No increased risk of infant hypospadias after maternal use of loratadine in early pregnancy

Duloxetine Exposure During Pregnancy and the Risk of Spontaneous and Elective Abortion: A Danish Nationwide Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Depression and antidepressant treatment are widespread among women of childbearing age.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the association between duloxetine exposure during pregnancy and spontaneous and elective abortions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The nationwide, observational study based on register data from Denmark included women with a recorded pregnancy in the birth register or an abortion in the patient register between 2004 and 2016. Duloxetine-exposed women were compared with (1) duloxetine non-exposed, (2) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)-exposed, (3) venlafaxine-exposed, and (4) women discontinuing duloxetine before pregnancy. Exposure status was based on records of redeemed prescriptions. Cox regression with adjustments and propensity score matching was applied.

RESULTS

The data from 1,019,957 pregnancies were used, including 1,212 pregnancies exposed to duloxetine. Duloxetine-exposed women had an increased hazard ratio (HR) for spontaneous abortions compared with SSRI-exposed women: propensity score matched HR 1.25 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.57]. No increased hazard was observed for duloxetine-exposed women compared with duloxetine non-exposed: 1.08 (95% CI 0.89-1.31); venlafaxine-exposed: 1.08 (95% CI 0.82-1.41); and duloxetine discontinuers: 0.99 (95% CI 0.76-1.30). An increased HR of elective abortions was observed in duloxetine-exposed women compared to duloxetine non-exposed: 1.41 (95% CI 1.25-1.59); SSRI-exposed: 1.32 (95% CI 1.15-1.51); and duloxetine discontinuers: 1.46 (95% CI 1.23-1.75), but not to venlafaxine-exposed women: 1.09 (95% CI 0.93-1.27).

CONCLUSION

There was no increased risk of spontaneous or elective abortion associated with exposure to duloxetine. The increase risk observed for women exposed to duloxetine in comparison with SSRI-exposed for spontaneous and in comparison with all groups (except venlafaxine-exposed) for elective abortion suggested confounding.

Use of antihistamine medications during early pregnancy and selected birth defects: The National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997-2011

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that approximately 10-15% of pregnant women report antihistamine use during pregnancy. Although antihistamines are generally considered safe during pregnancy, results from published studies are inconsistent.

METHODS

Using a case-control study design we analyzed 41,148 pregnancies (30,091 cases and 11,057 controls) from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (1997-2011). Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for 64 birth defect groupings in relation to early pregnancy exposure to 14 distinct antihistamines. Models were adjusted for maternal age, race, parity, education level, prenatal care, folic acid use, smoking and alcohol use, and study site.

RESULTS

Approximately 13% of cases and controls were exposed to an antihistamine during early pregnancy. Analyses were restricted to those defects where more than five cases were exposed to the antihistamine of interest, generating 340 analyses which yielded 20 (5.9%) significant positive associations (adjusted ORs ranging from 1.21 to 4.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Only a few of our findings were consistent with previous studies. There is a lack of strong evidence to conclude that birth defects are associated with exposure to antihistamines during early pregnancy.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders and pregnancy: therapeutic considerations

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) are a type of neurological autoimmune disease characterized by attacks of CNS inflammation that are often severe and predominantly affect the spinal cord and optic nerve. The majority of individuals with NMOSD are women, many of whom are of childbearing age. Although NMOSD are rare, several small retrospective studies and case reports have indicated that pregnancy can worsen disease activity and might contribute to disease onset. NMOSD disease activity seems to negatively affect pregnancy outcomes. Moreover, some of the current NMOSD treatments are known to pose risks to the developing fetus and only limited safety data are available for others. Here, we review published studies regarding the relationship between pregnancy outcomes and NMOSD disease activity. We also assess the risks associated with using disease-modifying therapies for NMOSD during the course of pregnancy and breastfeeding. On the basis of the available evidence, we offer recommendations regarding the use of these therapies in the course of pregnancy planning in individuals with NMOSD.

Antihistamines and birth defects: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 10 - 15% of women reportedly take an antihistamine during pregnancy for the relief of nausea and vomiting, allergy and asthma symptoms, or indigestion. Antihistamines include histamine H1-receptor and H2-receptor antagonists.

AREAS COVERED

This is a systematic evaluation of the peer-reviewed epidemiologic literature published through February 2014 on the association between prenatal exposure to antihistamines and birth defects. Papers addressing histamine H1- or H2-receptor antagonists are included. Papers addressing pyridoxine plus doxylamine (Bendectin in the United States, Debendox in the United Kingdom, Diclectin in Canada, Lenotan and Merbental in other countries) prior to the year 2001 were excluded post hoc because of several previously published meta-analyses and commentaries on this medication.

EXPERT OPINION

The literature on the safety of antihistamine use during pregnancy with respect to birth defects is generally reassuring though the positive findings from a few large studies warrant corroboration in other populations. The findings in the literature are considered in light of three critical methodological issues: i) selection of appropriate study population; ii) ascertainment of antihistamine exposures; and iii) ascertainment of birth defect outcomes. Selected antihistamines have been very well studied (e.g., loratadine); others, especially H2-receptor antagonists, require additional study before an assessment of safety with respect to birth defect risk could be made.

Treatment of atopic dermatitis in pregnancy

Atopic dermatitis (AD), also referred to as eczema, is one of the most frequently observed skin diseases in pregnant patients. The presentation and histopathology of this condition during pregnancy is identical to that of the non-pregnant individual. AD is a T-helper 2 dominant disease and may worsen during pregnancy, which favors this population of T-lymphocytes. AD management during pregnancy requires special precautions to avoid harming the fetus. Herein is an exploration of the different options available for the treatment of the pregnant patient with AD. The management of concomitant bacterial and viral infections is also discussed.

Review of genetic and environmental factors leading to hypospadias

Hypospadias is one of the most common congenital malformations, affecting about 4-6 males per 1000 male births, and ranging in severity from a urethral meatus that is slightly off-center to a meatus in the perineal area. Over the past three decades its prevalence may have increased due to changes in reporting of mild cases and/or increased survival of low birth weight infants due to improved neonatal care. However, despite the increasing numbers of males with hypospadias, the overall etiology remains unclear and likely multifactorial in nature. The purpose of this review article is to provide a comprehensive overview of the various factors implicated in hypospadias etiology, including genetic and environmental factors. In addition, we list syndromes in which hypospadias is a relatively common association and delineate the areas that require further investigation in an effort to understand this condition.

Assessment of antihistamine use in early pregnancy and birth defects

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported an association between use of specific antihistamines in early pregnancy and certain specific birth defects.

OBJECTIVE

To test 16 previously hypothesized associations between specific antihistamines and specific birth defects, and to identify possible new associations.

METHODS

We used 1998-2010 data from the Slone Epidemiology Center Birth Defects Study, a multicenter case-control surveillance program of birth defects in North America. Mothers were interviewed within 6 months of delivery about demographic, reproductive, medical, and behavioral factors, and details on the use of prescription and nonprescription medications. We compared first trimester exposure to specific antihistamines between 13,213 infants with specific malformations and 6982 nonmalformed controls by using conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with adjustment for potential confounders, including indication for use.

RESULTS

Overall, 13.7% of controls were exposed to antihistamines during the first trimester. The most commonly used medications were diphenhydramine (4.2%), loratadine (3.1%), doxylamine (1.9%), and chlorpheniramine (1.7%). When estimates were stable, none supported the previously hypothesized associations. Among more than 100 exploratory comparisons of other specific antihistamine-defect pairs, 14 had odds ratios ≥1.5, of which 6 had 95% CI bounds excluding 1.0 before but not after adjustment for multiple comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Our findings do not provide meaningful support for previously posited associations between antihistamines and major congenital anomalies; at the same time, we identified associations that had not been previously suggested. We suspect that previous associations may be chance findings in the context of multiple comparisons, a situation that may also apply to our new findings.

Environmental and genetic contributors to hypospadias: a review of the epidemiologic evidence

This review evaluates current knowledge related to trends in the prevalence of hypospadias, the association of hypospadias with endocrine-disrupting exposures, and the potential contribution of genetic susceptibility to its etiology. The review focuses on epidemiologic evidence. Increasing prevalence of hypospadias has been observed, but such increases tend to be localized to specific regions or time periods. Thus, generalized statements that hypospadias is increasing are unsupported. Owing to the limitations of study designs and inconsistent results, firm conclusions cannot be made regarding the association of endocrine-disrupting exposures with hypospadias. Studies with more rigorous study designs (e.g., larger and more detailed phenotypes) and exposure assessment that encompasses more breadth and depth (e.g., specific endocrine-related chemicals) will be critical to make better inferences about these important environmental exposures. Many candidate genes for hypospadias have been identified, but few of them have been examined to an extent that enables solid conclusions. Further study is needed that includes larger sample sizes, comparison groups that are more representative of the populations from which the cases were derived, phenotype-specific analyses, and more extensive exploration of variants. In conclusion, examining the associations of environmental and genetic factors with hypospadias remain important areas of inquiry, although our actual understanding of their contribution to hypospadias risk in humans is currently limited.

Aetiology of hypospadias: a systematic review of genes and environment

BACKGROUND

Hypospadias is a common congenital malformation of the male external genitalia. Most cases have an unknown aetiology, which is probably a mix of monogenic and multifactorial forms, implicating both genes and environmental factors. This review summarizes current knowledge about the aetiology of hypospadias.

METHODS

Pubmed was used to identify studies on hypospadias aetiology published between January 1995 and February 2011. Reference lists of the selected manuscripts were also searched to identify additional studies, including those published before 1995.

RESULTS

The search provided 922 articles and 169 articles were selected for this review. Studies screening groups of patients with hypospadias for single gene defects found mutations in WT1, SF1, BMP4, BMP7, HOXA4, HOXB6, FGF8, FGFR2, AR, HSD3B2, SRD5A2, ATF3, MAMLD1, MID1 and BNC2. However, most investigators are convinced that single mutations do not cause the majority of isolated hypospadias cases. Indeed, associations were found with polymorphisms in FGF8, FGFR2, AR, HSD17B3, SRD5A2, ESR1, ESR2, ATF3, MAMLD1, DGKK, MID1, CYP1A1, GSTM1 and GSTT1. In addition, gene expression studies indentified CTGF, CYR61 and EGF as candidate genes. Environmental factors consistently implicated in hypospadias are low birthweight, maternal hypertension and pre-eclampsia, suggesting that placental insufficiency may play an important role in hypospadias aetiology. Exogenous endocrine-disrupting chemicals have the potential to induce hypospadias but it is unclear whether human exposure is high enough to exert this effect. Other environmental factors have also been associated with hypospadias but, for most, the results are inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a number of contributors to the aetiology of hypospadias have been identified, the majority of risk factors remain unknown.

Fluoxetine and infantile hypertrophic pylorus stenosis: a signal from a birth defects-drug exposure surveillance study

PURPOSE

We report an association found in a surveillance study which systematically evaluated combinations of specific birth defects and drugs used in the first trimester of pregnancy.

METHOD

The database of a population-based birth defects registry (birth years 1997-2007) was systematically screened for combinations of drugs and malformations that were disproportionately present compared to the rest of the database. Combinations with at least three exposed cases and a p < 0.01 (Fisher Exact test) were studied to analyse details of the malformation, timing of exposure, and additional case-control analyses.

RESULTS

Among the significant associations found, an association between maternal use of fluoxetine and infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS) was of particular interest. In total 3/178 (1.7%) of the children with a HPS were exposed to fluoxetine in the first trimester compared to 8/4077 (0.2%) fluoxetine exposures among the children with other malformations (p = 0.009, OR = 8.7, 95%CI = 2.3-33.2). The three exposed cases were all isolated and fluoxetine was used in gestational weeks 4-8, 2-8 and -10-19, respectively. In additional case-control analyses, using controls with a genetic disorder and after adjustment for maternal age and smoking in the first trimester of pregnancy, the adjusted odds ratio was 9.8 (95% confidence interval: 1.5-62.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Because we cannot rule out the possibility that the association between IHPS and fluoxetine is caused by chance, we encourage other investigators to study the association between IHPS and fluoxetine in their data.

Use of antihistamine medications during early pregnancy and isolated major malformations

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines are commonly used during pregnancy. There is little evidence that they have teratogenic effects, but there are knowledge gaps with respect to newer products, as well as the relationship between specific antihistamines and specific birth defects.

METHODS

Using the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (1997-2003), the authors examined associations between maternal use of 14 antihistamines during early pregnancy and 26 isolated major birth defects. A Bayesian analysis incorporating prior knowledge about the relationships between antihistamines, birth defects, and measured covariates was conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 364 associations investigated, 24 had 95% posterior intervals excluding 1.0. All 24 associations were positive; 23 associations were of weak to moderate magnitude (posterior OR < 3.0) and one was strong (OR > 6.0) but very imprecise. Of the 24 associations, 20 were with noncardiac defects. Eight associations involved the antihistamine diphenhydramine.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study generally were consistent with no association between birth defects and antihistamine use during early pregnancy. Several of the findings might warrant further investigation, although the observed elevated associations should be interpreted in the context of the number of associations investigated and the analysis of retrospective, self-reported data.

Risk of hypospadias in offspring of women using loratadine during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Loratadine, a second-generation antihistamine, is commonly used to treat seasonal allergies. Some studies have suggested that use of loratadine by pregnant women increases the risk of hypospadias in male offspring.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis was designed to assess the strength of the association between loratadine and hypospadias.

METHODS

To locate pertinent articles published in any language from January 1989 until August 2007, we searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, OVID, EMBASE, SCOPUS, TOXLINE Special, ReproTox, TERIS, CINAHL and others), conference proceedings and bibliographies. Studies were eligible for this analysis if they were cohort, case-control or case series studies that reported the incidence of hypospadias in the offspring of women who were or were not exposed to loratadine during pregnancy. Two authors independently extracted information on study design, participant characteristics, measures of outcome, control for potential confounding factors and risk estimates using a standardized data collection form. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was then used to assess the quality of each study. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to combine the risk data.

RESULTS

In 1402 potentially relevant titles, we found three case-control studies and seven cohort studies that reported the incidence of hypospadias or other congenital malformations in offspring of women who did or did not use loratadine during pregnancy. Together the studies in our meta-analysis provided information about 453 053 male births in Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Sweden, the UK and the US.Of 2694 male infants born to women using loratadine, 39 (1.4%) had hypospadias. Of 450 413 male infants born to women not using loratadine, 4231 (0.9%) had hypospadias. Women who used loratadine during pregnancy were not significantly more likely to have a son with hypospadias (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% CI 0.73, 2.23; adjusted OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.69, 2.39).

CONCLUSION

The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled observational studies indicate that the use of loratadine during pregnancy does not significantly increase the risk of hypospadias in male offspring.