Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts

Wednesday 2 September 2015

People with learning difficulties 'silenced with drugs'

People with learning difficulties 'silenced with drugs'

  • 2 September 2015
  •  
  • From the sectionHealth
antipsychoticImage copyrightSCIENCE SOURCE/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
People with learning difficulties in the UK are being inappropriately over-medicated, patient records suggest.
A study in the BMJ looked at GP data spanning over a decade and found that more than a quarter of 33,000 adults with learning difficulties had been prescribed antipsychotics, often with no obvious clinical justification.
The drugs are designed to treat severe mental illness, not tricky behaviour.
NHS England has already warned prescribers about the problem.
In July, it sent a letter to patients and professionals saying these powerful medicines should not be used as a "chemical restraint".
A report by Public Health England estimates that up to 35,000 adults with a learning disability are being prescribed an antipsychotic, an antidepressant or both without appropriate clinical justification.
NHS England advises: "If you are worried, either for yourself or someone you know, about the medicines being taken, speak to the person responsible for prescribing them. This will usually be a GP, psychiatrist, specialist doctors, pharmacist or nurse prescriber."
It says medicines used to treat mental illness can be very effective in treating some people with learning disabilities when used appropriately.

Thursday 19 January 2012

Depression drugs ‘causing falls’



elderly fallFalls are the leading cause of accidental death in the over-65s

Related Stories

Elderly people with dementia are more likely to suffer falls if they are given anti-depressants by care home staff, a study claims.
Many dementia patients also suffer from depression and drugs known as selective serotonin uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are frequently prescribed.
But the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reports that the risk of injuries from falls was tripled.
The Alzheimer's Society called for more research into alternative treatments.
The risk of falls following treatment with older anti-depressants is well established, as the medication can cause side effects such as dizziness and unsteadiness.
It had been hoped that a move to newer SSRI-type drugs would reduce this problems, but the latest research, from the Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, appears to show the reverse.
'Worrying'
Dr Carolyn Sterke recorded the daily drug use and records of falls in 248 nursing home residents over a two-year period.
The average age of the residents was 82, and the records suggested that 152 of them had suffered a total of 683 falls.
The consequences of falls were relatively high, with 220 resulting in injuries including hip fractures and other broken bones - and one resident died following a fall.

Start Quote

More research is now needed to understand why this anti-depressant is having this effect on people with dementia and if there is an alternative treatment for depression that they could be prescribed”
Professor Clive BallardAlzheimer's Society
The risk of having an injury-causing fall was three times higher in residents taking SSRIs compared with those not taking the drug, and this risk rose further if the patient was being given sedative drugs as well.
Dr Sterke said that these risks needed to be taken into account when assessing whether anti-depressants were required.
She said: "Physicians should be cautious in prescribing SSRIs to older people with dementia, even at low doses."
Professor Clive Ballard, from the Alzheimer's Society, said it was "worrying" that such a commonly prescribed anti-depressant was causing increased risk.
He said: "It is important to highlight any aspect of care that might be causing risk to a person with dementia. We want to ensure that people with the condition are always receiving the best care possible.
"More research is now needed to understand why this anti-depressant is having this effect on people with dementia and if there is an alternative treatment for depression that they could be prescribed.
"One in three people over 65 will die with dementia yet research into the condition continues to be drastically underfunded. We must invest now.'

More on This Story

Related Stories

Friday 18 November 2011

Cancer drug Avastin loses US approval US drug regulators have rescinded approval of a breast cancer drug, saying it is not effective enough to justify the risks of taking it.





Breast Cancer CellsThe drug-maker says it will undertake further study to establish which patients will benefit from the drug

The drug, Avastin, was approved for US use in 2008, but UK officials have also rejected claims that it prolongs life.
US drug regulators have rescinded approval of a breast cancer drug, saying it is not effective enough to justify the risks of taking it.
Further research showed it did not help patients live longer or improve quality of life, Food and Drug Administration commissioner Margaret Hamburg said.
Avastin will still be used to treat other kinds of cancer.
The drug is used to treat breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. It works by starving cancer cells of a blood supply.
However, its side-effects include severe high blood pressure, massive bleeding, heart attack or heart failure and tears in the stomach and intestines, FDA studies have found.
FDA approval of the drug had initially been given under a special programme that allows patients to start using promising treatments while the manufacturer finishes the studies to prove the medicine works as well as expected.
The decision to withdraw the approval - which can happen if results of the research do not match predictions - was not easy, the FDA said.
Stalling cancer growth
"With so much at stake, patients and their doctors count on the FDA to ensure the drugs they use have been shown to be safe and effective for their intended use. Sometimes, the results of rigorous testing can be disappointing," Ms Hamburg told the Associated Press news agency.
US health insurance companies could remove the drug, which can cost as much as $100,000 (£63,342) per year, from their coverage - although doctors would still be permitted to administer the drug.
But the government-backed Medicaid programme has said it has no immediate plans to change its policy of paying for it.
Some advocates of the drug disagree with the watchdog's decision.
"The bottom line is that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There absolutely may be subsets of carefully chosen breast cancer patients who benefit from Avastin," said Dr Elisa Port, co-director of the Dubin Breast Center of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.
Roche, the Swiss manufacturer of the drug, has said it will undertake further study of the treatment, especially with the chemotherapy drug paclitaxel, to try to identify which patients might be best suited to benefit from use of the drug.
The company says it expects the medicine will generate $7.6bn (£4.8m) of revenue annually, despite the FDA decision.
The drug was approved on the basis of a study that showed Avastin was able to stall the growth of breast cancer by five-and-a-half months, when used together with a standard chemotherapy treatment.
But subsequent studies revised the period of delay to between one and three months, and there was no evidence to show that the drug extended patients' lives.
International problems
The US decision comes after Avastin fell foul of health authorities in the UK and in Europe.
In February 2011, the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the NHS drugs advisory body, said Avastin should not be used to treat secondary breast cancers.
NICE, which issues guidance for NHS in England and Wales, said there was insufficient evidence that the drug prolonged life.
This guidance followed a recommendation by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) that doctors only prescribe the drug in combination with the taxane drug, paclitaxel.


    Tuesday 15 November 2011

    Is oral contraceptive pill fuelling prostate cancer?



    oral contraceptive pillThe Pill became publicly available in the 1960s and remains a popular choice of contraceptive

    Related Stories

    Scientists say research is needed to ascertain if oral contraceptive pill use could be fuelling rising prostate cancer rates.
    Canadian investigators told the BMJ that they have found a possible link.
    But experts stress this is not proof that one causes the other and it might be a fluke finding.
    The researchers believe oestrogen by-products excreted in the urine of pill-users may have contaminated the food chain and drinking water.
    The hormone is known to feed the growth of certain cancers.
    The latest investigation looked at data from 2007 for individual nations and continents worldwide to see if there was any link.
    The researchers found a significant association between contraceptive pill use in the population as a whole with both the number of new cases of, and deaths from, prostate cancer.
    This link was irrespective of the nation's wealth, suggesting it might not be down to better disease detection in more affluent countries that also tend to have higher rates of oral contraceptive use.
    And it was strongest in Europe.
    Additionally, they found no link between prostate cancer and other forms of contraception, like the coil, suggesting it is not something that is sexually transmitted or associated with intercourse itself.
    'Thought-provoking'
    Drs David Margel and Neil Fleshner, from Toronto University, fear that contamination of the food chain with hormones originating from the pill are the likely culprit.

    Start Quote

    Comparing the rates of two apparently unrelated issues across countries is a notoriously unreliable way of establishing whether they are truly linked”
    Jessica HarrisCancer Research UK
    They stress that their work merely suggests a link and is not proof.
    "It must be considered hypothesis generating and thought-provoking," they say in their BMJ Open report.
    They said more investigations are needed and recommend close monitoring of environmental levels of oral contraceptive by-products or endocrine disruptive compounds (EDCs).
    Dr Kate Holmes, of The Prostate Cancer Charity, agreed that more research was warranted.
    "While this study raises some interesting questions about the presence of EDCs in the environment, it does not contribute to our overall understanding of the development of prostate cancer."
    Jessica Harris, of Cancer Research UK, said uncertainty about the disease remained.
    "Comparing the rates of two apparently unrelated issues across countries is a notoriously unreliable way of establishing whether they are truly linked, because so many things vary between different countries that it's impossible to say whether one thing is causing the other.
    "It has been difficult to identify factors that affect the risk of prostate cancer, but we know that men are at higher risk as they get older, or if they have a strong family history of breast or prostate cancer. The disease is also more common in black men than white or Asian men."

    Saturday 15 October 2011

    A painkiller taken by millions can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke

    A painkiller taken by millions can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke by 40%, the Daily Mail has today reported. The newspaper says that researchers are calling for the drug, called diclofenac, to be available on prescription only.

    The news is based on a large review that looked at the cardiovascular risks associated with a class of widely used painkillers called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). NSAIDs in high-dose formulations are usually only available on prescription, but some low-dose NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, naproxen and diclofenac, can be bought over the counter.

    The review found that diclofenac raised the risk of heart problems by 22% when taken at over-the-counter doses and by 40% at prescription strength. Naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen were least likely to increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

    While previous research has highlighted the cardiovascular risks of some NSAIDs, this review of observational studies provides some important new information about the risks associated with all currently available NSAIDs at different doses. As such, its findings will no doubt be important to future decisions about how these drugs should be used and regulated.

    However, it is important to note that for a healthy individual who takes diclofenac, the increased risk to the heart is still very small. The nature of this research means it is not possible to estimate accurately how small this risk is. Anyone who is concerned about taking NSAIDs should not stop taking these drugs but should consult their doctor.

    Where did the story come from?

    The study was carried out by researchers affiliated with Hull York Medical School, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, the University of Toronto in Canada and the University of Newcastle in Australia. It received no external funding. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS Medicine.

    The research was covered fairly in most newspapers. In its print version of the story the Daily Mail featured a large front-page headline warning of a “Painkiller heart alert”, which may have been alarming. However, within the article itself the Daily Mail did feature prominent messages that patients should not panic and should not stop taking their medication. Both the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph reported that, for most healthy people, the increased risk of heart and other problems from diclofenac was small, and the reports featured in the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express all included comments and advice from independent experts.

    What kind of research was this?

    This was a systematic review comparing the risks of individual NSAIDs taken at typical doses by people at home, rather than in hospital. The researchers say that there are concerns about the risk associated with non-prescription NSAIDs available in low-dose forms, such as ibuprofen, naproxen and diclofenac.

    The researchers point out that while some randomised trials have highlighted the cardiovascular risk of some NSAIDs, little is known about how the risks of individual drugs compare when used at different doses, for different lengths of time and in different populations. For this reason the researchers set out to examine the outcomes seen in controlled observational studies, which would better reflect the risks associated with the typical domestic use of NSAIDs rather than the risks associated with their use in the idealised setting of a clinical trial. To date, randomised trials of NSAIDs have reported only small numbers of heart and stroke problems.

    What did the research involve?

    The researchers searched a wide range of electronic databases for relevant studies published between 1985 and 2010 that had reported on the cardiovascular risks associated with the use of individual NSAIDs in population settings. They included only non-randomised, controlled observational studies in their literature search. These observational studies included case control, cohorts and case-crossover studies. They then assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies. From a total 459 potentially relevant papers, 51 studies met their criteria.

    From the studies gathered, the researchers extracted and pooled information about the risk of major cardiovascular events associated with individual NSAIDs. They also assessed subsets of studies that provided relevant information to examine the risk of NSAIDs in different doses and in people with low and high existing risk of heart problems. To compare different drugs they carried out a further type of analysis, called a pair-wise comparison, where they indirectly compared each drug against another in turn, taking the results from separate trials.

    The overall analyses included data from 30 case-control studies and 21 cohort studies involving more than 2.7 million individuals and featuring a total of 184,946 cardiovascular events.

    What were the basic results?

    The researchers looked at the drugs where there were 10 or more studies. Of drugs where there were 10 or more studies, researchers found that the highest overall risks were seen with rofecoxib and diclofenac, and the lowest with ibuprofen and naproxen. Compared with not using any NSAIDs, the researchers found:

    • rofecoxib increased the risk of heart problems by 45% (95% CI 1.33 to 1.59)
    • diclofenac increased the risk by 40% (95% CI 1.27 to 1.55)
    • ibuprofen increased the risk by 18% (95% CI 1.11 to 1.25)

    In a subset of studies that looked at risk associated with lower doses they found:

    • low doses of rofecoxib increased the risk by 37% (95% CI 1.20 to 1.57)
    • low doses of celecoxib increased the risk by 26% (95% CI 1.09 to 1.47)
    • low doses of diclofenac increased the risk by 22% (95% CI 1.12 to 1.33)

    It is important to note that the drug rofecoxib has already been withdrawn from the market because of its association with a raised risk of cardiovascular events. Including it in the study allows the risk associated with other drugs to be compared with the risks of rofecoxib.

    Ibuprofen only posed a risk when taken at a higher dose and naproxen had no significant risk at any dose.

    The researchers say the increase in risk was proportional for both high- and low-risk groups. This means that, relative to their risk if not using NSAIDS, the risks for both groups increased to the same extent. The risk of cardiovascular problems also rose early in the course of treatment. For some NSAIDs, risk was found to increase within the first month of taking the drug.

    How did the researchers interpret the results?

    The researchers say the results of their review “are robust enough to inform clinical and regulatory decisions”.

    • They call for “regulatory action” on diclofenac, as it is currently available without prescription.
    • They say the limited data on etoricoxib “raises serious concerns” about safety, particularly as similar drugs such as rofecoxib have been withdrawn.
    • They say that, in the case of ibuprofen, labelling warnings should be strengthened to stop patients who are already at high risk of cardiovascular problems from exceeding the maximum recommended dose.
    • They question the continued use of indomethacin.

    Conclusion

    This large review has published some important information on the cardiovascular risks associated with NSAIDs, including the risk associated with different doses and in populations at both high and low risk of cardiovascular events. It raises concerns about some of these risks, in particular the risk associated with the widely used non-prescription drug diclofenac.

    As its authors point out, it had some limitations.

    • It had to rely on observational studies (rather than randomised controlled trials), which are subject to bias, especially in terms of other factors (confounders) that might influence results. However, the researchers did take steps to minimise this risk.
    • The data in the studies mainly came from large administrative databases and electronic health records, and may not have been comprehensive, especially concerning key information such as use of non-prescription NSAIDs and aspirin, or information about people’s risk of heart problems.
    • The review suffered from ‘heterogeneity’. This means that many of the studies varied in their design, their methods and how they analysed results. Heterogeneity makes it harder to combine the results of different studies accurately and can, therefore, throw doubt on the findings of systematic reviews.

    Patients using NSAIDs who are worried about side effects should not stop taking them, but instead consult their doctor.

    Links To The Headlines

    Painkiller heart alert: Don't stop taking pills, but do talk to your GP, British scientists urge. Daily Mail, September 28 2011

    Common painkillers can raise heart risk. The Daily Telegraph, September 28 2011

    Health alert over common painkiller. Daily Express, September 28 2011

    Links To Science

    McGettigan P, Henry D. Cardiovascular Risk with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review of Population-Based Controlled Observational Studies. PLoS Medicine 8(9)

    Friday 24 June 2011

    Warning over combining common medicines for elderly

    Warning over combining common medicines for elderly

    Taking multiple common drugs has been linked to brain decline and death
    Combinations of commonly used drugs - for conditions such as heart disease, depression and allergies - have been linked to a greater risk of death and declining brain function by scientists.
    Pills
    They said half of people over 65 were prescribed these drugs.
    The effect was greatest in patients taking multiple courses of medication, according to the study in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
    Experts said patients must not panic or stop taking their medicines.
    The researchers were investigating medicines which affect a chemical in the brain - acetylcholine. The neurotransmitter is vital for passing messages from nerve cell to nerve cell, but many common drugs interfere with it as a side effect.
    Eighty drugs were rated for their "anticholinergic" activity: they were given a score of one for a mild effect, two for moderate and three for severe. Some were given by prescription only, while others were available over the counter.

    Some of the drugs examined

    Category one, mild
    • Codeine (painkiller)
    • Warfarin (blood thinner)
    • Timolol maleate (eye drops)
    Category three, severe
    • Piriton (antihistamine)
    • Ditropan (incontinence drug)
    • Seroxat (antidepressant)
    A combined score was calculated in 13,000 patients aged 65 or over, by adding together the scores for all the medicines they were taking.
    A patient taking one severe drug and two mild ones would have an overall score of five.
    Deadly consequences
    Between 1991 and 1993, 20% of patients with a score of four or more died. Of those taking no anticholinergic drugs only 7% died.
    Patients with a score of five or more showed a 4% drop in ratings of brain function.
    Other factors, such as increased mortality from underlying diseases, were removed from the analysis.

    “Start Quote

    Do not stop your medicines without taking advice first”
    End Quote Dr Clare Gerada Royal College of GPs
    However, this study cannot say that the drugs caused death or reduced brain function, merely that there was an association.
    Dr Chris Fox, who led the research at the University of East Anglia, said: "Clinicians should conduct regular reviews of the medication taken by their older patients, both prescribed and over the counter, and wherever possible avoid prescribing multiple drugs with anticholinergic effects.
    Dr Clare Gerada, chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said the findings of the study were important.
    She told patients: "The first thing is not to worry too much, the second thing is to discuss it with your doctor or the pharmacist, and the third thing is do not stop your medicines without taking advice first."
    She said doctors reviewed medication every 15 months and were aware of the risks of combining different drugs.
    Dr Fox said he wanted to conduct further research to investigate how anticholinergic drugs might increase mortality.
    Synapse Electrical signals cannot cross the gap between brain cells; neurotransmitters pass the message on
    A more modern study is also thought to be desirable. Practices and drugs have changed since the data was collected two decades ago.
    Ian Maidment, an NHS pharmacist in Kent and Medway, believes the situation may now be even worse.
    He said the use of anticholinergic drugs had "probably increased as more things are being treated and more drugs are being used."
    Brain decline
    Reduction of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine has already been implicated in dementia.
    The drug Aricept is given to some patients with Alzheimer's disease to boost acetylcholine levels.
    Dr Susanne Sorensen, head of research at the Alzheimer's Society, said a 4% drop in brain function for a healthy person would feel like a slow, sluggish day.
    "If you are at a level where one little thing pushes you over into confusion, then that is much more serious," she added.
    "However, it is vital that people do not panic or stop taking their medication without consulting their GP."
    Rebecca Wood, chief executive of Alzheimer's Research UK, said: "This comprehensive study could have some far-reaching effects. The results underline the critical importance of calculated drug prescription."
    Have you been affected by the issues raised in this story? Send us your comments using the form below:

    Friday 21 January 2011

    antibiotics can increase risk of irritable bowel syndrome

    Giving children antibiotics can increase risk of irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn's disease later in life, the Daily Mail has reported. The newspaper article says that “scientists believe the drugs may encourage harmful bacteria and other organisms to grow in the gut, which trigger the conditions”.

    This study looked at the medical records of over 500,000 children in Denmark, and found that children who had been prescribed antibiotics were more likely to develop inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than those who had not received such prescriptions. IBD is a group of diseases which includes Crohn’s disease, but not (as suggested by the Mail) irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

    While this study has found a relationship between antibiotic use and IBD, it is not possible to say for certain why such a relationship exists. It might be that antibiotics do raise the risk of IBD, or that the infections being treated with them cause or trigger IBD, or that in some cases antibiotics were being used to treat symptoms of undiagnosed IBD that was later identified. These findings are worth further investigation.

    It is important to remember that the risk of IBD in children is very low. In this study of more than half a million children, only 117 were diagnosed with the disease, despite almost 85% of the subjects taking at least one course of antibiotics.

    Where did the story come from?

    The study was carried out by researchers from the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark and funded by Danish Medical Research Council and the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Gut.

    This study was reported by the Daily Mail, which has confused inflammatory bowel disease (investigated by this study) with irritable bowel syndrome, which is not an inflammatory bowel disease (and was not investigated in this study).

    What kind of research was this?

    This was a nationwide Danish cohort study looking at whether there was a link between the use of antibiotics and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in childhood. The balance of microorganisms in the intestine has been suggested to be important in the development of IBD. As antibiotics can alter this balance, one suggestion is that their use could potentially affect the risk of IBD.

    The main limitation of this type of study design is that the groups being compared (in this case, children exposed and unexposed to antibiotics) may differ in ways other than their use of antibiotics. Any such differences might potentially affect the results and therefore obscure the true relationship. Researchers can try to reduce the likelihood of this by taking such factors into account in their analyses.

    Limitations of this nature could potentially be avoided by looking at the risk of IBD in children who had participated in randomised controlled trials of antibiotics, although the practical constraints of such studies mean they would not be likely to include the very large number of children that this study had.

    What did the research involve?

    The researchers looked at the healthcare records of all Danish children born between 1995 and 2003 who were not part of multiple births (e.g. twins or triplets). They obtained information on collections of antibiotic prescriptions, diagnoses of IBD and other factors that could affect results. They then looked at whether children who had received antibiotics were any more or less likely to subsequently develop IBD compared with children who had not received antibiotics.

    The researchers drew data from various national registries to locate eligible children, their filled prescriptions and medical history. The researchers identified:

    • all prescriptions for systemic antibiotics antibiotics for internal rather than external (topical) use, given between 1995 and 2004
    • the type of antibiotic given, and how many different courses of antibiotics were given in the study period
    • all recorded diagnoses of IBD, which includes Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. These diagnoses were identified using records of hospitalisations, emergency department visits and outpatient hospital visits.

    The researchers also obtained a range of information on factors which could affect results, including gender, birth order (whether the child was born first, second or third), level of urbanisation of the place of birth, birth weight, length of gestation, mother’s age at the child’s birth, educational level of mother in the year preceding the year of birth, and socioeconomic category of father in the year preceding the year of birth.

    However, none of these factors were found to be independently associated with the risk of IBD, so they were not taken into account in the main analyses. These only took into account the child’s age and year of the diagnosis.

    What were the basic results?

    Overall, the researchers collected data on 577,627 children, with an average follow-up time of about 5.5 years. This provided over 3 million years of data in total. Most of the children (84.8%) had received at least one course of antibiotics.

    Across both study groups 117 children developed IBD – 50 of these children had Crohn’s disease and 67 had ulcerative colitis. On average, diagnosis of these conditions was first recorded between the ages of three and four years old.

    The researchers reported their outcomes using a measure called the "incidence rate ratio" [iRR], which is the relative proportion of people given a new diagnosis in two different groups within a specified period of time. They found that children who had collected an antibiotic prescription were 84% more likely to develop IBD during follow-up than those who did not [iRR 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 3.15].

    When looking at the different types of IBD separately, antibiotics were only associated with an increased risk of Crohn’s disease [iRR 3.41] but not ulcerative colitis. The risk of being diagnosed with Crohn’s disease was greater in the first three months after the prescription collection [iRR 4.43], and greater in children who received seven or more courses of antibiotics [iRR 7.32].

    How did the researchers interpret the results?

    The researchers concluded that their study is the “first prospective study to show a strong association between antibiotic use and [Crohn’s disease] in childhood”. This suggests that antibiotics or the conditions for which they are prescribed (infections) could potentially increase the risk of IBD or trigger the disease in people who are susceptible.

    However, they note that as with all studies of this type, it cannot prove that antibiotics or the illnesses they were prescribed to treat cause IBD. They say that a possible explanation might be that the children had been prescribed antibiotics to treat intestinal symptoms caused by undiagnosed Crohn’s disease that would later be identified.

    Conclusion

    Overall, this large study has suggested a link between antibiotic use and IBD, although it should not be assumed that antibiotic use is necessarily the cause of the condition. There are a number of alternative explanations for the association, such as the possibility that antibiotics had been given to the children to deal with symptoms of Crohn’s disease that had not yet been diagnosed. Further research will be needed to clarify the situation.

    The strengths and limitations of this research must also be considered when interpreting its results:

    • The large size of this study, its ability to include most of the children of the relevant age group in the entire country and the level of data available on antibiotic prescriptions are all strengths.
    • As exposures and outcomes were based on medical records, the reliability of the findings may depend on the accuracy of the records.
    • Standard diagnostic assessments of each child were not carried out, therefore some cases of IBD may have been missed and some children may have been misdiagnosed. However, the authors report that the hospital registers used have previously been found to have a high level of validity and completeness in identifying individuals with IBD.
    • Although the prescriptions were filled out, not all of the antibiotics may have been taken by the children. However, this would tend to reduce any link between antibiotics and IBD, rather than make it stronger.
    • In this type of study, the groups being compared – children exposed and unexposed to antibiotics – may differ in ways other than their use of antibiotics, and these differences may be affecting the results. Although the researchers took into account factors that they thought could affect results (as the causes of IBD are not well understood), it is difficult to know whether all the important factors have been accounted for.

    As the authors acknowledge, it is not possible to say whether the link found is due to the antibiotics, the infection that prompted the need for antibiotics or treatment of existing but undiagnosed IBD.

    Saturday 13 November 2010

    Painkillers, pregnancy and male reproductive problems

    Painkillers, pregnancy and male reproductive problems

    Fergus Walsh | 15:35 UK time, Monday, 8 November 2010

    The use of painkillers such as ibuprofen, aspirin and paracetamol during pregnancy could be linked to male reproductive disorders according to new research. A study in the journal Human Reproduction (opens pdf) found that women who took more than one painkiller at the same time during pregnancy, or who took the drugs during the second trimester, were at increased risk of giving birth to boys with undescended testicles.

    The condition, known as cryptorchidism, affects about one in 20 boys in the UK. It is known to be a risk factor for male fertility problems later in life and an increased risk of testicular cancer.

    1,463 pregnant women in Finland completed written questionnaires and 834 women in Denmark did the same or took part in a telephone interview. The researchers found that women significantly under-reported the use of painkillers in the written questionnaire because they did not consider mild painkillers to be "medication".

    The study showed that women who used more than one painkiller simultaneously (such as paracetamol and ibuprofen) had a seven-fold increased risk of giving birth to sons with some form of undescended testes compared to women who did not take the drugs.

    The second trimester appeared to be a particularly sensitive time. Any analgesic use at this point more than doubled the risk of the condition. Simultaneous use of more than one painkiller during this time appeared to increase the risk 16-fold.

    The scientists behind the research believe painkillers may be part of the reason for the increase in male reproductive disorders in recent decades, possible by interfering with the role of the male hormone testosterone. Research carried out on rats in Denmark and France found that painkillers disrupted androgen production, leading to insufficient supplies of testosterone during the crucial early period of gestation when the male organs were forming. The effects of the painkillers on the rats was comparable to that caused by similar doses of known endocrine (hormone) disrupters such as phthalates - a family of chemical compounds used in the manufacture of plastics such as PVC.

    Dr Henrik Leffers, senior scientist at Righospitalet in Copenhagen, who led the research, said: "If exposure to endocrine disruptors is the mechanisms behind the increasing reproductive problems among young men in the Western World, this research suggests that particular attention should be paid to the use of mild analgesics during pregnancy, as this could be a major reason for the problems".

    But the study is not without limitations. The researchers could not find a statistically significant effect among the Finnish women, which was the larger group, but did find significant effects among the Danish women.

    Dr Leffers said: "We do not quite understand why the Finnish cohort does not show the same associations as the Danish cohort." However, he said the telephone interviews used in Denmark gave the "most reliable information" and this may explain some of the differences. He added: "The prevalence of cryptorchidism is much lower in Finland (2.4%) compared to Denmark (9.3%) and, therefore, this would require a larger cohort to find the same number of cases."

    Pregnant women in the UK are already advised to avoid taking ibuprofen or aspirin, unless they are advised to do so by their doctor.

    Instead they are told they can take paracetamol. The NHS Choices website puts it like this:

    Paracetamol has been used routinely through all stages of pregnancy to reduce a high temperature (fever) and relieve pain. There is no clear evidence that paracetamol has any harmful effects on the baby.

    As with any medicine that is used during pregnancy, paracetamol should be taken at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time.

    This raises a further concern with the research. Of the individual painkillers, ibuprofen and aspirin approximately quadrupled the risk of cryptorchidism. Paracetamol doubled the risk, but this was not statistically significant. This suggests that a link between paracetamol use alone in pregnancy and male fertility problems is not clear-cut.

    Dr Leffers said: "Although we should be cautious about any over-extrapolation or over-statement, the use of mild analgesics constitutes by far the largest exposure to endocrine disruptors among pregnant women."

    Prof Richard Sharpe of the Medical Research Council's Human Reproductive Sciences Unit at the University of Edinburgh, said:

    "The studies are top quality from groups with considerable expertise. The association between painkiller (paracetamol) use in early pregnancy and increased risk of cryptorchidism in sons has been independently confirmed in another study from Denmark (MS Jensen et al. November 2010, Epidemiology). Painkillers/paracetamol are likely to be one of several factors that cause cryptorchidism - some environmental chemicals are also implicated - it is probably the sum of all such exposures that determines the outcome.

    Pregnant women who are alarmed by these studies should note the following:

    It is only prolonged use that has an effect - taking occasional painkiller for a headache will have no adverse effect (and the stress, worry and sickness from not taking something for a bad headache may be worse for the mother and baby).

    Most women in this study who used paracetamol did not have a baby boy with cryptorchidism.

    Prolonged use of painkillers in pregnancy should not be contemplated without medical approval. For certain, taking paracetamol as a 'feel good' factor should be avoided (by all of us!).

    It is sound common sense to minimize your exposure (and therefore your baby's exposure) to all drugs, environmental (pesticides, paints, household chemical exposures) and lifestyle (smoking, alcohol, cosmetics usage) chemicals during pregnancy wherever possible."

    Update at 17:00

    Basky Thilaganathan, Spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said:

    "The findings need to be interpreted with caution. Firstly, the study shows an association rather than causation; it is entirely possible that mothers took these analgesics for an ailment (for example, a viral infection) in pregnancy that may have been the real cause for the noted problems. Secondly, the dose-dependent effect was seen in one study cohort but not another, raising the possibility that this preliminary study may be prone to inadvertent bias of patient recruitment and ascertainment. Furthermore, the definition of cryptorchidism is broad and clinical, rather than specific and the overall number of cases is so small that a small change in affected numbers would have nullified the findings.

    "Given these limitations, the findings of the study should be interpreted with caution and it would be inappropriate to spread alarm to pregnant women on this basis."

    Featured post

    More patients in Scotland given antidepressants

    More patients in Scotland given antidepressants 13 October 2015   From the section Scotland Image copyright Thinkstock Image ca...