Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: While nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy are very common, affecting approximately 80% of the pregnancies, hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form affecting 0.3-1.0% of the pregnancies. Although hyperemesis gravidarum is rarely a source of mortality, it is a significant source of morbidity. It is one of the most common indications for hospitalization in pregnancy. Beyond the maternal and fetal consequences of malnutrition, the severity of hyperemesis symptoms causes a major psychosocial burden leading to depression, anxiety, and even pregnancy termination. The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine all randomized controlled trials of interventions specifically for hyperemesis gravidarum and evaluate them based on both subjective and objective measures of efficacy, maternal and fetal/neonatal safety, and economic costs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were identified by searching electronic databases. We included all randomized controlled trials for the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. The primary outcome was intervention efficacy as defined by severity, reduction, or cessation in nausea/vomiting; number of episodes of emesis; and days of hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included other measures of intervention efficacy, adverse maternal/fetal/neonatal outcomes, quality of life measures, and economic costs. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. Selected comparisons reported below: No primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo. There was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 0.79-2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92-2.48, respectively). Midwife-led outpatient care was associated with fewer hours of hospital admission than routine inpatient admission (mean difference (MD) - 33.20, 95% CI -46.91 to -19.49) with no difference in pregnancy-unique quantification of emesis and nausea (PUQE) score, decision to terminate the pregnancy, miscarriage, small-for-gestational age infants, or time off work when compared with routine care. Women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (MD 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08-1.52). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40-1.40) or side effects. A comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15-3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63-1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23-4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10-5.11, respectively). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects. In a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.90, respectively). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects. In a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -1.39-1.39), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00-0.94). Regarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70-0.10), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.94; 4 studies, 269 women). For hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00-1.28; one study, 40 women). In a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 h (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08-3.72), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58-1.15). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: While there were a wide range of interventions studied, both pharmaceutical and otherwise, there were a limited number of placebo controlled trials. In comparing the efficacy of the commonly used antiemetics, metoclopramide, ondansetron, and promethazine, the results of this review do not support the clear superiority of one over the other in symptomatic relief. Other factors such as side effect profile medication safety and healthcare costs should also be considered when selecting an intervention.

Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of methods. For women at low risk of pregnancy complications, some methods of induction of labour or cervical ripening may be suitable for use in outpatient settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour or ripen the cervix in outpatient settings in terms of effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods. Cluster trials were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included 34 studies of 11 different methods for labour induction with 5003 randomised women, where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital.Studies examined vaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, amniotomy and acupuncture, compared with placebo, no treatment, or routine care. Trials generally recruited healthy women with a term pregnancy. The risk of bias was mostly low or unclear, however, in 16 trials blinding was unclear or not attempted. In general, limited data were available on the review's main and additional outcomes. Evidence was graded low to moderate quality. 1. Vaginal PGE2 versus expectant management or placebo (5 studies)Fewer women in the vaginal PGE2 group needed additional induction agents to induce labour, however, confidence intervals were wide (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99; 150 women; 2 trials). There were no clear differences between groups in uterine hyperstimulation (with or without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes) (RR 3.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 22.24; 244 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31; 288 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), or admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.03; 230 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth within 24, 48 or 72 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services or maternal or caregiver satisfaction. Serious maternal and neonatal morbidity or deaths were not reported. 2. Intracervical PGE2 versus expectant management or placebo (7 studies) There was no clear difference between women receiving intracervical PGE2 and no treatment or placebo in terms of need for additional induction agents (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32; 445 women; 3 studies), vaginal birth not achieved within 48 to 72 hours (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 43 women; 1 study; low-quality evidence), uterine hyperstimulation (with FHR changes) (RR 2.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 11.25; 488 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 674 women; 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence), or babies admitted to NICU (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.05; 215 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). There were no uterine ruptures in either the PGE2 group or placebo group.There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, or serious morbidity or neonatal morbidity or perinatal death. 3. Vaginal misoprostol versus placebo (4 studies)One small study reported on the rate of perinatal death with no clear differences between groups; there were no deaths in the treatment group compared with one stillbirth (reason not reported) in the control group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14; 77 infants; 1 study; low-quality evidence).There was no clear difference between groups in rates of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.00; 265 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 325 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), and babies admitted to NICU (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.47; 325 infants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24, 48 or 72 hours, additional induction agents required, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, serious maternal, and other neonatal, morbidity or death.No substantive differences were found for other comparisons. One small study found that women who received oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth within 24 hours (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; 87 women; 1 study) and were less likely to require additional induction agents (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97; 127 women; 2 studies). Women who received mifepristone were also less likely to require additional induction agents (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 311 women; 4 studies; I² = 74%); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity. One trial each of acupuncture and outpatient amniotomy were included, but few review outcomes were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible and important adverse events seem rare, however, in general there is insufficient evidence to detect differences. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents administered on an outpatient basis reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth.We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings, or their cost effectiveness. Further studies where various women-friendly outpatient protocols are compared head-to-head are required. As part of such work, women should be consulted on what sort of management they would prefer.

