Antipsychotic drug use in pregnancy: A multinational study from ten countries

Aim: To compare the prevalence and trends of antipsychotic drug use during pregnancy between countries across four continents

Antidiabetic medication use during pregnancy: an international utilization study

Publisher's version (útgefin grein).Objective Diabetes in pregnancy and consequently the need for treatment with antidiabetic medication (ADM) has become increasingly prevalent. The prevalence and patterns of use of ADM in pregnancy from 2006 onward in seven different countries was assessed. Research design and methods Data sources included individually linked data from the nationwide health registers in Denmark (2006-2016), Finland (2006-2016), Iceland (2006-2012), Norway (2006-2015), Sweden (2006-2015), state-wide administrative and claims data for New South Wales, Australia (2006-2012) and two US insurance databases: Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX; 2006-2012, public) and IBM MarketScan (2012-2015, private). The prevalence of ADM use was calculated as the proportion of pregnancies with at least one filled prescription of an ADM in the 90 days before pregnancy or within the three trimesters of pregnancy. Results Prevalence of any ADM use in 5 279 231 pregnancies was 3% (n=147 999) and varied from under 2% (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) to above 5% (Australia and US). Insulin was the most used ADM, and metformin was the most used oral hypoglycemic agent with increasing use over time in all countries. In 11.4%-62.5% of pregnancies with prepregnancy use, ADM (primarily metformin) was discontinued. When ADM treatment was initiated in late pregnancy for treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus, insulin was most often dispensed, except in the US, where glibenclamide was most often used. Conclusions Prevalence and patterns of use of ADM classes varied between countries and over time. While insulin remained the most common ADM used in pregnancy, metformin use increased significantly over the study period.g This study was funded by NordForsk as part of the Nordic Pregnancy Drug Safety Studies project (Project No: 83539) and the Research Council of Norway as part of the International Pregnancy Drug Safety Studies (InPreSS) (Project No: 273366) both awarded to KF at Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIHP). Linkage of the Australian data was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Project grant (No. 1028543). GB was supported by the Swedish Society of Medicine (InPreSS grant) and the Stockholm County Council (clinical postdoctoral appointment). HZ was funded by a Scientia Fellowship awarded by UNSW. BTB, SH-D and KFH were supported by the grant R01HD097778 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health & Human Development. YY’s salary is paid by unrestricted grants from the Lundbeck Foundation (R232-2016-2462 and R265-2017-4069), unrelated to this work. The study funders were not involved in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication.Peer Reviewe