4.6 Article

Pregnancy outcome following maternal exposure to statins: a multicentre prospective study

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12066

关键词

Birth defect; hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors; pregnancy; statins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective This contribution addresses the risk associated with exposure to statins during pregnancy. Design Multicentre observational prospective controlled study. Setting European Network of Teratology Information Services. Population Pregnant women who contacted one of 11 participating centres, seeking advice about exposure to statins during pregnancy, or to agents known to be nonteratogenic. Methods Pregnancies exposed during first trimester to statins were followed up prospectively, and their outcomes were compared with a matched control group. Main outcome measures Rates of major birth defects, live births, miscarriages, elective terminations, preterm deliveries and gestational age and birthweight at delivery. Results We collected observations from 249 exposed pregnancies and 249 controls. The difference in the rate of major birth defects between the statin-exposed and the control groups was small and statistically nonsignificant (4.1% versus 2.7% odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.54.5, P=0.43). In an adjusted Cox model, the difference between miscarriage rates was also small and not significant (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% CI 0.632.93, P=0.43). Premature birth was more frequent in exposed pregnancies (16.1% versus 8.5%; OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.13.8, P=0.019). Nonetheless, median gestational age at birth (39weeks, interquartile range [IQR] 3740 versus 39weeks, IQR 3840, P=0.27) and birth weight (3280g, IQR 28353590 versus 3250g, IQR 28803630, P=0.95) did not differ between exposed and non-exposed pregnancies. Conclusions This study did not detect a teratogenic effect of statins. Its statistical power remains insufficient to challenge current recommendations of treatment discontinuation during pregnancy.

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

4.6
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