Providing Psychological Care in Syria: “Flashbacks, Nightmares, and Baby Clothes”.


MSF132586-Iraq

MSF135182-Audrey-Magis

 

Psychologist Audrey Magis recently returned home after spending two months working with Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in Syria, where she set up and ran a mental health program in one of MSF’s projects in the north of the country. Magis, who had previously worked for MSF in Gaza, Libya, and in a camp for Syrian refugees, explains how the war has affected people and what MSF is doing to help.

In most places I have worked, people are rather hesitant when I tell them that I am a psychologist. But in Syria, it was quite the opposite. People actually came and told me they needed my services. The war has been raging for two years and people have completely lost their bearings. At first, they would come and tell me about their social problems at home. Children are not going to school and so become disruptive. Adults are not working. People are living in tents or ten-up crowded into one room. But when you dig a little, you quickly find that most have experienced deeply traumatic events. Some have lost friends or family. Some have seen their home destroyed. Some have lived through bombing raids . . .

Loss of Identity

People have lost their identity. Older men cannot find their place in society and in the family. They have lost their job or stopped being a fighter. Maybe they have responsibility for a family but they have had to move house several times in quick succession.

“I don’t have to find them; they come and ask for help . . .”

I don’t have to find them; they come and ask for help, saying things like, “I’m starting to be violent towards my wife and children. Please help me, I cannot be like that.”

I have seen many women who are finding it increasingly hard to form a bond with their children. There are few contraceptives available, and a lot of women are becoming pregnant without really wanting to. They struggle to imagine their future with their child. I met several women in the final term of pregnancy who had prepared nothing—no cot, no baby clothes, no ideas for a name. People have lost their ability to project their lives into the future.

All the children are playing at war. You don’t see them playing with cars or other normal games; they pretend to shoot each other. I’ve seen kids throwing stones at donkeys, hurting animals. This is their way of expressing the pent up anger. I have also seen young men in their 20s, ex-fighters who have come to me with complaints about depression, traumatic stress, flashbacks, nightmares . . .

Loss of Meaning

A number of people have quietly told me that they no longer know what the war is about. They are terrified at the idea that they are fighting their neighbors, their friends . . . and they don’t know why anymore. At first there seemed to be some purpose, but two years on, that’s all gone. They just want it all to end so they can go home.

“People have lost their ability to project their lives into the future.”

Things have gone way beyond the breaking point. People are on automatic pilot. But somehow they manage to hold it all together. They cannot allow themselves to fall apart. They have developed an amazing ability to cope and keep going. To survive two years living through this, it’s impressive. The family and community support is enormous.

Not Going Mad

Sometimes just one session is enough. Some people just need to hear that what’s happening to them is normal, that they are not going mad. But there are other patients who I had to work with for longer. The idea is to set a clear objective with them, and to get there step by step with behavioral therapy. There is no time for long analysis sessions, but you can do very sound psychological work with these short-form therapy techniques.

A Child Born of War

I remember one patient, a woman who was six months pregnant. She came to the hospital asking for a premature delivery. There was no medical reason; she just wanted us to do a C-section and deliver her baby as soon as possible. She was very jumpy, very agitated.

“A number of people have quietly told me that they no longer know what the war is about. They are terrified at the idea that they are fighting their neighbors, their friends… and they don’t know why anymore.”

I sat with her and we worked out that this was one baby too many, a child born of the war, and she felt that the baby was sapping all her energy. All she wanted to do was take anti-depressants, but she couldn’t because she was pregnant.

We worked out a plan of relaxation exercises. And we made a diary where she would write down when she felt tense and what had happened to cause the tension. And a few sessions later we moved on to preparing for the arrival of her baby.

At our last session she showed me the baby clothes for her soon-to-be-born baby. She hadn’t yet chosen a name, but she had made great strides and was ready. She was my last patient, my last session on my last day. I left the project with the sense that my time had been well spent.

Source: MSF newsletter

 

Valproate Anti-Seizure Products: Drug Safety Communication – Contraindicated for Pregnant Women for Prevention of Migraine Headaches


Including valproate sodium (Depacon), divalproex sodium (Depakote, Depakote CP, and Depakote ER), valproic acid (Depakene and Stavzor), and their generics

 

 

ISSUE: FDA is advising health care professionals and women that the anti-seizure medication valproate sodium and related products, valproic acid and divalproex sodium, are contraindicated and should not be taken by pregnant women for the prevention of migraine headaches. Based on information from a recent study, there is evidence that these medications can cause decreased IQ scores in children whose mothers took them while pregnant. Stronger warnings about use during pregnancy will be added to the drug labels, and valproate’s pregnancy category for migraine use will be changed from “D” (the potential benefit of the drug in pregnant women may be acceptable despite its potential risks) to “X” (the risk of use in pregnant women clearly outweighs any possible benefit of the drug).

Valproate products will remain in pregnancy category D for treating epilepsy and manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Valproate products are approved for the treatment of certain types of epilepsy, the treatment of manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder, and the prevention of migraine headaches. They are also used off-label (for uses not approved by FDA) for other conditions, particularly other psychiatric conditions.

This alert is based on the final results of the Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (NEAD) study showing that children exposed to valproate products while their mothers were pregnant had decreased IQs at age 6 compared to children exposed to other anti-epileptic drugs. For additional details, see the Drug Safety Communication Data Summary section.

RECOMMENDATION: Valproate products should not be used in pregnant women for prevention of migraine headaches and should be used in pregnant women with epilepsy or bipolar disorder only if other treatments have failed to provide adequate symptom control or are otherwise unacceptable.

Women who are pregnant and taking a valproate medication should not stop their medication but should talk to their health care professionals immediately. Stopping valproate treatment suddenly can cause serious and life-threatening medical problems to the woman or her baby.

Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Source: FDA

Prenatal valproate exposure and risk of autism spectrum disorders and childhood autism. .


Valproate is used for the treatment of epilepsy and other neuropsychological disorders and may be the only treatment option for women of childbearing potential. However, prenatal exposure to valproate may increase the risk of autism.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prenatal exposure to valproate is associated with an increased risk of autism in offspring.
DESIGN, SETTING AND
PARTICIPANTS: Population-based study of all children born alive in Denmark from 1996 to 2006. National registers were used to identify children exposed to valproate during pregnancy and diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (childhood autism [autistic disorder], Asperger syndrome, atypical autism, and other or unspecified pervasive developmental disorders). We analyzed the risks associated with all autism spectrum disorders as well as childhood autism. Data were analyzed by Cox regression adjusting for potential confounders (maternal age at conception, paternal age at conception, parental psychiatric history, gestational age, birth weight, sex, congenital malformations, and parity). Children were followed up from birth until the day of autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, death, emigration, or December 31, 2010, whichever came first. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Absolute risk (cumulative incidence) and the hazard ratio (HR) of autism spectrum disorder and childhood autism in children after exposure to valproate in pregnancy.
RESULTS: Of 655,615 children born from 1996 through 2006, 5437 were identified with autism spectrum disorder, including 2067 with childhood autism. The mean age of the children at end of follow-up was 8.84 years (range, 4-14; median, 8.85). The estimated absolute risk after 14 years of follow-up was 1.53% (95% CI, 1.47%-1.58%) for autism spectrum disorder and 0.48% (95% CI, 0.46%-0.51%) for childhood autism. Overall, the 508 children exposed to valproate had an absolute risk of 4.42% (95% CI, 2.59%-7.46%) for autism spectrum disorder (adjusted HR, 2.9 [95% CI, 1.7-4.9]) and an absolute risk of 2.50% (95% CI, 1.30%-4.81%) for childhood autism (adjusted HR, 5.2 [95% CI, 2.7-10.0]). When restricting the cohort to the 6584 children born to women with epilepsy, the absolute risk of autism spectrum disorder among 432 children exposed to valproate was 4.15% (95% CI, 2.20%-7.81%) (adjusted HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 0.9-3.2]), and the absolute risk of childhood autism was 2.95% (95% CI, 1.42%-6.11%) (adjusted HR, 2.9 [95% CI, 1.4-6.0]) vs 2.44% (95% CI, 1.88%-3.16%) for autism spectrum disorder and 1.02% (95% CI, 0.70%-1.49%) for childhood autism among 6152 children not exposed to valproate. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Maternal use of valproate during pregnancy was associated with a significantly increased risk of autism spectrum disorder and childhood autism in the offspring, even after adjusting for maternal epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential who use antiepileptic medications, these findings must be balanced against the treatment benefits for women who require valproate for epilepsy control.

Source: JAMA

 

 



 

Source: Nature

 

Association between maternal serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.


Abstract

Objective To assess the effect of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) levels on pregnancy outcomes and birth variables.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources Medline (1966 to August 2012), PubMed (2008 to August 2012), Embase (1980 to August 2012), CINAHL (1981 to August 2012), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and the Cochrane database of registered clinical trials.

Study selection Studies reporting on the association between serum 25-OHD levels during pregnancy and the outcomes of interest (pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, bacterial vaginosis, caesarean section, small for gestational age infants, birth weight, birth length, and head circumference).

Data extraction Two authors independently extracted data from original research articles, including key indicators of study quality. We pooled the most adjusted odds ratios and weighted mean differences. Associations were tested in subgroups representing different patient characteristics and study quality.

Results 3357 studies were identified and reviewed for eligibility. 31 eligible studies were included in the final analysis. Insufficient serum levels of 25-OHD were associated with gestational diabetes (pooled odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.89), pre-eclampsia (1.79, 1.25 to 2.58), and small for gestational age infants (1.85, 1.52 to 2.26). Pregnant women with low serum 25-OHD levels had an increased risk of bacterial vaginosis and low birthweight infants but not delivery by caesarean section.

Conclusion Vitamin D insufficiency is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, and small for gestational age infants. Pregnant women with low 25-OHD levels had an increased risk of bacterial vaginosis and lower birth weight infants, but not delivery by caesarean section.

 

Source: BMJ

 

Ondansetron in pregnancy and risk of adverse fetal outcomes.


Ondansetron is frequently used to treat nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, but the safety of this drug for the fetus has not been well studied.

METHODS: We investigated the risk of adverse fetal outcomes associated with ondansetron administered during pregnancy. From a historical cohort of 608,385 pregnancies in Denmark, women who were exposed to ondansetron and those who were not exposed were included, in a 1:4 ratio, in propensity-score-matched analyses of spontaneous abortion (1849 exposed women vs. 7396 unexposed women), stillbirth (1915 vs. 7660), any major birth defect (1233 vs. 4932), preterm delivery (1792 vs. 7168), and birth of infants at low birth weight and small for gestational age (1784 vs. 7136). In addition, estimates were adjusted for hospitalization for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (as a proxy for severity) and the use of other antiemetics.
RESULTS: Receipt of ondansetron was not associated with a significantly increased risk of spontaneous abortion, which occurred in 1.1% of exposed women and 3.7% of unexposed women during gestational weeks 7 to 12 (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.91) and in 1.0% and 2.1%, respectively, during weeks 13 to 22 (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.21). Ondansetron also conferred no significantly increased risk of stillbirth (0.3% for exposed women and 0.4% for unexposed women; hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.10 to 1.73), any major birth defect (2.9% and 2.9%, respectively; prevalence odds ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.82), preterm delivery (6.2% and 5.2%; prevalence odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.25), delivery of a low-birth-weight infant (4.1% and 3.7%; prevalence odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.13), or delivery of a small-for-gestational-age infant (10.4% and 9.2%; prevalence odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.44).
CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron taken during pregnancy was not associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse fetal outcomes.

Source: NEJM

Postpartum management of hypertension.


Hypertension in the postpartum period affects several groups of women, including those with previous chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, and eclampsia. In addition, pre-eclampsia may present for the first time in the postnatal period. Although the underlying causes and clinical presentation of these types of hypertension vary, patients can be investigated and treated in a similar manner. This review covers management of postpartum hypertension and its future consequences. Hypertension affects 6-10% of pregnancies,1 but few studies have reported the incidence of postpartum hypertension. This review is relevant to general practitioners, obstetricians, and specialists in secondary care who may see women with postpartum hypertension.

 

Source:BMJ

 

Pregnancy rhesus disease errors too common.


_66344404_anti-d_injection_for_rhesus_disease-spl-1

Some pregnant women are being denied a routine treatment to protect their unborn child, say investigators.

A simple injection can prevent a life-threatening condition known as rhesus disease, which occurs if the mother and her baby have incompatible blood groups.

All pregnant women should be screened and any found to have rhesus-negative blood should be offered the anti-D jab.

