{"title":"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.","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":"85 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"85 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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}
Epilepsy, Antiepileptic Drugs, and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes, 1: Examination and Interpretation of Recent Research.
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.
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.