Consensus Panel Recommendations for the Pharmacological Management of Pregnant Women with Depressive Disorders

Introduction: The initiative of a consensus on the topic of antidepressant and anxiolytic drug use in pregnancy is developing in an area of clinical uncertainty. Although many studies have been published in recent years, there is still a paucity of authoritative evidence-based indications useful for guiding the prescription of these drugs during pregnancy, and the data from the literature are complex and require expert judgment to draw clear conclusions. Methods: For the elaboration of the consensus, we have involved the scientific societies of the sector, namely, the Italian Society of Toxicology, the Italian Society of Neuropsychopharmacology, the Italian Society of Psychiatry, the Italian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Italian Society of Drug Addiction and the Italian Society of Addiction Pathology. An interdisciplinary team of experts from different medical specialties (toxicologists, pharmacologists, psychiatrists, gynecologists, neonatologists) was first established to identify the needs underlying the consensus. The team, in its definitive structure, includes all the representatives of the aforementioned scientific societies; the task of the team was the evaluation of the most accredited international literature as well as using the methodology of the “Nominal Group Technique” with the help of a systematic review of the literature and with various discussion meetings, to arrive at the drafting and final approval of the document. Results: The following five areas of investigation were identified: (1) The importance of management of anxiety and depressive disorders in pregnancy, identifying the risks associated with untreated maternal depression in pregnancy. (2) The assessment of the overall risk of malformations with the antidepressant and anxiolytic drugs used in pregnancy. (3) The evaluation of neonatal adaptation disorders in the offspring of pregnant antidepressant/anxiolytic-treated women. (4) The long-term outcome of infants’ cognitive development or behavior after in utero exposure to antidepressant/anxiolytic medicines. (5) The evaluation of pharmacological treatment of opioid-abusing pregnant women with depressive disorders. Conclusions: Considering the state of the art, it is therefore necessary in the first instance to frame the issue of pharmacological choices in pregnant women who need treatment with antidepressant and anxiolytic drugs on the basis of data currently available in the literature. Particular attention must be paid to the evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio, understood both in terms of therapeutic benefit with respect to the potential risks of the treatment on the pregnancy and on the fetal outcome, and of the comparative risk between the treatment and the absence of treatment; in the choice prescription, the specialist needs to be aware of both the potential risks of pharmacological treatment and the equally important risks of an untreated or undertreated disorder

Consensus Panel Recommendations for the Pharmacological Management of Breastfeeding Women with Postpartum Depression

Introduction: Our consensus statement aims to clarify the use of antidepressants and anxiolytics during breastfeeding amidst clinical uncertainty. Despite recent studies, potential harm to breastfed newborns from these medications remains a concern, leading to abrupt discontinuation of necessary treatments or exclusive formula feeding, depriving newborns of benefits from mother’s milk. Methods: A panel of 16 experts, representing eight scientific societies with a keen interest in postpartum depression, was convened. Utilizing the Nominal Group Technique and following a comprehensive literature review, a consensus statement on the pharmacological treatment of breastfeeding women with depressive disorders was achieved. Results: Four key research areas were delineated: (1) The imperative to address depressive and anxiety disorders during lactation, pinpointing the risks linked to untreated maternal depression during this period. (2) The evaluation of the cumulative risk of unfavorable infant outcomes associated with exposure to antidepressants or anxiolytics. (3) The long-term impact on infants’ cognitive development or behavior due to exposure to these medications during breastfeeding. (4) The assessment of pharmacological interventions for opioid abuse in lactating women diagnosed with depressive disorders. Conclusions: The ensuing recommendations were as follows: Recommendation 1: Depressive and anxiety disorders, as well as their pharmacological treatment, are not contraindications for breastfeeding. Recommendation 2: The Panel advocates for the continuation of medication that has demonstrated efficacy during pregnancy. If initiating an antidepressant during breastfeeding is necessary, drugs with a superior safety profile and substantial epidemiological data, such as SSRIs, should be favored and prescribed at the lowest effective dose. Recommendation 3: For the short-term alleviation of anxiety symptoms and sleep disturbances, the Panel determined that benzodiazepines can be administered during breastfeeding. Recommendation 4: The Panel advises against discontinuing opioid abuse treatment during breastfeeding. Recommendation 5: The Panel endorses collaboration among specialists (e.g., psychiatrists, pediatricians, toxicologists), promoting multidisciplinary care whenever feasible. Coordination with the general practitioner is also recommended

Hispanic health in the USA: a scoping review of the literature

Hispanics are the largest minority group in the USA. They contribute to the economy, cultural diversity, and health of the nation. Assessing their health status and health needs is key to inform health policy formulation and program implementation. To this end, we conducted a scoping review of the literature and national statistics on Hispanic health in the USA using a modified social-ecological framework that includes social determinants of health, health disparities, risk factors, and health services, as they shape the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. These social, environmental, and biological forces have modified the epidemiologic profile of Hispanics in the USA, with cancer being the leading cause of mortality, followed by cardiovascular diseases and unintentional injuries. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act has resulted in improved access to health services for Hispanics, but challenges remain due to limited cultural sensitivity, health literacy, and a shortage of Hispanic health care providers. Acculturation barriers and underinsured or uninsured status remain as major obstacles to health care access. Advantageous health outcomes from the “Hispanic Mortality Paradox” and the “Latina Birth Outcomes Paradox” persist, but health gains may be offset in the future by increasing rates of obesity and diabetes. Recommendations focus on the adoption of the Health in All Policies framework, expanding access to health care, developing cultural sensitivity in the health care workforce, and generating and disseminating research findings on Hispanic health

Computergestützte Raucherentwöhnung

Though the prevalence of cigarette smoking has declined it still remains the leading cause of premature death from chronic disease. In the prevention of tobacco associated disease the promotion of smoking cessation is a key strategy. This article presents a smoking cessation program based on the transtheoretical model, an empirical model distinguishing five stages of behavioral change. Specific interventions are matched to the current stage of change. Smokers in the intervention program repeatedly fill in questionnaires about their smoking habits, attitudes and strategies in the smoking cessation process. The individual questionnaires are analyzed by a computerized expert system which creates letters with comments on the smoking cessation process and suggestions for further steps from a pool of feedback paragraphs. A further component of the program are five stage-matched brochures. The efficacy of the expert system and its potential impact on Public Health are discussed