Article

Risk of hypospadias in offspring of women using loratadine during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Center for Research on Health Care, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
Drug Safety (Impact Factor: 2.62). 02/2008; 31(9):775-88. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200831090-00006
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Loratadine, a second-generation antihistamine, is commonly used to treat seasonal allergies. Some studies have suggested that use of loratadine by pregnant women increases the risk of hypospadias in male offspring.
This meta-analysis was designed to assess the strength of the association between loratadine and hypospadias.
To locate pertinent articles published in any language from January 1989 until August 2007, we searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, OVID, EMBASE, SCOPUS, TOXLINE Special, ReproTox, TERIS, CINAHL and others), conference proceedings and bibliographies. Studies were eligible for this analysis if they were cohort, case-control or case series studies that reported the incidence of hypospadias in the offspring of women who were or were not exposed to loratadine during pregnancy. Two authors independently extracted information on study design, participant characteristics, measures of outcome, control for potential confounding factors and risk estimates using a standardized data collection form. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was then used to assess the quality of each study. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to combine the risk data.
In 1402 potentially relevant titles, we found three case-control studies and seven cohort studies that reported the incidence of hypospadias or other congenital malformations in offspring of women who did or did not use loratadine during pregnancy. Together the studies in our meta-analysis provided information about 453 053 male births in Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Sweden, the UK and the US.Of 2694 male infants born to women using loratadine, 39 (1.4%) had hypospadias. Of 450 413 male infants born to women not using loratadine, 4231 (0.9%) had hypospadias. Women who used loratadine during pregnancy were not significantly more likely to have a son with hypospadias (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% CI 0.73, 2.23; adjusted OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.69, 2.39).
The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled observational studies indicate that the use of loratadine during pregnancy does not significantly increase the risk of hypospadias in male offspring.

0 Followers
 · 
113 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: V. Piette, P. Demoly Introduction Many pregnant women are asthmatics and maternal asthma is a source of questions and complications concerning both the progress of the pregnancy itself and the impact on the fœtus. In this situation good asthma control is essential as the disease can deteriorate with acute exacerbations, possibly precipitated by reduction or even withdrawal of treatment on account of fear of teratogenicity. Background Even though asthma treatments are not totally harmless during pregnancy, their use has been validated by several studies and guidelines. To help clinicians, we undertake here a review of the complications induced by maternal asthma and its medications, and then suggest management guidelines according to the most recent publications. Conclusions The risks and benefits of asthma treatments should be explained in a real partnership between the patient and her general practioner and specialists (obstetrician, chest physician or allergist). In order to reduce complications to both mother and child, perfect control of asthma is required and inhaled steroids remain the treatment of choice for partially or uncontrolled asthma in the pregnant woman.
    Revue des Maladies Respiratoires 04/2009; 26(4):482-482. DOI:10.1016/S0761-8425(09)74067-7 · 0.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This guideline, together with its sister guideline on the classification of urticaria (Zuberbier T, Asero R, Bindslev-Jensen C, Canonica GW, Church MK, Giménez-Arnau AM et al. EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO Guideline: definition, classification and diagnosis of urticaria. Allergy 2009;64: 1417-1426), is the result of a consensus reached during a panel discussion at the Third International Consensus Meeting on Urticaria, Urticaria 2008, a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). As members of the panel, the authors had prepared their suggestions regarding management of urticaria before the meeting. The draft of the guideline took into account all available evidence in the literature (including Medline and Embase searches and hand searches of abstracts at international allergy congresses in 2004-2008) and was based on the existing consensus reports of the first and the second symposia in 2000 and 2004. These suggestions were then discussed in detail among the panel members and with the over 200 international specialists of the meeting to achieve a consensus using a simple voting system where appropriate. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life and effective treatment is, therefore, required. The recommended first line treatment is new generation, nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines. If standard dosing is not effective, increasing the dosage up to four-fold is recommended. For patients who do not respond to a four-fold increase in dosage of nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines, it is recommended that second-line therapies should be added to the antihistamine treatment. In the choice of second-line treatment, both their costs and risk/benefit profiles are most important to consider. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their unavoidable severe adverse effects. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).
    Allergy 10/2009; 64(10):1427-43. DOI:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02178.x · 6.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: QUESTION: Many of my pregnant and breastfeeding patients suffer from allergies and frequently ask me about the safety of antihistamines during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Should I advise them to use the older sedating medications? I have heard that they might be safer than the newer nonsedating class of drugs. Or have the newer ones been studied as well? ANSWER: First-generation antihistamines are considered safe to use during pregnancy. There are relatively fewer data on the nonsedating second-generation antihistamines; however, published studies are reassuring. All antihistamines are considered safe to use during breastfeeding, as minimal amounts are excreted in the breast milk and would not cause any adverse effects on a breastfeeding infant.
    Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien 05/2010; 56(5):427-9. · 1.40 Impact Factor