Frequency and type of medications and vaccines used during pregnancy.

Providing safe pharmacotherapy for pregnant women is challenging. Nearly all pregnant women are prescribed or inadvertently receive medication during their pregnancy. We reviewed the scientific literature to identify the specific medications and vaccines that are most often used during pregnancy and described them by category and indication. Our interest was to update the research before the implementation of the recently released FDA labeling rule for pregnancy and lactation that eliminates the use of pregnancy categories in product labels. Our results confirm that most products taken during pregnancy are over-the-counter or in the former FDA pregnancy categories A or B. However, medications taken prior to pregnancy recognition (inadvertent exposures) and those prescribed for chronic illness such as allergies, depression, and pain are of concern. A better understanding of medication and vaccine utilization during pregnancy may help clinicians reduce inadvertent first trimester exposures and improve the safe and effective treatment of pregnant women.

Exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: The lack of human data available to inform evidence-based treatment for illness during pregnancy has led to calls for greater inclusion of pregnant women in research, but the extent of their current representation is poorly characterized. Our objective was to measure the current exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials as a baseline for future comparison. METHODS: We compiled data from studies enrolling women of childbearing potential posted on www.ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 October 2011 and 31 January 2012. The review was limited to open United States-based phase IV interventional studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry evaluating treatment of conditions that may be experienced by but are not limited to pregnant women and did not involve a medication classified as potentially teratogenic. If there was no mention of pregnancy in the inclusion or exclusion criteria, we contacted a study representative to confirm that pregnant women could be enrolled. RESULTS: Of 558 qualifying industry-sponsored studies, five (1%) were designed specifically for pregnant women. Of 367 phase IV clinical trials with verified inclusion and exclusion criteria, 348 (95%) excluded pregnant women and 19 (5%) did not. CONCLUSION: We found the exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials to be common practice. Moving beyond reflexive exclusion and developing thoughtful criteria for inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research would likely advance the evidence base to inform treatment decisions during pregnancy and lead to better health outcomes for women and children.

Pharmacotherapy and pregnancy: highlights from the Third International Conference for Individualized Pharmacotherapy in Pregnancy.

To address provider struggles to provide evidence-based, rational drug therapy to pregnant women, this third Conference was convened to highlight the current progress and research in the field. Speakers from academic centers, industry, and governmental institutions spoke about: the Food and Drug Administration's role in pregnancy pharmacology and the new labeling initiative; drug registries in pregnancy; the pharmacist's role in medication use in pregnancy; therapeutic areas such as preterm labor, gestational diabetes, nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, and hypertension; breast-feeding and medications; ethical challenges for consent in pregnancy drug studies; the potential for cord blood banks; and concerns about the fetus when studying drugs in pregnancy. The Conference highlighted several areas of collaboration within the current Obstetrics Pharmacology Research Units Network and hoped to educate providers, researchers, and agencies with the common goal to improve the ability to safely and effectively use individualized pharmacotherapy in pregnancy.

Pregnancy outcomes from the pregnancy registry of a human papillomavirus type 6/11/16/18 vaccine.

OBJECTIVE: To better describe the safety profile of pregnancy exposures to the human papillomavirus (HPV) type 6/11/16/18 vaccine by acquiring and analyzing postmarketing data on pregnancy outcomes (ie, live births, abortions, fetal deaths, and congenital anomalies). METHODS: Enrollment criteria included an identifiable patient and health care provider from the United States, France, or Canada and exposure within 1 month before the date of onset of the last menstrual period or at any time during pregnancy. Outcomes of interest were pregnancy outcomes and birth defects. Prospectively reported cases (reported before the outcome of the pregnancy was known) were used for rate calculations. RESULTS: For the 517 prospective reports with known outcome, 451 (87.2%) were live births, including three sets of twins. Of 454 neonates, 439 (96.7%) were normal. The overall rate of spontaneous abortion was 6.9 per 100 outcomes (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8-9.6). The prevalence of major birth defects was 2.2 per 100 liveborn neonates (95% CI 1.05-4.05). There were seven fetal deaths (1.5 per 100 outcomes, 95% CI 0.60-3.09). CONCLUSION: Rates of spontaneous abortions and major birth defects were not greater than the unexposed population rates. Although no adverse signals have been identified to date, the HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Varicella vaccine exposure during pregnancy: data from 10 Years of the pregnancy registry.

BACKGROUND: The Pregnancy Registry for Varivax (Merck) was established to monitor for congenital varicella syndrome or other birth defects in the offspring of women who were exposed to varicella vaccine while pregnant. METHODS: The registry receives voluntary reports from health care providers or consumers about women given the vaccine 3 months before or during pregnancy. Follow-up is conducted to obtain and classify pregnancy outcomes. All reports are evaluated for the presence of birth defects. Outcomes from prospectively reported pregnancy exposures are used to calculate rates and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: From 17 March 1995 through 16 March 2005, 981 women were enrolled. Pregnancy outcomes were available for 629 prospectively enrolled women. Among the 131 live births to varicella-zoster virus-seronegative women, there was no evidence of congenital varicella syndrome (rate, 0% [95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-6.7%]), and major birth defects were observed in 3 infants (rate, 3.7% [95% CI, 0.8%-10.7%]). CONCLUSIONS: Although the numbers of exposures are not sufficient to rule out a very low risk, data collected in the pregnancy registry to date do not support a relationship between the occurrence of congenital varicella syndrome or other birth defects and varicella vaccine exposure during pregnancy.

The antiretrovirals in pregnancy registry: a fifteenth anniversary celebration.

UNLABELLED: The year 2007 marks the fifteenth anniversary year of the founding of a landmark effort in drug safety risk management, the formation of the first monitoring effort of an antiretroviral (ARV) drug in pregnancy which has become the Antiretrovirals in Pregnancy Registry, the APR. This multicompany, multi-national voluntary collaborative registry monitors pregnancy exposure to a class of highly important drugs for any indication of an increase in the postexposure incidence of birth defects in the offspring of these pregnancies. To recognize the anniversary, the Steering Committee of the APR has commissioned this review of the contributions and lessons learned over the past decade and a half and, in the spirit of continuous process improvement, has committed to apply these lessons for the next fifteen years. This retrospective examines the antecedents to this registry and the context in which the APR was formed; the early efforts to establish technical and organizational procedures and policies; the evolving experiences with enrollment and follow-up, patient and participant protections, information management and oversight; public and regulatory dissemination; and of course, the accomplishments and lessons learned. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completion of this article, the reader should be able to explain the value of a drug registry in determining safety risk management; summarize that the Antiretroviral (ARV) drugs in Pregnancy Registry (APR) is a very successful multinational, multicompany collaborative effort that has been in place for 15 years; and state that it has been an ideal public interest effort dealing with the devastating pandemic of human immunodeficiency viral disease.

Pregnancy outcomes after maternal exposure to simvastatin and lovastatin.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the frequency of adverse outcomes after maternal exposure to simvastatin and/or lovastatin during pregnancy in postmarketing experience. METHODS: We reviewed the Merck & Co., Inc. (West Point, PA) pharmacovigilance database for reports of exposure to simvastatin or lovastatin during pregnancy. The reports were classified as prospective (reported prior to pregnancy outcome) or retrospective (reported after pregnancy outcome) and were evaluated for timing of exposure, outcome, congenital anomalies, and other events. Outcome rates were calculated for prospective pregnancies. RESULTS: We identified 477 reports (386 prospective and 91 retrospective) with 225 prospective outcomes reported: 154 live born infants, 49 elective abortions, 18 spontaneous abortions, and 4 fetal deaths. Six congenital anomalies were reported: chromosomal translocation, trisomy 18, hypospadias, duodenal atresia, cleft lip, and skin tag. The rate of congenital anomalies (congenital anomalies/live births plus fetal deaths) was 3.8%, which is similar to the background population rate (3.2%; relative ratio, 1.21; 95% 1-sided upper confidence interval [CI], 2.02). There were 13 retrospective reports describing a range of congenital anomalies. No specific pattern of anomalies was identified in either the prospective or retrospective reports. Rates for other outcomes were similar to background rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of reports was relatively small, there was no evidence of a notable increase in congenital anomalies in women exposed to simvastatin or lovastatin versus the general population. Greater reporting of congenital abnormalities in the retrospective cohort is not unexpected and may reflect a reporting bias. Drugs should be used during pregnancy only if the benefits outweigh the risks. Simvastatin and lovastatin remain contraindicated during pregnancy.

Monitoring outcomes of pregnancy following drug exposure: a company-based pregnancy registry program.

Women who discover they are pregnant after exposure to a drug and pregnant women who have a condition that requires continued treatment during pregnancy are told to balance the benefits and risks of the exposure to justify continuation of treatment, discontinuation of treatment or, possibly, pregnancy termination. However, there are limited data available to inform decision-making. The Merck Pregnancy Registry Program is a company-run pregnancy registry whose objective is to acquire and analyse information on drug exposures and pregnancy outcomes to better describe the safety profile of Merck products used during pregnancy. Information is collected from women and healthcare providers who call to report drug exposure during pregnancy. Prospective pregnancies are followed up to outcome and data are collected via questionnaires, telephone calls and a review of medical records. Reports are classified as prospective (information received prior to knowledge of pregnancy outcome) or retrospective (received after the outcome is known). Congenital anomaly reports are assessed for timing of exposure, maternal age and medical history, biological plausibility and concomitant medication exposures. Rates of pregnancy outcomes and birth defects in the prospective cohort are computed and confidence intervals are calculated to reflect the strength of the finding based on the sample size. Rates of pregnancy outcomes in the Pregnancy Registry are compared with the rates of pregnancy outcomes in the general US population and, if available, in subpopulations with the relevant disease states. The limitations of post-marketing surveillance are well known as voluntary reporting of individuals and healthcare professionals is known to be subject to various types of bias. Small sample size is another major limitation. However, the strength of the registry lies in its ability to gather pregnancy outcome reports early in the life of a product and to recognise and analyse unusual birth defects. Our data suggest that pregnancy registries can be used to review human exposure data in a systematic fashion so that useful information can be shared with women and their healthcare providers. The use of the pregnancy registry design has allowed for the collection and analysis of data on the effects of drug exposures on human pregnancies that have otherwise been difficult to obtain.

Pharmacoepidemiologic implications of erroneous varicella vaccinations in pregnancy through confusion with Varicella zoster immune globulin.

A series of case reports to the varicella vaccine Pregnancy Registry described inadvertent administrations during pregnancy of this live virus product instead of the intended Varicella zoster immune globulin. Cases continued to accrue despite an early publication about the pattern. The persistent problem warrants specific educational efforts to prevent further repetitions. It also has more general implications for medical product safety surveillance. First, this problem's original detection depended on the Pregnancy Registry's open-ended collection of information about pregnancy exposures. It could have escaped recognition through surveillance limited to pre specified potential risks. This need for unrestricted reporting and human vigilance to sift through case stories has particular relevance for efforts to re-think methods to monitor gestational drug exposures. In addition, the problem's persistence despite initial publicity suggests that diligent surveillance may require continued follow-up of identified safety issues. Periodic reassessments of selected preventable problems might strengthen efforts to minimize product risks.