Advertisement

Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 252–255 | Cite as

Effects of drug administration in pregnancy on children's school behaviour

  • L. Štika
  • K. Elisová
  • L. Honzáková
  • H. Hrochová
  • H. Plechatová
  • J. Strnadová
  • B. Škop
  • J. Švihovec
  • M. Váchova
  • O. Vinař
Articles

Abstract

Files with prescription data were used to assess possible behavioural changes in children, whose mothers used benzodiazepines or neuroleptic drugs during the second half of their pregnancy. Prescriptions, bearing the identification number of women resident in one district of Prague, filed in pharmacies during 1974 and the first three months of 1975 represent the first part of the data. During 1984, children born in the appropriate earlier period were searched and linked with the earlier prescription data. A group of 68 children with possible exposure to neuroleptics and a group of 15 children possibly exposed to diazepam during the second half of their intrauterine development were found. Two groups of 55 and 7 children, respectively, born of mothers without exposure to these drugs, were chosen as controls. The teachers of classes attended by these children were addressed by a letter and asked to evaluate their behaviour at school. This was done by means of a form containing analogue scales evaluating different features of behaviour. Each child was compared with its control. The statistical evaluation with Student's t-test, regression analysis and analysis of variance did not reveal any significant difference between both groups and their controls.

Keywords

Behavior Children Czechoslovakia Drug utilization Epidemiologic methods Pregnancy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Heinonen OP, Slone D, Shapiro S. Birth defects and drugs in pregnancy. Littleton: Publishing Sciences Group, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peckham CH, King RW. A study of intercurrent conditions observed during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1963;87:609–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kullander S, Kallen B. A prospective study of drugs and pregnancy. I–IV. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1976;55:25–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nora JJ, Nora AH, Sommerville RJ, Hill RH, McNamara DG. Maternal exposure to potential teratogens. JAMA 1967;202:65–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forfar JO, Nelson MM. Epidemiology of drugs taken by pregnant women. Drugs that may affect the fetus adversely. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1973;14:632–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forfar JO. What drugs are unsafe in pregnancy? Rasegna Med 1976;3:14–28.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hill RM. Drugs ingested by pregnant women. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1973;14:654–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nelson MM, Forfar JO. Associations between drugs administered during pregnancy and congenital abnormalities of the foetus. Br Med J 1971;1:523–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boethius G. Recording of drug prescriptions in the county of Jamtland, Sweden. Drug exposure of pregnant women in relation to course and outcome of pregnancy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1977;12:37–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brocklebank JC, Wayne A, Federspiel CF, Schaffner W. Drug prescribing during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978;132:235–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hvizdošová J, Benešová O. Využsiti strojového zpracovvání děrnoštitkových receptů v obvodu Prahy 10 k průzkumu možných teratogennich učinků tricyklických antidepresiv. [Application of punch-card prescription forms processing in the district Praha 10 for evaluation of the possible tricyclic antidepressants tersatogenicity]. Cs Fysiol 1974;23:334.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Štika L, Hovorová M, Kratochvíl J. Automated processing of medical prescriptions. Activ Nerv Sup (Praha) 1971;13:228–9.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Štika L. Differences in national drug prescribing pat terns. In: IVth Symposium on clinical pharmacology. Evaluation in drug control. Deidesheim, 11–14 November 1975. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, 1976:48–53.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuensberg EV, Knox JDE. Imipramine in pregnancy. Br Med J 1972;2:292–4.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Idänpään-Heikkila J, Saxen L. Possible teratogenicity of imipramine—chloropyramine. Lancet 1973;2:282–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bonati M, Tognoni G, Diogene E, Laporte JR. Cooperative study on drug use in pregnancy-guidelines under the auspices of WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonati M, Tognoni G. Drug use in pregnancy: progress report. December 1989. Pattern of returned and analysed forms. Milano: Mario Negri Institute, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barnetová L, Martinkova J, Stránská V, et al. Our experiences with drug prescription monitoring during pregnancy. 4th Workshop of social pharmacy [Abstract]. Soc Admin Pharm 1989;6:212.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barry WS, StClair SM. Exposure to benzodiazepines in utero. Lancet 1987;1:1436–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laegreid L, Olegard R, Wahlstrom J, Conradi N. Benzodiazepine overconsumption in pregnancy. Lancet 1987;2:1405–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bergman U. Pharmaco-epidemiological perspectives: a European view. Pharm Weekbl [Sci] 1989;11:151–4.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Calabrese JR, Gulledge AD. Psychotropics during pregnancy and lactation. A review. Psychosomatics 1985;26:413–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edlund MJ, Craig TJ. Antipsychotic drug use and birth defects: an epidemiologic reassessment. Compr Psychiatry 1984;25:32–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Modr Z, Štika L. The use of therapeutical drugs — Czechoslovakia. Controlling the use of therapeutic drugs — an international comparison. Washington: AEI Studies, 1978:235–64.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mathesson I, Kristensen K, Lunde PKM. Drug utilisation in breast-feeding women. A survey in Oslo. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990;38:453–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Matějíček Z, Dyrtrych Z, Schuller V. The Prague co hort through age nine. In: David HP, ed. Born unwanted. Developmental effects of denied abortion. Prague: Avicenum, 1988;:53–86.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deutch AY, Gruen RJ, Roth RJ. Perinatal diazepam exposure on stress-induced activation of the mesotelen-cephalic dopamine system. Neuropsychopharmacology 1989;2:105–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robboy SJ, Welsh WR. Atypical vaginal adenosis and cervical ectropium: association with clear cell adenocarcinoma in diethylstilbestrol exposed offspring. Cancer 1984;54:869–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Štika
    • 1
  • K. Elisová
    • 2
  • L. Honzáková
    • 1
  • H. Hrochová
    • 2
  • H. Plechatová
    • 3
  • J. Strnadová
    • 1
  • B. Škop
    • 1
  • J. Švihovec
    • 1
  • M. Váchova
    • 1
  • O. Vinař
    • 1
  1. 1.State Institute for Drug ControlPrague 10Czechoslovakia
  2. 2.Pharmacological InstituteCharles UniversityPrague 10Czechoslovakia
  3. 3.Institute of National HealthPrague 10Czechoslovakia

Personalised recommendations