[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.
PRISMA Flow Diagram of Search
PRISMA Flow Diagram of Search
Figure 2.
Cognitive Outcomes Among All Age Groups
Cognitive Outcomes Among All Age Groups

IV indicates inverse variance method; POE, prenatal opioid exposure; and SMD, standardized mean difference.

Figure 3.
Motor Results in Children Aged 0 to 6 Years
Motor Results in Children Aged 0 to 6 Years

IV indicates inverse variance method; POE, prenatal opioid exposure; and SMD, standardized mean difference.

Table 1.  
Cognitive Subgroup Analyses
Cognitive Subgroup Analyses
Table 2.  
Motor Subgroup Analyses
Motor Subgroup Analyses
1.
Patrick  SW, Dudley  J, Martin  PR,  et al.  Prescription opioid epidemic and infant outcomes.  Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):842-850. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3299PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Nørgaard  M, Nielsson  MS, Heide-Jørgensen  U.  Birth and neonatal outcomes following opioid use in pregnancy: a Danish population-based study.  Subst Abuse. 2015;9(suppl 2):5-11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Patrick  SW, Davis  MM, Lehmann  CU, Cooper  WO.  Increasing incidence and geographic distribution of neonatal abstinence syndrome: United States 2009 to 2012.  J Perinatol. 2015;35(8):650-655. doi:10.1038/jp.2015.36PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Wu  C-C, Hung  C-J, Shen  C-H,  et al.  Prenatal buprenorphine exposure decreases neurogenesis in rats.  Toxicol Lett. 2014;225(1):92-101. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2013.12.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hu  S, Sheng  WS, Lokensgard  JR, Peterson  PK.  Morphine induces apoptosis of human microglia and neurons.  Neuropharmacology. 2002;42(6):829-836. doi:10.1016/S0028-3908(02)00030-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
McGinty  JF, Ford  DH.  Effects of prenatal methadone on rat brain catecholamines.  Dev Neurosci. 1980;3(4-6):224-234. doi:10.1159/000112395PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Slotkin  TA, Whitmore  WL, Salvaggio  M, Seidler  FJ.  Perinatal methadone addiction affects brain synaptic development of biogenic amine systems in the rat.  Life Sci. 1979;24(13):1223-1229. doi:10.1016/0024-3205(79)90059-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Younger  JW, Chu  LF, D’Arcy  NT, Trott  KE, Jastrzab  LE, Mackey  SC.  Prescription opioid analgesics rapidly change the human brain.  Pain. 2011;152(8):1803-1810. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.03.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Parolin  M, Simonelli  A, Mapelli  D, Sacco  M, Cristofalo  P.  Parental substance abuse as an early traumatic event: preliminary findings on neuropsychological and personality functioning in young drug addicts exposed to drugs early.  Front Psychol. 2016;7:887. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00887PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Kaltenbach  K, O’Grady  KE, Heil  SH,  et al.  Prenatal exposure to methadone or buprenorphine: early childhood developmental outcomes.  Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;185:40-49. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.11.030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Swift  W, Copeland  J, Hall  W.  Characteristics of women with alcohol and other drug problems: findings of an Australian national survey.  Addiction. 1996;91(8):1141-1150. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1996.91811416.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Ellwood  DA, Sutherland  P, Kent  C, O’Connor  M.  Maternal narcotic addiction: pregnancy outcome in patients managed by a specialized drug-dependency antenatal clinic.  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987;27(2):92-98. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.1987.tb00952.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Abdel-Latif  ME, Bajuk  B, Lui  K, Oei  J; NSW on ACT Neonatal Intensive Care Units’ Study (NICUS) Group.  Short-term outcomes of infants of substance-using mothers admitted to neonatal intensive care units in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.  J Paediatr Child Health. 2007;43(3):127-133. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2007.01031.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Taplin  S, Mattick  RP.  Mothers in methadone treatment and their involvement with the child protection system: a replication and extension study.  Child Abuse Negl. 2013;37(8):500-510. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.01.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Griffiths  SK, Campbell  JP.  Placental structure, function and drug transfer.  Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2015;15(2):84-89. doi:10.1093/bjaceaccp/mku013Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Ross  EJ, Graham  DL, Money  KM, Stanwood  GD.  Developmental consequences of fetal exposure to drugs: what we know and what we still must learn.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015;40(1):61-87. doi:10.1038/npp.2014.147PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Walhovd  KB, Moe  V, Slinning  K,  et al.  Volumetric cerebral characteristics of children exposed to opiates and other substances in utero.  Neuroimage. 2007;36(4):1331-1344. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.070PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Nygaard  E, Slinning  K, Moe  V, Due-Tønnessen  P, Fjell  A, Walhovd  KB.  Neuroanatomical characteristics of youths with prenatal opioid and poly-drug exposure.  Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2018;68:13-26. doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2018.04.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
McDaniel  MA.  Big-brained people are smarter: a meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence.  Intelligence. 2005;33(4):337-346. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.005Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Stroup  DF, Berlin  JA, Morton  SC,  et al; Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting.  JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Liberati  A, Altman  DG, Tetzlaff  J,  et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.  BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Higgins  J, Green  S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 5.1.0 ed. London, England: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
23.
Wallace  BC, Schmid  CH, Lau  J, Trikalinos  TA.  Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):80. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-80PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Riley  RD, Higgins  JPT, Deeks  JJ.  Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses.  BMJ. 2011;342:d549. doi:10.1136/bmj.d549PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 12.6.2 Re-expressing SMDs using rules of thumb for effect sizes. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_12/12_6_2_re_expressing_smds_using_rules_of_thumb_for_effect_sizes.htm. Accessed August 5, 2018.
26.
Sterne  JAC, Egger  M, Smith  GD.  Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis.  BMJ. 2001;323(7304):101-105. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Sedgwick  P.  Meta-analyses: what is heterogeneity?  BMJ. 2015;350:h1435. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1435PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Wells  G, Shea  B, O’Connell  D,  et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed August 30, 2018.
29.
Bunikowski  R, Grimmer  I, Heiser  A, Metze  B, Schäfer  A, Obladen  M.  Neurodevelopmental outcome after prenatal exposure to opiates.  Eur J Pediatr. 1998;157(9):724-730. doi:10.1007/s004310050923PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Hans  SL, Jeremy  RJ.  Postneonatal mental and motor development of infants exposed in utero to opioid drugs.  Infant Ment Health J. 2001;22(3):300-315. doi:10.1002/imhj.1003Google ScholarCrossref
31.
Hunt  RW, Tzioumi  D, Collins  E, Jeffery  HE.  Adverse neurodevelopmental outcome of infants exposed to opiate in-utero.  Early Hum Dev. 2008;84(1):29-35. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.01.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Kaltenbach  K, Finnegan  LP.  Children exposed to methadone in utero: assessment of developmental and cognitive ability.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1989;562(1):360-362. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1989.tb21039.xGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Levine  TA, Woodward  LJ.  Early inhibitory control and working memory abilities of children prenatally exposed to methadone.  Early Hum Dev. 2018;116:68-75. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2017.11.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Messinger  DS, Bauer  CR, Das  A,  et al.  The maternal lifestyle study: cognitive, motor, and behavioral outcomes of cocaine-exposed and opiate-exposed infants through three years of age.  Pediatrics. 2004;113(6):1677-1685. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1677PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Nygaard  E, Moe  V, Slinning  K, Walhovd  KB.  Longitudinal cognitive development of children born to mothers with opioid and polysubstance use.  Pediatr Res. 2015;78(3):330-335. doi:10.1038/pr.2015.95PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Ornoy  A, Michailevskaya  V, Lukashov  I, Bar-Hamburger  R, Harel  S.  The developmental outcome of children born to heroin-dependent mothers, raised at home or adopted.  Child Abuse Negl. 1996;20(5):385-396. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(96)00014-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Rosen  TS, Johnson  HL.  Children of methadone-maintained mothers: follow-up to 18 months of age.  J Pediatr. 1982;101(2):192-196. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(82)80115-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Serino Ma  D, Peterson Md  BS, Rosen Md  TS.  Psychological functioning of women taking illicit drugs during pregnancy and the growth and development of their offspring in early childhood.  J Dual Diagn. 2018;14(3):158-170. doi:10.1080/15504263.2018.1468946PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Strauss  ME, Starr  RH, Ostrea  EM, Chavez  CJ, Stryker  JC.  Behavioural concomitants of prenatal addiction to narcotics.  J Pediatr. 1976;89(5):842-846. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(76)80822-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
van Baar  A.  Development of infants of drug dependent mothers.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1990;31(6):911-920. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1990.tb00833.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Wilson  GS, Desmond  MM, Wait  RB.  Follow-up of methadone-treated and untreated narcotic-dependent women and their infants: health, developmental, and social implications.  J Pediatr. 1981;98(5):716-722. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(81)80830-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Bauman  PS, Levine  SA.  The development of children of drug addicts.  Int J Addict. 1986;21(8):849-863. doi:10.3109/10826088609027399PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Lifschitz  MH, Wilson  GS, Smith  EO, Desmond  MM.  Factors affecting head growth and intellectual function in children of drug addicts.  Pediatrics. 1985;75(2):269-274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Nair  P, Black  MM, Ackerman  JP, Schuler  ME, Keane  VA.  Children’s cognitive-behavioral functioning at age 6 and 7: prenatal drug exposure and caregiving environment.  Ambul Pediatr. 2008;8(3):154-162. doi:10.1016/j.ambp.2008.02.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Ornoy  A.  The impact of intrauterine exposure versus postnatal environment in neurodevelopmental toxicity: long-term neurobehavioral studies in children at risk for developmental disorders.  Toxicol Lett. 2003;140-141:171-181. doi:10.1016/S0378-4274(02)00505-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Pulsifer  MB, Butz  AM, O’Reilly Foran  M, Belcher  HME.  Prenatal drug exposure: effects on cognitive functioning at 5 years of age.  Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2008;47(1):58-65. doi:10.1177/0009922807305872PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Rosen  TS, Johnson  HL.  Long-term effects of prenatal methadone maintenance.  NIDA Res Monogr. 1985;59:73-83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
van Baar  A, de Graaff  BM.  Cognitive development at preschool-age of infants of drug-dependent mothers.  Dev Med Child Neurol. 1994;36(12):1063-1075. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1994.tb11809.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Walhovd  KB, Bjørnebekk  A, Haabrekke  K,  et al.  Child neuroanatomical, neurocognitive, and visual acuity outcomes with maternal opioid and polysubstance detoxification.  Pediatr Neurol. 2015;52(3):326-32.e1, 3. doi:10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2014.11.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Wilson  GS, McCreary  R, Kean  J, Baxter  JC.  The development of preschool children of heroin-addicted mothers: a controlled study.  Pediatrics. 1979;63(1):135-141. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(79)80107-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Ornoy  A, Finkel-Pekarsky  V, Peles  E, Adelson  M, Schreiber  S, Ebstein  PR.  ADHD risk alleles associated with opiate addiction: study of addicted parents and their children.  Pediatr Res. 2016;80(2):228-236. doi:10.1038/pr.2016.78PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Robey  A, Buckingham-Howes  S, Salmeron  BJ, Black  MM, Riggins  T.  Relations among prospective memory, cognitive abilities, and brain structure in adolescents who vary in prenatal drug exposure.  J Exp Child Psychol. 2014;127:144-162. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Nygaard  E, Slinning  K, Moe  V, Walhovd  KB.  Behavior and attention problems in eight-year-old children with prenatal opiate and poly-substance exposure: a longitudinal study.  PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0158054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158054PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Moe  V.  Foster-placed and adopted children exposed in utero to opiates and other substances: prediction and outcome at four and a half years.  J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2002;23(5):330-339. doi:10.1097/00004703-200210000-00006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Bayley  N.  Bayley Scales of Infant Development. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp; 1969.
56.
Bayley  N.  Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 2nd ed. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp; 1993.
57.
Bayley  N.  Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment; 2006.
58.
Griffiths  R.  The Abilities of Young Children. High Wydcombe, UK: The Test Agency; 1976.
59.
McCarthy  D.  Manual for the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities. New York, NY: Psychological Corp; 1972.
60.
Gale  HR.  Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. 5th ed. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing; 2003.
61.
Weschler  D.  The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp; 1989.
62.
Snijders  JT, Snijders-Oomen  N. Snijders-Oomen Non-verbal Intelligence Scale, SON 2.5-7. Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff; 1976.
63.
Stutsman  R.  Merrill-Palmer Scale of Mental Tests. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services; 1948.
64.
Weschler  D.  Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp; 1949.
65.
Weschler  D.  Wechsler Intelligence Scale For Children-Revised. New York, NY: Psychological Corp; 1974.
66.
Tiffin  J, Asher  EJ.  The Purdue pegboard; norms and studies of reliability and validity.  J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):234-247. doi:10.1037/h0061266PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
Brydges  CR, Landes  JK, Reid  CL, Campbell  C, French  N, Anderson  M.  Cognitive outcomes in children and adolescents born very preterm: a meta-analysis.  Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018;60(5):452-468. doi:10.1111/dmcn.13685PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Twilhaar  ES, Wade  RM, de Kieviet  JF, van Goudoever  JB, van Elburg  RM, Oosterlaan  J.  Cognitive outcomes of children born extremely or very preterm since the 1990s and associated risk factors: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.  JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(4):361-367. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
American Psychiatric Association.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
70.
Maguire  DJ, Taylor  S, Armstrong  K,  et al.  Long-term outcomes of infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome.  Neonatal Netw. 2016;35(5):277-286. doi:10.1891/0730-0832.35.5.277PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Gonzalez  SL, Reeb-Sutherland  BC, Nelson  EL.  Quantifying motor experience in the infant brain: EEG power, coherence, and mu desynchronization.  Front Psychol. 2016;7(216):216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
72.
Libertus  K, Hauf  P.  Motor skills and their foundational role for perceptual, social, and cognitive development.  Front Psychol. 2017;8:301. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00301PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Baldacchino  A, Arbuckle  K, Petrie  DJ, McCowan  C.  Neurobehavioral consequences of chronic intrauterine opioid exposure in infants and preschool children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14(1):104. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-14-104PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Oei  JL, Melhuish  E, Uebel  H,  et al.  Neonatal abstinence syndrome and high school performance.  Pediatrics. 2017;139(2):e20162651. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2651PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
Yen  C-J, Konold  TR, McDermott  PA.  Does learning behavior augment cognitive ability as an indicator of academic achievement?  J Sch Psychol. 2004;42(2):157-169. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2003.12.001Google ScholarCrossref
76.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2010. Overcoming school failure: policies that work. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/45171670.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2018.
77.
Jimerson  SR.  On the failure of failure: examining the association between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence.  J Sch Psychol. 1999;37(3):243-272. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00005-9Google ScholarCrossref
78.
Christle  C, Jolivette  K, Nelson  C.  Breaking the school to prison pipeline: identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency.  Exceptionality. 2005;13(2):69-88. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1302_2Google ScholarCrossref
79.
Trenz  RC, Harrell  P, Scherer  M, Mancha  BE, Latimer  WW.  A model of school problems, academic failure, alcohol initiation, and the relationship to adult heroin injection.  Subst Use Misuse. 2012;47(10):1159-1171. doi:10.3109/10826084.2012.686142PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
80.
Winklbaur  B, Kopf  N, Ebner  N, Jung  E, Thau  K, Fischer  G.  Treating pregnant women dependent on opioids is not the same as treating pregnancy and opioid dependence: a knowledge synthesis for better treatment for women and neonates.  Addiction. 2008;103(9):1429-1440. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02283.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Hudak  ML, Tan  RC; Committee on Drugs; Committee on Fetus and Newborn; American Academy of Pediatrics.  Neonatal drug withdrawal.  Pediatrics. 2012;129(2):e540-e560. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-3212PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
82.
Robinson  KE, Kaizar  E, Catroppa  C, Godfrey  C, Yeates  KO.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive interventions for children with central nervous system disorders and neurodevelopmental disorders.  J Pediatr Psychol. 2014;39(8):846-865. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsu031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
83.
Thompson  SG, Higgins  JP.  How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?  Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1559-1573. doi:10.1002/sim.1187PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    6 Comments for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Another side of the opioid epidemic
    Frederick Rivara, MD, MPH | University of Washington
    Opioid overdose is a tragic consequence of opioid abuse but it is not the only one. This review of 26 studies shows that the neurocognitive consequences of prenatal exposure to opioids can persist to at least 6 years of age. This represents another adverse childhood exposure that, combined with other social determinants, can have very negative long term effects on children.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Editor in Chief, JAMA Network Open.
    Unadjusted effects are misleading and dangerous
    Steven J. Ondersma, PhD, Elisabeth Conradt, PhD, and Barry Lester, PhD |
    Studies first appearing in the mid-1980s reported a range of neurobehavioral consequences associated with prenatal exposure to cocaine, and led, at least in the United States, to what we now know to be an unjustified, unnecessary, and tremendously harmful panic regarding the long-term consequences of cocaine use in pregnancy. It is now well-known that this early research was deeply flawed, primarily by the failure to appropriately control for confounding factors such as other substance use, poverty, parental characteristics, and environmental factors; but also by factors such as small sample sizes, failure to control for multiple comparisons, non-blinded evaluations, and publication bias, to name a few. Research addressing these flaws shows that the effects of prenatal exposure to a substance—although clear in unadjusted analyses—are substantially attenuated once adjusted for confounding factors. This research also shows that the effects of prenatal exposure to illicit drugs are inconsistent, subtle, and similar to those associated with other substances such as tobacco.

