2 ms·
Absolutely. If seems like this drug should have been placed on the "high risk - don't take while trying to conceive" lists from the outset. And from what I ca
by alistairSH 3y ago
Absolutely. If seems like this drug should have been placed on the "high risk - don't take while trying to conceive" lists from the outset. And from what I can tell, it's only on that list in the US when being prescribed for migraine control (but not seizure control).
This will sound callous, but sometime a person has to pick between managing their personal health and having a child. I have a friend who's on some nasty drugs and when faced with the choice between "go off drugs, relapse", "stay on drug, risk birth defects", and "stay on drug, don't have a kid" she chose the last option (correctly IMO, but it's definitely not my place to interject).
- giantg2 3y ago"If seems like this drug should have been placed on the "high risk - don't take while trying to conceive" lists from the outset. And from what I can tell, it's only on that list in the US when being prescribed for migraine control (but not seizure control)." That's because they're doing the risk profile. Seizures pose a risk to the fetus too while migrains do not. So they aren't doing it based solely on risk, but on the overall risk profile including "rewards" or reduction in other risks.
- alistairSH 3y agoSorry, I wasn't clear - it sounds like they may have botched the risk profile - the article paints a picture where the real-world incidence/severity of defects is "high". But, they're selling clicks, and the patients are looking for money/support, so it's hard to know for sure. It certainly seems like there should have been a discussion between MD and patient here (similar to what my friend had with her MDs, albeit different drugs/condition).