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum.

BACKGROUND: Hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy affecting 0.3% to 1.0% of pregnancies, and is one of the most common indications for hospitalization during pregnancy. While a previous Cochrane review examined interventions for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, there has not yet been a review examining the interventions for the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety, of all interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum in pregnancy up to 20 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register and the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (20 December 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of any intervention for hyperemesis gravidarum. Quasi-randomized trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion.We excluded trials on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy that were not specifically studying the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (involving 2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. The comparisons covered a range of interventions including acupressure/acupuncture, outpatient care, intravenous fluids, and various pharmaceutical interventions. The methodological quality of included studies was mixed. For selected important comparisons and outcomes, we graded the quality of the evidence and created 'Summary of findings' tables. For most outcomes the evidence was graded as low or very low quality mainly due to the imprecision of effect estimates. Comparisons included in the 'Summary of findings' tables are described below, the remaining comparisons are described in detail in the main text.No primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo, There was no clear evidence of differences between groups for anxiodepressive symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.40; one study, 36 women, very low-quality evidence), spontaneous abortion (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; one study, 57 women, low-quality evidence), preterm birth (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.26; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence), or perinatal death (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.30; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.48, respectively; very low-quality evidence).In a study with 92 participants, women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.40, low-quality evidence) or side effects.A comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively, very low-quality evidence). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.11, respectively; moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects.In a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90, respectively, moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects.In a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.39 to 1.39, very low-quality evidence), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) .Regarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94; four studies, 269 women). For other important outcomes including pregnancy complications, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and congenital abnormalities, there was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups (very low-quality evidence for all outcomes). In other single studies there were no clear differences between groups for preterm birth or side effects (very low-quality evidence).For hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.28;one study, 40 women).In a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 hours (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.72; low-quality evidence), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.15, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting. There was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups for stillbirth and neonatal death and preterm birth. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this review, there is little high-quality and consistent evidence supporting any one intervention, which should be taken into account when making management decisions. There was also very limited reporting on the economic impact of hyperemesis gravidarum and the impact that interventions may have.The limitations in interpreting the results of the included studies highlights the importance of consistency in the definition of hyperemesis gravidarum, the use of validated outcome measures, and the need for larger placebo-controlled trials.

Castor oil, bath and/or enema for cervical priming and induction of labour.

BACKGROUND: Castor oil, a potent cathartic, is derived from the bean of the castor plant. Anecdotal reports, which date back to ancient Egypt have suggested the use of castor oil to stimulate labour. Castor oil has been widely used as a traditional method of initiating labour in midwifery practice. Its role in the initiation of labour is poorly understood and data examining its efficacy within a clinical trial are limited. This is one of a series of reviews of methods of cervical ripening and labour induction using standardised methodology. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of castor oil or enemas for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour in comparison with other methods of cervical ripening or induction of labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2013) and bibliographies of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials comparing castor oil, bath or enemas used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A strategy was developed to deal with the large volume and complexity of trial data relating to labour induction. This involved a two-stage method of data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials, involving 233 women, are included. There was no evidence of differences in caesarean section rates between the two interventions in the two trials reporting this outcome (risk ratio (RR) 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 4.55). There were no data presented on neonatal or maternal mortality or morbidity.There was no evidence of a difference between castor oil and placebo/no treatment for the rate of instrumental delivery, meconium-stained liquor, or Apgar score less than seven at five minutes. The number of participants was too small to detect all but large differences in outcome. All women who ingested castor oil felt nauseous (RR 59.92, 95% CI 8.46 to 424.52). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The three trials included in the review contain small numbers of women. All three studies used single doses of castor oil. The results from these studies should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of bias introduced due to poor methodological quality. Further research is needed to attempt to quantify the efficacy of castor oil as an cervical priming and induction agent.

Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of pharmacological, mechanical and other methods. For women at low risk, some methods of induction of labour may be suitable for use in outpatient settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour in outpatient settings in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety. The review complements existing reviews on labour induction examining effectiveness and safety. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2009) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligible papers for risk of bias. We checked all data after entry into review manager software. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 studies with 2616 women examining different methods of induction of labour where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital.Studies examined vaginal and intracervical PGE(2), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, and acupuncture. Overall, the results demonstrate that outpatient induction of labour is feasible and that important adverse events are rare. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that, compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth. We were unable to pool results on outcomes relating to progress in labour as studies tended to measure a very broad range of outcomes.There was no evidence that induction agents increased interventions in labour such as operative deliveries. Only two studies provided information on women's views about the induction process, and overall there was very little information on the costs to health service providers of different methods of labour induction in outpatient settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible. We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, or the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings.