Babies to be given anti-obesity drugs in womb..

[Monkeys Fist 41395]

They should be injecting them with nuclear waste so we get superheroes.

[Park Life 71]

You do know thats a business portal for Law firms dont you?

 

Best one to go to I'd have thought.

Free claim review within one click, thats the sort of source i go to when i need information

 

Best way to keep an eye on the competition I'd imagine.

[jonasjuice 0]

So out of all the possible, thousands (cba to google the actual number ) of drugs on the market, a tiny percentage of them cause a small percentage of users harm.

 

As you said, the amount of testing that goes on for each and every drug is incredible.

 

I'd imagine the percentage likelihood of you taking a new drug and being harmed is indeed less than 1 in a thousand, hence 99.9% safe.

 

Fair enough if the 'reducing the babys food supply' freaks you out as people do tend to be more wary of messing with things when it comes to babies, but theres no logical reason to be more scared of this than any other drug.

 

Plus it 'is already regularly used to treat diabetic mums-to-be, as well as diabetics in general.' No signs of problems so far then I'd imagine if their investing further into it.

 

I'm fully anticipating a 'Metformin Gives 1million Unborn Babies Face Cancer' headline tomorrow now i've said that though

[Renton 20503]

I don't get this. They say that overwight babies are more likely to become overweight adults, so they will use metformin to help prevent this. Have they considered it might not even be a causal relationship? Is it not possible that babies born into fat families simply learn their eating behaviour from their fat parents? If this is the case this treatment will be a complete waste of time and put the babies to unecessary risk (albeit a neglible risk).

I think the main point of it is to reduce the number of difficult births rather than using it to stop the litle ones growing up to be chubby funsters.

 

'Dr Andrew Weeks, said: "It is about trying to improve outcomes in pregnancy for women who are overweight.'

 

As for it being overkill, difficult births can be damaging for both parties. If it was something that reduced the chances of your baby being born with an illness that it was particularly susceptible you'd gladly accept. Same principle.

 

It won't be made available if it isn't (99.999999%) safe.

 

Yeah, you're right, I only scanned this article, but when it was discussed on the radio yesterday the author said the primary objective was to reduce the chances of the baby being overwieght in later life, which I found exceptionally odd.

 

Regarding drugs in pregnancy, you're correct that metformin is very likely to be safe and definitely isn't teratogenic. However, the general rule of thumb is never to use drugs in pregnant women unless they are absolutely necessary. My question to the ethics committee would be can anti-diabetic drugs be justified in this context? Wouldn't it be better to get the mother to eat a healthy diet and exercise? I just don't think pharmaceuticals are the answer to this particular problem.

[Park Life 71]

I don't get this. They say that overwight babies are more likely to become overweight adults, so they will use metformin to help prevent this. Have they considered it might not even be a causal relationship? Is it not possible that babies born into fat families simply learn their eating behaviour from their fat parents? If this is the case this treatment will be a complete waste of time and put the babies to unecessary risk (albeit a neglible risk).

I think the main point of it is to reduce the number of difficult births rather than using it to stop the litle ones growing up to be chubby funsters.

 

'Dr Andrew Weeks, said: "It is about trying to improve outcomes in pregnancy for women who are overweight.'

 

As for it being overkill, difficult births can be damaging for both parties. If it was something that reduced the chances of your baby being born with an illness that it was particularly susceptible you'd gladly accept. Same principle.

 

It won't be made available if it isn't (99.999999%) safe.

 

Yeah, you're right, I only scanned this article, but when it was discussed on the radio yesterday the author said the primary objective was to reduce the chances of the baby being overwieght in later life, which I found exceptionally odd.

 

Regarding drugs in pregnancy, you're correct that metformin is very likely to be safe and definitely isn't teratogenic. However, the general rule of thumb is never to use drugs in pregnant women unless they are absolutely necessary. My question to the ethics committee would be can anti-diabetic drugs be justified in this context? Wouldn't it be better to get the mother to eat a healthy diet and exercise? I just don't think pharmaceuticals are the answer to this particular problem.

 

Totally agree.

 

People should be taught to take responsability for their actions not given quick fixes, that way lies danger.

[Guest alex]

Or sterilise them.

[ChezGiven 0]

Rents, as JonasJuice pointed out, metformin is well studied in pregnant women, so running a trial of it with this endpoint poses no additionl safety or ethical risk.

 

There are far better examples than this of the trade-off between risk and benefit and ones where if both measures are converted to the same metric, the risk/benefit decision making of ethics committees and regulators looks wrong.

 

However, i am not going to tell Parky where to look. If he can find a good one, i'll give him a point in the 'i was right' thread.

Edited May 17, 2011 by ChezGiven

[Renton 20503]

Rents, as JonasJuice pointed out, metformin is well studied in pregnant women, so running a trial of it with this endpoint poses no additionl safety or ethical risk.

 

There are far better examples than this of the trade-off between risk and benefit and ones where if both measures are converted to the same metric, the risk/benefit decision making of ethics committees and regulators looks wrong.

 

However, i am not going to tell Parky where to look. If he can find a good one, i'll give him a point in the 'i was right' thread.

 

I can accept this trial if the endpoint is purely to reduce complications in pregnancy and birth, it was the claims on the radio I had problems with, that it would reduce adult obesity.

 

There's still an issue of moral hazard here though. What kind of mother wouldn't be motivated to eat healthily and exercise for the nine months while they are pregnant? If this trial leads to the standard use of metformin to treat overweight pregnant women then I find that a bit worrying. Next we'll be encouraging them to smoke to counteract the effects of their gluttony.