MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2115461251 · doi:10.1111/bcp.12020

Antidepressant use and gestational hypertension: does evidence support causality? Reply letter

2012· letter· en· W2115461251 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Anick Bérard, Mary A. De Vera

Notice bibliographique

RevueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2012
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésObservational studyConfoundingAntidepressantCausality (physics)PregnancyMedicineDepression (economics)Causal inferencePsychiatryRelative riskPediatricsInternal medicineConfidence intervalAnxiety

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We thank Grzeskowiak and colleagues 1 for their review of our paper published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2. We agree that our study adds to a growing body of evidence supporting the fact that antidepressant use during pregnancy is increasing the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH). However, we strongly feel that further clarification of their comments is needed. Studies on the risk of medication use during pregnancy are observational in nature, and one study alone cannot determine causality; hence, our study was not designed for that purpose and was not interpreted in that way, contrary to what Grzeskowiak and colleagues 1 suggest. Causality is likely to be determined by repetition of the findings between multiple studies on the same or similar research questions. While comparing studies, however, adjusted findings, which reflect the best estimate of association between an exposure (here antidepressant) and an outcome (here PIH), taking into account potential confounders, including the indication for antidepressant use (here depression), should be used. On the contrary, Grzeskowiak and colleagues 1 have used crude estimates, hence biased estimates, to compare our findings with others, resulting in an invalid interpretation. Adjusting for potential confounders, including the underlying indication, our study showed a 53% (P < 0.05) overall increase in the risk of PIH associated with antidepressant use during pregnancy, which is in line with what has been previously reported by Toh et al. 3 (90% increase in risk; P < 0.05). We acknowledge, however, that given the observational nature of our study, residual confounding can remain due to underlying maternal depression. However, Palmsten et al. 4 have shown that depressed women not treated with antidepressants during pregnancy were at the same risk of PIH as pregnant women who were not depressed, and that the increase in the risk of PIH was observed only amongst depressed women treated with antidepressants, leading to the conclusion that the increase in risk is probably due to the antidepressants and not the depression, contrary to what Grzeskowiak and colleagues 1 put forward. It is true that we have no clinical data on the severity of PIH, but we have shown that the majority of cases are pregnant women with gestational hypertension. Stratifying our analyses on a subgroup of cases with pre-eclampsia would have rendered our estimates unstable, similar to what has been reported by Toh et al. 3. Finally, we disagree with the argument of Grzeskowiak and colleagues 1 concerning the lack of validity of ICD-9 codes for the identification of PIH in the Quebec Pregnancy Registry. As mentioned by De Vera and Bérard 2, Ros et al. 5 have reported good predictive values for PIH ICD-9 diagnostic codes in the context of ‘population-based’ data similar to the Quebec Pregnancy Registry. On the contrary, however, Geller et al. 6 have reported validation estimates using data from a single hospital in the USA. One needs to be vigilant when reporting such discrepancies. Indeed, the interpretation of validation estimates of diagnostic codes needs to take into account the population setting, managed care delivery and access to care (diagnoses). The Quebec Pregnancy Registry is very similar to the Swedish Birth Register in this regard, because healthcare is universal in Quebec, and thus the Quebec Pregnancy Registry is population based (contrary to the US system), Quebec has equal access to healthcare (contrary to the USA) and Quebec has standardized prenatal follow-up regardless of underlying disease and socio-economic status (contrary to the USA). The argument that depressed pregnant women are more likely to visit their healthcare provider and therefore obtain a diagnosis of PIH is very unlikely. Indeed, it is well known that depressed women are less likely to visit their physician during and outside of pregnancy. In addition, this argument is even less of an issue when studying an outcome that is intensely investigated during pregnancy, such as PIH, which is systematically scrutinized at every prenatal visit regardless of patient comorbidities. In conclusion, our study was designed to assess the risk of PIH during pregnancy associated with gestational antidepressant use and does not provide any information on benefits of antidepressant use during pregnancy. De Vera and Bérard 2 provide one more piece of information useful in the evaluation of the risks of antidepressant use during pregnancy at the patient level. Given the consistency of results between studies published thus far on this topic, it is our belief that more attention should be given to this important maternal comorbidity when prescribing antidepressants to pregnant women. All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that they have obtained funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for this work; authors have no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and A.B. is a consultant in the litigation involving antidepressant use during pregnancy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,030
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,071

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,097
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,004
Communication savante0,0030,008
Science ouverte0,0040,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0300,041
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,157
Tête enseignante GPT0,428
Écart entre enseignants0,271 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologyMême sujetMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumTravaux en français237 207