Antiemetic medications in pregnancy: a prospective investigation of obstetric and neurobehavioral outcomes

The study goal was to examine the impact of commonly prescribed antiemetic medications in pregnancy on neurobehavioral and obstetric outcomes. Five hundred thirty-three women accounting for 550 live births (17 multiple gestations) enrolled before 16 weeks' gestation participating in an observational longitudinal study of stress and pharmacologic exposure in pregnancy at Emory Women's Mental Health Program were included in this study. Maternal report of exposure to medications was documented by weeks of use. Obstetric and neonatal data were obtained from medical records. The Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale was completed by certified raters at age 7 days. The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) was completed by the mother between 17 and 66 months of age. Comparison of groups was conducted using χ2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Spearman correlation analysis was used for CBCL percentile scores to evaluate duration of exposure. The exposed group (n = 143) was comprised of children whose mothers received promethazine or ondansetron during pregnancy. Unexposed children (n = 407) were used for comparison. Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale data 7 days (range, 2–77) was available on 345 infants (exposed n = 102; unexposed n = 243), and a total of 247 CBCLs (exposed n = 51; unexposed n = 196) at 29 (range, 17–66) months of age. No significant differences were seen using Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale and CBCL. Statistically significant differences were seen in gestational age at delivery (0.3 weeks) and birthweight (110 g). No clinically significant adverse neurobehavioral effects or obstetric outcomes were identified. This is reassuring as promethazine and ondansetron are commonly prescribed during pregnancy

GDM-associated insulin deficiency hinders the dissociation of SERT from ERp44 and down-regulates placental 5-HT uptake.

International audienceSerotonin (5-HT) transporter (SERT) regulates the level of 5-HT in placenta. Initially, we found that in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), whereas free plasma 5-HT levels were elevated, the 5-HT uptake rates of trophoblast were significantly down-regulated, due to impairment in the translocation of SERT molecules to the cell surface. We sought to determine the factors mediating the down-regulation of SERT in GDM trophoblast. We previously reported that an endoplasmic reticulum chaperone, ERp44, binds to Cys200 and Cys209 residues of SERT to build a disulfide bond. Following this posttranslational modification, before trafficking to the plasma membrane, SERT must be dissociated from ERp44; and this process is facilitated by insulin signaling and reversed by the insulin receptor blocker AGL2263. However, the GDM-associated defect in insulin signaling hampers the dissociation of ERp44 from SERT. Furthermore, whereas ERp44 constitutively occupies Cys200/Cys209 residues, one of the SERT glycosylation sites, Asp208 located between the two Cys residues, cannot undergo proper glycosylation, which plays an important role in the uptake efficiency of SERT. Herein, we show that the decrease in 5-HT uptake rates of GDM trophoblast is the consequence of defective insulin signaling, which entraps SERT with ERp44 and impairs its glycosylation. In this regard, restoring the normal expression of SERT on the trophoblast surface may represent a novel approach to alleviating some GDM-associated complications

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used