esters. Ther Drug Monit 2008;30:239–45. Atkinson J, Anker S, Rae S, et al. A test battery of child development for examining functional vision (ABCDEFV). Strabismus 2002;10:245–69. Sharma P, Bairagi D, Sachdeva MM, et al. Comparative evaluation of teller and cardiff acuity tests in normals and unilateral amblyopes in under-two-year-olds. Indian J Ophthalmol 2003;51:341–5. Al-Bagdady M, Murphy PJ, Woodhouse JM, et al. Development and distribution of refractive error in children with Down’s syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol 2011;95:1091–7. Woodhouse JM, Cregg M, Gunter HL, et al. The effect of age, size of target, and cognitive factors on accommodative responses of children with Down syndrome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000:41:2479–85. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, et al. ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update). Doc Ophthalmol 2010;120:111–19. Pathai S, Cumberland PM, Rahi JS, et al. Prevalence of and early life influences on childhood strabismus: findings from the Millenium cohort study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010;164:250–7. Sarvananthan N, Surendran M, Roberts EO, et al. The prevalence of nystagmus: the Leicestershire nystagmus survey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:5201–6. Saunders KJ, Brown G, McCulloch DL. Pattern onset visual evoked potentials: more useful than reversal for patients with nystagmus. Doc Ophthalmol 1998;94:265–74. Richards M, Wong A, Foeller P, et al. Duration of binocular decorrelation predicts the severity of latent (fusion maldevelopment) nystagmus in strabismic macaque monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:1872–8. Tychsen L, Richards M, Wong A, et al. The neural mechanism for latent (fusion maldevelopment) nystagmus. J Neuroophthalmol 2010;30:276–83. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Epidemiology in medicine. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 1987:39–43.
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Clinical science 26
27 28
Guo HZ, Enters EK, McDowell KP, et al. The effects of prenatal exposure to methadone on neurotransmitters in neonatal rats. Brain Res Dev Brain Res 1990;57:296–8. Wu VW, Mo Q, Yabe T, et al. Perinatal opioids reduce straital nerve growth factor content in rat striatum. Eur J Pharmacol 2001;414:211–14. Pertschuk LP, Sher JH, Ford DH. A morphological comparison of the regional distribution of methadone in human and rat brain as demonstrated by immunofluorescence. Drug Alcohol Depend 1976;1:247–54.
29
30 31
McGlone L, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:238–245. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Mattick RP, Kimber J, Breen C, et al. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; (2):CD002207. Jones HE, Kaltenbach K, Heil SH, et al. Neonatal abstinence syndrome after methadone or buprenorphine exposure. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2320–31. Whitham JN, Spurrier NJ, Sawyer MG, et al. The effects of prenatal exposure to buprenorphine or methadone on infant visual evoked potentials. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2010;32:280–8.
245
Downloaded from bjo.bmj.com on June 2, 2014 - Published by group.bmj.com
Visual outcome in infants born to drug-misusing mothers prescribed methadone in pregnancy Laura McGlone, Ruth Hamilton, Daphne L McCulloch, et al. Br J Ophthalmol 2014 98: 238-245 originally published online November 18, 2013
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303967
Updated information and services can be found at: http://bjo.bmj.com/content/98/2/238.full.html
These include:
References
This article cites 27 articles, 9 of which can be accessed free at: http://bjo.bmj.com/content/98/2/238.full.html#ref-list-1
Email alerting service
Topic Collections
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections Optic nerve (630 articles) Optics and refraction (447 articles) Epidemiology (883 articles) Muscles (224 articles) Neurology (1190 articles)
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
