Drug Safety

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 157–171 | Cite as

Comparing the General Practice Research Database and the UK Epilepsy and Pregnancy Register as Tools for Postmarketing Teratogen Surveillance

Anticonvulsants and the Risk of Major Congenital Malformations
  • Rachel A. Charlton
  • John G. Weil
  • Marianne C. Cunnington
  • Sayantani Ray
  • Corinne S. de Vries
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Use of pregnancy registries is a common method of postmarketing surveillance of pregnancy outcomes to identify potential teratogens. However, with the increase in electronic capture of healthcare data for administrative, audit and research purposes, data generated during routine clinical practice might be used to address questions similar to those explored using pregnancy registries.

Objectives: To establish how data from the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) compares with data from the UK Epilepsy and Pregnancy Register and to assess how it can contribute to postmarketing surveillance of pregnancy outcomes.

Methods: Pregnancy outcomes were identified from the GPRD for women aged 14–49 years with a diagnosis of epilepsy and supporting evidence. Outcomes with a major congenital malformation (MCM) were identified and the relative risks (RRs) of an MCM following a range of first-trimester anti-epileptic drug (AED) exposures were calculated and compared with those reported by the UK Epilepsy and Pregnancy Register. In addition, we also evaluated whether the known association between valproate and spina bifida could be identified using data from the GPRD. The study period ran from 1 January 1990 until 31 December 2006.

Results: A total of 1766 live mother-baby pairs were identified, as well as 551 pregnancy terminations, 13 stillbirths and 1 neonatal death. Including those that resulted in a termination, there were 62 unique pregnancy outcomes with an MCM. An increased risk of spina bifida was identified using the GPRD following first-trimester monotherapy exposure to valproate when compared with those with no AED exposure (RR 8.02; 95% CI 1.5, 43.5). More generally, comparing the GPRD with the UK register, the GPRD ascertained a lower number of first-trimester AED exposures: monotherapy 711 versus 2468; polytherapy 156 versus 718. We reproduced the UK register results of an increased MCM risk following first-trimester polytherapy AED exposure compared with no AED exposure (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.43, 5.84). Using the GPRD, we identified similar point estimates to the UK register following monotherapy and polytherapy exposures (4.1% vs 3.7% and 7.1% vs 6.0%, respectively) but we were unable to reproduce the level of statistical significance. For individual AEDs, the MCM rate following valproate exposure was 4.9% (11/225) in the GPRD compared with 6.2% (44/715) in the UK register.

Conclusions: The GPRD has potential for the identification of malformations and of a teratogenic association. For epilepsy, the GPRD does, however, identify fewer exposed pregnancies than a pregnancy registry. Therefore, in many circumstances pregnancy registries are likely to remain preferable as a method of surveillance. The GPRD may be better suited to monitoring medicines used in the treatment of more prevalent conditions, such as depression, or for monitoring medicines that have been on the market for a long time and for which no registry has been set up.

References

  1. 1.
    Honein MA, Paulozzi LJ, Cragan JD, et al. Evaluation of selected characteristics of pregnancy drug registries. Teratology 1999; 60: 356–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schirm E, Meijer WM, Tobi H, et al. Drug use by pregnant women and comparable non-pregnant women in The Netherlands with reference to the Australian classification system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004; 114(2): 182–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lakha F, Glasier A. Unintended pregnancy and use of emergency contraception among a large cohort of women attending for antenatal care or abortion in Scotland. Lancet 2006; 368(9549): 1782–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 30(1): 24–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koren G, Pastuszak A, Ito S. Drugs in pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1998; 338(16): 1128–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mitchell A. Special considerations in studies of drug-induced birth defects. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmaco-epidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charlton RA, Cunnington MC, de Vries CS, et al. Data resources for investigating drug exposure during pregnancy and associated outcomes: the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) as an alternative to pregnancy registries. Drug Saf 2008; 31(1): 39–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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: 749–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Snowball JM, de Vries CS. Determination of pregnancy on the General Practice Research Database [abstract]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: S118Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devine S, West S, Andrews E, et al. The identification of pregnancies within the General Practice Research Database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19(1): 45–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hardy JR, Leaderer BP, Holford TR, et al. Safety of medications prescribed before and during early pregnancy in a cohort of 81 975 mothers from the UK General Practice Research Database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15: 555–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wurst KE, Ephross SA, Loehr J, et al. The utility of the general practice research database to examine selected congenital heart defects: a validation study. Pharmaco-epidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 867–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Devine S, West SL, Andrews E, et al. Validation of neural tube defects in the full featured-general practice research database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 434–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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): 193–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robert E, Guibaud P. Maternal valproic acid and congenital neural tube defects [letter]. Lancet 1982; II: 937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindhout D, Meinardi H. Spina bifida and in-utero exposure to valproate [letter]. Lancet 1984; II: 396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dolk H, Jentink J, Loane M, et al., on behalf of the EUROCAT Antiepileptic Drug Working Group. Does lamotrigine use in pregnancy increase orofacial cleft risk relative to other malformations? Neurology 2008; 71: 714–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wood L, Martinez C. The General Practice Research Database: role in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2004; 27(12): 871–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    MHRA. The General Practice Research Database (2009) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gprd.com/home/default.asp [Accessed 2010 Mar 1]
  20. 20.
    Charlton RA, Weil JG, Cunnington MC, et al. Identifying major congenital malformations in the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD): a study reporting on the sensitivity and added value of photocopied medical records and free text in the GPRD. Drug Saf 2010; 33(9): 741–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hart AC, Hopkins CA, editors. ICD-9-CM professional for hospitals. Vol. 1, 2 and 3. International classification of 171 diseases 9th revision, clinical modification. 6th ed. Reston (VA): Ingenix Inc., St Anthony Publishing/Medicode, 2003Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    EUROCAT. List of minor anomalies for exclusion up to birth year 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eurocat-network.eu/content/EUROCAT-Old-List-Minor-Anomalies.pdf [Accessed 2010 Feb 6]
  23. 23.
    EUROCAT. Minoranomalies for exclusion (chapter 3.2, guide 1.3) 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eurocat-network.eu/content/EUROCAT-Guide-1.3.pdf [Accessed 2010 Feb 6]
  24. 24.
    Kendle International Inc. The lamotrigine pregnancy registry: interim report, 1 September 1992 through 31 March 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://pregnancyregistry.gsk.com/documents/lam_report_spring2009.pdf [Accessed 2010 Feb 6]
  25. 25.
    Mitchell A. Systematic identification of drugs that cause birth defects: a new opportunity. N Engl J Med 2003; 349(26): 2556–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Charlton RA, Cunnington M, Weil JG, et al. Regarding the need, or lack thereof, of a comparator group for pregnancy registries [letter]. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2009; 85: 808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Samren EB, van Duijn CM, Christiaens GCML, et al. Anti-epileptic drug regimens and major congenital abnormalities in the offspring. Ann Neurol 1999; 46: 739–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaneko S, Battino D, Andermann E, et al. Congenital malformations due to antiepileptic drugs. Epilepsy Res 1999; 33(2–3): 145–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wide K, Winbladh B, Kallen B. Major malformations in infants exposed to antiepileptic drugs in utero, with emphasis on carbamazepine and valproic acid: a nation-wide, population-based register study. Acta Paediatr 2004; 93: 174–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wyszynski DF, Nambisan M, Surve T, et al. Increased rate of major malformations in offspring exposed to valproate during pregnancy. Neurology 2005; 64(6): 961–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vajda FJE, O’Brien T, Hitchcock A, et al. Antiepileptic drugs in pregnancy: great promise from pregnancy registries. J Clin Neurosci 2005; 10: 543–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel A. Charlton
    • 1
  • John G. Weil
    • 2
  • Marianne C. Cunnington
    • 2
  • Sayantani Ray
    • 3
  • Corinne S. de Vries
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy and PharmacologyUniversity of BathClaverton Down, BathUK
  2. 2.Worldwide Epidemiology DepartmentGlaxoSmithKlineHarlowUK
  3. 3.Biomedical Data Sciences (Epidemiology Group)GlaxoSmithKlineBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations