ShareThis Page
Expectant mothers face uncertainties when taking prescription drugs |

Expectant mothers face uncertainties when taking prescription drugs

Jasmine Goldband | Tribune-Review
Laura Kabulski, 31, of Shaler is 20-weeks pregnant. Kabulski, who gets migraines, switched her medication around when she planned her pregnancy.

When the throbbing headache pain strikes, it can knock Laura Kabulski to her knees or leave her bedridden.

She has had chronic migraines since her teen years. Without strong prescription medication to prevent them from occurring in the first place, functioning sometimes becomes nearly impossible.

Twenty weeks ago, Kabulski, 31, of Shaler and her husband, Adam, celebrated news that she was pregnant with their first child.

An accompanying barrage of worsening migraine symptoms, such as increased light sensitivity and intense vomiting, quickly quelled that celebration.

“I’ve been to the emergency room twice since my pregnancy began because I couldn’t keep any liquids down,” she said. “I can’t make it to work if I don’t take something to ease symptoms.”

One adjustment made quickly by Kabulski’s doctor was taking her off the migraine-preventing medication Topamax, which could potentially cause birth defects such as cleft palate.

She takes two pills daily. One is Imitrex, a migraine medicine that narrows blood vessels around the brain; the other is metoprolol, a blood pressure medication.

Kabulski still doesn’t know for certain whether those medicines are safe for her unborn child. Mothers across the country in similar situations face the same uncertainties for complications including morning sickness and gestational diabetes, or chronic conditions such as depression, epilepsy and high blood pressure.

About 70 percent of pregnant women in the United States take at least one prescription drug, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, most drugs are not tested on pregnant women for safety and effectiveness.

Less than 10 percent of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 1980 have enough information to determine their safety, according to the CDC.

“It leaves us in a quandary,” said Dr. Richard Beigi, vice president of medical affairs and chief medical officer for Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC. “Pregnancy changes a woman’s physiology dramatically, and there’s a dearth of data on medications and interventions that pregnant women are using.”

Beigi and experts from Magee-Womens Research Institute are working to find safe and ethical ways to test medications during pregnancy and lactation, two populations avoided by researchers for decades.

On a national basis, Maggie Little, a bioethicist at Georgetown University, is part of a group being funded by the National Institutes of Health to conduct more research with pregnant women.

She said half a million American women experience significant illnesses annually that require medication.

“It touches so many women’s lives and their families,” said Little, director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown. “Right now we are caught in a terrible Catch-22: Because we don’t know much, we don’t know what to tell women. Pregnancy is an off-label condition.”

There are three main hurdles: First, current regulations surrounding performance of research during pregnancy significantly limit the opportunities for investigation. Second, many women understandably are hesitant to take part in drug trials. Third, researchers, pharmaceutical companies and universities are leery of complications during such studies.

Beigi referenced the 1950s when the nausea-relieving drug thalidomide caused birth defects and deformities. At least 10,000 “thalidomide babies” were born around the world before the drug was banned in the early 1960s.

“The reaction to those unfortunate occurrences was ‘let’s avoid pregnant women and research in general,’ ” Beigi said. “What is needed is the ability to protect pregnant women through research, not from research. This can be done with an eye toward safe and thoughtful investigations as opposed to avoiding pregnant women altogether.”

The idea of improving research on pregnant women has gained momentum as new threats such as the Zika virus rise to the forefront.

“If we get a vaccine for Zika, you better believe pregnant women need to be some of the folks who get that vaccine,” Little said.

Zika is known to cause microcephaly, in which babies are born with dangerously small heads.

“There is a huge need to generate more data for all of the drugs that pregnant women need to take,” said Dr. Christina Chambers, a professor of pediatrics and family and preventive medicine at the University of California at San Diego. “Being pregnant doesn’t take away the need for a pregnant woman to take an antibiotic or need to take an asthma medication. Pregnant women are an orphan population not having this data and information.”

Chambers also works as program director for the California office of MotherToBaby, an international organization that helps lead a network that provides information about the safety of medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding. It is run by the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists.

Chambers said many women learn about the lack of research for various medications only when they become pregnant.

“Most people are appalled by this,” she said. “They’re saying, ‘You’re kidding me. There’s no data available?’ ”

Kabulski, who works as a nurse practitioner for UPMC, felt the same way.

“I understand the various risks and benefits of medication from working in health care,” she said. “But I am still, in the back of my mind, wishing there would be more research on the meds I am taking, to have more reassurance. Like any mom out there, I want to have a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby.”

Ben Schmitt is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7991 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.