Posted 09 January 2008 - 03:49 PM
I received in the E.R. Ondansetron a serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist used mainly to treat nausea and vomiting following chemotherapy and after surgery. There is little information about their effect on the pregnancy Evidence on the safety of 5HT3 inhibitors (such as ondansetron) in pregnancy is limited.
Posted 22 June 2009 - 08:42 PM
Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:10 PM
Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:31 PM
Posted 24 June 2009 - 05:25 AM
Posted 24 June 2009 - 09:04 AM
Posted 24 June 2009 - 04:07 PM
http://www.medicinen...pse/article.htmIt looks like from a couple of papers that it depends on what genes you get for connective tissues as that is what the valve is made of. It ranges in severity from people who don't notice anything to very severe as well. While sometimes a specific drug causes a specific defect but most of the time stuff like this is which genes you have and how the parts happen to grow and some people's parts get made in a way they don't have problems with them and some people have problems with any given part.
The mitral valve prolapse (MVP) syndrome has a strong hereditary tendency, although the exact cause is unknown. Affected family members are often tall, thin, with long arms and fingers, and straight backs.
Posted 25 June 2009 - 08:44 AM
Posted 25 June 2009 - 09:30 AM
Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:15 PM
If anyone had a baby with birth defects using zofran please contact me mwmexx @ gmail.com I received in the E.R. Ondansetron a serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist used mainly to treat nausea and vomiting following chemotherapy and after surgery. There is little information about their effect on the pregnancy and therefore the standard advice is to avoid unless absolutely necessary. Evidence on the safety of 5HT3 inhibitors (such as ondansetron) in pregnancy is limited. I did not receive any information about this drug before using it on me, the doctor only said that it was an “unbelievable expensive antinausea medication”. Before I left the E.R. My husband questioned him about the drug. The assured him that this drug was not dangerous to my baby. I am sad because they injected me zofran without warning me about the lack of studies about the effects of this medication in pregnant women, especially in the first trimester. I am also upset because there are many mild and proven medications for treating nausea in pregnant women and they gave me a medication that is mainly prescribed for nausea and vomiting following chemotherapy and after surgery.We came to the hospital looking for relief and we trusted the doctors to make the right decisions. Some of the known side effects of Ondansetron include:· Slow heart rate (bradycardia)· Abnormal heart beats (arrhythmias)· SeizuresI did not presente any of those symptoms after the injection. However, I have no doubt that this medication affected my baby’s heart. The heart is developing its structures within the first 8 weeks and they injected me with Zofran at 7 weeks . It seems likely that a medication that has exhibited electrophysiological effects on the cardiac muscle in children and adults would affect the forming structures of my baby’s heart. My baby was born with a collection of very unusual heart problems. That unusual collection of heart defects cannot be probability only!!!!. Those problems according with medical literature are associated with an event happening in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. Zofran was the only medication I took in my entire pregnancy. We learned about our baby’s birth heart defect at 14 weeks, and my husband and I chose to give our baby a chance at life, and not to have an abortion. I was very careful about taking care of my self throughout my pregnancy. I chose to give birth with a C-section because while this increased my risk, it lowered the risk to my child. I made many sacrifices to give my daughter her best chance at life. I would ever knowingly allow the doctors to give me this unproven medication if I had known how little was known about its effect on pregnant women. Do not allow that embryonic human life to be exposed to substances that might harm them and obstruct their normal development. Why whether this medication warns its use in children does not warn its use in pregnant women who carry little childs inside them? Why a package of cigarrets warns about its possible effects in pregnant women and an antinausea medication does not? This might not be of your concern, but my tears don't stop since then, and everytime I take my baby to the hospital. She had a heart surgery already and some more comming.
Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:37 PM
Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:41 PM
[size="3"][font="Century Gothic"]I have been pregnant three times. the first pregnancy I had morning sickness but since I was gaining weight the doctor did not give me any medicine for it. So I worship the Porcelain gods for 4 months. My son was born healthy. But my other two pregnancies I was on Zofran. Both my second son and daughter were born with a heart birth defect. My second son was born with VSD (layman's term hole in the bottom of the heart) and my daughter was born with an abnormal pulmonary value. It is crocked and "u" shaped. There has been no family history of heart birth defects on either side of the family and the doctors are not saying if there is a link. I believe ther is a link. How can one mothe who took Zofran be give birth to two children with a heart defect? i am looking for other families and mothers who have the same situation as I do to raise awareness to company that yes it does causes birth defects. I'm not in it for the money. I want to make sure other mothers do not have to go through what I go through. I have been blessed with the fact that their cardiologist is avoiding surgery and there has been some healing in their hearts. My daughter is currently not on any medication. My son is only on a diuretic. If you look at them you could never tell they have a heart defect. They have hit every milestone and act like normal.
Posted 22 July 2012 - 07:02 PM
Posted 14 August 2012 - 06:39 AM
Posted 14 February 2014 - 09:59 PM
Posted 15 February 2014 - 06:42 AM
Posted 15 February 2014 - 07:37 AM
I could go pull the actual paper, but often for some things you need a very large cohort of women to get the background rate. If you only study women who took the drug and don't know the rate in other women (who did any number of other things) you don't really know if the drug did anything. Let me go see what I can find of all the other results other than the headline one.
And as they said, if you are vomiting to the point you cannot possibly provide adequate nutrition for the fetus, we know that causes problems with development.
ETA. So this is a cohort containing a huge number of pregnancies they can use for data mining.
They needed a huge number go get enough women with exposure to Zofran to get statistics. Each of the exposed pregnancies (woman who took the drug) was then matched with four unexposed pregancies from teh cohort (all women meeting the criteria in the national registry in a certain time period) so the unexposed women matched for a variety of things but were as similar as possible in this group to things like age, common diseases, weight, number of prescriptions during pregnancy.
So the comparison group was a subset of the larger cohort and to get the matched set you need a lot of people to sort through.
Would be nice to have a double blind placebo controlled study, but letting women vomit uncontrollably may not be ethical.
There doesn't seem to be a reason to think that in that data set they had anything other than the usual number of normal births and birth defects that you see in any other data pull. Do you have any other concerns about Danish women doing whatever is the standard medical practice there? Now I don't know the stats of the top of my head to know if they got more prescriptions or less than US women, but for all the various things pregnant women are exposed to, adding Zofran didn't seem to be a major risk, with the caveat you may not find the increases the risk from 1 in a million to 5 in a million in a group this size.
The biggest difference I saw is that the unexposed women who otherwise matched the exposed population had a higher rate of use of other anti-nausea drugs. Because like I said letting women vomit so much they may effect the fetus isn't good.
I know we all say no pregnant woman should ever take anything ever, most women are exposed to something during pregancy because just letting all the bad things that can happen if you do nothing to protect the health and well being of the mother. Development is a pretty delicate thing and it often goes wrong even when there is no particular exposure to something. There of plenty of reports of birth defects (obvious visible ones as well as babies just dying in the day or two after birth) in the ancient medical lit before the age of industrial chemicals and prescription drugs. Sometimes I find it a miracle any of us are born with the right number of parts given how many things have to go right during the pregnancy.