Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes of Patients Treated With Ondansetron vs Alternative Antiemetic Medications in a Multinational, Population-Based Cohort.
Abortion, Spontaneous
/ epidemiology
Adult
Antiemetics
/ administration & dosage
Canada
/ epidemiology
Cohort Studies
Congenital Abnormalities
/ epidemiology
Databases, Factual
Female
Humans
Morning Sickness
/ drug therapy
Ondansetron
/ administration & dosage
Pregnancy
Proportional Hazards Models
Stillbirth
/ epidemiology
United Kingdom
/ epidemiology
United States
/ epidemiology
Young Adult
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2021
01 04 2021
Historique:
entrez:
23
4
2021
pubmed:
24
4
2021
medline:
20
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ondansetron is frequently used to treat nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Although some studies reported important safety signals, few studies have been sufficiently large to assess rare pregnancy outcomes. To study the association between ondansetron exposure during pregnancy and the risks of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and major congenital malformations. This is a cohort study conducted in 3 countries, with a meta-analysis. Participants included women and girls aged 12 to 55 years who experienced spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, stillbirth, or live birth between April 2002 and March 2016, as recorded in administrative data from 5 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario), the US IBM MarketScan Research Databases, and the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The statistical analysis was completed in October 2020. Exposure to ondansetron during pregnancy was compared with exposure to other commonly used antiemetics to minimize confounding by indication. The primary outcome was fetal death, defined as either spontaneous abortion or stillbirth. Secondary outcomes were the 2 components of the primary outcome and major congenital malformations identified during the year after a live birth. Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time-dependent drug exposures and were adjusted using high-dimensional propensity scores. For major congenital malformations, adjusted odds ratios were estimated from logistic models. Site-level results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses considered second-line antiemetic exposure and exposure specifically during 4 to 10 weeks of gestation. Data from 456 963 pregnancies were included in this study of fetal death (249 787 [54.7%] in Canada, 197 913 [43.3%] in the US, and 9263 [2.0%] in the UK; maternal age, ≤24 years, 93 201 patients [20.4%]; 25-29 years, 149 117 patients [32.6%]; 30-34 years, 142 442 patients [31.2%]; and ≥35 years, 72 203 patients [15.8%]). Fetal death occurred in 12 907 (7.9%) of 163 810 pregnancies exposed to ondansetron, and 17 476 (5.7%) of 306 766 pregnancies exposed to other antiemetics. The adjusted hazard ratios were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.67-1.23) for fetal death with time-dependent ondansetron exposure during pregnancy, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.64-1.04) for spontaneous abortion, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.79-1.20) for stillbirth. For major congenital malformations, the estimated odds ratio was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.91-1.22). Results of sensitivity analyses were generally consistent with those of the primary analyses. In this large, multicenter cohort study, there was no association between ondansetron exposure during pregnancy and increased risk of fetal death, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, or major congenital malformations compared with exposure to other antiemetic drugs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33890993
pii: 2779055
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5329
pmc: PMC8065380
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antiemetics
0
Ondansetron
4AF302ESOS
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e215329Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : DSE-146021
Pays : Canada
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
CMAJ. 2019 Feb 19;191(7):E179-E187
pubmed: 30782643
Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2015 Mar;35(1):23-4
pubmed: 25811403
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Feb;107(2 Pt 1):285-92
pubmed: 16449113
N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 28;368(9):814-23
pubmed: 23445092
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Nov 1;176(11):1621-1627
pubmed: 27669539
JAMA. 2020 Jan 28;323(4):372-374
pubmed: 31730152
Birth Defects Res. 2020 Aug;112(13):996-1013
pubmed: 32420702
JAMA. 2018 Dec 18;320(23):2429-2437
pubmed: 30561479
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2014 Sep;100(9):658-62
pubmed: 24985740
N Engl J Med. 2010 Oct 14;363(16):1544-50
pubmed: 20942670
Reprod Toxicol. 2019 Jan;83:14-20
pubmed: 30385129
Diabetes Care. 2012 Dec;35(12):2665-73
pubmed: 23173135
Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Apr 1;49(2):648-656
pubmed: 31860078
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008 Apr;17(4):345-53
pubmed: 18271060
Reprod Toxicol. 2014 Dec;50:134-7
pubmed: 25450422
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013 Aug;22(8):881-9
pubmed: 23616437
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Dec;116:39-48
pubmed: 31352006
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012 Jan;94(1):22-30
pubmed: 22102545
Hum Reprod. 2010 Nov;25(11):2907-12
pubmed: 20861299
Health Serv Res. 2007 Apr;42(2):908-27
pubmed: 17362224
Epidemiology. 2009 Jul;20(4):512-22
pubmed: 19487948
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017 May;26(5):592-596
pubmed: 28220993