Antiemetic Prescription Fills in Pregnancy: A Drug Utilization Study Among 762,437 Pregnancies in Norway

Effects of auriculotherapy on nausea and vomiting in pregnant women: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy induces physiological changes, commonly marked by nausea and vomiting in the first trimester, posing risks for both mother and baby. This study evaluates the effects of auriculotherapy on nausea and vomiting during the first trimester of pregnancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted in two primary health care centers with 56 Brazilian pregnant women who reported nausea or vomiting in the first trimester. The participants were divided into an intervention group (auriculotherapy with seeds) and a placebo group (sham auriculotherapy). The intervention was divided into three moments: pre-intervention with assessment of nausea and vomiting and application of questionnaires, and two follow-ups conducted on the fourth and seventh day of the intervention, with reassessment of nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

Both groups experienced a decrease in nausea and vomiting over time, with no statistically significant differences between groups in the within-group analyses at various time points. The intervention group had a greater reduction in symptoms. Within the intervention group, symptoms were more common among ferrous sulfate users and those without reported dietary disturbances. In addition, a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting was associated with the use of analgesics, morning snacks, and low intake of protein, vegetables, and fruits.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention did not affect the between-group differences in the incidence of nausea and vomiting and vomiting effort in the first trimester of pregnancy. However, a greater reduction was observed in the intervention group.

Impact of a primary care pharmacist consultations on pregnant women's medication use: the SafeStart intervention study linked to a national prescription database

BACKGROUND

Prior studies show that pharmacist consultations are highly appreciated by pregnant women and feasible in community pharmacies. However, it is unknown whether such counseling has an impact on medication use during pregnancy.

AIM

This study aimed to assess whether a pharmacist consultation in early pregnancy was associated with pregnant women's medication use, with a focus on antiemetic medications.

METHOD

The SafeStart study recruited Norwegian pregnant women in the first trimester between February 2018 and February 2019. Women in the intervention group received a pharmacist consultation in a community pharmacy or by phone. A follow-up questionnaire was completed 13 weeks after enrollment. Data from the SafeStart study were linked to the Norwegian Prescription Database. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the pharmacist intervention and medication use in the second trimester.

RESULTS

The study included 103 women in the intervention group and 126 in the control group. Overall prescription fills in the first and second trimesters were 55% and 45% (intervention group) and 49% and 52% (control group), respectively. In total, 16-20% of women in the first trimester and 21-27% of women in the second trimester had a prescription for antiemetics. The pharmacist intervention was not associated with women's medication use in the second trimester.

CONCLUSION

This study did not detect an impact of a pharmacist consultation on pregnant women's use of medications. In the future, pharmacist consultations should focus on other outcome factors, such as risk perception, knowledge level, and the use of other health care services. Trial registration The SafeStart study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04182750, registration date: December 2, 2019).

Association between ondansetron use and mortality of patients on mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Basic studies show that selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) serotonin-receptor antagonists can protect organs from inflammatory injury and have shown lung protection. Whether 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists ondansetron benefits patients with mechanical ventilation is unclear in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV) database was reviewed to identify patients on mechanical ventilation (aged >16 years) in the ICU, which was divided into two groups according to whether ondansetron is used. Demographic characteristics, medical history data, clinical parameters, diagnosis and treatment measures were included as covariates. Ondansetron use was defined as any kind of ondansetron administration regardless of the dose before the induction of mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by multivariable Cox regression. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to further adjust for confounding factors. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves with log-rank test were also performed.

Results

A total of 18,566 patients on mechanical ventilation were included (5,735 with ondansetron use). The overall in-hospital mortality rate of patients on mechanical ventilation was 18.9% (3,512/18,566). Approximately 13.0% (746/5,735) and 21.6% (2,766/12,831) in-hospital mortality rates occurred in the ondansetron and non-ondansetron use groups, respectively. Multivariable regression indicated that ondansetron usage was associated with a 33% and 32% lower risk of in-hospital and 60-day death (HR =0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.85, P<0.001; HR =0.68, 95% CI: 0.62-0.75, P<0.001) in the whole sample. Multivariable regression post-PSM indicated that ondansetron usage was associated with a 38% and 31% lower risk of in-hospital and 60-day death (HR =0.62, 95% CI: 0.56-0.68, P<0.001; HR =0.69, 95% CI: 0.62-0.77, P<0.001). Log-rank test for the KM curve of ondansetron and 60-day death was statistically significant (P<0.001). The duration of ventilator use pre- and post-PSM was statistically different (P<0.001 and P=0.007) in the two groups.

Conclusions

Ondansetron usage was significantly associated with a lower mortality risk of ventilated patients in the ICU. The 5-HT3 receptor antagonist use is may be new potential adjunctive therapeutic strategy for patients on mechanical ventilation in the ICU.

Risk of abnormal pregnancy outcomes after using ondansetron during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum is a serious pregnancy complication that affects approximately 1% of pregnancies worldwide.

Objective: To determine whether the use of ondansetron during pregnancy is associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes.

Search strategy: PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, CNKI, CBM, WANFANG, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for citations published in any language from inception to 15 December 2021.

Selection criteria: Eligible studies included any observational study.

Data collection and analysis: Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as indicators to examine the association between ondansetron and abnormal pregnancy outcomes.

Main results: Twenty articles from 1,558 citations were included. Our preliminary analysis showed that compared with the unexposed group, the use of ondansetron during pregnancy may be associated with an increased incidence of cardiac defects (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01–1.10), neural tube defects (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05–1.18), and chest cleft (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07–1.37). Further sensitivity analysis showed no significant association between ondansetron and cardiac defects (OR = 1.15,95% CI: 0.94–1.40) or neural tube defects (OR = 0.87,95% CI: 0.46–1.66). When controversial studies were eliminated, the results for the chest defects disappeared. Simultaneously, we found that the use of ondansetron was associated with a reduced incidence of miscarriage (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31–0.89). Ondansetron was not associated with orofacial clefts (OR = 1.09,95% CI: 0.95–1.25), spinal limb defects (OR = 1.14,95% CI: 0.89–1.46), urinary tract deformities (OR = 1.06,95% CI: 0.97–1.15), any congenital malformations (OR = 1.03,95% CI: 0.98–1.09), stillbirth (OR = 0.97,95% CI: 0.83–1.15), preterm birth (OR = 1.22,95% CI: 0.80–1.85), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 1.05,95% CI: 0.72–1.54), or neonatal development (OR = 1.18,95% CI: 0.96–1.44) in our primary analysis.

Conclusion: In our analysis, using ondansetron during pregnancy was not associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Although our study did not find sufficient evidence of ondansetron and adverse pregnancy outcomes, future studies including the exposure period and dose of ondansetron, as well as controlling for disease status, may be useful to truly elucidate the potential risks and benefits of ondansetron.

Nursing Diagnoses and Interventions in Women with Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Scoping Review

Objective: To map the diverse scientific evidence on nursing diagnoses and interventions in women with pregnancy hypertensive disorders under Primary Health Care. Materials and method: A scoping review was conducted through nine stages in seven databases and the thesis and dissertation catalog of the Coordinating Office for Improving Higher Education Personnel. The search was performed from January to March 2021. Results: A total of 2,505 articles were retrieved, of which five were included in the final review. Nine primary diagnoses from the 2009-2011 version of NANDA-I were identified. Each diagnosis was classified according to physical, psychological, behavioral, and environmental characteristics. The interventions were related to controlling pain, anxiety, hemodynamic dysfunctions, self-esteem level, fluid replacement, patient/environment hygiene, and sleep-rest ratio. Conclusions: The nursing diagnoses and interventions presented in this study corroborate the clinical practice and aid nursing professionals’ reasoning.

Antiemetic treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum in 1,064 Norwegian women and the impact of European warning on metoclopramide: a retrospective cohort study 2002–2019

Background

Women suffering from severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, hyperemesis gravidarum, have poor quality of life and increased risk of potentially fatal maternal and fetal complications. There is increasing and reassuring knowledge about safety of antiemetics in pregnancy. In 2013, the European Medical Agency (EMA) issued a warning on metoclopramide limiting treatment to maximum five days. Metoclopramide was the most used antiemetic in pregnancy at the time the warning was implemented in the Norwegian hyperemesis guidelines (2014). We aimed at describing changes in the treatment of hyperemesis over time, including changes associated with the EMA warning.

Methods

Retrospective chart review of all women hospitalized for hyperemesis gravidarum with metabolic disturbances between 01/Jan/2002 and 31/Dec/2019 at a university hospital serving nearly 10% of the pregnant population in Norway. Time-series analysis described changes over time and interrupted time series analysis quantified changes in treatment and clinical outcomes related to the EMA warning.

Results

In total, 1,064 women (1.2% of the birthing population) were included. The use of meclizine, prochlorperazine, and ondansetron increased during 2002–2019. This led to a yearly increase in the percentage of women using any antiemetic of 1.5% (95%CI 0.6; 2.4) pre-hospital, 0.6% (95%CI 0.2; 1.1) during hospitalization, and 2.6% (95%CI 1.3; 3.8) at discharge. Overall, only 50% of the women received antiemetics pre-hospital. Following the EMA warning, prehospital use of metoclopramide dropped by 30% (95%CI 25; 36), while use of any antiemetic pre-hospital dropped by 20% (95%CI 5.7; 34). In timely association, we observed a decrease in gestational age (-3.8 days, 98.75%CI 0.6; 7.1) at first admission, as well as indication of increased rate of termination of pregnancy with an absolute increase of 4.8% (98.75%CI 0.9; 8.7) in 2014.

Conclusion

During 2002–2019, the overall use of antiemetics in treatment of hyperemesis increased. The EMA-warning on metoclopramide in 2013 temporarily limited pre-hospital antiemetic provision associated with hospitalization at lower gestational length and indication of an increase in termination of pregnancy.

Ondansetron use in nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: a descriptive analysis of prescription patterns and patient characteristics in UK general practice

Aims

The objective of this study was to describe ondansetron drug utilization patterns during pregnancy to treat nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP). Moreover, we aimed to describe the maternal factors associated with NVP and antiemetic use.

Methods

The data consist of pregnancies with a live birth(s) within an IMRD‐UK registered GP practice. Descriptive statistics were used to investigate patterns of ondansetron use in pregnancy and to describe maternal characteristics associated with NVP and antiemetic drug utilization. We differentiate first‐ from second‐line use during pregnancy using antiemetic prescription pathways.

Results

The dataset included 733 633 recorded complete pregnancies from 2005 to 2019. NVP diagnosis and ondansetron prescription prevalence increased from 2.7% and 0.1% in 2005 to 4.8% and 2.5% in 2019 respectively. Over the period 2015–2019, the most common oral daily dosages were 4 mg/d (8.5%), 8 mg/d (37.1%), 12 mg/d (37.5%) and between 16 and 24 mg/d (16.9%). Prescription of ondansetron was initiated during the first trimester of pregnancy in 40% of the cases and was moderately used as a first‐line therapy (2.8%), but preferred choice of second‐line therapy. Women with mental health disorders, asthma and/or prescribed folic acid were more likely to experience NVP and use antiemetics in pregnancy than their counterparts.

Conclusion

This study confirms that ondansetron is increasingly used off‐label to treat NVP during pregnancy, also in the first trimester and before other prescription antiemetics have been prescribed. Several maternal comorbidities and folic acid use were more common among women experiencing NVP and using antiemetics, including ondansetron.

What changes in prescription patterns of antiemetic medications in pregnant women in France?

BACKGROUND

In France, few data are available on the prescription patterns of antiemetic medications in pregnant women.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to describe antiemetic medication prescriptions and trends over time. Can we observe significant changes in pregnant woman prescriptions in recent years?

METHODS

We conducted a drug utilization study among pregnant women using data from the EFEMERIS database, including 135 574 pregnant women who had a pregnancy outcome between 2004 and 2017 in Haute-Garonne (France).

RESULTS

During the study period, 40 028 women (29.5%) received at least one antiemetic prescription during pregnancy. Metoclopramide (56.6%), domperidone (34.9%), and metopimazine (28.5%) were the most commonly prescribed antiemetics, whatever the trimester of pregnancy. Prescriptions of ondansetron only concerned 53 women (0.1%). The prevalence of women who received at least one prescription for an antiemetic decreased from 32.5% in 2010 to 21.6% in 2017. This decline mainly concerned domperidone prescriptions (from 13.1% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2017). Metoclopramide prescriptions also decreased slightly (18.3% in 2010 and 14.0% in 2017). Metopimazine prescriptions increased lowly (8.0% in 2010 and 9.0% in 2017).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a decrease of antiemetic prescriptions between 2010 and 2017, linked to the sharp decrease in domperidone use from 2011, probably related to warnings about the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects following exposure to domperidone. We could not observe real switches to other antiemetic medications. No switches to ondansetron could be noted either, with only rare exposure during pregnancy, contrary to other countries, like the United States.