| Literature DB >> 30643992 |
Antonia Puchner1, Hans Peter Gröchenig2, Judith Sautner3, Yvonne Helmy-Bader4, Herbert Juch5, Sieglinde Reinisch6, Christoph Högenauer7, Robert Koch8, Josef Hermann9, Andrea Studnicka-Benke10, Wolfgang Weger11, Rudolf Puchner12, Clemens Dejaco13.
Abstract
An increasing and early-onset use of immunosuppressives and biologics has become more frequently seen among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and rheumatic disorders. Many women in their childbearing years currently receive such medications, and some of them in an interdisciplinary setting. Many questions arise in women already pregnant or wishing to conceive with respect to continuing or discontinuing treatment, the risks borne by the newborns and their mothers and long-term safety. Together with the Austrian Society of Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, the IBD working group of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology has elaborated consensus statements on the use of immunosuppressives and biologics in pregnancy and lactation. This is the first Austrian interdisciplinary consensus on this topic. It is intended to serve as a basis and support for providing advice to our patients and their treating physicians.Entities:
Keywords: Autoimmune disease; Breastfeeding; Childbearing; DMARDs; Prescribing; TNF-α inhibitors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30643992 PMCID: PMC6342891 DOI: 10.1007/s00508-019-1448-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr ISSN: 0043-5325 Impact factor: 1.704
Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation set forth by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [117]
|
| |
| 1* | Systematic review of randomized trials or |
| 2* | Randomized trial or observational study with dramatic effect |
| 3* | Non-randomized controlled cohort/follow-up study** |
| 4* | Case-series, case-control studies, or historically controlled studies** |
| 5* | Mechanism-based reasoning |
|
| |
| 1* | Systematic review of randomized trials, systematic review of nested case-control studies, |
| 2* | Individual randomized trial or (exceptionally) observational study with dramatic effect |
| 3* | Non-randomized controlled cohort/follow-up study (post-marketing surveillance) provided there are sufficient numbers to rule out a common harm. (For long-term harms, the duration of follow-up must be sufficient)** |
| 4* | Case-series, case-control, or historically controlled studies** |
| 5* | Mechanism-based reasoning |
|
| |
| A | Consistent level 1 studies |
| B | Consistent level 2 or 3 studies |
| C | Level 4 studies |
| D | Level 5 evidence |
*Level may be graded down on the basis of study quality, imprecision, indirectness (study PICO does not match questions PICO***), because of inconsistency between studies, or because the absolute effect size is very small; levels may be graded up if there is a large or very large effect size
**As always, a systematic review is generally better than an individual study
***PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome)
Fig. 1Substances and consensus recommendations regarding substance application preconception, during pregnancy and during lactation, including timing of preconception treatment discontinuation in months, levels of evidence and grades of recommendation (reference to pregnancy). (Recommendations: green, substance may be applied; yellow, data is insufficient for substance recommendation; red, substance application is not recommended. EL level of evidence, RG grade of recommendation. *Shown to be teratogenic in animal models, insufficient or unavailable data in humans)