出生缺陷报告与地屈孕酮的使用:来自世界卫生组织药物警戒数据库(VigiBase)的比例失调分析。

IF 8.3 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Human reproduction open Pub Date : 2025-01-02 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/hropen/hoae072
Alexandra Henry, Pietro Santulli, Mathilde Bourdon, Chloé Maignien, Charles Chapron, Jean-Marc Treluyer, Jean Guibourdenche, Laurent Chouchana
{"title":"出生缺陷报告与地屈孕酮的使用:来自世界卫生组织药物警戒数据库(VigiBase)的比例失调分析。","authors":"Alexandra Henry, Pietro Santulli, Mathilde Bourdon, Chloé Maignien, Charles Chapron, Jean-Marc Treluyer, Jean Guibourdenche, Laurent Chouchana","doi":"10.1093/hropen/hoae072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study question: </strong>Is there an association between dydrogesterone exposure during early pregnancy and the reporting of birth defects?</p><p><strong>Summary answer: </strong>This observational analysis based on global safety data showed an increased reporting of birth defects, mainly hypospadias and congenital heart defects (CHD), in pregnancies exposed to dydrogesterone, especially when comparing to progesterone.</p><p><strong>What is known already: </strong>Intravaginal administration of progesterone is the standard of care to overcome luteal phase progesterone deficiency induced by ovarian stimulation in ART. In recent years, randomized controlled clinical trials demonstrated that oral dydrogesterone was non-inferior for pregnancy rate at 12 weeks of gestation and could be an alternative to micronized vaginal progesterone. Safety profiles in both mother and child were similar. However, concerns have been raised regarding an association between dydrogesterone usage during early pregnancy and CHD in offspring.</p><p><strong>Study design size duration: </strong>We performed a disproportionality analysis, also called case-non-case study, similar in concept to case-control studies, using the WHO global safety database, VigiBase. The study cohort consisted of individual pregnancy-related safety reports, using the <i>ad hoc</i> standardized query (SMQ 'Pregnancy and neonatal topics'). Cases of birth defects consisted of safety reports containing terms related to the 'congenital, familial and genetic disorders' System Organ Class from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Non-cases consisted of safety reports containing any other adverse event, in pregnancy-related safety reports.</p><p><strong>Participants/materials setting methods: </strong>Considering reports since database inception to 31 December 2021, we first compared the reporting of birth defects with dydrogesterone to that of any other drug on the database, then to any other drug used for ART. Secondly, we performed a comparison on the reporting of birth defects for dydrogesterone with progesterone. Results are presented as reporting odds ratio (ROR) and their 95% CI. For each comparison, two sensitivity analyses were performed. Finally, a case-by-case review was performed to further characterize major birth defects and sort anomalies according to classification of EUROCAT.</p><p><strong>Main results and the role of chance: </strong>Study cohort consisted of 362 183 safety reports in pregnant women, among which 50 653 reports were related to the use of drugs for ART, including 145 with dydrogesterone and 1222 with progesterone. Of these, 374 (0.7%) were cases of birth defects: 60 with dydrogesterone and 141 with progesterone, including 48 and 92 cases compatible with major birth defect cases according to EUROCAT classification, respectively. Major birth defects reported with dydrogesterone were mainly genital defects such as hypospadias and CHD. A significantly higher disproportionate reporting of birth defects was found with dydrogesterone when compared to any other drug (ROR 5.4, 95% CI [3.9-7.5]), to any other ART drug (ROR 6.0, 95% CI [4.2-8.5]), and to progesterone (ROR 5.4, 95% CI [3.7-7.9]). Sensitivity analyses found consistent results.</p><p><strong>Limitations reasons for caution: </strong>First, under-reporting, being inherent to pharmacovigilance systems, impedes the measurement of the incidence of adverse drug reactions and can limit the sensitivity of signal detection. Second, drug causality, not being the same for all cases, is challenging for such events and requires further assessment. However, sensitivity analyses showed consistent results.</p><p><strong>Wider implications of the findings: </strong>This possible safety signal emphasizes the need for further investigation regarding the fetal safety profile of dydrogesterone.</p><p><strong>Study funding/competing interests: </strong>No funding was received for this study. None of the authors have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could influence the design, conductor or reporting of this work.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>N/A.</p>","PeriodicalId":73264,"journal":{"name":"Human reproduction open","volume":"2025 1","pages":"hoae072"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11726828/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Birth defects reporting and the use of dydrogesterone: a disproportionality analysis from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase).\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra Henry, Pietro Santulli, Mathilde Bourdon, Chloé Maignien, Charles Chapron, Jean-Marc Treluyer, Jean Guibourdenche, Laurent Chouchana\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/hropen/hoae072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study question: </strong>Is there an association between dydrogesterone exposure during early pregnancy and the reporting of birth defects?