Drugs for treatment of very high blood pressure during pregnancy

Perceptions and experiences of the prevention, identification and management of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia: a qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVES

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (qualitative). The objectives are as follows: The overall objective of this qualitative evidence synthesis is to describe and explore the perceptions and experiences of key stakeholders who have experience with pre-eclampsia/eclampsia or its prevention, identification, or management. The key stakeholders are women who have experienced pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, people in the community, lay health workers, and skilled health workers. Our specific objectives are to: synthesise qualitative studies that explore key stakeholders' understanding of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia and their perceptions regarding its causes and consequences; develop a conceptual understanding of women's 'journeys' with pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, including their experiences of the condition or preventive interventions, and their values and challenges; explore how health workers prevent, identify, and manage pre-eclampsia/eclampsia in community settings, or during transfer or referral to health facilities; and synthesise the factors affecting the implementation of different pre-eclampsia/eclampsia prevention, identification, and management strategies in health facility settings, including perceptions, experiences, values, acceptability, and feasibility.

Optimal treatment for women with acute hypertension in pregnancy; a randomized trial comparing intravenous labetalol versus nicardipine

OBJECTIVES

Blood pressure control in severe hypertension of pregnancy is crucial for mother and neonate. In absence of evidence, guidelines recommend either intravenous labetalol or nicardipine. We compared the effectiveness and safety of these two drugs in women with severe hypertension in pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed an open label randomized controlled trial. Women with a singleton pregnancy complicated by severe hypertension (systolic ≥ 160 mmHg and/or diastolic ≥ 110 mmHg) requiring intravenous antihypertensive treatment were randomized to intravenous labetalol or intravenous nicardipine. The primary outcome was a composite adverse neonatal outcome defined as severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS), Broncho Pulmonary Dysplasia (BPD), Intraventricular Hemorrhage (IVH) IIB or worse, Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC), or perinatal death defined as fetal death or neonatal death before discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Based on a power analysis, we estimated that 472 women (236 per group) needed to be included to detect a difference of 15% in the primary outcome with 90% power. The study was halted prematurely at 30 inclusions because of slow recruitment and trial fatigue.

RESULTS

Between August 2018 and April 2022, we randomized 30 women of which 16 were allocated to intravenous nicardipine and 14 to intravenous labetalol. The composite adverse neonatal outcome was not significantly different between the two groups (25 % versus 43 % OR 0.28 (95 % CI 0.05-1.43), p = 0.12)). Respiratory distress syndrome occurred more often in the labetalol group than in the nicardipine group (42.9 % versus 12.5 %). Neonatal hypoglycemia occurred more often in the nicardipine group than in the labetalol group (31 % versus 7 %). Time until blood pressure control was faster in women treated with nicardipine than in women treated with labetalol (45 (15-150 min vs. 120 (60-127,5) min).

CONCLUSION

In our prematurely halted small RCT, we were unable to provide evidence for the optimal choice of treatment for severe hypertension to improve neonatal outcome and/or to obtain faster blood pressure control. Differences in Respiratory distress syndrome and neonatal hypoglycemia between the groups might be the result of coincidental finding due to the small groups included in the study. A larger randomized trial would be needed to determine the safest and most efficacious (intravenous) therapy for severe hypertension in pregnancy. This study emphasizes the challenges of conducting a RCT for the optimal treatment for these women.

Pharmacotherapeutic options for the treatment of hypertension in pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy affect approximately one in 10 pregnancies and are associated with increased risk of adverse fetal, neonatal and maternal outcomes. There is strong evidence that effective treatment of hypertension (blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg), and enhanced monitoring throughout pregnancy reduces these risks.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a contemporaneous review of treatment of hypertension in pregnancy with antihypertensive agents. We completed a systematic search and review of all meta-analyses and systematic reviews of studies comparing antihypertensives for treatment of pregnancy hypertension in the last five years. We provide a clinically focused summary of when to treat hypertension in pregnancy and which antihypertensive agents can be offered. Special scenarios reviewed include treatment-resistant hypertension and pre-pregnancy antihypertensive optimization.

EXPERT OPINION

Several antihypertensives are considered safe and are known to be effective for treatment of hypertension in pregnancy. Given the current uncertainty as to which antihypertensive(s) are superior for treatment of hypertension in pregnancy, women should be counselled and offered a range of antihypertensive options in keeping with evidence on clinical effectiveness, local context and availability of antihypertensive(s), potential side effect profile, and women's preference. Further research is required to help guide clinical decision making, and move toward personalized treatment.

Considering Adverse Effects of Common Antihypertensive Medications in the ED

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the adverse effects of common antihypertensive agents utilized or encountered in the Emergency Department.

RECENT FINDINGS

All categories of antihypertensive agents may manifest adverse effects, inclusive of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), drug-to-drug interactions, or accidental overdose. Adverse effects, and specifically ADRs, may be stratified into the organ systems affected, might require specific time-sensitive interventions, could pose particular risks to vulnerable populations, and may result in significant morbidity, and potential mortality. Adverse effects of common antihypertensive agents may be encountered in the ED, necessitating that ED systems of care are poised to prevent, recognize, and intervene when adverse effects arise.

A Comparative Study of Oral Nifedipine and Intravenous Labetalol for Acute Hypertensive Management in Pregnancy: Assessing Feto-Maternal Outcomes in a Hospital-based Randomized Control Trial

Background and Objective

Hypertension is one of the most common medical complications during pregnancy and a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Severe preeclampsia is defined as blood pressure (BP) >160/110 mmHg with warning signs such as headache, blurring of vision, and epigastric pain. Nifedipine (C17H18N2O6), labetalol (C19H24N2O3), and hydralazine (C8H8N4) are commonly used drugs, and all are recommended as first-line agents. Hydralazine is associated with a higher incidence of adverse outcomes, so oral nifedipine has been proposed as a first-line alternative to intravenous labetalol. Consequently, this study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of oral nifedipine with that of intravenous labetalol. The objective is to compare the ability/effectiveness of oral nifedipine and intravenous labetalol to normalize acute hypertension in severe preeclampsia and to assess the birth outcome. Relations between different factors were established by appropriate statistical tests. The p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Methods

The study was conducted on 120 antenatal women with blood pressure ≥160/110 mmHg admitted to our hospital, a tertiary care center, from January 1st, 2020 to June 30th, 2021. Patients were randomized by a single blinding method to receive intravenous labetalol and oral nifedipine. The primary outcome measures were the time taken to control the blood pressure and the number of doses of drugs required. The secondary outcome measures were the birth outcome like a method of delivery, side effect profile, and the number of admissions in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Results

A total of 120 patients were included with 60 patients in each group. The labetalol group took 48.67 ± 17.80 minutes and the nifedipine group took 64.33 ± 9.81 minutes to achieve a target BP of <=140/90 mmHg (p < 0.05). No side effects were seen in 70% of patients in the labetalol group and 71.67% in the nifedipine group (p > 0.05).

Conclusion and Global Health Implications

Intravenous labetalol is faster in restoring blood pressure in pregnant women with preeclampsia than oral nifedipine and may be used as a first-line drug in the acute control of blood pressure in a hypertensive emergency during pregnancy. More studies are needed in order to evaluate the findings from this pilot study in a large sample of patients.

[Evidence synthesis and recommendations: clinical practice guidelines on drug treatment for hypertension in pregnancySíntese de evidências e recomendações: diretrizes de prática clínica para o tratamento farmacológico da hipertensão arterial na gravidez]

Introduction

Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy are a major cause of severe morbidity, long-term disability, and death. Appropriate pharmacological treatment is essential in the management of these disorders.

Objectives

Synthesize the recommendations developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to improve the quality of care and health outcomes of adults with high blood pressure, and address aspects of how to implement these recommendations.

Methods

A synthesis was conducted of WHO recommendations: drug treatment for severe hypertension in pregnancy and WHO recommendations: drug treatment for non-severe hypertension in pregnancy. The WHO recommendations follow the GRADE methodology (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) for the preparation of guidelines, as described in the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development. In addition, a systematic search for studies carried out in the Region of the Americas was conducted in PubMed, Lilacs, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos, and gray literature to identify barriers, facilitators, and implementation strategies.

Results

Four recommendations were formulated for women with hypertensive disorders. Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified, and indicators were created to assess adherence and outcomes.

Conclusions

The formulated recommendations provide guidance on how to approach drug treatment of hypertension in pregnancy, with considerations for implementation in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Detection of Urinary Misfolded Proteins for Imminent Prediction of Preeclampsia in Pregnant Women With Suspected Cases: Protocol for a Prospective Noninterventional Study

BACKGROUND

Preeclampsia (PE) is one of the most common hypertensive diseases, affecting 2%-8% of all pregnancies. The high maternal and fetal mortality rates of PE are due to a lack of early identification of affected pregnant women that would have led to closer monitoring and care. Recent data suggest that misfolded proteins might be a promising biomarker for PE prediction, which can be detected in urine samples of pregnant women according to their congophilia (aggregated) characteristic.

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of this trial is to evaluate the value of the urine congophilia-based detection of misfolded proteins for the imminent prediction of PE in women presenting with suspected PE. The secondary objectives are to demonstrate that the presence of urine misfolded proteins correlates with PE-related maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes, and to establish an accurate PE prediction model by combining misfolded proteins with multiple indicators.

METHODS

At least 300 pregnant women with clinical suspicion of PE will be enrolled in this prospective cohort study. Participants should meet the following inclusion criteria in addition to a suspicion of PE: ≥18 years old, gestational week between 20+0 and 33+6, and single pregnancy. Consecutive urine samples will be collected, blinded, and tested for misfolded proteins and other PE-related biomarkers at enrollment and at 4 follow-up visits. Clinical assessments of PE status and related complications for all participants will be performed at regular intervals using strict diagnostic criteria. Investigators and participants will remain blinded to the results. Follow-up will be performed until 42 days postpartum. Data from medical records, including maternal and fetal outcomes, will be collected. The performance of urine misfolded proteins alone and combined with other biomarkers or clinical variables for the prediction of PE will be statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Enrollment started in July 2023 and was still open upon manuscript submission. As of March 2024, a total of 251 eligible women have been enrolled in the study and enrollment is expected to continue until August 2024. Results analysis is scheduled to start after all participants reach the follow-up endpoint and complete clinical data are collected.

CONCLUSIONS

Upon completion of the study, we expect to derive an accurate PE prediction model, which will allow for proactive management of pregnant women with clinical suspicion of PE and possibly reduce the associated adverse pregnancy outcomes. The additional prognostic value of misfolded proteins is also expected to be confirmed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trials Registry ChiCTR2300074878; https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=202096.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/54026.

Physiologic Treatment of Severe Hypertension in Pregnancy and Postpartum

We aimed to evaluate physiologic treatment of severe hypertension. This was a retrospective cohort study of pregnant and postpartum patients with severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic BP 110 mm Hg or higher) treated with intravenous labetalol or hydralazine at a single tertiary care center between 2013 and 2018. Patients were classified as having physiologic treatment if they had hyperdynamic physiology (pulse pressure 65 mm Hg or higher) and received labetalol or had vasoconstrictive physiology (diastolic BP 100 mm Hg or higher) and received hydralazine. The primary outcome was number of antihypertensive doses to achieve nonsevere BP. Of 1,120 patients included in the analysis, 653 had physiologic treatment and 467 had nonphysiologic treatment, with 16 (1.4%) excluded for inability to classify physiology. Physiologic treatment was associated with fewer antihypertensive doses (1.4±0.9 doses vs 1.6±1.4 doses; adjusted β -0.28, 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.14) and lower odds of medication conversion (2.5% vs 4.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.48, 95% CI, 0.24-0.93) but no difference in time to nonsevere BP (31 minutes [interquartile range 16-66 minutes] vs 34 minutes [interquartile range 15-76 minutes]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 95% CI, 0.9-1.2). Physiologic treatment of severe hypertension warrants further evaluation.

Comparison of the efficacy of intravenous labetalol versus oral nifedipine in patients with severe pregnancy-induced hypertension beyond 30 weeks of gestation

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy affect 5% to 10% of all pregnancies globally. The aim of treatment is to bring down blood pressure (BP) quickly and smoothly, which is safe for the mother and baby. The aim of our study was to study the efficacy and safety of intravenous labetalol and oral nifedipine in severe pregnancy-induced hypertension.

Materials and Methods

It is a retrospective observational study, intravenous labetalol 20 mg was given initially in escalating doses of 40 mg, 80 mg, 80 mg, and 80 mg every 15 mins up to a maximum dose of 5 or until the goal BP ≤150/100 mmHg was reached. Some women with severe pregnancy-induced hypertension were given oral nifedipine to control their BP according to the choice of the attending consultant. Nifedipine 10 mg tablet was given initially in repeated doses of 10 mg every 15 mins up to a maximum of five doses or until the goal of BP ≤150/100 mmHg was reached.

Results

In our study, we found that there was a strong statistical significance in stabilizing the BP with oral nifedipine than with intravenous labetalol drug used. The majority of the patients in the oral nifedipine group got to normal BP quicker when compared to intravenous labetalol group patients.

Conclusion

From this study, both drugs were found to be safe and effective in the reduction in BP. The use of nifedipine may be recommended in low-resource settings since it has an oral regimen and dosage is simple when compared to incremental intravenous dosing of labetalol.

Comparing Intravenous Labetalol and Intravenous Hydralazine for Managing Severe Gestational Hypertension

Background Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are the leading causes of both maternal morbidity and maternal mortality. Hypertensive disorders are acute obstetric emergencies, which refer to various life-threatening medical challenges known to develop during pregnancy, labor, and delivery, requiring urgent attention to reduce blood pressure (BP) for the benefit of the affected mothers and infants. Hydralazine and labetalol have been widely used as the first-line medications in the management of severe hypertension during pregnancy. However, the choice between these two drugs lacks clear evidence regarding their safety and superiority. Several studies have attempted to study intravenous (IV) labetalol versus hydralazine, but very few such comparison studies have been conducted in Africa.  Objective To compare the effectiveness of IV labetalol and IV hydralazine in reducing systolic and diastolic BP in pregnant women with severe hypertension. Also, to determine the time required for hydralazine and labetalol to lower BP to ≤150/100 mmHg, the number of doses needed for each drug, and evaluating maternal and perinatal outcomes. Study design This study employed an open-label randomized clinical trial design conducted in the labor, delivery, and antenatal ward of the Central and Stella Obasanjo Hospital in Benin City. A total of 120 women with severe pregnancy-induced hypertension were randomly assigned to two groups: Group X, consisting of 60 pregnant women, received IV hydralazine at a slow rate of 5 mg for five minutes, repeated every 20 minutes (maximum of five doses) until a blood pressure of ≤150/100 mmHg was achieved. Group Y, also consisting of 60 pregnant women, received IV labetalol in escalating doses of 25, 50, 75, 75, and 75 mg (maximum of 300 mg) every 20 minutes until the blood pressure reached ≤150/100 mmHg. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23 (IBM Inc., Armonk, New York). Result IV hydralazine achieved the target BP in an average time of 45.80 +/- 25.17 minutes, while IV labetalol took an average of 72.67 +/- 41.80 minutes (p=0.001). The number of doses required to reach the target BP differed significantly between the two drugs. Hydralazine required an average of 1.72 +/- 0.904 doses, whereas labetalol required an average of 3.72 +/- 1.782 doses (p=0.0001). While 45% of women in the hydralazine group attained the target BP with a single dose of hydralazine, only 31.1% of women in the labetalol group were able to attain the target BP with a single dose of labetalol (p=0.02). Overall, target BP was achieved in 55 out of 60 women (91.7%) who were randomized to receive IV hydralazine, whereas 45 out of 60 women (75%) who received IV labetalol achieved the target blood pressure. While hydralazine demonstrated more favorable results in terms of achieving target blood pressure, there were higher incidences of maternal adverse effects in the hydralazine group compared to the labetalol group. However, these adverse effects were not severe enough to warrant discontinuation of the medication. Conclusion IV hydralazine showed faster achievement of the target BP and a lower number of doses required compared to IV labetalol. Additionally, a higher percentage of women in the hydralazine group achieved the target BP with a single dose. However, there were more maternal adverse effects associated with hydralazine, although they were not severe. Perinatal outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

National Heart Center/Saudi Heart Association 2023 Guidelines on the Management of Hypertension

Background

Hypertension is a highly prevalent disease in Saudi Arabia with poor control rates. Updated guidelines are needed to guide the management of hypertension and improve treatment outcomes.

Methodology

A panel of experts representing the National Heart Center (NHC) and the Saudi Heart Association (SHA) reviewed existing evidence and formulated guidance relevant to the local population, clinical practice and the healthcare system. The recommendations were reviewed to ensure scientific and medical accuracy.

Recommendations

Hypertension was defined and a new classification was proposed as relevant to the Saudi population. Recommendations on diagnosis, clinical evaluation, cardiovascular assessment were detailed, along with guidance on measurement modalities and screening/follow-up. Non-pharmacological management is the first line of hypertension treatment. Pharmacological therapy should be used appropriately as needed. Treatment priority is to control blood pressure regardless of the drug class used. The choice of treatment should be tailored to the patient profile in order to achieve treatment targets and ensure patient compliance. Recommendations were provided on pharmacological options available in Saudi Arabia, as well as guidance on the treatment of special conditions.

Conclusion

Hypertension management should be based on appropriate screening, timely diagnosis and lifestyle changes supplemented with pharmacological therapy, as needed. Clinical management should be individualized, and careful consideration should be given to special conditions and patient groups.

Pharmaceutical administration for severe hypertension during pregnancy: Network meta-analysis

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of different pharmacologic treatment for severe hypertension during pregnancy. Methods: Two reviewers searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMbase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized clinical trials from the establishment of the database to 15 July 2021 that were eligible for inclusion and analyzed the pharmaceuticals used for severe hypertension in pregnancy. Results: 29 relevant trials with 2,521 participants were involved. Compared with diazoxide in rate of achieving target blood pressure, other pharmaceuticals, including epoprostenol (RR:1.58, 95%CI:1.01-2.47), hydralazine\dihydralazine (RR:1.57, 95%CI:1.07-2.31), ketanserin (RR:1.67, 95%CI:1.09-2.55), labetalol (RR:1.54, 95%CI:1.04-2.28), nifedipine (RR:1.54, 95%CI:1.04-2.29), and urapidil (RR:1.57, 95%CI:1.00-2.47), were statistically significant in the rate of achieving target blood pressure. According to the SUCRA, diazoxide showed the best therapeutic effect, followed by nicardipine, nifedipine, labetalol, and nitroglycerine. The three pharmaceuticals with the worst therapeutic effect were ketanserin, hydralazine, and urapidil. It is worth noting that the high ranking of the top two pharmaceuticals, including diazoxide and nicardipine, comes from extremely low sample sizes. Other outcomes were reported in the main text. Conclusion: This comprehensive network meta-analysis demonstrated that the nifedipine should be recommended as a strategy for blood pressure management in pregnant women with severe hypertension. Moreover, the conventional pharmaceuticals, including labetalol and hydralazine, showed limited efficacy. However, it was important to note that the instability of hydralazine reducing blood pressure and the high benefit of labetalol with high dosages intakes should also be of concern to clinicians.

Obstetric Emergency Update: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome COVID-19 and Hypertension

The purpose of this article is to bring attention to 2 topics of significant importance to the care of pregnant women and women who have recently given birth. Coronavirus disease 2019 and hypertension can have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality for these pregnant and postpartum women. Although women in their childbearing years are for the most part young and healthy, it is critically important to recognize that these patients have more stringent guidelines for vital signs and laboratory values, which should be noticed as abnormal for rapid treatment as necessary.

Clinical practice guideline for the prevention and management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy

Objectives: To provide clinical recommendations based on evidence for the the prevention and management of HDP in EsSalud. Methods: A CPG for the the prevention and management of HDP in EsSalud was developed. To this end, a guideline development group (local GDG) was established, including medical specialists and methodologists. The local GDG formulated 8 clinical questions to be answered by this CPG. Systematic searches of systematic reviews and—when it was considered pertinent—primary studies were searched in PubMed y Central during 2021. The evidence to answer each of the posed clinical questions was selected. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. In periodic work meetings, the local GDG used the GRADE methodology to review the evidence and formulate the recommendations, the points of good clinical practice and flowcharts for the prevention, management and follow-up. Finally, the CPG was approved with Resolution 112-IETSI-ESSALUD-2021. Results: This CPG addressed 8 clinical questions, divided into three topics: prevention, management and follow-up of the HDP. Based on these questions, 11 recommendations (6 strong recommendations and 5 weak recommendations), 32 points of good clinical practice, and 3 flowcharts were formulated. Conclusions: The main recommendations in the guideline are the use of magnesium sulfate for the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. The guideline must be updated in three years’ time.

Antihypertensive Medications for Severe Hypertension in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hypertension in pregnancy causes significant maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. A comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs for severe hypertension during pregnancy is needed to make informed decisions in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of antihypertensive drugs in severe hypertension during pregnancy.

METHODS

A systematic review using the electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane Library was performed until August 2021. The risk-of-bias 2 tool was used to assess the risk-of-bias in each study included. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess heterogeneity and to estimate the pooled effects size.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 11 were included in the meta-analysis. Nifedipine was estimated to have a low risk in persistent hypertension compared to hydralazine (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.71) and labetalol (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.97). Dihydralazine was associated with a lower risk of persistent hypertension than ketanserin (RR 5.26, 95% CI 2.01-13.76). No difference was found in the risk of maternal hypotension, maternal and fetal outcomes, and adverse effects between antihypertensive drugs, except for dihydralazine, which was associated with more adverse effects than ketanserin.

CONCLUSIONS

Several drugs can be used to treat severe hypertension in pregnancy, including oral/sublingual nifedipine, IV/oral labetalol, oral methyldopa, IV hydralazine, IV dihydralazine, IV ketanserin, IV nicardipine, IV urapidil, and IV diazoxide. In addition, nifedipine may be preferred as the first-line agent. There was no difference in the risk of maternal hypotension, maternal and fetal outcomes, and adverse effects between the drugs, except for adverse effects in IV dihydralazine and IV ketanserin.

State of the Art in Hepatic Dysfunction in Pregnancy

Hepatic dysfunction in pregnant women is always challenging for the obstetrician, as the spectrum of hepatic abnormalities can be very large and have various implications, both for mother and fetus. There is a diagnostic and therapeutic polymorphism of hepatic dysfunction in pregnancy and insufficient knowledge related to the etiopathogenesis and epidemiology of this disease. The clinical forms of hepatic dysfunction encountered in pregnancy can vary from liver diseases related to pregnancy (e.g., HELLP syndrome, intrahepatic cholestasis, hyperemesis gravidarum, or acute fatty liver of pregnancy) to de novo ones occurring in pregnancy, and pre-existing liver disease (cholelithiasis, Budd-Chiari syndrome, and cirrhosis). We performed a systematic literature search over 10 years. The review protocol assumed a search of two databases (PubMed®/MEDLINE and Web of Science Core Collection). The strategy regarding the management of these diseases involves multidisciplinary teams composed of different specialists (obstetricians, gastroenterologists and anesthetists) from specialized tertiary centers. Despite the improving prognosis of pregnant women with liver diseases, the risk of maternal-fetal complications remains very high. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure careful monitoring by a multidisciplinary team and to inform the patients of the potential risks.

Guidelines for the management of women with severe pre-eclampsia

OBJECTIVE

To provide national guidelines for the management of women with severe pre-eclampsia.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 26 experts was formed. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industrial funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised.

METHODS

The last SFAR and CNGOF guidelines on the management of women with severe pre-eclampsia were published in 2009. The literature is now sufficient for an update. The aim of this expert panel guidelines is to evaluate the impact of different aspects of the management of women with severe preeclampsia on maternal and neonatal morbidities separately. The experts studied questions within 7 domains. Each question was formulated according to the PICO (Patients Intervention Comparison Outcome) model and the evidence profiles were produced. An extensive literature review and recommendations were carried out and analysed according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The SFAR/CNGOF experts panel provided 25 recommendations: 8 have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+/-), 9 have a moderate level of evidence (GRADE 2+/-), and for 7 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in expert opinions. No recommendation was provided for 3 questions. After one scoring round, strong agreement was reached between the experts for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong agreement among experts who made 25 recommendations to improve practices for the management of women with severe pre-eclampsia.

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy: synthesis of influential guidelines

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy accounts for a substantial proportion of maternal morbidity and mortality and is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, most of which can be mitigated by appropriate surveillance and management protocols. The aim of this study was to review and compare recommendations of published guidelines on this condition. Thus, a descriptive review of influential guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand, the International Society of Hypertension, the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy, the European Society of Cardiology, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on chronic hypertension in pregnancy was conducted. All guidelines agree on the definition and medical management, the need for more frequent antenatal care and fetal surveillance and the re-evaluation at 6-8 weeks postpartum. There is also a consensus that the administration of low-dose aspirin is required to prevent preeclampsia, although the optimal dosage remains controversial. No universal agreement has been spotted regarding optimal treatment blood pressure (BP) targets, need for treating mild-to-moderate hypertension and postnatal BP measurements. Additionally, while the necessity of antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate for preterm delivery is universally recommended, the appropriate timing of delivery is not clearly outlined. Hence, there is a need to adopt consistent practice protocols to optimally manage these pregnancies; i.e. timely detect and treat any potential complications and subsequently reduce the associated morbidity and mortality.

Treatment Outcomes and Determinants of Eclampsia and Severe Preeclampsia Among Pregnant Women Admitted to Selected Tertiary Hospitals in Ethiopia: A Cohort Study

Background

Eclampsia contributes to 12% of all maternal deaths worldwide during pregnancy. Again, women with severe preeclampsia and eclampsia had a three to 25-fold increased risk of severe complications. Therefore, this study was aimed to determine treatment outcomes and determinants of eclampsia and severe preeclampsia among pregnant women admitted to selected tertiary hospitals.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted on 217 women with eclampsia or severe preeclampsia from April 1 to October 30, 2019. Data were collected from patients' chart, questionnaire-based interviews at baseline and telephone interviews during follow-up. Then, the collected data were entered into EpiData 3.1 and exported to SPSS 21.0 for final analysis. Kaplan-Meier (log rank test) and Cox regression were employed to compare baseline survival experience and to adjust for the predictors of clinical outcomes, respectively.

Results

Of 217 women, 80.2% of them developed maternal complications, while nine (4.2%) women died. Determinant factors of maternal complications were linked with eclampsia case (AHR: 1.98; 95%CI: 1.28-3.06; P=0.002), lack of ANC follow-up (AHR: 1.75; 95%CI: 1.22-2.51; P=0.002), presence of maternal leukocytosis (AHR: 1.53; 95%CI: 1.12-2.09; P=0.008), elevated serum creatinine (AHR: 1.51; 95%CI: 1.05-2.17; P=0.02), and maternal age of 20-35 years (AHR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.41-0.90; P=0.01).

Conclusion

Despite improved survival of women with preeclampsia/eclampsia, different complications that they experienced remained serious problems. We suggest strategies that comprise frequent ANC follow-up and check-up for women with leukocytosis and kidney impairment so as to optimally prevent and treat eclampsia and preeclampsia during pregnancy.

Study protocol for the randomized controlled EVA (early vascular adjustments) trial: tailored treatment of mild hypertension in pregnancy to prevent severe hypertension and preeclampsia

BACKGROUND

In contrast to severe gestational hypertension, it is questioned whether antihypertensive medication for mild to moderate gestational hypertension prevents adverse maternal and offspring outcomes. Hypertensive drugs halve the risk of severe hypertension, but do not seem to prevent progression to preeclampsia or reduce the risk of complications in offspring. In fact, beta-blockers, a first line therapy option, are suspected to impair foetal growth. Disappointing effects of antihypertensive medication can be anticipated when the pharmacological mode of action does not match the underlying haemodynamic imbalance. Hypertension may result from 1) high cardiac output, low vascular resistance state, in which beta blockade is expected to be most effective, or 2) low cardiac output, high vascular resistance state where dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers or central-acting alpha agonists might be the best corrective medication. In the latter, beta-blockade might be maternally ineffective and even contribute to impaired foetal growth by keeping cardiac output low. We propose a randomized controlled trial to determine whether correcting the haemodynamic imbalance in women with mild to moderate hypertension reduces the development of severe hypertension and/or preeclampsia more than non-pharmacological treatment does, without alleged negative effects on foetal growth.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with mild to moderate hypertension without proteinuria or signs of other organ damage before 37 weeks of pregnancy are invited to participate in this randomized controlled trial. Women randomized to the intervention group will be prescribed tailored antihypertensive medication, using a simple diagnostic and treatment algorithm based on the mean arterial pressure/heart rate ratio, which serves as an easy-to-determine proxy for maternal circulatory state. Women randomized to the control group will receive non-pharmacological standard care according to national and international guidelines. In total, 208 women will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is progression to severe hypertension and preeclampsia and the secondary outcomes are adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This trial will provide evidence of whether tailoring treatment of mild to moderate gestational hypertension to the individual haemodynamic profile prevents maternal disease progression.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02531490 , registered on 24 August 2015.

Multiple Gestations and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: What Do We Know?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The occurrence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) including gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia is proportional to the number of fetuses: singletons 6.5%, twins 12.7%, and triplets 20.0%. Literature on HDP in multifetal gestation is sparse compared with singletons. We aim to summarize the current evidence on HDP, specifically in twins.

RECENT FINDINGS

HDP occurs more frequently, at an earlier gestational age, and can present more severely and atypically in twin pregnancies. HDP in twins carries a higher risk of maternal/fetal morbidity and mortality including renal failure, stroke, cardiac arrest, pulmonary edema, placental abruption, cesarean delivery, fetal growth restriction, and iatrogenic preterm delivery. Low-dose aspirin (60-150 mg) should be initiated in all multifetal pregnancies to reduce the risk of preeclampsia. To improve outcomes and reduce inherent risks associated with multiple gestations, twins should be managed as high-risk pregnancies, and different from singletons.

Knowledge of pharmacy workers on antihypertensive and anticonvulsant drugs for managing pre-eclampsia and eclampsia in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

Pharmacy workers in Bangladesh play an important role in managing pregnancy complications by dispensing, counselling and selling drugs to pregnant women and their families. This study examined pharmacy workers' drug knowledge and practice for pre-eclampsia and eclampsia (PE/E) management, including antihypertensives and anticonvulsants, and determine factors associated with their knowledge.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey with 382 pharmacy workers in public facilities (government) and private pharmacies and drug stores assessed their knowledge of antihypertensive and anticonvulsant drugs. 'Pharmacy workers' include personnel who work at pharmacies, pharmacists, family welfare visitors (FWVs), sub-assistant community medical officers (SACMOs), drug storekeepers. Exploratory and multivariate logistic models were used to describe association between knowledge of medicines used in pregnancy and demographic characteristics of pharmacy workers.

RESULTS

Overall, 53% pharmacy workers interviewed were drug store owners in private pharmacies while 27% FWVs/SACMOs, who are government service providers also work as drug prescribers and/or dispensers in public facility pharmacies. Majority of pharmacy workers had poor knowledge compared to correct knowledge on both antihypertensive (77.8% vs 22.3%; p < 0.001) and anticonvulsant drugs (MgSO₄) (82.2% vs 17.8%; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed SACMOs and FWVs were greater than 4 times more likely to have correct knowledge on anti-hypertensives (AOR = 4.2, 95% CI:1.3-12.3, P < 0.01) and anticonvulsant drugs (AOR = 4.9, 95% CI:1.3-18.1, P < 0.01) compared to pharmacists. Pharmacy workers who had received training were more likely to have correct knowledge on antihypertensive and anticonvulsant drugs than those who had no training.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacy workers' knowledge and understanding of antihypertensive and anticonvulsant drugs, particularly for prevention and management of PE/E is limited in Bangladesh. Most pharmacies surveyed are private and staffed with unskilled workers with no formal training on drugs. Expansion of maternal and newborn health programs should consider providing additional skills training to pharmacy workers, as well as regulating these medicines at informal pharmacies to mitigate any harmful practices or adverse outcomes of unauthorized and incorrectly prescribed and used drugs. It is important that correct messaging and medicines are available as drug stores are often the first point of contact for most of the women and their families.

Oral Nifidepine versus IV labetalol in severe preeclampsia: A randomized control trial

Objective:

To compare oral Nifidepine and IV labetalol in terms of rapidity of BP control in severe preeclampsia.

Methods:

All patients coming to Services Hospital from March 2017 to February 2019 with diagnosis of severe preeclampsia ≥ 24 weeks gestation were randomized to either receive Nifidepine or Labetalol. Primary outcome measure was time taken to control BP and number of doses required. Secondary outcome measures were side effects of drugs, APGAR score, NICU admission and perinatal mortality.

Results:

Two hundred four patients were included in trial with 102 patients in each group. Labetalol took 22.6± 13.5minutes and Nifidepine took 22.09± 11.7 minutes to achieve target BP (p>0.05). Labetalol required 2.3± 1.58 doses and Nifidepine 2.2± 1.58 doses to control BP ( p>0.05). No maternal side effects were seen in 86 (84.31%) and 92(90.19%) patients in both groups (p>0.05). Mean gestational age at birth was 34.8 ±2.73weeks in Labetalol and 35.2±2.48 weeks in Nifidepine group (p>0.05). In labetalol group, 43 (42.15%) babies had APGAR Score < 7/10 and 23(22.54%) babies required admission to NICU while in Nifidepine group 42 (41.17%) babies had Apgar score < 7/10 & 30(29.4%) babies were admitted to NICU(p>0.05). There were 21(20.5%) perinatal deaths in labetalol Group-And 19(18.6%) in Nifidepine group (p>0.05)

Conclusion:

Oral Nifidepine and IV labetalol are equally efficacious in controlling BP in patients with severe pre eclampsia without any significant side effects.

Pre-eclampsia with severe features: management of antihypertensive therapy in the postpartum period

Introduction

there is variance in both the types and combinations of antihypertensive drugs used for managing pre-eclampsia in the postpartum period. Knowledge of the most common and suitable single or combination antihypertensive drug therapies in the postpartum period will minimize harmful effects, promote adherence to medications, overcome any fears that lactating mothers may have about these drugs and will assist in healthcare planning. Objective: to determine the types of antihypertensive drug therapies used in managing pre-eclampsia with severe features (sPE) in the postpartum period in a regional hospital in South Africa.

Methods

fifty consecutively presenting pregnant women with sPE were followed up prospectively from the pre-delivery period (within 48 hours before delivery) until day 3 postpartum. The antihypertensive drug therapies administered to the participants were observed. Their blood pressures were measured daily at 04: 00, 08: 00, 14: 00 and 22: 00 hours.

Results

nifedipine was the commonest rapid-acting agent used for severe hypertension. Prepartum, 9 different combinations of antihypertensive drugs were prescribed; alpha-methyldopa was the commonest single long-acting agent used. Postpartum, the number of different drug combinations administered were 15, 18, 22 and 16 on days 0, 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Alpha-methyldopa was the commonest single agent used on postpartum days 0 - 2 while hydrochlorothiazide was the most frequently used single agent on postpartum day 3. Postpartum, the commonest combination therapy was alpha-methyldopa and amlodipine on day 0; alpha-methyldopa and amlodipine as a regimen as well as alpha-methyldopa, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide as another regimen on day 1; alpha-methyldopa and amlodipine on day 2; and many amlodipine-based regimens on day 3.

Conclusion

a variety of antihypertensive drug combinations were used in the postpartum period indicating the need for standardised guidelines; however, detailed studies are required to evaluate their efficacies completely.

Placental Trophoblast-Inspired Lipid Bilayers for Cell-Free Investigation of Molecular Interactions

The placenta plays a key role in regulating the maternal-fetal transport but it is a difficult organ to study due to a lack of existing in vitro models. Lipid bilayers inspired by the placenta can provide a facile new in vitro tool with promise for screening molecular transport across this important organ. Here we developed lipid bilayers that mimic the composition of human placental trophoblast cells at different times during the course of pregnancy. Mass spectrometry identified five major lipid classes (phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylserine, and sphingomyelin) present at varying concentrations in trophoblasts representative of the first and third trimesters and full-term placenta. We successfully developed supported and suspended lipid bilayers mimicking these trophoblast lipid compositions and then demonstrated the utility of these synthetic placenta models for investigating molecular interactions. Specifically, we investigated the interactions with di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), a common plasticizer and environmental toxicant, and amphotericin B, a common yet toxic, antifungal therapeutic. Overall, we observed that DEHP adsorbs and potentially embeds itself within all placental lipid bilayers, with varying levels of interaction. For both amphotericin B and a liposomal formulation of amphotericin B, AmBisome, we noted lower levels of permeation in transport studies with bilayers and trophoblast cells compared with DEHP, likely driven by differences in size. AmBisome interacted less with both the supported and suspended placental lipid bilayers in comparison to amphotericin B, suggesting that drug delivery carriers can vary the impact of a pharmaceutical agent on these lipid structures. We found that the apparent permeability observed in suspended bilayers was approximately an order of magnitude less than those observed for trophoblast monolayers, which is typical of lipid bilayers. Ultimately, these placenta mimetic lipid bilayers can serve as a platform for the rapid initial screening of molecular interactions with the maternal-fetal interface to better inform future testing.

An evaluation of the influence of the publication of the UK National Institute for health and Care Excellence's guidance on hypertension in pregnancy: a retrospective analysis of clinical practice

Background

The UK National Institute for health and Care Excellence (NICE) publish guidance aimed at standardising practice. Evidence regarding how well recommendations are implemented and what clinicians think about guidance is limited. We aimed to establish the extent to which the NICE Hypertension in pregnancy (HIP) guidance has influenced care and assess clinician’s attitudes to this guidance.

Methods

Five maternity units in the Midlands and North of England took part in the retrospective evaluation of 2490 birth records from randomly selected dates in 2008–2010 and 2013–2015. The proportion of women where care was adhered to before (2008–2010) and after (2013–2015) guidance publication was examined and differences estimated. Eleven midwives and obstetricians employed by Bradford Hospitals were interviewed.

Results

The proportion of high risk women prescribed Aspirin rose (before 14%, after 54%, p = < 0.01 (confidence interval of change (CI) 37, 43%) as well as for moderate risk women (before 3%, after 54%, p = < 0.01, CI 48, 54%) following guidance publication. Three quarters had blood pressure and a third proteinuria measured at every antenatal visit before and after guidance. Early birth < 37 weeks and ≥ 37 weeks gestation was more frequently offered after guidance publication than before (< 37 weeks: before 9%, after 18%, p = 0.01, CI 2, 16% and ≥ 37 weeks before 30%, after 52%, p = < 0.01, CI 9, 35%). Few were informed of future risk of developing a hypertensive disorder or had a documented postnatal review; however there was an increase in women advised to see their GP for this review (58% before and 90% after guidance p = < 0.01, CI 24, 39%).

All clinicians said the NICE HIP guidance was informative and provided robust evidence, however they said length of the document made use in practice challenging. They did not always access NICE guidance, preferring to use local guidance at least initially; both obstetricians and midwives said they accessed NICE guidance for in-depth information.

Conclusions

NICE HIP guidance is valued, used by clinicians and has influenced important aspects of care that may help improve outcomes for women who develop hypertension or pre-eclampsia, however some recommendations have had limited impact and therefore interventions are required to improve adherence.

Treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy: we still do not know what the best option is

Intracranial hemorrhage and stroke are primary causes of maternal mortality in pregnancies affected by hypertensive disorders. As such antihypertensive therapy plays a crucial role in the management of severe hypertension. However, the target level to achieve the best outcome for both - mother and fetus - is still unclear. Moreover, given the lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials with standardized key outcomes, the current choice of antihypertensive medications depends rather on clinicians' preference. Furthermore, data on long-term outcomes of offspring is not available. Therefore, there is an urgent need for randomized trials comparing different anti-hypertensive options to address efficacy and safety questions.

Phytosterol enhances oral nifedipine treatment in pregnancy-induced preeclampsia: A placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial

Preeclampsia is a severe complication which influences pregnant women all around the world, the symptom of which is serious maternal hypertension. Phytosterol is a type of natural compound commonly found in plant products, and has been incorporated into various food vectors and natural drugs. In the paper, the curative effect on preeclampsia by combination of oral nifedipine and phytosterol was assessed. Random grouping was carried out, with 253 preeclampsia patients being registered and taking orally nifedipine+phytosterol or nifedipine+placebo. The time for controlling the blood pressure and the time needed for the occurrence of another hypertensive crisis were defined as primary endpoints. The dosage required for controlling blood pressure, and the adverse effects from infants and mothers were defined as secondary endpoints. The nifedipine+phytosterol group required a remarkably shorter time for controlling blood pressure than the nifedipine+placebo group, an obviously delayed time for the occurrence of new hypertensive crisis, and an obvious lower dosage for controlling blood pressure. There was no difference between the two groups regarding the adverse effects from infants and mothers. Findings in the study suggest that phytosterol is an effective and safe adjuvant of the oral nifedipine and can alleviate the hypertension symptoms in preeclampsia patients.

Oral antihypertensive regimens (nifedipine retard, labetalol, and methyldopa) for management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: an open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is the most common medical disorder in pregnancy, complicating one in ten pregnancies. Treatment of severely increased blood pressure is widely recommended to reduce the risk for maternal complications. Regimens for the acute treatment of severe hypertension typically include intravenous medications. Although effective, these drugs require venous access and careful fetal monitoring and might not be feasible in busy or low-resource environments. We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of three oral drugs, labetalol, nifedipine retard, and methyldopa for the management of severe hypertension in pregnancy.

METHODS

In this multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared these oral antihypertensives in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India. Pregnant women were eligible for the trial if they were aged at least 18 years; they were pregnant with fetuses that had reached a gestational age of at least 28 weeks; they required pharmacological blood pressure control for severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥110 mm Hg); and were able to swallow oral medications. Women were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg oral nifedipine, 200 mg oral labetalol (hourly, in both of which the dose could be escalated if hypertension was maintained), or 1000 mg methyldopa (a single dose, without dose escalation). Masking of participants, study investigators, and care providers to group allocation was not possible because of different escalation protocols in the study groups. The primary outcome was blood pressure control (defined as 120-150 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and 70-100 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure) within 6 h with no adverse outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912677, and the Clinical Trial Registry, India, number ctri/2013/08/003866.

FINDINGS

Between April 1, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, we screened 2307 women for their inclusion in the study. We excluded 1413 (61%) women who were ineligible, declined to participate, had impending eclampsia, were in active labour, or had a combination of these factors. 11 (4%) women in the nifedipine group, ten (3%) women in the labetalol group, and 11 (4%) women in the methyldopa group were ineligible for treatment (because they had only one qualifying blood pressure measurement) or had treatment stopped (because of delivery or transfer elsewhere). 894 (39%) women were randomly assigned to a treatment group and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 298 (33%) women were assigned to receive nifedipine, 295 (33%) women were assigned to receive labetalol, and 301 (33%) women were assigned to receive methyldopa. The primary outcome was significantly more common in women in the nifedipine group than in those in the methyldopa group (249 [84%] women vs 230 [76%] women; p=0·03). However, the primary outcome did not differ between the nifedipine and labetalol groups (249 [84%] women vs 228 [77%] women; p=0·05) or the labetalol and methyldopa groups (p=0·80). Seven serious adverse events (1% of births) were reported during the study: one (<1%) woman in the labetalol group had an intrapartum seizure and six (1%) neonates (one [<1%] neonate in the nifedipine group, two [1%] neonates in the labetalol group, and three [1%] neonates in the methyldopa group) were stillborn. No birth had more than one adverse event.

INTERPRETATION

All oral antihypertensives reduced blood pressure to the reference range in most women. As single drugs, nifedipine retard use resulted in a greater frequency of primary outcome attainment than labetalol or methyldopa use. All three oral drugs-methyldopa, nifedipine, and labetalol-are viable initial options for treating severe hypertension in low-resource settings.

FUNDING

PREEMPT (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; grantee of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).

Blood pressure change across pregnancy in white British and Pakistani women: analysis of data from the Born in Bradford cohort

The incidence of gestational hypertension (GH) and pre-eclampsia (PE) is increasing. Use of blood pressure (BP) change patterns may improve early detection of BP abnormalities. We used Linear spline random-effects models to estimate BP patterns across pregnancy for white British and Pakistani women. Pakistani women compared to white British women had lower BP during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, irrespective of the development of GH or PE or presence of a risk factor. Pakistani compared to white British women with GH and PE showed steeper BP increases towards the end of pregnancy. Pakistani women were half as likely to develop GH, but as likely to develop PE than white British women. To conclude; BP trajectories differ by ethnicity. Because GH developed evenly from 20 weeks gestation, and PE occurred more commonly after 36 weeks in both ethnic groups, the lower BP up to the third trimester in Pakistani women resulted in a lower GH rate, whereas PE rates, influenced by the steep third trimester BP increase were similar. Criteria for diagnosing GH and PE may benefit from considering ethnic differences in BP change across pregnancy.

Management of Preexisting Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Review

IMPORTANCE

The presence of preexisting type 1 or type 2 diabetes in pregnancy increases the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, such as preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, preterm delivery, macrosomia, and congenital defects. Approximately 0.9% of the 4 million births in the United States annually are complicated by preexisting diabetes.

OBSERVATIONS

Women with diabetes have increased risk for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, and similar risks are present with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Both forms of diabetes require similar intensity of diabetes care. Preconception planning is very important to avoid unintended pregnancies and to minimize risk of congenital defects. Hemoglobin A1c goals are less than 6.5% at conception and less than 6.0% during pregnancy. It is also critical to screen for and manage comorbid illnesses, such as retinopathy and nephropathy. Medications known to be unsafe in pregnancy, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statins, should be discontinued. Women with obesity should be screened for obstructive sleep apnea, which is often undiagnosed and can result in poor outcomes. Blood pressure goals must be considered carefully because lower treatment thresholds may be required for women with nephropathy. During pregnancy, continuous glucose monitoring can improve glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes. Insulin is first-line therapy for all women with preexisting diabetes; injections and insulin pump therapy are both effective approaches. Rates of severe hypoglycemia are increased during pregnancy; therefore, glucagon should be available to the patient and close contacts should be trained in its use. Low-dose aspirin is recommended soon after 12 weeks' gestation to minimize the risk of preeclampsia. The importance of discussing long-acting reversible contraception before and after pregnancy, to allow for appropriate preconception planning, cannot be overstated.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Preexisting diabetes in pregnancy is complex and is associated with significant maternal and neonatal risk. Optimization of glycemic control, medication regimens, and careful attention to comorbid conditions can help mitigate these risks and ensure quality diabetes care before, during, and after pregnancy.

Guided imagery for treating hypertension in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Hypertension (high blood pressure) in pregnancy carries a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality. Although antihypertensive drugs are commonly used, they have adverse effects on mothers and fetuses. Guided imagery is a non-pharmacological technique that has the potential to lower blood pressure among pregnant women with hypertension. Guided imagery is a mind-body therapy that involves the visualisation of various mental images to facilitate relaxation and reduction in blood pressure.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of guided imagery as a non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension in pregnancy and its influence on perinatal outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, and two trials registers (October 2018). We also searched relevant conference proceedings and journals, and scanned the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We would have included RCTs using a cluster-randomised design, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials.We sought intervention studies of various guided imagery techniques performed during pregnancy in comparison with no intervention or other non-pharmacological treatments for hypertension (e.g. quiet rest, music therapy, aromatherapy, relaxation therapy, acupuncture, acupressure, massage, device-guided slow breathing, hypnosis, physical exercise, and yoga).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for the included studies. We checked extracted data for accuracy, and resolved differences in assessments by discussion. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two small trials (involving a total of 99 pregnant women) that compared guided imagery with quiet rest. The trials were conducted in Canada and the USA. We assessed both trials as at high risk of performance bias, and low risk of attrition bias; one trial was at low risk for selection, detection, and reporting bias, while the other was at unclear risk for the same domains.We could not perform a meta-analysis because the two included studies reported different outcomes, and the frequency of the intervention was slightly different between the two studies. One study performed guided imagery for 15 minutes at least twice daily for four weeks, or until the baby was born (whichever came first). In the other study, the intervention included guided imagery, self-monitoring of blood pressure, and thermal biofeedback-assisted relaxation training for four total hours; the participants were instructed to practice the procedures twice daily and complete at least three relief relaxation breaks each day. The control groups were similar - one was quiet rest, and the other was quiet rest as bed rest.None of our primary outcomes were reported in the included trials: severe hypertension (either systolic blood pressure of 160 mmHg or higher, or diastolic blood pressure of 110 mmHg or higher); severe pre-eclampsia, or perinatal death (stillbirths plus deaths in the first week of life). Only one of the secondary outcomes was measured.Low-certainty evidence from one trial (69 women) suggests that guided imagery may make little or no difference in the use of antihypertensive drugs (risk ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 2.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to inform practice about the use of guided imagery for hypertension in pregnancy.The available evidence for this review topic is sparse, and the effect of guided imagery for treating hypertension during pregnancy (compared with quiet rest) remains unclear. There was low-certainty evidence that guided imagery made little or no difference to the use of antihypertensive drugs, downgraded because of imprecision.The two included trials did not report on any of the primary outcomes of this review. We did not identify any trials comparing guided imagery with no intervention, or with another non-pharmacological method for hypertension.Large and well-designed RCTs are needed to identify the effects of guided imagery on hypertension during pregnancy and on other relevant outcomes associated with short-term and long-term maternal and neonatal health. Trials could also consider utilisation and costs of health service.

