First-Trimester Use of Selective Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors and the Risk of Birth Defects

Abstract

First-Trimester Use of Selective Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors and the Risk of Birth Defects Original Article, N Engl J Med 2007;356:2675-2683. In the (page 2675), the second sentence of Results should have read, “Analyses of the associations between individual SSRIs and specific defects showed significant associations between the use of sertraline and omphalocele (odds ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.6 to 20.7; 3 exposed subjects) and between the use of paroxetine and right ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.8; 6 exposed subjects),” rather than “. . . and omphalocele (odds ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.6 to 20.7; 3 exposed subjects) and septal defects (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.0; 13 exposed subjects) and between the use of paroxetine . . . .” In the third paragraph of the “Assessment of Previous Hypotheses” subsection of Results (page 2678), the second sentence should have ended, “. . . ranged from 0.5 to 3.3, and one risk estimate had lower bounds that exceeded 1.0: paroxetine in relation to right ventricular . . . ,” rather than “. . . 3.3, and two risk estimates had lower bounds that exceeded 1.0: sertraline in relation to septal defects (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.0, based on 13 exposed subjects) and paroxetine in relation to right ventricular . . . .” In Table 2 (page 2679), the 95% confidence interval given for septal defects in the “Sertraline” column should have been “(1.0–4.0),” rather than “(1.2–4.0).” In the second paragraph of the Discussion, the first parenthetical in the second sentence (page 2680) should have read, “(odds ratio, 2.0; lower confidence bound, 1.0),” rather than “(odds ratio, 2.0).” In the first sentence of the third paragraph (page 2680), the term “selected cardiac defects” should have been “selected defects.” In the fifth paragraph, the final sentence (page 2681) should have ended, “. . . neither of which was common to both drugs,” rather than “. . . none of which were common . . . .” The article is correct at NEJM.org.