EUROmediCAT signal detection: An evaluation of selected congenital anomaly-medication associations

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
2016-09-09
Authors
Given, Joanne E.
Loane, Maria
Luteijn, Johannes M.
Morris, Joan K.
de Jong van den Berg, Lolkje T.W.
Garne, Ester
Addor, Marie-Claude
Barisic, Ingeborg
de Walle, Hermien
Gatt, Miriam
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
British Pharmacology Society
Published Version
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Aims: To evaluate congenital anomaly (CA)‐medication exposure associations produced by the new EUROmediCAT signal detection system and determine which require further investigation. Methods: Data from 15 EUROCAT registries (1995–2011) with medication exposures at the chemical substance (5th level of Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical classification) and chemical subgroup (4th level) were analysed using a 50% false detection rate. After excluding antiepileptics, antidiabetics, antiasthmatics and SSRIs/psycholeptics already under investigation, 27 associations were evaluated. If evidence for a signal persisted after data validation, a literature review was conducted for prior evidence of human teratogenicity. Results: Thirteen out of 27 CA‐medication exposure signals, based on 389 exposed cases, passed data validation. There was some prior evidence in the literature to support six signals (gastroschisis and levonorgestrel/ethinylestradiol (OR 4.10, 95% CI 1.70–8.53; congenital heart disease/pulmonary valve stenosis and nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (OR 5.01, 95% CI 1.99–14.20/OR 28.20, 95% CI 4.63–122.24); complete absence of a limb and pregnen (4) derivatives (OR 6.60, 95% CI 1.70–22.93); hypospadias and pregnadien derivatives (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.10–1.76); hypospadias and synthetic ovulation stimulants (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.28–2.70). Antipropulsives produced a signal for syndactyly while the literature revealed a signal for hypospadias. There was no prior evidence to support the remaining six signals involving the ordinary salt combinations, propulsives, bulk‐forming laxatives, hydrazinophthalazine derivatives, gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues and selective serotonin agonists. Conclusion: Signals which strengthened prior evidence should be prioritized for further investigation, and independent evidence sought to confirm the remaining signals. Some chance associations are expected and confounding by indication is possible.
Description
Keywords
Congenital anomalies , Drug-induced anomalies , Pharmacoepidemiology , Pharmacovigilance , Pregnancy , Signal evaluation
Citation
Given, J. E., Loane, M., Luteijn, J. M., Morris, J. K., de Jong van den Berg, L. T. W., Garne, E., Addor, M.-C., Barisic, I., de Walle, H., Gatt, M., Klungsoyr, K., Khoshnood, B., Latos-Bielenska, A., Nelen, V., Neville, A. J., O'Mahony, M., Pierini, A., Tucker, D., Wiesel, A. and Dolk, H. (2016) 'EUROmediCAT signal detection: an evaluation of selected congenital anomaly-medication associations', British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 82(4), pp. 1094-1109. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12947