A UK-wide audit of NHS hospitals shows this is not happening.

Avoidable errors

Over a period of 15 years from 1996 to 2011 there were 1,211 errors where women who should have received immediate treatment with the anti-D injection did not.

Rhesus disease

  • Also known as haemolytic disease of the foetus and newborn (HDFN)
  • Happens when the mother has rhesus-negative blood (RhD-negative) and the baby in her womb has rhesus-positive blood (RhD-positive)
  • Because these two blood groups are incompatible, the mother’s immune system sees the baby as “alien” and switches to “destroy” mode
  • Women who are RhD-negative should receive the anti-D jab to stop them making antibodies that could attack the baby
  • All pregnant women should be screened to check if they are RhD-negative

In half of these cases, the woman either did not receive the treatment at all or received it late – mostly because the nurse, midwife or doctor on duty at the time failed to follow basic protocols.

Laboratory errors accounted for just over a quarter of the cases.

In a fifth of cases, the anti-D was given entirely inappropriately – either mistakenly to the wrong mother or to a woman who did not need it.

In nine cases, babies suffered the full-blown effects of the disease. One died and three needed blood transfusions.

The study authors from the University of Manchester are concerned that anti-D errors are still too common despite clear treatment guidelines.

Lead researcher Dr Paula Bolton-Maggs said: “Our findings show that over the 15 year reporting period the same mistakes were being made repeatedly by clinical and laboratory staff.

“These are clinically significant problems that require active attention at a national and local level as reported errors could be avoided by putting in place appropriate checks.”

Louise Silverton, of the Royal College of Midwives (RCM), said: “We welcome this audit report.

“The RCM expects each maternity unit to have systems in place to ensure that all women requiring the anti-D prophylaxis injection receive it regardless of their length of postnatal stay, especially where they live outside the unit’s catchment area.

“This is especially important given the increase in births and pressure on maternity services.

“We need more midwives and more midwifery visits in the community so they can administer anti-D at home under the agreed time limits and spend time with women after they have given birth.”

Source:BBC

 

Ondansetron Safe During Pregnancy.


A large Danish study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows no significant association between the antiemetic ondansetron and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

In this retrospective cohort study, ondansetron had been prescribed for nausea and vomiting in almost 2000 of some 600,000 pregnancies. Ondansetron users were no more likely than nonusers to experience spontaneous abortion or stillbirth, or to have preterm delivery, a small-for-getational-age infant, or an infant with a major birth defect.

Source: Journal Watch Women’s Health

 

SSRI Use During Pregnancy Doesn’t Increase Mortality Risk in Offspring.


Use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy is not associated with stillbirth or infant mortality, according to a JAMA study.

Using national registries in five Nordic countries, researchers identified women who filled a prescription for an SSRI from 3 months before they became pregnant through birth. Of 1.6 million births from 1996 to 2007, 1.8% of mothers had filled an SSRI prescription during pregnancy.

There were increased rates of stillbirth and postneonatal mortality among children whose mothers used SSRIs, but the authors say this could be explained by the severity of maternal psychiatric disease and maternal characteristics, such as smoking. After adjusting for these factors, SSRI use was not associated with an increased mortality risk.

Source: JAMA

THERE IS NO CONTROVESY IN CONTRACEPTIVES.


“I believe every girl and woman deserves the opportunity to determine her future.”

Why the Urgency?

Today, more than 200 million women in developing countries who don’t want to get pregnant lack access to contraceptives. This is a life and death crisis. Complications in pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death for women in Africa.

Why Contraceptives?

Contraceptives save lives. Giving women and girls access to contraceptives is transformational – families become healthier, wealthier, and better educated.

Reducing unintended pregnancies leads to fewer girls dropping out of school and greater opportunity to escape poverty. Contraceptives are one of the best investments a country can make in its future.

Contraceptives are cost-effective and deliver big savings in healthcare costs. Each dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars on health, housing, water, and other public services.

What Can You Do?

Surely, there is no controversy in raising your voice for millions of women and girls who want access to contraceptives.

We all have a story. Whether it’s your own story—or someone you know—chances are that contraceptives have impacted your life. Pledge your support and share your story today.

 

Watch this video on youtube. URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LhAhg-PdJ1Q

 

Source: http://www.no-controversy.com/