A Review of Concordance and Quality in Clinical Guidelines for Hormonal Contraceptives to Mitigate Drug-Drug Interactions in Women With Epilepsy.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1002/pds.5861
Matthew R Muschett, Celeste Ewig, Earl Morris, Lauren E Adkins, Amie Goodin, Joshua Brown
{"title":"A Review of Concordance and Quality in Clinical Guidelines for Hormonal Contraceptives to Mitigate Drug-Drug Interactions in Women With Epilepsy.","authors":"Matthew R Muschett, Celeste Ewig, Earl Morris, Lauren E Adkins, Amie Goodin, Joshua Brown","doi":"10.1002/pds.5861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Concomitant use of hormonal contraceptive agents (HCAs) and enzyme-inducting antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) may lead to contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy. This review identified and evaluated concordance and quality of clinical treatment guidelines related to the use of HCAs in women with epilepsy (WWE) receiving EIAEDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Relevant clinical guidelines were identified across four databases and were independently evaluated for quality utilizing the AGREE-II protocol instrument. Quality in this context is defined as the rigor and transparency of the methodologies used to develop the guideline. Guidelines were further assessed in terms of concordance and discordance with the latest body of knowledge concerning the use of hormonal contraception in the presence of EIAEDs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of n = 5 guidelines were retrieved and evaluated. Overall guideline scores ranged from 17% to 92%, while individual domain scores ranged from 0% to 100%. Contraceptive guidelines consistently recommended the use of intrauterine systems and long-acting injectables in the presence of EIAEDs, recommended against the use of oral, transdermal, and vaginal ring contraceptives, and differed regarding recommendations related to implants. Guidelines agreed regarding recommendations that women treated with EIAEDs should receive intrauterine systems and long-acting injectables; however, the suggested frequency of administration of injectable contraceptives differed. The use of intrauterine systems in this population is supported by evidence, but there is uncertainty surrounding the use of long-acting injectables and contraceptive implants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To mitigate the risk of unintended pregnancy and its consequences, recommendations related to implants and long-acting injectable contraceptives should be evidence-based.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"33 8","pages":"e5861"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5861","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Concomitant use of hormonal contraceptive agents (HCAs) and enzyme-inducting antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) may lead to contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy. This review identified and evaluated concordance and quality of clinical treatment guidelines related to the use of HCAs in women with epilepsy (WWE) receiving EIAEDs.

Methods: Relevant clinical guidelines were identified across four databases and were independently evaluated for quality utilizing the AGREE-II protocol instrument. Quality in this context is defined as the rigor and transparency of the methodologies used to develop the guideline. Guidelines were further assessed in terms of concordance and discordance with the latest body of knowledge concerning the use of hormonal contraception in the presence of EIAEDs.

Results: A total of n = 5 guidelines were retrieved and evaluated. Overall guideline scores ranged from 17% to 92%, while individual domain scores ranged from 0% to 100%. Contraceptive guidelines consistently recommended the use of intrauterine systems and long-acting injectables in the presence of EIAEDs, recommended against the use of oral, transdermal, and vaginal ring contraceptives, and differed regarding recommendations related to implants. Guidelines agreed regarding recommendations that women treated with EIAEDs should receive intrauterine systems and long-acting injectables; however, the suggested frequency of administration of injectable contraceptives differed. The use of intrauterine systems in this population is supported by evidence, but there is uncertainty surrounding the use of long-acting injectables and contraceptive implants.

Conclusions: To mitigate the risk of unintended pregnancy and its consequences, recommendations related to implants and long-acting injectable contraceptives should be evidence-based.

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
关于激素避孕药减轻癫痫女性患者药物间相互作用的临床指南的一致性和质量的回顾。
目的:同时使用激素避孕药(HCAs)和酶诱导抗癫痫药物(EIAEDs)可能会导致避孕失败和意外怀孕。本综述确定并评估了与接受EIAEDs治疗的女性癫痫患者(WWE)使用HCAs相关的临床治疗指南的一致性和质量:在四个数据库中确定了相关临床指南,并利用 AGREE-II 协议工具对其质量进行了独立评估。这里所说的质量是指制定指南所用方法的严谨性和透明度。此外,还进一步评估了指南与有关在 EIAEDs 存在的情况下使用激素避孕的最新知识的一致性和不一致性:结果:共检索和评估了 n = 5 份指南。指南总得分从 17% 到 92% 不等,单个领域得分从 0% 到 100% 不等。避孕指南一致建议在有 EIAEDs 的情况下使用宫内避孕系统和长效注射剂,建议不要使用口服、透皮和阴道环避孕药,而关于皮下埋植剂的建议则各不相同。对于接受 EIAEDs 治疗的妇女应接受宫内节育器系统和长效注射避孕药的建议,指南达成了一致意见;但对于注射避孕药的建议给药频率存在分歧。在这一人群中使用宫内节育器是有证据支持的,但在使用长效注射剂和避孕植入物方面还存在不确定性:为了降低意外怀孕的风险及其后果,有关皮下埋植剂和长效注射避孕药的建议应该以证据为基础。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
期刊最新文献
Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: New-User Designs. Determining Line of Therapy from Real-World Data in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Handling With Vaccine Type Missing Data in a Dynamic Cohort to Assess the Link Between Time-Varying Vaccination and an Autoimmune Disease. Impact of Regulatory Risk Communication on Thrombosis With Thrombocytopenia Syndrome for COVID-19 Adenovirus Vector Vaccines on European Healthcare Professionals. Validity of Pharmaceutical Claims Data for Determining Medication Exposure in Long-Term Care Facilities.
×
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