</p><p><strong>Summary answer: </strong>This observational analysis based on global safety data showed an increased reporting of birth defects, mainly hypospadias and congenital heart defects (CHD), in pregnancies exposed to dydrogesterone, especially when comparing to progesterone.</p><p><strong>What is known already: </strong>Intravaginal administration of progesterone is the standard of care to overcome luteal phase progesterone deficiency induced by ovarian stimulation in ART. In recent years, randomized controlled clinical trials demonstrated that oral dydrogesterone was non-inferior for pregnancy rate at 12 weeks of gestation and could be an alternative to micronized vaginal progesterone. Safety profiles in both mother and child were similar. However, concerns have been raised regarding an association between dydrogesterone usage during early pregnancy and CHD in offspring.</p><p><strong>Study design size duration: </strong>We performed a disproportionality analysis, also called case-non-case study, similar in concept to case-control studies, using the WHO global safety database, VigiBase. The study cohort consisted of individual pregnancy-related safety reports, using the <i>ad hoc</i> standardized query (SMQ 'Pregnancy and neonatal topics'). Cases of birth defects consisted of safety reports containing terms related to the 'congenital, familial and genetic disorders' System Organ Class from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Non-cases consisted of safety reports containing any other adverse event, in pregnancy-related safety reports.</p><p><strong>Participants/materials setting methods: </strong>Considering reports since database inception to 31 December 2021, we first compared the reporting of birth defects with dydrogesterone to that of any other drug on the database, then to any other drug used for ART. Secondly, we performed a comparison on the reporting of birth defects for dydrogesterone with progesterone. Results are presented as reporting odds ratio (ROR) and their 95% CI. For each comparison, two sensitivity analyses were performed. Finally, a case-by-case review was performed to further characterize major birth defects and sort anomalies according to classification of EUROCAT.</p><p><strong>Main results and the role of chance: </strong>Study cohort consisted of 362 183 safety reports in pregnant women, among which 50 653 reports were related to the use of drugs for ART, including 145 with dydrogesterone and 1222 with progesterone. Of these, 374 (0.7%) were cases of birth defects: 60 with dydrogesterone and 141 with progesterone, including 48 and 92 cases compatible with major birth defect cases according to EUROCAT classification, respectively. Major birth defects reported with dydrogesterone were mainly genital defects such as hypospadias and CHD. A significantly higher disproportionate reporting of birth defects was found with dydrogesterone when compared to any other drug (ROR 5.4, 95% CI [3.9-7.5]), to any other ART drug (ROR 6.0, 95% CI [4.2-8.5]), and to progesterone (ROR 5.4, 95% CI [3.7-7.9]). Sensitivity analyses found consistent results.</p><p><strong>Limitations reasons for caution: </strong>First, under-reporting, being inherent to pharmacovigilance systems, impedes the measurement of the incidence of adverse drug reactions and can limit the sensitivity of signal detection. Second, drug causality, not being the same for all cases, is challenging for such events and requires further assessment. However, sensitivity analyses showed consistent results.</p><p><strong>Wider implications of the findings: </strong>This possible safety signal emphasizes the need for further investigation regarding the fetal safety profile of dydrogesterone.</p><p><strong>Study funding/competing interests: </strong>No funding was received for this study. None of the authors have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could influence the design, conductor or reporting of this work.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>N/A.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human reproduction open\",\"volume\":\"2025 1\",\"pages\":\"hoae072\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11726828/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human reproduction open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoae072\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human reproduction open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoae072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究问题:妊娠早期地屈孕酮暴露与出生缺陷报告之间是否存在关联?总结回答:这项基于全球安全性数据的观察性分析显示,在暴露于地屈孕酮的妊娠中,特别是与黄体酮相比,出生缺陷的报告增加,主要是尿道下裂和先天性心脏缺陷(CHD)。已知情况:阴道内给药黄体酮是抗逆转录病毒治疗中克服卵巢刺激引起的黄体期黄体酮缺乏的标准治疗方法。近年来的随机对照临床试验表明,口服地屈孕酮对妊娠12周的妊娠率不差,可作为阴道微粉孕酮的替代品。母亲和儿童的安全概况相似。然而,关于妊娠早期使用地屈孕酮与后代冠心病之间的关系,人们提出了担忧。研究设计规模持续时间:我们使用世界卫生组织全球安全数据库VigiBase进行了歧化分析,也称为病例-非病例研究,在概念上与病例-对照研究相似。研究队列包括个体妊娠相关的安全报告,使用特别标准化查询(SMQ“妊娠和新生儿主题”)。出生缺陷病例包括安全报告,其中包含与“先天性,家族性和遗传性疾病”相关的术语,来自《监管活动医学词典》的系统器官类别。非病例包括妊娠相关安全报告中包含任何其他不良事件的安全报告。参与者/材料设置方法:考虑自数据库建立至2021年12月31日的报告,我们首先将地屈孕酮的出生缺陷报告与数据库中任何其他药物的报告进行比较,然后与用于ART的任何其他药物进行比较。其次,我们对地屈孕酮与孕酮的出生缺陷报告进行了比较。结果以报告优势比(ROR)及其95% CI表示。对于每个比较,进行两次敏感性分析。最后,一个个案审查进行了进一步表征主要出生缺陷和排序异常根据分类EUROCAT。主要结果及偶然性的作用:研究队列包括362 183份孕妇安全性报告,其中50 653份报告与ART药物的使用有关,其中地屈孕酮145份,孕酮1222份。其中,374例(0.7%)为出生缺陷病例:60例使用地屈孕酮,141例使用孕酮,其中48例和92例符合EUROCAT分类的主要出生缺陷病例。地屈孕酮报道的主要出生缺陷主要是生殖器缺陷,如尿道下裂和冠心病。与任何其他药物(ROR 5.4, 95% CI[3.9-7.5])、任何其他ART药物(ROR 6.0, 95% CI[4.2-8.5])和黄体酮(ROR 5.4, 95% CI[3.7-7.9])相比,地孕酮的出生缺陷报告比例明显更高。敏感性分析发现了一致的结果。警惕的局限性:首先,药物警戒系统固有的低报告妨碍了对药物不良反应发生率的测量,并可能限制信号检测的灵敏度。其次,并非所有病例的药物因果关系都相同,这对此类事件具有挑战性,需要进一步评估。然而,敏感性分析显示了一致的结果。研究结果的更广泛意义:这一可能的安全性信号强调需要进一步研究地屈孕酮的胎儿安全性。研究资金/竞争利益:本研究未收到任何资金。作者与其他个人或组织没有任何财务和个人关系,这些关系可能会影响本工作的设计、指导或报告。试验注册号:无。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Birth defects reporting and the use of dydrogesterone: a disproportionality analysis from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase).

