Literature DB >> 24704063

Primum non nocere: how active management became modus operandi for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.

Cassandra E Henderson1, Reena R Shah2, Sri Gottimukkala2, Khaldun K Ferreira2, Abraham Hamaoui2, Ray Mercado2.   

Abstract

The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology does not endorse routine active management of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP)-affected pregnancies. In contrast, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports active management protocols for ICP. To investigate this controversy, we evaluated the evidence supporting ICP as a medical indication for early term delivery and the evolution of active management protocols for ICP. Sixteen articles published between 1986 and 2011 were identified. We created 2 groups based on whether obstetric care included active management. Group 1 comprised 6 uncontrolled reports without active management that were published between 1967 and 1983 that described high perinatal mortality rates that primarily were related to prematurity sequel. This group became the fundamental 'core' evidence for ICP-associated stillbirths and by extrapolation justification for active management. Group 2 was comprised of 10 reports in which the authors credited empirically adopted active management with the observed low stillbirth rates in ICP-affected pregnancies. Although the group 1 articles routinely are cited as evidence of ICP-associated stillbirth risk, the 1.2% stillbirth rate (4/331) in this group is similar to the background stillbirth rates of 1.1% (11/1000) and 0.6% (6/1000) in 1967 and 2011, respectively (P = .062 and P = .0614, respectively). Likewise, the stillbirth rates for articles in group 2 were similar to their respective national stillbirth rate. Nevertheless, group 2 articles have become the evidence-based support for active management. We found no evidence to support the practice of active management for ICP.
Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  active management; intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy; stillbirth

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24704063     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  12 in total

1.  Restoration of enterohepatic bile acid pathways in pregnant mice following short term activation of Fxr by GW4064.

Authors:  Jamie E Moscovitz; Bo Kong; Kyle Buckley; Brian Buckley; Grace L Guo; Lauren M Aleksunes
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2016-09-05       Impact factor: 4.219

Review 2.  Review of a challenging clinical issue: Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.

Authors:  Sebiha Ozkan; Yasin Ceylan; Orhan Veli Ozkan; Sule Yildirim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-06-21       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Is It Necessary to Perform the Pharmacological Interventions for Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Jie Zhou; Sheng Zhang; Xu-Lin Wang; Yu-Long Jia; Shu He; Yuan-Yuan Wang; Wen-Chao Li; Jian-Guo Shao; Xun Zhuang; Yuan-Lin Liu; Gang Qin
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.859

4.  The Epidemiology of Liver Diseases Unique to Pregnancy in a US Community: A Population-Based Study.

Authors:  Alina M Allen; W Ray Kim; Joseph J Larson; Jordan K Rosedahl; Barbara P Yawn; Kimberly McKeon; J Eileen Hay
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 5.  Pregnancy-associated liver disease: a curriculum-based review.

Authors:  Claire Kelly; Marinos Pericleous
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-03-24

6.  Maternal and Fetal Outcomes in Pregnancies Complicated by Intrahepatic Cholestasis.

Authors:  Gamze Nur Cimilli Senocak; Emsal Pinar Topdagi Yilmaz
Journal:  Eurasian J Med       Date:  2019-10

7.  Total serum bile acids or serum bile acid profile, or both, for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.

Authors:  Cristina Manzotti; Giovanni Casazza; Tea Stimac; Dimitrinka Nikolova; Christian Gluud
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-07-05

8.  Association of adverse perinatal outcomes of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with biochemical markers: results of aggregate and individual patient data meta-analyses.

Authors:  Caroline Ovadia; Paul T Seed; Alexandros Sklavounos; Victoria Geenes; Chiara Di Ilio; Jenny Chambers; Katherine Kohari; Yannick Bacq; Nuray Bozkurt; Romana Brun-Furrer; Laura Bull; Maria C Estiú; Monika Grymowicz; Berrin Gunaydin; William M Hague; Christian Haslinger; Yayi Hu; Tetsuya Kawakita; Ayse G Kebapcilar; Levent Kebapcilar; Jūratė Kondrackienė; Maria P H Koster; Aneta Kowalska-Kańka; Limas Kupčinskas; Richard H Lee; Anna Locatelli; Rocio I R Macias; Hanns-Ulrich Marschall; Martijn A Oudijk; Yael Raz; Eli Rimon; Dan Shan; Yong Shao; Rachel Tribe; Valeria Tripodi; Cigdem Yayla Abide; Ilter Yenidede; Jim G Thornton; Lucy C Chappell; Catherine Williamson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 202.731

9.  Enzymatic quantification of total serum bile acids as a monitoring strategy for women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy receiving ursodeoxycholic acid treatment: a cohort study.

Authors:  L B Manna; C Ovadia; A Lövgren-Sandblom; J Chambers; S Begum; P Seed; I Walker; L C Chappell; H-U Marschall; C Williamson
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 6.531

10.  Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy: Spontaneous vs in vitro Fertilization.

Authors:  Filiz F Bolukbas; Cengiz Bolukbas; Hatice Y Balaban; Cem Aygun; Seyda Ignak; Emine Ergul; Mehtap Yazicioglu; Suat S Ersahin
Journal:  Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol       Date:  2017-09-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.