Antiepileptika bei Frauen im gebärfähigen Alter und in der Schwangerschaft : Vergleich der Fachinformationen in Deutschland und der Schweiz mit dem aktuellen Wissensstand [Antiepileptics in women of childbearing age and during pregnancy : Comparison of specialized information with the current state of knowledge in Germany and Switzerland].

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals regularly read the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) as one of the various sources of information on the risks of drug use in women of childbearing age and during pregnancy. The aim of this article is to present an overview of the teratogenic potential of various antiepileptic drugs and to compare these data with the information provided by the SmPCs. METHODS: A literature search on the teratogenic risks of 19 antiepileptic agents was conducted and the results were compared with the information on the use in women of childbearing age and during pregnancy provided by the SmPCs of 38 commercial products available in Switzerland and Germany. RESULTS: The teratogenic risk is discussed in all available SmPCs. Quantification of the risk for birth defects and the numbers of documented pregnancies are mostly missing. Reproductive safety information in SmPCs showed poor concordance with risk levels reported in the literature. Recommendations concerning the need to monitor plasma levels and possibly perform dose adjustments during pregnancy to prevent treatment failure were missing in five Swiss and two German SmPCs. DISCUSSION: The information regarding use in women of childbearing age and during pregnancy provided by the SmPCs is heterogeneous and poorly reflects the current state of knowledge. Regular updates of SmPCs are warranted in order for these documents to be of reliable use for health care professionals.

Women's decision making and experience of subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to increase understanding of women's thoughts and feelings about decision making and the experience of subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth (intrauterine death after 24 weeks' gestation). METHODS: Eleven women were interviewed, 8 of whom were pregnant at the time of the interview. Modified grounded theory was used to guide the research methodology and to analyze the data. RESULTS: A model was developed to illustrate women's experiences of decision making in relation to subsequent pregnancy and of subsequent pregnancy itself. DISCUSSION: The results of the current study have significant implications for women who have experienced stillbirth and the health professionals who work with them. Based on the model, women may find it helpful to discuss their beliefs in relation to healing and health professionals to provide support with this in mind. Women and their partners may also benefit from explanations and support about the potentially conflicting emotions they may experience during this time.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

Alcohol Brief Intervention in Primary Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the evidence of the effectiveness of brief interventions aimed at reducing chronic alcohol use and harm related to alcohol consumption, conducted among individuals actively attending primary care but who were not seeking help for alcohol problems. METHODS: Randomised trials reporting at-least one outcome related to alcohol consumption and conducted in outpatients who were actively attending primary care centre or provider were selected using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science, ETOH database, and bibliographies of the retrieved references and previous reviews. Selection and data abstraction were performed independently and in duplicate. We assessed validity of the studies and performed a meta-analysis for studies reporting alcohol consumption at 6 or 12 months follow up. RESULTS: We included 24 reports, reporting results of 19 trials and including 5,639 individuals. Seventeen trials reported a measure of alcohol consumption, eight reporting a significant effect of intervention. The meta-analysis showed a mean pooled difference of -41 (95% CI: −54; −28) g of pure ethanol per week in favour of brief intervention group. Evidences for other outcomes (laboratory values, health related quality of life, morbidity and mortality, health care utilisation) were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review indicated that brief intervention might be effective for both men and women in reducing alcohol consumption compared to a controlled intervention, in a primary health care population. The meta-analysis confirmed the reduction in alcohol consumption at 6 and 12 month. Further research should precise the components of effectiveness of brief intervention and the evidence of effects on morbidity, mortality, and quality of life related outcomes.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42).Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.