Epilepsy, Antiepileptic Drugs, and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes, 1: Examination and Interpretation of Recent Research.

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI:10.4088/JCP.24f15411
Chittaranjan Andrade
{"title":"Epilepsy, Antiepileptic Drugs, and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes, 1: Examination and Interpretation of Recent Research.","authors":"Chittaranjan Andrade","doi":"10.4088/JCP.24f15411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The age-standardized global prevalence of epilepsy is about 0.3% in women. Seizures are associated with morbidity and mortality risks; so, women with epilepsy (WWE) are usually advised antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment even during pregnancy. Women may also knowingly or unknowingly be exposed during pregnancy to AEDs advised for other on- or off-label indications. In this context, a meta-analysis of 35 adverse gestational outcomes examined in 76 observational studies found that WWE were at increased risk of most of the adverse outcomes, regardless of gestational exposure to AEDs. AEDs, especially in polytherapy, further increased at least a few of the gestational risks, including risks of congenital conditions, neonatal intensive care unit admission, small for gestational age, low birth weight, and neonatal/infant death (it is unclear whether the lack of statistical significance for the remaining risks was because AED exposure was truly limited to these risks or whether the nonsignificant analyses were underpowered). Reassuringly, the increases in risk were mostly in the small to modest range. This meta-analysis pooled unadjusted risks (which would probably be larger than adjusted risks), so readers are informed about expected findings in the population but not about cause-effect relationships that may be cautiously hypothesized from adjusted analyses. A take-home message is that, because of the wide range of outcomes for which risk is increased, WWE should be closely monitored and followed all through pregnancy, regardless of treatment with AEDs. This article also provides readers with suggestions on how to critically interpret literature with regard to 8 matters: confounding by indication and confounding by severity of indication, as specific to the indication for AED prescription; unadjusted and adjusted analyses; the base rate of an outcome in the population; the examination of multiple outcomes; the uniform direction of findings; the sample numbers; the timing of AED exposure; and self-fulfilling prophecies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50234,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.24f15411","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The age-standardized global prevalence of epilepsy is about 0.3% in women. Seizures are associated with morbidity and mortality risks; so, women with epilepsy (WWE) are usually advised antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment even during pregnancy. Women may also knowingly or unknowingly be exposed during pregnancy to AEDs advised for other on- or off-label indications. In this context, a meta-analysis of 35 adverse gestational outcomes examined in 76 observational studies found that WWE were at increased risk of most of the adverse outcomes, regardless of gestational exposure to AEDs. AEDs, especially in polytherapy, further increased at least a few of the gestational risks, including risks of congenital conditions, neonatal intensive care unit admission, small for gestational age, low birth weight, and neonatal/infant death (it is unclear whether the lack of statistical significance for the remaining risks was because AED exposure was truly limited to these risks or whether the nonsignificant analyses were underpowered). Reassuringly, the increases in risk were mostly in the small to modest range. This meta-analysis pooled unadjusted risks (which would probably be larger than adjusted risks), so readers are informed about expected findings in the population but not about cause-effect relationships that may be cautiously hypothesized from adjusted analyses. A take-home message is that, because of the wide range of outcomes for which risk is increased, WWE should be closely monitored and followed all through pregnancy, regardless of treatment with AEDs. This article also provides readers with suggestions on how to critically interpret literature with regard to 8 matters: confounding by indication and confounding by severity of indication, as specific to the indication for AED prescription; unadjusted and adjusted analyses; the base rate of an outcome in the population; the examination of multiple outcomes; the uniform direction of findings; the sample numbers; the timing of AED exposure; and self-fulfilling prophecies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
癫痫、抗癫痫药物和不良妊娠结局,1:最新研究的审视和解读》(Epilepsy, Antiepileptic Drugs, and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes, 1: Examination and Interpretation of Recent Research.
全球女性癫痫的年龄标准化患病率约为 0.3%。癫痫发作与发病和死亡风险相关;因此,即使在怀孕期间,通常也会建议患有癫痫的妇女接受抗癫痫药物(AED)治疗。妇女也可能在知情或不知情的情况下在怀孕期间接触到建议用于其他标示内或标示外适应症的 AEDs。在这种情况下,一项对 76 项观察性研究中的 35 种不良妊娠结局进行的荟萃分析发现,无论妊娠期是否接触过 AEDs,WWE 都会增加大多数不良妊娠结局的风险。AED(尤其是多疗法)进一步增加了至少几种妊娠风险,包括先天性疾病、新生儿重症监护室入院、胎龄小、出生体重低和新生儿/婴儿死亡的风险(尚不清楚其余风险缺乏统计学意义是因为AED暴露确实仅限于这些风险,还是因为不具显著性的分析未得到足够的支持)。令人欣慰的是,风险增加的幅度大多很小。这项荟萃分析汇集了未经调整的风险(可能大于调整后的风险),因此读者可以了解到人群中的预期结果,但无法了解调整后分析中谨慎假设的因果关系。本文给读者的启示是,由于风险增加的结果范围很广,因此无论是否使用 AEDs 治疗,都应在整个孕期对 WWE 进行密切监测和随访。本文还为读者提供了如何批判性解读文献的建议,涉及以下8个方面:适应症混杂和适应症严重程度混杂,具体到AED处方的适应症;未调整分析和调整分析;人群中某一结果的基准率;多种结果的检查;研究结果的统一方向;样本数量;AED暴露的时间;以及自我实现的预言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: For over 75 years, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry has been a leading source of peer-reviewed articles offering the latest information on mental health topics to psychiatrists and other medical professionals.The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry is the leading psychiatric resource for clinical information and covers disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, addiction, posttraumatic stress disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder while exploring the newest advances in diagnosis and treatment.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine/Esketamine in Bipolar Depression in a Clinical Setting. Integrating Previous Suicide Attempts, Gender, and Age Into Suicide Risk Assessment Using Advanced Artificial Intelligence Models. Long-Term Changes in Cognition Among Patients With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders and Different Durations of Illness: A Meta-Analysis. Regression: Understanding What Covariates and Confounds Do in Adjusted Analyses. Diagnostic Assessment via Live Telehealth (Phone or Video) Versus Face-to-Face for the Diagnoses of Psychiatric Conditions: A Systematic Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1