Drugs, Pregnancy & Lactation

By their very nature, antidotes and detoxification agents are needed in situations where the health and well-being of the mother are in jeopardy. In nearly all such cases, the mother’s condition will take priority over the safety of the embryo-fetus. Only two of the drugs (ethanol and penicillamine) are known to cause embryo or fetal harm but, for most of these drugs, the reported human pregnancy experience is very limited or absent. Nevertheless, pregnant women should be treated the same way as nonpregnant women.

Activated charcoal prevents absorption of substances from the gut and is no risk to the mother or her pregnancy. Similarly, ipecac syrup, which is used to induce vomiting, is safe in pregnancy.

Several agents are available for the reversal of opioid (natural or synthetic) overdose that is causing respiratory depression and/or marked sedation: naloxone, naltrexone, and nalmefene, a long-acting derivative of naltrexone (plasma half-life about 10 hours). Of the three agents, naloxone is the one for which there is the most human pregnancy experience. It has no intrinsic respiratory depressive activity or other narcotic effects of its own. All of these agents can be used in pregnancy for acute narcotic overdose.

Acetylcysteine is used to prevent or lessen hepatic injury following the ingestion of potentially hepatic toxic doses of acetaminophen. The antidote is not teratogenic or embryo toxic, and limited human pregnancy data have not shown fetal toxicity. After IV administration, acetylcysteine crosses the placenta in sufficient amounts to achieve protective serum levels in the fetus.

Potentially life-threatening digoxin overdose can be treated with IV digoxin immune Fab (ovine). The use of the agent has been reported in 44 pregnancies, but none of the cases involved digitalis overdose (all women had severe preeclampsia). No fetal harm secondary to the drug was observed.

Flumazenil is indicated for the reversal of benzodiazepine overdose. The drug is not teratogenic or embryo-fetal toxic in animals at systemic exposures near those obtained in humans. Based on very limited data, it appears to cross the human placenta and to reverse the depressive effects of benzodiazepines on the fetus.

Fomepizole is used for the treatment of ethylene glycol or methanol ingestion. It inhibits alcohol dehydrogenase, an enzyme that catalyzes the oxidation of the two chemicals to their toxic metabolites. The drug was not teratogenic in mice, but only one case of human pregnancy exposure has been reported, and the pregnancy outcome was unknown. Ethanol also has been used for poisonings with these two chemicals. Although the fetal effects of this short-term (24-48 hours) use have not been studied, neurotoxicity is a potential complication.

Glucarpidase is indicated for the treatment of toxic plasma methotrexate levels. It converts methotrexate to inactive metabolites. There are no reports of its use in human or animal pregnancies. Human reports are unlikely because methotrexate is contraindicated in pregnancy.

There are six agents available to treat heavy metal (arsenic, gold, iron, lead, and mercury) intoxication: deferasirox (iron), deferoxamine (iron), dimercaprol (arsenic, gold, lead, and mercury), edetate calcium disodium (lead), penicillamine (copper and mercury), and succimer (lead).

Deferasirox is indicated for chronic iron overload due to blood transfusions. Three reports have described its use in the first half of pregnancy without embryo or fetal harm. Deferoxamine is used for the treatment of both acute and chronic iron overload. Although the drug causes toxicity in two animal species, the human pregnancy experience is substantial, and no embryo or fetal adverse effects attributable to the agent have been reported. Dimercaprol (British anti-Lewisite; BAL) is used for the treatment of arsenic, gold, and acute mercury poisoning (not effective for chronic mercury poisoning). It is also combined with edetate calcium disodium for lead poisoning. High doses are embryotoxic and teratogenic in mice. The published human pregnancy experience is limited and all involved exposures after the first trimester. High levels of arsenic or lead were found in the newborns in two cases.

Edetate calcium disodium forms stable chelates with a number of metals, but it is primarily used for lead overdose, either alone or in combination with dimercaprol. There are only a few reports of its use in human pregnancy, all occurring late in gestation. A potential complication of therapy is maternal hypotension that could jeopardize placental perfusion. The agent also chelates zinc, resulting in zinc deficiency. This mechanism was thought to be involved in the teratogenic effects seen in animals.

Penicillamine has been used in mercury poisoning (one report), in addition to its indication as a chelating agent for copper in the treatment of Wilson’s disease. Exposure in the first trimester is related to a risk of connective tissue anomalies, primarily cutis laxa. Succimer (dimercaptosuccinic acid; DMSA) has been used for lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium poisoning. It also chelates zinc quite effectively. The agent is toxic and/or teratogenic in mice and rats, but some of the effects may have been secondary to zinc deficiency. Because of the complete absence of human pregnancy experience, antidotes other than succimer probably are preferable.

Lanthanum carbonate and sevelamer are indicated to reduce serum phosphate levels in patients with end-stage renal disease. The drugs bind dietary phosphate from food during digestion in the gut. There are no reports of their use in human pregnancy. The systemic bioavailability is minimal, and the drugs should have no effect on the embryo or fetus. However, they may prevent intestinal vitamin absorption, especially of fat-soluble vitamins.

The cholinergic agent physostigmine is capable of reversing the central nervous system effects of anticholinergics, such as scopolamine and tricyclic antidepressants. The reported human pregnancy experience is limited to the third trimester.

Methylene blue has been used for cyanide poisoning. In humans, it is teratogenic and fetal toxic when given by intra-amniotic injection, but its oral use as an antidote in pregnancy has not been reported. The cyanide antidote package contains amyl nitrite, sodium nitrite, and sodium thiosulfate. The effects of these agents on human pregnancy also are unknown, as are the effects of high-dose hydroxocobalamin, an analogue of vitamin B₁₂ also used in cyanide poisoning.

Pralidoxime (2-PAM) reactivates cholinesterase that has been inactivated by organophosphate pesticides and chemicals with anticholinesterase activity, thereby relieving the paralysis of the muscles of respiration. The drug is available in an autoinjector that can be used rapidly in cases of exposure to nerve agents possessing anticholinesterase activity (organophosphate poisoning). Animal reproduction tests have not been conducted with pralidoxime, and the human pregnancy experience is limited to a few cases of insecticide poisoning (second and third trimesters). Healthy infants were later delivered in these cases.

Four antivenins are commercially available for acute envenomation: black widow spider antivenin, Centruroides (scorpion) immune F(ab\')₂ (equine), crotalidae polyvalent immune Fab (ovine) (North American rattlesnake), and North American coral snake antivenin (equine). In addition, botulism antitoxin heptavalent (equine) is used for food poisoning caused by the neurotoxic bacterium Clostridium botulinum. Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with these products, and human reports are limited or absent.

Sapropterin, a cofactor for the enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase, reduces blood phenylalanine levels in patients with phenylketonuria. The drug is given daily if diet alone does not control maternal phenylalanine levels. Use of the drug in human pregnancy has not been reported.

A number of other agents can be classified as antidotes, in addition to their primary indications, because they can reverse the toxic effects of other agents. These antidotes include atropine (severe bradycardia, poisonings with organophosphates and carbamates), calcium chloride or gluconate (severe hypocalcemia, calcium-channel-blocker overdose, exposure to hydrofluoric acid), glucagon (hypoglycemia), folinic acid (methotrexate overdose), protamine (heparin overdose), pyridoxine (isoniazid-induced seizures; adjunct in ethylene glycol poisoning), and vitamin K (phytonadione) (warfarin overdose). The pregnancy data are extensive for many of these agents and are not suggestive of significant embryo or fetal risk.

Mr. Briggs is a pharmacist clinical specialist at the outpatient clinics of Memorial Care Center for Women at Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach, Calif.; clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco; and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Washington State University, Spokane. He also is coauthor of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation," and coeditor of "Diseases, Complications, and Drug Therapy in Obstetrics." He had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

By their very nature, antidotes and detoxification agents are needed in situations where the health and well-being of the mother are in jeopardy. In nearly all such cases, the mother’s condition will take priority over the safety of the embryo-fetus. Only two of the drugs (ethanol and penicillamine) are known to cause embryo or fetal harm but, for most of these drugs, the reported human pregnancy experience is very limited or absent. Nevertheless, pregnant women should be treated the same way as nonpregnant women.

Activated charcoal prevents absorption of substances from the gut and is no risk to the mother or her pregnancy. Similarly, ipecac syrup, which is used to induce vomiting, is safe in pregnancy.

Several agents are available for the reversal of opioid (natural or synthetic) overdose that is causing respiratory depression and/or marked sedation: naloxone, naltrexone, and nalmefene, a long-acting derivative of naltrexone (plasma half-life about 10 hours). Of the three agents, naloxone is the one for which there is the most human pregnancy experience. It has no intrinsic respiratory depressive activity or other narcotic effects of its own. All of these agents can be used in pregnancy for acute narcotic overdose.

Acetylcysteine is used to prevent or lessen hepatic injury following the ingestion of potentially hepatic toxic doses of acetaminophen. The antidote is not teratogenic or embryo toxic, and limited human pregnancy data have not shown fetal toxicity. After IV administration, acetylcysteine crosses the placenta in sufficient amounts to achieve protective serum levels in the fetus.

Potentially life-threatening digoxin overdose can be treated with IV digoxin immune Fab (ovine). The use of the agent has been reported in 44 pregnancies, but none of the cases involved digitalis overdose (all women had severe preeclampsia). No fetal harm secondary to the drug was observed.

Flumazenil is indicated for the reversal of benzodiazepine overdose. The drug is not teratogenic or embryo-fetal toxic in animals at systemic exposures near those obtained in humans. Based on very limited data, it appears to cross the human placenta and to reverse the depressive effects of benzodiazepines on the fetus.

Fomepizole is used for the treatment of ethylene glycol or methanol ingestion. It inhibits alcohol dehydrogenase, an enzyme that catalyzes the oxidation of the two chemicals to their toxic metabolites. The drug was not teratogenic in mice, but only one case of human pregnancy exposure has been reported, and the pregnancy outcome was unknown. Ethanol also has been used for poisonings with these two chemicals. Although the fetal effects of this short-term (24-48 hours) use have not been studied, neurotoxicity is a potential complication.

Glucarpidase is indicated for the treatment of toxic plasma methotrexate levels. It converts methotrexate to inactive metabolites. There are no reports of its use in human or animal pregnancies. Human reports are unlikely because methotrexate is contraindicated in pregnancy.

There are six agents available to treat heavy metal (arsenic, gold, iron, lead, and mercury) intoxication: deferasirox (iron), deferoxamine (iron), dimercaprol (arsenic, gold, lead, and mercury), edetate calcium disodium (lead), penicillamine (copper and mercury), and succimer (lead).

Deferasirox is indicated for chronic iron overload due to blood transfusions. Three reports have described its use in the first half of pregnancy without embryo or fetal harm. Deferoxamine is used for the treatment of both acute and chronic iron overload. Although the drug causes toxicity in two animal species, the human pregnancy experience is substantial, and no embryo or fetal adverse effects attributable to the agent have been reported. Dimercaprol (British anti-Lewisite; BAL) is used for the treatment of arsenic, gold, and acute mercury poisoning (not effective for chronic mercury poisoning). It is also combined with edetate calcium disodium for lead poisoning. High doses are embryotoxic and teratogenic in mice. The published human pregnancy experience is limited and all involved exposures after the first trimester. High levels of arsenic or lead were found in the newborns in two cases.

Edetate calcium disodium forms stable chelates with a number of metals, but it is primarily used for lead overdose, either alone or in combination with dimercaprol. There are only a few reports of its use in human pregnancy, all occurring late in gestation. A potential complication of therapy is maternal hypotension that could jeopardize placental perfusion. The agent also chelates zinc, resulting in zinc deficiency. This mechanism was thought to be involved in the teratogenic effects seen in animals.

Penicillamine has been used in mercury poisoning (one report), in addition to its indication as a chelating agent for copper in the treatment of Wilson’s disease. Exposure in the first trimester is related to a risk of connective tissue anomalies, primarily cutis laxa. Succimer (dimercaptosuccinic acid; DMSA) has been used for lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium poisoning. It also chelates zinc quite effectively. The agent is toxic and/or teratogenic in mice and rats, but some of the effects may have been secondary to zinc deficiency. Because of the complete absence of human pregnancy experience, antidotes other than succimer probably are preferable.

Lanthanum carbonate and sevelamer are indicated to reduce serum phosphate levels in patients with end-stage renal disease. The drugs bind dietary phosphate from food during digestion in the gut. There are no reports of their use in human pregnancy. The systemic bioavailability is minimal, and the drugs should have no effect on the embryo or fetus. However, they may prevent intestinal vitamin absorption, especially of fat-soluble vitamins.

The cholinergic agent physostigmine is capable of reversing the central nervous system effects of anticholinergics, such as scopolamine and tricyclic antidepressants. The reported human pregnancy experience is limited to the third trimester.

Methylene blue has been used for cyanide poisoning. In humans, it is teratogenic and fetal toxic when given by intra-amniotic injection, but its oral use as an antidote in pregnancy has not been reported. The cyanide antidote package contains amyl nitrite, sodium nitrite, and sodium thiosulfate. The effects of these agents on human pregnancy also are unknown, as are the effects of high-dose hydroxocobalamin, an analogue of vitamin B₁₂ also used in cyanide poisoning.

Pralidoxime (2-PAM) reactivates cholinesterase that has been inactivated by organophosphate pesticides and chemicals with anticholinesterase activity, thereby relieving the paralysis of the muscles of respiration. The drug is available in an autoinjector that can be used rapidly in cases of exposure to nerve agents possessing anticholinesterase activity (organophosphate poisoning). Animal reproduction tests have not been conducted with pralidoxime, and the human pregnancy experience is limited to a few cases of insecticide poisoning (second and third trimesters). Healthy infants were later delivered in these cases.

Four antivenins are commercially available for acute envenomation: black widow spider antivenin, Centruroides (scorpion) immune F(ab\')₂ (equine), crotalidae polyvalent immune Fab (ovine) (North American rattlesnake), and North American coral snake antivenin (equine). In addition, botulism antitoxin heptavalent (equine) is used for food poisoning caused by the neurotoxic bacterium Clostridium botulinum. Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with these products, and human reports are limited or absent.

Sapropterin, a cofactor for the enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase, reduces blood phenylalanine levels in patients with phenylketonuria. The drug is given daily if diet alone does not control maternal phenylalanine levels. Use of the drug in human pregnancy has not been reported.

A number of other agents can be classified as antidotes, in addition to their primary indications, because they can reverse the toxic effects of other agents. These antidotes include atropine (severe bradycardia, poisonings with organophosphates and carbamates), calcium chloride or gluconate (severe hypocalcemia, calcium-channel-blocker overdose, exposure to hydrofluoric acid), glucagon (hypoglycemia), folinic acid (methotrexate overdose), protamine (heparin overdose), pyridoxine (isoniazid-induced seizures; adjunct in ethylene glycol poisoning), and vitamin K (phytonadione) (warfarin overdose). The pregnancy data are extensive for many of these agents and are not suggestive of significant embryo or fetal risk.

Mr. Briggs is a pharmacist clinical specialist at the outpatient clinics of Memorial Care Center for Women at Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach, Calif.; clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco; and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Washington State University, Spokane. He also is coauthor of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation," and coeditor of "Diseases, Complications, and Drug Therapy in Obstetrics." He had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

By their very nature, antidotes and detoxification agents are needed in situations where the health and well-being of the mother are in jeopardy. In nearly all such cases, the mother’s condition will take priority over the safety of the embryo-fetus. Only two of the drugs (ethanol and penicillamine) are known to cause embryo or fetal harm but, for most of these drugs, the reported human pregnancy experience is very limited or absent. Nevertheless, pregnant women should be treated the same way as nonpregnant women.

Activated charcoal prevents absorption of substances from the gut and is no risk to the mother or her pregnancy. Similarly, ipecac syrup, which is used to induce vomiting, is safe in pregnancy.

Several agents are available for the reversal of opioid (natural or synthetic) overdose that is causing respiratory depression and/or marked sedation: naloxone, naltrexone, and nalmefene, a long-acting derivative of naltrexone (plasma half-life about 10 hours). Of the three agents, naloxone is the one for which there is the most human pregnancy experience. It has no intrinsic respiratory depressive activity or other narcotic effects of its own. All of these agents can be used in pregnancy for acute narcotic overdose.

Acetylcysteine is used to prevent or lessen hepatic injury following the ingestion of potentially hepatic toxic doses of acetaminophen. The antidote is not teratogenic or embryo toxic, and limited human pregnancy data have not shown fetal toxicity. After IV administration, acetylcysteine crosses the placenta in sufficient amounts to achieve protective serum levels in the fetus.

Potentially life-threatening digoxin overdose can be treated with IV digoxin immune Fab (ovine). The use of the agent has been reported in 44 pregnancies, but none of the cases involved digitalis overdose (all women had severe preeclampsia). No fetal harm secondary to the drug was observed.

Flumazenil is indicated for the reversal of benzodiazepine overdose. The drug is not teratogenic or embryo-fetal toxic in animals at systemic exposures near those obtained in humans. Based on very limited data, it appears to cross the human placenta and to reverse the depressive effects of benzodiazepines on the fetus.

Fomepizole is used for the treatment of ethylene glycol or methanol ingestion. It inhibits alcohol dehydrogenase, an enzyme that catalyzes the oxidation of the two chemicals to their toxic metabolites. The drug was not teratogenic in mice, but only one case of human pregnancy exposure has been reported, and the pregnancy outcome was unknown. Ethanol also has been used for poisonings with these two chemicals. Although the fetal effects of this short-term (24-48 hours) use have not been studied, neurotoxicity is a potential complication.

Glucarpidase is indicated for the treatment of toxic plasma methotrexate levels. It converts methotrexate to inactive metabolites. There are no reports of its use in human or animal pregnancies. Human reports are unlikely because methotrexate is contraindicated in pregnancy.

There are six agents available to treat heavy metal (arsenic, gold, iron, lead, and mercury) intoxication: deferasirox (iron), deferoxamine (iron), dimercaprol (arsenic, gold, lead, and mercury), edetate calcium disodium (lead), penicillamine (copper and mercury), and succimer (lead).

Deferasirox is indicated for chronic iron overload due to blood transfusions. Three reports have described its use in the first half of pregnancy without embryo or fetal harm. Deferoxamine is used for the treatment of both acute and chronic iron overload. Although the drug causes toxicity in two animal species, the human pregnancy experience is substantial, and no embryo or fetal adverse effects attributable to the agent have been reported. Dimercaprol (British anti-Lewisite; BAL) is used for the treatment of arsenic, gold, and acute mercury poisoning (not effective for chronic mercury poisoning). It is also combined with edetate calcium disodium for lead poisoning. High doses are embryotoxic and teratogenic in mice. The published human pregnancy experience is limited and all involved exposures after the first trimester. High levels of arsenic or lead were found in the newborns in two cases.

Edetate calcium disodium forms stable chelates with a number of metals, but it is primarily used for lead overdose, either alone or in combination with dimercaprol. There are only a few reports of its use in human pregnancy, all occurring late in gestation. A potential complication of therapy is maternal hypotension that could jeopardize placental perfusion. The agent also chelates zinc, resulting in zinc deficiency. This mechanism was thought to be involved in the teratogenic effects seen in animals.

Penicillamine has been used in mercury poisoning (one report), in addition to its indication as a chelating agent for copper in the treatment of Wilson’s disease. Exposure in the first trimester is related to a risk of connective tissue anomalies, primarily cutis laxa. Succimer (dimercaptosuccinic acid; DMSA) has been used for lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium poisoning. It also chelates zinc quite effectively. The agent is toxic and/or teratogenic in mice and rats, but some of the effects may have been secondary to zinc deficiency. Because of the complete absence of human pregnancy experience, antidotes other than succimer probably are preferable.

Lanthanum carbonate and sevelamer are indicated to reduce serum phosphate levels in patients with end-stage renal disease. The drugs bind dietary phosphate from food during digestion in the gut. There are no reports of their use in human pregnancy. The systemic bioavailability is minimal, and the drugs should have no effect on the embryo or fetus. However, they may prevent intestinal vitamin absorption, especially of fat-soluble vitamins.

The cholinergic agent physostigmine is capable of reversing the central nervous system effects of anticholinergics, such as scopolamine and tricyclic antidepressants. The reported human pregnancy experience is limited to the third trimester.

Methylene blue has been used for cyanide poisoning. In humans, it is teratogenic and fetal toxic when given by intra-amniotic injection, but its oral use as an antidote in pregnancy has not been reported. The cyanide antidote package contains amyl nitrite, sodium nitrite, and sodium thiosulfate. The effects of these agents on human pregnancy also are unknown, as are the effects of high-dose hydroxocobalamin, an analogue of vitamin B₁₂ also used in cyanide poisoning.

Pralidoxime (2-PAM) reactivates cholinesterase that has been inactivated by organophosphate pesticides and chemicals with anticholinesterase activity, thereby relieving the paralysis of the muscles of respiration. The drug is available in an autoinjector that can be used rapidly in cases of exposure to nerve agents possessing anticholinesterase activity (organophosphate poisoning). Animal reproduction tests have not been conducted with pralidoxime, and the human pregnancy experience is limited to a few cases of insecticide poisoning (second and third trimesters). Healthy infants were later delivered in these cases.

Four antivenins are commercially available for acute envenomation: black widow spider antivenin, Centruroides (scorpion) immune F(ab\')₂ (equine), crotalidae polyvalent immune Fab (ovine) (North American rattlesnake), and North American coral snake antivenin (equine). In addition, botulism antitoxin heptavalent (equine) is used for food poisoning caused by the neurotoxic bacterium Clostridium botulinum. Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with these products, and human reports are limited or absent.

Sapropterin, a cofactor for the enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase, reduces blood phenylalanine levels in patients with phenylketonuria. The drug is given daily if diet alone does not control maternal phenylalanine levels. Use of the drug in human pregnancy has not been reported.

A number of other agents can be classified as antidotes, in addition to their primary indications, because they can reverse the toxic effects of other agents. These antidotes include atropine (severe bradycardia, poisonings with organophosphates and carbamates), calcium chloride or gluconate (severe hypocalcemia, calcium-channel-blocker overdose, exposure to hydrofluoric acid), glucagon (hypoglycemia), folinic acid (methotrexate overdose), protamine (heparin overdose), pyridoxine (isoniazid-induced seizures; adjunct in ethylene glycol poisoning), and vitamin K (phytonadione) (warfarin overdose). The pregnancy data are extensive for many of these agents and are not suggestive of significant embryo or fetal risk.

Mr. Briggs is a pharmacist clinical specialist at the outpatient clinics of Memorial Care Center for Women at Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach, Calif.; clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco; and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Washington State University, Spokane. He also is coauthor of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation," and coeditor of "Diseases, Complications, and Drug Therapy in Obstetrics." He had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

Over the last 2 decades, abundant data on the reproductive safety of medications used to treat psychiatric disorders have become available, filling in many gaps with respect to our knowledge about the safety of commonly used psychiatric medications during pregnancy. But the availability of such safety data with respect to the use of these agents during breastfeeding is less complete.

Because of fears of potential adverse effects on infants associated with psychotropic drug use during lactation, many women with a psychiatric disorder who are treated with a range of psychiatric medications are advised not to breastfeed; or if they choose to breastfeed, they are counseled to avoid taking the essential medication that has made them well. This has been a somewhat intuitive, cautious approach. However, in my 25 years of clinical experience taking care of pregnant and postpartum women with a range of psychiatric disorders, one sad scenario I have frequently witnessed is the woman who decides to defer pharmacologic treatment for severe postpartum psychiatric illness after being counseled to defer treatment given a wish to breastfeed. Those women often have been psychiatrically ill for months while breastfeeding after having decided to defer their own treatment because they do not want to expose the baby to even scant amounts of medication secreted into breast milk associated with use of a needed medicine during lactation.

In a recently published clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics committee on drugs, authors suggest that advice not to breastfeed or to uniformly avoid medications while nursing because of possible adverse effects in the infant is often not evidence based and may not be necessary in many cases. The committee states that most drugs do not pose a risk to the mother or infant who is nursing, and that "the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the risks of exposure to most therapeutic agents via human breast milk" (Pediatrics 2013;132:e796-e809).

The report points out that for certain drugs, a careful risk-benefit analysis is needed, especially for drugs that are concentrated in human milk, those with unproven benefits, and those with long half-lives. Importantly, the report notes say that decisions about the use of medications during lactation have to be made on a case-by-case basis. A concrete example would be exercising appropriate vigilance about the use of these medicines in premature infants with immature metabolism.

The report, published on-line in Pediatrics in August 2013, includes a section on antidepressants, anxiolytics, and antipsychotics. As a resource for clinicians, the report highlights LactMed, part of the National Library of Medicine’s toxicology data network (TOXNET), which provides real-time updated scientific information on the excretion of drugs into breast milk.

The report makes the important distinction regarding the range of clinical decisions that get made in the context of different clinical situations. For example, at our center, patients frequently present with questions about whether to use psychiatric medications while breastfeeding when these women have already been taking the medication during pregnancy for treatment of underlying psychiatric disorder. Others make queries about introduction of pharmacologic therapy in the early postpartum period in the context, for example, of new-onset postpartum depression. Specifically, a woman with a history of psychiatric disorder who is treated with antidepressant during pregnancy may continue that medication across the postpartum period to attenuate risk for postpartum depression, particularly if she has a history of recurrent disease, or depressive relapse when medication has been discontinued. That is clinical scenario differs from that of a woman who develops new onset of depression during the postpartum period.

One part of the AAP report addresses use of certain psychiatric medications in the context of available information from the literature regarding extent of excretion of these medications into breast milk. This section states that many antianxiety drugs, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers are excreted in low concentrations into human milk, with the estimated infant doses under 2% of the weight-adjusted maternal dose. However, the authors also cite small series or case reports where infant plasma levels of some drugs were reported to exceed 10% of maternal plasma concentrations. They list 13 such drugs, which include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, anxiolytics, and mood stabilizers. It is important to keep in mind that the number of these cases is small and represent a very small proportion of cases, when the total denominator of reports in the literature of psychotropic drug use during lactation is considered. For example, olanzapine, a second generation antipsychotic is highlighted as an agent of concern based on one case report (J. Psychopharmacol. 2010;24:121-3).

The take-home message for the clinician is that all psychotropics are excreted into breast milk, even if quantification of the agents in breast milk or infant plasma reveals relatively scant concentration (J. Clin. Psychiatry 2003;64:73-80). If mom takes the medicine coincident with lactation, baby is exposed. At our center, we are usually reluctant to discontinue a medication such as an atypical antipsychotic to treat bipolar disorder in the postpartum period even if the mom chooses to breastfeed considering the extent to which women with bipolar disorder are at a high risk for relapse during the puerperium.

