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

Risk Factors for Infusions, Emergency Room Visits and Hospitalizations for Hyperemesis Gravidarum: New Data and Literature Review

Purpose

Few factors have been identified that increase the risk of visits (hospital emergency room or inpatient stays) due to hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). The purpose of this study is to understand trends in HG management and identify variables increasing visit frequency so that strategies may be developed to reduce hospital utilization.

Study Design

An online survey was posted on the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation website and social media between June 2022 and May 2023. Participants had previous or current severe pregnancy nausea and vomiting. Respondents were asked about themselves and their HG experience, including weight loss, medications, infusion care, and visit frequency. Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated via MedCalc to analyze the significance of each factor, and Spearman rank correlations were analyzed via SPSS for associations of ondansetron usage with visits and weight loss. Microsoft Excel and SPSS were used to calculate treatment and visit frequencies.

Results

Survey data from 1220 respondents who reported a current or prior pregnancy with HG were included in this study. Respondents were primarily White, from the US, and had at least one visit due to HG. Participants with a visit were significantly more likely to be a person of color (POC), unable to work, have no children, and lose over 15 pounds (6.8 kg). Those who took medications as prescribed had fewer visits. No medication combination or dose was found to be significantly more effective in preventing weight loss or repeat hospital visits.

Conclusion

Risk factors predicting visits included POC, not having children, being too sick to work, and having extreme weight loss. Utilization of medication and nutritional therapies is inconsistent and inadequate in this population, which may increase visit frequency.

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].

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.