Treatment for Mild Chronic Hypertension during Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and safety of the treatment of mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure, <160/100 mm Hg) during pregnancy are uncertain. Data are needed on whether a strategy of targeting a blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg reduces the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes without compromising fetal growth. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at a gestational age of less than 23 weeks to receive antihypertensive medications recommended for use in pregnancy (active-treatment group) or to receive no such treatment unless severe hypertension (systolic pressure, ≥160 mm Hg; or diastolic pressure, ≥105 mm Hg) developed (control group). The primary outcome was a composite of preeclampsia with severe features, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks' gestation, placental abruption, or fetal or neonatal death. The safety outcome was small-for-gestational-age birth weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age. Secondary outcomes included composites of serious neonatal or maternal complications, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. RESULTS: A total of 2408 women were enrolled in the trial. The incidence of a primary-outcome event was lower in the active-treatment group than in the control group (30.2% vs. 37.0%), for an adjusted risk ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.92; P<0.001). The percentage of small-for-gestational-age birth weights below the 10th percentile was 11.2% in the active-treatment group and 10.4% in the control group (adjusted risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.31; P = 0.76). The incidence of serious maternal complications was 2.1% and 2.8%, respectively (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.26), and the incidence of severe neonatal complications was 2.0% and 2.6% (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.30). The incidence of any preeclampsia in the two groups was 24.4% and 31.1%, respectively (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.89), and the incidence of preterm birth was 27.5% and 31.4% (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: In pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension, a strategy of targeting a blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg was associated with better pregnancy outcomes than a strategy of reserving treatment only for severe hypertension, with no increase in the risk of small-for-gestational-age birth weight. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CHAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02299414.).

Randomized controlled trial of insulin detemir versus NPH for the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if insulin detemir (IDet) is noninferior to insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) for the treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial of women with GDM and T2DM who entered our Diabetes in Pregnancy Program from March 2013 through October 2014. Exclusion criteria were type 1 diabetes, age <18 years, and insulin allergy. Women who failed to achieve good glycemic control (GC) (mean blood glucose [BG] <100 mg/dL) on diet and/or hypoglycemic agents were randomized to receive either IDet or NPH, with short-acting insulin aspart added as needed. Patients were instructed to test BG 4 times a day (fasting and 2-hour postprandial). Targets of GC were fasting BG <90 mg/dL and postprandial BG <120 mg/dL, and insulin was adjusted as needed to achieve the targets. The primary outcome was overall mean BG during insulin treatment; secondary outcomes included overall mean postprandial and fasting BG, median number of weeks to achieve GC, percent of patients with overall GC, maternal weight gain, perinatal/neonatal outcomes, and number of hypoglycemic events. Power analysis (90% power) determined that 88 patients would need to be randomized, assuming a maximal acceptable difference in overall mean BG of 7 mg/dL (SD ± 10 mg/dL). A per protocol analysis was performed. RESULTS: In all, 105 women were randomized. Eighteen women were excluded leaving 87 participants for analysis (45 NPH, 42 IDet). Maternal characteristics were similar in both groups. The difference in the mean BG of the groups was 2.1 mg/dL with a 1-sided upper 95% confidence limit of 5.5 mg/dL (less than the maximal acceptable difference of 7 mg/dL; P = .2937). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome when an intent-to-treat analysis was performed or when the T2DM patients were excluded. The time to achieve GC was similar in both groups. There were no differences in perinatal outcomes and maternal weight gain among the groups. There were more hypoglycemic events per patient in the NPH group. CONCLUSION: IDet is noninferior to insulin NPH for the treatment of GDM and T2DM in pregnancy.

Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy of the double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone for induction of labor among nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. STUDY DESIGN: Nulliparous women with a Bishop score <6 were randomized to receive a 10-mg intra-vaginal dinoprostone insert or a double-balloon catheter. Primary outcome was time to delivery. Statistical analyses were performed by intention to treat using the chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Student's t-test, as appropriate. RESULTS: The mean induction-to-delivery time was shorter in the double-balloon group as compared to the dinoprostone group (17.9±5.8 vs. 26.3±9.7 h) as was the time from induction to vaginal delivery (19.13±5 vs. 24.45±8.7 h, respectively). More women in the catheter group were delivered within 24 h compared to the dinoprostone group (87.1% vs. 47.4%). Approximately 50% of women in both groups delivered by cesarean section. CONCLUSION: Induction of labor with the double-balloon catheter in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix is associated with a shorter time to delivery compared to dinoprostone.

Pregnancy Outcomes of Nifedipine Compared With Labetalol for Oral Treatment of Mild Chronic Hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes by type of antihypertensive used in participants of the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension in Pregnancy) trial. METHODS: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of CHAP, an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial of antihypertensive treatment compared with standard care (no treatment unless severe hypertension developed) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure 140-159/90-104 mm Hg before 20 weeks of gestation) and singleton pregnancies. We performed three comparisons based on medications prescribed at enrollment: labetalol compared with standard care, nifedipine compared with standard care, and labetalol compared with nifedipine. Although active compared with standard care groups were randomized, medication assignment within the active treatment group was not random but based on clinician or patient preference. The primary outcome was the occurrence of superimposed preeclampsia with severe features, preterm birth before 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal or neonatal death. The key secondary outcome was small for gestational age (SGA) neonates. We also compared medication adverse effects between groups. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated with log binomial regression to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: Of 2,292 participants analyzed, 720 (31.4%) received labetalol, 417 (18.2%) received nifedipine, and 1,155 (50.4%) received no treatment. The mean gestational age at enrollment was 10.5±3.7 weeks; nearly half of participants (47.5%) identified as non-Hispanic Black; and 44.5% used aspirin. The primary outcome occurred in 217 (30.1%), 130 (31.2%), and 427 (37.0%) in the labetalol, nifedipine, and standard care groups, respectively. Risk of the primary outcome was lower among those receiving treatment (labetalol use vs standard adjusted RR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; nifedipine use vs standard adjusted RR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.71-0.99), but there was no significant difference in risk when labetalol was compared with nifedipine (adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI, 0.82-1.18). There were no significant differences in SGA or serious adverse events between participants receiving labetalol and those receiving nifedipine. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in predetermined maternal or neonatal outcomes were detected on the basis of the use of labetalol or nifedipine for treatment of chronic hypertension in pregnancy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02299414.

Mean Arterial Pressure and Neonatal Outcomes in Pregnancies Complicated by Mild Chronic Hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between mean arterial pressure during pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in participants with chronic hypertension using data from the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) trial. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the CHAP trial, an open-label, multicenter randomized trial of antihypertensive treatment in pregnancy, was conducted. The CHAP trial enrolled participants with mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure [BP] 140-159/90-104 mm Hg) and singleton pregnancies less than 23 weeks of gestation, randomizing them to active treatment (maintained on antihypertensive therapy with a goal BP below 140/90 mm Hg) or standard treatment (control; antihypertensives withheld unless BP reached 160 mm Hg systolic BP or higher or 105 mm Hg diastolic BP or higher). We used logistic regression to measure the strength of association between mean arterial pressure (average and highest across study visits) and to select neonatal outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (per 1-unit increase in millimeters of mercury) of the primary neonatal composite outcome (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, or intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4) and individual secondary outcomes (neonatal intensive care unit admission [NICU], low birth weight [LBW] below 2,500 g, and small for gestational age [SGA]) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2,284 participants were included: 1,155 active and 1,129 control. Adjusted models controlling for randomization group demonstrated that increasing average mean arterial pressure per millimeter of mercury was associated with an increase in each neonatal outcome examined except NEC, specifically neonatal composite (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.12, 95% CI, 1.09-1.16), NICU admission (aOR 1.07, 95% CI, 1.06-1.08), LBW (aOR 1.12, 95% CI, 1.11-1.14), SGA below the fifth percentile (aOR 1.03, 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), and SGA below the 10th percentile (aOR 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.04). Models using the highest mean arterial pressure as opposed to average mean arterial pressure also demonstrated consistent associations. CONCLUSION: Increasing mean arterial pressure was positively associated with most adverse neonatal outcomes except NEC. Given that the relationship between mean arterial pressure and adverse pregnancy outcomes may not be consistent at all mean arterial pressure levels, future work should attempt to further elucidate whether there is an absolute threshold or relative change in mean arterial pressure at which fetal benefits are optimized along with maternal benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02299414.

Breastfeeding initiation and duration among people with mild chronic hypertension: a secondary analysis of the Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy trial.

BACKGROUND: Increased duration of breastfeeding improves maternal cardiovascular health and may be especially beneficial in high-risk populations, such as those with chronic hypertension. Others have shown that individuals with hypertension are less likely to breastfeed, and there has been limited research aimed at supporting breastfeeding goals in this population. The impact of perinatal blood pressure control on breastfeeding outcomes among people with chronic hypertension is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether breastfeeding initiation and short-term duration assessed at the postpartum clinic visit differed according to perinatal blood pressure treatment strategy (targeting blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg vs reserving antihypertensive treatment for blood pressure ≥160/105 mm Hg). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a secondary analysis of the Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy trial. This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial where pregnant participants with mild chronic hypertension were randomized to receive antihypertensive medications with goal blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg (active treatment) or deferred treatment until blood pressure ≥160/105 mm Hg (control). The primary outcome was initiation and duration of breastfeeding, assessed at the postpartum clinic visit. We performed bivariate analyses and log-binomial and cumulative logit regression models, adjusting models for variables that were unbalanced in bivariate analyses. We performed additional analyses to explore the relationship between breastfeeding duration and blood pressure measurements at the postpartum visit. RESULTS: Of the 2408 participants from the Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy trial, 1444 (60%) attended the postpartum study visit and provided breastfeeding information. Participants in the active treatment group had different body mass index class distribution and earlier gestational age at enrollment, and (by design) were more often discharged on antihypertensives. Breastfeeding outcomes did not differ significantly by treatment group. In the active and control treatment groups, 563 (77.5%) and 561 (78.1%) initiated breastfeeding, and mean durations of breastfeeding were 6.5±2.3 and 6.3±2.1 weeks, respectively. The probability of ever breastfeeding (adjusted relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.05), current breastfeeding at postpartum visit (adjusted relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.10), and weeks of breastfeeding (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.12) did not differ by treatment group. Increased duration (≥2 vs <2 weeks) of breastfeeding was associated with slightly lower blood pressure measurements at the postpartum visit, but these differences were not significant in adjusted models. CONCLUSION: In a secondary analysis of the cohort of Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy trial participants who attended the postpartum study visit and provided breastfeeding information (60% of original trial participants), breastfeeding outcomes did not differ significantly by treatment group. This suggests that maintaining goal blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg throughout the perinatal period is associated with neither harm nor benefit for short-term breastfeeding goals. Further study is needed to understand long-term breastfeeding outcomes among individuals with chronic hypertension and how to support this population in achieving their breastfeeding goals.

Perinatal Outcomes Associated With Management of Stage 1 Hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between maternal blood pressure (BP) below 130/80 mm Hg compared with 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy), an open label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Participants with mean BP below 140/90 mm Hg were grouped as below 130/80 mm Hg compared with 130-139/80-89 mm Hg by averaging postrandomization clinic BP throughout pregnancy. The primary composite outcome was preeclampsia with severe features, indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal or neonatal death. The secondary outcome was small for gestational age (SGA). RESULTS: Of 2,408 patients in CHAP, 2,096 met study criteria; 1,328 had mean BP 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and 768 had mean BP below 130/80 mm Hg. Participants with mean BP below 130/80 mm Hg were more likely to be older, on antihypertensive medication, in the active treatment arm, and to have lower BP at enrollment. Mean clinic BP below 130/80 mm Hg was associated with lower frequency of the primary outcome (16.0% vs 35.8%, adjusted relative risk 0.45; 95% CI 0.38-0.54) as well as lower risk of severe preeclampsia and indicated birth before 35 weeks of gestation. There was no association with SGA. CONCLUSION: In pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension, mean BP below 130/80 mm Hg was associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without increased risk of SGA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02299414.

The importance of fasting blood glucose in screening for gestational diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how well an isolated abnormal fasting blood glucose (FBG) value on the 1-step, 75-g, 2-hour glucose tolerance test (GTT) indicates significant gestational diabetes (GDM). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study, January 2011 to May 2012. Patients diagnosed by the 1-step method were assigned by their abnormal results to the isolated fasting (FBG), isolated 1-hour (1HBG), isolated 2-hour (2HBG), or multiple-value (≥2BG) group. Characteristics and outcomes were compared using ANOVA, Kruskal--Wallis, and Chi-squared tests. RESULTS: 324 patients were included. Compared to other groups, the FBG group (N = 23) had the highest incidence of requiring medical therapy (78.26%), mean body mass index (29.40 ± 6.20 kg/m(2)), and percentage of Black plus Hispanic women (60.87%). CONCLUSIONS: Seven percent of women were diagnosed with GDM by an isolated abnormal fasting BG and have significant disease. This group should not be missed; therefore, fasting BG should be integrated into all GDM screening.