Search

Importance: In pregnancy, the benefits of lithium treatment for relapse prevention in psychiatric conditions must be weighed against potential teratogenic effects. Currently, there is a paucity of information on how and when lithium is used by pregnant women., Objective: To examine lithium use in the perinatal period., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used individual-level data of pregnancies from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2021, in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, the UK, and 2 cohorts in the US. Analyses were performed from September 1 to November 30, 2023., Exposures: The prevalence of lithium use as the proportion of pregnancies with at least 1 prescription fill or prescription within 3 months before pregnancy until childbirth was estimated using a common protocol. Lithium use during pregnancy by trimester and in the 3 months before and after pregnancy was examined., Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparison of prevalence between the first and last 3-year periods of available data., Results: Among 21 659 454 pregnancies from all collaborating sites, the prevalence of lithium use ranged from 0.07 per 1000 pregnancies in Hong Kong to 1.56 per 1000 in the US publicly insured population. Lithium use increased per 1000 pregnancies in 10 populations (Australia [0.60 to 0.74], Denmark [0.09 to 0.51], Finland [0.10 to 0.29], Iceland [0.24 to 0.99], Israel [0.25 to 0.37], Norway [0.24 to 0.47], South Korea [0.30 to 0.44], Sweden [0.42 to 1.07], the UK [0.07 to 0.10], and Taiwan [0.15 to 0.19]), remained stable in 4 populations (Germany [0.17 to 0.16], Hong Kong [0.06 to 0.06], and the publicly [1.50 to 1.34] and commercially [0.38 to 0.36] insured US populations), and decreased in 1 population (New Zealand [0.54 to 0.39]). Use of lithium decreased with each trimester of pregnancy, while prevalence of postpartum use was similar to prepregnancy levels. The proportion of lithium use in the second trimester compared with the prepregnancy period ranged from 2% in South Korea to 80% in Denmark., Conclusions and Relevance: Prevalence of lithium use in pregnant women over the past 2 decades varied markedly between populations. Patterns of use before, during, and after pregnancy suggest that many women discontinued lithium use during pregnancy and reinitiated treatment after childbirth, with large variations between countries. These findings underscore the need for internationally harmonized guidelines, specifically for psychiatric conditions among pregnant women that may benefit from lithium treatment.

Purpose: To describe recent international trends in antiepileptic drug (AED) use during pregnancy and individual patterns of use including discontinuation and switching., Methods: We studied pregnancies from 2006 to 2016 within linked population-based registers for births and dispensed prescription drugs from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and New South Wales, Australia and claims data for public and private insurance enrollees in the United States. We examined the prevalence of AED use: the proportion of pregnancies with ≥1 prescription filled from 3 months before pregnancy until birth, and individual patterns of use by trimester., Results: Prevalence of AED use in almost five million pregnancies was 15.3 per 1000 (n = 75 249) and varied from 6.4 in Sweden to 34.5 per 1000 in the publicly-insured US population. AED use increased in all countries in 2006-2012 ranging from an increase of 22% in Australia to 104% in Sweden, and continued to rise or stabilized in the countries in which more recent data were available. Lamotrigine, clonazepam, and valproate were the most commonly used AEDs in the Nordic countries, United States, and Australia, respectively. Among AED users, 31% only filled a prescription in the 3 months before pregnancy. Most filled a prescription in the first trimester (59%) but few filled prescriptions in every trimester (22%)., Conclusions: Use of AEDs in pregnancy rose from 2006 to 2016. Trends and patterns of use of valproate and lamotrigine reflected the safety data available during this period. Many women discontinued AEDs during pregnancy while some switched to another AED., (© 2020 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To compare the prevalence and trends of antipsychotic drug use during pregnancy between countries across four continents., Methods: Individually linked health data in Denmark (2000-2012), Finland (2005-2014), Iceland (2004-2017), Norway (2005-2015), Sweden (2006-2015), Germany (2006-2015), Australia (New South Wales, 2004-2012), Hong Kong (2001-2015), UK (2006-2016), and the US (Medicaid, 2000-2013, and IBM MarketScan, 2012-2015) were used. Using a uniformed approach, we estimated the prevalence of antipsychotic use as the proportion of pregnancies where a woman filled at least one antipsychotic prescription within three months before pregnancy until birth. For the Nordic countries, data were meta-analyzed to investigate maternal characteristics associated with the use of antipsychotics., Results: We included 8,394,343 pregnancies. Typical antipsychotic use was highest in the UK (4.4%) whereas atypical antipsychotic use was highest in the US Medicaid (1.5%). Atypical antipsychotic use increased over time in most populations, reaching 2% in Australia (2012) and US Medicaid (2013). In most countries, prochlorperazine was the most commonly used typical antipsychotic and quetiapine the most commonly used atypical antipsychotic. Use of antipsychotics decreased across the trimesters of pregnancy in all populations except Finland. Antipsychotic use was elevated among smokers and those with parity ≥4 in the Nordic countries., Conclusion: Antipsychotic use during pregnancy varied considerably between populations, partly explained by varying use of the typical antipsychotic prochlorperazine, which is often used for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Increasing usage of atypical antipsychotics among pregnant women reflects the pattern that was previously reported for the general population., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest JR, CC, LP, and GB, are employees of the Centre for Pharmacopidemiology which receives funding from pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities for drug safety/utilization studies, unrelated to the submitted work. BTB has participated as an investigator on grants to the Brigham and Women's Hospital from Pfizer, GSK, Lilly, Baxalta, and Pacira, not related to the topic of the submitted work. SH-D has participated as investigator in projects funded by Pfizer, GSK, and Lilly; and consulted for Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche and UCB as a methods advisor for pregnancy studies. KFH has participated as an investigator on grants to the Brigham and Women's Hospital from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Lilly and GSK, not related to the topic of the submitted work. The other authors declare no personal conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)