Compared with togetherness of the controls, the dyadic adjustment of their parents was lower and family functions as perceived by the parents and adolescents were unhealthier in the adolescents using substances. These findings indicate that the family functions, dyadic adjustment, and parental attitude styles need to be assessed in the risk groups to determine familial risk factors and to structure protective measures. These assessments may guide clinicians and policy-makers toward good clinical practice and help build protective measures.
Objective: The literature provides very limited information on mirtazapine usage in the pregnancy period. The groups including pregnant women who used SSRI or mirtazapine as a single treatment, SSRI-mirtazapine combination treatment and unmedicated groups were compared with respect to illness severity and birth outcomes. Method: The study sample included 120 pregnant women; 40 women with SSRI usage, 16 women with mirtazapine usage, 18 women with combined SSRI-mirtazapine usage, 23 women with unmedicated psychiatric disorder and who elected not to take medication during their pregnancy or discontinued antidepressants by themselves, and 23 healthy control women. Results: No difference was obtained with regard to the gestation week of birth, birth weight, the duration of stay in the neonatal care unit among the SSRI, mirtazapine, SSRI-mirtazapine combination, unmedicated patient and control groups. The likelihood of a new diagnosis was highest in the mirtazapine group. The majority of pregnant women whose psychiatric disorders were more severe and more relapsed used SSRI-mirtazapine combination treatment. Conclusion: No difference was observed between the SSRI and mirtazapine usage in the pregnancy period with regard to the birth outcomes. Similar birth outcomes could present clinicians with the option of prescribing mirtazapine as a safe alternative to SSRI in the treatment of antenatal psychiatric patients.
View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles CNR2 rs2229579 and COMT Val158Met variants, but not CNR2 rs2501432, IL-17 rs763780 and UCP2 rs659366, contribute to susceptibility to substance use disorder in the Turkish population
OBJECTIVE: Substance use disorder (SUD) has important effects on health and well-being. It is well known that genetic factors play a role in SUD. The purpose of this research was to investigate whether functional variants of DNA repair genes might be a risk factor for cannabis and/or synthetic cannabis dependence in a Turkish cohort. METHODS: In total, 131 patients with cannabis and/or synthetic dependence and 70 healthy controls were included in this case-control study. XRCC1 codon 399 (rs25487) and XRCC4 G1394 T (rs6869366), and XPD (rs13181) variants were determined by the polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism assay (PCR-RFLP). RESULTS: The XRCC1 rs25487 GG genotype and G allele were significantly lower in patients compared to controls (p = 0.005; p = 0.002, respectively). XRCC4 rs6869366 TT genotype and T allele were more common in patients compared to controls (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, respectively). It was found that patients with XPD rs13181 Lys/Gln had a significantly higher risk of cannabis dependence than control did (p = 0.00). The subjects carried XPD rs13181 Gln/Gln genotype had a 2.2-fold increased risk for cannabis dependence (p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated for the first time that DNA repair gene variants may alter individual vulnerability for SUD. This observation could be of further interest to researchers, as it could suggest new candidate genes, presumably crucial for the etiopathogenesis of the cannabis and/or synthetic cannabis dependence.
ARTICLE HISTORY
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.