FDA pregnancy medication Labelling : Post 2015.

Mohamad Ali Salloum, PharmD • April 2, 2022

Share

  • Slide title

    Write your caption here
    Button
  • Slide title

    Write your caption here
    Button
  • Slide title

    Write your caption here
    Button
  • Slide title

    Write your caption here
    Button

Starting from 30 June 2015, the FDA implemented a new labelling rule for medications used during pregnancy and lactation.


As discussed in the previous article, the Categories published in 1979 (A, B, C, D, and X) were causing confusion for the patients and are increasing the risk to be misinterpreted by the health care professionals.


The new format is called the “Pregnancy and Lactation Labelling Rule” and is abbreviated as PLLR.


Using PLLR will remove some of the uncertainty that was caused by the previous five categories since it will contain a narrative information about the medication that will describe the potential risks of drug exposure based on available, evidence-based data. Ultimately, the new format will assist the health care professionals to assess the benefit versus risk when counseling pregnant women and nursing mothers who need the medication, and thus leading to enhanced protection of the mother and her baby.


After the PLLR was implemented, every pharmaceutical company that wants to register it’s new drug in the FDA, It should use the template provided by the FDA to include the required information in the leaflet.


Regarding the medications that were approved by FDA after 30 June 2001, The manufacturer was given from two to four years after 2015 to change the information on the leaflet as required.


Meanwhile, for the medications that were approved by the FDA before 30 June 2001, the format of the information was not required to be changed, however, It was mandated to remove the categorization that was assigned to this medication. The deadline for this action was 30 June 2018.


Concerning the OTC drugs, medications that can be given without a prescription, they were not affected by the new rule.


Not only the letter categorization was removed,  the FDA also required the manufacturer to modify the sections in the leaflet.



The below picture will illustrate the modification on sections done between the 2 formats.


   

PLLR labeling sections

Briefly describing the change in the sections:


-The FDA decided to merge "Labor and Delivery" with the "Pregnancy" in section 8.1.

-Section 8.2 was named "Lactation".

-A new section was added, which is 8.3. and it described the information regarding the females and males of reproductive potential.


Speaking about this new section, it's very important to inform the physician about every drug that is being administered by the father or the mother of the baby. Also, if the couple were planning to have a baby, then they should discuss with the doctor about the drugs that being are being administered since a lot of drugs can remain in your body even after discontinuing it. (some medications can stay for weeks and even months in our bodies).

 


List of Services

    • Slide title

      Write your caption here
      Button
    • Slide title

      Write your caption here
      Button
    • Slide title

      Write your caption here
      Button
    • Slide title

      Write your caption here
      Button

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR

    Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD

    Mohamad Ali Salloum LinkedIn Profile

    Mohamad-Ali Salloum is a Pharmacist and science writer. He loves simplifying science to the general public and healthcare students through words and illustrations. When he's not working, you can usually find him in the gym, reading a book, or learning a new skill.

    Share

    Recent articles:

    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 23, 2026
    Why does this always happen?
    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 21, 2026
    Discover the best ways to learn new skills
    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 19, 2026
    Stuck in your head? Discover why overthinking feels productive, how it sabotages your performance, and simple ways to shift into real action.
    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 17, 2026
    References: Wood W, Quinn JM, Kashy DA. Habits in everyday life: Thought, emotion, and action. J Pers Soc Psychol . 2002;83(6):1281–1297. Wood W, Neal DT. The habitual consumer. J Consum Psychol . 2009;19(4):579–592. Neal DT, Wood W, Labrecque JS, Lally P. How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life. J Exp Soc Psychol . 2012;48(2):492–498. Wood W, Mazar A, Neal DT. Habits and goals in human behavior: Separate but interacting systems. Perspect Psychol Sci . 2021;16(1):1–16. Graybiel AM. Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annu Rev Neurosci . 2008;31:359–387. Smith KS, Graybiel AM. Habit formation. Dialogues Clin Neurosci . 2016;18(1):33–43. Yin HH, Knowlton BJ. The role of the basal ganglia in habit formation. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2006;7(6):464–476. Graybiel AM. The basal ganglia and chunking of action repertoires. Neurobiol Learn Mem . 1998;70(1–2):119–136. Schultz W. Dopamine reward prediction error coding. Dialogues Clin Neurosci . 2016;18(1):23–32. Schultz W, Dayan P, Montague PR. A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science . 1997;275(5306):1593–1599. Nasser HM, Calu DJ, Schoenbaum G, Sharpe MJ. The dopamine prediction error: Contributions to associative models of reward learning. Front Psychol . 2017;8:244. Kahnt T, Schoenbaum G. The curious case of dopaminergic prediction errors and learning associative information beyond value. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2025;26:169–178. Lally P, van Jaarsveld CHM, Potts HWW, Wardle J. How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur J Soc Psychol . 2010;40(6):998–1009. American Psychological Association. Harnessing the power of habits. Monitor Psychol . 2020;51(8):78–83.
    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 15, 2026
    References: Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol . 2012;63:1–29. Chai WJ, Abd Hamid AI, Malin Abdullah J. Working memory from the psychological and neurosciences perspectives: a review. Front Psychol . 2018;9:401. Rogers RD, Monsell S. Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen . 1995;124(2):207–231. Rubinstein JS, Meyer DE, Evans JE. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform . 2001;27(4):763–797. Garner KG, Dux PE. Knowledge generalization and the costs of multitasking. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2023;24:98–112. Zhou X, Lei X. Wandering minds with wandering brain networks. Neurosci Bull . 2018;34(6):1017–1028. Sorella S, Crescentini C, Matiz A, et al. Resting‑state default mode network variability predicts spontaneous mind‑wandering. Front Hum Neurosci . 2025;19:1515902. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci . 1988;12(2):257–285. 
    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 13, 2026
    Why do we procrastinate even when tasks matter most? Discover the emotional roots of procrastination and how to stop
    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 11, 2026
    Confidence and self-esteem are often confused but are psychologically distinct. Learn how they differ, how each develops, and why understanding both matters for real growth.
    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 9, 2026
    Confidence isn’t about eliminating fear—it’s about acting despite it. Discover how courage, discomfort, and psychological growth build real confidence over time.
    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 7, 2026
    References: McMurray JJV, Packer M, Desai AS, et al. Angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med . 2014;371(11):993–1004. Barter PJ, Caulfield M, Eriksson M, et al. Effects of torcetrapib in patients at high risk for coronary events. N Engl J Med . 2007;357:2109–2122. Kastelein JJP, Akdim F, Stroes ESG, et al. Simvastatin with or without ezetimibe in familial hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med . 2008;358:1431–1443. Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med . 2008;358:2545–2559. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. N Engl J Med . 1991;324:781–788. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular and renal outcomes. N Engl J Med . 2020;383:1413–1424. Ioannidis JPA. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being misled? BMJ . 2013;346:f314.
    By Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD May 4, 2026
    References: Wager TD, Atlas LY. The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2015;16(7):403‑18. Frisaldi E, Shaibani A, Benedetti F, Pagnini F. Placebo and nocebo effects associated with pharmacological interventions: an umbrella review. BMJ Open . 2023;13:e077243. Colloca L, Finniss D. Nocebo effects, patient‑clinician communication, and therapeutic outcomes. JAMA . 2012;307(6):567‑8. Howard JP, Wood FA, Finegold JA, et al. Side effect patterns in a blinded, randomized trial of statin, placebo, and no treatment. N Engl J Med . 2021;385(23):2180‑9. Penson PE, Mancini GBJ, Toth PP, et al. Introducing the “drucebo” effect in statin therapy. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle . 2018;9(6):1023‑33. Barnes K, Faasse K, Geers AL, et al. Can positive framing reduce nocebo side effects? Front Pharmacol . 2019;10:167. Caliskan EB, Bingel U, Kunkel A. Translating knowledge on placebo and nocebo effects into clinical practice. Pain Rep . 2024;9(2):e1142. von Wernsdorff M, Loef M, Tuschen‑Caffier B, Schmidt S. Effects of open‑label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Sci Rep . 2021;11:3855.
    More Posts