The Management of Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum (Green-top Guideline No. 69).

An objective and validated index of nausea and vomiting such as the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) and HyperEmesis Level Prediction (HELP) tools can be used to classify the severity of NVP and HG. [Grade C] Ketonuria is not an indicator of dehydration and should not be used to assess severity. [Grade A] There are safety and efficacy data for first line antiemetics such as anti (H1) histamines, phenothiazines and doxylamine/pyridoxine (Xonvea®) and they should be prescribed initially when required for NVP and HG (Appendix III). [Grade A] There is evidence that ondansetron is safe and effective. Its use as a second line antiemetic should not be discouraged if first line antiemetics are ineffective. Women can be reassured regarding a very small increase in the absolute risk of orofacial clefting with ondansetron use in the first trimester, which should be balanced with the risks of poorly managed HG. [Grade B] Metoclopramide is safe and effective and can be used alone or in combination with other antiemetics. [Grade B] Because of the risk of extrapyramidal effects metoclopramide should be used as second-line therapy. Intravenous doses should be administered by slow bolus injection over at least 3 minutes to help minimise these. [Grade C] Women should be asked about previous adverse reactions to antiemetic therapies. If adverse reactions occur, there should be prompt cessation of the medications. [GPP] Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) with additional potassium chloride in each bag, with administration guided by daily monitoring of electrolytes, is the most appropriate intravenous hydration. [Grade C] Combinations of different drugs should be used in women who do not respond to a single antiemetic. Suggested antiemetics for UK use are given in Appendix III. [GPP] Thiamine supplementation (either oral 100 mg tds or intravenous as part of vitamin B complex (Pabrinex®)) should be given to all women admitted with vomiting, or severely reduced dietary intake, especially before administration of dextrose or parenteral nutrition. [Grade D] All therapeutic measures should have been tried before considering termination of pregnancy. [Grade C].

A treatment strategy with nifedipine versus labetalol for women with pregnancy hypertension: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (Giant PANDA).

BACKGROUND: Approximately one in ten women have high blood pressure during pregnancy. Hypertension is associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, and as treatment improves maternal outcomes, antihypertensive treatment is recommended. Previous trials have been unable to provide a definitive answer on which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes and the need for robust evidence evaluating maternal and infant benefits and risks remains an important, unanswered question for research and clinical communities. METHODS: The Giant PANDA study is a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of a treatment initiation strategy with nifedipine (calcium channel blocker), versus labetalol (mixed alpha/beta blocker) in 2300 women with pregnancy hypertension. The primary objective is to evaluate if treatment with nifedipine compared to labetalol in women with pregnancy hypertension reduces severe maternal hypertension without increasing fetal or neonatal death or neonatal unit admission. Subgroup analyses will be undertaken by hypertension type (chronic, gestational, pre-eclampsia), diabetes (yes, no), singleton (yes, no), self-reported ethnicity (Black, all other), and gestational age at randomisation categories (11 + 0 to 19 + 6, 20 + 0 to 27 + 6, 28 + 0 to 34 + 6 weeks). A cost-effectiveness analysis using an NHS perspective will be undertaken using a cost-consequence analysis up to postnatal hospital discharge and an extrapolation exercise with a lifetime horizon conditional on the results of the cost-consequence analysis. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to address the uncertainty of which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. The trial results are intended to provide definitive evidence to inform guidelines and linked, shared decision-making tools, thus influencing clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2020-003410-12, ISRCTN: 12,792,616 registered on 18 November 2020.

Quantifying adherence to antihypertensive medication for chronic hypertension during pregnancy.

Estimates of adherence to antihypertensive treatment in pregnancy are limited; identifying non-adherence could facilitate intervention and optimise blood pressure control. This study aimed to evaluate adherence to antihypertensive treatment amongst pregnant women with chronic hypertension using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry instrumentation. Spot urine samples collected from women who were randomised to labetalol or nifedipine were assessed. Samples from 74 women were included; documented prescribing and urine metabolite detection were concordant in 88% (n = 65). Evidence of self-administration of alternative treatment was observed in 8% (n = 6). Measurement of urinary antihypertensive metabolites in pregnancy provides insight into treatment adherence.

Assessment of discharge treatment prescribed to women admitted to hospital for hyperemesis gravidarum.

AIMS: Prescribing drug treatment for the management of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), the most severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, remains controversial. Since most manufacturers do not recommend prescribing antiemetics during pregnancy, little is known regarding which treatments are most prevalent among pregnant patients. Here, we report for the first time, evidence of actual treatments prescribed in English hospitals. METHODS: A retrospective pregnancy cohort was constructed using anonymised electronic records in the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust system for all women who delivered between January 2010 and February 2015. For women admitted to hospital for HG, medications prescribed on discharge were described and variation by maternal characteristics was assessed. Compliance with local and national HG treatment guidelines was evaluated. RESULTS: Of 33 567 pregnancies (among 30 439 women), the prevalence of HG was 1.7%. Among 530 HG admissions with records of discharge drugs, cyclizine was the most frequently prescribed (almost 73% of admissions). Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide were prescribed mainly in combination with other drugs; however, ondansetron was more common than metoclopramide at discharge from first and subsequent admissions. Steroids were only prescribed following readmissions. Thiamine was most frequently prescribed following readmission while high dose of folic acid was prescribed equally after first or subsequent admissions. Prescribing showed little variation by maternal age, ethnicity, weight, socioeconomic deprivation, or comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Evidence that management of HG in terms of discharge medications mainly followed local and national recommendations provides reassurance within the health professional community. Wider documentation of drugs prescribed to women with HG is required to enable full assessment of whether optimal drug management is being achieved.

Labetalol Versus Nifedipine as Antihypertensive Treatment for Chronic Hypertension in Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Data from randomized controlled trials to guide antihypertensive agent choice for chronic hypertension in pregnancy are limited; this study aimed to compare labetalol and nifedipine, additionally assessing the impact of ethnicity on treatment efficacy. Pregnant women with chronic hypertension (12+0-27+6 weeks' gestation) were enrolled at 4 UK centers (August 2014 to October 2015). Open-label first-line antihypertensive treatment was randomly assigned: labetalol- (200-1800 mg/d) or nifedipine-modified release (20-80 mg/d). Analysis included 112 women (98%) who completed the study (labetalol n=55, nifedipine n=57). Maximum blood pressure after randomization was 161/101 mm Hg with labetalol versus 163/105 mm Hg with nifedipine (mean difference systolic: 1.2 mm Hg [-4.9 to 7.2 mm Hg], diastolic: 3.3 mm Hg [-0.6 to 7.3 mm Hg]). Mean blood pressure was 134/84 mm Hg with labetalol and 134/85 mm Hg with nifedipine (mean difference systolic: 0.3 mm Hg [-2.8 to 3.4 mm Hg], and diastolic: -1.9 mm Hg [-4.1 to 0.3 mm Hg]). Nifedipine use was associated with a 7.4-mm Hg reduction (-14.4 to -0.4 mm Hg) in central aortic pressure, measured by pulse wave analysis. No difference in treatment effect was observed in black women (n=63), but a mean 4 mm Hg reduction (-6.6 to -0.8 mm Hg; P=0.015) in brachial diastolic blood pressure was observed with labetalol compared with nifedipine in non-black women (n=49). Labetalol and nifedipine control mean blood pressure to target in pregnant women with chronic hypertension. This study provides support for a larger definitive trial scrutinizing the benefits and side effects of first-line antihypertensive treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN40973936.

Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum and nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a systematic review and economic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 85% of all women during pregnancy, but for the majority self-management suffices. For the remainder, symptoms are more severe and the most severe form of NVP - hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) - affects 0.3-1.0% of pregnant women. There is no widely accepted point at which NVP becomes HG. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for NVP and HG. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, Conference Proceedings Index, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched from inception to September 2014. References from studies and literature reviews identified were also examined. Obstetric Medicine was hand-searched, as were websites of relevant organisations. Costs came from NHS sources. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for effectiveness, and population-based case series for adverse events and fetal outcomes. Treatments: vitamins B6 and B12, ginger, acupressure/acupuncture, hypnotherapy, antiemetics, dopamine antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists, intravenous (i.v.) fluids, corticosteroids, enteral and parenteral feeding or other novel treatment. Two reviewers extracted data and quality assessed studies. Results were narratively synthesised; planned meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity and incomplete reporting. A simple economic evaluation considered the implied values of treatments. RESULTS: Seventy-three studies (75 reports) met the inclusion criteria. For RCTs, 33 and 11 studies had a low and high risk of bias respectively. For the remainder (n = 20) it was unclear. The non-randomised studies (n = 9) were low quality. There were 33 separate comparators. The most common were acupressure versus placebo (n = 12); steroid versus usual treatment (n = 7); ginger versus placebo (n = 6); ginger versus vitamin B6 (n = 6); and vitamin B6 versus placebo (n = 4). There was evidence that ginger, antihistamines, metoclopramide (mild disease) and vitamin B6 (mild to severe disease) are better than placebo. Diclectin® [Duchesnay Inc.; doxylamine succinate (10 mg) plus pyridoxine hydrochloride (10 mg) slow release tablet] is more effective than placebo and ondansetron is more effective at reducing nausea than pyridoxine plus doxylamine. Diclectin before symptoms of NVP begin for women at high risk of severe NVP recurrence reduces risk of moderate/severe NVP compared with taking Diclectin once symptoms begin. Promethazine is as, and ondansetron is more, effective than metoclopramide for severe NVP/HG. I.v. fluids help correct dehydration and improve symptoms. Dextrose saline may be more effective at reducing nausea than normal saline. Transdermal clonidine patches may be effective for severe HG. Enteral feeding is effective but extreme method treatment for very severe symptoms. Day case management for moderate/severe symptoms is feasible, acceptable and as effective as inpatient care. For all other interventions and comparisons, evidence is unclear. The economic analysis was limited by lack of effectiveness data, but comparison of costs between treatments highlights the implications of different choices. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available. CONCLUSION: There was evidence of some improvement in symptoms for some treatments, but these data may not be transferable across disease severities. Methodologically sound and larger trials of the main therapies considered within the UK NHS are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006642. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Treatments for Hyperemesis Gravidarum and Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Nausea and vomiting affects approximately 85% of pregnant women. The most severe form, hyperemesis gravidarum, affects up to 3% of women and can have significant adverse physical and psychological sequelae. Objective: To summarize current evidence on effective treatments for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum. Evidence Review: Databases were searched to June 8, 2016. Relevant websites and bibliographies were also searched. Titles and abstracts were assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Results were narratively synthesized; planned meta-analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of findings. Findings: Seventy-eight studies (n = 8930 participants) were included: 67 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 11 nonrandomized studies. Evidence from 35 RCTs at low risk of bias indicated that ginger, vitamin B6, antihistamines, metoclopramide (for mild symptoms), pyridoxine-doxylamine, and ondansetron (for moderate symptoms) were associated with improved symptoms compared with placebo. One RCT (n = 86) reported greater improvements in moderate symptoms following psychotherapy (change in Rhodes score [range, 0 {no symptoms} to 40 {worst possible symptoms}], 18.76 [SD, 5.48] to 7.06 [SD, 5.79] for intervention vs 19.18 [SD, 5.63] to 12.81 [SD, 6.88] for comparator [P < .001]). For moderate-severe symptoms, 1 RCT (n = 60) suggested that pyridoxine-doxylamine combination taken preemptively reduced risk of recurrence of moderate-severe symptoms compared with treatment once symptoms begin (15.4% vs 39.1% [P < .04]). One RCT (n = 83) found that ondansetron was associated with lower nausea scores on day 4 than metoclopramide (mean visual analog scale [VAS] score, 4.1 [SD, 2.9] for ondansetron vs 5.7 [SD, 2.3] for metoclopramide [P = .023]) but not episodes of emesis (5.0 [SD, 3.1] vs 3.3 [SD, 3], respectively [P = .013]). Although there was no difference in trend in nausea scores over the 14-day study period, trend in vomiting scores was better in the ondansetron group (P = .042). One RCT (n = 159) found no difference between metoclopramide and promethazine after 24 hours (episodes of vomiting, 1 [IQR, 0-5] for metoclopramide vs 2 [IQR, 0-3] for promethazine [P = .81], VAS [0-10 scale] for nausea, 2 [IQR, 1-5] vs 2 [IQR, 1-4], respectively [P = .99]). Three RCTs compared corticosteroids with placebo or promethazine or metoclopramide in women with severe symptoms. Improvements were seen in all corticosteroid groups, but only a significant difference between corticosteroids vs metoclopramide was reported (emesis reduction, 40.9% vs 16.5% at day 2; 71.6% vs 51.2% at day 3; 95.8% vs 76.6% at day 7 [n = 40, P < .001]). For other interventions, evidence was limited. Conclusions and Relevance: For mild symptoms of nausea and emesis of pregnancy, ginger, pyridoxine, antihistamines, and metoclopramide were associated with greater benefit than placebo. For moderate symptoms, pyridoxine-doxylamine, promethazine, and metoclopramide were associated with greater benefit than placebo. Ondansetron was associated with improvement for a range of symptom severity. Corticosteroids may be associated with benefit in severe cases. Overall the quality of evidence was low.

Obstetric medicine training: picking up where the licentiate in midwifery left off.

Obstetric medicine is the care of women with medical problems in pregnancy. Medical problems may predate or arise de novo in pregnancy. Some are common and some are dangerous. Both obstetricians and physicians recognise the need for greater numbers of appropriately trained clinicians to care for such women. There is a demand for such training, particularly from trainee obstetricians. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) agree that there is a need for more formalised training in maternal/obstetric medicine and they are working together to develop special interest training in maternal medicine. The training will be open to both obstetricians and physicians and include theoretical and practical components. The practical training will take place in centres with established medical obstetric clinics and will be tailored (with appropriate modules) to the amount of previous experience in medicine or obstetrics.