SSRIs linked to autism

[mosquitobite]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140415153735.htm



"We found prenatal SSRI exposure was nearly 3 times as likely in boys with ASD relative to typical development, with the greatest risk when exposure took place during the first trimester," said Li-Ching Lee, Ph.D., Sc.M., psychiatric epidemiologist in the Bloomberg School's Department of Epidemiology. "SSRI was also elevated among boys with DD, with the strongest exposure effect in the third trimester."
The data analysis was completed by Rebecca Harrington, Ph.D., M.P.H, in conjunction with her doctoral dissertation at the Bloomberg School. Dr. Lee was one of her advisors.


http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/possible-risks-of-s-s-r-i-antidepressants-to-newborns/?_r=0

Other experts think it’s time to reconsider widespread use of these drugs in pregnant women altogether.

“This is a message people don’t necessarily want to hear,” Dr. Urato said. “Everyone’s happier with this idea that the medications are O.K.”

[mosquitobite]

http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/08/autism-antidepressants-pregnancy-basics/


As you can see, there has been a lot of interest in this area lately. Seven of the eight papers are in the last 2 years. And what do these studies show us? Understood together, they are clearly pointing in the same direction as the basic science data and the animal studies—that exposure to the SSRI antidepressants during development leads to brain changes—in this case autism. In the interest of time I won’t go into each study in detail, but a few key points must be noted. First, a statistically significant result was not attained in the eighth study after multiple statistical corrections were performed, so we cannot be 95% certain of the association. But I don’t think we need 95% certainty on this association before warning the public. The public wants us to be 95% sure that drugs are safe—not the reverse. The public doesn’t want us to withhold warnings unless we are 95% sure that drugs are causing harm.

[acptulsa]

“This is a message people don’t necessarily want to hear,” Dr. Urato said. “Everyone’s happier with this idea that the medications are O.K.”

We're only failing to tell you Big Pharma's product can affect your ability to have healthy offspring because we're afraid you'll shoot the messenger.

Gee, thanks, guys.

[angelatc]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140415153735.htm




http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/possible-risks-of-s-s-r-i-antidepressants-to-newborns/?_r=0


Why are you posting this again? This is almost a year old. Trying to find a little something to make the depressed people just give up and kill themselves right before the holidays? Bully for you!


And by the way, it's a pretty selfish, self serving interpretation of the study. The man who authored it said: (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/new-study-shows-link-between-ssris-and-autism.html)
The evidence does not prove that infants exposed to SSRIs that develop autism do so because of that prenatal exposure. Dr. Andrew W. Zimmerman of Massachusetts General Hospital is one of the lead authors of the study. He says it is quite possible that the elevated likelihood of autism in children of mothers who take SSRIs could be masking for an association between maternal depression and autism.

“I think we pointed out in the study that we don’t [know] the relationship itself between depression and autism,” he explains. “Presumably, SSRIs are taken because women need them. The big unknown is: If those women weren’t taking SSRIs, would their children have autism? We just don’t know that. It’s possible depression in the mother may be one of the precursors for autism itself.”


And another point from another real scientist: (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/new-study-shows-link-between-ssris-and-autism.html)It is also important to contextualize how many cases of autism could be accounted for if a causal link to SSRI proved true. Based on the cases in the study, Nishawala says, SSRI exposure “would account less than a percentage fraction of kids with autism.”

So mothers-to-be taking advice from the likes of you self-appointed "experts" can stop taking their medications, then blow their brains out, and you'd feel all smug about it. Then, if history is any indicator, you'd continue to insist forever and ever there was a correlation between SSRIs and autism despite the fact that the autism rates didn't drop when SSRI use did.

Happy New Year!

[mosquitobite]

Except for the package insert on SSRIs comes with it's own warning that it increases the risk of suicide.

But then again, I forgot you worship the god of pharma. :rolleyes:

Back to ignore you go!

[specsaregood]

Why are you posting this again? This is almost a year old. Trying to find a little something to make the depressed people just give up and kill themselves right before the holidays? Bully for you!


