Risk of Autism after Prenatal Topiramate, Valproate, or Lamotrigine Exposure.

BACKGROUND: Maternal use of valproate during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children. Although most studies of other antiseizure medications have not shown increased risks of these disorders, there are limited and conflicting data regarding the risk of autism spectrum disorder associated with maternal topiramate use. METHODS: We identified a population-based cohort of pregnant women and their children within two health care utilization databases in the United States, with data from 2000 through 2020. Exposure to specific antiseizure medications was defined on the basis of prescription fills from gestational week 19 until delivery. Children who had been exposed to topiramate during the second half of pregnancy were compared with those unexposed to any antiseizure medication during pregnancy with respect to the risk of autism spectrum disorder. Valproate was used as a positive control, and lamotrigine was used as a negative control. RESULTS: The estimated cumulative incidence of autism spectrum disorder at 8 years of age was 1.9% for the full population of children who had not been exposed to antiseizure medication (4,199,796 children). With restriction to children born to mothers with epilepsy, the incidence was 4.2% with no exposure to antiseizure medication (8815 children), 6.2% with exposure to topiramate (1030 children), 10.5% with exposure to valproate (800 children), and 4.1% with exposure to lamotrigine (4205 children). Propensity score-adjusted hazard ratios in a comparison with no exposure to antiseizure medication were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.65) for exposure to topiramate, 2.67 (95% CI, 1.69 to 4.20) for exposure to valproate, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.46) for exposure to lamotrigine. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of autism spectrum disorder was higher among children prenatally exposed to the studied antiseizure medications than in the general population. However, after adjustment for indication and other confounders, the association was substantially attenuated for topiramate and lamotrigine, whereas an increased risk remained for valproate. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.).

Buprenorphine versus Methadone for Opioid Use Disorder in Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Opioid agonist therapy is strongly recommended for pregnant persons with opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine may be associated with more favorable neonatal and maternal outcomes than methadone, but existing data are limited. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study involving pregnant persons who were enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States during the period from 2000 through 2018 in which we examined outcomes among those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone. Exposure to the two medications was assessed in early pregnancy (through gestational week 19), late pregnancy (gestational week 20 through the day before delivery), and the 30 days before delivery. Risk ratios for neonatal and maternal outcomes were adjusted for confounders with the use of propensity-score overlap weights. RESULTS: The data source for the study consisted of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. In early pregnancy, 10,704 pregnant persons were exposed to buprenorphine and 4387 to methadone. In late pregnancy, 11,272 were exposed to buprenorphine and 5056 to methadone (9976 and 4597, respectively, in the 30 days before delivery). Neonatal abstinence syndrome occurred in 52.0% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.75). Preterm birth occurred in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.62); small size for gestational age in 12.1% and 15.3%, respectively (adjusted relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.80); and low birth weight in 8.3% and 14.9% (adjusted relative risk, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.63). Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant persons exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.08), and severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% and 3.5%, respectively (adjusted relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13). Results of exposure in late pregnancy were consistent with results of exposure in early pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of buprenorphine in pregnancy was associated with a lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes than methadone use; however, the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar among persons who received buprenorphine and those who received methadone. (Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.).

