Daily intranasal palivizumab to prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in healthy preterm infants: a phase 1/2b randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Mucosal administration of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against respiratory pathogens is a promising alternative for systemic administration because lower doses are required for protection. Clinical development of mucosal mAbs is a highly active field yet clinical proof-of-concept is lacking. Methods: In this investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial, we evaluated intranasal palivizumab for the prevention of RSV infection in preterm infants (Dutch Trial Register NTR7378 and NTR7403). We randomized infants 1:1 to receive intranasal palivizumab (1 mg/mL) or placebo once daily during the RSV season. Any RSV infection was the primary outcome and RSV hospitalization was the key secondary outcome. The primary outcome was analyzed with a mixed effect logistic regression on the modified intention-to-treat population. Findings: We recruited 268 infants between Jan 14, 2019 and Jan 28, 2021, after which the trial was stopped for futility following the planned interim analysis. Adverse events were similar in both groups (22/134 (16.4%) palivizumab arm versus 26/134 (19.4%) placebo arm). There were 6 dropouts and 168 infants were excluded from the efficacy analyses due to absent RSV circulation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Any RSV infection was similar in infants in both groups (18/47 (38.3%) palivizumab arm versus 11/47 (23.4%) placebo arm; aOR 2.2, 95% CI 0.7-6.5). Interpretation: Daily intranasal palivizumab did not prevent RSV infection in late preterm infants. Our findings have important implications for the clinical development of mucosal mAbs, namely the necessity of timely interim analyses and further research to understand mucosal antibody half-life. Funding: Funded by the Department of Pediatrics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Depression during pregnancy: views on antidepressant use and information sources of general practitioners and pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: The use of antidepressants during pregnancy has increased in recent years. In the Netherlands, almost 2% of all pregnant women are exposed to antidepressants. Although guidelines have been developed on considerations that should be taken into account, prescribing antidepressants during pregnancy is still a subject of debate. Physicians and pharmacists may have opposing views on using medication during pregnancy and may give contradictory advice on whether or not to take medication for depression and anxiety disorders during pregnancy. In this study, we investigated information sources used by general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists and their common practices. METHODS: A questionnaire on the use of information sources and the general approach when managing depression during pregnancy was sent out to 1400 health care professionals to assess information sources on drug safety during pregnancy and also the factors that influence decision-making. The questionnaires consisted predominantly of closed multiple-choice questions. RESULTS: A total of 130 GPs (19%) and 144 pharmacists (21%) responded. The most popular source of information on the safety of drug use during pregnancy is the Dutch National Health Insurance System Formulary, while a minority of respondents contacts the Dutch national Teratology Information Service (TIS). The majority of GPs contact the pharmacy with questions concerning drug use during pregnancy. There is no clear line with regard to treatment or consensus between GPs on the best therapeutic strategy, nor do practitioners agree upon the drug of first choice. GPs have different views on stopping or continuing antidepressants during pregnancy or applying alternative treatment options. The debate appears to be ongoing as to whether or not specialised care for mother and child is indicated in cases of gestational antidepressant use. CONCLUSION: Primary health care workers are not univocal concerning therapy for pregnant women with depression. Although more research is needed to account for all safety issues, local or national policies are indispensable in order to avoid undesirable practices, such as giving contradictory advice. GPs and pharmacists should address the subject during their regular pharmacotherapeutic consensus meetings, preferably in collaboration with the TIS or other professionals in the field.

Adverse drug reactions to tocolytic treatment for preterm labour: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of serious maternal complications after the use of various tocolytic drugs for the treatment of preterm labour in routine clinical situations. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: 28 hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: 1920 consecutive women treated with tocolytics for threatened preterm labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal adverse events (those suspected of being causally related to treatment were considered adverse drug reactions) leading to cessation of treatment. RESULTS: An independent panel evaluated the recorded adverse events, without knowledge of the type of tocolytic used. Of the 1920 women treated with tocolytics, 1327 received a single course of treatment (69.1%), 282 sequential courses (14.7%), and 311 combined courses (16.2%). Adverse drug reactions were categorised as serious or mild in 14 cases each. The overall incidence of serious adverse drug reaction was 0.7%. Compared with atosiban, the relative risk of an adverse drug reaction for single treatment with a beta adrenoceptor agonist was 22.0 (95% confidence interval 3.6 to 138.0) and for single treatment with a calcium antagonist was 12 (1.9 to 69). Multiple drug tocolysis led to five serious adverse drug reactions (1.6%). Multiple gestation, preterm rupture of membranes, and comorbidity were not independent risk factors for adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of beta adrenoceptor agonists or multiple tocolytics for preventing preterm birth is associated with a high incidence of serious adverse drug reactions. Indometacin and atosiban were the only drugs not associated with serious adverse drug reactions. A direct comparison of the effectiveness of nifedipine and atosiban in postponing preterm delivery is needed.

Prevalence and patterns of antidepressant drug use during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the extent and patterns of antidepressant use before, during and after pregnancy in a large population in The Netherlands. METHODS: Health care records and prescription data from one of the largest Dutch health insurance companies were analysed. The study cohort consisted of 29,005 women who had live births in the period between January 2000 and July 2003. Antidepressant drug use during a specified period was defined as there being a record of a prescription during that period. RESULTS: During the first trimester of pregnancy 2% of all pregnant women of the study cohort were found to have taken antidepressants; in the second and third trimesters, this figure had dropped to 1.8% of all pregnancies. Antidepressant use before as well as during pregnancy was almost twofold higher in women over 35 years of age than in those under 35 years. Almost 60% of the women who used antidepressants before pregnancy stopped taking them in the first trimester, and a smaller number stopped thereafter. Of all women using antidepressants during pregnancy, one third started this medication during gestation. In the 3 months following delivery, the prevalence of antidepressant use was the same as before pregnancy (2.9%). There was no shift to benzodiazepines in the group of women who stopped taking antidepressants during pregnancy. Although paroxetine and fluoxetine were the most frequently used antidepressants among the study group, all modern antidepressants were used. CONCLUSION: A considerable number of women are being exposed to antidepressants throughout pregnancy up until delivery. One consequence of this is that their newborns need special care and supervision during the first days of life. However, women who stop taking the medication may risk a relapse of their illness, and this may also have a negative effect on the child.