| Literature DB >> 35359894 |
Rupa Radhakrishnan1, Ramana V Vishnubhotla1, Yi Zhao2, Jingwen Yan2, Bing He2, Nicole Steinhardt3, David M Haas4, Gregory M Sokol5, Senthilkumar Sadhasivam6,7.
Abstract
Background: Infants with prenatal opioid and substance exposure are at higher risk of poor neurobehavioral outcomes in later childhood. Early brain imaging in infancy has the potential to identify early brain developmental alterations that may help predict behavioral outcomes in these children. In this study, using resting-state functional MRI in early infancy, we aim to identify differences in global brain network connectivity in infants with prenatal opioid and substance exposure compared to healthy control infants. Methods and Materials: In this prospective study, we recruited 23 infants with prenatal opioid exposure and 29 healthy opioid naïve infants. All subjects underwent brain resting-state functional MRI before 3 months postmenstrual age. Covariate Assisted Principal (CAP) regression was performed to identify brain networks within which functional connectivity was associated with opioid exposure after adjusting for sex and gestational age. Associations of these significant networks with maternal comorbidities were also evaluated. Additionally, graph network metrics were assessed in these CAP networks.Entities:
Keywords: neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome; opioid use disorder; prenatal opioid exposure; resting state brain networks; rs-fMRI
Year: 2022 PMID: 35359894 PMCID: PMC8964084 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.847037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.418
Demographics of study population.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male, | 8 (35) | 15(52) | 0.22 |
| Gestational age at birth (weeks), mean (SD) | 37.87 (2.64) | 39.23 (0.76) | 0.02 |
| Birth weight (Kg), mean (SD) | 2.73 (0.52) | 3.32 (0.37) | 0.52 |
| APGAR score 1 min, mean (SD) | 8.39 (0.94) | 7.93 (1.67) | <0.001 |
| APGAR score 5 min, mean (SD) | 8.83 (0.49) | 8.76 (0.74) | 0.03 |
| Head circumference at birth (cm), mean (SD) | 33.01 (2.33) | 34.35 (1.65) | 0.22 |
| Postmenstrual age at scan (weeks), mean (SD) | 44.13 (3.15) | 44.64 (2.18) | 0.70 |
|
| |||
| Non-hispanic white | 20 | 18 | 0.57 |
| Non-hispanic black | 1 | 10 | 0.07 |
| Hispanic white | 1 | 1 | 0.57 |
| Non-hispanic mixed | 1 | 0 | n/a |
| Maternal depression/stress/anxiety, | 12 (52) | 4 (14) | 0.03 |
| Maternal smoking, | 15 (65.2) | 0 | n/a |
| Any maternal alcohol use during pregnancy | 0 | 0 | n/a |
| Maternal hepatitis C, | 5 (21.7) | 0 | n/a |
| Maternal college degree, | 1 (4.3) | 15 (51.7) | 0.013 |
| Maternal methadone, | 4 (17.4) | n/a | n/a |
| Maternal buprenorphine, | 18 (78.3) | n/a | n/a |
| Maternal illicit opioids (e.g., heroin and/or fentanyl), | 8 (34.8) | n/a | n/a |
| Other maternal non-opioid illicit drug use, | 6 (26.1) | 0 | n/a |
| Neonatal abstinence syndrome requiring opioid treatment, | 5 (21.7) | n/a | n/a |
| Length of infant Hospital stay, mean days (SD) | 11.78 (11.77) | 2.03 (0.82) | <0.001 |
Unpaired two-sided t-test was used to compare continuous variables and Chi square test was used to compare categorical variables.
Estimated coefficients of the CAP regression model.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opioid | 0.62 (0.07, 1.16) | 0.51 (0.17, 0.85) | −0.42 (−0.74, −0.10) | −0.40 (−0.55, −0.26) |
| Male | −0.38 (−0.75, −0.01) | −0.51 (−0.76, −0.25) | −0.44 (−0.82, −0.05) | −0.35 (−0.50, −0.20) |
| Gestational age | −0.18 (−0.57, 0.22) | 0.03 (−0.19, 0.26) | 0.17 (0.05, 0.29) | 0.23 (0.14, 0.31) |
Estimated model coefficient and 95% confidence interval from 500 bootstrap samples in the CAP regression model for the subnetworks with a significant difference between opioid exposed infants and controls. The presence of prenatal opioid exposure was considered the variable of interest and the analyses were adjusted for the effects of sex and gestational age.
Figure 1CAP networks. Graphs of gestational age and sex adjusted intra-network connectivity in infants with POE (labeled “yes”) and control infants (labeled “NO”) for the CAP networks (C2,C4, C5, and C6) that were significantly different between the two groups after correcting for multiple network comparisons as well as for gestational age and sex.
Association estimates of the maternal risk factors and CAP network components.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Maternal psychological factors | 0.3 (−0.06; 0.66) | 0.3 | 0.13 (−0.2; 0.46) | 1 | −0.39 (−0.66; −0.12) | 0.018 | −0.46 (−0.73; −0.2) | 0.0027 |
| Maternal polysubstance use | 0.29 (−0.38; 0.95) | 1 | −0.34 (−0.91; 0.23) | 0.66 | 0.13 (−0.13; 0.34) | 0.93 | 0.21 (−0.11; 0.54) | 0.54 |
| Maternal smoking | −0.21 (−0.91; 0.48) | 1 | 0.25 (−0.36; 0.85) | 1 | 0.06 (−0.23; 0.34) | 1 | −0.02 (−0.37; 0.33) | 1 |
Association estimates of the maternal risk factors and the CAP network components that were significantly different between infants with prenatal opioid exposure and control infants. For each network, Bonferroni method was used for correcting for multiple comparisons. Positive estimates indicate higher intra-network functional connectivity in the presence of that maternal covariate, and negative estimates indicate lower intra-network functional connectivity in the presence of that maternal covariate.
Significance of difference in graph network-level topological measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assortativity | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.77 | 0.67 |
| Average flow coefficient | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.03 |
| Density | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.24 |
| Global efficiency | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.4 |
| Modularity | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.67 |
| Clustering coefficient | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.77 | 0.03 |
| Transitivity | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.03 |
Significance of difference in graph network-level topological measures between infants with prenatal opioid exposure and control infant groups on the CAP networks that were significantly different between the POE and control groups. For each network, FDR correction for multiple comparisons was performed.
Figure 2Graph network modeling representation. Representative example of single subject graph network modeling for CAP C6 network in a control infant (top row) and infant with POE (bottom row). The dots refer to the center of the atlas region of interest and the connecting lines represent the thresholded graph network connections in these subjects.