Paternal Use of Metformin During the Sperm Development Period Preceding Conception and Risk for Major Congenital Malformations in Newborns.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is the most used oral antidiabetic medication. Despite its established safety profile, it has known antiandrogenic and epigenetic modifying effects. This raised concerns about possible adverse developmental effects caused by genomic alterations related to paternal use of metformin during the spermatogenesis period preceding conception. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential adverse intergenerational effect of metformin by examining the association between paternal metformin use during spermatogenesis and major congenital malformations (MCMs) in newborns. DESIGN: Nationally representative cohort study. SETTING: A large Israeli health fund. PARTICIPANTS: 383 851 live births linked to fathers and mothers that occurred in 1999 to 2020. MEASUREMENTS: MCMs and parental cardiometabolic conditions were ascertained using clinical diagnoses, medication dispensing information, and laboratory test results. The effect of metformin use on MCMs was estimated using general estimating equations, accounting for concurrent use of other antidiabetic medications and parental cardiometabolic morbidity. RESULTS: Compared with unexposed fathers, the prevalence of cardiometabolic morbidity was substantially higher among fathers who used metformin during spermatogenesis, and their spouses. Whereas the crude odds ratio (OR) for paternal metformin exposure in all formulations and MCMs was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.64), the adjusted OR was 1.00 (CI, 0.76 to 1.31). Within specific treatment regimens, the adjusted OR was 0.86 (CI, 0.60 to 1.23) for metformin in monotherapy and 1.36 (CI, 1.00 to 1.85) for metformin in polytherapy, a treatment that was more common in patients with more poorly controlled diabetes. LIMITATION: Laboratory test results for hemoglobin A1c to assess underlying diabetes severity were available only for a subset of the cohort. CONCLUSION: Paternal use of metformin in monotherapy does not increase the risk for MCMs. Association for metformin in polytherapy could potentially be explained by worse underlying parental cardiometabolic risk profile. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Metformin Use in the First Trimester of Pregnancy and Risk for Nonlive Birth and Congenital Malformations: Emulating a Target Trial Using Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is a first-line pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, but there is limited evidence about its safety in early pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the teratogenicity of metformin use in the first trimester of pregnancy. DESIGN: In an observational cohort of pregnant women with pregestational type 2 diabetes receiving metformin monotherapy before the last menstrual period (LMP), a target trial with 2 treatment strategies was emulated: insulin monotherapy (discontinue metformin treatment and initiate insulin within 90 days of LMP) or insulin plus metformin (continue metformin and initiate insulin within 90 days of LMP). SETTING: U.S. Medicaid health care administration database (2000 to 2018). PARTICIPANTS: 12 489 pregnant women who met the eligibility criteria. MEASUREMENTS: The risk and risk ratio of nonlive births, live births with congenital malformations, and congenital malformations among live births were estimated using standardization to adjust for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 850 women were in the insulin monotherapy group and 1557 in the insulin plus metformin group. The estimated risk for nonlive birth was 32.7% under insulin monotherapy (reference) and 34.3% under insulin plus metformin (risk ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]). The estimated risk for live birth with congenital malformations was 8.0% (CI, 5.7% to 10.2%) under insulin monotherapy and 5.7% (CI, 4.5% to 7.3%) under insulin plus metformin (risk ratio, 0.72 [CI, 0.51 to 1.09]). LIMITATION: Possible residual confounding by glycemic control and body mass index. CONCLUSION: Compared with switching to insulin monotherapy, continuing metformin and adding insulin in early pregnancy resulted in little to no increased risk for nonlive birth among women receiving metformin before pregnancy. Under conventional statistical criteria, anything between a 49% decrease and a 9% increase in risk for congenital malformations was highly compatible with our data. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Internal validation of gestational age estimation algorithms in healthcare databases using pregnancies conceived with fertility procedures.

Fertility procedures recorded in healthcare databases can be used to estimate the start of pregnancy, which can serve as a reference standard to validate gestational age estimates based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. In a cohort of 17,398 pregnancies conceived by fertility procedures in MarketScan (2011-2020), we estimated gestational age at the end of pregnancy using algorithms based on (1) days since fertility procedure (the reference); (2) ICD-9/ICD-10 (before/after October 2015) codes indicating gestational length recorded at the end of pregnancy (method A); and (3) ICD-10 enhanced with Z3A codes denoting specific gestation weeks recorded at prenatal visits (method B). We calculated the proportion of pregnancies with an estimated gestational age within 14 days of the reference. Method A accuracy was similar for ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. After 2015, method B was more accurate than method A: For term births, within-14-day-agreements were 90.8% for method A and 98.7% for method B. Corresponding estimates were 70.1% and 95.6% for preterm births; 35.3% and 92.6% for stillbirths; 54.3% and 64.2% for spontaneous abortions; and 16.7% and 84.6% for elective terminations. ICD-10-based algorithms that incorporate Z3A codes improve the accuracy of gestational age estimation in healthcare databases, especially for preterm and non-live births.

The association of short-term increases in ambient PM2.5 and temperature exposures with stillbirth: racial/ethnic disparities among Medicaid recipients.

Racial/ethnic disparities in the association between short-term (e.g. days, weeks) ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and temperature exposures and stillbirth in the US have been understudied. A time-stratified, case-crossover design using a distributed lag non-linear model (0 to 6-day lag) estimated stillbirth odds due to short-term increases in average daily PM2.5 and temperature exposures among 118,632 Medicaid recipients from 2000-2014. Disparities by maternal race/ethnicity (Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) and zip-code level socioeconomic status (SES) were assessed. In the temperature-adjusted model, a 10 µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentration was marginally associated with increased stillbirth odds at lag 1 (0.68% 95%CI:[-0.04,1.40]) and lag 2 (0.52% 95%CI:[-0.03,1.06]), but not lag 0-6 (2.80% 95%CI:[-0.81,6.45]). An association between daily PM2.5 concentrations and stillbirth odds was found among Black individuals at the cumulative lag (0-6 days: 9.26% 95%CI:[3.12,15.77]), but not among other races/ethnicities. A stronger association between PM2.5 concentrations and stillbirth odds existed among Black individuals living in zip codes with the lowest median household income (lag0-6:14.13% 95%CI:[4.64,25.79]). Short-term temperature increases were not associated with stillbirth risk among any race/ethnicity. Black Medicaid enrollees, and especially those living in lower SES areas, may be more vulnerable to stillbirth due to short-term increases in PM2.5 exposure.

Short-Term Increases in NO2 and O3 Concentrations during Pregnancy and Stillbirth Risk in the U.S.: A Time-Stratified Case-Crossover Study.

Associations between gaseous pollutant exposure and stillbirth have focused on exposures averaged over trimesters or gestation. We investigated the association between short-term increases in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ozone (O3) concentrations and stillbirth risk among a national sample of 116 788 Medicaid enrollees from 2000 to 2014. A time-stratified case-crossover design was used to estimate distributed (lag 0-lag 6) and cumulative lag effects, which were adjusted for PM2.5 concentration and temperature. Effect modification by race/ethnicity and proximity to hydraulic fracturing (fracking) wells was assessed. Short-term increases in the NO2 and O3 concentrations were not associated with stillbirth in the overall sample. Among American Indian individuals (n = 1694), a 10 ppb increase in NO2 concentrations was associated with increased stillbirth odds at lag 0 (5.66%, 95%CI: [0.57%, 11.01%], p = 0.03) and lag 1 (4.08%, 95%CI: [0.22%, 8.09%], p = 0.04) but not lag 0-6 (7.12%, 95%CI: [-9.83%, 27.27%], p = 0.43). Among participants living in zip codes within 15 km of active fracking wells (n = 9486), a 10 ppb increase in NO2 concentration was associated with increased stillbirth odds in single-day lags (2.42%, 95%CI: [0.37%, 4.52%], p = 0.02 for lag 0 and 1.83%, 95%CI: [0.25%, 3.43%], p = 0.03 for lag 1) but not the cumulative lag (lag 0-6) (4.62%, 95%CI: [-2.75%, 12.55%], p = 0.22). Odds ratios were close to the null in zip codes distant from fracking wells. Future studies should investigate the role of air pollutants emitted from fracking and potential racial disparities in the relationship between short-term increases in NO2 concentrations and stillbirth.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Seizure Prophylaxis Among Adults After Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Older adults occasionally receive seizure prophylaxis in an acute ischemic stroke (AIS) setting, despite safety concerns. There are no trial data available about the net impact of early seizure prophylaxis on post-AIS survival. METHODS: Using a stroke registry (American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines) individually linked to electronic health records, we examined the effect of initiating seizure prophylaxis (ie, epilepsy-specific antiseizure drugs) within 7 days of an AIS admission versus not initiating in patients ≥65 years admitted for a new, nonsevere AIS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Severity score ≤20) between 2014 and 2021 with no recorded use of epilepsy-specific antiseizure drugs in the previous 3 months. We addressed confounding by using inverse-probability weights. We performed standardization accounting for pertinent clinical and health care factors (eg, National Institutes of Health Stroke Severity scale, prescription counts, seizure-like events). RESULTS: The study sample included 151 patients who received antiseizure drugs and 3020 who did not. The crude 30-day mortality risks were 219 deaths per 1000 patients among epilepsy-specific antiseizure drugs initiators and 120 deaths per 1000 among noninitiators. After standardization, the estimated mortality was 251 (95% CI, 190-307) deaths per 1000 among initiators and 120 (95% CI, 86-144) deaths per 1000 among noninitiators, corresponding to a risk difference of 131 (95% CI, 65-200) excess deaths per 1000 patients. In the prespecified subgroup analyses, the risk difference was 52 (95% CI, 11-72) among patients with minor AIS and 138 (95% CI, 52-222) among moderate-to-severe AIS patients. Similarly, the risk differences were 86 (95% CI, 18-118) and 157 (95% CI, 57-219) among patients aged 65 to 74 years and ≥75 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was a higher risk of 30-day mortality associated with initiating versus not initiating seizure prophylaxis within 7 days post-AIS. This study does not support the role of seizure prophylaxis in reducing 30-day poststroke mortality.

Overweight or obesity in children born after assisted reproductive technologies in Denmark: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The association between assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) and the body mass index (BMI) of children remains controversial. Confounding by morbidity and other factors associated with parental infertility may have biased studies comparing children born after ART with children born after no treatment. We investigated the associations between different fertility treatments and BMI in children at age 5 to 8 years, adjusting for and stratifying by causes of parental infertility. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This Danish cohort study included 327,301 children born between 2007 and 2012 (51% males, median age at follow-up 7 years). Of these, 13,675 were born after ART, 7,728 were born after ovulation induction with or without intrauterine insemination [OI/IUI], and 305,898 were born after no fertility treatments. Using the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF) standards, we defined overweight (BMI ≥ IOTF-25) and obesity (BMI ≥ IOTF-30). We compared children born after ART versus OI/IUI; intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) versus conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF); and frozen-thawed versus fresh embryo transfer and estimated crude and adjusted prevalences of children with overweight or obesity at age 5 to 8 years, prevalence odds ratios (PORs), and differences in mean BMI z-scores. Adjustment was performed using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights, including parity, year of conception, parental causes of infertility, age, educational level, comorbidities, maternal country of origin, BMI, and smoking as covariates. The crude prevalence of obesity was 1.9% in children born after ART, 2.0% in those born after OI/IUI, and 2.7% in those born after no fertility treatment. After adjustment, children born after ART and OI/IUI had the same prevalence of being overweight (11%; POR 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91 to 1.11; p = 0.95) or obese (1.9%; POR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.29; p = 0.94). Comparison of ICSI with conventional IVF yielded similar pattern (POR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; p = 0.39 for overweight and POR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.61; p = 0.36 for obesity). Obesity was more prevalent after frozen-thawed (2.7%) than fresh embryo transfer (1.8%) (POR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.17; p = 0.01). The associations between fertility treatments and BMI were only modestly different in subgroups defined by the cause of infertility. Study limitations include potential residual confounding, restriction to live births, and lack of detailed technical information about the IVF procedures. CONCLUSIONS: We found no association with BMI at age 5 to 8 years when comparing ART versus OI/IUI or when comparing ICSI versus conventional IVF. However, use of frozen-thawed embryo transfer was associated with a 1.5-fold increased risk of obesity compared to fresh embryo transfer. Despite an elevated relative risk, the absolute risk difference was low.

Emulating a Target Trial of Interventions Initiated During Pregnancy with Healthcare Databases: The Example of COVID-19 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are often the only option to estimate effects of interventions during pregnancy. Causal inference from observational data can be conceptualized as an attempt to emulate a hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial: the target trial. OBJECTIVE: To provide a step-by-step description of how to use healthcare databases to estimate the effects of interventions initiated during pregnancy. As an example, we describe how to specify and emulate a target trial of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, but the framework can be generally applied to point and sustained strategies involving both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. METHODS: First, we specify the protocol of a target trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of vaccination during pregnancy. Second, we describe how to use observational data to emulate each component of the protocol of the target trial. We propose different target trials for different gestational periods because the outcomes of interest vary by gestational age at exposure. We identify challenges that affect (i) the target trial and thus its observational emulation (censoring and competing events), and (ii) mostly the observational emulation (confounding, immortal time, and measurement biases). CONCLUSION: Some biases may be unavoidable in observational emulations, but others are avoidable. For instance, immortal time bias can be avoided by aligning the start of follow-up with the gestational age at the time of the intervention, as we would do in the target trial. Explicitly emulating target trials at different gestational ages can help reduce bias and improve the interpretability of effect estimates for interventions during pregnancy.

Emulating Target Trials to Avoid Immortal Time Bias - An Application to Antibiotic Initiation and Preterm Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials in pregnancy are extremely challenging, and observational studies are often the only option to evaluate medication safety during pregnancy. However, such studies are often susceptible to immortal time bias if treatment initiation occurs after time zero of follow-up. We describe how emulating a sequence of target trials avoids immortal time bias and apply the approach to estimate the safety of antibiotic initiation between 24 and 37 weeks gestation on preterm delivery. METHODS: The Tsepamo Study captured birth outcomes at hospitals throughout Botswana from 2014 to 2021. We emulated 13 sequential target trials of antibiotic initiation versus no initiation among individuals presenting to care <24 weeks, one for each week from 24 to 37 weeks. For each trial, eligible individuals had not previously initiated antibiotics. We also conducted an analysis susceptible to immortal time bias by defining time zero as 24 weeks and exposure as antibiotic initiation between 24 and 37 weeks. We calculated adjusted risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for preterm delivery. RESULTS: Of 111,403 eligible individuals, 17,009 (15.3%) initiated antibiotics between 24 and 37 weeks. In the sequence of target trials, RRs (95% CIs) ranged from 1.04 (0.90, 1.19) to 1.24 (1.11, 1.39) (pooled RR: 1.11 [1.06, 1.15]). In the analysis susceptible to immortal time bias, the RR was 0.90 (0.86, 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Defining exposure as antibiotic initiation at any time during follow-up after time zero resulted in substantial immortal time bias, making antibiotics appear protective against preterm delivery. Conducting a sequence of target trials can avoid immortal time bias in pregnancy studies.

Development and Validation of Algorithms to Estimate Live Birth Gestational Age in Medicaid Analytic eXtract Data.

BACKGROUND: While healthcare utilization data are useful for postmarketing surveillance of drug safety in pregnancy, the start of pregnancy and gestational age at birth are often incompletely recorded or missing. Our objective was to develop and validate a claims-based live birth gestational age algorithm. METHODS: Using the Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) linked to birth certificates in three states, we developed four candidate algorithms based on: preterm codes; preterm or postterm codes; timing of prenatal care; and prediction models - using conventional regression and machine-learning approaches with a broad range of prespecified and empirically selected predictors. We assessed algorithm performance based on mean squared error (MSE) and proportion of pregnancies with estimated gestational age within 1 and 2 weeks of the gold standard, defined as the clinical or obstetric estimate of gestation on the birth certificate. We validated the best-performing algorithms against medical records in a nationwide sample. We quantified misclassification of select drug exposure scenarios due to estimated gestational age as positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Among 114,117 eligible pregnancies, the random forest model with all predictors emerged as the best performing algorithm: MSE 1.5; 84.8% within 1 week and 96.3% within 2 weeks, with similar performance in the nationwide validation cohort. For all exposure scenarios, PPVs were >93.8%, sensitivities >94.3%, and specificities >99.4%. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a highly accurate algorithm for estimating gestational age among live births in the nationwide MAX data, further supporting the value of these data for drug safety surveillance in pregnancy. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B989 .

A prospective cohort study of preconception COVID-19 vaccination and miscarriage.

STUDY QUESTION: To what extent is preconception maternal or paternal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination associated with miscarriage incidence? SUMMARY ANSWER: COVID-19 vaccination in either partner at any time before conception is not associated with an increased rate of miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several observational studies have evaluated the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and found no association with miscarriage, though no study prospectively evaluated the risk of early miscarriage (gestational weeks [GW] <8) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, no study has evaluated the role of preconception vaccination in both male and female partners. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An Internet-based, prospective preconception cohort study of couples residing in the USA and Canada. We analyzed data from 1815 female participants who conceived during December 2020-November 2022, including 1570 couples with data on male partner vaccination. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible female participants were aged 21-45 years and were trying to conceive without use of fertility treatment at enrollment. Female participants completed questionnaires at baseline, every 8 weeks until pregnancy, and during early and late pregnancy; they could also invite their male partners to complete a baseline questionnaire. We collected data on COVID-19 vaccination (brand and date of doses), history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (yes/no and date of positive test), potential confounders (demographic, reproductive, and lifestyle characteristics), and pregnancy status on all questionnaires. Vaccination status was categorized as never (0 doses before conception), ever (≥1 dose before conception), having a full primary sequence before conception, and completing the full primary sequence ≤3 months before conception. These categories were not mutually exclusive. Participants were followed up from their first positive pregnancy test until miscarriage or a censoring event (induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, loss to follow-up, 20 weeks' gestation), whichever occurred first. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for miscarriage and corresponding 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models with GW as the time scale. We used propensity score fine stratification weights to adjust for confounding. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Among 1815 eligible female participants, 75% had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the time of conception. Almost one-quarter of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, and 75% of miscarriages occurred <8 weeks' gestation. The propensity score-weighted IRR comparing female participants who received at least one dose any time before conception versus those who had not been vaccinated was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.14). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of either early miscarriage (GW: <8) or late miscarriage (GW: 8-19). There was no indication of an increased risk of miscarriage associated with male partner vaccination (IRR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.44). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The present study relied on self-reported vaccination status and infection history. Thus, there may be some non-differential misclassification of exposure status. While misclassification of miscarriage is also possible, the preconception cohort design and high prevalence of home pregnancy testing in this cohort reduced the potential for under-ascertainment of miscarriage. As in all observational studies, residual or unmeasured confounding is possible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study to evaluate prospectively the relation between preconception COVID-19 vaccination in both partners and miscarriage, with more complete ascertainment of early miscarriages than earlier studies of vaccination. The findings are informative for individuals planning a pregnancy and their healthcare providers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Health [R01-HD086742 (PI: L.A.W.); R01-HD105863S1 (PI: L.A.W. and M.L.E.)], the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R03-AI154544; PI: A.K.R.), and the National Science Foundation (NSF-1914792; PI: L.A.W.). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. L.A.W. is a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc. She also receives in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics (Clearblue home pregnancy tests) and Kindara.com (fertility apps). M.L.E. received consulting fees from Ro, Hannah, Dadi, VSeat, and Underdog, holds stock in Ro, Hannah, Dadi, and Underdog, is a past president of SSMR, and is a board member of SMRU. K.F.H. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from UCB and Takeda, unrelated to this study. S.H.-D. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from Takeda, unrelated to this study, and a methods consultant for UCB and Roche for unrelated drugs. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Risk of Major Malformations Following First-Trimester Exposure to Olanzapine: Preliminary Data From the Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Since its US Food and Drug Administration approval in 1996, olanzapine has been one of the most commonly prescribed atypical antipsychotics, making a better understanding of its reproductive safety profile critical. The goal of the current analysis was to determine the risk of major malformations among infants exposed to olanzapine during pregnancy compared with a group of nonexposed infants. METHODS/PROCEDURES: The National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications is a prospective pharmacovigilance program in which pregnant women are enrolled and interviewed during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Labor and delivery and pediatric medical records were screened for evidence of major malformations followed by adjudication by a dysmorphologist blinded to medication exposure. Infants with first-trimester exposure to olanzapine were compared with controls without second-generation antipsychotic exposure. FINDINGS/RESULTS: As of April 18, 2022, 2619 women have enrolled in the study. At the time of data extraction, 49 olanzapine-exposed infants and 1156 infants in the comparison group were eligible for these analyses. There were no major malformations associated with olanzapine exposure in the first trimester. The absolute risk for major malformations in the exposure group was 0.00% (95% confidence interval, 0.00-7.25) for olanzapine compared with 1.64% (95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.55) in the control group. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort, no major malformations were associated with olanzapine exposure during the first trimester. Although these data are preliminary and cannot rule out more modest effects, they are nonetheless important, adding to the growing reproductive safety data for olanzapine.

Prescription medication use during pregnancy in the United States from 2011 to 2020: trends and safety evidence.

BACKGROUND: Medication use during pregnancy has increased in the United States despite the lack of safety data for many medications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform research priorities by examining trends in medication use during pregnancy and identifying gaps in safety information on the most commonly prescribed medications. STUDY DESIGN: We identified population-based cohorts of commercially (MarketScan 2011-2020) and publicly (Medicaid Analytic eXtract/Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files 2011-2018) insured pregnancies ending in live birth from 2 health care utilization databases. Medication use was based on filled prescriptions between the date of last menstrual period through delivery, as well as the period before the last menstrual period and during specific trimesters. We also included a cross-sectional representative sample of pregnancies ascertained by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011-2020), with information on prescription medication use during the preceding month obtained through maternal interviews. Teratogen Information System was used to classify the available evidence on teratogenic risk. RESULTS: Among over 3 million pregnancies, the medications most commonly dispensed at any time during pregnancy were analgesics, antibiotics, and antiemetics. The top medications were ondansetron (16.8%), amoxicillin (13.5%), and azithromycin (12.4%) in MarketScan, nitrofurantoin (22.2%), acetaminophen (21.3%; mostly as part of acetaminophen-hydrocodone products), and ondansetron (19.5%) in Medicaid Analytic eXtract/Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files, and levothyroxine (5.0%), sertraline (2.9%), and insulin (2.9%) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey group. The most commonly dispensed suspected teratogens during the first trimester were antithyroid medications. The use of antidiabetic and psychotropic medications has continued to increase in the United States during the last decade, opioid dispensation has decreased by half, and antibiotics and antiemetics continue to be common. For one-quarter of medications, there is insufficient evidence available to characterize their safety profile in pregnancy. CONCLUSION: There is a need for more drug research in pregnant patients. Future research should focus on anti-infectives with high utilization and limited level of evidence on safety for use during pregnancy. Although lack of evidence is not evidence of safety concerns, it does not indicate risk either. In many instances, the benefits outweigh the risks when these medications are used clinically, and some of the medications with no proven safety may be necessary to treat patients.

mRNA COVID-19 vaccination early in pregnancy and the risk of spontaneous abortion in an international pregnancy registry.

PURPOSE: mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are used in pregnant populations whether advertently or inadvertently. However, evidence on the safety of these vaccines during pregnancy is limited. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccination during the first 20 weeks of gestation on the risk of spontaneous abortion (SAB). METHODS: All pregnant women who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and enrolled in the COVID-19 Vaccines International Pregnancy Exposure Registry (C-VIPER) were prospectively followed from enrollment until 20 weeks of gestation, SAB, or loss to follow-up. Baseline demographics, vaccination information, and pregnancy outcomes were collected via monthly online self-administered questionnaires, vaccination certificates, and medical records. Life tables were used to calculate the cumulative risk of SAB. Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) comparing the two vaccines groups stratified by country of residence and gestational age at enrollment. RESULTS: Among 6840 participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 at any time in pregnancy between Jan-Sep, 2021, 2129 met the inclusion criteria (1576 received BNT162b2 and 553 mRNA-1273). The two groups were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. There were 37 SABs, with an overall 13.4% estimated cumulative risk by 20 weeks of gestation, which is similar to the expected risk in the population. The HR of SAB comparing mRNA-1273 to BNT162b2 was 1.46 (95% CI: 0.66, 3.22). CONCLUSION: The C-VIPER data show no evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of SAB.

Achieving comparability in glycemic control between antidiabetic treatment strategies in pregnancy when using real world data.

PURPOSE: Healthcare utilization databases often lack information on glycemic control, a key confounder when studying the safety of antidiabetic treatments, since patients with worse control are channeled to second-line agents, in particular insulin, versus first-line agents such as metformin. We evaluated whether adjustment for measured characteristics attains balance in glycemic control when comparing antidiabetic treatment strategies in pregnant women with pregestational type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: In a US insurance claims database, we identified 3360 women with T2DM pregnant between 2004 and 2015, of whom a subset of 996 had data on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) levels. We selected insulin only as the comparator group and used propensity score (PS)-matching on comorbidities and proxies of diabetes severity, but not on HbA1c , to adjust for confounding. We used standardized differences (st.diff) to assess balance in claims-based covariates and mean HbA1c (% ± SD) in the subset. RESULTS: There were imbalances in claims-based covariates before PS-matching, with smaller differences when both treatment strategies included insulin. After PS-matching, balance was achieved in most claims-based covariates (st.diff <0.1). Mean HbA1c was similar before and after PS-matching when both treatments included insulin (e.g., 7.1 ± 1.5 vs. 7.7 ± 1.8 and 7.1 ± 1.5 vs. 7.5 ± 1.7, respectively, for metformin + insulin vs. insulin only). Differences in mean HbA1c remained after PS-matching when non-insulin treatments were compared to treatments including insulin (e.g., 6.3 ± 1.1 vs. 7.6 ± 1.7 for metformin only vs. insulin only). CONCLUSIONS: Balance in both claims-based characteristics and glycemic control was attained after restricting the population to women with T2DM and comparing treatment strategies indicated for patients with similar diabetes severity. When comparing treatment strategies with versus without insulin, differences in glycemic control persisted after PS-matching even when balance was attained for other measured characteristics.

