Holistic assessment of women with hyperemesis gravidarum: A randomised controlled trial

The effect of educational intervention on the quality of life of women suffering from pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to determine the influence of educational interventions on improving the quality of life (QOL) of women suffering from pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting (NVP) as a systematic review.

METHODS

The current systematic review followed the standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist guideline. The English electronic databases were used to identify relevant studies published 2000 until 14 August 2023. The search strategies employed were based on Mesh browser keywords and free-text words. The study risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias tools and publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Begg and Egger tests. The heterogeneity of the studies was evaluated using I2 and tau-squared tests. Data were analyzed using the RevMan 5 software. Results of the random-effects meta-analysis were presented using the standard mean difference, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Out of the seven randomized clinical/control trial (RCT) studies with a total of 946 subjects included in the review, five studies reported a significant result, indicating that the interventions had a statistically significant effect on the QOL of women suffering NVP and in two studies did not have a significant result. A subgroup analysis was done based on the type of quality-of-life measurements. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of four articles (Nausea and Vomiting Pregnancy Quality of Life, NVPQOL) with a total of 335 subjects was -2.91, and CI of -4.72 to -1.11, p value = .002, I2 = 97.2%. The pooled SMD of three articles (SF36) with a total of 611 subjects was -0.05, and CI of -0.23 to -0.12, p value = .550, I2 = 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall results of the analysis indicated that educational intervention had a small positive impact on the QOL of women experiencing NVP. However, to draw a better conclusion, it is recommended to conduct further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods.

Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Hyperemesis gravidarum affects 0.3%-3% of pregnant women each year and is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy. Previous systematic reviews of available treatments have found a lack of consistent evidence, and few studies of high quality. Since 2016, no systematic review has been conducted and an up-to date review is requested. In a recent James Lind Alliance collaboration, it was clear that research on effective treatments is a high priority for both patients and clinicians.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Searches without time limits were performed in the AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases until June 26, 2023. Studies published before October 1, 2014 were identified from the review by O'Donnell et al., 2016. Selection criteria were randomized clinical trials and non-randomized studies of interventions comparing treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum with another treatment or placebo. Outcome variables included were: degree of nausea; vomiting; inability to tolerate oral fluids or food; hospital treatment; health-related quality of life, small-for-gestational-age infant; and preterm birth. Abstracts and full texts were screened, and risk of bias of the studies was assessed independently by two authors. Synthesis without meta-analysis was performed, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. PROSPERO (CRD42022303150).

RESULTS

Twenty treatments were included in 25 studies with low or moderate risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was very low for all treatments except for acupressure in addition to standard care, which showed a possible moderate decrease in nausea and vomiting, with low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Several scientific knowledge gaps were identified. Studies on treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum are few, and the certainty of evidence for different treatments is either low or very low. To establish more robust evidence, it is essential to use validated scoring systems, the recently established diagnostic criteria, clear descriptions and measurements of core outcomes and to perform larger studies.

Systematic evidence map of evidence addressing the top 10 priority research questions for hyperemesis gravidarum

OBJECTIVE

Knowledge gaps regarding hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) are substantial. We aimed to systematically identify and map recent evidence addressing the top 10 priority questions for HG, as published in 2021 in a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

DESIGN

Systematic evidence map.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE on 12 January 2021 and CINAHL on 22 February 2021 with search terms hyperemesis gravidarum, pernicious vomiting in pregnancy and their synonyms. Results were limited to 2009 onwards. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to assess whether the studies addressed a top 10 priority questions for HG. Differences were discussed until consensus was reached. Publications were allocated to one or more top 10 research questions. Study design was noted, as was patient or public involvement. Two reviewers extracted data synchronously and both cross-checked 10%. Extracted data were imported into EPPI-Reviewer software to create an evidence map.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The number and design of studies in the search yield, displayed per the published 10 priority questions.

RESULTS

Searches returned 4338 results for screening; 406 publications were included in the evidence map. 136 publications addressed multiple questions. Numerous studies address the immediate and long-term outcomes or possible markers for HG (question 8 and 9, respectively 164 and 82 studies). Very few studies seek a possible cure for HG (question 1, 8 studies), preventative treatment (question 4, 2 studies) or how to achieve nutritional requirements of pregnancy (question 10, 17 studies). Case reports/series were most numerous with 125 (30.7%) included. Few qualitative studies (9, 2.2%) were identified. 25 (6.1%) systematic reviews addressed eight questions, or aspects of them. 31 (7.6%) studies included patient involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant gaps and overlap in the current HG literature addressing priority questions. Researchers and funders should direct their efforts at addressing the gaps in the top 10 questions.

Quality of Life During Pregnancy from 2011 to 2021: Systematic Review

Purpose

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has emerged as a key concern in patient care. It has become one of the major objectives of clinical trials. Our study aims to describe the quality of life (QoL) during uncomplicated pregnancy and to assess its associated factors.

Patients and Methods

The search of articles was carried out using the online database of PUBMED and Web of Science with a limit of time between 2011 and 2021. Data were retrieved by two independent reviewers.

Results

721 publications responding to keywords were identified, of which 73 articles on the topic were selected. The main countries that have published on this subject are Australia (n = 10) and China (n = 7). Twenty-three articles deal with QoL for pathological pregnancies. All the pathologies studied have a negative impact on the HRQoL of pregnant women, and its improvement depends on the type of treatment. Obesity, low back, and pelvic girdle pain, and hyperemesis gravidarum were the frequent pathologies during pregnancy. Socio-demographic characteristics related to improved well-being (favorable economic status, social support). Similarly, better sleep quality and moderate physical exercise were linked to an increased QoL. Physical and psychological factors were associated with a lower QoL.

Conclusion

The HRQoL refers to patients’ subjective evaluation of physical, mental, and social components of well-being. Optimizing the QoL during pregnancy necessitates a deeper understanding of their issues as well as counseling which provides support wherever needed.

Assessing quality of care in maternity services in low and middle-income countries: Development of a Maternity Patient Reported Outcome Measure

Globally, low and middle-income countries bear the greatest burden of maternal and newborn mortality. To reduce these high levels, the quality of care provided needs to be improved. This study aimed to develop a patient reported outcome measure for use in maternity services in low and middle-income countries, to facilitate improvements in quality of care. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups discussions were conducted with women who had recently given birth in selected healthcare facilities in Malawi and Kenya. Transcripts of these were analysed using a thematic approach and analytic codes applied. Draft outcomes were identified from the data, which were reviewed by a group of clinical experts and developed into a working copy of the Maternity Patient Reported Outcome Measure (MPROM). A further sample of new mothers were asked to evaluate the draft MPROM during cognitive debriefing interviews, and their views used to revise it to produce the final proposed measure. Eighty-three women were interviewed, and 44 women took part in 10 focus group discussions. An array of outcomes was identified from the data which were categorised under the domains of physical and psychological symptoms, social issues, and baby-related health outcomes. The draft outcomes were configured into 79 questions with answers provided using a five-point Likert scale. Minor revisions were made following cognitive debriefing interviews with nine women, to produce the final proposed MPROM. In conjunction with women from the target population and clinical experts, this study has developed what is believed to be the first condition-specific PROM suitable for assessing care quality in maternity services in low and middle-income countries. Following further validation studies, it is anticipated that this will be a useful tool in facilitating improvements in the quality of care provided to women giving birth in healthcare facilities in these settings.

Patient reported outcome measures for use in pregnancy and childbirth: a systematic review

Background

Globally, an increasing number of women give birth in a healthcare facility. Improvement in the quality of care is crucial if preventable maternal mortality and morbidity are to be reduced. A Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) can be used to measure quality of care and provide new information on the impact that treatment or interventions have on patient’s self-assessed health and health-related quality of life. We conducted a systematic review to identify which condition-specific PROMs are currently available for use in pregnancy and childbirth, and to evaluate whether these could potentially be used to assess the quality of care provided for women using maternity services.

Methods

We searched for articles relating to the use of PROMs related to care during pregnancy, childbirth, the postnatal period and women’s health more generally using PsycINFO, CINAHL, Medline and Web of Science databases as well as “grey literature”, with no date limit. Any PROM identified was reviewed with regards to development, use, and potential applicability to assess quality of maternity care provision. A narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings.

Results

Six papers were identified; two related to aspects of pregnancy (hyperemesis gravidarum and gestational diabetes), and four related to childbirth and the postnatal period (obstetric haemorrhage and postnatal depression). Within these papers, a total of 14 different tools were identified, which assessed a variety of aspects of physical, psychological and social health, or were generic tools, not specific to childbirth. One PROM addressed childbirth generally, however, it did not ask for or provide specific outcome measures but required women to identify and then assess what they considered the most important areas in their life affected by childbirth.

Conclusions

To date, there is no PROM agreed which would be suitable as patient reported outcome measure for the assessment of the quality of care women receive during pregnancy or after childbirth. However, there are a variety of available assessment tools which could potentially be helpful in developing new and existing PROMs for maternity care.

Variation in hyperemesis gravidarum definition and outcome reporting in randomised clinical trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a common cause of hospital admission in early pregnancy. There is no international consensus on the definition of HG, or on outcomes that should be reported in trials. Consistency in definition and outcome reporting is important for the interpretation and synthesis of data in meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE

To identify which HG definitions and outcomes are currently in use in trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following sources: (1) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (2) Embase and (3) Medline for published trials and the WHO-ICTRP database for ongoing trials (27 October 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials reporting on any intervention for HG were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted data on HG definition and outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 published trials reporting data from 2511 women and three ongoing trials with a planned sample size of 360 participants. We identified 11 definition items. Most commonly used definition items were vomiting (34 trials) and nausea (30 trials). We identified 34 distinct outcomes. Most commonly reported outcomes were vomiting (29 trials), nausea (26 trials), need for hospital treatment (14 trials) and duration of hospital (re)admission(s) (14 trials).

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variation of HG definition and outcome reporting in trials. This hampers meaningful aggregation of trial results in meta-analysis and implementation of evidence in guidelines. To overcome this, international consensus on a definition and a core outcome set for HG trials should be developed.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

There is a wide variation of definitions and outcomes reported in trials on hyperemesis gravidarum.

Evaluation of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy using the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea scale in Korea

Objective

Severity of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes and poorer quality of life (QOL). The aim of this study was to evaluate the severity of NVP and maternal well-being status using the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE) scale in a Korean population.

Methods

A total of 527 pregnant women who were receiving prenatal care at 4 hospitals were asked to participate in the study between January 2015 and June 2015. The severity of NVP was evaluated by the PUQE scale and maternal well-being status was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Statistical analyses were performed to determine the risk factors associated with NVP and the associations between the severity of NVP and QOL.

Results

Among the 472 eligible pregnant women, 381 (80.7%) were suffering from NVP during pregnancy. No significant differences (P>0.05) were observed in any of the variables between the 2 study groups, with the exception of smoking, alcohol consumption, and history of NVP. NVP history was found to be the most powerful risk factor (adjusted odds ratio, 11.6; 95% confidence interval, 4.7-28.7). The correlation coefficient (r) between the VAS scores of maternal well-being status and PUQE severity was -0.25 (r²=0.062; P<0.001).

Conclusion

In this study, an explicit decline in maternal well-being status was observed according to severity of NVP. The PUQE scale may be of help to clinicians, healthcare providers, and researchers because of its simplicity and usefulness as a tool for NVP evaluation.

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.