Jennifer Shearer Miller1,2, Henrietta S Bada3, Markos Leggas4,5, Philip M Westgate6. 1. University of Tennessee, College of Nursing, Knoxville, TN, USA. wsmith6@utk.edu. 2. University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA. wsmith6@utk.edu. 3. University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA. 4. University of Kentucky, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lexington, KY, USA. 5. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Memphis, TN, USA. 6. University of Kentucky, College of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Lexington, KY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the proposed shortened tools based on the Finnegan neonatal abstinence scoring tool (FNAS) for relative clinical utility. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study comparing shortened tools with FNAS on need for treatment, medication initiation cutoff score agreement, and length of treatment in 369 infants with prenatal opioid exposure using estimated areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, Pearson and Spearman correlations, and proportion correctly classified, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: The tools by Gomez et al. and Chervoneva et al. are most predictive of the FNAS cut-off values to initiate treatment, have cutoff values that best align with the FNAS cutoff values, and strongly correlate with the FNAS (r ≥ 0.88 corresponding to treatment initiation, r ≥ 0.83 during first 10 days of treatment). CONCLUSION: The tools of Gomez and Chervoneva demonstrated potential clinical usefulness by strongly associating with the need for treatment and monitoring the course of NAS therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the proposed shortened tools based on the Finnegan neonatal abstinence scoring tool (FNAS) for relative clinical utility. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study comparing shortened tools with FNAS on need for treatment, medication initiation cutoff score agreement, and length of treatment in 369 infants with prenatal opioid exposure using estimated areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, Pearson and Spearman correlations, and proportion correctly classified, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: The tools by Gomez et al. and Chervoneva et al. are most predictive of the FNAS cut-off values to initiate treatment, have cutoff values that best align with the FNAS cutoff values, and strongly correlate with the FNAS (r ≥ 0.88 corresponding to treatment initiation, r ≥ 0.83 during first 10 days of treatment). CONCLUSION: The tools of Gomez and Chervoneva demonstrated potential clinical usefulness by strongly associating with the need for treatment and monitoring the course of NAS therapy.