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.
Triazolam Common Drug Qualitative Comparative Analysis Clomifene Category Assignment
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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.
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
FASS. Classification of medical products for use during pregnancy and lactation. The Swedish system. Stockholm: LINFO, Drug Information Ltd., 1993Google Scholar
Briggs GG, Freeman RK, Yaffe SJ, editors. Drugs in pregnancy and lactation, 4th ed Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1994Google Scholar
Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. Medicines in Pregnancy. An Australian Categorization of Risk, 1992.Google Scholar
Teratology Society Public Affairs Committee. FDA Classification of drugs for teratogenic risk. Teratology 1994; 49: 446–7Google Scholar
Miller RK, Hendrickx AG, Mills JL, et al. Periconceptional vitamin A use: how much is teratogenic? Reprod Toxicol 1998; 12: 75–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
Nora JJ, Nora AH, Blu J, et al. Exogenous progestogen and estrogen implicated in birth defects. JAMA 1978; 240: 837–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
Kurachi K, Aono T, Minagawa J, et al. Congenital malformations of newborn infants after clomiphene-induced ovulation. Fertil Steril 1983; 40: 187–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
Jacobson BD. Hazards of norethindrone therapy during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1962; 84: 962–8Google Scholar
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
Chan A, Hanna M, Abbott M, et al. Oral retinoids and pregnancy. Med J Australia 1996; 165: 164–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
Geiger JM, Baudin M, Saurat JH. Teratogenic risk with etretinate and acitretin treatment. Dermatology 1994; 189: 109–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar