Drug use in pregnant women—a pilot study of the coherence between reported use of drugs and presence of drugs in plasma

5Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: In Sweden, information on drug use during pregnancy is obtained through an interview and recorded in a standardized medical record at every visit to the antenatal care clinic throughout the pregnancy. Antenatal, delivery, and neonatal records constitute the basis for the Swedish Medical Birth Register (MBR). The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the reliability of reported drug use by simultaneous screening for drug substances in the blood stream of the pregnant woman and thereby validate self-reported data in the MBR. Methods: Plasma samples from 200 women were obtained at gestational weeks 10–12 and 25 and screened for drugs by using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography with time of flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-TOF-MS). The results from the analysis were then compared to medical records. Results: At the first sampling occasion, the drugs found by screening had been reported by 86% of the women and on the second sampling, 85.5%. Missed reported information was clearly associated with drugs for occasional use. The most common drugs in plasma taken in early and mid-pregnancy were meclizine and paracetamol. Two types of continuously used drugs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and propranolol, were used. All women using them reported it and the drug screening revealed a 100% coherence. Conclusions: This study shows good coherence between reported drug intake and the drugs found in plasma samples, which in turn positively validates the MBR.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wolgast, E., Josefsson, A., Josefsson, M., Lilliecreutz, C., & Reis, M. (2018). Drug use in pregnant women—a pilot study of the coherence between reported use of drugs and presence of drugs in plasma. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 74(4), 535–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-017-2402-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free