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

Medline ® Abstracts for References 7,10,23,29,32,49,50

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

7
 
 
Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. https://www.apgo.org/ (Accessed on December 05, 2016).
 
no abstract available
10
TI
The management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
AU
Arsenault MY, Lane CA, MacKinnon CJ, Bartellas E, Cargill YM, Klein MC, Martel MJ, Sprague AE, Wilson AK
SO
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002;24(10):817.
 
OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence-based management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) and hyperemesis gravidarum.
EVIDENCE: MEDLINE and Cochrane database searches were performed using the medical subject headings (MeSH) 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 the Periodic Health Exam.
BENEFITS: NVP 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 are recommended. (III-B) COST: Costs, including hospitalizations, additional office visits, and time lost from work, may be reduced if NVP is treated early.
AD
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
29
TI
Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.
AU
Matthews A, Haas DM, O'Mathúna DP, Dowswell T
SO
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;
 
BACKGROUND: Nausea, retching and vomiting are very commonly experienced by women in early pregnancy. There are considerable physical, social and psychological effects on women who experience these symptoms. This is an update of a review of interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy last published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all interventions for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy, up to 20 weeks' gestation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (19 January 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of any intervention for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy. We excluded trials of interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum, which are covered by another Cochrane review. We also excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials using a cross-over design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors, in pairs, reviewed the eligibility of trials and independently evaluated the risk of bias and extracted the data for included trials.
MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one trials involving 5449 women, met the inclusion criteria. These trials covered many interventions, including acupressure, acustimulation, acupuncture, ginger, chamomile, lemon oil, mint oil, vitamin B6 and several antiemetic drugs. There were no included studies of dietary and other lifestyle interventions. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of P6 acupressure, auricular (ear) acupressure and acustimulation of the P6 point was limited. Acupuncture (P6 or traditional) showed no significant benefit to women in pregnancy. The use of ginger products may be helpful to women, but the evidence of effectiveness was limited and not consistent, though three recent studies support ginger over placebo. There was only limited evidence from trials to support the use of pharmacological agents including vitamin B6, Doxylamine-pyridoxoine and other anti-emetic drugs to relieve mild or moderate nausea and vomiting. There was little information on maternal and fetal adverse outcomes and on psychological, social or economic outcomes.We were unable to pool findings from studies for most outcomes due to heterogeneity in study participants, interventions, comparison groups, and outcomes measured or reported. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Risk of bias was low related to performance bias, detection bias and attrition bias for most studies. Selection bias risk was unclear for many studies and almost half of the studies did not fully or clearly report all pre-specified outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the high prevalence of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy, women and health professionals need clear guidance about effective and safe interventions, based on systematically reviewed evidence. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support any particular intervention. This is not the same as saying that the interventions studied are ineffective, but that there is insufficient strong evidence for any one intervention. The difficulties in interpreting and pooling the results of the studies included in this review highlight the need for specific, consistent and clearly justified outcomes and approaches to measurement in research studies.
AD
School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Collins Avenue, Dublin, Ireland, 9.
PMID
32
TI
Evidence-based view of safety and effectiveness of pharmacologic therapy for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP).
AU
Magee LA, Mazzotta P, Koren G
SO
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.
AD
Department of Specialized Women's Health, BC Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Vancouver, Canada. lmagee@cw.bc.ca
PMID
49
TI
Treatment options for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.
AU
Badell ML, Ramin SM, Smith JA
SO
Pharmacotherapy. 2006;26(9):1273.
 
Nausea and vomiting, common symptoms during pregnancy, often are regarded as an unpleasant but normal part of pregnancy during the first and early second trimesters. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) occurs in approximately 75-80% of pregnant women. The exact etiology and pathogenesis of NVP are poorly understood and are most likely multifactorial. Some theories for the etiology of NVP are psychological predisposition, evolutionary adaptation, hormonal stimuli, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Treatment ranges from dietary and lifestyle changes to vitamins, antiemetics, and hospitalization for intravenous therapy. Treatment generally begins with nonpharmacologic interventions; if symptoms do not improve, drug therapy is added. Although NVP has been associated with a positive pregnancy outcome, the symptoms can significantly affect a woman's life, both personally and professionally. Given the substantial health care costs, as well as indirect costs, and the potential decrease in quality of life due to NVP, providers need to acknowledge the impact of NVP and provide appropriate treatment.
AD
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Medical School, Houston, Texas 77230-1439, USA.
PMID
50
TI
Treatments for Hyperemesis Gravidarum and Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.
AU
McParlin C, O'Donnell A, Robson SC, Beyer F, Moloney E, Bryant A, Bradley J, Muirhead CR, Nelson-Piercy C, Newbury-Birch D, Norman J, Shaw C, Simpson E, Swallow B, Yates L, Vale L
SO
JAMA. 2016;316(13):1392.
 
Importance: Nausea and vomiting affects approximately 85% of pregnant women. The most severe form, hyperemesis gravidarum, affects up to 3% of women and can have significant adverse physical and psychological sequelae.
Objective: To summarize current evidence on effective treatments for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum.
Evidence Review: Databases were searched to June 8, 2016. Relevant websites and bibliographies were also searched. Titles and abstracts were assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Results were narratively synthesized; planned meta-analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of findings.
Findings: Seventy-eight studies (n  = 8930 participants) were included: 67 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 11 nonrandomized studies. Evidence from 35 RCTs at low risk of bias indicated that ginger, vitamin B6, antihistamines, metoclopramide (for mild symptoms), pyridoxine-doxylamine, and ondansetron (for moderate symptoms) were associated with improved symptoms compared with placebo. One RCT (n = 86) reported greater improvements in moderate symptoms following psychotherapy (change in Rhodes score [range, 0 {no symptoms} to 40 {worst possible symptoms}], 18.76 [SD, 5.48]to 7.06 [SD, 5.79]for intervention vs 19.18 [SD, 5.63]to 12.81 [SD, 6.88]for comparator [P < .001]). For moderate-severe symptoms, 1 RCT (n = 60) suggested that pyridoxine-doxylamine combination taken preemptively reduced risk of recurrence of moderate-severe symptoms compared with treatment once symptoms begin (15.4% vs 39.1% [P < .04]). One RCT (n = 83) found that ondansetron was associated with lower nausea scores on day 4 than metoclopramide (mean visual analog scale [VAS]score, 4.1 [SD, 2.9]for ondansetron vs 5.7 [SD, 2.3]for metoclopramide [P = .023]) but not episodes of emesis (5.0 [SD, 3.1]vs 3.3 [SD, 3], respectively [P = .013]). Although there was no difference in trend in nausea scores over the 14-day study period, trend in vomiting scores was better in the ondansetron group (P = .042). One RCT (n = 159) found no difference between metoclopramide and promethazine after 24 hours (episodes of vomiting, 1 [IQR, 0-5]for metoclopramide vs 2 [IQR, 0-3]for promethazine [P = .81], VAS [0-10 scale]for nausea, 2 [IQR, 1-5]vs 2 [IQR, 1-4], respectively [P = .99]). Three RCTs compared corticosteroids with placebo or promethazine or metoclopramide in women with severe symptoms. Improvements were seen in all corticosteroid groups, but only a significant difference between corticosteroids vs metoclopramide was reported (emesis reduction, 40.9% vs 16.5% at day 2; 71.6% vs 51.2% at day 3; 95.8% vs 76.6% at day 7 [n = 40, P < .001]). For other interventions, evidence was limited.
Conclusions and Relevance: For mild symptoms of nausea and emesis of pregnancy, ginger, pyridoxine, antihistamines, and metoclopramide were associated with greater benefit than placebo. For moderate symptoms, pyridoxine-doxylamine, promethazine, and metoclopramide were associated with greater benefit than placebo. Ondansetron was associated with improvement for a range of symptom severity. Corticosteroids may be associated with benefit in severe cases. Overall the quality of evidence was low.
AD
Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom.
PMID