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

Medline ® Abstracts for References 23,32,102

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

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum.
Boelig RC, Barton SJ, Saccone G, Kelly AJ, Edwards SJ, Berghella V
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.
Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Thomas Jefferson University, 833 Chestnut Street, Level 1, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, PA 19107.
Evidence-based view of safety and effectiveness of pharmacologic therapy for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP).
Magee LA, Mazzotta P, Koren G
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(5 Suppl Understanding):S256.
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to review the safety and effectiveness of available antiemetics for treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
STUDY DESIGN: We performed a quantitative and qualitative overview of observational controlled studies for drug safety in pregnancy and randomized controlled trials for drug effectiveness for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
RESULTS: All of the following are safe and effective for treatment of varying degrees of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: Bendectin/Diclectin (doxylamine, pyridoxine, dicyclomine), antihistamine (H(1)) blockers, and phenothiazines; however, the magnitude of effect, particularly for phenothiazines, is in question and may differ among individual agents. Pyridoxine and vitamin B(12)are safe and may be effective. Metoclopramide, droperidol, and ondansetron may be effective, but safety data are insufficient to recommend them as first-line agents. Corticosteroids may not be as beneficial as first thought, and there may be a small teratogenic risk. The relative effectiveness of various agents is largely unknown.
CONCLUSION: Many medications, particularly H(1)-antagonists and phenothiazines, are safe and effective for treatment of varying degrees of NVP.
Department of Specialized Women's Health, BC Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Vancouver, Canada. lmagee@cw.bc.ca
The efficacy low dose of prednisolone in the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum.
Ziaei S, Hosseiney FS, Faghihzadeh S
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(3):272.
BACKGROUND: To determine whether low dosages of prednisolone are effective in the treatment of outpatients with hyperemesis gravidarum.
METHODS: Eighty pregnant women with gestational ages of 6 to 12 weeks and persistent nausea and vomiting participated. The women were assigned by simple randomization to receive prednisolone 5 mg daily or promethazine 75 mg daily by oral route for 10 days. The severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting per day, sickness and the drugs' side-effects were compared (Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Odds Ratio test).
RESULTS: The women who received promethazine responded better in the first 48 h (p = 0.02). With continuation of the treatment, the difference decreased, and one week after completion of the treatment, the subjects who had received prednisolone had less symptoms.
CONCLUSION: Promethazine reduces the symptoms of hyperemesis gravidarum faster than prednisolone, but during prolonged treatment, prednisolone has at least the same effects on the symptoms and less drug side-effects.
Faculty of Medical Science, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran.