3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Periconceptional use of weight loss products including ephedra and the association with birth defects

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bdra.20472

关键词

weight loss; dieting; birth defects; pregnancy; ephedra

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Weight loss products are frequently used by reproductive-aged women and these products may be taken (inadvertently or intentionally) during pregnancy. This Study assessed the association between periconceptional use of weight loss products and major structural birth defects. METHODS: Mothers of infants with birth defects (case infants) and a random sample of livebirths (control infants) born during the period 1998-2003 in 10 states participated in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Adjusted ORs (aORs) for the association between self-reported use of weight loss products and 23 categories of birth defects were Calculated. RESULTS: Mothers of control infants (2.4%) and 2.6% of mothers of case infants reported periconceptional use of weight loss products; 1.2%, of mothers of control infants and 1.3% of mothers of case infants reported using an ephedra-containing product. Use of any weight loss product was associated with anencephaly (aOR 2.6; 95%, CI: 1.3-5.3), dextro-transposition of the great arteries (aOR 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1-4.3), and aortic stenosis (aOR 3.4; 95%, CI: 1.5-7.9). Use of products containing ephedra showed an increased aOR with anencephaly (aOR 2.8; 95%, CI: 1.0-7.3), while other weight loss products were associated with dextro-transposition of the great arteries (aOR 1.8; 95% CI: 1.2-2.7), and aortic stenosis (aOR 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3-3.5). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest an association between periconceptional use of weight loss products and certain birth defects but the possible mechanism is not clear. This is the first finding of such an association and, because we examined a large number of exposure-outcome associations in a hypothesis-generating analysis, these results might have been due to chance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据