    Many scientists and advocacy groups have struggled to keep this more nuanced and evidence-based message at the forefront as subsequent trends (e.g., methamphetamines previously and opioids currently) threaten to give new energy to the persecution of women on the basis of inaccurate assumptions. (For example, see http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/ScienceNotStigma.pdf and http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/%2522Meth%2522%20Open%20Letter%20-%202005.pdf). In meta-analyzing unadjusted effects from multiple studies, Yeoh et al. (2019) paint a misleading picture of the actual effects of prenatal opioid exposure. They do include analyses adjusting for crude measures of SES, but not for other substances or maternal characteristics that are widely known as critical confounds. Yeoh et al. further enhance the risk of misinterpretation by failing to highlight that their findings have not been adjusted for these well-known confounds, and by suggesting that these deficits may lead to a range of dire, lifelong, and even intergenerational consequences.

    Science has a responsibility to actively prevent misuse or misinterpretation of findings--particularly when the risk of such misuse is high. We urge all of our colleagues to strive for a measured and nuanced tone that accurately reflects decades of progress in the understanding of prenatal substance exposure.

    Steven J. Ondersma, PhD, Wayne State University
    Elisabeth Conradt, PhD, University of Utah
    Barry Lester, PhD, Brown University
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Inattention to associated factors may lead to erroneous conclusions
    Karol Kaltenbach, PhD, and Lori Keyser-Marcus, PhD | Thomas Jefferson University and Virginia Commonwealth University
    Yeoh and colleagues [1] recent meta-analysis of 26 studies comparing children exposed to prenatal opioids with unexposed children concluded that “prenatal opioid exposure was associated with lower cognitive scores”. In their Meaning summation, they state that “The negative consequences of prenatal opioid exposure on neurocognitive and physical development appear to be present from 6 months and persist beyond school age” and that “our results suggest that children with prenatal opioid exposure (POE) never reach the neurocognitive level of their peers”. These conclusions are not well founded.

    First, the cohort studies in the meta-analyses, should have been viewed
    with caution in the interpretation of their findings, given known concerns of inference from retrospective studies of POE [2].

    Second, the substantial heterogeneity associated with many of the outcomes, suggests systematic variance associated with either the cohort study methods and/or participant factors. Although Yeoh et al. attempt to address these shortcomings with their subsample and meta-regression analyses, their efforts were largely unsuccessful. This failure is likely due to the fact that, type(s) of opioids other than the main opioid used, length of exposure, amount of exposure, and the extent of illicit and/or licit exposure were not modeled.

    Finally, Yeoh et al. largely ignore the issue of fetal exposure in their interpretation of their results. Fetuses of expectant mothers with opioid use disorder (OUD), irrespective of pharmacotherapy, often suffer from a host of adverse maternal circumstances [eg, nutritional inadequacy, unstable housing, exposure to violence, psychiatric issues, exposures to licit and illicit substances, and concomitant medications known to be related to developmental delays [3]. Thus, the extent to which any differences found between this group of children and a normative sample of children on the BSIS is unknown and suspect.

    In summary, POE merits research focusing on its timely identification and treatment. However, much like a focus on the relationship between neonatal abstinence syndrome and childhood developmental milestones [4,5], scrutiny of the relationship between prenatal opioid exposure and later neurocognitive and motor problems is likely to suffer from causal reductionism: Neurocognitive and motor problems are associated with POE, so POE is the cause of the deficits.

    This causal explanation is fallible. Developmental differences between children with prenatal exposure to opioids and an unexposed sample of children, are likely due to a number of prenatal and/or postnatal factors, which may or may not include prenatal opioid exposure.

    1- Yeoh SL, et al. Cognitive and Motor Outcomes of Children With Prenatal Opioid Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e197025.
    2-Jones HE, et al. Prenatal Opioid Exposure, Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome/Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome, and Later Child Development Research: Shortcomings and Solutions. J Addict Med. 2019;13(2):90-2.
    3-Kaltenbach K, et al. Prenatal exposure to methadone or buprenorphine: Early childhood developmental outcomes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;185:40-9.
    4-Jones HE, et al. Reconsidering retrospective review of neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome. J Perinatol. 2018;38(9):1280-1281.
    5-Jones HE, Kaltenbach K. Neonatal abstinence syndrome. JAMA. 2012;308:762–3.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Prenatal opioid exposure: May or may not be a causative factor for child neurocognitive development
    Hendrée E. Jones, PhD, Kevin E. O’Grady, PhD and Lauren M. Jansson, MD |
    Yeoh and colleagues reported a 26-study meta-analysis of 1455 children with prenatal opioid exposure (POE) compared with 2982 unexposed children [1]. We take issue concerning both the interpretation of results and the conclusions drawn by the authors.
    The drawbacks and perils of inference from retrospective POE studies [2] without consideration for maternal psychosocial factors should have led to substantial caution involving interpretation of their findings.
    The statement that “children with POE never reach the neurocognitive level of their peers” is a classic inferential error in which summary data pooled over studies is used to draw an inference to
    the individual case – an example of the ecological fallacy. This error is compounded by the fact that the standardized mean differences and their confidence intervals, together with the substantial heterogeneity associated with many of the outcomes reported by Yeoh et al., clearly do not suggest an effect so strong and so uniform that no child with POE would reach normal levels of functioning. As an example of the extent to which they have misinterpreted their own data, an analysis [3] of the BSID scores for the “POE children” samples in the 8 studies that reported a BSID mean (Supplementary Material eTable 1) indicates significant differences between the means in the studies, F(7, 325)=12.4, p<.001, R2=.21. The model-derived estimated BSID grand mean was 101.8 (SE=.9), significantly higher than the standardization sample mean of 100, contrast difference=1.8, p=.04. Hence, 8 POE samples (n=333 children) administered the BSID showed little evidence of global intellectual deficit. Wechsler and Stanford-Binet means (eTable 1) might suggest weak evidence of mild problems in intellectual functioning in 7 studies (n=414 children), with the model-derived grand mean lower than the standardization sample mean of 100, contrast difference=-6.9, p<.001. This difference is less than half the standardization sample standard deviation for both measures, and hardly suggests substantial intellectual deficits. Moreover, four samples had “Heroin” and one had “Unspecified” as the “Main opioid used”, indicating a lack of maternal treatment and possible additional risks to the both mothers and fetuses due to active use of psychoactive substance(s).
    Finally, findings from secondary longitudinal analyses of data from a randomized controlled trial [4] that reported results contradictory to Yeoh et al.’s conclusions were not mentioned in their “systematic review” – yet the article itself was among its citations.
    In summary, Yeoh et al. did a disservice when they concluded: “The negative consequences of prenatal opioid exposure on neurocognitive and physical development appear to be present from 6 months and persist beyond school age”. POE may or may not be a causative factor for child neurocognitive development. In any case, it is very likely one of many causes of developmental problems in children. Data on POE must be interpreted correctly, or we risk repeating the misconceptions regarding children with POE that were expressed regarding children with prenatal cocaine exposure.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Another difficult but timely published peer reviewed article!
    Charles Green, Ph.D. | Alpha Maxx Healthcare, Inc.
    We have provided care coordination and clinical collaborated perinatal delivery system services for over 30,000 Medicaid pregnant recipients over the past 20 years. In addition, I have personally volunteered with the TN Dept. of Children Services as a community representative, using the Annie Casey Methodology, for 7 years. These are for providing guidance to families with newborns suffering from physical and sexual abuse, as well as, neglect. Any research that enlighten us with reasons to intensify preventive services, to this most vulnerable humans on earth, deserves our praise!!
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    Association not Causation - Support for Long-Term Follow-up is Needed
    Ju Lee Oei, MBBS FRACP MD | University of New South Wales
    Concerns are expressed that the primary findings of our study, that children with a history of prenatal opioid exposure (POE) are at risk of early and lasting neurodevelopmental impairment, is erroneously attributed to a direct causative effect of opioids and not adjusted for the myriad of adverse risk factors that often accompany maternal opioid use, such as poverty, poor nutrition, lifestyle stressors and even genetic differences, all of which could impact ultimate childhood outcomes.

    We note that our findings do not infer causation and we have emphasized these limitations in our manuscript. We have in fact cautioned that our
    findings may be prone to inaccurate conclusions derived from the observational nature of the data and that there is substantial variability within each subgroup.

    Nevertheless, there is strong biological evidence justifying concern. Opioids, even in animal studies without the addition of adverse human lifestyle issues, are neurotoxic. Opioid exposure impairs brain growth, neuronal differentiation and cognitive functioning. Extrapolating these findings to the human child is difficult but preclinical work suggests that much work needs to be done to ensure that prenatal opioids do not cause harm to the developing brain.

    We thus find ourselves in a Catch-22 situation. How can we follow-up these group of children if the evidence currently does not cohesively agree that there is a need for such follow-up? How can we conduct studies to help us understand the impact of opioids on neurodevelopment if there is none?

    Therefore, the aim of our meta-analysis was to investigate if any long-term neurocognitive differences even existed to necessitate future research that adjust or control for all possible confounders and are of adequate sample size.

    We are of the opinion that problems associated with parental opioid dependency cannot be ignored, especially when there are strong calls from policy makers to provide support and resources to assist affected children and families (www.drugabuse.gov). This is especially pertinent because opioids are important medications but are also one of the most common drugs of misuse.

    It is reassuring that opioid-exposed children generally perform within the normal range in developmental tests (Kaltenbach et al, 2018). Formal developmental tests are often used as an indicator of future cognitive function but in high risk populations, other factors could influence future outcomes, such as school absenteeism and an unstable home life and this is noted as a limitation in our study.

    The many extenuating circumstances accompanying prenatal opioid exposure may or may not be modifiable but the considerable benefits, including cost-effectiveness, of timely identification and intervention for children at risk of future disadvantage surpasses any initial costs and could decrease or even prevent poor life outcomes for thousands of children around the world.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    Pediatrics
    July 12, 2019

    Cognitive and Motor Outcomes of Children With Prenatal Opioid Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Medical student, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    • 2Sydney Local Health District, Croydon, New South Wales, Australia
    • 3Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
    • 4Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    • 5Sydney Institute for Women, Children and Their Families, Camperdown, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    • 6Early Start Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
    • 7University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, Queensland, Australia
    • 8NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
    • 9Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    • 10Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom
    • 11Department of Newborn Care, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, Australia
    JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e197025. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7025
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  Is prenatal opioid exposure associated with differences in childhood cognitive and motor development?

    Findings  In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 26 studies including 1455 children exposed to prenatal opioids compared with unexposed children, prenatal opioid exposure was associated with lower cognitive scores. The largest difference was seen between ages 6 months and 6 years.

    Meaning  The negative consequences of prenatal opioid exposure on neurocognitive and physical development appear to be present from 6 months and persist beyond school age.

    Abstract

    Importance  Prenatal opioid exposure (POE) is one of the fastest-growing global health problems, but its association with long-term neurologic and physical development remains unknown.

    Objective  To assess the association between POE and cognitive and motor development in children from age 6 months to 18 years.

    Data Sources  Key search terms included prenatal opioid exposure, neonatal abstinence syndrome, and neurocognitive development. Studies were searched using PubMed and Embase, with no publication date restriction, through August 20, 2018.

    Study Selection  Only published cohort studies comparing the results of age-appropriate standardized cognitive and/or motor tests between children with any POE (aged 0-18 years) with drug-free controls were included. Data that were not convertible to means and SDs were excluded.

    Data Extraction and Synthesis  This study was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Standardized mean difference of cognitive and motor tests between POE and nonexposed children.

    Results  Twenty-six peer-reviewed cohort studies were included. Cognitive outcomes were compared for a total of 1455 children with POE and 2982 nonexposed children across 3 age groups (mean [SE] age at cognitive testing was 13 [1.58] months for the toddler group; 4.5 [0.38] years for the preschool group; and 13 [2.36] years for the school-aged group). Motor outcomes were compared for 688 children with POE and 1500 nonexposed children up to age 6 years (mean [SD] age at motor testing, 2 [0.45] years). Standardized mean difference was lower in cognitive tests for children with POE at 0 to 2 years (d = −0.52; 95% CI, −0.74 to −0.31; P < .001) and 3 to 6 years (d = −0.38; 95% CI, −0.69 to −0.07; P < .001); the difference was not significant for those aged 7 to 18 years (d = −0.44; 95% CI, −1.16 to 0.28; P = .23). Motor scores were lower in children with POE (d = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.23-0.74; P < .001).

    Conclusions and Relevance  Prenatal opioid exposure appeared to be negatively associated with neurocognitive and physical development from age 6 months, and this association persisted until adolescence. The cause and association of this with POE or other factors (eg, withdrawal treatment) are uncertain but suggest that POE necessitates long-term support and intervention.

    Introduction

    Prenatal opioid exposure (POE) is a fast-growing health problem, with at least 1 in 5 pregnant women in high-income countries known to have used some form of opioid during pregnancy.1 This incidence has been reported to be associated with increases in the risk of perinatal problems, including neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), prematurity, and low birth weight.2 Neonatal abstinence syndrome affects 75% to 90% of all infants with POE1 and is considered a major global public health issue. The number of babies affected by NAS has increased by more than 400% in the past 2 decades,3 resulting in consumption of health care and social resources. Public expenditure on hospital care for newborns with NAS in the United States alone exceeds $1 billion US dollars per year.3

    The outcomes of infants with POE are therefore relevant, especially in regard to neurodevelopment. In animal studies, opioids impair neuronal development, differentiation, growth, and survival,4,5 as well as neurotransmitter homeostasis.6,7 Changes in brain volume and function are evident even after short-term opioid use in adult humans.8 Prenatal opioid exposure is also associated with a higher risk of exposure to adverse social, environmental, and familial disadvantages that may impede optimal neurodevelopment.9 For example, opioid-using mothers often have poorer educational attainment,10 an increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity,11 and poorer physical health12 that, together with other problems (eg, poverty, inadequate nutrition, and social chaos), may impair their ability to nurture their children.

    There are minimal data on long-term outcomes of children with POE. Most children with POE are healthy and have no other medical issues, making the expense for long-term follow-up difficult to justify.13 Families affected by POE may also be mobile. In Australia, more than 50% of children of mothers in the methadone program are placed in foster care by age 5 and are subjected to various home placements and name changes,14 making long-term tracking difficult.

    Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that neurodevelopmental surveillance and intervention for children with POE should be as important as follow-up for children with other problems (eg, prematurity). Opioids cross the placental and milk barriers and are easily detectable in newborn and fetal products.15 The exact association between opioids and neurogenesis and function is unclear, but opioids have been shown to induce apoptosis of human brain cell cultures in vitro5 and impair synaptosomal uptake of neurotransmitters, such as dopamine and norepinephrine, in mice.7 In human studies, children with a history of POE have smaller head circumferences16 and lower brain volumes, especially of the basal ganglia and cerebellum,17 than other children, and these changes persist to adolescence.18 The association with function is unclear, but in the general population, smaller brain volumes are reported as being associated with lower intelligence and cognitive skills.19

    Individual neurodevelopmental tests are robust indicators of child functioning. They serve to inform on the developmental needs of the child so that intervention therapies can be provided to decrease the risk of future functional problems. However, these tests are time consuming and difficult to conduct, especially with a mobile and chaotic population. Currently available neurodevelopmental data for children with POE arise from small, heterogeneous studies that, individually, are inadequately powered to inform on the needs of this group of children.

    We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies to determine whether association exists between POE and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children aged 0 to 18 years. We hypothesized that POE will be negatively associated with long-term cognitive and motor outcomes and that this association will be apparent before the child enters school.

    Methods

    This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and reported using the guidelines for Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)20 and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.21

    Eligibility Criteria

    Only published cohort studies that compared outcomes of children with POE (aged 0-18 years) with drug-free controls were included. Included studies measured cognitive and/or motor development using age-appropriate, standardized tests and reported results as a mean and SD. Studies without enough data necessary to derive the mean and SD were excluded. All types of opioids were included, such as heroin, methadone, and buprenorphine, as well as known polysubstances (ie, >1 class of drug). Studies were excluded if they did not include human participants, were literature reviews, and did not have drug-free controls as comparators (Figure 1). To our knowledge, there have been no randomized clinical trials of POE vs no exposure.

    Electronic Search Method and Study Selection

    Electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) were searched comprehensively by 2 of us independently (S.L.Y., J.L.O.). Hand searching was also conducted for references of included studies and those of relevant reviews. Backward searching looking for other articles by the same authors was also used, especially for longitudinal cohort studies. A strategy using the search terms prenatal exposure, opioid, methadone, heroin, neonatal abstinence syndrome, cognition, school, academic achievement, intelligence, and neurodevelopment was conducted with no publication date restriction. Articles had to be published in English and as the complete study. The initial search began on June 12, 2018, and continued concurrently with data extraction until August 10, 2018. Three of us (S.L.Y, R.M., and J.L.O.) assessed eligibility by title and abstract screening, and any discrepancies were discussed among all authors with a full-text article review. Study authors were not contacted for further information owing to the protracted amount of time from when some of the studies were conducted (>20 years).

    Data Extraction

    Data extracted from each eligible study included type of exposure to opioids and other drugs, place of birth, rate of NAS, rate of out-of-home placement, age, and types of neurodevelopmental tests used and their outcomes. For longitudinal studies that assessed children several times over years and if results were published in 1 or multiple articles, only 1 result was selected for each age subgroup. For cognitive outcomes, selection was based first on the largest sample size followed by the age closest to the mean age for that subgroup. For motor outcomes, selection was based on the largest sample size followed by the most recent test.22 The subgroups were infancy (≤24 months), preschool age (3-6 years), and school age (7-18 years).

    Statistical Analysis

    The main outcome measures were standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CIs, calculated from the means and SDs of neurodevelopmental tests for POE and unexposed children. Standard meta-analytic procedures were conducted with the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager Software (RevMan, version 5.3) and Meta-Analyst.23 Publication bias and funnel plots were assessed and generated using Meta-Essentials. Because the studies used different assessment tools, a random effects model24 was used to calculate SMD, which was used as effect size per Cohen d (0.3-0.4, small; 0.5-0.8, moderate; >0.8, large effect).25 Publication bias was assessed visually by looking for asymmetry in funnel plots and formally with the Egger test. The Egger test is a linear regression test that examines the association between effect size and SE and is used together with a funnel plot because visual assessment can be subjective.26 Study heterogeneity was assessed using I2 analysis. Heterogeneity was considered significant if the I2 value was greater than 50%.27 The quality of the included articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale,28 which was originally a 9-point scale system, but one that we adapted to 7 points. The criteria of demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study and follow-up was long enough for outcomes to occur were excluded as they were not applicable to the outcome of neurocognitive development. A score of 5 was the threshold for a study to be considered high quality. Sensitivity analyses using only high-quality studies were conducted to determine whether the effect size changed.

    Additional Analyses

    Subgroup analyses based on opioid type, test used, and whether the study controlled for socioeconomic status were performed to examine whether the status contributed to study heterogeneity. Details are provided in Table 1 and Table 2.27 Post hoc random-effects metaregression analysis was performed to identify the association of clinical factors, such as rates of NAS, sex, and foster care, with differences in effect size. Additional analyses were performed only on the 6- to 24-month and 3- to 6-year age groups because of the adequate number of studies with sufficiently large samples (n > 10).

    Results
    Study Selection

    There were 26 studies eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The database search identified 1103 citations. After removal of duplicates, 1095 titles and abstracts were screened. Of these, 189 remained for full-article screening; 52 articles were assessed for eligibility and 26 articles were excluded. A flow diagram is provided in Figure 1.

    Study Characteristics

    Details of the cognitive and motor studies have been summarized in eTable 1 and eTable 2 in the Supplement, respectively. The 26 studies included 1455 children with POE and 2982 controls. There were 18 unique samples of children because some longitudinal studies reported on the same cohort.29-54 The studies were all from high-income countries and regions, including the United States (n = 11),30,32,34,37-39,41,42,44,46,50 Australia (n = 2),31,33 Europe (n = 4),29,35,40,49 and Israel (n = 1).36 Heroin was used in conjunction with polydrug ingestion in 10 studies,35,36,44,45,49-54 methadone in conjunction with polydrug ingestion in 13 studies,29-33,37-39,41-43,47,48 and unspecified opioids in conjunction with polydrug ingestion in 3 studies.34,40,46

    Mean (SE) age at cognitive testing was 13 (1.58) months for the toddler group, 4.5 (0.38) years for the preschool group, and 13 (2.36) years for the school-aged group. Mean (SD) age at motor testing was 2 (0.45) years. Children were born between 1970 and 2004. Sixteen30,32,34,36-39,41-44,46,47,50,52,53 studies controlled for socioeconomic status, 1929,31-33,35-37,39-41,43,45,47-51,53,54 reported rates of NAS, and 2129-31,33,35-38,40,41,43-48,50-54 reported rates of foster or out-of-home care. The reported rates for NAS ranged from 53% to 93%. The incidence of NAS was not reported in 1 study, which was attributed to detoxification of the mothers by the third trimester.49 Rates of out-of-home care ranged from 20% to 72%. In 4 studies,30,38,46,51 all children with POE who were tested were in the care of their mother owing to the differences in recruitment methods, such as foster care being an exclusion criterion46,51 or having a subsample of mothers who were functional enough to retain custody of their children.38

    Cognitive Tests

    For children aged 6 to 24 months, the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID)55 was the most common cognitive test conducted (n = 8).30-32,36,37,39-41 Other tests included the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–Second Edition (BSID-II)56 (n = 3),33-35 Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–Third Edition (BSID-III)57 (n = 1),38 and Griffiths Mental Development Scales58 (n = 1).29 For children 3 to 6 years, the most common test was the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities59 (MSCA) (n = 5),32,35,43,45,50 followed by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales60 (SB) (n = 4).31,42,44,46 Other tests included the Weschler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–III61 (n = 1),49 the Snijders-Oomen Nonverbal Intelligence tests62 (n = 1)48 and the Merrill-Palmer Scale of Mental Tests63 (n = 1).47 For children 7 to 18 years, the most common test was the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children64 (n = 2)51,52 or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Revised65 (n = 1)53 (eTable 1 in the Supplement).

    Types of Motor Tests

    The most common motor test used was the BSID55 (n = 7),30,31,36,37,39-41 followed by BSID-II56 (n = 2)33,34 and MSCA59 (n = 2).32,54 Other tests used were BSID-III57 (n = 1),38 Griffiths Mental Development Scales 58 (n = 1),29 and the Purdue Pegboard Test66 (n = 1)44 (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

    Cognitive Scores

    For infants aged 0 to 24 months, 13 studies pooling 584 children with POE and 1496 controls revealed a significant difference in neurocognitive development. Results for children with POE were lower (d = −0.52; 95% CI, −0.74 to −0.31; P < .001) than those of the controls (Figure 2A). Heterogeneity was significant at 71%. This incidence was partially accounted for by subgroup analysis including only studies that tested using the BSID (I2 = 35%) or included exposure to unspecified drugs (I2 = 0).

    For preschool children aged 3 to 6 years, 13 studies pooling 719 children with POE and 1346 controls revealed a significant difference in neurocognitive development. Results for children with POE were lower (d = −0.38; 95% CI, −0.69 to −0.07; P < .02) than those of controls (Figure 2B). Heterogeneity was significant at 86%. This incidence was partially accounted for by subgroup analyses, including only studies that tested using the MSCA (I2 = 60%) and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (I2 = 0%) or children with exposure to methadone (I2 = 55%) and heroin (I2 = 0%).

    For school-aged children 7 to 18 years, 3 studies pooling 152 children with POE and 140 controls showed that the difference in neurocognitive development was not significant (d = −0.44; 95% CI, −1.16 to 0.28; P = .23) (Figure 2C). Heterogeneity was significant at 89%. However, the number of studies was too small to perform subgroup analysis. All studies were considered high quality.

    Motor Outcomes

    For all children 6 years or younger, 14 studies pooling 688 children with POE and 1500 controls revealed a significant difference in motor development. Results for children with POE were lower (d = −0.49; 95% CI, −0.74 to −0.23; P < .001) than those of the controls (Figure 3). Heterogeneity was significant at 80%. This incidence was partially accounted for by subgroup analyses, including only studies that tested using the BSID (I2 = 37%) or children exposed to heroin (I2 = 22).

    Factors Associated With Outcome Differences

    Post hoc univariate metaregression analyzing the association between rates of NAS, rates of nonmaternal or foster care, and SMD between children with POE and controls was performed. No significant associations between rates of NAS and SMD were found for the age groups 6 to 24 months (B = 0.002; 95% CI, −0.013 to 0.016; P = .79) and 3 to 6 years (B = −0.00; 95% CI, −0.008 to 0.007; P = .96). Similarly, no significant associations between rates of nonmaternal care and SMD were found for the age groups 6 to 24 months (B = −0.001; 95% CI, −0.008 to 0.007; P = .82) and 3 to 6 years (B = −0.003; 95% CI, −0.014 to 0.008; P = .57).

    Evaluation of Bias

    There was no evidence of publication bias in studies comparing cognitive scores of infants (SE, 1.05; 95% CI, −1.11 to 3.46; P = .13) and preschool children (SE, 2.15; 95% CI, −2.07 to 7.29; P = .19) using funnel plot inspection and the Egger test. Publication bias for adolescents was not assessed because there were inadequate numbers (n = 3) of included studies. There was evidence of publication bias in studies comparing motor scores of all children (SE, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.81-9.19; P = .004).

    Discussion

    This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that differences in neurocognitive testing associated with POE occur across a wide age range. The results agree with our hypothesis that POE has a negative association with cognitive and motor outcomes, these issues are apparent from as early as 6 months, and they persist during school age. To put this finding in perspective, an SMD of 0.38 to 0.52 corresponds to a moderate effect size,25 equivalent to 5.7 to 7.8 IQ points on a population level.67,68 Therefore, we expect that up to 6.3% of children with POE will have an IQ score 2 SDs below normal compared with 2.3% of children in a normally distributed population, suggesting that children with POE are 3 times more likely to have severe intellectual disability according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition69 criteria. This difference is significant for children with POE as they are already vulnerable given their tenuous living circumstances and increased risk of neglect and abuse,11 as well as their propensity to have behavioral and attention deficits,70 all of which contribute to poorer academic, social, and lifestyle outcomes.30,34

    The results of our analysis of motor outcomes are similar to those of cognitive outcomes. Children with POE have poorer motor development compared with healthy controls. We found a difference of 0.49—a small to moderate effect size. Deficits in gross motor and fine motor function are associated with poorer executive function.71 Thus, our findings point to opioids being associated with overall neurodevelopment in infants and preschool children both directly and indirectly, as a child’s developmental trajectory is also influenced by his or her physical ability to experience and interact with the world.72

    Poor neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with POE, even from an early age, is not novel information.31,73 However, our data appear to indicate that neurodevelopment did not improve after preschool and worsened by school age. The cause of this outcome is unclear. During preschool, children may receive considerably more individual attention than at a later time in education, with the reduced intervention possibly leading to worsening cognitive abilities. Regardless of the cause, this hampered neurodevelopment has serious implications. For example, a data linkage study by Oei et al74 demonstrated that performance on curriculum-based tests of Australian children with a history of NAS declined as the children aged and that, by high school, the results of the children with NAS were worse than those of children 2 years younger without NAS. However, there were a limited number of studies assessing children after school entry in the present meta-analysis, and this knowledge gap should be addressed in future studies.

    There are considerable individual and societal consequences of poor neurocognitive performance. Neurocognitive performance is strongly correlated with future academic achievement.75 School underachievement is reported to lead to students dropping out after failing to meet examination requirements or finishing school with poorer qualifications.76 Such individuals receive lower wages and are more likely to be unemployed.77 Academic failure is also associated with youth delinquency78 as well as early initiation of alcohol and illicit substance use.79 High criminal rates and substance use further affect the country through the justice system and police expenditures, as well as public health care expenditures.76 Therefore, poor neurocognitive performance in childhood and adolescence may lead to financial problems for the individual owing to difficulties with employment and incur societal costs associated with youth delinquency and substance use. The consequences are likely to be passed on intergenerationally as the deficits associated with NAS are likely to influence parenting by NAS-affected adults.

    Opioid substitution therapies limit fetal exposure to the lability of short-acting opioids, such as heroin, and stabilize the intrauterine environment.80 Opioid-dependent women who receive substitution therapy during their pregnancy are more stable psychologically and physically, receive more comprehensive antenatal care, and have better neonatal outcomes than women who are not receiving opioid substitution therapies.81 Our study is retrospective and observational; more studies need to be conducted before the current standard of care is changed.

    In addition, the cause of these poor outcomes cannot be absolutely determined from the studies reviewed herein owing to the combination of inherited epigenetic changes,70 poor parental education, direct effect of opioids on brain volume,17 or the child’s home environment.44 Overall, there is substantial variability within each subgroup for neurocognitive outcomes as the children age, as evidenced by the widening 95% CIs, suggesting that children have the potential to overcome early discrepancies and environmental and other factors might possibly improve future outcomes. A meta-analysis examining the use of cognitive interventions for children with neurodevelopmental disorders82 has shown that improvement in neurocognitive functioning across all domains is possible, albeit to different degrees.

    Future Research

    Our results suggest that conducting high-quality longitudinal cohort studies may be warranted to investigate the neurocognitive outcomes of children with POE until adolescence. In addition, studies using cohort and randomized trial designs should assess whether other factors (eg, foster care and parenting) contribute to the outcomes of children with POE. While we acknowledge that such studies will require substantial funding, personnel, and time, it is worthwhile since our results suggest that children with POE never reach the neurocognitive level of their peers, which increases their risk of poor school performance, unemployment,76 and even criminal activity.78 This outcome raises concern not only for the individual, but for his or her family, community, and society, considering the rapid rise of prescription opioid use and abuse around the world.

    Limitations

    This meta-analysis has limitations. To include all available studies, we used hand-searching, which may have introduced citation bias. However, publication bias was not detected for cognitive outcomes. Although there was publication bias for motor outcomes, the trim-and-fill method, which is commonly used to correct for funnel plot asymmetry, is not recommended in this case owing to the high level of heterogeneity.22

    Heterogeneity was significant for all analyses, although it was expected owing to the inclusion of multiple opioid types, various neurodevelopmental tests used, and clinical factors.22 Nevertheless, we attempted to explain the heterogeneity via subgroup analysis. Although heterogeneity was not completely accounted for, our results are based on a random-effects model, taking heterogeneity into consideration.

    A key limitation is that we were unable to contact some authors for missing data, resulting in the exclusion of studies without means and SDs. We also had incomplete information on rates of NAS, rates of foster care, sex, parental educational levels, and substances used in pregnancy. In addition, the articles were limited to those published in English.

    We performed post hoc metaregression on the association between rates of foster care, rates of NAS, and cognitive differences (SMD), but we did not find a significant association. One caveat is that post hoc analyses are not recommended because findings are not robust and are prone to inaccurate conclusions derived from observational patterns.83 Our intention was to generate hypotheses that could potentially explain our results and inform future studies.

    Conclusions

    This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that POE is negatively associated with neurocognitive and motor development. These differences begin from age 6 months and persist in adolescence. The exact cause and the association of these findings with clinical factors and environmental adversities are unclear but suggest that children with POE should be provided long-term support and intervention beyond infancy.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: May 21, 2019.

    Published: July 12, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7025

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Yeoh SL et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Ju Lee Oei, MBBS, FRACP, MD, Department of Newborn Care, The Royal Hospital for Women, Barker Street, Sydney, NSW, 2031 Australia (j.oei@unsw.edu.au).

    Author Contributions: Ms Yeoh and Dr Oei had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Yeoh, Eastwood, Wright, Melhuish, Ward, Oei.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Yeoh, Morton, Melhuish, Ward, Oei.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Yeoh, Wright, Morton, Oei.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Yeoh, Melhuish, Oei.

    Obtained funding: Oei.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Eastwood, Morton, Melhuish, Oei.

    Supervision: Morton, Ward, Oei.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

    References
    1.
    Patrick  SW, Dudley  J, Martin  PR,  et al.  Prescription opioid epidemic and infant outcomes.  Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):842-850. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3299PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Nørgaard  M, Nielsson  MS, Heide-Jørgensen  U.  Birth and neonatal outcomes following opioid use in pregnancy: a Danish population-based study.  Subst Abuse. 2015;9(suppl 2):5-11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    3.
    Patrick  SW, Davis  MM, Lehmann  CU, Cooper  WO.  Increasing incidence and geographic distribution of neonatal abstinence syndrome: United States 2009 to 2012.  J Perinatol. 2015;35(8):650-655. doi:10.1038/jp.2015.36PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Wu  C-C, Hung  C-J, Shen  C-H,  et al.  Prenatal buprenorphine exposure decreases neurogenesis in rats.  Toxicol Lett. 2014;225(1):92-101. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2013.12.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Hu  S, Sheng  WS, Lokensgard  JR, Peterson  PK.  Morphine induces apoptosis of human microglia and neurons.  Neuropharmacology. 2002;42(6):829-836. doi:10.1016/S0028-3908(02)00030-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    McGinty  JF, Ford  DH.  Effects of prenatal methadone on rat brain catecholamines.  Dev Neurosci. 1980;3(4-6):224-234. doi:10.1159/000112395PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Slotkin  TA, Whitmore  WL, Salvaggio  M, Seidler  FJ.  Perinatal methadone addiction affects brain synaptic development of biogenic amine systems in the rat.  Life Sci. 1979;24(13):1223-1229. doi:10.1016/0024-3205(79)90059-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Younger  JW, Chu  LF, D’Arcy  NT, Trott  KE, Jastrzab  LE, Mackey  SC.  Prescription opioid analgesics rapidly change the human brain.  Pain. 2011;152(8):1803-1810. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.03.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Parolin  M, Simonelli  A, Mapelli  D, Sacco  M, Cristofalo  P.  Parental substance abuse as an early traumatic event: preliminary findings on neuropsychological and personality functioning in young drug addicts exposed to drugs early.  Front Psychol. 2016;7:887. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00887PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Kaltenbach  K, O’Grady  KE, Heil  SH,  et al.  Prenatal exposure to methadone or buprenorphine: early childhood developmental outcomes.  Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;185:40-49. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.11.030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Swift  W, Copeland  J, Hall  W.  Characteristics of women with alcohol and other drug problems: findings of an Australian national survey.  Addiction. 1996;91(8):1141-1150. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1996.91811416.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Ellwood  DA, Sutherland  P, Kent  C, O’Connor  M.  Maternal narcotic addiction: pregnancy outcome in patients managed by a specialized drug-dependency antenatal clinic.  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987;27(2):92-98. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.1987.tb00952.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Abdel-Latif  ME, Bajuk  B, Lui  K, Oei  J; NSW on ACT Neonatal Intensive Care Units’ Study (NICUS) Group.  Short-term outcomes of infants of substance-using mothers admitted to neonatal intensive care units in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.  J Paediatr Child Health. 2007;43(3):127-133. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2007.01031.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Taplin  S, Mattick  RP.  Mothers in methadone treatment and their involvement with the child protection system: a replication and extension study.  Child Abuse Negl. 2013;37(8):500-510. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.01.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Griffiths  SK, Campbell  JP.  Placental structure, function and drug transfer.  Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2015;15(2):84-89. doi:10.1093/bjaceaccp/mku013Google ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Ross  EJ, Graham  DL, Money  KM, Stanwood  GD.  Developmental consequences of fetal exposure to drugs: what we know and what we still must learn.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015;40(1):61-87. doi:10.1038/npp.2014.147PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Walhovd  KB, Moe  V, Slinning  K,  et al.  Volumetric cerebral characteristics of children exposed to opiates and other substances in utero.  Neuroimage. 2007;36(4):1331-1344. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.070PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Nygaard  E, Slinning  K, Moe  V, Due-Tønnessen  P, Fjell  A, Walhovd  KB.  Neuroanatomical characteristics of youths with prenatal opioid and poly-drug exposure.  Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2018;68:13-26. doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2018.04.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    McDaniel  MA.  Big-brained people are smarter: a meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence.  Intelligence. 2005;33(4):337-346. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.005Google ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Stroup  DF, Berlin  JA, Morton  SC,  et al; Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting.  JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Liberati  A, Altman  DG, Tetzlaff  J,  et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.  BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Higgins  J, Green  S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 5.1.0 ed. London, England: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
    23.
    Wallace  BC, Schmid  CH, Lau  J, Trikalinos  TA.  Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):80. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-80PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Riley  RD, Higgins  JPT, Deeks  JJ.  Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses.  BMJ. 2011;342:d549. doi:10.1136/bmj.d549PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 12.6.2 Re-expressing SMDs using rules of thumb for effect sizes. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_12/12_6_2_re_expressing_smds_using_rules_of_thumb_for_effect_sizes.htm. Accessed August 5, 2018.
    26.
    Sterne  JAC, Egger  M, Smith  GD.  Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis.  BMJ. 2001;323(7304):101-105. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Sedgwick  P.  Meta-analyses: what is heterogeneity?  BMJ. 2015;350:h1435. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1435PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Wells  G, Shea  B, O’Connell  D,  et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed August 30, 2018.
    29.
    Bunikowski  R, Grimmer  I, Heiser  A, Metze  B, Schäfer  A, Obladen  M.  Neurodevelopmental outcome after prenatal exposure to opiates.  Eur J Pediatr. 1998;157(9):724-730. doi:10.1007/s004310050923PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Hans  SL, Jeremy  RJ.  Postneonatal mental and motor development of infants exposed in utero to opioid drugs.  Infant Ment Health J. 2001;22(3):300-315. doi:10.1002/imhj.1003Google ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Hunt  RW, Tzioumi  D, Collins  E, Jeffery  HE.  Adverse neurodevelopmental outcome of infants exposed to opiate in-utero.  Early Hum Dev. 2008;84(1):29-35. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.01.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Kaltenbach  K, Finnegan  LP.  Children exposed to methadone in utero: assessment of developmental and cognitive ability.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1989;562(1):360-362. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1989.tb21039.xGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Levine  TA, Woodward  LJ.  Early inhibitory control and working memory abilities of children prenatally exposed to methadone.  Early Hum Dev. 2018;116:68-75. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2017.11.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Messinger  DS, Bauer  CR, Das  A,  et al.  The maternal lifestyle study: cognitive, motor, and behavioral outcomes of cocaine-exposed and opiate-exposed infants through three years of age.  Pediatrics. 2004;113(6):1677-1685. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1677PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Nygaard  E, Moe  V, Slinning  K, Walhovd  KB.  Longitudinal cognitive development of children born to mothers with opioid and polysubstance use.  Pediatr Res. 2015;78(3):330-335. doi:10.1038/pr.2015.95PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Ornoy  A, Michailevskaya  V, Lukashov  I, Bar-Hamburger  R, Harel  S.  The developmental outcome of children born to heroin-dependent mothers, raised at home or adopted.  Child Abuse Negl. 1996;20(5):385-396. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(96)00014-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Rosen  TS, Johnson  HL.  Children of methadone-maintained mothers: follow-up to 18 months of age.  J Pediatr. 1982;101(2):192-196. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(82)80115-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Serino Ma  D, Peterson Md  BS, Rosen Md  TS.  Psychological functioning of women taking illicit drugs during pregnancy and the growth and development of their offspring in early childhood.  J Dual Diagn. 2018;14(3):158-170. doi:10.1080/15504263.2018.1468946PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Strauss  ME, Starr  RH, Ostrea  EM, Chavez  CJ, Stryker  JC.  Behavioural concomitants of prenatal addiction to narcotics.  J Pediatr. 1976;89(5):842-846. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(76)80822-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    van Baar  A.  Development of infants of drug dependent mothers.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1990;31(6):911-920. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1990.tb00833.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Wilson  GS, Desmond  MM, Wait  RB.  Follow-up of methadone-treated and untreated narcotic-dependent women and their infants: health, developmental, and social implications.  J Pediatr. 1981;98(5):716-722. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(81)80830-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Bauman  PS, Levine  SA.  The development of children of drug addicts.  Int J Addict. 1986;21(8):849-863. doi:10.3109/10826088609027399PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Lifschitz  MH, Wilson  GS, Smith  EO, Desmond  MM.  Factors affecting head growth and intellectual function in children of drug addicts.  Pediatrics. 1985;75(2):269-274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    44.
    Nair  P, Black  MM, Ackerman  JP, Schuler  ME, Keane  VA.  Children’s cognitive-behavioral functioning at age 6 and 7: prenatal drug exposure and caregiving environment.  Ambul Pediatr. 2008;8(3):154-162. doi:10.1016/j.ambp.2008.02.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Ornoy  A.  The impact of intrauterine exposure versus postnatal environment in neurodevelopmental toxicity: long-term neurobehavioral studies in children at risk for developmental disorders.  Toxicol Lett. 2003;140-141:171-181. doi:10.1016/S0378-4274(02)00505-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Pulsifer  MB, Butz  AM, O’Reilly Foran  M, Belcher  HME.  Prenatal drug exposure: effects on cognitive functioning at 5 years of age.  Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2008;47(1):58-65. doi:10.1177/0009922807305872PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Rosen  TS, Johnson  HL.  Long-term effects of prenatal methadone maintenance.  NIDA Res Monogr. 1985;59:73-83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    48.
    van Baar  A, de Graaff  BM.  Cognitive development at preschool-age of infants of drug-dependent mothers.  Dev Med Child Neurol. 1994;36(12):1063-1075. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1994.tb11809.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Walhovd  KB, Bjørnebekk  A, Haabrekke  K,  et al.  Child neuroanatomical, neurocognitive, and visual acuity outcomes with maternal opioid and polysubstance detoxification.  Pediatr Neurol. 2015;52(3):326-32.e1, 3. doi:10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2014.11.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Wilson  GS, McCreary  R, Kean  J, Baxter  JC.  The development of preschool children of heroin-addicted mothers: a controlled study.  Pediatrics. 1979;63(1):135-141. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(79)80107-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Ornoy  A, Finkel-Pekarsky  V, Peles  E, Adelson  M, Schreiber  S, Ebstein  PR.  ADHD risk alleles associated with opiate addiction: study of addicted parents and their children.  Pediatr Res. 2016;80(2):228-236. doi:10.1038/pr.2016.78PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Robey  A, Buckingham-Howes  S, Salmeron  BJ, Black  MM, Riggins  T.  Relations among prospective memory, cognitive abilities, and brain structure in adolescents who vary in prenatal drug exposure.  J Exp Child Psychol. 2014;127:144-162. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Nygaard  E, Slinning  K, Moe  V, Walhovd  KB.  Behavior and attention problems in eight-year-old children with prenatal opiate and poly-substance exposure: a longitudinal study.  PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0158054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158054PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Moe  V.  Foster-placed and adopted children exposed in utero to opiates and other substances: prediction and outcome at four and a half years.  J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2002;23(5):330-339. doi:10.1097/00004703-200210000-00006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Bayley  N.  Bayley Scales of Infant Development. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp; 1969.
    56.
    Bayley  N.  Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 2nd ed. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp; 1993.
    57.
    Bayley  N.  Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment; 2006.
    58.
    Griffiths  R.  The Abilities of Young Children. High Wydcombe, UK: The Test Agency; 1976.
    59.
    McCarthy  D.  Manual for the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities. New York, NY: Psychological Corp; 1972.
    60.
    Gale  HR.  Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. 5th ed. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing; 2003.
    61.
    Weschler  D.  The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp; 1989.
    62.
    Snijders  JT, Snijders-Oomen  N. Snijders-Oomen Non-verbal Intelligence Scale, SON 2.5-7. Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff; 1976.
    63.
    Stutsman  R.  Merrill-Palmer Scale of Mental Tests. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services; 1948.
    64.
    Weschler  D.  Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp; 1949.
    65.
    Weschler  D.  Wechsler Intelligence Scale For Children-Revised. New York, NY: Psychological Corp; 1974.
    66.
    Tiffin  J, Asher  EJ.  The Purdue pegboard; norms and studies of reliability and validity.  J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):234-247. doi:10.1037/h0061266PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    67.
    Brydges  CR, Landes  JK, Reid  CL, Campbell  C, French  N, Anderson  M.  Cognitive outcomes in children and adolescents born very preterm: a meta-analysis.  Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018;60(5):452-468. doi:10.1111/dmcn.13685PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    68.
    Twilhaar  ES, Wade  RM, de Kieviet  JF, van Goudoever  JB, van Elburg  RM, Oosterlaan  J.  Cognitive outcomes of children born extremely or very preterm since the 1990s and associated risk factors: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.  JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(4):361-367. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    69.
    American Psychiatric Association.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
    70.
    Maguire  DJ, Taylor  S, Armstrong  K,  et al.  Long-term outcomes of infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome.  Neonatal Netw. 2016;35(5):277-286. doi:10.1891/0730-0832.35.5.277PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    71.
    Gonzalez  SL, Reeb-Sutherland  BC, Nelson  EL.  Quantifying motor experience in the infant brain: EEG power, coherence, and mu desynchronization.  Front Psychol. 2016;7(216):216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    72.
    Libertus  K, Hauf  P.  Motor skills and their foundational role for perceptual, social, and cognitive development.  Front Psychol. 2017;8:301. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00301PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    73.
    Baldacchino  A, Arbuckle  K, Petrie  DJ, McCowan  C.  Neurobehavioral consequences of chronic intrauterine opioid exposure in infants and preschool children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14(1):104. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-14-104PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    74.
    Oei  JL, Melhuish  E, Uebel  H,  et al.  Neonatal abstinence syndrome and high school performance.  Pediatrics. 2017;139(2):e20162651. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2651PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    75.
    Yen  C-J, Konold  TR, McDermott  PA.  Does learning behavior augment cognitive ability as an indicator of academic achievement?  J Sch Psychol. 2004;42(2):157-169. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2003.12.001Google ScholarCrossref
    76.
    Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2010. Overcoming school failure: policies that work. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/45171670.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2018.
    77.
    Jimerson  SR.  On the failure of failure: examining the association between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence.  J Sch Psychol. 1999;37(3):243-272. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00005-9Google ScholarCrossref
    78.
    Christle  C, Jolivette  K, Nelson  C.  Breaking the school to prison pipeline: identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency.  Exceptionality. 2005;13(2):69-88. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1302_2Google ScholarCrossref
    79.
    Trenz  RC, Harrell  P, Scherer  M, Mancha  BE, Latimer  WW.  A model of school problems, academic failure, alcohol initiation, and the relationship to adult heroin injection.  Subst Use Misuse. 2012;47(10):1159-1171. doi:10.3109/10826084.2012.686142PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    80.
    Winklbaur  B, Kopf  N, Ebner  N, Jung  E, Thau  K, Fischer  G.  Treating pregnant women dependent on opioids is not the same as treating pregnancy and opioid dependence: a knowledge synthesis for better treatment for women and neonates.  Addiction. 2008;103(9):1429-1440. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02283.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    81.
    Hudak  ML, Tan  RC; Committee on Drugs; Committee on Fetus and Newborn; American Academy of Pediatrics.  Neonatal drug withdrawal.  Pediatrics. 2012;129(2):e540-e560. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-3212PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    82.
    Robinson  KE, Kaizar  E, Catroppa  C, Godfrey  C, Yeates  KO.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive interventions for children with central nervous system disorders and neurodevelopmental disorders.  J Pediatr Psychol. 2014;39(8):846-865. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsu031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    83.
    Thompson  SG, Higgins  JP.  How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?  Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1559-1573. doi:10.1002/sim.1187PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×