Study question: Is there an association between dydrogesterone exposure during early pregnancy and the reporting of birth defects?

Summary answer: This observational analysis based on global safety data showed an increased reporting of birth defects, mainly hypospadias and congenital heart defects (CHD), in pregnancies exposed to dydrogesterone, especially when comparing to progesterone.

What is known already: Intravaginal administration of progesterone is the standard of care to overcome luteal phase progesterone deficiency induced by ovarian stimulation in ART. In recent years, randomized controlled clinical trials demonstrated that oral dydrogesterone was non-inferior for pregnancy rate at 12 weeks of gestation and could be an alternative to micronized vaginal progesterone. Safety profiles in both mother and child were similar. However, concerns have been raised regarding an association between dydrogesterone usage during early pregnancy and CHD in offspring.

Study design size duration: We performed a disproportionality analysis, also called case-non-case study, similar in concept to case-control studies, using the WHO global safety database, VigiBase. The study cohort consisted of individual pregnancy-related safety reports, using the ad hoc standardized query (SMQ 'Pregnancy and neonatal topics'). Cases of birth defects consisted of safety reports containing terms related to the 'congenital, familial and genetic disorders' System Organ Class from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Non-cases consisted of safety reports containing any other adverse event, in pregnancy-related safety reports.

Participants/materials setting methods: Considering reports since database inception to 31 December 2021, we first compared the reporting of birth defects with dydrogesterone to that of any other drug on the database, then to any other drug used for ART. Secondly, we performed a comparison on the reporting of birth defects for dydrogesterone with progesterone. Results are presented as reporting odds ratio (ROR) and their 95% CI. For each comparison, two sensitivity analyses were performed. Finally, a case-by-case review was performed to further characterize major birth defects and sort anomalies according to classification of EUROCAT.

Main results and the role of chance: Study cohort consisted of 362 183 safety reports in pregnant women, among which 50 653 reports were related to the use of drugs for ART, including 145 with dydrogesterone and 1222 with progesterone. Of these, 374 (0.7%) were cases of birth defects: 60 with dydrogesterone and 141 with progesterone, including 48 and 92 cases compatible with major birth defect cases according to EUROCAT classification, respectively. Major birth defects reported with dydrogesterone were mainly genital defects such as hypospadias and CHD. A significantly higher disproportionate reporting of birth defects was found with dydrogesterone when compared to any other drug (ROR 5.4, 95% CI [3.9-7.5]), to any other ART drug (ROR 6.0, 95% CI [4.2-8.5]), and to progesterone (ROR 5.4, 95% CI [3.7-7.9]). Sensitivity analyses found consistent results.

Limitations reasons for caution: First, under-reporting, being inherent to pharmacovigilance systems, impedes the measurement of the incidence of adverse drug reactions and can limit the sensitivity of signal detection. Second, drug causality, not being the same for all cases, is challenging for such events and requires further assessment. However, sensitivity analyses showed consistent results.

Wider implications of the findings: This possible safety signal emphasizes the need for further investigation regarding the fetal safety profile of dydrogesterone.

Study funding/competing interests: No funding was received for this study. None of the authors have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could influence the design, conductor or reporting of this work.

Trial registration number: N/A.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信