Metheclampsia: Amphetamine use and the development of pre-eclampsia – a retrospective chart review


Abstract

Introduction

Substance abuse during pregnancy remains an area that is difficult to study 1. From 1988 to 2004, hospitalization for amphetamine abuse among pregnant women doubled 2. This study aims to analyze whether women with a positive urine drug screen for amphetamine on admission to labor and delivery develop pre-eclampsia at a higher rate than those who test negative. The research study was designed to provide insight into behavioral and social determinant trends within our local community of practice.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to the labor and delivery service at a community academic hospital. A total of 2,834 patient deliveries from March 3rd, 2018, through April 330th, 2021, were reviewed. Patients met the inclusion criteria if a routine urine drug screen was collected on admission. Patients met exclusion criteria if no urine drug screen was collected. The deliveries were then eligible to be placed into one of the two arms of the study: (1) Patients with a positive urine drug screen for amphetamines, and (2) Patients with a negative urine drug screen for amphetamines. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

After reviewing the deliveries performed within the timeline, 617 charts were eligible for inclusion, with 490 of these having a negative urine drug screen for amphetamines and 127 having a positive urine drug screen for amphetamines. The primary finding of this study is that amphetamine use during pregnancy is strongly associated with an increased risk of pre-eclampsia. Interestingly, amphetamine users had significant demographic differences from non-users; amphetamine users, on average, were older and had a lower BMI than non-users. Additionally, patients with a positive amphetamine test were also delivered at an earlier gestational age. When comparing patients with a positive urine drug screen for amphetamines to those with a negative urine drug screen, both groups did not show a significant difference in the history of chronic hypertension or previous pre-eclampsia.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that intrapartum amphetamine use proves to be a significant risk factor for pre-eclampsia in pregnancy. Further research into the pharmacologic actions of amphetamines could provide better insight into the physiologic events that trigger pre-eclampsia. Further investigations could include a closer examination of the effect of other substances on the development of pre-eclampsia.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].