Ondansetron compared with metoclopramide for hyperemesis gravidarum: a randomized controlled trial

Oral rehydration therapy versus intravenous rehydration therapy in the first 12 h following hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate oral rehydration therapy (ORT) compared with intravenous rehydration therapy (IVT) in the early inpatient management of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG).

METHODS

A total of 124 women hospitalized for HG from February 10, 2021 till January 6, 2023 were randomized to ORT (n = 61) or IVT (n = 63) for an initial 12 h. Inclusion criteria includes women older than 18 years, with a viable intrauterine pregnancy less than 14 weeks at their first hospitalization for HG with ketonuria of at least 2+. Primary outcomes were (1) satisfaction score with allocated intervention, (2) weight change, and (3) ketonuria change at 12 h. Secondary outcomes included vomiting frequency, nausea score, serial vital signs, hematocrit and electrolyte levels at 12 h, deviation from treatment protocol (cross-over therapy), participant recommendation of allocated treatment to a friend, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Primary outcomes of (1) participant satisfaction score (on a 0-10 visual numerical rating scale) was 7 (interquartile range [IQR] 5-8) versus 9 (IQR 8-10), P < 0.001; (2) weight gain was 293 ± 780 g versus 948 ± 758 g, P < 0.001; and (3) ketonuria improvement was 50/61 (82.0%) versus 49/63 (77.8%) (relative risk [RR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.26, P = 0.561) for ORT versus IVT, respectively. For secondary outcomes, vomiting frequency was 2.6 ± 2.7 versus 1.1 ± 1.4 episodes (P < 0.001), participant cross-over rate to opposing treatment 20/61 (32.8%) versus 0/63 (0%) (P < 0.001) (in the 12-h study period) and participant recommendation of allocated treatment to a friend rate 24/61 (39.3%) versus 61/63 (96.8%) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.30-0.56, P < 0.001) for ORT versus IVT, respectively. By hospital discharge, 31/61 (50.8%) of women allocated to ORT had required IVT. Other secondary outcomes of serial assessments of nausea score and vital signs, hematocrit and electrolyte levels, and length of hospital stay were not different.

CONCLUSIONS

ORT was inferior to IVT in two primary outcomes and three secondary outcomes. Cross-over rate to intravenous therapy from oral therapy was 50.8% by hospital discharge. Intravenous rehydration therapy should remain as first-line rehydration therapy in the early inpatient treatment of HG.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present study was registered in ISRCTN registry on December 6, 2020 with trial identification number: ISRCTN 40152556 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN40152556). The first participant was recruited on February 10, 2021.

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].

[Hyperemesis Gravidarum - an Interprofessional and Interdisciplinary Challenge - Evidence-Based Review]

Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a multifactorial disease characterized by severe and persisting nausea and vomiting, impairment of oral intake, weight loss of at least 5%, electrolyte abnormalities, and dehydration. The prevalence of HG ranges from 0.3 to 10% worldwide. The diagnosis is made by the patient's prehistory, clinical symptoms, physical examination, and the typical laboratory abnormalities. Therapeutic cornerstones are nutrition advice, consultation of life style, psychological/psychosocial support of the mother as well as the administration of antiemetics in a stepwise approach, depending on the severity of symptoms, and finally admission to hospital in severe cases. Treatment of patients requires close interprofessional and interdisciplinary cooperation.

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.

Watermelon and dietary advice compared to dietary advice alone following hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) affects about 2% of pregnancies and is at the severe end of the spectrum of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. HG causes severe maternal distress and results in adverse pregnancy outcomes long after the condition may have dissipated. Although dietary advice is a common tool in management, trial evidence to base the advice on is lacking.

METHODS

A randomized trial was conducted in a university hospital from May 2019 to December 2020. 128 women at their discharge following hospitalization for HG were randomized: 64 to watermelon and 64 to control arm. Women were randomized to consume watermelon and to heed the advice leaflet or to heed the dietary advice leaflet alone. A personal weighing scale and a weighing protocol were provided to all participants to take home. Primary outcomes were bodyweight change at the end of week 1 and week 2 compared to hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Weight change (kg) at end of week 1, median[interquartile range] -0.05[-0.775 to + 0.50] vs. -0.5[-1.4 to + 0.1] P = 0.014 and to the end of week 2, + 0.25[-0.65 to + 0.975] vs. -0.5[-1.3 to + 0.2] P = 0.001 for watermelon and control arms respectively. After two weeks, HG symptoms assessed by PUQE-24 (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea over 24 h), appetite assessed by SNAQ (Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire), wellbeing and satisfaction with allocated intervention NRS (0-10 numerical rating scale) scores, and recommendation of allocated intervention to a friend rate were all significantly better in the watermelon arm. However, rehospitalization for HG and antiemetic usage were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Adding watermelon to the diet after hospital discharge for HG improves bodyweight, HG symptoms, appetite, wellbeing and satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the center's Medical Ethics Committee (on 21/05/2019; reference number 2019327-7262) and the ISRCTN on 24/05/2019 with trial identification number: ISRCTN96125404 . First participant was recruited on 31/05/ 2019.

First-Trimester Pregnancy: Considerations for Wilderness and Remote Travel

Women increasingly participate in outdoor activities in wilderness and remote environments. We performed a literature review to address diagnostic and therapeutic considerations during first-trimester pregnancy for remote multiday travel. Pretrip planning for pregnant patients traveling outside access to advanced medical care should include performing a transvaginal ultrasound to confirm pregnancy location and checking D rhesus status. We discuss the risk of potential travel-related infections and recommended vaccinations prior to departure based on destination. Immediate evacuation to definitive medical care is required for patients with a pregnancy of unknown location and vaginal bleeding. We propose algorithms for determining the need for evacuation and present therapeutic options for nausea and vomiting, urinary tract infections, and candidiasis in the field.

Nutritional management and interventions in complications of pregnancy: A systematic review

Background: Pregnancy, also known as the "gestation period" which lasts for 37-40 weeks, has been marked as the period of "physiological stress" in a woman's life. A wide range of symptoms, from nausea to ectopic pregnancy, are usually aligned with risk factors like abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, etc. An estimated total of 15% of total pregnant women face serious complications requiring urgent attention for safe pregnancy survival. Over the past decades, several changes in the environment and nutrition habits have increased the possibility of unfavourable changes during the gestation phase. The diagnostic factors, management and nutritional interventions are targeted and more emphasis has been laid on modifying or managing the nutritional factors in this physiologically stressed phase. Aims: This review focuses on dietary modifications and nutritional interventions for the treatment of complications of pregnancy. Nutritional management has been identified to be one of the primary necessities in addition to drug therapy. It is important to set a healthy diet pattern throughout the gestation phase or even before by incorporating key nutrients into the maternal diet. Methods: The published literature from various databases including PubMed, Google Scholar and ScienceDirect were used to establish the fact of management and treatment of complications of pregnancy. Results: The recommendations of dietary supplements have underlined the concept behind the eradication of maternal deficiencies and improving metabolic profiles. Conclusion: Therefore, the present review summarises the dietary recommendations to combat pregnancy-related complications which are necessary in order to prevent and manage the same.

Emergency department burden of hyperemesis gravidarum in the United States from 2006 to 2014

BACKGROUND

Hyperemesis gravidarum is the most severe form of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, potentially affecting both maternal and pregnancy health. Hyperemesis gravidarum often results in emergency department visits, although the exact frequency and costs associated with these visits have not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the trends in hyperemesis gravidarum emergency department visits, inpatient admissions, and the associated costs between 2006 and 2014.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients were identified from the 2006 and 2014 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample database files using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes. Patients with a primary diagnosis of hyperemesis gravidarum, nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, and all nondelivery pregnancy-related diagnoses (all antepartum visits) were identified. All groups were analyzed; trends in demographics, number of emergency department visits, and visit costs were compared. Costs were inflation-adjusted to 2021 US dollars.

RESULTS

Emergency department visits for hyperemesis gravidarum increased by 28% from 2006 to 2014; however, the proportion of those who were subsequently admitted to the hospital decreased. The average cost of an emergency department visit for hyperemesis gravidarum increased by 65% ($2156 to $3549), as opposed to an increase of 60% for all antepartum visits ($2218 to $3543). The aggregate cost for all hyperemesis gravidarum visits increased by 110% ($383,681,346 to $806,696,513) from 2006 to 2014, which was similar to the increase observed for all antepartum emergency department visits.

CONCLUSION

From 2006 to 2014, emergency department visits for hyperemesis gravidarum increased by 28%, with associated costs increasing by 110%, whereas the number of admissions from the emergency department for hyperemesis gravidarum decreased by 42%.

[Expert consensus from the College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians: Management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the management of patients with 1st trimester nausea and vomiting and hyperemesis gravidarum.

METHODS

A panel of experts participated in a formal consensus process, including focus groups and two Delphi rounds.

RESULTS

Hyperemesis gravidarum is distinguished from nausea and vomiting during pregnancy by weight loss≥5 % or signs of dehydration or a PUQE score≥7. Hospitalization is proposed when there is, at least, one of the following criteria: weight loss≥10%, one or more clinical signs of dehydration, PUQE (Pregnancy Unique Quantification of Emesis and nausea) score≥13, hypokalemia<3.0mmol/L, hyponatremia<120mmol/L, elevated serum creatinine>100μmol/L or resistance to treatment. Prenatal vitamins and iron supplementation should be stopped without stopping folic acid supplementation. Diet and lifestyle should be adjusted according to symptoms. Aromatherapy is not to be used. If the PUQE score is<6, even in the absence of proof of their benefit, ginger, pyridoxine (B6 vitamin), acupuncture or electrostimulation can be used, even in the absence of proof of benefit. It is proposed that drugs or combinations of drugs associated with the least severe and least frequent side effects should always be chosen for uses in 1st, 2nd or 3rd intention, taking into account the absence of superiority of a class over another to reduce the symptoms of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and hypermesis gravidarum. To prevent Gayet Wernicke encephalopathy, Vitamin B1 must systematically be administered for hyperemesis gravidarum needing parenteral rehydration. Patients hospitalized for hyperemesis gravidarum should not be placed in isolation (put in the dark, confiscation of the mobile phone or ban on visits, etc.). Psychological support should be offered to all patients with hyperemesis gravidarum as well as information on patient' associations involved in supporting these women and their families. When returning home after hospitalization, care will be organized around a referring doctor.

CONCLUSION

This work should contribute to improving the care of women with hyperemesis gravidarum. However, given the paucity in number and quality of the literature, researchers must invest in the field of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, and HG to identify strategies to improve the quality of life of women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy or hyperemesis gravidarum.

Ondansetron versus metoclopramide for managing hyperemesis gravidarum: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This investigation examined the efficacy of ondansetron (intervention) versus metoclopramide (control) in managing parturient females with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), by pooling data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a meta-analysis approach. From inception until January 2022, five information sources were screened: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. Quality assessment was done through the Cochrane Risk of Bias (version 2) assessment tool. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to summarize the continuous data in a fixed- or random-effects model, depending on the extent of between-study heterogeneity. Five RCTs were included, comprising a total of 695 patients (355 and 340 females were assigned to ondansetron and metoclopramide, respectively). Four RCTs had an overall “low” risk of bias, whereas one RCT had an overall “some concerns” due to lack of sufficient information about randomization. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the pregnancy-unique quantification of emesis and nausea score [MD=0.23, 95% CI (-0.42, 0.88), p=0.49], length of hospital stay [MD=-0.17 days, 95% CI (-0.35, 0.02), p=0.08], the number of doses of drug received [MD=0.45, 95% CI (-0.08, 0.98), p=0.10], and duration of intravenous fluids [MD=-1.73 hours, 95% CI (-5.79, 2.33), p=0.40]. Among parturient females with HG, there was no substantial difference in efficacy between both agents. Nevertheless, ondansetron is favored over metoclopramide in view of its trending therapeutic efficacy and better safety profile.

Emerging Progress in Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum: Challenges and Opportunities

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is a common condition that affects up to 70% of pregnant women. Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is considered the serious form of NVP, which is reported in 0.3–10.8% of pregnant women. NVP has a relatively benign course, but HG can be linked with some poor maternal, fetal, and offspring outcomes. The exact causes of NVP and HG are unknown, but various factors have been hypothesized to be associated with pathogenesis. With the advance of precision medicine and molecular biology, some genetic factors such as growth/differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) have become therapeutic targets. In our review, we summarize the historical hypotheses of the pathogenesis of NVP and HG including hormonal factors, Helicobacter pylori, gastrointestinal dysmotility, placenta-related factors, psychosocial factors, and new factors identified by genetics. We also highlight some approaches to the management of NVP and HG, including pharmacological treatment, complementary treatment, and some supporting treatments. Looking to the future, progress in understanding NVP and HG may reduce the adverse outcomes and improve the maternal quality of life during pregnancy.

Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT

BACKGROUND

Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit.

RESULTS

Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported.

LIMITATIONS

The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Use of metoclopramide in the first trimester and risk of major congenital malformations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy affects up to 80% of pregnant women, it typically occurs during the first trimester which is the most sensitive time for environmental exposures given organogenesis. Metoclopramide is an antiemetic drug used widely during NVP, but the findings of studies evaluating its safety of use in pregnancy is inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether metoclopramide use during first trimester of pregnancy is associated with the risk of major congenital malformations.

Methods

The systematic search using database included Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane library. Studies written in English, comprising with an exposed group and a control group, reporting major congenital malformation as an outcome were included.

Results

Six studies assessing a total number of 33374 metoclopramide-exposed and 373498 controls infants were included in this meta-analysis. No significant increase in the rate of major congenital malformation was detected following metoclopramide use during first trimester (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.93–1.38).

Conclusions

Metoclopramide use during first trimester of pregnancy was not associated with the risk of major congenital malformations.

Rating of four different foods in women with hyperemesis gravidarum: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate four foods in women with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) on their agreeability and tolerability.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomised, within-subject cross-over trial.

SETTING

Single-centre, tertiary, university hospital in Malaysia.

PARTICIPANTS

72 women within 24-hour of first admission for HG who were 18 years or above, with confirmed clinical pregnancy of less than 16 weeks' gestation were recruited and analysed. Women unable to consume food due to extreme symptoms, known taste or swallowing disorder were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Each participant chewed and swallowed a small piece of apple, watermelon, cream cracker and white bread in random order and was observed for 10 min after each tasting followed by a 2 min washout for mouth rinsing and data collection.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was food agreeability scored after 10 min using an 11-point 0-10 Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS). Nausea was scored at baseline (prior to tasting) and 2 and 10 min using an 11-point VNRS. Intolerant responses of gagging, heaving and vomiting were recorded.

RESULTS

On agreeability scoring, apple (mean±SD 7.2±2.4) ranked highest followed by watermelon (7.0±2.7) and crackers (6.5±2.6), with white bread ranked lowest (6.0±2.7); Kruskal-Wallis H test, p=0.019. Apple had the lowest mean nausea score and mean rank score, while white bread had the highest at both 2 and 10 min; the Kruskal-Wallis H test showed a significant difference only at 10 min (p=0.019) but not at 2 min (p=0.29) in the ranking analyses. The intolerant (gagged, heaved or vomited) response rates within the 10 min study period were apple 3/72 (4%), watermelon 7/72 (10%), crackers 8/72 (11%) and white bread 12/72 (17%): χ2 test for trend p=0.02.

CONCLUSION

Sweet apple had the highest agreeability score, the lowest nausea severity and intolerance-emesis response rate when tasted by women with HG. White bread consistently performed worst.

Ondansetron use in early pregnancy and the risk of late pregnancy outcomes

BACKGROUND

The effects of ondansetron, used off-label to treat nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, on common pregnancy complications are understudied. Modest effects of a commonly used drug could result in adverse events for large numbers of pregnant women. Therefore, our objective was to compare the risk of stillbirth, preterm birth, gestational hypertensive disorders, small for gestational age, and differences in birth weight between women prescribed ondansetron and women prescribed alternative antiemetics in early pregnancy.

METHODS

A cohort of pregnant women receiving a prescription for ondansetron or comparator antiemetics (metoclopramide or promethazine) during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy was identified using electronic health record data from a health care system in North Carolina, USA. Confounding by multiple covariates was controlled using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. Weighted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) accounted for competing events.

RESULTS

We identified 2677 eligible pregnancies with antiemetic orders, 66% for ondansetron. The small number of stillbirths (n = 15) resulted in an imprecise estimate of the association with ondansetron (HR = 1.60; 95%CI 0.51, 4.97). No association was observed for preterm birth (HR = 0.90; 95%CI 0.67, 1.20) or gestational hypertensive disorders (HR = 0.87; 95%CI 0.68, 1.12). We observed an association with small for gestational age (HR = 1.37; 95%CI 0.98, 1.90), however mean birth weight among term births was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results do not suggest that ondansetron increases the risk of preterm birth or gestational hypertensive disorders. The weak association observed between ondansetron use and small for gestational age warrants further investigation.

Effect of gabapentin on hyperemesis gravidarum: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hyperemesis gravidarum is a disabling disease of nausea, vomiting, and undernutrition in early pregnancy for which there are no effective outpatient therapies. Poor weight gain in hyperemesis gravidarum is associated with several adverse fetal outcomes including preterm delivery, low birthweight, small for gestational age, low 5-minute Apgar scores, and neurodevelopmental delay. Gabapentin is most commonly used clinically for treating neuropathic pain but also substantially reduces chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Pregnancy registry data have shown maternal first-trimester gabapentin monotherapy to be associated with a 1.2% rate of major congenital malformations among 659 infants, which compares favorably with the 1.6% to 2.2% major congenital malformation rate in the general population. Open-label gabapentin treatment in hyperemesis gravidarum was associated with reduced nausea and vomiting and improved oral nutrition.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether gabapentin is more effective than standard-of-care therapy for treating hyperemesis gravidarum.

STUDY DESIGN

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial was conducted among patients with medically refractory hyperemesis gravidarum requiring intravenous hydration. Patients were randomized (1:1) to either oral gabapentin (1800-2400 mg/d) or an active comparator of either oral ondansetron (24-32 mg/d) or oral metoclopramide (45-60 mg/d) for 7 days. Differences in Motherisk-pregnancy-unique quantification of nausea and emesis total scores between treatment groups averaged over days 5 to 7, using intention-to-treat principle employing a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for baseline Motherisk-pregnancy-unique quantification of nausea and emesis scores, which served as the primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included Motherisk-pregnancy-unique quantification of nausea and emesis nausea and vomit and retch subscores, oral nutrition, global satisfaction of treatment, relief, desire to continue therapy, Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy Quality of Life, and Hyperemesis Gravidarum Pregnancy Termination Consideration. Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made employing the false discovery rate.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients with hyperemesis gravidarum were enrolled from October 2014 to May 2019. Among the 21 patients providing primary outcome data (12 assigned to gabapentin and 9 to the active comparator arm), 18 were enrolled as outpatients and all 21 were outpatients from days 5 to 7. The study groups' baseline characteristics were well matched. Gabapentin treatment provided a 52% greater reduction in days 5 to 7 baseline adjusted Motherisk-pregnancy-unique quantification of nausea and emesis total scores than treatment with active comparator (95% confidence interval, 16-88; P=.01). Most secondary outcomes also favored gabapentin over active comparator treatment including 46% and 49% decreases in baseline adjusted Motherisk-pregnancy-unique quantification of nausea and emesis nausea (95% confidence interval, 19-72; P=.005) and vomit and retch subscores (95% confidence interval, 21-77; P=.005), respectively; a 96% increase in baseline adjusted oral nutrition scores (95% confidence interval, 27-165; P=.01); and a 254% difference in global satisfaction of treatment (95% confidence interval, 48-459; P=.03). Relief (P=.06) and desire to continue therapy (P=.06) both showed trends favoring gabapentin treatment but Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy Quality of Life (P=.68) and Hyperemesis Gravidarum Pregnancy Termination Consideration (P=.58) did not. Adverse events were roughly equivalent between the groups. There were no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In this small trial, gabapentin was more effective than standard-of-care therapy for reducing nausea and vomiting and increasing oral nutrition and global satisfaction in outpatients with hyperemesis gravidarum. These data build on previous findings in other patient populations supporting gabapentin as a novel antinausea and antiemetic therapy and support further research on gabapentin for this challenging complication of pregnancy.

Management Considerations for Recalcitrant Hyperemesis

Importance

Hyperemesis gravidarum (HEG) affects 0.3% to 3% of pregnancies and requires additional therapies beyond those commonly used for less severe instances of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). Differentiating between NVP and HEG is a vital yet challenging function for any obstetrician. The literature for management of HEG is lacking compared with that of NVP.

Objective

Review etiology of NVP/HEG highlights key considerations in the workup of HEG as they compare to NVP and explore management options for recalcitrant HEG focusing principally on how they affect maternal and fetal outcomes and secondarily on where data are nonprescriptive.

Evidence Acquisition

This was a literature review primarily using PubMed and Google Scholar.

Results

Short-course corticosteroids and treatment for Helicobacter pylori have the most favorable risk-reward profiles of the 4 pharmacologic therapies evaluated. Mirtazapine and diazepam may have a place in highly selected patients. If nutritional supplementation is required, enteral nutrition is strictly preferred to parenteral nutrition. Postpyloric feeding approaches are less likely to induce vomiting. Surgically placed feeding tubes are less likely to be dislodged and may be worth the invasive insertion procedure if nasogastric or nasojejunal tubes are not tolerated.

Conclusions and Relevance

Hyperemesis gravidarum is a diagnosis reserved for refractory cases of NVP and therefore by definition poses treatment challenges. Any clinical presentation that lent itself to prescriptive, algorithmic management would likely fall short of the diagnostic criteria for HEG. However, data can inform management on a patient-by-patient basis or at least help patient and provider understand risks and benefits of therapies reserved for refractory cases.

Ondansetron use in early pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage

BACKGROUND

Ondansetron is commonly used to treat nausea and vomiting in pregnancy despite inconclusive evidence of its safety. Previous studies have reported no increase in risk of miscarriage but relied on methods that failed to account for gestational weeks at risk and non-user comparators, which may increase the potential for unmeasured confounding. Our objective was to estimate the risk of miscarriage among women prescribed ondansetron vs alternative antiemetics during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

METHODS

A pregnancy cohort was created using electronic health record data from a health care system in North Carolina. Women were classified as exposed to either ondansetron or comparator antiemetics (metoclopramide or promethazine) based on the first antiemetic prescription received in the first 20 weeks of gestation. Cumulative incidence of miscarriage at 20 weeks was estimated in each antiemetic group. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated with 95% confidence intervals and measured confounding was controlled using inverse probability of treatment weights. Sensitivity analyses assessed the potential impact of exposure misclassification, latency period, and selection bias.

RESULTS

We identified 2620 eligible pregnancies with antiemetic orders; 65% had a first ondansetron order and 35% had a first comparator antiemetic order. In total, 95 women had a miscarriage. After adjustment, there was no difference in risk of miscarriage (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.77, 1.90). Results from the per-protocol and other sensitivity analyses were similar to the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe an increase in the risk of miscarriage for pregnancies exposed to ondansetron vs comparator antiemetics.

Twelve-hour fasting compared with expedited oral intake in the initial inpatient management of hyperemesis gravidarum: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate fasting for 12 hours compared with expedited oral feeding in hospitalised women with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG).

DESIGN

Randomised trial.

SETTING

University Hospital, Malaysia: April 2016-April 2017.

POPULATION

One hundred and sixty women hospitalised for HG.

METHOD

Women were randomised upon admission to fasting for 12 hours or expedited oral feeding. Standard HG care was instituted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary outcome was satisfaction score with overall treatment at 24 hours (0-10 Visual Numerical Rating Scale VNRS), vomiting episodes within 24 hours and nausea VNRS score at enrolment, and at 8, 16 and 24 hours.

RESULTS

Satisfaction score, median (interquartile range) 8 (5-9) versus 8 (7-9) (P = 0.08) and 24-hour vomiting episodes were 1 (0-4) versus 1 (0-5) (P = 0.24) for 12-hour fasting versus expedited feeding, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of nausea scores over 24 hours showed no difference (P = 0.11) between trial arms. Participants randomised to 12-hour fasting compared with expedited feeding were less likely to prefer their feeding regimen in future hospitalisation (41% versus 65%, P = 0.001), to recommend to a friend (65% versus 84%, P = 0.01; RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and to adhere to protocol (85% versus 95%, P = 0.04; RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8-1.0). Symptoms profile, ketonuria status at 24 hours and length of hospital stay were not different.

CONCLUSION

Advisory of 12-hour fasting compared with immediate oral feeding resulted in a non-significant difference in satisfaction score but adherence to protocol and fidelity to and recommendation of immediate oral feeding to a friend were lower. The 24-hour nausea scores and vomiting episodes were similar.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Women hospitalised for hyperemesis gravidarum could feed as soon, as much and as often as can be tolerated compared with initial fasting.

The Management of Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy: Synthesis of National Guidelines

Importance

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) affects a high proportion of the pregnant population.

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare and synthesize recommendations from national guidelines regarding the management of NVP.

Evidence Acquisition

A descriptive review of 3 recently published national guidelines on NVP was conducted: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on "The Management of Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum," American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on "Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy," and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada on "The Management of Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy." These guidelines were summarized and compared in terms of the recommended management of pregnant women. The quality of evidence was also reviewed based on the method of reporting.

Results

Several differences were identified on the different guidelines regarding the management of NVP. Frequent small meals and avoidance of iron supplements are recommended for prevention. The consumption of ginger, acustimulations, antihistamines, phenothiazines, dopamine, and serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists is routinely recommended for use in the community as treatment.

Conclusions

Evidence-based medicine may lead to the adoption of an international guideline for the management of NVP, which may lead to a more effective management of that entity.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is a common condition that affects as many as 70% of pregnant women. Although no consensus definition is available for hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), it is typically viewed as the severe form of NVP and has been reported to occur in 0.3-10.8% of pregnant women. HG can be associated with poor maternal, fetal and child outcomes. The majority of women with NVP can be managed with dietary and lifestyle changes, but more than one-third of patients experience clinically relevant symptoms that may require fluid and vitamin supplementation and/or antiemetic therapy such as, for example, combined doxylamine/pyridoxine, which is not teratogenic and may be effective in treating NVP. Ondansetron is commonly used to treat HG, but studies are urgently needed to determine whether it is safer and more effective than using first-line antiemetics. Thiamine (vitamin B1) should be introduced following protocols to prevent refeeding syndrome and Wernicke encephalopathy. Recent advances in the genetic study of NVP and HG suggest a placental component to the aetiology by implicating common variants in genes encoding placental proteins (namely GDF15 and IGFBP7) and hormone receptors (namely GFRAL and PGR). New studies on aetiology, diagnosis, management and treatment are under way. In the next decade, progress in these areas may improve maternal quality of life and limit the adverse outcomes associated with HG.

Association of Maternal First-Trimester Ondansetron Use With Cardiac Malformations and Oral Clefts in Offspring

IMPORTANCE

Evidence for the fetal safety of ondansetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that is commonly prescribed for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, is limited and conflicting.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between ondansetron exposure during pregnancy and risk of congenital malformations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study nested in the 2000-2013 nationwide Medicaid Analytic eXtract. The cohort consisted of 1 816 414 pregnancies contributed by 1 502 895 women enrolled in Medicaid from 3 months before the last menstrual period through 1 month or longer after delivery; infants were enrolled in Medicaid for at least 3 months after birth. The final date of follow-up was December 31, 2013. Analyses were conducted between November 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018. Propensity score stratification was used to control for treatment indication and other confounders.

EXPOSURES

Ondansetron dispensing during the first trimester, the period of organogenesis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were cardiac malformations and oral clefts diagnosed during the first 90 days after delivery. Secondary outcomes included congenital malformations overall and subgroups of cardiac malformations and oral clefts.

RESULTS

Among 1 816 414 pregnancies (mean age of mothers, 24.3 [5.8] years), 88 467 (4.9%) were exposed to ondansetron during the first trimester. Overall, 14 577 of 1 727 947 unexposed and 835 of 88 467 exposed infants were diagnosed with a cardiac malformation, for an absolute risk of 84.4 (95% CI, 83.0 to 85.7) and 94.4 (95% CI, 88.0 to 100.8) per 10 000 births respectively. The absolute risk of oral clefts was 11.1 per 10 000 births (95% CI, 10.6 to 11.6; 1921 unexposed infants) and was 14.0 per 10 000 births (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.5; 124 exposed infants). The risk of any congenital malformation was 313.5 per 10 000 births (95% CI, 310.9 to 316.1; 54 174 unexposed infants) and was 370.4 (95% CI, 358.0 to 382.9; 3277 exposed infants). The adjusted relative risk (RR) for cardiac malformations was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.06) and the adjusted risk difference (RD) was -0.8 (95% CI, -7.3 to 5.7 per 10 000 births). For oral clefts, the adjusted RR was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.48) and the RD was 2.7 (95% CI, 0.2 to 5.2 per 10 000 births). The adjusted estimate for congenital malformations overall was an RR of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.05) and an RD of 5.4 (95% CI, -7.3 to 18.2 per 10 000 births).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among offspring of mothers enrolled in Medicaid, first-trimester exposure to ondansetron was not associated with cardiac malformations or congenital malformations overall after accounting for measured confounders but was associated with a small increased risk of oral clefts.

A comparison between the effects of ginger, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and placebo for the treatment of the first trimester nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP)

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) are one of the most common complains of the early pregnancy period and are bothersome for pregnant women. Some prefer to use herbal medicine instead of chemical agents.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of ginger, pyridoxine (vitamin B6), and placebo for the treatment of NVP.

METHOD

The study was performed as a triple blind clinical trial on pregnant women suffering mild to moderate NVP between 6 and 16 weeks of pregnancy. In these women ginger, 500 mg twice daily, vitamin B6 40 mg twice daily and placebo twice daily were administered for 4 d. Rhodes questionnaire was used for evaluation of the severity of symptoms. The severity of NVP was evaluated 24 h before entering the study and up to 4 d after using medications and results were compared among the three groups.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven women finished the study (28 in the Ginger group, 26 in the B6 group, and 23 in the placebo group). The women of the three groups did not have significant differences according to age, gestational age, parity, and severity of each symptom before treatment and educational status. Total score of Rhodes questionnaire for nausea was decreased significantly in three groups after treatment. (p < .001, p = .012, and p = .03 for ginger, vitamin B6, and placebo, respectively.) Also total score of Rhodes questionnaire for vomiting was decreased in three groups (p = .03 for ginger, p = .02 for B6, and p = .04 for placebo). Ginger and vitamin B6 could reduce the severity of all items of Rhodes questionnaire significantly; however, placebo was significantly effective only on the frequency of nausea, intensity of vomiting and frequency of retching. Ginger and vitamin B6 were more effective than placebo (p = .039 and p = .007, respectively); however, total score of Rhodes did not show significant difference between ginger and vitamin B6 (p = .128). Ginger was more effective for nausea (intensity and distress) and distress of vomit.

CONCLUSION

Ginger is more effective than placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate NVP and is comparable with vitamin B6. Trial registration number and registry website: IRCT2015020320923N1.

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background: Several interventions were explored in clinical trials for treating hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). The present study is a network meta-analysis of such interventions.Methods: Electronic databases were searched for appropriate randomized clinical trials comparing interventions for treatment of patients with HG. Control of HG symptoms was the primary outcome and emetic episodes, hospital stay, nausea scores, patients requiring rescue antiemetics, hospital readmission, adverse events, and adverse pregnancy outcomes were the secondary outcome measures. Random-effects model was used and odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] was the effect estimate for categorical outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) [95% confidence interval] for numerical outcomes.Results: Twenty studies were included in the systematic review and 18 in the meta-analysis. Acupuncture (OR: 18.9; 95% CI: 2.1, 168), acupressure (OR: 26.7; 95% CI: 2.5, 283.1) and methylprednisolone (OR: 6.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 38.8) were associated with better control of HG symptoms than standard of care. Acupressure decreases the requirement of rescue antiemetics (OR: 0.06; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.44); ondansetron with reduced hospital stay (WMD: -0.2; 95% CI: -0.31, -0.01) and diazepam with reduced risk of hospital admission (OR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.95). The quality of evidence is very low.Conclusion: Acupuncture, acupressure, and methylprednisolone were observed with better therapeutic benefits than other interventions for treating HG. However, the pooled estimates may change with the advent of results from future head-to-head clinical trials.

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.

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.

The Management of Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence-based management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum.

EVIDENCE

MEDLINE and Cochrane database searches were performed using the medical subject headings of treatment, nausea, vomiting, pregnancy, and hyperemesis gravidarum. The quality of evidence reported in these guidelines has been described using the Evaluation of Evidence criteria outlined in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care.

BENEFITS

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy has a profound effect on women's health and quality of life during pregnancy as well as a financial impact on the health care system, and its early recognition and management is recommended. COST: Costs, including hospitalizations, additional office visits, and time lost from work, may be reduced if nausea and vomiting in pregnancy is treated early.

RECOMMENDATIONS

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 189: Nausea And Vomiting Of Pregnancy

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy is a common condition that affects the health of a pregnant woman and her fetus. It can diminish a woman's quality of life and also significantly contributes to health care costs and time lost from work (1, 2). Because morning sickness is common in early pregnancy, the presence of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy may be minimized by obstetricians, other obstetric care providers, and pregnant women and, thus, undertreated (1). Furthermore, some women do not seek treatment because of concerns about the safety of medications (3). Once nausea and vomiting of pregnancy progresses, it can become more difficult to control symptoms. Treatment in the early stages may prevent more serious complications, including hospitalization (4). Safe and effective treatments are available for more severe cases, and mild cases of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy may be resolved with lifestyle and dietary changes. The woman's perception of the severity of her symptoms plays a critical role in the decision of whether, when, and how to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy should be distinguished from nausea and vomiting related to other causes. The purpose of this document is to review the best available evidence about the diagnosis and management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.

From Harmful Treatment to Secondary Gain: Adverse Event Reporting in Dyspepsia and Gastroparesis

INTRODUCTION

Medical management of gastroparesis and functional dyspepsia remains difficult with several recent trials showing limited or no benefit. If treatment comes with only marginal improvements, concerns about adverse events become more relevant. We therefore examined the type and outcomes of side effects submitted to a public repository.

METHODS

We searched the Federal Adverse Event Reporting System for reports associated with the treatment of dyspepsia or gastroparesis. Demographic data, medications used and implicated, side effects, and outcomes were abstracted for the years 2004-2015.

RESULTS

Acid-suppressive agents and prokinetics were the most commonly listed medications with a stronger emphasis on prokinetics in gastroparesis. Submissions related to metoclopramide by far exceeded reports about other agents and mostly described tardive dyskinesia or other neurological concerns. They peaked around 2012, driven by submissions through legal workers. Most reports about metoclopramide described short-term use to prevent or treat nausea and vomiting. Concerns about acid-suppressive medications increased over time and spanned a wide spectrum of potential problems, including osteoporosis, worsening renal function, or cardiac events.

CONCLUSION

Despite biasing factors, such as pending legal action, the voluntary repository of adverse events provides insight into current medical practice and its associated risk. Knowing about common and uncommon, but potentially serious risks may enable patients and providers to decide on effective and safe management strategies.

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.

Hyperemesis Gravidarum: A Review of Recent Literature

BACKGROUND

In the United States, hyperemesis gravidarum is the most common cause of hospitalization during the first half of pregnancy and is second only to preterm labor for hospitalizations in pregnancy overall. In approximately 0.3-3% of pregnancies, hyperemesis gravidarum is prevalent and this percentage varies on account of different diagnostic criteria and ethnic variation in study populations. Despite extensive research in this field, the mechanism of the disease is largely unknown. Although cases of mortality are rare, hyperemesis gravidarum has been associated with both maternal and fetal morbidity. The current mainstay of treatment relies heavily on supportive measures until improvement of symptoms as part of the natural course of hyperemesis gravidarum, which occurs with progression of gestational age. However, studies have reported that severe, refractory disease manifestations have led to serious adverse outcomes and to termination of pregnancies.

SUMMARY

Despite extensive research in the field, the pathogenesis of hyperemesis gravidarum remains unknown. Recent literature points to a genetic predisposition in addition to previously studied factors such as infectious, psychiatric, and hormonal contributions. Maternal morbidity is common and includes psychological effects, financial burden, clinical complications from nutritional deficiencies, gastrointestinal trauma, and in rare cases, neurological damage. The effect of hyperemesis gravidarum on neonatal health is still debated in literature with conflicting results regarding outcomes of birth weight and prematurity. Available therapy options remain largely unchanged in the past several decades and focus on parenteral antiemetic medications, electrolyte repletion, and nutritional support. Most studies of therapeutic options do not consist of randomized control studies and cross-study analysis is difficult due to considerable variation of diagnostic criteria. Key Messages: Hyperemesis gravidarum carries a significant burden on maternal health and US health care. Most published research on pathogenesis is observational and suggests multifactorial associations with hyperemesis gravidarum. Precise, strictly defined criteria for clinical diagnosis are likely to benefit meta-analyses of further research studies regarding pathogenesis as well as therapeutic options.

Treatment options for hyperemesis gravidarum

Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a severe and prolonged form of nausea and/or vomiting during pregnancy. HG affects 0.3-2% of pregnancies and is defined by dehydration, ketonuria, and more than 5% body weight loss. Initial pharmacologic treatment for HG includes a combination of doxylamine and pyridoxine. Additional interventions include ondansetron or dopamine antagonists such as metoclopramide or promethazine. The options are limited for women who are not adequately treated with these medications. We suggest that mirtazapine is a useful drug in this context and its efficacy has been described in case studies. Mirtazapine acts on noradrenergic, serotonergic, histaminergic, and muscarinic receptors to produce antidepressant, anxiolytic, antiemetic, sedative, and appetite-stimulating effects. Mirtazapine is not associated with an independent increased risk of birth defects. Further investigation of mirtazapine as a treatment for HG holds promise to expand treatment options for women suffering from HG.

Ondansetron Use in Pregnancy and Birth Defects: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of birth defects in children born to women who used ondansetron early in pregnancy for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy or hyperemesis gravidarum.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Journals@Ovid Fulltext, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included for review if they were written in English, included a comparison population of patients not exposed to ondansetron, and reported human data, original research, exposure to ondansetron during the first trimester, and structural birth defects as an outcome.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 423 records were identified. After accounting for duplicate records and including only relevant articles, a total of eight records met criteria for review. Data from the various studies were conflicting: whereas the three largest studies showed no increased risk of birth defects as a whole (36 malformations, 1,233 exposed compared with 141 malformations and 4,932 unexposed; 58/1,248 exposed compared with 31,357/895,770 unexposed; and 38/1,349 exposed compared with 43,620/1,500,085 unexposed; with odds ratios [ORs] of 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.82), 1.3 [95% CI 1.0-1.7], and 0.95 [95% CI 0.72-1.26], respectively), two of these studies demonstrated a slightly increased risk of cardiac defects specifically (OR 2.0 [95% CI 1.3-3.1] and 1.62 [95% CI 1.04-2.14]), a finding that was not replicated in other studies. The most consistent association (if any) appears to be a small increase in the incidence of cardiac abnormalities, the bulk of which are septal defects.

CONCLUSION

The overall risk of birth defects associated with ondansetron exposure appears to be low. There may be a small increase in the incidence of cardiac abnormalities in ondansetron-exposed neonates. Therefore, ondansetron use for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy should be reserved for those women whose symptoms have not been adequately controlled by other methods.

Ondansetron Use in Pregnancy

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends early treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy to stop progression to hyperemesis gravidarum. Nausea and vomiting and hyperemesis gravidarum typically occur during the first trimester, the sensitive time for exposure to teratogens because organogenesis is occurring in the embryo. An efficacious treatment used widely across the United States for both nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum is ondansetron. Recent studies have provided conflicting findings on the safety of ondansetron during pregnancy. There are numerous limitations in the current literature on ondansetron safety including exposure to the medication is not limited to sensitive windows of organogenesis, there is a lack of information on dosing and compliance, self-reports of exposure are commonly used, an inadequate accounting exists for other factors that may explain the relationship between ondansetron exposure and the adverse outcome, and there exists a lack of biologic plausibility by which ondansetron might cause harm. It is the authors' opinion that current data do not support a reluctance to treat women with ondansetron in clinical practice.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy - What's new?

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is one of the most common disorders of pregnancy. The symptoms occur predominantly during the first trimester, although in a subgroup of patients they can continue throughout the entire pregnancy and can affect the woman's quality of life. A small percentage of women develop a severe form of NVP called hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) that if left untreated may lead to significant maternal morbidity and adverse birth outcomes. Overall, the morbidity in pregnant women with NVP is significant, although it tends to be underestimated. The pathogenesis of NVP remains unclear, but there is consensus that the disorder is multifactorial and that various genetic, endocrine and infectious factors may be involved. The treatment of NVP can be challenging as the optimal targets for therapy are not known. Currently, the therapy used depends on the severity of the disorder and it is focused on improving the symptoms while minimizing risks to mother and fetus. Therapies range from dietary changes, pharmacologic treatment or hospitalization with intravenous fluid replacement and nutrition therapy. The aims of this review are 1) to provide an overview of NVP, 2) to present possible links between the most important factors associated with the pathogenesis of NVP and 3) to discuss the effectiveness and safety of the pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic options available to treat this disorder.

Demonstration of early efficacy results of the delayed-release combination of doxylamine-pyridoxine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy

Background

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 80% of expecting mothers. In April 2013 the FDA approved the delayed-release combination of doxylamine succinate and pyridoxine hydrochloride (Diclegis®) for NVP, based in part, on the results of a phase III randomized trial demonstrating the efficacy of this drug combination [study drug marketed under the trade name Diclectin® in Canada and Diclegis® in the United States] compared to placebo in pregnant women. Study drug dosing occurred for 14 days, which is substantially longer than what has been performed in similar studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate, through secondary analysis, whether the primary measure of efficacy can be demonstrated after five days of treatment.

Methods

Women suffering from NVP were randomized to receive Diclegis® (n = 131) or placebo (n = 125) for 14 days at doses ranging from two to four tablets a day, based on a pre-specified titration protocol. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the validated Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) score at baseline versus Day 15 between Diclegis®-treated and placebo-treated women.

For the present study, the change in PUQE score between baseline and Day 15 (end of the study) was compared to the changes observed for Days 3, 4, and 5.

Results

The use of delayed-release doxylamine succinate and pyridoxine hydrochloride tablets show improved NVP symptom control as compared to placebo on Days 3,4 and 5, with sustained efficacy until the end of the trial.

Conclusion

A four day study drug dosing trial with Diclegis® is sufficient to document efficacy, as the results are similar to those achieved after 14 study drug dosing days.

The benefit seen at the earlier time validates drug efficacy and minimizes the natural course of improvement.

Trial registration

CTR No. NCT006 14445 2007.

Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy

Women with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) have unique needs during the preconception, pregnancy, and postpartum periods. Preconception counseling is essential for women with T1DM to minimize pregnancy risks. The goals of preconception care should be tight glycemic control with a hemoglobin A1c (A1C) < 7 % and as close to 6 % as possible, without significant hypoglycemia. This will lower risks of congenital malformations, preeclampsia, and perinatal mortality. The safety of medications should be assessed prior to conception. Optimal control of retinopathy, hypertension, and nephropathy should be achieved. During pregnancy, the goal A1C is near-normal at <6 %, without excessive hypoglycemia. There is no clear evidence that continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple daily injections (MDI) is superior in achieving the desired tight glycemic control of T1DM during pregnancy. Data regarding continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in pregnant women with T1DM is conflicting regarding improved glycemic control. However, a recent CGM study does provide some distinct patterns of glucose levels associated with large for gestational age infants. Frequent eye exams during pregnancy are essential due to risk of progression of retinopathy during pregnancy. Chronic hypertension treatment goals are systolic blood pressure 110-129 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure 65-79 mmHg. Labor and delivery target plasma glucose levels are 80-110 mg/dl, and an insulin drip is recommended to achieve these targets during active labor. Postpartum, insulin doses must be reduced and glucoses closely monitored in women with T1DM because of the enhanced insulin sensitivity after delivery. Breastfeeding is recommended and should be highly encouraged due to maternal benefits including increased insulin sensitivity and weight loss and infant and childhood benefits including reduced prevalence of overweight. In this article, we discuss the care of pregnant patients with T1DM.

OpenVigil FDA - Inspection of U.S. American Adverse Drug Events Pharmacovigilance Data and Novel Clinical Applications

Pharmacovigilance contributes to health care. However, direct access to the underlying data for academic institutions and individual physicians or pharmacists is intricate, and easily employable analysis modes for everyday clinical situations are missing. This underlines the need for a tool to bring pharmacovigilance to the clinics. To address these issues, we have developed OpenVigil FDA, a novel web-based pharmacovigilance analysis tool which uses the openFDA online interface of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to access U.S. American and international pharmacovigilance data from the Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS). OpenVigil FDA provides disproportionality analyses to (i) identify the drug most likely evoking a new adverse event, (ii) compare two drugs concerning their safety profile, (iii) check arbitrary combinations of two drugs for unknown drug-drug interactions and (iv) enhance the relevance of results by identifying confounding factors and eliminating them using background correction. We present examples for these applications and discuss the promises and limits of pharmacovigilance, openFDA and OpenVigil FDA. OpenVigil FDA is the first public available tool to apply pharmacovigilance findings directly to real-life clinical problems. OpenVigil FDA does not require special licenses or statistical programs.

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.

Barriers and Challenges in Hyperemesis Gravidarum Research

Nausea and occasional vomiting in early pregnancy (NVP) are common. When vomiting is severe or protracted, it is referred to as hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). HG affects up to 3% of pregnancies and is characterized by weight loss, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, and the need for hospital admission. HG has significant consequences for maternal well-being, is associated with adverse birth outcomes, and leads to major health care costs. Treatment options are symptomatic, hampered by the lack of evidence-based options including studies on nutritional interventions. One of the reasons for this lack of evidence is the use of a broad range of definitions and outcome measures. An internationally accepted definition and the formulation of core outcomes would facilitate meta-analysis of trial results and implementation of evidence in guidelines to ultimately improve patient care.

Practice Bulletin No. 153: Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy is a common condition that affects the health of the pregnant woman and her fetus. It can diminish the woman's quality of life and also significantly contributes to health care costs and time lost from work (). Because "morning sickness" is common in early pregnancy, the presence of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy may be minimized by obstetricians, other obstetric providers, and pregnant women and, thus, undertreated (). Furthermore, some women do not seek treatment because of concerns about safety of medications (). Once nausea and vomiting of pregnancy progresses, it can become more difficult to control symptoms; treatment in the early stages may prevent more serious complications, including hospitalization (). Mild cases of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy may be resolved with lifestyle and dietary changes, and safe and effective treatments are available for more severe cases. The woman's perception of the severity of her symptoms plays a critical role in the decision of whether, when, and how to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. In addition, nausea and vomiting of pregnancy should be distinguished from nausea and vomiting related to other causes. The purpose of this document is to review the best available evidence about the diagnosis and management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.