Medication exposure during pregnancy: a pilot pharmacovigilance system using health and demographic surveillance platform.

BACKGROUND: There is limited safety information on most drugs used during pregnancy. This is especially true for medication against tropical diseases because pharmacovigilance systems are not much developed in these settings. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate feasibility of using Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) as a platform to monitor drug safety in pregnancy. METHODS: Pregnant women with gestational age below 20 weeks were recruited from Reproductive and Child Health (RCH) clinics or from monthly house visits carried out for the HDSS. A structured questionnaire was used to interview pregnant women. Participants were followed on monthly basis to record any new drug used as well as pregnancy outcome. RESULTS: 1089 pregnant women were recruited; 994 (91.3%) completed the follow-up until delivery. 98% women reported to have taken at least one medication during pregnancy, mainly those used in antenatal programmes. Other most reported drugs were analgesics (24%), antibiotics (17%), and antimalarial (15%), excluding IPTp. Artemether-lumefantrine (AL) was the most used antimalarial for treating illness by nearly 3/4 compared to other groups of malaria drugs. Overall, antimalarial and antibiotic exposures in pregnancy were not significantly associated with adverse pregnancy outcome. Iron and folic acid supplementation were associated with decreased risk of miscarriage/stillbirth (OR 0.1; 0.08 - 0.3). CONCLUSION: Almost all women were exposed to medication during pregnancy. Exposure to iron and folic acid had a beneficial effect on pregnancy outcome. HDSS proved to be a useful platform to establish a reliable pharmacovigilance system in resource-limited countries. Widening drug safety information is essential to facilitate evidence based risk-benefit decision for treatment during pregnancy, a major challenge with newly marketed medicines.

La veille bibliographique. Partie 2, Un élément de surveillance

Cet article est la seconde partie d'une série de quatre consacrée aux résultats d'une veille bibliographique sur la surveillance biologique de l'exposition aux produits chimiques en milieu de travail (SBEPC MT). Alors que la précédente partie présentait les objectifs et l'organisation de la veille, cette partie ainsi que la partie 3 vont donc présenter une vue d'ensemble de la base de données en fonction de l'indexation des articles analysés par différents mots clés.

Mapping HIV/STI behavioural surveillance in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Used in conjunction with biological surveillance, behavioural surveillance provides data allowing for a more precise definition of HIV/STI prevention strategies. In 2008, mapping of behavioural surveillance in EU/EFTA countries was performed on behalf of the European Centre for Disease prevention and Control. METHOD: Nine questionnaires were sent to all 31 member States and EEE/EFTA countries requesting data on the overall behavioural and second generation surveillance system and on surveillance in the general population, youth, men having sex with men (MSM), injecting drug users (IDU), sex workers (SW), migrants, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics patients. Requested data included information on system organisation (e.g. sustainability, funding, institutionalisation), topics covered in surveys and main indicators. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of the 31 countries contacted supplied data. Sixteen countries reported an established behavioural surveillance system, and 13 a second generation surveillance system (combination of biological surveillance of HIV/AIDS and STI with behavioural surveillance). There were wide differences as regards the year of survey initiation, number of populations surveyed, data collection methods used, organisation of surveillance and coordination with biological surveillance. The populations most regularly surveyed are the general population, youth, MSM and IDU. SW, patients of STI clinics and PLWHA are surveyed less regularly and in only a small number of countries, and few countries have undertaken behavioural surveys among migrant or ethnic minorities populations. In many cases, the identification of populations with risk behaviour and the selection of populations to be included in a BS system have not been formally conducted, or are incomplete. Topics most frequently covered are similar across countries, although many different indicators are used. In most countries, sustainability of surveillance systems is not assured. CONCLUSION: Although many European countries have established behavioural surveillance systems, there is little harmonisation as regards the methods and indicators adopted. The main challenge now faced is to build and maintain organised and functional behavioural and second generation surveillance systems across Europe, to increase collaboration, to promote robust, sustainable and cost-effective data collection methods, and to harmonise indicators.