Validation of claims-based algorithms to identify non-live birth outcomes.

PURPOSE: Perinatal epidemiology studies using healthcare utilization databases are often restricted to live births, largely due to the lack of established algorithms to identify non-live births. The study objective was to develop and validate claims-based algorithms for the ascertainment of non-live births. METHODS: Using the Mass General Brigham Research Patient Data Registry 2000-2014, we assembled a cohort of women enrolled in Medicaid with a non-live birth. Based on ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient diagnosis/procedure codes, we identified and randomly sampled 100 potential stillbirth, spontaneous abortion, and termination cases each. For the secondary definitions, we excluded cases with codes for other pregnancy outcomes within ±5 days of the outcome of interest and relaxed the definitions for spontaneous abortion and termination by allowing cases with one outpatient diagnosis only. Cases were adjudicated based on medical chart review. We estimated the positive predictive value (PPV) for each outcome. RESULTS: The PPV was 71.0% (95% CI, 61.1-79.6) for stillbirth; 79.0% (69.7-86.5) for spontaneous abortion, and 93.0% (86.1-97.1) for termination. When excluding cases with adjacent codes for other pregnancy outcomes and further relaxing the definition, the PPV increased to 80.6% (69.5-88.9) for stillbirth, 86.6% (80.5-91.3) for spontaneous abortion and 94.9% (91.1-97.4) for termination. The PPV for the composite outcome using the relaxed definition was 94.4% (92.3-96.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest non-live birth outcomes can be identified in a valid manner in epidemiological studies based on healthcare utilization databases.

Ischemic Placental Disease, Preterm Delivery, and Their Association With Opioid Use During Pregnancy.

Opioids affect placental development and function in animal models, but human data on their association with ischemic placental disease are limited. Using a cohort of pregnant women in the US nationwide Medicaid Analytic eXtract (2000-2014), we compared women with ≥2 opioid dispensings in pregnancy with unexposed women. Given an uncertain etiologically relevant window, we assessed exposure occurring in early pregnancy, late and not early pregnancy, and both early and late pregnancy. For placental abruption, preterm delivery, small for gestational age (SGA), and preeclampsia, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for demographic factors, indications/comorbidities, and medications. Among 1,833,871 eligible pregnancies, ≥2 opioid dispensings were filled in 6.5%. We observed an early exposure aHR of 1.34 (95% CI: 1.26, 1.43) for placental abruption, 1.21 (95% CI: 1.18, 1.23) for preterm delivery, 1.13 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.17) for SGA, and 0.95 (0.91, 0.98) for preeclampsia. Estimates for late exposure were attenuated. Early and late exposure was associated with higher aHRs for placental abruption, 1.62 (95% CI: 1.47, 1.78); preterm delivery, 1.37 (95% CI: 1.33, 1.42); and SGA, 1.26 (95% CI: 1.19, 1.33); but not preeclampsia, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.05). Prescription opioids may modestly increase risk of placental abruption, preterm birth and SGA, but they do not appear to be associated with preeclampsia.

International Registry of Coronavirus Exposure in Pregnancy (IRCEP): Cohort Description and Methodological Considerations.

Limited data are available about the potential health effects of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on pregnant women and their developing offspring. We established the International Registry of Coronavirus Exposure in Pregnancy (IRCEP) to provide data on the risk of major adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes among women with varying degrees of severity and timing of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during pregnancy. We describe here the cohort and share the lessons learned. The IRCEP enrolls women tested for SARS-CoV-2 or with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 during pregnancy and obtains information using an online data collection system. By March 2021, 17,532 participants from 77 countries had enrolled; 54% enrolled during pregnancy and 46% afterward. Among women with symptomatic COVID-19 with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (n = 4,934), symptoms were mild in 41%, moderate in 52%, and severe in 7%; 7.7% were hospitalized for COVID-19 and 1.7% were admitted to an intensive care unit. The biggest challenges were retention of participants enrolled during pregnancy and the potential bias introduced when participants enroll after pregnancy outcomes are known. Multiple biases need to be considered and addressed when estimating and interpreting the effects of COVID-19 in pregnancy in these types of cohorts.