Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Data Resources for Investigating Drug Exposure during Pregnancy and Associated Outcomes

The General Practice Research Database (GPRD) as an Alternative to Pregnancy Registries

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pregnancy registries are the most commonly used data resource for the post-marketing surveillance of drug teratogenicity. However, the limited sample size and potential selection bias in these registries has led us to investigate the potential of the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) as an alternative data source for monitoring drug safety during pregnancy. In addition, a literature review identified further observational data sources that monitor pregnancy outcomes for future evaluation.

Initial feasibility studies focused on the ability of the GPRD to capture pregnancy outcomes for a range of drug class exposures, all of which are currently under investigation in pregnancy registries, during pregnancy. The comparator pregnancy registries were identified via a MEDLINE search, whilst eligible pregnancies, in which women received one or more prescriptions for the drug of interest during pregnancy, were identified in the GPRD using the mother-baby link. The number of pregnancy outcomes following exposure to medication for arange of conditions with varying prevalence, including depression, migraine, epilepsy, herpes simplex and HIV, captured by the two data sources were compared. For depression, a relatively prevalent condition, the GPRD recorded the same number of mean annual intrauterine exposures to fluoxetine as the pregnancy registry (118 exposures/year). Ascertainment of intrauterine exposure to drug treatments for less prevalent conditions was found to be higher for the pregnancy registries than the GPRD; for the older antiepileptic drugs (valproate and carbamazepine), the pregnancy registry recorded between four and five times as many mean annual exposures as the GPRD. Virtually no antiretroviral exposures (three) were identified during the time period of interest on the GPRD, compared with 3946 in the Antiretroviral Pregnancy Registry.

Data from the GPRD meet established criteria for evaluating outcomes of pregnancy. For prevalent conditions, it has the potential to replace or work alongside standard pregnancy registries and the alternative data sources identified. Further studies are now needed to assess its ability to replicate known teratogenic associations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Honein MA, Paulozzi LJ, Cragan JD, et al. Evaluation of selected characteristics of pregnancy drug registries. Teratology 1999; 60(6): 356–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 30(1): 24–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Koren G, Pastuszak A, Ito S, et al. Drugs in pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1998; 338(16): 1128–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hoar R. Developmental toxicity: extrapolation across species. J Am Coll Toxicol 1995; 14: 11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hardy JR, Holford TR, Hall GC, et al. Strategies for identifying pregnancies in the automated medical records of the General Practice Research Database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13(11): 749–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Morrow J, Russell A, Guthrie E, et al. Malformation risks of antiepileptic drugs in pregnancy: a prospective study from the UK Epilepsy and Pregnancy Register. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006; 77(2): 193–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kendle International Inc. Lamotrigine pregnancy registry [online]. Available from URL: http://www.kendle.com/registries [Accessed 2007 Nov 22]

  8. Antiretroviral Pregnancy Registry Steering Committee. Antiretroviral Pregnancy Registry International Interim Report for January 1989 through 31 July 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.kendle.com/registries [Accessed 2007 Nov 22]

  9. Kendle International Inc. Sumatriptan and Naratriptan Pregnancy Registry International Interim Report. 1 January 1996 through 31 October 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.kendle.com/registries [Accessed 2007 Nov 22]

  10. Goldstein DJ, Corbin LA, Sundell KL. Effects of first-trimester fluoxetine exposure on the newborn. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89(5): 713–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Glaxo Welcome. Acyclovir Pregnancy Registry and Valacyclovir Pregnancy Registry. Final Study Report. 1 June 1984–30 April 1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://pregnancyregistry.gsk.com/acyclovir.html [Accessed 2007 Nov 22]

  12. Leen-Mitchell M, Martinez L, Gallegos S, et al. Mini-review: history of organized teratology information services in North America. Teratology 2000; 61(4): 314–7 51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schaefer C, Amoura-Elefant E, Vial T, et al. Pregnancy outcome after prenatal quinolone exposure. Evaluation of a case registry of the European Network of Teratology Information Services (ENTIS). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996; 69(2): 83–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Centre for Epidemiology. The Swedish Medical Birth Register: a summary of content and quality, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sos.se/fulltext/112/2003-112-3/2003-112-3.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jun 30]

  15. Irgens LM. The Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Epidemiological research and surveillance throughout 30 years. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79(6): 435–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hemminki E, Teperi J, Tuominen K, et al. Need for and influence of feedback from the Finnish birth register to data providers. Qual Assur Health Care 1992; 4(2): 133–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Christensen K, Knudsen LB. Registration of congenital malformations in Denmark. Dan Med Bull 1998; 45(1): 91–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Government of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Health. Saskatchewan’s health services information resources, July 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/programs-services [Accessed 2007 Nov 22]

  19. Dolk H. EUROCAT: 25 years of European surveillance of congenital anomalies. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005; 90(5): F355–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Garcia Rodriguez L, Perez-Gutthann S, Jick S. The UK General Research Practice Database. In: Strom B, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. Chichester: John Wiley, 2000: 375–85

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Li DK, Liu L, Odouli R, et al. Exposure to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during pregnancy and risk of miscarriage: population based cohort study. BMJ 2003; 327(7411): 368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hartert TV, Neuzil KM, Shintani AK, et al. Maternal morbidity and perinatal outcomes among pregnant women with respiratory hospitalizations during influenza season. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189(6): 1705–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cole JA, Modell JG, Haight BR, et al. Bupropion in pregnancy and the prevalence of congenital malformations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16(5): 474–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Yoon PW, Rasmussen SA, Lynberg MC, et al. The National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Public Health Rep 2001; 116 Suppl. 1: 32–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hernandez-Diaz S, Werler MM, Walker AM, et al. Folic acid antagonists during pregnancy and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med 2000; 343(22): 1608–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Czeizel AE, Petik D, Vargha P. Validation studies of drug exposures in pregnant women. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12(5): 409–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Castilla EE, Orioli IM, Orioli IM. ECLAMC: the Latin-American collaborative study of congenital malformations. Community Genet 2004; 7(2–3): 76–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bakker MK, Jentink J, Vroom F, et al. Drug prescription patterns before, during and after pregnancy for chronic, occasional and pregnancy-related drugs in The Netherlands. BJOG 2006; 113(5): 559–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Olsen J, Czeizel A, Toft Sørensen H, et al. How do we best detect toxic effects of drugs taken during pregnancy? Drug Saf 2002; 25(1): 21–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. US Department of Health and Human Sciences Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and Centre for biologics Evaluation and Research. Reviewer guidance. Evaluation of human pregnancy outcome data, 1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6777fnl.htm#_TOC79910680 [2006 Sep 30]

  31. Velentgas P, Cole JA, Mo J, et al. Severe vascular events in migraine patients. Headache 2004; 44(7): 642–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Olsen C, Sondergaard C, Thrane N, et al. Do pregnant women report use of dispensed medications? Epidemiology 2001; 12: 497–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mitchell AA. Systematic identification of drugs that cause birth defects: a new opportunity. N Engl J Med 2003; 349(26): 2556–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Covington DL, Tilson H, Elder J, et al. Assessing teratogenicity of antiretroviral drugs: monitoring and analysis plan of the antiretroviral pregnancy registry. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13(8): 537–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr Janet Cragan for her contribution and comments to the earlier drafts of this paper and also Deepak Sriramulu for his assistance with the analyses.

No sources of funding were used in the preparation of this review article. Miss Charlton and Drs Cunnington and Weil are employees of and hold shares in GlaxoSmithKline. Dr de Vries has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Worldwide Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline, Third Avenue, Harlow, Essex, CM19 5AW, UK

    Rachel A. Charlton,  Marianne C. Cunnington & John G. Weil

  2. Department of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmaceutical Medicine, Postgraduate Medical School, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

    Corinne S. de Vries

Authors
  1. Rachel A. Charlton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marianne C. Cunnington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Corinne S. de Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John G. Weil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne C. Cunnington.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Charlton, R.A., Cunnington, M.C., de Vries, C.S. et al. Data Resources for Investigating Drug Exposure during Pregnancy and Associated Outcomes. Drug-Safety 31, 39–51 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200831010-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200831010-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation