Maryann Mazer-Amirshahi1, Samira Samiee-Zafarghandy2, George Gray3, Johannes N van den Anker4. 1. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC; Department of Emergency Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC; Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC. Electronic address: mamazer@cnmc.org. 2. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC; Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC. 4. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC; Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University, Washington, DC; Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus Medical Center-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; and Department of Pediatric Pharmacology, University Children's Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Over the past decades, there have been significant efforts in the United States to improve pharmaceutical labeling pertaining to pregnancy. The goal of this study was to describe trends in pregnancy labeling at the time of drug approval and over time. STUDY DESIGN: The labeling data of 213 new pharmaceutical approvals between January 2003 and December 2012 were systematically reviewed. Initial approval data and subsequent labeling revisions were evaluated for pregnancy category, source of pregnancy and breast-feeding data, data in labor and delivery, presence of a registry, black-box warnings, and utilization of the new labeling format. RESULTS: The most commonly approved pregnancy category was C (51.6%). Most pharmaceuticals (92.9%) had pregnancy data based on animal studies and 5.2% had human pregnancy data. For breast-feeding, there were no data in 47.9% of labels, animal data in 42.7%, and human data in 4.7%. There were no labor and delivery data in 85.9% of labels. Only 2.8% of medications had human data, with the remainder having animal data. The majority of medications (85%) did not have a pregnancy registry. Of those that had a registry, 68.7% were by therapeutic category, not agent specific. Seven medications had black-box warnings related to teratogenicity. Since the new labeling recommendations, 4.7% of medications incorporated the new format into the labeling, primarily approvals that occurred in 2012. CONCLUSION: Despite significant efforts to improve drug labeling for pregnancy and lactation, there remains a paucity of human data in this understudied population.
OBJECTIVE: Over the past decades, there have been significant efforts in the United States to improve pharmaceutical labeling pertaining to pregnancy. The goal of this study was to describe trends in pregnancy labeling at the time of drug approval and over time. STUDY DESIGN: The labeling data of 213 new pharmaceutical approvals between January 2003 and December 2012 were systematically reviewed. Initial approval data and subsequent labeling revisions were evaluated for pregnancy category, source of pregnancy and breast-feeding data, data in labor and delivery, presence of a registry, black-box warnings, and utilization of the new labeling format. RESULTS: The most commonly approved pregnancy category was C (51.6%). Most pharmaceuticals (92.9%) had pregnancy data based on animal studies and 5.2% had human pregnancy data. For breast-feeding, there were no data in 47.9% of labels, animal data in 42.7%, and human data in 4.7%. There were no labor and delivery data in 85.9% of labels. Only 2.8% of medications had human data, with the remainder having animal data. The majority of medications (85%) did not have a pregnancy registry. Of those that had a registry, 68.7% were by therapeutic category, not agent specific. Seven medications had black-box warnings related to teratogenicity. Since the new labeling recommendations, 4.7% of medications incorporated the new format into the labeling, primarily approvals that occurred in 2012. CONCLUSION: Despite significant efforts to improve drug labeling for pregnancy and lactation, there remains a paucity of human data in this understudied population.
Authors: Ian R Mulrenin; Julian E Garcia; Muluneh M Fashe; Matthew Shane Loop; Melissa A Daubert; Rachel Peragallo Urrutia; Craig R Lee Journal: Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: J Wang; T Johnson; L Sahin; M S Tassinari; P O Anderson; T E Baker; C Bucci-Rechtweg; G J Burckart; C D Chambers; T W Hale; D Johnson-Lyles; R M Nelson; C Nguyen; D Pica-Branco; Z Ren; H Sachs; J Sauberan; A Zajicek; S Ito; L P Yao Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Kristin N Grimsrud; Catherine M T Sherwin; Jonathan E Constance; Casey Tak; Athena F Zuppa; Michael G Spigarelli; Nicole L Mihalopoulos Journal: Clin Res Regul Aff Date: 2015
Authors: Michael Abrouk; Kourosh Beroukhim; Mio Nakamura; Tian Hao Zhu; Benjamin Farahnik; Rasnik Singh; Merrick Brodsky; Kristina Lee; John Koo; Tina Bhutani Journal: Int J Womens Dermatol Date: 2016-03-02
Authors: Indira S E van der Zande; Rieke van der Graaf; Martijn A Oudijk; Johannes J M van Delden Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: Michael Abrouk; Keroush Beroukhim; Mio Nakamura; Tian Hao Zhu; Benjamin Farahnik; Rasnik Singh; Kristina Lee; John Koo; Tina Bhutani Journal: Int J Womens Dermatol Date: 2017-02-16