Association of Topical Prostaglandin Analogue Use With Risk of Spontaneous Abortion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Recent case reports suggest use of topical prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) might increase the risk of spontaneous abortions in pregnant people who take these drugs for intraocular pressure control. However, because these reports are derived mainly from voluntary adverse drug reaction databases, they might be prone to reporting bias. Objective: To examine the risk of spontaneous abortions among pregnant people who take topical PGAs. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PharMetrics Plus database (IQVIA) for health claims in the United States from 2006 to 2020 was used as the data source. The percentage of spontaneous abortions was quantified among patients aged 15 to 45 years who were pregnant and took a topical PGA medication during this period compared with a random sample of people in the database not taking a PGA agent. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diagnosis of a spontaneous abortion was ascertained through procedure codes or codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. Results: A total of 3881 people of reproductive age who were prescribed PGAs and 3881 control participants not taking PGAs were identified. Among the 3881 patients in the PGA cohort, 261 were pregnant and 26 had a spontaneous abortion code. Among the 26 individuals, 12 (4.6%) had a spontaneous abortion code within 90 days of the pregnancy code and had an overlapping prescription for a PGA. Among the 12 individuals, 5 (41.7%) were in the age category 40 to 45 years. In the control group, there were 801 pregnancies, 56 of which led to spontaneous abortions (7%), resulting in an increased risk of 2.4% (95% CI, -0.7% to 5.4%; P = .17). Conclusion and Relevance: The results of this case-series study suggest no association between use of PGAs and risk of spontaneous abortions. Given the nature of this study design and potential for unmeasured confounding factors, these results could be explored further in future epidemiologic studies that can better control for potential confounding variables and more accurately ascertain spontaneous abortions through perinatal databases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".