Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 845–863 | Cite as

Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Pregnancy

Current Status and Implications for the Future
  • Fokaline Vroom
  • Hermien E. K. de Walle
  • Mart A. J. F. van de Laar
  • Jacobus R. B. J. Brouwers
  • Lolkje T. W. de Jong-van den Berg
Review Article

Abstract

Drug use during pregnancy is sometimes unavoidable, especially in chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) often starts in the early stage of RA; therefore, women of reproductive age are at risk for exposure to a DMARD at time of conception as well as during pregnancy. The aim of this paper was to review recent literature about DMARDs used for rheumatic diseases in pregnancy and to describe the type of study designs and results reported.

Twenty-nine studies; eight on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, thirteen on methotrexate, three on sulfasalazine and six on azathioprine were identified. With respect to hydroxychloroquine, most studies concluded that it could be safely used in systemic lupus erythematosus or RA. The same conclusions were drawn from the azathioprine studies, but the available evidence is scarce. Although the evidence regarding the safety of methotrexate during pregnancy is conflicting, a high rate of pregnancy losses indicates a risk to the fetus. For each individual case it must be decided whether the benefits outweigh the potential risks. No major teratogenic effects of sulfasalazine were seen although teratogenic effects still can not be excluded. For all other DMARDs, the information on their use in pregnancy was limited.

This review underscores the gross absence of data on safety and risks of DMARD use during conception and pregnancy. While young women use these drugs in pregnancy, this review stresses the importance of good monitoring and further research.

Keywords

Infliximab Etanercept Sulfasalazine Leflunomide Hydroxychloroquine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used in the preparation of this article. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Clinical Guidelines. Guidelines for monitoring drug therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1996 May; 39 (5): 723–31Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2002 update. Arthritis Rheum 2002 Feb; 46 (2): 328–46Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mitchell AA. Systematic identification of drugs that cause birth defects: a new opportunity. N Engl J Med 2003 Dec 25; 349(26): 2556–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Commissie Farmaceutische Hulp van het College voor zorgverzekeringen. Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas; Medisch farmaceutische voorlichting. Amstelveen, 2005Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briggs GG, Freeman RK, Yaffe SJ. Drugs in pregnancy and lactation. Sixth edition ed. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Current categories for drug use in pregnancy [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/301_preg.html [Accessed 2006 Aug 7]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy M, Buskila D, Gladman DD, et al. Pregnancy outcome following first trimester exposure to chloroquine. Am J Perinatol 1991 May; 8(3): 174–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buchanan NM, Khamashta MA, Morton KE, et al. A study of 100 high risk lupus pregnancies. Am J Reprod Immunol 1992 Oct; 28(3-4): 192–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buchanan NM, Toubi E, Khamashta MA, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and lupus pregnancy: review of a series of 36 cases. Ann Rheum Dis 1996 Jul; 55(7): 486–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parke A, West B. Hydroxychloroquine in pregnant patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 1996 Oct; 23(10): 1715–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levy RA, Vilela VS, Cataldo MJ, et al. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in lupus pregnancy: double-blind and placebo-controlled study. Lupus 2001; 10(6): 401–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klinger G, Morad Y, Westall CA, et al. Ocular toxicity and antenatal exposure to chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for rheumatic diseases. Lancet 2001 Sep 8; 358(9284): 813–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Motta M, Tincani A, Faden D, et al. Antimalarial agents in pregnancy. Lancet 2002 Feb 9; 359(9305): 524–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costedoat-Chalumeau N, Amoura Z, Duhaut P, et al. Safety of hydroxychloroquine in pregnant patients with connective tissue diseases: a study of one hundred thirty-three cases compared with a control group. Arthritis Rheum 2003 Nov; 48(11): 3207–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kozlowski RD, Steinbrunner JV, MacKenzie AH, et al. Outcome of first-trimester exposure to low-dose methotrexate in eight patients with rheumatic disease. Am J Med 1990 Jun; 88(6): 589–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feldkamp M, Carey JC. Clinical teratology counseling and consultation case report: low dose methotrexate exposure in the early weeks of pregnancy. Teratology 1993 Jun; 47(6): 533–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Donnenfeld AE, Pastuszak A, Noah JS, et al. Methotrexate exposure prior to and during pregnancy. Teratology 1994 Feb; 49(2): 79–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buckley LM, Bullaboy CA, Leichtman L, et al. Multiple congenital anomalies associated with weekly low-dose methotrexate treatment of the mother. Arthritis Rheum 1997 May; 40(5): 971–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Del Campo M, Kosaki K, Bennett FC, et al. Developmental delay in fetal aminopterin/methotrexate syndrome. Teratology 1999 Jul; 60(1): 10–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bawle EV, Conard JV, Weiss L. Adult and two children with fetal methotrexate syndrome. Teratology 1998 Feb; 57(2): 51–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giannakopoulou C, Manoura A, Hatzidaki E, et al. Multimodal cancer chemotherapy during the first and second trimester of pregnancy: a case report. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000 Jul; 91(1): 95–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ostensen M, Hartmann H, Salvesen K. Low dose weekly methotrexate in early pregnancy: a case series and review of the literature. J Rheumatol 2000 Aug; 27(8): 1872–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krahenmann F, Ostensen M, Stallmach T, et al. In utero first trimester exposure to low-dose methotrexate with increased fetal nuchal translucency and associated malformations. Prenat Diagn 2002 Jun; 22(6): 489–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen C, Duhl AJ, Escallon CS, et al. Multiple anomalies in a fetus exposed to low-dose methotrexate in the first trimester. Obstet Gynecol 2002 Apr; 99(4): 599–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Granzow JW, Thaller SR, Panthaki Z. Cleft palate and toe malformations in a child with fetal methotrexate exposure. J Craniofac Surg 2003 Sep; 14(5): 747–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chapa JB, Hibbard JU, Weber EM, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of methotrexate embryopathy. Obstet Gynecol 2003 May; 101(5 Pt 2): 1104–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lewden B, Vial T, Elefant E, et al. Low dose methotrexate in the first trimester of pregnancy: results of a French collaborative study. J Rheumatol 2004 Dec; 31(12): 2360–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koyama N, Komori S, Bessho T, et al. Holoprosencephaly in a fetus with maternal medication of sulfasalazine in early gestation: a case report. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1996; 23(3): 136–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Norgard B, Czeizel AE, Rockenbauer M, et al. Population-based pregnancy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001 Apr; 15(4): 483–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kallen B. Maternal drug use and infant cleft lip/palate with special reference to corticoids. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2003 Nov; 40(6): 624–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alstead EM, Ritchie JK, Lennard-Jones JE, et al. Safety of azathioprine in pregnancy in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 1990 Aug; 99(2): 443–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ramsey-Goldman R, Mientus JM, Kutzer JE, et al. Pregnancy outcome in women with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with immunosuppressive drugs. J Rheumatol 1993 Jul; 20(7): 1152–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heneghan MA, Norris SM, O’Grady JG, et al. Management and outcome of pregnancy in autoimmune hepatitis. Gut 2001 Jan; 48(1): 97–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Norgard B, Pedersen L, Fonager K, et al. Azathioprine, mercaptopurine and birth outcome: a population-based cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003 Mar 15; 17(6): 827–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Francella A, Dyan A, Bodian C, et al. The safety of 6-mercaptopurine for childbearing patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterology 2003 Jan; 124(1): 9–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oefferlbauer-Ernst A, Reinisch W, Miehsler W, et al. Healthy offspring in parents both receiving thiopurines. Gastroenterology 2004 Feb; 126(2): 628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    European Medicines Agency, United Kingdom. European public assessment report and product information adaliumab [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.eu.int/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/trudexa/trudexa.htm [Accessed 2006 Apr 7]Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Katz JA, Antoni C, Keenan GF, et al. Outcome of pregnancy in women receiving infliximab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004 Dec; 99(12): 2385–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Srinivasan R. Infliximab treatment and pregnancy outcome in active Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001 Jul; 96(7): 2274–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Burt MJ, Frizelle FA, Barbezat GO. Pregnancy and exposure to infliximab (anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha monoclonal antibody). J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003 Apr; 18(4): 465–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chakravarty EF, Sanchez-Yamamoto D, Bush TM. The use of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs in women with rheumatoid arthritis of childbearing age: a survey of practice patterns and pregnancy outcomes. J Rheumatol 2003 Feb; 30(2): 241–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    European Medicines Agency, United Kingdom. European public assessment report and product information anakinra [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.eu.int/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/kineret/kineret.htm [Accessed 2005 Dec 13]Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    European Medicines Agency, United Kingdom. European public assessment report and product information leflunomide [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.eu.int/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/arava/arava.htm [Accessed 2005 Dec 13]Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ostensen M. Disease specific problems related to drug therapy in pregnancy. Lupus 2004; 13(9): 746–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bar OB, Hackman R, Einarson T, et al. Pregnancy outcome after cyclosporine therapy during pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Transplantation 2001 Apr 27; 71(8): 1051–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Enns GM, Roeder E, Chan RT, et al. Apparent cyclophosphamide (cytoxan) embryopathy: a distinct phenotype? Am J Med Genet 1999 Sep 17; 86(3): 237–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vaux KK, Kahole NC, Jones KL. Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and cytarabine embropathy: is apoptosis the common pathway? Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2003 Jun; 67(6): 403–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zemlickis D, Lishner M, Erlich R, et al. Teratogenicity and carcinogenicity in a twin exposed in utero to cyclophosphamide [abstract]. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1993; 13(3): 139–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Medicine Evaluation Board, the Netherlands. Product information aurothioglucose [online]. Available (till 2005 Dec 31) from URL: http://www.cbg-meb.nl/IB-teksten/01328-01338.pdf [Accessed 2005 Dec 13]Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Medicine Evaluation Board, the Netherlands. Product information auranofin [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbgmeb.nl/IB-teksten/10719.pdf [Accessed 2006 Apr 7]Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Medicine Evaluation Board, the Netherlands. Product information gold sodium thiomalate [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbg-meb.nl/IB-teksten/27387-27388.pdf [Accessed 2005 Dec 13]Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nunns D, Hawthorne B, Goulding P, et al. Wilson’s disease in pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995 Sep; 62(1): 141–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Soong YK, Huang HY, Huang CC, et al. Successful pregnancy after D-penicillamine therapy in a patient with Wilson’s disease [abstract]. J Formos Med Assoc 1991; 90(7): 693–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Martinez-Frias ML, Rodriguez-Pinilla E, Bermejo E, et al. Prenatal exposure to penicillamine and oral clefts: case report. Am J Med Genet 1998 Mar 19; 76(3): 274–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pinter R, Hogge WA, McPherson E. Infant with severe penicillamine embryopathy born to a woman with Wilson disease. Am J Med Genet A 2004 Jul 30; 128(3): 294–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Furman B, Bashiri A, Wiznitzer A, et al. Wilson’s disease in pregnancy: five successful consecutive pregnancies of the same woman. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001 Jun; 96(2): 232–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yalaz M, Aydogdu S, Ozgenc F, et al. Transient fetal myelosuppressive effect of D-penicillamine when used in pregnancy [abstract]. Minerva Pediatr 2003; 55(6): 625–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Berghella V, Steele D, Spector T, et al. Successful pregnancy in a neurologically impaired woman with Wilson’s disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997 Mar; 176(3): 712–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hartard C, Kunze K. Pregnancy in a patient with Wilson’s disease treated with D-penicillamine and zinc sulfate: a case report and review of the literature. Eur Neurol 1994; 34(6): 337–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chin RK. Pregnancy and Wilson’s disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991 Aug; 165(2): 488–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dupont P, Irion O, Beguin F. Pregnancy in a patient with treated Wilson’s disease: a case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990 Nov; 163(5 Pt 1): 1527–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Meijer WM, de Walle HE, Kerstjens-Frederikse WS, et al. Folic acid sensitive birth defects in association with intrauterine exposure to folic acid antagonists. Reprod Toxicol 2005 Jul; 20(2): 203–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hernandez-Diaz S, Werler MM, Walker AM, et al. Neural tube defects in relation to use of folic acid antagonists during pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol 2001 May 15; 153(10): 961–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Clowse ME, Magder L, Petri M. Cyclophosphamide for lupus during pregnancy. Lupus 2005; 14(8): 593–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Albrecht J, Meves A, Bigby M. Case reports and case series from Lancet had significant impact on medical literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2005 Dec; 58(12): 1227–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fokaline Vroom
    • 1
  • Hermien E. K. de Walle
    • 2
  • Mart A. J. F. van de Laar
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jacobus R. B. J. Brouwers
    • 1
    • 5
  • Lolkje T. W. de Jong-van den Berg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social Pharmacy, Pharmacoepidemiology and PharmacotherapyGroningen University Institute for Drug Exploration (GUIDE)GroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical Genetics, EUROCAT Registration Northern NetherlandsUniversity Medical Centre GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of RheumatologyMedisch Spectrum TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  4. 4.University TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Clinical PharmacologyMedisch Centrum LeeuwardenLeeuwardenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations