Abstract
Background: Due to the embryotoxicity found in animal studies and scarce clinical data in pregnant women, it is still controversial whether entecavir (ETV) and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) are safe during human pregnancy. This is of paramount importance when counseling pregnant women with hepatitis B virus (HBV) on risks and benefits to their offspring. Objective: To quantify the association between administration of ETV and ADV in pregnant women and occurrence of adverse events (AEs) during pregnancy (AEDP). Methods: Pregnancy reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) were used to perform a retrospective analysis of AEDP associated with ETV or ADV. Disproportionality analysis estimating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) was conducted to identify the risk signals. A signal was defined as ROR value >2, and lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI)> 1. Results: A total of 1,286,367 reports involving AEDP were submitted to FAERS by healthcare professionals. Of these, there were 547 cases reporting ETV and 242 cases reporting ADV as primary suspected drugs. We found a moderate or strong signal for increased risk of spontaneous abortion when comparing ETV with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and telbivudine (LdT), with RORs equal to 1.58 (95% CI, 1.09-2.30) and 2.13 (95% CI, 1.04-4.36), respectively. However, when the included reports were limited to indication containing HBV infection, no signals for increased AEDP were detected. Futhermore, a strong signal for increased risk of spontaneous abortion was identified in patients with HBV infection when comparing ETV or ADV with lamivudine (LAM), with RORs of 3.55 (95% CI, 1.54-8.18) and 2.85 (95% CI, 1.15-7.08), respectively. Conclusion: We found a strong signal for increased risk of spontaneous abortion in patients with HBV infection taking ETV or ADV, in comparison with those prescribed with LAM. Moreover, no obvious signal association of human teratogenicity with exposure to ETV or ADV was identified in fetuses during pregnancy. Nevertheless, owing to the limitations of a spontaneous reporting database, which inevitably contains potential biases, there is a pressing need for well-designed comparative safety studies to validate these results in clinical practice.