New study, same time of year, similar findings...
http://www.smh.com.au/world/antidepressant-use-during-pregnancy-linked-to-autism-study-says-20151214-glnipa.html


Los Angeles: Women who took a class of widely used antidepressants during their second and third trimesters of pregnancy were roughly twice as likely as those who did not to have a child who would later receive a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, says a new study.

The new research, published Monday in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Pediatrics, is among the strongest findings linking antidepressant use in pregnancy to poor outcomes in the children born of those pregnancies, said experts. But it leaves many questions unanswered about the roots of autism, the prevalence of which appears to be surging.



http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2476187


Importance The association between the use of antidepressants during gestation and the risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children is still controversial. The etiology of ASD remains unclear, although studies have implicated genetic predispositions, environmental risk factors, and maternal depression.

Objective To examine the risk of ASD in children associated with antidepressant use during pregnancy according to trimester of exposure and taking into account maternal depression.

Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a register-based study of an ongoing population-based cohort, the Québec Pregnancy/Children Cohort, which includes data on all pregnancies and children in Québec from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2009. A total of 145 456 singleton full-term infants born alive and whose mothers were covered by the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec drug plan for at least 12 months before and during pregnancy were included. Data analysis was conducted from October 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015.

Exposures Antidepressant exposure during pregnancy was defined according to trimester and specific antidepressant classes.

Main Outcomes and Measures Children with ASD were defined as those with at least 1 diagnosis of ASD between date of birth and last date of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate crude and adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CIs.

Results During 904 035.50 person-years of follow-up, 1054 children (0.7%) were diagnosed with ASD; boys with ASD outnumbered girls by a ratio of about 4:1. The mean (SD) age of children at the end of follow-up was 6.24 (3.19) years. Adjusting for potential confounders, use of antidepressants during the second and/or third trimester was associated with the risk of ASD (31 exposed infants; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.15-3.04). Use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors during the second and/or third trimester was significantly associated with an increased risk of ASD (22 exposed infants; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.20-3.93). The risk was persistent even after taking into account maternal history of depression (29 exposed infants; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.03-2.97).

Conclusions and Relevance Use of antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, during the second and/or third trimester increases the risk of ASD in children, even after considering maternal depression. Further research is needed to specifically assess the risk of ASD associated with antidepressant types and dosages during pregnancy.

[angelatc]

Did you read the first freaking sentence that you posted?
The etiology of ASD remains unclear, although studies have implicated genetic predispositions, environmental risk factors, and maternal depression.

It might be true, it might not. but in any event, you people have no legitimate place in the discussion, because you only believe studies that support conclusions that you agree with.

So which is it? Is all the science funded by big pharma and none of it can be trusted, or is that only true when the science doesn't support nonsensical theories?

[specsaregood]

//

[MelissaWV]

Los Angeles: Women who took a class of widely used antidepressants during their second and third trimesters of pregnancy were roughly twice as likely as those who did not to have a child who would later receive a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, says a new study.

I've often wondered if this sort of connection exists moreso because the type of woman to go to the doctor and get a prescribed SSRI's and be taking them into their second and third trimesters are just more likely to go to physicians and badger them for an ASD diagnosis. In other words, there are now a number of people that just love going to the doctor. The more they go, though, the more pills and diagnoses and warnings and contradictory advice and side effects. Once that kind of person has a child they are going to second guess everything, panic, take them to the doctor more often, and basically keep pushing until they are vindicated via some kind of diagnosis. The diagnosis du jour is ASD, though it used to be those parents pushed and pushed and their kid was suddenly ADD/ADHD.

[Weston White]

Did you read the first freaking sentence that you posted?

It might be true, it might not. but in any event, you people have no legitimate place in the discussion, because you only believe studies that support conclusions that you agree with.

So which is it? Is all the science funded by big pharma and none of it can be trusted, or is that only true when the science doesn't support nonsensical theories?

You might be correct, you might not; but in any event, you have no legitimate place in the discussion, because you only believe studies that support conclusions that you agree with.

So which is it? Is all the science discarded by big pharma that it did not itself fund in consequence succumb to adverse scrutiny, or is that only false when the science substantiates mainline theories?