Drug Safety

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 245–253 | Cite as

Risk Classification Systems for Drug Use During Pregnancy

Are They a Reliable Source of Information?
Original Research Articles

Abstract

Background: In several countries, risk classification systems have been set up to summarise the sparse data on drug safety during pregnancy. However, these have resulted in ambiguous statements that are often difficult to interpret and use with accuracy when counselling patients on drug use in pregnancy.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare and analyse the consistency between and the criteria for risk classification for medications used during pregnancy included in 3 widely used international risk classification systems. All 3 systems use categories based on risk factors to summarise the degree to which available clinical information has ruled out the risk to unborn offspring, balanced against the drug’s potential benefit to the patient.

Methods: Drugs included in the risk classification systems from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) and the Swedish Catalogue of Approved Drugs (FASS), were reviewed and compared on basis of the risk factor category to which they had been assigned. Agreement between the systems was calculated as the number of drugs common to all 3 and assigned to the same risk factor category. In addition, evidence on teratogenicity and adverse effects during pregnancy was retrieved using a MEDLINE search (from 1966 up to 1998) for common drugs classified as teratogenic.

Results: Differences in the allocation of drugs to different risk factor categories were found. Risk factor category allocation for 645 drugs classified by the FDA, 446 classified by ADEC and 527 classified by FASS was compared. Only 61 (26%) of the 236 drugs common to all 3 systems were placed in the same risk factor category. Analysis of studies on the safety of common drugs during pregnancy of drugs classified as X by the FDA indicated that the variability in category allocation was not only attributable to the different definitions for the categories, but also depended on how the available scientific literature was handled.

Conclusions: Differences in category allocation for the same drug can be a source of great confusion among users of the classification systems as well as for those who require information regarding risk for drug use during pregnancy, and may limit the usefulness and reliability of risk classification systems.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Judy Baggott and Dr Aurora Bonaccorsi for helping us with the revision of this manuscript and Daniela Miglio for editorial help.

Sherin Sharabi’s fellowship was supported by Consorzio Di Medicina Tropicale (CMT), Italy.

References

  1. 1.
    Koren G, Pastuszak A, Ito S. Drugs in pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1128–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sannerstedt R, Lundborg P, Danielsson BR, et al. Drugs during pregnancy. An issue of risk classification and information to prescribers. Drug Saf 1996; 14: 69–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    FASS. Classification of medical products for use during pregnancy and lactation. The Swedish system. Stockholm: LINFO, Drug Information Ltd., 1993Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briggs GG, Freeman RK, Yaffe SJ, editors. Drugs in pregnancy and lactation, 4th ed Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1994Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. Medicines in Pregnancy. An Australian Categorization of Risk, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teratology Society Public Affairs Committee. FDA Classification of drugs for teratogenic risk. Teratology 1994; 49: 446–7Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller RK, Hendrickx AG, Mills JL, et al. Periconceptional vitamin A use: how much is teratogenic? Reprod Toxicol 1998; 12: 75–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mastroiacovo P, Mazzone T, Addis A, et al. High vitamin A intake in early pregnancy and congenital malformations: a multicentre prospective controlled study. Teratology 1999; 59: 7–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hendrickx AG, Kort R, Leuschne F, et al. Embryotoxicity of sex steroid hormone combinations in non human primates: I. Norethisterone acetate + ethinylestradiol and progesterone + estradiol benzoate (Macaca mulatta, Macaca fascicularis, and Papio cynocephalus). Teratology 1987; 35: 119–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Truhaut R, Shubik P, Tuchmann-Duplessis H. Zeranol and 17 beta-estradiol: a critical review of the toxicological properties when used as anabolic agents. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1985; 5: 276–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nora JJ, Nora AH, Blu J, et al. Exogenous progestogen and estrogen implicated in birth defects. JAMA 1978; 240: 837–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schardein JL. Congenital abnormalities and hormones during pregnancy: a clinical. Teratology 1980; 22: 251–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Braken MB. Oral contraception and congenital malformation in off-spring: a review and meta-analysis of the prospective studies. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 552–7Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raman-Wilms L, Tseng AL, Wighardt S, et al. Fetal-genital effects of first -trimester sex hormone exposure: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 141–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carlier P, Choulika S, Efthymiou ML. Clomiphene-exposed pregnancies analysis of 39 information requests including 25 cases with known outcome. Therapie 1996; 51: 532–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurachi K, Aono T, Minagawa J, et al. Congenital malformations of newborn infants after clomiphene-induced ovulation. Fertil Steril 1983; 40: 187–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dolovich LR, Addis A, Vaillancourt JM, et al. Benzodiazepine use in pregnancy and major malformations or oral cleft:meta analysis of cohort and case-control studies. BMJ 1998; 317: 839–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pastuszak AL, Schuler L, Speck-Martins CE, et al. Use of misoprostol during pregnancy and Mobius’ syndrome in infants. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1881–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gonzalez CH, Marques-Dias MJ, Kim CA, et al. Congenital abnormalities in Brazilian children associated with misoprostol misuse in first trimester of pregnancy. Lancet 1998; 351: 1624–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ostad SN, Malhi JS, Gard PR. In vitro cytotoxicity and teratogenicity of norethisterone and levonorgestrel released fromhollow nylon monofilaments. J Control Release 1998; 50: 179–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobson BD. Hazards of norethindrone therapy during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1962; 84: 962–8Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Czeizel A, Pazsy A, Pusztai J, et al. Aetiological monitor of congenital abnormalities: a case-control surveillance system. Acta Paediatrica Hungarica 1983; 24: 91–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chan A, Hanna M, Abbott M, et al. Oral retinoids and pregnancy. Med J Australia 1996; 165: 164–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geiger JM, Baudin M, Saurat JH. Teratogenic risk with etretinate and acitretin treatment. Dermatology 1994; 189: 109–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Monga M. Vitamin A and its congeners. Semin Perinatol 1997; 21: 135–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosa FW, Wilk AL, Kelsey FO. Teratogen update: vitamin A congeners. Teratology 1986; 33: 355–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anonymous. Embryopathy in an infant conceived one year after termination of maternal etretinate: a reappraisal [letter]. Lancet 1988; II: 1254Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grote W, Harms D, Janig U, et al. Malformation of fetus conceived 4 months after termination of maternal etretinate treatment [letter]. Lancet 1985; I: 1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lammer EJ. Embryopathy in an infant conceived one year after termination of maternal etretinate. Lancet 1988; II: 1080–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lammer E. Etretinate and pregnancy [letter]. Lancet 1989; I: 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shaw RW, Farquhar JW. Female pseudohermaphroditism associated with danazol exposure in utero. Case report. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 386–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwartz R. Ambiguous genitalia in a term female infant due to exposure to danazol in utero [letter]. Am J Dis Child 1982; 136: 474PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brunskill PJ. The effects of fetal exposure to danazol. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 212–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alvan G, Danielsson BR, Kihlstrom I, et al. Classification of drugs for teratogenic risk. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 48: 177–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Briggs GG, Freeman RK, Yaffe SJ, editors. Drugs in pregnancy and lactation, 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1997Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Friedman JM. Report of the teratology society public affairs committee symposiumon FDA classification of drugs. Teratology 1993; 48: 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Skrabanek P. Smoking and statistical overkill. Lancet 1992; 340: 1208–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Addis
    • 1
  • Sherin Sharabi
    • 2
  • Maurizio Bonati
    • 1
  1. 1.The Regional Drug Information (C.R.I.F), Laboratory for Mother and Child HealthIstituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario NegriMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Medical Research InstituteUniversity of AlexandriaAlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations