Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24565715›Full record

ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice

Assessment of antihistamine use in early pregnancy and birth defects.

Qian Li, Allen A Mitchell, Martha M Werler, Wai-Ping Yau, Sonia Hernández-Díaz

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Urticaria in Pregnancy and Lactation.Frontiers in allergy · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Qian LiDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.
Allen A MitchellSlone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: allenmit@bu.edu.
Martha M WerlerSlone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, Mass.
Wai-Ping YauDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass; Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Sonia Hernández-DíazDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.

Funding

Teratogenicity of Drugs Most Commonly Used in PregnancyR01HD046595 · NICHD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI HERNANDEZ-DIAZ, SONIA, MITCHELL, ALLEN A · 2005 to 2011
$3.5M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD046595NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD046595-04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral studies have reported an association between use of specific antihistamines in early pregnancy and certain specific birth defects.

objectiveTo test 16 previously hypothesized associations between specific antihistamines and specific birth defects, and to identify possible new associations.

methodsWe used 1998-2010 data from the Slone Epidemiology Center Birth Defects Study, a multicenter case-control surveillance program of birth defects in North America. Mothers were interviewed within 6 months of delivery about demographic, reproductive, medical, and behavioral factors, and details on the use of prescription and nonprescription medications. We compared first trimester exposure to specific antihistamines between 13,213 infants with specific malformations and 6982 nonmalformed controls by using conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with adjustment for potential confounders, including indication for use.

resultsOverall, 13.7% of controls were exposed to antihistamines during the first trimester. The most commonly used medications were diphenhydramine (4.2%), loratadine (3.1%), doxylamine (1.9%), and chlorpheniramine (1.7%). When estimates were stable, none supported the previously hypothesized associations. Among more than 100 exploratory comparisons of other specific antihistamine-defect pairs, 14 had odds ratios ≥1.5, of which 6 had 95% CI bounds excluding 1.0 before but not after adjustment for multiple comparisons.

conclusionOur findings do not provide meaningful support for previously posited associations between antihistamines and major congenital anomalies; at the same time, we identified associations that had not been previously suggested. We suspect that previous associations may be chance findings in the context of multiple comparisons, a situation that may also apply to our new findings.

Indexed as

Abnormalities, Drug-InducedAdolescentAdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleHistamine AntagonistsHumansPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy Trimester, FirstRisk FactorsYoung AdultHistamine AntagonistsAntihistaminesBirth defectsFirst trimesterMaternal exposure

Identifiers

PMID24565715
PMCPMC4140658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.