Trends of Utilization of Antiseizure Medications Among Pregnant Women in Manitoba, Canada: A 20-Year Population-Based Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Evidence from developed countries demonstrates that the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) has been increasing in the last decade. Pregnant women have a very challenging risk benefit trade-off in terms of ASM utilization, and it is crucial to know if increased utilization is seen among pregnant women. Objective: To examine time-trends of utilization of ASM therapies among pregnant women in Manitoba, Canada. Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study using de-identified, linked administrative databases from Manitoba. Pregnancies between 1995 and 2018 were included. Four groups of pregnant people were created based on ASM exposure and epilepsy diagnosis. Results: Of 273,492 pregnancies, 812 (3/1000) had epilepsy diagnosis and were exposed to ASMs, 963 (3.5/1000) had epilepsy diagnosis and were unexposed, and 2742 (10/1000) were exposed to ASMs and did not have epilepsy diagnosis. Overall, the number of pregnancies exposed to ASMs increased significantly from 0.56% in 1997 to 2.21% in 2018 ( p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis by epilepsy diagnosis showed no significant change in ASMs exposure among pregnant women with epilepsy [the proportion of women exposed to ASM from all pregnancies was 0.37% (in 1997) and 0.36% (in 2018), p = 0.24]. A drop in carbamazepine use was observed, while the number of lamotrigine prescriptions increased from 6.45% in 1997 to 52% by 2018. ASM use among pregnant women without epilepsy increased significantly from 0.19% in 1997 to 1.85% in 2018 ( p < 0.0001). In the total cohort of pregnancies, 1439 (0.53%) were exposed during their entire pregnancy, and 1369 (0.5%) were exposed only in their first trimester. Clonazepam was the most used ASM during the study period (1953 users, 0.71%), followed by gabapentin (785 users, 0.29%) and carbamazepine (449 users, 0.16%). Conclusion: No major shifts in the quantity of ASM use over the study period were observed among pregnant women with epilepsy. However, there was a significant increase in ASM use among pregnant women without epilepsy. The study results warrant further investigation into the implications of ASM use in pregnancy for indications other than epilepsy.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».