UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstracts for References 21-23

of 'Treatment and outcome of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy'

21
TI
Overview of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy with an emphasis on vitamins and ginger.
AU
Niebyl JR, Goodwin TM
SO
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(5 Suppl Understanding):S253.
 
Patients suffering from nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) frequently do not receive therapy, in part because of fears of adverse effects of medications on the fetus. Several vitamin-based and herbal therapies have been shown to be effective and safe. Two randomized trials of vitamin B(6) have shown a benefit in reducing NVP. Women taking periconceptional multivitamins are less likely to have severe NVP. The combination of vitamin B(6) and doxylamine (previously marketed in the United States as Bendectin) has been shown to be safe for the fetus and effective in reducing NVP. Ginger was shown, in 2 studies, to reduce NVP. Vitamin B(1) (thiamine) deficiency can lead to Wernicke's encephalopathy in women with severe NVP. Replacement is needed for all women with vomiting of more than 3 weeks' duration. Prophylaxis with multivitamins and therapy with B(6), with or without doxylamine, are safe and effective therapies for NVP.
AD
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City 52242, USA. jennifer-niebyl@uiowa.edu
PMID
22
TI
Pre-emptive therapy for severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum.
AU
Koren G, Maltepe C
SO
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;24(5):530.
 
Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) affects 80% of pregnancies. Its severe form, hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), results in dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, the need for hospitalisation and can, rarely, be fatal. This was a prospective, open-labelled, controlled, interventional study to evaluate the effectiveness of pre-emptive treatment of NVP symptoms in women who experienced severe NVP or HG in their previous pregnancy. Twenty-five women who reported severe symptoms of NVP with or without HG in their previous pregnancy were recruited and counselled to commence the use of antiemetics as soon as they became aware of the present pregnancy, and no later than the beginning of symptoms. They were followed-up prospectively through the index pregnancy for symptoms of NVP, and were counselled continuously as to how to modify antiemetic doses based on symptoms. A comparison group consisted of randomly selected women also counselled by us for NVP, who had also had severe NVP in the previous pregnancy, but who did not call before a planned pregnancy and thus could not be offered pre-emptive therapy. The recruited women commenced pre-emptive drug therapy for NVP before conception or up to 7 weeks' gestation, before the appearance of NVP symptoms in all cases. In comparison to the previous pregnancy, only eight of these 18 women experienced a HG again in the index pregnancy (P= 0.01). The majority of study the women had an improvement in severity of NVP symptoms compared to the previous pregnancy. In the comparison group (n = 35), symptoms in the index pregnancy remained severe in 28 cases (80%), decreased to moderate in six (16.6%) and decreased to mild in five cases (13.9%). There were five cases of HG in the previous pregnancy and three in the index pregnancy. The pre-emptive group was improved significantly compared to the control group (P = 0.01). Pre-emptive symptom management appears to be effective in preventing severe NVP in general, and HG in particular. Women who have experienced severe NVP in a previous pregnancy may benefit from taking antiemetics before, or immediately at the start of symptoms in a subsequent pregnancy.
AD
Motherisk Program, Division of Clinical Pharmacology/Toxicology, The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, University of Toronto, Canada. gkoren@sickkids.ca
PMID
23
TI
Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum.
AU
Boelig RC, Barton SJ, Saccone G, Kelly AJ, Edwards SJ, Berghella V
SO
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;
 
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 toidentify 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.
AD
Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Thomas Jefferson University, 833 Chestnut Street, Level 1, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, PA 19107.
PMID