Search

Globally, more than 200 million women become pregnant each year, most of whom receive medications despite limited information on their safe use during pregnancy. The paucity of drug safety data on pregnant and breastfeeding women stems from the routine exclusion of this population from clinical trials due to scientific, ethical, regulatory and legal concerns. Consequently, at the time of initial drug approval, there may be scant safety data to inform the drug benefit‐risk balance to the mother, foetus or infant. Although momentum is growing to include this underrepresented population in clinical trials, most information on drug exposure outcomes comes from data collected in the postmarketing setting. Regulatory guidance and legislation on medication use in pregnancy and breastfeeding were reviewed globally by the TransCelerate IGR PV Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Team. The International Conference of Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) standards and Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences guidelines served as benchmarks for national safety regulations and guidance. The landscape assessment identified a lack of harmonization of global regulations on research in pregnant and breastfeeding women and a lack of specific regulations on this topic in the majority of the territories included in the assessment. This article focuses on the ambiguities and lack of harmonization in global regulations on postmarketing pregnancy and breastfeeding safety studies. There is currently no ICH standard to guide these types of safety studies and, in most regions reviewed, there are no clear regulations or guidance on when and how to conduct them. While a challenging undertaking, greater clarity and harmonization would facilitate more timely completion of postmarketing pregnancy safety studies that would ultimately generate the critical data needed to optimize benefit‐risk decisions for women who may conceive, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. Studies focusing on safety outcomes typically require large populations to comprehensively characterise the patient groups exposed to the medicines under investigation. However, there is often less information for subpopulations, such as pregnant or breastfeeding women, particularly when new medicines are considered. It is important to understand what information can be obtained from drug utilization studies (DUS) involving pregnant women in the early years postmarketing to provide supportive information for safety studies. The aims of this literature review are to (1) identify and review DUS for new medicines in pregnancy and breastfeeding and (2) list and summarise key information items to be reported in a DUS for new medicines in pregnancy. Methods. To identify postmarketing DUS of new prescription medicines or enantiomers in pregnancy, a systematic literature review was undertaken in PubMed and Embase between January 2015 and June 2022. In addition, the complete database of the ENCePP EU PAS Register was systematically searched to June 2022. Results. We identified 11 published DUS on new medicines in pregnancy from the ENCePP EU PAS Register and none from other sources. No studies on breastfeeding were identified. The 11 identified publications reported the medicine's use for the first 3 to 5 years after marketing approval. No reports assessed utilization in the first 3 years of approval. It was usual to issue interim reports annually (7 studies). All studies concerned conditions managed in ambulatory care (primary care and outpatient facilities) and included some primary care prescribing. Most (n = 8) only had prescribing/dispensing data available at individual level for ambulatory care; outpatient prescribing was included in three of these studies Three studies held a limited amount of in-hospital prescribing data. A DUS can confirm at an early stage whether there are sufficient exposed pregnancies in available data sources to ensure a safety study is powered to detect a difference in the prevalence of adverse pregnancy or infant outcomes or if additional data from other databases are needed. A DUS may also help address methodological considerations such as selection of comparators. DUS can be performed embedded in a DUS in the general population, in a cohort of women of childbearing age, or in a cohort of pregnant women. Conclusion. This review summarises key aspects of a DUS for new medicines in pregnancy. DUS for new medicines in pregnancy should be planned before marketing, scheduled for the first 3 to 5 years after release, with annual interim/progress reports, and reported in peer-reviewed journals. By offering detailed information on data sources, exposure timing, prevalence and location, coprescribing, comorbidities, coexposures, and demographics, a DUS will offer a firm foundation for safety studies and will help to contextualize spontaneous reporting of serious adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Belimumab is approved for active, autoantibody‐positive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, but limited data exist regarding its use in pregnancy. The Belimumab Pregnancy Registry (BPR, GSK Study BEL114256; NCT01532310) was created to evaluate pregnancy and infant outcomes following belimumab exposure. Methods: Individuals with SLE exposed to belimumab from 4 months before and/or during pregnancy can enroll into the BPR. The primary outcome is major birth defects; secondary outcomes include miscarriages, stillbirths, elective termination, pre‐term birth, neonatal death, small for gestational age, and adverse infant outcomes during the first year of life. Belimumab exposure timing, concomitant medications, and other potential confounding factors are also collected. Data up to March 8, 2021, are reported descriptively. Results: From an expected sample size target of 500 prospective pregnancies with a known outcome, only 55 were enrolled in the study. Among these, two pregnancy losses and 53 pregnancies with a live birth outcome were reported. Ten of the 53 live birth pregnancies resulted in a major birth defect. Ten pregnancies were enrolled after the pregnancy outcome occurred and were examined retrospectively (four live births with no defects, four miscarriages, and two elective terminations). There was no indication or pattern of birth defects associated with belimumab. Conclusions: Low recruitment numbers for the BPR and incomplete information limit the conclusions regarding belimumab exposure during pregnancy. There was no pattern or common mechanism of birth defects associated with belimumab within the BPR data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Creation of new algorithms to identify pregnancies in automated health care claims databases is of public health importance, as it allows us to learn more about medication use and safety in a vulnerable population. Previous algorithms were largely created using international classification of disease codes, but despite the U.S. code transition in 2015, few algorithms are available with the latest ICD‐10‐CM codes. Methods: Using U.S. IBM MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Multi‐State Medicaid databases for women aged 10–64 years during 2014 and 2016, two pregnancy algorithms (ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10‐CM) were created using expert clinical review. The algorithms were evaluated by assessing the distribution of pregnancy outcomes (live birth and pregnancy losses) within each time‐based cohort and the ability of the algorithms to identify select medication use during pregnancy. Medication exposure, demographics, comorbidities, and pregnancy outcomes were compared to published literature estimates for the two time periods. Results: For the IBM MarketScan® Commercial database, the algorithms identified 687,228 pregnancies in 2014 and 444,293 in 2016. In the IBM MarketScan® Medicaid database, 389,132 pregnancies in 2014 and 406,418 in 2016 were identified. Percentages of most pregnancy outcomes identified using the algorithms were similar to national data sources; however, percentages of preterm births and pregnancy losses were not comparable. Most medication use estimates from the algorithms were similar to or higher than published estimates. Conclusions: By incorporating the latest ICD‐10‐CM codes, the new algorithms provide more complete estimates of medication use during pregnancy than algorithms using the outdated codes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess treatment patterns over 24 months amongst patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), initiating a new COPD maintenance treatment, and to understand clinical indicators of treatment change. Patients included in the study initiated a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), or a combination of LABA and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS/LABA) between January 1, 2009, and November 30, 2013, as recorded in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink (UK CPRD). Treatment modifications (switching or adding maintenance treatments) over 24 months were assessed, and patient characteristics, disease burden, medication and healthcare resource use during the 30 days before treatment modification were evaluated. The cohort comprised 17,258 patients [LABA (8%), LAMA (39%) and ICS/LABA (54%)] with similar age, body mass index and dyspnoea distribution. LABA users were more likely than LAMA users to add a maintenance therapy. Distinct patterns of treatment augmentations were noted, whereby LABA users typically received dual therapy before moving to triple therapy, while LAMA users moved to triple therapy by directly adding an ICS/LABA. Exacerbation events immediately prior to treatment change were not frequently recorded; however, the need for rescue short-acting medication and assessment of dyspnoea in the 30 days prior to the treatment change suggest that dyspnoea is a remaining unmet need driving therapy change. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]