4.2 Article

Drug use by pregnant women in six Brazilian cities

Journal

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 415-420

Publisher

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0034-89102001000500002

Keywords

drug utilization; pregnancy; prenatal care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To describe drugs used (hiring pregnancy by women attending prenatal clinics of the national public health system (SUS) in Brazilian cities. Methods Using a structured questionnaire. 5,564 pregnant women between the week 21 to 28 who attended prenatal visits of the SUS in six Brazilian cities were interviewed. The interview questions were grouped in guided use to cover pain, cramps, nausea, cough, and others, and guided medicine - to cover vitamins, iron, and fluoride. The Food and Drug Administration gestational risk classification (1991-1995) was applied. Results Of a total of 5,504 women, 4,614 (83.8%) used at least on(, drug (hiring pregnancy, with a total of 9,556 drugs used. The drugs most frequently used were vitamins associated with anti-anemics (33.5%), gastrointestinal drugs (31.3%), analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs (22.2%), anti-anemics (19.8%). and antibiotics (11.1%). Regarding gestational risk, 3,243 drugs used (34%) belonged to category A risk, 1.923 (22.6%) to category B, 3,798 (39.7% to category C 289 (3.0%) to category D, and 55 (0.6%) to category X. Conclusions A large variation in drug use across the cities was observed, especially for anti-anemics anti vitamins associated with anti-anemics. revealing the lack of a national consensus regarding the use of these drugs during pregnancy. There was no literature data about safety during pregnancy for 12.9% of the drugs used. This percentage, plus the 26.9% of category drugs. shows that 40% of the drugs used during pregnancy do not belong to the approved safety categories. However, only 3% of the 9,956 drugs used were clearly contraindicated during pregnancy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available