Ironically, we probably have more information regarding the excretion of antidepressants and drugs such as lamotrigine, used as a mood stabilizer, into breast milk than most medicines women take during the postpartum period, with data over the past 15 years suggesting that these medications, like other medications, are excreted into breast milk and are present in infant plasma in extremely sparse concentrations. It is noteworthy that cases of frank newborn toxicity directly associated with mothers who breastfeed on psychiatric medications are extremely few and far between, and are anecdotal at best. For some context, the literature on the effects of SSRI use during pregnancy is vast and prevalence of use of these medications during pregnancy and the postpartum period is substantial; that being said, reports of adverse effects reported in the babies of women who breastfeed while taking an SSRI are scant and thus at least somewhat reassuring.

And yet, consistently, I have witnessed that psychiatric medications are highlighted in the literature as particular agents of concern when it comes to lactation, compared with other medicines, for which only sparse data are available. Whether this reflects a bias about the necessity of treating psychiatric disorders during the postpartum period is unknown. Certainly, the long-term implications for the infant of exposure to low concentrations of psychiatric and nonpsychiatric medications in the context of breastfeeding exposure have yet to be clarified.

Whether a woman treated with a psychiatric medication during the post partum should breastfeed is a prime example of a clinical scenario in which there is no perfect decision, and we need to make the best decision possible, taking into account the available data, and the mother’s psychiatric disorder and her wishes. Some women may be extremely committed to breastfeeding and may choose to breastfeed, acknowledging some of the unknowns regarding these medications during lactation, while other women consider some of the ambiguity associated with the long-term effects of exposure while lactating and may choose not to breastfeed.

It is noteworthy that the AAP committee on drugs concluded the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the risk of exposure to most therapeutic agents via human milk. And those at our center would certainly suggest that this is the case for psychiatric medications, particularly those used to sustain postpartum maternal psychiatric well-being, which is so critical. As is the case with any clinical decision, and certainly with respect to the use of psychiatric medications during pregnancy and lactation, the decision to treat is contingent on a careful risk-benefit analysis, where the risks of exposure to a medicine is weighed against the risk of untreated psychiatric illness. Even with the well-documented benefits of breastfeeding, nothing should trump the treatment of postpartum psychiatric illness, even if the cost is deferring breastfeeding. Treatment cannot be deferred because of the impact of untreated maternal psychiatric illness on maternal morbidity and on the development of children.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information about reproductive mental health at www.womensmentalhealth.org. To comment, e-mail him at [email protected]. Dr. Cohen has been a consultant to manufacturers of antidepressants and antipsychotic medications.

Over the last 2 decades, abundant data on the reproductive safety of medications used to treat psychiatric disorders have become available, filling in many gaps with respect to our knowledge about the safety of commonly used psychiatric medications during pregnancy. But the availability of such safety data with respect to the use of these agents during breastfeeding is less complete.

Because of fears of potential adverse effects on infants associated with psychotropic drug use during lactation, many women with a psychiatric disorder who are treated with a range of psychiatric medications are advised not to breastfeed; or if they choose to breastfeed, they are counseled to avoid taking the essential medication that has made them well. This has been a somewhat intuitive, cautious approach. However, in my 25 years of clinical experience taking care of pregnant and postpartum women with a range of psychiatric disorders, one sad scenario I have frequently witnessed is the woman who decides to defer pharmacologic treatment for severe postpartum psychiatric illness after being counseled to defer treatment given a wish to breastfeed. Those women often have been psychiatrically ill for months while breastfeeding after having decided to defer their own treatment because they do not want to expose the baby to even scant amounts of medication secreted into breast milk associated with use of a needed medicine during lactation.

In a recently published clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics committee on drugs, authors suggest that advice not to breastfeed or to uniformly avoid medications while nursing because of possible adverse effects in the infant is often not evidence based and may not be necessary in many cases. The committee states that most drugs do not pose a risk to the mother or infant who is nursing, and that "the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the risks of exposure to most therapeutic agents via human breast milk" (Pediatrics 2013;132:e796-e809).

The report points out that for certain drugs, a careful risk-benefit analysis is needed, especially for drugs that are concentrated in human milk, those with unproven benefits, and those with long half-lives. Importantly, the report notes say that decisions about the use of medications during lactation have to be made on a case-by-case basis. A concrete example would be exercising appropriate vigilance about the use of these medicines in premature infants with immature metabolism.

The report, published on-line in Pediatrics in August 2013, includes a section on antidepressants, anxiolytics, and antipsychotics. As a resource for clinicians, the report highlights LactMed, part of the National Library of Medicine’s toxicology data network (TOXNET), which provides real-time updated scientific information on the excretion of drugs into breast milk.

The report makes the important distinction regarding the range of clinical decisions that get made in the context of different clinical situations. For example, at our center, patients frequently present with questions about whether to use psychiatric medications while breastfeeding when these women have already been taking the medication during pregnancy for treatment of underlying psychiatric disorder. Others make queries about introduction of pharmacologic therapy in the early postpartum period in the context, for example, of new-onset postpartum depression. Specifically, a woman with a history of psychiatric disorder who is treated with antidepressant during pregnancy may continue that medication across the postpartum period to attenuate risk for postpartum depression, particularly if she has a history of recurrent disease, or depressive relapse when medication has been discontinued. That is clinical scenario differs from that of a woman who develops new onset of depression during the postpartum period.

One part of the AAP report addresses use of certain psychiatric medications in the context of available information from the literature regarding extent of excretion of these medications into breast milk. This section states that many antianxiety drugs, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers are excreted in low concentrations into human milk, with the estimated infant doses under 2% of the weight-adjusted maternal dose. However, the authors also cite small series or case reports where infant plasma levels of some drugs were reported to exceed 10% of maternal plasma concentrations. They list 13 such drugs, which include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, anxiolytics, and mood stabilizers. It is important to keep in mind that the number of these cases is small and represent a very small proportion of cases, when the total denominator of reports in the literature of psychotropic drug use during lactation is considered. For example, olanzapine, a second generation antipsychotic is highlighted as an agent of concern based on one case report (J. Psychopharmacol. 2010;24:121-3).

The take-home message for the clinician is that all psychotropics are excreted into breast milk, even if quantification of the agents in breast milk or infant plasma reveals relatively scant concentration (J. Clin. Psychiatry 2003;64:73-80). If mom takes the medicine coincident with lactation, baby is exposed. At our center, we are usually reluctant to discontinue a medication such as an atypical antipsychotic to treat bipolar disorder in the postpartum period even if the mom chooses to breastfeed considering the extent to which women with bipolar disorder are at a high risk for relapse during the puerperium.

Ironically, we probably have more information regarding the excretion of antidepressants and drugs such as lamotrigine, used as a mood stabilizer, into breast milk than most medicines women take during the postpartum period, with data over the past 15 years suggesting that these medications, like other medications, are excreted into breast milk and are present in infant plasma in extremely sparse concentrations. It is noteworthy that cases of frank newborn toxicity directly associated with mothers who breastfeed on psychiatric medications are extremely few and far between, and are anecdotal at best. For some context, the literature on the effects of SSRI use during pregnancy is vast and prevalence of use of these medications during pregnancy and the postpartum period is substantial; that being said, reports of adverse effects reported in the babies of women who breastfeed while taking an SSRI are scant and thus at least somewhat reassuring.

And yet, consistently, I have witnessed that psychiatric medications are highlighted in the literature as particular agents of concern when it comes to lactation, compared with other medicines, for which only sparse data are available. Whether this reflects a bias about the necessity of treating psychiatric disorders during the postpartum period is unknown. Certainly, the long-term implications for the infant of exposure to low concentrations of psychiatric and nonpsychiatric medications in the context of breastfeeding exposure have yet to be clarified.

Whether a woman treated with a psychiatric medication during the post partum should breastfeed is a prime example of a clinical scenario in which there is no perfect decision, and we need to make the best decision possible, taking into account the available data, and the mother’s psychiatric disorder and her wishes. Some women may be extremely committed to breastfeeding and may choose to breastfeed, acknowledging some of the unknowns regarding these medications during lactation, while other women consider some of the ambiguity associated with the long-term effects of exposure while lactating and may choose not to breastfeed.

It is noteworthy that the AAP committee on drugs concluded the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the risk of exposure to most therapeutic agents via human milk. And those at our center would certainly suggest that this is the case for psychiatric medications, particularly those used to sustain postpartum maternal psychiatric well-being, which is so critical. As is the case with any clinical decision, and certainly with respect to the use of psychiatric medications during pregnancy and lactation, the decision to treat is contingent on a careful risk-benefit analysis, where the risks of exposure to a medicine is weighed against the risk of untreated psychiatric illness. Even with the well-documented benefits of breastfeeding, nothing should trump the treatment of postpartum psychiatric illness, even if the cost is deferring breastfeeding. Treatment cannot be deferred because of the impact of untreated maternal psychiatric illness on maternal morbidity and on the development of children.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information about reproductive mental health at www.womensmentalhealth.org. To comment, e-mail him at [email protected]. Dr. Cohen has been a consultant to manufacturers of antidepressants and antipsychotic medications.

Over the last 2 decades, abundant data on the reproductive safety of medications used to treat psychiatric disorders have become available, filling in many gaps with respect to our knowledge about the safety of commonly used psychiatric medications during pregnancy. But the availability of such safety data with respect to the use of these agents during breastfeeding is less complete.

Because of fears of potential adverse effects on infants associated with psychotropic drug use during lactation, many women with a psychiatric disorder who are treated with a range of psychiatric medications are advised not to breastfeed; or if they choose to breastfeed, they are counseled to avoid taking the essential medication that has made them well. This has been a somewhat intuitive, cautious approach. However, in my 25 years of clinical experience taking care of pregnant and postpartum women with a range of psychiatric disorders, one sad scenario I have frequently witnessed is the woman who decides to defer pharmacologic treatment for severe postpartum psychiatric illness after being counseled to defer treatment given a wish to breastfeed. Those women often have been psychiatrically ill for months while breastfeeding after having decided to defer their own treatment because they do not want to expose the baby to even scant amounts of medication secreted into breast milk associated with use of a needed medicine during lactation.

In a recently published clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics committee on drugs, authors suggest that advice not to breastfeed or to uniformly avoid medications while nursing because of possible adverse effects in the infant is often not evidence based and may not be necessary in many cases. The committee states that most drugs do not pose a risk to the mother or infant who is nursing, and that "the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the risks of exposure to most therapeutic agents via human breast milk" (Pediatrics 2013;132:e796-e809).

The report points out that for certain drugs, a careful risk-benefit analysis is needed, especially for drugs that are concentrated in human milk, those with unproven benefits, and those with long half-lives. Importantly, the report notes say that decisions about the use of medications during lactation have to be made on a case-by-case basis. A concrete example would be exercising appropriate vigilance about the use of these medicines in premature infants with immature metabolism.

The report, published on-line in Pediatrics in August 2013, includes a section on antidepressants, anxiolytics, and antipsychotics. As a resource for clinicians, the report highlights LactMed, part of the National Library of Medicine’s toxicology data network (TOXNET), which provides real-time updated scientific information on the excretion of drugs into breast milk.

The report makes the important distinction regarding the range of clinical decisions that get made in the context of different clinical situations. For example, at our center, patients frequently present with questions about whether to use psychiatric medications while breastfeeding when these women have already been taking the medication during pregnancy for treatment of underlying psychiatric disorder. Others make queries about introduction of pharmacologic therapy in the early postpartum period in the context, for example, of new-onset postpartum depression. Specifically, a woman with a history of psychiatric disorder who is treated with antidepressant during pregnancy may continue that medication across the postpartum period to attenuate risk for postpartum depression, particularly if she has a history of recurrent disease, or depressive relapse when medication has been discontinued. That is clinical scenario differs from that of a woman who develops new onset of depression during the postpartum period.

One part of the AAP report addresses use of certain psychiatric medications in the context of available information from the literature regarding extent of excretion of these medications into breast milk. This section states that many antianxiety drugs, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers are excreted in low concentrations into human milk, with the estimated infant doses under 2% of the weight-adjusted maternal dose. However, the authors also cite small series or case reports where infant plasma levels of some drugs were reported to exceed 10% of maternal plasma concentrations. They list 13 such drugs, which include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, anxiolytics, and mood stabilizers. It is important to keep in mind that the number of these cases is small and represent a very small proportion of cases, when the total denominator of reports in the literature of psychotropic drug use during lactation is considered. For example, olanzapine, a second generation antipsychotic is highlighted as an agent of concern based on one case report (J. Psychopharmacol. 2010;24:121-3).

The take-home message for the clinician is that all psychotropics are excreted into breast milk, even if quantification of the agents in breast milk or infant plasma reveals relatively scant concentration (J. Clin. Psychiatry 2003;64:73-80). If mom takes the medicine coincident with lactation, baby is exposed. At our center, we are usually reluctant to discontinue a medication such as an atypical antipsychotic to treat bipolar disorder in the postpartum period even if the mom chooses to breastfeed considering the extent to which women with bipolar disorder are at a high risk for relapse during the puerperium.

Ironically, we probably have more information regarding the excretion of antidepressants and drugs such as lamotrigine, used as a mood stabilizer, into breast milk than most medicines women take during the postpartum period, with data over the past 15 years suggesting that these medications, like other medications, are excreted into breast milk and are present in infant plasma in extremely sparse concentrations. It is noteworthy that cases of frank newborn toxicity directly associated with mothers who breastfeed on psychiatric medications are extremely few and far between, and are anecdotal at best. For some context, the literature on the effects of SSRI use during pregnancy is vast and prevalence of use of these medications during pregnancy and the postpartum period is substantial; that being said, reports of adverse effects reported in the babies of women who breastfeed while taking an SSRI are scant and thus at least somewhat reassuring.

And yet, consistently, I have witnessed that psychiatric medications are highlighted in the literature as particular agents of concern when it comes to lactation, compared with other medicines, for which only sparse data are available. Whether this reflects a bias about the necessity of treating psychiatric disorders during the postpartum period is unknown. Certainly, the long-term implications for the infant of exposure to low concentrations of psychiatric and nonpsychiatric medications in the context of breastfeeding exposure have yet to be clarified.

Whether a woman treated with a psychiatric medication during the post partum should breastfeed is a prime example of a clinical scenario in which there is no perfect decision, and we need to make the best decision possible, taking into account the available data, and the mother’s psychiatric disorder and her wishes. Some women may be extremely committed to breastfeeding and may choose to breastfeed, acknowledging some of the unknowns regarding these medications during lactation, while other women consider some of the ambiguity associated with the long-term effects of exposure while lactating and may choose not to breastfeed.

It is noteworthy that the AAP committee on drugs concluded the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the risk of exposure to most therapeutic agents via human milk. And those at our center would certainly suggest that this is the case for psychiatric medications, particularly those used to sustain postpartum maternal psychiatric well-being, which is so critical. As is the case with any clinical decision, and certainly with respect to the use of psychiatric medications during pregnancy and lactation, the decision to treat is contingent on a careful risk-benefit analysis, where the risks of exposure to a medicine is weighed against the risk of untreated psychiatric illness. Even with the well-documented benefits of breastfeeding, nothing should trump the treatment of postpartum psychiatric illness, even if the cost is deferring breastfeeding. Treatment cannot be deferred because of the impact of untreated maternal psychiatric illness on maternal morbidity and on the development of children.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information about reproductive mental health at www.womensmentalhealth.org. To comment, e-mail him at [email protected]. Dr. Cohen has been a consultant to manufacturers of antidepressants and antipsychotic medications.

The need for effective weight management medications as an adjunct to diet and exercise has escalated in the United States as obesity has reached epidemic proportions.

However, in recent years, several Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for weight loss have been plagued with safety concerns and many have been removed from the market, leaving clinicians with limited choices for treatment of overweight or obese patients.

In 2012, two new weight loss medications were approved by the FDA – the first new medications approved for this indication in over a decade (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;367:1577-9).

As of February 2013, one of the two products, a combination product containing the anorexant phentermine and the anticonvulsant topiramate in an extended-release form, is currently available by prescription in the United States. Marketed as Qysmia, the product is intended to be used together with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity for chronic weight management in adults with an initial body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater (obese).

The medication is also indicated for adults with a BMI of 27 or greater (overweight) who also have at least one weight-related medical condition such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or high cholesterol. The recommended starting daily dose contains 3.75 mg of phentermine and 23 mg of topiramate; the maximum dose contains 15 mg of phentermine and 92 mg of topiramate.

In part, due to concerns about the teratogenicity of topiramate, Qysmia has been designated a category X drug, and specific pregnancy prevention measures in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) have been put in place. The medication can be obtained only by prescription obtained directly from a health care provider, and providers receive training on the risks of birth defects. A prescription for Qysmia can only be filled by specially certified mail order pharmacies in the United States.

Educational materials indicate that the drug should not be prescribed to women who are pregnant or who are planning on becoming pregnant. Women who are not planning pregnancy but have the potential to become pregnant should have a negative pregnancy test before starting the drug and again every month while taking the drug, and they should use an effective method or combination of methods of contraception. The manufacturer has also initiated a pregnancy surveillance system.

Given the likelihood that many women of reproductive age will use this medication, even with a REMS in place, the potential for unintentional exposure in pregnancy exists. In the inevitable event of an exposed pregnancy, what are the specific risks and their magnitude? The concern about birth defects with this medication stems from previously published data suggesting that topiramate used in monotherapy for other indications, most commonly epilepsy, is associated with an increased risk for oral clefts (cleft lip with or without cleft palate). Although numbers are still small, a few studies have suggested the risk for oral clefts, with the most recent a large pooled case-control analysis from two data sources in the United States (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012;207:405e1-7). The pooled estimate of the risk of oral clefts was 5.36 with very wide confidence intervals (1.49-20.07), based on seven exposed children with cleft lip with or without cleft palate. To the extent that this estimate is correct, this translates to an absolute risk of about 5 in 1,000 first-trimester topiramate-exposed pregnancies, compared with a baseline risk of about 1 in 1,000 in unexposed pregnancies.

Published studies of topiramate and oral clefts have not involved sufficient numbers of exposed and affected children to allow examination of a dose threshold; however, the range of recommended doses for seizure prevention in adults treated with topiramate monotherapy (50-400 mg/day) overlaps with the dosing range of topiramate contained in Qysmia. It is important to note that based on the published reports suggesting an increased risk for oral clefts, the pregnancy category for topiramate alone was recently changed from a C to a D, while the pregnancy category for Qysmia is an X. The rationale behind the category D is likely that the benefits of topiramate might outweigh the risks in a pregnant woman with a seizure disorder for whom topiramate is the only effective medication. However, topiramate use for weight loss would typically never be indicated in pregnancy.

The second drug, lorcaserin (Belviq), is a single-ingredient serotonergic medication – a selective agonist of the 5-HT_2C receptor. Lorcaserin was approved by the FDA in 2012, but as of February 2013, it is not yet available in the United States. This medication also received a pregnancy category X designation; however, in this situation, it was presumably for the sole reason that intentional weight loss in pregnancy is not recommended. Preclinical data for lorcaserin did not suggest teratogenicity, but maternal exposure in rats late in gestation resulted in lower pup body weight that persisted into adulthood.

To the extent that these new medications are effective in reducing and maintaining BMI within a healthier range in women who are currently overweight or obese, they may lead to improvement in subsequent pregnancy outcomes. However, avoiding exposure to these medications during early pregnancy will be a challenge, even with pregnancy prevention guidance and restricted distribution programs. Postmarketing surveillance for outcomes of inadvertently exposed pregnancies will be essential.

Dr. Chambers is associate professor of pediatrics and family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. She is director of the California Teratogen Information Service and Clinical Research Program. Dr. Chambers is a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists and past president of the Teratology Society. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. To comment, e-mail her at [email protected].

The need for effective weight management medications as an adjunct to diet and exercise has escalated in the United States as obesity has reached epidemic proportions.

However, in recent years, several Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for weight loss have been plagued with safety concerns and many have been removed from the market, leaving clinicians with limited choices for treatment of overweight or obese patients.

In 2012, two new weight loss medications were approved by the FDA – the first new medications approved for this indication in over a decade (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;367:1577-9).

As of February 2013, one of the two products, a combination product containing the anorexant phentermine and the anticonvulsant topiramate in an extended-release form, is currently available by prescription in the United States. Marketed as Qysmia, the product is intended to be used together with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity for chronic weight management in adults with an initial body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater (obese).

The medication is also indicated for adults with a BMI of 27 or greater (overweight) who also have at least one weight-related medical condition such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or high cholesterol. The recommended starting daily dose contains 3.75 mg of phentermine and 23 mg of topiramate; the maximum dose contains 15 mg of phentermine and 92 mg of topiramate.

In part, due to concerns about the teratogenicity of topiramate, Qysmia has been designated a category X drug, and specific pregnancy prevention measures in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) have been put in place. The medication can be obtained only by prescription obtained directly from a health care provider, and providers receive training on the risks of birth defects. A prescription for Qysmia can only be filled by specially certified mail order pharmacies in the United States.

Educational materials indicate that the drug should not be prescribed to women who are pregnant or who are planning on becoming pregnant. Women who are not planning pregnancy but have the potential to become pregnant should have a negative pregnancy test before starting the drug and again every month while taking the drug, and they should use an effective method or combination of methods of contraception. The manufacturer has also initiated a pregnancy surveillance system.

Given the likelihood that many women of reproductive age will use this medication, even with a REMS in place, the potential for unintentional exposure in pregnancy exists. In the inevitable event of an exposed pregnancy, what are the specific risks and their magnitude? The concern about birth defects with this medication stems from previously published data suggesting that topiramate used in monotherapy for other indications, most commonly epilepsy, is associated with an increased risk for oral clefts (cleft lip with or without cleft palate). Although numbers are still small, a few studies have suggested the risk for oral clefts, with the most recent a large pooled case-control analysis from two data sources in the United States (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012;207:405e1-7). The pooled estimate of the risk of oral clefts was 5.36 with very wide confidence intervals (1.49-20.07), based on seven exposed children with cleft lip with or without cleft palate. To the extent that this estimate is correct, this translates to an absolute risk of about 5 in 1,000 first-trimester topiramate-exposed pregnancies, compared with a baseline risk of about 1 in 1,000 in unexposed pregnancies.

Published studies of topiramate and oral clefts have not involved sufficient numbers of exposed and affected children to allow examination of a dose threshold; however, the range of recommended doses for seizure prevention in adults treated with topiramate monotherapy (50-400 mg/day) overlaps with the dosing range of topiramate contained in Qysmia. It is important to note that based on the published reports suggesting an increased risk for oral clefts, the pregnancy category for topiramate alone was recently changed from a C to a D, while the pregnancy category for Qysmia is an X. The rationale behind the category D is likely that the benefits of topiramate might outweigh the risks in a pregnant woman with a seizure disorder for whom topiramate is the only effective medication. However, topiramate use for weight loss would typically never be indicated in pregnancy.

The second drug, lorcaserin (Belviq), is a single-ingredient serotonergic medication – a selective agonist of the 5-HT_2C receptor. Lorcaserin was approved by the FDA in 2012, but as of February 2013, it is not yet available in the United States. This medication also received a pregnancy category X designation; however, in this situation, it was presumably for the sole reason that intentional weight loss in pregnancy is not recommended. Preclinical data for lorcaserin did not suggest teratogenicity, but maternal exposure in rats late in gestation resulted in lower pup body weight that persisted into adulthood.

To the extent that these new medications are effective in reducing and maintaining BMI within a healthier range in women who are currently overweight or obese, they may lead to improvement in subsequent pregnancy outcomes. However, avoiding exposure to these medications during early pregnancy will be a challenge, even with pregnancy prevention guidance and restricted distribution programs. Postmarketing surveillance for outcomes of inadvertently exposed pregnancies will be essential.

Dr. Chambers is associate professor of pediatrics and family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. She is director of the California Teratogen Information Service and Clinical Research Program. Dr. Chambers is a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists and past president of the Teratology Society. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. To comment, e-mail her at [email protected].

The need for effective weight management medications as an adjunct to diet and exercise has escalated in the United States as obesity has reached epidemic proportions.

However, in recent years, several Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for weight loss have been plagued with safety concerns and many have been removed from the market, leaving clinicians with limited choices for treatment of overweight or obese patients.

In 2012, two new weight loss medications were approved by the FDA – the first new medications approved for this indication in over a decade (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;367:1577-9).

As of February 2013, one of the two products, a combination product containing the anorexant phentermine and the anticonvulsant topiramate in an extended-release form, is currently available by prescription in the United States. Marketed as Qysmia, the product is intended to be used together with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity for chronic weight management in adults with an initial body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater (obese).

The medication is also indicated for adults with a BMI of 27 or greater (overweight) who also have at least one weight-related medical condition such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or high cholesterol. The recommended starting daily dose contains 3.75 mg of phentermine and 23 mg of topiramate; the maximum dose contains 15 mg of phentermine and 92 mg of topiramate.

In part, due to concerns about the teratogenicity of topiramate, Qysmia has been designated a category X drug, and specific pregnancy prevention measures in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) have been put in place. The medication can be obtained only by prescription obtained directly from a health care provider, and providers receive training on the risks of birth defects. A prescription for Qysmia can only be filled by specially certified mail order pharmacies in the United States.

Educational materials indicate that the drug should not be prescribed to women who are pregnant or who are planning on becoming pregnant. Women who are not planning pregnancy but have the potential to become pregnant should have a negative pregnancy test before starting the drug and again every month while taking the drug, and they should use an effective method or combination of methods of contraception. The manufacturer has also initiated a pregnancy surveillance system.

Given the likelihood that many women of reproductive age will use this medication, even with a REMS in place, the potential for unintentional exposure in pregnancy exists. In the inevitable event of an exposed pregnancy, what are the specific risks and their magnitude? The concern about birth defects with this medication stems from previously published data suggesting that topiramate used in monotherapy for other indications, most commonly epilepsy, is associated with an increased risk for oral clefts (cleft lip with or without cleft palate). Although numbers are still small, a few studies have suggested the risk for oral clefts, with the most recent a large pooled case-control analysis from two data sources in the United States (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012;207:405e1-7). The pooled estimate of the risk of oral clefts was 5.36 with very wide confidence intervals (1.49-20.07), based on seven exposed children with cleft lip with or without cleft palate. To the extent that this estimate is correct, this translates to an absolute risk of about 5 in 1,000 first-trimester topiramate-exposed pregnancies, compared with a baseline risk of about 1 in 1,000 in unexposed pregnancies.

Published studies of topiramate and oral clefts have not involved sufficient numbers of exposed and affected children to allow examination of a dose threshold; however, the range of recommended doses for seizure prevention in adults treated with topiramate monotherapy (50-400 mg/day) overlaps with the dosing range of topiramate contained in Qysmia. It is important to note that based on the published reports suggesting an increased risk for oral clefts, the pregnancy category for topiramate alone was recently changed from a C to a D, while the pregnancy category for Qysmia is an X. The rationale behind the category D is likely that the benefits of topiramate might outweigh the risks in a pregnant woman with a seizure disorder for whom topiramate is the only effective medication. However, topiramate use for weight loss would typically never be indicated in pregnancy.

The second drug, lorcaserin (Belviq), is a single-ingredient serotonergic medication – a selective agonist of the 5-HT_2C receptor. Lorcaserin was approved by the FDA in 2012, but as of February 2013, it is not yet available in the United States. This medication also received a pregnancy category X designation; however, in this situation, it was presumably for the sole reason that intentional weight loss in pregnancy is not recommended. Preclinical data for lorcaserin did not suggest teratogenicity, but maternal exposure in rats late in gestation resulted in lower pup body weight that persisted into adulthood.

To the extent that these new medications are effective in reducing and maintaining BMI within a healthier range in women who are currently overweight or obese, they may lead to improvement in subsequent pregnancy outcomes. However, avoiding exposure to these medications during early pregnancy will be a challenge, even with pregnancy prevention guidance and restricted distribution programs. Postmarketing surveillance for outcomes of inadvertently exposed pregnancies will be essential.

Dr. Chambers is associate professor of pediatrics and family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. She is director of the California Teratogen Information Service and Clinical Research Program. Dr. Chambers is a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists and past president of the Teratology Society. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. To comment, e-mail her at [email protected].

Despite the fact that prescription medications are commonly used by pregnant women, for most products and for new drugs in particular, there is typically little to no human safety information available to aid clinicians and patients in managing risk. As randomized clinical trials are usually not considered ethical to perform in pregnancy, observational epidemiologic studies are often the next best option to address human pregnancy exposure. An increasingly common approach to gathering human safety data is postmarketing pregnancy registries.

These pregnancy registries are initiated many times by agreement between the manufacturer and a regulatory agency as a postmarketing commitment or requirement following shortly after drug approval. Furthermore, because use of a new drug in pregnant women might be relatively rare, a pregnancy registry may be the only feasible method for gathering preliminary safety information as quickly as possible so that potential signals might be detected and clinical decision making can be better informed.

Pregnancy registries vary in design, but all involve collection of data on exposure to the drug of interest in pregnant women, and collection of outcome data for those pregnancies. The primary outcome of interest is typically major congenital anomalies; some registries also collect outcome data on fetal/infant growth, preterm delivery, pregnancy loss, specific neonatal outcomes, and postnatal longer term growth and development. The rates of these outcomes can be compared with general population reference rates, or rates occurring in a specific comparison group that might be more similar to the exposed women, for example, in terms of the underlying maternal condition being treated by the drug.

In addition to early information on a new drug, some of the major advantages of many pregnancy registry designs are the ability to collect information on the exposure and other pregnancy details before the mother knows what the outcome of her pregnancy will be; direct collection of exposure information from the mother herself, so that important factors such as drug and alcohol use, dose, and exact timing of exposure to the drug of interest; information on important other factors such as tobacco, alcohol, and multivitamin use.

The most challenging aspect of pregnancy registries is recruitment, for which registries largely depend on obstetric providers and other specialty physicians. Although low numbers of recruited pregnancies may be caused by limited use of a new drug, clearly most pregnancy registries enroll a very small fraction of all exposed pregnancies that are in existence. A second, related issue is that there may be bias in the self-selection of women who do find out about the registry and agree to participate, thus raising questions about the generalizability of the findings. A third issue is that many registries experience high rates of "lost to follow-up," in which outcome information is unobtainable from the health care provider or the pregnant woman – in some cases as high as 40%. There is also a concern about bias involved with the timing in gestation when a pregnancy enters a registry, such as the later in gestation a pregnancy is enrolled, the more likely that prenatal diagnosis, pregnancy loss, or other adverse outcomes have already occurred – thus making the enrollment essentially retrospective.

Another concern is that few registries have a concurrently enrolled group of unexposed women for purposes of comparison. Thus, their findings are commonly compared to external reference statistics which may not be the most appropriate. Finally, in some registries, the absence of information on individual dose and specific timing in gestation of exposure may preclude evaluating the biological plausibility of any registry findings. All of these issues can lead to long delays in accumulation of sufficient information to draw meaningful inferences, and potential concerns about interpretation of results.

How can awareness of pregnancy registries and more representative enrollment of exposed women be improved? A variety of methods are used to inform physicians and their patients about existing pregnancy registries for the purpose of encouraging referrals, including the Food and Drug Administration website, information in product labeling and on product websites, direct to provider or direct to consumer advertising, and in commonly used resources for clinicians such as this column and Reprotox, an information system developed by the Reproductive Toxicology Center. However, with the rapidly increasing number of registries, it is challenging for physicians to remain current on which medications are being monitored through a registry, what the criteria for enrollment are, and how a physician or patient can find out more. Pregnancy registry designs that are disease based – such as encompassing all medications used to treat a specific disease in pregnancy – help simplify the referral process by broadening the criteria for enrollment. Particularly for specialty physicians, this can ease the burden of identifying eligible women for enrollment.

How can enrollment be accomplished as early as possible in pregnancy (after exposure, but before the outcome is known), and how can more complete ascertainment of exposure and outcome be improved? An approach that some registries have used to address this is by "direct to consumer" campaigns. Registries such as the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Diseases in Pregnancy Registry require that the pregnant woman herself enroll in the study, and therefore, the study is marketed directly to those women, although physician referral is encouraged. At least in this case, this has led to low rates of lost to follow-up (less than 5%), recruitment timing that is typically before the seventh or eighth week of gestation, and collection of specific information on dose and timing in gestation of exposure.

Multiple drug, disease-based, multiple sponsor registries such as the Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnancy Registry, the North American Antiepileptic Drugs in Pregnancy Registry (patients call 888-233-2334), and the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics (866-961-2388) offer distinct advantages but are not always feasible for a specific product. A national pregnancy registry for all new drugs has been suggested as another solution to many of the challenges facing single product registries and to streamline referral and follow-up. In addition, including pregnant women in selected preapproval studies has several advantages. Finally, creative new technologies for earlier and more complete ascertainment and referral, such as use of electronic medical records, should be fully explored. The need for safety information on new drugs is urgent.

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. She is director of the California Teratogen Information Service and Clinical Research Program. Dr. Chambers is a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists and past president of the Teratology Society. Dr. Cohen directs the perinatal psychiatry program at Massachusetts General Hospital, which provides information about pregnancy and mental health. Dr. Koren is professor of pediatrics, pharmacology, pharmacy, and medical genetics at the University of Toronto. He heads the Research Leadership for Better Pharmacotherapy During Pregnancy and Lactation at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, where he is director of the Motherisk program. Mr. Briggs is a pharmacist clinical specialist at the outpatient clinics of Memorial Care Center for Women at Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach, Calif.; a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco; and an adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Washington State University, Spokane. He also is coauthor of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation." Dr. Cohen is the principal investigator on the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics, which is sponsored by multiple atypical antipsychotic manufacturers.

Dr. Chambers, Dr. Koren, and Mr. Briggs said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

Despite the fact that prescription medications are commonly used by pregnant women, for most products and for new drugs in particular, there is typically little to no human safety information available to aid clinicians and patients in managing risk. As randomized clinical trials are usually not considered ethical to perform in pregnancy, observational epidemiologic studies are often the next best option to address human pregnancy exposure. An increasingly common approach to gathering human safety data is postmarketing pregnancy registries.

These pregnancy registries are initiated many times by agreement between the manufacturer and a regulatory agency as a postmarketing commitment or requirement following shortly after drug approval. Furthermore, because use of a new drug in pregnant women might be relatively rare, a pregnancy registry may be the only feasible method for gathering preliminary safety information as quickly as possible so that potential signals might be detected and clinical decision making can be better informed.

Pregnancy registries vary in design, but all involve collection of data on exposure to the drug of interest in pregnant women, and collection of outcome data for those pregnancies. The primary outcome of interest is typically major congenital anomalies; some registries also collect outcome data on fetal/infant growth, preterm delivery, pregnancy loss, specific neonatal outcomes, and postnatal longer term growth and development. The rates of these outcomes can be compared with general population reference rates, or rates occurring in a specific comparison group that might be more similar to the exposed women, for example, in terms of the underlying maternal condition being treated by the drug.

In addition to early information on a new drug, some of the major advantages of many pregnancy registry designs are the ability to collect information on the exposure and other pregnancy details before the mother knows what the outcome of her pregnancy will be; direct collection of exposure information from the mother herself, so that important factors such as drug and alcohol use, dose, and exact timing of exposure to the drug of interest; information on important other factors such as tobacco, alcohol, and multivitamin use.

The most challenging aspect of pregnancy registries is recruitment, for which registries largely depend on obstetric providers and other specialty physicians. Although low numbers of recruited pregnancies may be caused by limited use of a new drug, clearly most pregnancy registries enroll a very small fraction of all exposed pregnancies that are in existence. A second, related issue is that there may be bias in the self-selection of women who do find out about the registry and agree to participate, thus raising questions about the generalizability of the findings. A third issue is that many registries experience high rates of "lost to follow-up," in which outcome information is unobtainable from the health care provider or the pregnant woman – in some cases as high as 40%. There is also a concern about bias involved with the timing in gestation when a pregnancy enters a registry, such as the later in gestation a pregnancy is enrolled, the more likely that prenatal diagnosis, pregnancy loss, or other adverse outcomes have already occurred – thus making the enrollment essentially retrospective.

Another concern is that few registries have a concurrently enrolled group of unexposed women for purposes of comparison. Thus, their findings are commonly compared to external reference statistics which may not be the most appropriate. Finally, in some registries, the absence of information on individual dose and specific timing in gestation of exposure may preclude evaluating the biological plausibility of any registry findings. All of these issues can lead to long delays in accumulation of sufficient information to draw meaningful inferences, and potential concerns about interpretation of results.

How can awareness of pregnancy registries and more representative enrollment of exposed women be improved? A variety of methods are used to inform physicians and their patients about existing pregnancy registries for the purpose of encouraging referrals, including the Food and Drug Administration website, information in product labeling and on product websites, direct to provider or direct to consumer advertising, and in commonly used resources for clinicians such as this column and Reprotox, an information system developed by the Reproductive Toxicology Center. However, with the rapidly increasing number of registries, it is challenging for physicians to remain current on which medications are being monitored through a registry, what the criteria for enrollment are, and how a physician or patient can find out more. Pregnancy registry designs that are disease based – such as encompassing all medications used to treat a specific disease in pregnancy – help simplify the referral process by broadening the criteria for enrollment. Particularly for specialty physicians, this can ease the burden of identifying eligible women for enrollment.

How can enrollment be accomplished as early as possible in pregnancy (after exposure, but before the outcome is known), and how can more complete ascertainment of exposure and outcome be improved? An approach that some registries have used to address this is by "direct to consumer" campaigns. Registries such as the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Diseases in Pregnancy Registry require that the pregnant woman herself enroll in the study, and therefore, the study is marketed directly to those women, although physician referral is encouraged. At least in this case, this has led to low rates of lost to follow-up (less than 5%), recruitment timing that is typically before the seventh or eighth week of gestation, and collection of specific information on dose and timing in gestation of exposure.

Multiple drug, disease-based, multiple sponsor registries such as the Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnancy Registry, the North American Antiepileptic Drugs in Pregnancy Registry (patients call 888-233-2334), and the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics (866-961-2388) offer distinct advantages but are not always feasible for a specific product. A national pregnancy registry for all new drugs has been suggested as another solution to many of the challenges facing single product registries and to streamline referral and follow-up. In addition, including pregnant women in selected preapproval studies has several advantages. Finally, creative new technologies for earlier and more complete ascertainment and referral, such as use of electronic medical records, should be fully explored. The need for safety information on new drugs is urgent.

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. She is director of the California Teratogen Information Service and Clinical Research Program. Dr. Chambers is a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists and past president of the Teratology Society. Dr. Cohen directs the perinatal psychiatry program at Massachusetts General Hospital, which provides information about pregnancy and mental health. Dr. Koren is professor of pediatrics, pharmacology, pharmacy, and medical genetics at the University of Toronto. He heads the Research Leadership for Better Pharmacotherapy During Pregnancy and Lactation at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, where he is director of the Motherisk program. Mr. Briggs is a pharmacist clinical specialist at the outpatient clinics of Memorial Care Center for Women at Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach, Calif.; a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco; and an adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Washington State University, Spokane. He also is coauthor of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation." Dr. Cohen is the principal investigator on the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics, which is sponsored by multiple atypical antipsychotic manufacturers.

Dr. Chambers, Dr. Koren, and Mr. Briggs said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

Despite the fact that prescription medications are commonly used by pregnant women, for most products and for new drugs in particular, there is typically little to no human safety information available to aid clinicians and patients in managing risk. As randomized clinical trials are usually not considered ethical to perform in pregnancy, observational epidemiologic studies are often the next best option to address human pregnancy exposure. An increasingly common approach to gathering human safety data is postmarketing pregnancy registries.

These pregnancy registries are initiated many times by agreement between the manufacturer and a regulatory agency as a postmarketing commitment or requirement following shortly after drug approval. Furthermore, because use of a new drug in pregnant women might be relatively rare, a pregnancy registry may be the only feasible method for gathering preliminary safety information as quickly as possible so that potential signals might be detected and clinical decision making can be better informed.

Pregnancy registries vary in design, but all involve collection of data on exposure to the drug of interest in pregnant women, and collection of outcome data for those pregnancies. The primary outcome of interest is typically major congenital anomalies; some registries also collect outcome data on fetal/infant growth, preterm delivery, pregnancy loss, specific neonatal outcomes, and postnatal longer term growth and development. The rates of these outcomes can be compared with general population reference rates, or rates occurring in a specific comparison group that might be more similar to the exposed women, for example, in terms of the underlying maternal condition being treated by the drug.

In addition to early information on a new drug, some of the major advantages of many pregnancy registry designs are the ability to collect information on the exposure and other pregnancy details before the mother knows what the outcome of her pregnancy will be; direct collection of exposure information from the mother herself, so that important factors such as drug and alcohol use, dose, and exact timing of exposure to the drug of interest; information on important other factors such as tobacco, alcohol, and multivitamin use.

The most challenging aspect of pregnancy registries is recruitment, for which registries largely depend on obstetric providers and other specialty physicians. Although low numbers of recruited pregnancies may be caused by limited use of a new drug, clearly most pregnancy registries enroll a very small fraction of all exposed pregnancies that are in existence. A second, related issue is that there may be bias in the self-selection of women who do find out about the registry and agree to participate, thus raising questions about the generalizability of the findings. A third issue is that many registries experience high rates of "lost to follow-up," in which outcome information is unobtainable from the health care provider or the pregnant woman – in some cases as high as 40%. There is also a concern about bias involved with the timing in gestation when a pregnancy enters a registry, such as the later in gestation a pregnancy is enrolled, the more likely that prenatal diagnosis, pregnancy loss, or other adverse outcomes have already occurred – thus making the enrollment essentially retrospective.

Another concern is that few registries have a concurrently enrolled group of unexposed women for purposes of comparison. Thus, their findings are commonly compared to external reference statistics which may not be the most appropriate. Finally, in some registries, the absence of information on individual dose and specific timing in gestation of exposure may preclude evaluating the biological plausibility of any registry findings. All of these issues can lead to long delays in accumulation of sufficient information to draw meaningful inferences, and potential concerns about interpretation of results.

How can awareness of pregnancy registries and more representative enrollment of exposed women be improved? A variety of methods are used to inform physicians and their patients about existing pregnancy registries for the purpose of encouraging referrals, including the Food and Drug Administration website, information in product labeling and on product websites, direct to provider or direct to consumer advertising, and in commonly used resources for clinicians such as this column and Reprotox, an information system developed by the Reproductive Toxicology Center. However, with the rapidly increasing number of registries, it is challenging for physicians to remain current on which medications are being monitored through a registry, what the criteria for enrollment are, and how a physician or patient can find out more. Pregnancy registry designs that are disease based – such as encompassing all medications used to treat a specific disease in pregnancy – help simplify the referral process by broadening the criteria for enrollment. Particularly for specialty physicians, this can ease the burden of identifying eligible women for enrollment.

How can enrollment be accomplished as early as possible in pregnancy (after exposure, but before the outcome is known), and how can more complete ascertainment of exposure and outcome be improved? An approach that some registries have used to address this is by "direct to consumer" campaigns. Registries such as the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Diseases in Pregnancy Registry require that the pregnant woman herself enroll in the study, and therefore, the study is marketed directly to those women, although physician referral is encouraged. At least in this case, this has led to low rates of lost to follow-up (less than 5%), recruitment timing that is typically before the seventh or eighth week of gestation, and collection of specific information on dose and timing in gestation of exposure.

Multiple drug, disease-based, multiple sponsor registries such as the Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnancy Registry, the North American Antiepileptic Drugs in Pregnancy Registry (patients call 888-233-2334), and the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics (866-961-2388) offer distinct advantages but are not always feasible for a specific product. A national pregnancy registry for all new drugs has been suggested as another solution to many of the challenges facing single product registries and to streamline referral and follow-up. In addition, including pregnant women in selected preapproval studies has several advantages. Finally, creative new technologies for earlier and more complete ascertainment and referral, such as use of electronic medical records, should be fully explored. The need for safety information on new drugs is urgent.

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. She is director of the California Teratogen Information Service and Clinical Research Program. Dr. Chambers is a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists and past president of the Teratology Society. Dr. Cohen directs the perinatal psychiatry program at Massachusetts General Hospital, which provides information about pregnancy and mental health. Dr. Koren is professor of pediatrics, pharmacology, pharmacy, and medical genetics at the University of Toronto. He heads the Research Leadership for Better Pharmacotherapy During Pregnancy and Lactation at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, where he is director of the Motherisk program. Mr. Briggs is a pharmacist clinical specialist at the outpatient clinics of Memorial Care Center for Women at Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach, Calif.; a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco; and an adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Washington State University, Spokane. He also is coauthor of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation." Dr. Cohen is the principal investigator on the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics, which is sponsored by multiple atypical antipsychotic manufacturers.

Dr. Chambers, Dr. Koren, and Mr. Briggs said they had no relevant financial disclosures.