ß-Blocker Use in Pregnancy and the Risk for Congenital Malformations: An International Cohort Study.

Background: ß-Blockers are a class of antihypertensive medications that are commonly used in pregnancy. Objective: To estimate the risks for major congenital malformations associated with first-trimester exposure to ß-blockers. Design: Cohort study. Setting: Health registries in the 5 Nordic countries and the U.S. Medicaid database. Patients: Pregnant women with a diagnosis of hypertension and their offspring. Measurements: First-trimester exposure to ß-blockers was assessed. Outcomes were any major congenital malformation, cardiac malformations, cleft lip or palate, and central nervous system (CNS) malformations. Propensity score stratification was used to control for potential confounders. Results: Of 3577 women with hypertensive pregnancies in the Nordic cohort and 14 900 in the U.S. cohort, 682 (19.1%) and 1668 (11.2%), respectively, were exposed to ß-blockers in the first trimester. The pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) and risk difference per 1000 persons exposed (RD1000) associated with ß-blockers were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.30) and 3.0 (CI, -6.6 to 12.6), respectively, for any major malformation; 1.12 (CI, 0.83 to 1.51) and 2.1 (CI, -4.3 to 8.4) for any cardiac malformation; and 1.97 (CI, 0.74 to 5.25) and 1.0 (CI, -0.9 to 3.0) for cleft lip or palate. For CNS malformations, the adjusted RR was 1.37 (CI, 0.58 to 3.25) and the RD1000 was 1.0 (CI, -2.0 to 4.0) (based on U.S. cohort data only). Limitation: Analysis was restricted to live births, exposure was based on dispensed medication, and cleft lip or palate and CNS malformations had few outcomes. Conclusion: The results suggest that maternal use of ß-blockers in the first trimester is not associated with a large increase in the risk for overall malformations or cardiac malformations, independent of measured confounders. Primary Funding Source: The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Söderström König Foundation.

Utilization of Stimulants and Atomoxetine for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder among 5.4 Million Children Using Population-Based Longitudinal Data.

Use of stimulants to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has increased over the past two decades and varies substantially between countries. The objective of this multinational population-based study was to examine utilization of ADHD drugs (stimulants and atomoxetine) including comedication with other psychotropic drugs in the entire child population in the five Nordic countries. We included longitudinal data on dispensed ADHD drugs from five Nordic prescription registers during 2008-2012, which in 2012 comprised 48,296 individuals among 5.42 million inhabitants aged 0-17 years. Prevalence of filling ≥1 prescriptions of ADHD drugs among children aged 6-17 years increased during 2008-2012 from 5.9 to 11.2 and 19.4 to 31.0 per 1000 girls and boys, respectively. Prevalence by country showed that Iceland, Finland and Sweden had a steady increase during the study period, while in Norway the prevalence was quite stable and in Denmark it levelled off from 2010. Use in preschoolers (aged 0-5 years) was rare. Iceland had much higher prevalence and incidence than the other Nordic countries. The incidence of ADHD drug use increased during the study period, from 4.0 to 4.9 and from 1.5 to 2.3 per 1000 boys and girls, respectively. The increasing number of new users levelled off somewhat after 2010. Comedication with other psychotropic drugs was more common among girls (33.9%) than boys (27.0%) and was mainly melatonin, followed by antidepressants and antipsychotics. Overall prevalence of ADHD drug use increased among Nordic girls and boys aged 6-17 years, whereas the incidence increased slightly during 2008-2010 but levelled off through 2012. The substantial differences in ADHD drug use across the Nordic countries and high degree of comedication with other psychotropic drugs underscore the importance of close monitoring of treatment for ADHD among children.

Predictors for initiation of pharmacological prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed bipolar disorder--A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines state that all patients with bipolar disorder should use pharmacological prophylaxis; however the actual use of prophylactic drugs after bipolar disorder diagnosis is unknown. Our aim was to assess the use of, and predictors for, pharmacoprophylaxis in newly diagnosed bipolar disorder patients. METHODS: Data from three Swedish nationwide registers were obtained. We identified patients aged 18-75 with a first time diagnosis of bipolar disorder between 2006 and 2012 (n=31,770) and reviewed subsequent mood-stabilizer and antipsychotic prescription fills. In multivariable Cox regression models, we studied demographic and illness related factors as predictors of prescription fills after diagnosis. RESULTS: In total, 72.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.7-72.7%) of the patients filled a prescription of a prophylactic drug within 3 months after diagnosis. Pharmacological prophylaxis was mainly associated with a longer duration of hospitalization at bipolar disorder diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 2.18; CI 2.02-2.35 for a hospitalization of ≥28 days compared to <7 days) and previous use of any mood-stabilizer or antipsychotic (inpatients: AHR 1.24; CI 1.17-1.31 and outpatients: AHR 1.78; CI 1.73-1.84). LIMITATIONS: We had no information on drug prescriptions that were never filled. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of newly diagnosed bipolar disorder patients without pharmacological prophylaxis is substantial. Patients who are naïve to mood-stabilizers and antipsychotics and are hospitalized for a brief period at diagnosis are the ones least likely to initiate pharmacoprophylaxis, suggesting that this group deserves attention in order to improve the long term prognosis.

Emergency cesarean delivery in induction of labor: an evaluation of risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor has been associated with an increased risk of emergency cesarean delivery. Knowledge of factors that influence the risk of cesarean delivery in women with induced labor is limited. METHODS: We performed a case-control study, nested within a population-based cohort of women with induced labor at term during 1991-1996 in Uppsala County, Sweden. Cases were women delivered with emergency cesarean delivery, and controls were women vaginally delivered (n = 193, respectively). Using logistic regression, analyses were performed. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used as a measure of relative risk. RESULTS: Women with a previous cesarean delivery had high risks of cesarean delivery (adjusted OR = 10.10, 95% CI = 3.30-30.92). The risk of cesarean delivery was also increased among nulliparous (adjusted OR = 4.92, 95% CI = 2.81-8.61), short (adjusted OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.06-4.59), and obese women (adjusted OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.07-3.84). A cervix dilatation less than 1.5 cm doubled the risk of cesarean delivery (adjusted OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.09-4.66). Mother's age, epidural analgesia, oxytocin augmentation, gestational age, and birthweight were not significantly associated with risks of cesarean delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Women with a previous cesarean delivery, nulliparous, short, and obese women with induced labor are at high risk of a cesarean delivery. When there is a need to deliver a woman with a previous cesarean section or a nulliparous woman with other risk factors for cesarean delivery, it may be prudent to consider an elective cesarean section.