Patterns of Prescription Medication Use during the First Trimester of Pregnancy in the United States, 1997-2018

The impact of pregnancy on the pharmacokinetics of antiseizure medications: A systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 674 pregnancies

OBJECTIVE

Increasing evidence suggests that the physiological changes of pregnancy may impact pharmacokinetics of antiseizure medications (ASM), and this may affect treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to quantify the pregnancy impact on the ASM pharmacokinetics.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/EMBASE in November 2022 and updated in August 2023 for studies comparing levels of ASM in the same individuals during pregnancy and in the preconception/postpartum period. Alteration ratios between the 3rd trimester and baseline were estimated. We also performed a random-effects meta-analysis calculating between-timepoint differences in mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for dose-adjusted plasma concentrations (C/D ratios). Study quality was assessed using the ClinPK guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 65 studies investigating 15 ASMs in 674 pregnancies were included. The largest differences were reported for lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine and levetiracetam (alteration ratio 0.42, range 0.07-2.45, 0.42, range 0.08-0.82 and 0.52, range 0.04-2.77 respectively): accordingly, C/D levels were lower in the 3rd trimester for lamotrigine, levetiracetam and the main oxcarbazepine metabolite monohydroxycarbazepine (MD = -12.33 × 10-3, 95%CI = -16.08 to -8.58 × 10-3 (μg/mL)/(mg/day), p < 0.001, MD = -7.16 (μg/mL)/(mg/day), 95%CI = -9.96 to -4.36, p < 0.001, and MD = -4.87 (μg/mL)/(mg/day), 95%CI = -9.39 to -0.35, p = 0.035, respectively), but not for oxcarbazepine (MD = 1.16 × 10-3 (μg/mL)/(mg/day), 95%CI = -2.55 to 0.24 × 10-3, p = 0.10). The quality of studies was acceptable with an average rating score of 11.5.

CONCLUSIONS

Data for lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine (and monohydroxycarbazepine) and levetiracetam demonstrate major changes in pharmacokinetics during pregnancy, suggesting the importance of therapeutic drug monitoring to assist clinicians in optimizing treatment outcomes.

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.

Bias analyses to investigate the impact of differential participation: Application to a birth defects case-control study

BACKGROUND

Certain associations observed in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) contrasted with other research or were from areas with mixed findings, including no decrease in odds of spina bifida with periconceptional folic acid supplementation, moderately increased cleft palate odds with ondansetron use and reduced hypospadias odds with maternal smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the plausibility and extent of differential participation to produce effect estimates observed in NBDPS.

METHODS

We searched the literature for factors related to these exposures and participation and conducted deterministic quantitative bias analyses. We estimated case-control participation and expected exposure prevalence based on internal and external reports, respectively. For the folic acid-spina bifida and ondansetron-cleft palate analyses, we hypothesized the true odds ratio (OR) based on prior studies and quantified the degree of exposure over- (or under-) representation to produce the crude OR (cOR) in NBDPS. For the smoking-hypospadias analysis, we estimated the extent of selection bias needed to nullify the association as well as the maximum potential harmful OR.

RESULTS

Under our assumptions (participation, exposure prevalence, true OR), there was overrepresentation of folic acid use and underrepresentation of ondansetron use and smoking among participants. Folic acid-exposed spina bifida cases would need to have been ≥1.2× more likely to participate than exposed controls to yield the observed null cOR. Ondansetron-exposed cleft palate cases would need to have been 1.6× more likely to participate than exposed controls if the true OR is null. Smoking-exposed hypospadias cases would need to have been ≥1.2 times less likely to participate than exposed controls for the association to falsely appear protective (upper bound of selection bias adjusted smoking-hypospadias OR = 2.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Differential participation could partly explain certain associations observed in NBDPS, but questions remain about why. Potential impacts of other systematic errors (e.g. exposure misclassification) could be informed by additional research.