Maternal safety of the delayed-release doxylamine and pyridoxine combination for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy; a randomized placebo controlled trial

Background: Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is the most common medical condition in pregnancy, affecting up to 80% of expecting mothers. In April 2013 the FDA approved the delayed release combination of doxylamine succinate and -pyridoxine hydrochloride (Diclegis®) for NVP, following a phase 3 randomized trial in pregnant women. The fetal safety of this medication has been proven by numerous studies. However, because it is the only FDA-approved medication for NVP that is likely to be used by a large number of pregnant women, its maternal safety is an important public health question. The Objective is to evaluate the maternal safety of doxylamine succinate -pyridoxine hydrochloride delayed-release preparation (Diclegis® as compared to placebo. Methods: We randomized women suffering from NVP to receive Diclegis® (n = 131) or placebo (n = 125) for 14 days at doses ranging from 2-4 tablets a day, based on a pre-specified titration protocol response to symptoms. Adverse events were collected through patient diaries, clinical examination and laboratory testing. Results: Doxylamine succinate 10 mg and pyridoxine hydrochloride 10 mg use was not associated with an increased rate of any adverse event over placebo, including CNS depression, gastrointestinal or cardiovascular involvement. Conclusions: Doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine hydrochloride delayed release combination is safe and well tolerated by pregnant women when used in the recommended dose of up to 4 tablets daily in treating nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Trial Registration: Clinical Trial Registration No: NCT00614445

Two years after molecular diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia: Majority on cholesterol-lowering treatment but a minority reaches treatment goal

Background: The risk of premature cardiovascular disease in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) can be profoundly reduced by cholesterol-lowering therapy, and current guidelines for FH advocate ambitious low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. In the present study, we determined whether these goals are reflected in current clinical practice once FH has been diagnosed. Methodology/Principal Findings: In 2008, we sent questionnaires to all subjects (aged 18-65 years) who were molecularly diagnosed with FH in the year 2006 through the screening program in the Netherlands. Of these 1062 subjects, 781 completed the questionnaire (46% males; mean age: 42±12 years; mean LDL-C at molecular diagnosis (baseline): 4.1±1.3 mmol/L). The number of persons that used cholesterol-lowering therapy increased from 397 (51%) at baseline to 636 (81%) after diagnosis. Mean treated LDL-C levels decreased significantly to 3.2±1.1 mmol/L two years after diagnosis. Only 22% achieved the LDL-C target level of ≤2.5 mmol/L. Conclusions/Significance: The proportion of patients using cholesterol-lowering medication was significantly increased after FH diagnosis through

Cascade testing in Familial Hypercholesterolaemia: how should family members be contacted?

Cascade testing or screening provides an important mechanism for identifying people at risk of a genetic condition. For some autosomal dominant conditions, such as Familial Hpercholesterolaemia (FH), identifying relatives allows for significant health-affecting interventions to be administered, which can extend a person’s life expectancy significantly. However, cascade screening is not without ethical implications. In this paper, we examine one ethically contentious aspect of cascade screening programmes, namely the alternative methods by which relatives of a proband can be contacted. Should the proband be responsible for contacting his or her family members, or should the screening programme contact family members directly? We argue that direct contact is an ethically justifiable method of contact tracing in cascade screening for FH. Not only has this method of contact already been utilised without adverse effects, an examination of the ethical arguments against it shows these are unsubstantiated. We describe several criteria which, if met, will allow an appropriate balance to be struck between maximising the efficiency of family tracing and respecting the interests of probands and their relatives. Keywords Cascade genetic screening; cascade testing; confidentiality; autonomy; genetics; ethics; guidelines; familial hypercholesterolaemi