Use of Prescription Antiemetics Among US Commercially Insured Pregnant Patients
Thuy N. Thai,Joshua Brown,Stephan Schmidt,Judith Maro,Sonja A. Rasmussen,Almut G. Winterstein
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.40414
2024-10-23
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:According to the 2004 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guideline, pyridoxine or a combination of doxylamine and pyridoxine is recommended as first-line therapy, whereas ondansetron should be reserved as a last-line therapy to control nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP). 1 The 2018 ACOG guideline recommends use of ondansetron as third-line therapy. 2 Given the treatment guidelines' updates, little is known regarding how antiemetics have been used. We aimed to address this evidence gap by describing prescription antiemetic treatment patterns considering monotherapy, switching, and combination therapy during the first trimester. We also evaluated factors associated with ondansetron use, the most commonly used prescription antiemetic during the study period. We used the Merative MarketScan Commercial Claims data from 2005 to 2019 to identify pregnant persons aged 12 to 55 years. Pregnancy outcomes and gestation duration were estimated with previously validated algorithms. 3 ,4 The MarketScan data included approximately 20 to 40 million privately insured enrollees annually. We required pregnant persons to have continuous health plan enrollment for at least 90 days before estimated conception date to 30 days after pregnancy end (eFigure in Supplement 1). We classified prescription antiemetic treatment utilization based on pharmacy dispensing claims during the first trimester into monotherapy, switching, and combination therapy. Combination use was defined as a prescription fill for a second antiemetic during the active days' supply of a different (first) antiemetic and a refill of the first antiemetic during the active days' supply of the second. 5 Use of multiple antiemetics that did not meet this combination definition was considered switching therapy. We conducted a stepwise selection with an entry and stay criterion of P < .10 to select factors potentially associated with using ondansetron vs alternatives and used generalized estimating equation models with a robust variance estimator to calculate risk ratios (Table). The analysis was completed on April 30, 2022. The University of Florida institutional review board considered the study exempt from human participants research review due to the use of deidentified data. This report followed the STROBE reporting guideline. Among 3 303 463 included pregnancies, prescription antiemetics were used by 471 206 (14.3%); and among those receiving prescription antiemetics, maternal age distribution was 127 973 [30.7%] 25 to 29 years, 141 737 [34.0%] 30 to 34 years, 78 279 [18.8%] greater than 34 years. The prevalence of prescription monotherapy, switching, and combination therapy was 1096, 314, and 38 per 10 000 pregnancies. The most common patterns included use of ondansetron for monotherapy, promethazine and switching to ondansetron for switching, and promethazine-ondansetron for combination (Figure). In 2005 to 2006, ondansetron monotherapy was associated with greater NPV severity. From 2007, ondansetron monotherapy was more likely associated with clinician types (clinicians other than obstetrician-gynecologists) but not with maternal NVP severity or other clinical characteristics (Table). No factors were found for switching, whereas antiemetic treatment history was found to be associated with ondansetron combination. Our study provides an understanding of prescription antiemetic utilization among US privately insured pregnant patients. Ondansetron was the most common prescription antiemetic and was dominantly used in monotherapy, switching, and combination therapy. The rapidly increasing utilization of ondansetron since 2006 aligned with the approval of generic versions with lower costs in conjunction with relaxed authorization policies. 6 Starting in 2007, we found that ondansetron use was associated with clinician types rather than maternal characteristics including NVP severity, although recommendations place it as third-line therapy after other options have failed. A limitation of our study was that we could not capture over-the-counter (OTC) antiemetics in our claims data. It is possible that patients initiated OTC monotherapy or combinations (eg, pyridoxine + doxylamine) before using ondansetron, which was observed as the first-line prescription antiemetic in our data. Moreover, claims-based measurement could misclassify NVP severity. Additionally, our study included a national sample of the privately insured pregnant population and due to average short enrollment spans in this population, imposing maternal enrollment requirements resulted in a loss of about half the initial sample size. Thus, our findings cannot be generalized to the entire US population, particularly the publicly insured population. Accepted for Publication: August 27, 2024. Published: October 22, 2024. doi:10.1 -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal