Antipsychotic drug use in pregnancy: high dimensional, propensity matched, population based cohort study

Simone N Vigod, Tara Gomes, Andrew S Wilton, Valerie H Taylor, Joel G Ray, Simone N Vigod, Tara Gomes, Andrew S Wilton, Valerie H Taylor, Joel G Ray

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate maternal medical and perinatal outcomes associated with antipsychotic drug use in pregnancy.

Design: High dimensional propensity score (HDPS) matched cohort study.

Setting: Multiple linked population health administrative databases in the entire province of Ontario, Canada.

Participants: Among women who delivered a singleton infant between 2003 and 2012, and who were eligible for provincially funded drug coverage, those with ≥ 2 consecutive prescriptions for an antipsychotic medication during pregnancy, at least one of which was filled in the first or second trimester, were selected. Of these antipsychotic drug users, 1021 were matched 1:1 with 1021 non-users by means of a HDPS algorithm.

Main outcome measures: The main maternal medical outcomes were gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and venous thromboembolism. The main perinatal outcomes were preterm birth (<37 weeks), and a birth weight <3rd or >97th centile. Conditional Poisson regression analysis was used to generate rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals, adjusting for additionally prescribed non-antipsychotic psychotropic medications.

Results: Compared with non-users, women prescribed an antipsychotic medication in pregnancy did not seem to be at higher risk of gestational diabetes (rate ratio 1.10 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.57)), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (1.12 (0.70 to 1.78)), or venous thromboembolism (0.95 (0.40 to 2.27)). The preterm birth rate, though high among antipsychotic users (14.5%) and matched non-users (14.3%), was not relatively different (rate ratio 0.99 (0.78 to 1.26)). Neither birth weight <3rd centile or >97th centile was associated with antipsychotic drug use in pregnancy (rate ratios 1.21 (0.81 to 1.82) and 1.26 (0.69 to 2.29) respectively).

Conclusions: Antipsychotic drug use in pregnancy had minimal evident impact on important maternal medical and short term perinatal outcomes. However, the rate of adverse outcomes is high enough to warrant careful assessment of maternal and fetal wellbeing among women prescribed an antipsychotic drug in pregnancy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare that no authors (nor their institutions) received payments for their efforts on this project. Unrelated to this project, SNV has received a one-time consulting fee from Multi-Dimensional Health Care (MDH) consulting for the development of continuing healthcare activities related to perinatal mental health; VHT receives funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb for an investigator initiated study and has been a speaker for Astra-Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Lundbeck. The remaining authors declare no competing interests: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

© Vigod et al 2015.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4794208/bin/vigs021969.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Main maternal medical outcomes in a cohort of 1021 women who were prescribed an antipsychotic drug during pregnancy and who were matched 1:1 with 1021 non-users by means of a high dimensional propensity score (HDPS) algorithm. Relative risks compare antipsychotic drug users—restricted to use of any atypical antipsychotic drug, and specifically, quetiapine, olanzapine, or risperidone—with matched non-users
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4794208/bin/vigs021969.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Main perinatal outcomes in a cohort of 1021 women who were prescribed an antipsychotic drug during pregnancy and who were matched 1:1 with 1021 non-users by means of a high dimensional propensity score (HDPS) algorithm. Relative risks compare antipsychotic drug users—restricted to use of any atypical antipsychotic drug, and specifically, quetiapine, olanzapine, or risperidone—with matched non-users

References

    1. Toh S, Li Q, Cheetham TC, et al. Prevalence and trends in the use of antipsychotic medications during pregnancy in the US, 2001-2007: a population-based study of 585,615 deliveries. Arch Womens Ment Health 2013;16:149-57.
    1. Vigod SN, Seeman MV, Ray JG, et al. Temporal trends in general and age-specific fertility rates among women with schizophrenia (1996-2009): a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. Schizophr Res 2012;139:169-75.
    1. Yatham LN, Kennedy SH, Parikh SV, et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: update 2013. Bipolar Disord 2013;15:1-44.
    1. Kennedy SH, Lam RW, Parikh SV, etal. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) clinical guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder in adults. Introduction. J Affect Disord 2009;117(suppl 1):S1-2.
    1. Viguera AC, Whitfield T, Baldessarini RJ, et al. Risk of recurrence in women with bipolar disorder during pregnancy: prospective study of mood stabilizer discontinuation. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164:1817-24; quiz 923.
    1. Gentile S. Antipsychotic therapy during early and late pregnancy. A systematic review. Schizophr Bull 2010;36:518-44.
    1. Newcomer JW. Antipsychotic medications: metabolic and cardiovascular risk. J Clin Psychiatry 2007;68(suppl 4):8-13.
    1. Barbui C, Conti V, Cipriani A. Antipsychotic drug exposure and risk of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Drug Safety 2014;37:79-90.
    1. Abel KM. Fetal antipsychotic exposure in a changing landscape: seeing the future. Br J Psychiatry 2013;202:321-3.
    1. Kaaja RJ, Greer IA. Manifestations of chronic disease during pregnancy. JAMA 2005;294:2751-7.
    1. Levy AR, O’Brien BJ, Sellors C, et al. Coding accuracy of administrative drug claims in the Ontario drug benefit database. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2003;10:67-71.
    1. Juurlink DPC, Croxford R, Chong A, et al. Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database: A Validation Study. Toronto, 2006.
    1. Hirdes JP, Smith TF, Rabinowitz T, et al. The Resident Assessment Instrument-Mental Health (RAI-MH): inter-rater reliability and convergent validity. J Behav Health Serv Res 2002;29:419-32.
    1. Urbanoski KA, Mulsant BH, Willett P, et al. Real-world evaluation of the Resident Assessment Instrument-Mental Health assessment system. Can J Psychiatry 2012;57:687-95.
    1. Hux JE, Ivis F, Flintoft V, et al. Diabetes in Ontario: determination of prevalence and incidence using a validated administrative data algorithm. Diabetes Care 2002;25:512-6.
    1. Quan H, Khan N, Hemmelgarn BR, et al. Validation of a case definition to define hypertension using administrative data. Hypertension 2009;54:1423-8.
    1. Parkerson GR Jr, Harrell FE Jr, Hammond WE, et al. Characteristics of adult primary care patients as predictors of future health services charges. Med Care 2001;39:1170-81.
    1. You JJ, Alter DA, Stukel TA, et al. Proliferation of prenatal ultrasonography. CMAJ 2010;182:143-51.
    1. Ray JG, Schull MJ, Urquia ML, et al. Major radiodiagnostic imaging in pregnancy and the risk of childhood malignancy: a population-based cohort study in Ontario. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000337.
    1. Gomes T, Juurlink DN, Ho JM, et al. Risk of serious falls associated with oxybutynin and tolterodine: a population based study. J Urol 2011;186:1340-4.
    1. Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, et al. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology 2009;20:512-22.
    1. Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA, et al. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples. Am J Epidemiol 2011;173:1404-13.
    1. Ros H. Preeclampsia and other circulatory diseases during pregnancy—etiological aspects and impact on female offspring. Karolinska University Press, 2001.
    1. Joseph KS, Fahey J. Validation of perinatal data in the Discharge Abstract Database of the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Chronic Dis Can 2009;29:96-100.
    1. Joseph KS, Liu S, Rouleau J, et al. Severe maternal morbidity in Canada, 2003 to 2007: surveillance using routine hospitalization data and ICD-10CA codes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010;32:837-46.
    1. Ray JG, Sgro M, Mamdani MM, et al. Birth weight curves tailored to maternal world region. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012;34:159-71.
    1. Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Moss JR, et al. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2477-86.
    1. Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Shapiro JL, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus, and the influence of maternal obesity and weight gain: the DEPOSIT study. Diabetes Endocrine Pregnancy Outcome Study in Toronto. QJM 2001;94:347-56.
    1. Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E, et al. A multicenter, randomized trial of treatment for mild gestational diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1339-48.
    1. Landon MB, Mele L, Spong CY, et al. The relationship between maternal glycemia and perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:218-24.
    1. Urquia ML, Frank JW, Glazier RH, et al. Birth outcomes by neighbourhood income and recent immigration in Toronto. Health Reports 2007;18:21-30.
    1. Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Perinatal health indicators for Canada: a resource manual. Ottawa, 2000.
    1. Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian Perinatal Health Report, 2008 Edition. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
    1. Ross LE, Grigoriadis S, Mamisashvili L, et al. Selected pregnancy and delivery outcomes after exposure to antidepressant medication: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2013;70:436-43.
    1. Boden R, Lundgren M, Brandt L, et al. Risks of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes in women treated or not treated with mood stabilisers for bipolar disorder: population based cohort study. BMJ 2012;345:e7085.
    1. Hernandez-Diaz S, Smith CR, Shen A, et al. Comparative safety of antiepileptic drugs during pregnancy. Neurology 2012;78:1692-9.
    1. Bellantuono C, Tofani S, Di Sciascio G, et al. Benzodiazepine exposure in pregnancy and risk of major malformations: a critical overview. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2013;35:3-8.
    1. Quispel C, Bangma M, Kazemier BM, et al. The role of depressive symptoms in the pathway of demographic and psychosocial risks to preterm birth and small for gestational age. Midwifery 2014;30:919-25.
    1. Borders AE, Grobman WA, Amsden LB, et al. Chronic stress and low birth weight neonates in a low-income population of women. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:331-8.
    1. Reis M, Kallen B. Maternal use of antipsychotics in early pregnancy and delivery outcome. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2008;28:279-88.
    1. Boden R, Lundgren M, Brandt L, et al. Antipsychotics during pregnancy: relation to fetal and maternal metabolic effects. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012;69:715-21.
    1. National Diabetes Surveillance System. Diabetes in Canada. Canada, 2008.
    1. Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Hypertension in Canada, 2010.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe