Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2023
Maternal cyclobenzaprine exposure and risk of birth defects in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (1997-2011) and Birth Defects Study to Evaluate Pregnancy exposureS (2014-2018).
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fisher Sarah C, Howley Meredith M, Tran Emmy L, Ailes Elizabeth C, Papadopoulos Eleni A, Nembhard Wendy N, Browne Marilyn L, National Birth Defects Prevention Study and the Birth Defects Study to Evaluate Pregnancy Exposures
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Cyclobenzaprine is a muscle relaxant indicated for acute pain. Little is known about cyclobenzaprine's safety during pregnancy. We explored the association between maternal cyclobenzaprine exposure and risk of birth defects among offspring.
METHODS: We combined data from two large, multi-site, population-based case-control studies in the United States. Cases were identified from birth defects registries across 10 states; controls were liveborn infants without birth defects randomly selected from the same catchment areas. Participants reported cyclobenzaprine use during the month before conception through the third month of pregnancy ("periconception") via computer-assisted telephone interview. We used logistic regression to assess associations between periconceptional cyclobenzaprine exposure and selected structural birth defects. We calculated crude odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Our study included 33 615 cases and 13 110 controls. Overall, 51 case (0.15%) and 9 control (0.07%) participants reported periconceptional cyclobenzaprine use. We observed increased risk for all seven defects with ≥3 exposed cases: cleft palate (OR = 4.79, 95% CI 1.71-13.44), cleft lip (OR = 2.50, 95% CI 0.89-7.02), anorectal atresia/stenosis (OR = 6.91, 95% CI 1.67, 28.65), d-transposition of the great arteries (OR = 6.97, 95% CI 2.17-22.36), coarctation of the aorta (OR = 5.58, 95% CI 1.88-16.58), pulmonary valve stenosis (OR = 4.55, 95% CI 1.10-18.87), and secundum atrial septal defect (OR = 3.08, 95% CI 0.83-11.45).
CONCLUSIONS: Even in our large sample, cyclobenzaprine use was rare. Our estimates are unadjusted and imprecise so should be interpreted cautiously. These hypothesis-generating results warrant confirmation and further research to explore possible mechanisms.
METHODS: We combined data from two large, multi-site, population-based case-control studies in the United States. Cases were identified from birth defects registries across 10 states; controls were liveborn infants without birth defects randomly selected from the same catchment areas. Participants reported cyclobenzaprine use during the month before conception through the third month of pregnancy ("periconception") via computer-assisted telephone interview. We used logistic regression to assess associations between periconceptional cyclobenzaprine exposure and selected structural birth defects. We calculated crude odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Our study included 33 615 cases and 13 110 controls. Overall, 51 case (0.15%) and 9 control (0.07%) participants reported periconceptional cyclobenzaprine use. We observed increased risk for all seven defects with ≥3 exposed cases: cleft palate (OR = 4.79, 95% CI 1.71-13.44), cleft lip (OR = 2.50, 95% CI 0.89-7.02), anorectal atresia/stenosis (OR = 6.91, 95% CI 1.67, 28.65), d-transposition of the great arteries (OR = 6.97, 95% CI 2.17-22.36), coarctation of the aorta (OR = 5.58, 95% CI 1.88-16.58), pulmonary valve stenosis (OR = 4.55, 95% CI 1.10-18.87), and secundum atrial septal defect (OR = 3.08, 95% CI 0.83-11.45).
CONCLUSIONS: Even in our large sample, cyclobenzaprine use was rare. Our estimates are unadjusted and imprecise so should be interpreted cautiously. These hypothesis-generating results warrant confirmation and further research to explore possible mechanisms.