Moumita Sarkar

Pregnancy outcome following gestational exposure to azithromycin

BackgroundAzithromycin is an azalide antibiotic with an extensive range of indications and has become a common treatment option due to its convenient dosing regimen and therapeutic advantages. Human studies addressing gestational use of azithromycin have primarily focused on antibiotic efficacy rather than fetal safety. Our primary objective was to evaluate the possibility of teratogenic risk following gestational exposure to azithromycin.MethodsThere were 3 groups of pregnant women enrolled in our study: 1) women who took azithromycin. 2) women exposed to non-teratogenic antibiotics for similar indications, and 3) women exposed to non-teratogenic agents. They were matched for gestational age at time of call, maternal age, cigarette and alcohol consumption. Rates of major malformations and other endpoints of interest were compared among the three groups.ResultsPregnancy outcome of 123 women in each group was ascertained. There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in the rates of major malformations; 3.4% (exposed) versus 2.3% (disease matched) and 3.4% (non teratogen) or any other endpoints that were examined. In the azithromycin group, 88 (71.6%) women took the drug during the first trimesterConclusionResults suggest that gestational exposure to azithromycin is not associated with an increase in the rate of major malformations above the baseline of 1–3%. Our data adds to previous research showing that macrolide antibiotics, as a group, are generally safe in pregnancy and provides an evidence-based option for health professionals caring for populations with chlamydia.

Does Paroxetine Cause Cardiac Malformations

BACKGROUND Debate has recently arisen about the safety of paroxetine use in pregnancy, prompted by reports of increased risks for cardiac defects following first trimester exposure. METHODS We conducted a meta-analysis of nine studies. RESULTS Three case-control studies (N = 30,247) found no increased risk of congenital malformations associated with paroxetine (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 0.88-1.59). Cardiac malformation rates were similar (1.1% each) and within population norms (0.7-1.2%). Six cohort studies (N = 66,409) found a non-significant weighted average difference of 0.3% (95% CI -0.1-0.7%; P = 0.19). CONCLUSION First-trimester exposure to paroxetine does not appear to be associated with increased rates of cardiac malformations. This information should be reassuring to prescribing physicians and women who require treatment with paroxetine in pregnancy.

Folate Intake, MTHFR Polymorphisms, and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. The objective was to determine whether relationships exist between the methylene-tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphisms and risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and examine whether the risk is modified by level of folate intake. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2012 using the terms “folic acid,” “folate,” “colorectal cancer,” “methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase,” “MTHFR.” Observational studies were included which (1) assessed the risk of CRC for each polymorphism and/or (2) had defined levels of folate intake for each polymorphism and assessed the risk of CRC. Results. From 910 references, 67 studies met our criteria; hand searching yielded 10 studies. The summary risk estimate comparing the 677CT versus CC genotype was 1.02 (95% CI 0.95–1.10) and for 677TT versus CC was 0.88 (95% CI 0.80–0.96) both with heterogeneity. The summary risk estimates for A1298C polymorphisms suggested no reduced risk. The summary risk estimate for high versus low total folate for the 677CC genotype was 0.70 (95% CI 0.56–0.89) and the 677TT genotype 0.63 (95% CI 0.41–0.97). Conclusion. These results suggest that the 677TT genotype is associated with a reduced risk of developing CRC, under conditions of high total folate intake, and this associated risk remains reduced for both MTHFR 677 CC and TT genotypes.

The safety of antidepressant use in pregnancy

Depression during pregnancy affects an estimated 10 – 20% of women, some of whom will require treatment with antidepressants. It is of great importance that the safety of this particular class of drugs is reviewed, to ensure the optimal treatment of the mother while protecting her unborn child. In this review, current safety data on all available antidepressants are discussed in detail, including the pharmacokinetics of the maternal–fetal unit and the epidemiological studies that have been published to date. The classes of antidepressants discussed include: tricyclics, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors and other antidepressants. After reviewing these studies, it is evident that these drugs appear to be relatively safe to take during pregnancy. This evidence-based information will be helpful to women and their healthcare providers, when the decision of whether or not to treat with anti-depressants during pregnancy must be made.

Comparing the effectiveness of TWEAK and T-ACE in determining problem drinkers in pregnancy.

AIM The TWEAK and T-ACE screening tools are validated methods of identifying problem drinking in a pregnant population. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the TWEAK and T-ACE screening tools in identifying problem drinking using traditional cut-points (CP). METHODS Study participants consisted of women calling the Motherisk Alcohol Helpline for information regarding their alcohol use in pregnancy. In this cohort, concerns surrounding underreporting are not likely as women self-report their alcohol consumption. Participants self-identification, confirmed by her amount of alcohol use, determined whether she was a problem drinker or not. The TWEAK and T-ACE tools were administered on both groups and subsequent analysis was done to determine if one tool was more effective in predicting problem drinking. RESULTS The study consisted of 75 problem and 100 non-problem drinkers. Using traditional CP, the TWEAK and T-ACE tools both performed similarly at identifying potential at-risk women (positive predictive value = 0.54), with very high sensitivity rates (100-99% and 100-93%, respectively) but poor specificity rates (36-43% and 19-34%, respectively). Upon comparison, there was no statistical difference in the effectiveness for one test performing better than next using either CP of 2 (P = 0.66) or CP of 3 (P = 0.38). CONCLUSION Despite the lack of difference in performance, improved specificity associated with TWEAK suggests that it may be better suited to screen at-risk populations seeking advice from a helpline.