Hypertension in pregnancy: Pathophysiology and treatment

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, an umbrella term that includes preexisting and gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia, complicate up to 10% of pregnancies and represent a significant cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Despite the differences in guidelines, there appears to be consensus that severe hypertension and non-severe hypertension with evidence of end-organ damage need to be controlled; yet the ideal target ranges below 160/110 mmHg remain a source of debate. This review outlines the definition, pathophysiology, goals of therapy, and treatment agents used in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in pregnant patients: special considerations

INTRODUCTION

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) represent a major cause of maternal, fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality and identifies women at risk for cardiovascular and other chronic diseases later in life. When antihypertensive drugs are used during pregnancy, their benefit and harm to both mother and fetus should be evaluated.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the pharmacological characteristics of the recommended antihypertensive drugs and their impact on mother and fetus when administered during pregnancy and/or post-partum. Drugs were identified using MEDLINE and the main international Guidelines for the management of HDP.

EXPERT OPINION

Although there is a consensus that severe hypertension should be treated, treatment of mild hypertension without end-organ damage (140-159/90-109 mmHg) remains controversial and there is no agreement on when to initiate therapy, blood pressure targets or recommended drugs in the absence of robust evidence for the superiority of one drug over others. Furthermore, the long-term outcomes of in-utero antihypertensive exposure remain uncertain. Therefore, evidence-based data regarding the treatment of HDP is lacking and well designed randomized clinical trials are needed to resolve all these controversial issues related to the management of HDP.

Arterial blood gas and acid-base balance in patients with pregnancy-induced hypertension syndrome

This study aimed to investigate the expression of arterial blood gas and acid-base balance in patients with pregnancy-induced hypertension syndrome and their influence on newborns. A total of 348 patients with pregnancy-induced hypertension syndrome (research group) admitted and treated in the First People's Hospital of Jining from March 2013 to March 2016 were retrospectively analyzed, and another 156 cases of healthy pregnant women who were physically examined were selected as the control group. Blood gas analysis was performed on pregnant women, and pH value, partial pressure of oxygen (PO2), partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2), bicarbonate radical (HCO3^-) and base excess (BE) were included as test indexes. Apgar score was made for newborns for neonatal asphyxia. The evaluation was performed at 1, 5, and 10 min after birth to analyze the correlation between the maternal arterial blood pH and the neonatal Apgar score. The pH value, and PO2 and HCO3^- levels in the research group were lower than those in the control group (p<0.05). PCO2 and BE levels in the research group were higher than those in the control group (p<0.05). The incidence of neonatal mild asphyxia (Apgar score, 4-6 points) and neonatal severe asphyxia (Apgar score, <4 points) in the research group were higher than that in the control group (p<0.05). The Apgar score of newborns was positively correlated with the pH value of the arterial blood of pregnant women. Blood gas analysis in patients with pregnancy-induced hypertension syndrome is useful to a certain extent to evaluate the condition of the patient. The combination of the pH value of the patient and the Apgar score of the newborns may help improve the judgement rate of neonatal asphyxia so as to improve the quality of childbirth by early monitoring and intervention of the newborns.

Interventionist versus expectant care for severe pre-eclampsia between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

Severe pre-eclampsia can cause significant mortality and morbidity for both mother and child, particularly when it occurs remote from term, between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation. The only known cure for this disease is delivery. Some obstetricians advocate early delivery to ensure that the development of serious maternal complications, such as eclampsia (fits) and kidney failure are prevented. Others prefer a more expectant approach, delaying delivery in an attempt to reduce the mortality and morbidity for the child that is associated with being born too early.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative benefits and risks of a policy of early delivery by induction of labour or by caesarean section, after sufficient time has elapsed to administer corticosteroids, and allow them to take effect; with a policy of delaying delivery (expectant care) for women with severe pre-eclampsia between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 27 November 2017, and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing the two intervention strategies for women with early onset, severe pre-eclampsia. Trials reported in an abstract were eligible for inclusion, as were cluster-trial designs. We excluded quasi-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence for specified outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials, with a total of 748 women in this review. All trials included women in whom there was no overriding indication for immediate delivery in the fetal or maternal interest. Half of the trials were at low risk of bias for methods of randomisation and allocation concealment; and four trials were at low risk for selective reporting. For most other domains, risk of bias was unclear. There were insufficient data for reliable conclusions about the comparative effects on most outcomes for the mother. Two studies reported on maternal deaths; neither study reported any deaths (two studies; 320 women; low-quality evidence). It was uncertain whether interventionist care reduced eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 15.58; two studies; 359 women) or pulmonary oedema (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.00; two studies; 415 women), because the quality of the evidence for these outcomes was very low. Evidence from two studies suggested little or no clear difference between the interventionist and expectant care groups for HELLP (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.91; two studies; 359 women; low-quality evidence). No study reported on stroke. With the addition of data from two studies for this update, there was now evidence to suggest that interventionist care probably made little or no difference to the incidence of caesarean section (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12; six studies; 745 women; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 63%).For the baby, there was insufficient evidence to draw reliable conclusions about the effects on perinatal deaths (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.99; three studies; 343 women; low-quality evidence). Babies whose mothers had been allocated to the interventionist group had more intraventricular haemorrhage (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.29; two studies; 537 women; moderate-quality evidence), more respiratory distress caused by hyaline membrane disease (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.81; two studies; 133 women), required more ventilation (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.02; two studies; 300 women), and were more likely to have a lower gestation at birth (mean difference (MD) -9.91 days, 95% CI -16.37 to -3.45 days; four studies; 425 women; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 31.74; I² = 76%). However, babies whose mothers had been allocated to the interventionist group were no more likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care (average RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.60; three studies; 400 infants; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.05; I² = 84%). Babies born to mothers in the interventionist groups were more likely to have a longer stay in the neonatal intensive care unit (MD 7.38 days, 95% CI -0.45 to 15.20 days; three studies; 400 women; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 40.93, I² = 85%) and were less likely to be small-for-gestational age (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.61; three studies; 400 women). There were no clear differences between the two strategies for any other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggested that an expectant approach to the management of women with severe early onset pre-eclampsia may be associated with decreased morbidity for the baby. However, this evidence was based on data from only six trials. Further large, high-quality trials are needed to confirm or refute these findings, and establish if this approach is safe for the mother.

Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve pregnancy outcome. This Cochrane Review is an updated review, first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2007 and 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatments for women with mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 September 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy, defined as systolic blood pressure 140 to 169 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 to 109 mmHg. Comparisons were of one or more antihypertensive drug(s) with placebo, with no antihypertensive drug, or with another antihypertensive drug, and where treatment was planned to continue for at least seven days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we included 63 trials (data from 58 trials, 5909 women), with moderate to high risk of bias overall.We carried out GRADE assessments for the main 'antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug' comparison only. Evidence was graded from very low to moderate certainty, with downgrading mainly due to design limitations and imprecision.For many outcomes, trials contributing data evaluated different hypertensive drugs; while we did not downgrade for this indirectness, results should be interpreted with caution.Antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug (31 trials, 3485 women)Primary outcomes: moderate-certainty evidence suggests that use of antihypertensive drug(s) probably halves the risk of developing severe hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.60; 20 trials, 2558 women), but may have little or no effect on the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.14; 23 trials, 2851 women; low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence also shows that antihypertensive drug(s) probably have little or no effect in the risk of total reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) (aRR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04; 29 trials, 3365 women), small-for-gestational-age babies (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18; 21 trials, 2686 babies) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; 15 trials, 2141 women).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

we are uncertain of the effect of antihypertensive drug(s) on the risk of maternal death, severe pre-eclampsia, or eclampsia, orimpaired long-term growth and development of the baby in infancy and childhood, because the certainty of this evidence is very low. There may be little or no effect on the risk of changed/stopped drugs due to maternal side-effects, or admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery (low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of elective delivery (moderate-certainty evidence).Antihypertensive drug versus another antihypertensive drug (29 trials, 2774 women)Primary outcomes: beta blockers and calcium channel blockers together in the meta-analysis appear to be more effective than methyldopa in avoiding an episode of severe hypertension (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88; 11 trials, 638 women). There was also an increase in this risk when other antihypertensive drugs were compared with calcium channel blockers (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.15; 5 trials, 223 women), but no evidence of a difference when methyldopa and calcium channel blockers together were compared with beta blockers (RR1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.48; 10 trials, 692 women). No evidence of a difference in the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia was found when alternative drugs were compared with methyldopa (aRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06; 11 trials, 997 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR: 1.24, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.19; 5 trials, 375 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.67; 12 trials, 1107 women).For the babies, we found no evidence of a difference in the risk oftotal reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) when comparing other antihypertensive drugs with methyldopa (aRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.14; 22 trials, 1791 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.57; nine trials, 700 babies), or with beta blockers (aRR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.88; 19 trials, 1652 babies); nor in the risk for small-for-gestational age in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.20; seven trials, 597 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.73; four trials, 200 babies), or with beta blockers (average RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.60; 7 trials, 680 babies). No evidence of an overall difference among groups in the risk of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) was found in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.22; 11 trials, 835 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.23; six trials, 330 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.66; 9 trials, 806 women).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

There were no cases of maternal death andeclampsia. There is no evidence of a difference in the risk of severe pre-eclampsia, changed/stopped drug due to maternal side-effects, elective delivery, admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery when other antihypertensive drugs are compared with methyldopa, calcium channel blockers or beta blockers. Impaired long-term growth and development in infancy and childhood was not reported for these comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy reduces the risk of severe hypertension. The effect on other clinically important outcomes remains unclear. If antihypertensive drugs are used, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers appear to be more effective than the alternatives for preventing severe hypertension. High-quality large sample-sized randomised controlled trials are required in order to provide reliable estimates of the benefits and adverse effects of antihypertensive treatment for mild to moderate hypertension for both mother and baby, as well as costs to the health services, women and their families.

Drugs for treating severe hypertension in pregnancy: a network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIMS

Several antihypertensive drugs are used in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. The present study is a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of these drugs.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing drugs used in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. The number of women achieving the target blood pressure (BP) was the primary outcome. Doses required and time taken for achieving the target BP, failure rate, and incidences of maternal tachycardia, palpitation, hypotension, headache, and neonatal death and stillbirth were the secondary outcomes. Mixed treatment comparison pooled estimates were generated using a random-effects model. Odds ratios for the categorical and mean difference for the numerical outcomes were the effect estimates.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included in the systematic review and 46 in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in the number of patients achieving target BP was observed between any of the drugs. Diazoxide [-15 (-20.6, -9.4)], nicardipine [-11.8 (-22.3, -1.2)], nifedipine/celastrol [-19.3 (-27.4, -11.1)], nifedipine/vitamin D [-17.1 (-25.7, -9.7)], nifedipine/resveratrol [-13.9 (-22.6, -5.2)] and glyceryl trinitrate [-33.8 (-36.7, -31)] were observed to achieve the target BP (in minutes) more rapidly than hydralazine. Nifedipine required fewer doses than hydralazine for achieving the target BP. Glyceryl trinitrate and labetalol were associated with fewer incidences of tachycardia and palpitation respectively than hydralazine. Trial sequential analysis concluded adequate evidence for hydralazine and nifedipine compared with labetalol. Moderate quality of evidence was observed for direct comparison estimate between labetalol and hydralazine but was either low or very low for other comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The present evidence suggests similar efficacy between nifedipine, hydralazine and labetalol in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. Subtle differences may exist in their safety profile. The evidence is inadequate for other drugs.

Effect of magnesium on arrhythmia incidence in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND

Cardiac arrhythmia after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery is a common complication of cardiac surgery. The effect of serum magnesium, hypomagnesaemia treatment and prophylactic administration of magnesium in the development and prevention of arrhythmias is controversial and there are many different ideas. This study evaluates the therapeutic effects of magnesium in cardiac arrhythmia after CABG surgery.

METHODS

The clinical trial enrolled 250 patients who underwent CABG. Based on the initial serum levels of magnesium, patients were divided into two groups: hypomagnesium and normomagnesium. Based on bioethics committee requirements, patients in the hypo-magnesium group received magnesium treatments until they attained normal magnesium blood levels. Both groups underwent CABG with normal blood levels of magnesium. After surgery, each group was randomly divided into two subgroups: one subgroup received a bolus dose of magnesium sulphate (30 mg/kg in 5 min) and the other subgroup received a placebo. Subgroups were under observation in the intensive care unit for 3 days and arrhythmias were recorded. Data from all four subgroups were analysed statistically and interpreted.

RESULTS

The results of this study showed that the occurrence of arrhythmia was not significantly different among subgroups (P > 0.05). There was no significant relationship between blood levels of magnesium and arrhythmia during the 3 days post-surgery (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that magnesium sulphate administration did not significantly improve the incidence of arrhythmias in hypo- and normo-magnesium patients after CABG. There was no significant correlation between post-operative serum levels of magnesium and arrhythmia during 3 days.

Use of Antihypertensive Drugs During Preeclampsia

Treatment of pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia (PE), remain a challenging problem in obstetrics. Typically, aggressive antihypertensive drug treatment options are avoided to prevent pharmacological-induced hypotension. Another major concern of administering antihypertensive drugs during pregnancy is possible adverse fetal outcome. In addition, management of hypertension during pregnancy in chronic hypertensive patients or in patients with prior kidney problems are carefully considered. Recent studies suggest that PE patients are at increased cardiovascular risk postpartum. Therefore, these patients need to be monitored postpartum for the subsequent development of other cardiovascular diseases. In this review article, we review the antihypertensive drugs currently being used to treat patients with PE and the advantages or disadvantages of using these drugs during pregnancy.

Hypertensive Disorders in Pregnant Women Receiving Fertility Treatments

Hypertensive disorders (HDs) as the most prevalent medical problem during pregnancy, predispose the patient to a lot of comorbidities and may even cause maternal or fetal death. The rate of infertility has been increasing in recent decades. So, we collected and summarized data about the co-existence of these two entities and found that HDs are somewhat more common in women receiving fertility treatments regardless of pathophysiologic correlation of infer- tility and hypertension or older age and chance of multiple pregnancies.

Vitamin D Enhances Efficacy of Oral Nifedipine in Treating Preeclampsia with Severe Features: A Double Blinded, Placebo-Controlled and Randomized Clinical Trial

Vitamin D (VD) has exhibited immunomodulatory role in the pathogenesis of preeclampsia. We hypothesize VD potentiate nifedipine treatment for preeclampsia by shortened the time to control blood pressure and prolong time before subsequent hypertensive crisis. We conduct a randomized trial of 683 primigravid women with preeclampsia, who were assigned to different treatment groups, either nifedipine+placebo or nifedipine+VD orally, by random after screening. Primary endpoints include time to control hypertension and time before another hypertensive crisis. Maternal adverse effects including nausea, vomiting, chest pain, mild headache, dizziness, maternal tachycardia, hypotension or shortness of breath, and neonatal parameters including birth weight and Apgar scores, as well as the minimum number of dosages needed to control hypertension were defined as secondary endpoints. Serum levels of cytokines tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-10 (IL-10) were also examined. There was a marked reduction of the time required to control hypertension and a significant lengthening (p = 0.013) of the time before a new hypertensive crisis in participants received nifedipine+VD treatments (41.8 ± 18.3 min), in comparison with the nifedipine+placebo controls (61.1 ± 15.9 min). In women treated with nifedipine+VD, the minimum number of dosages needed to control hypertension was also lower. With regard to adverse effects, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatment groups. Moreover, treatment with VD increased IL-10 and reduced TNF-α serum levels. VD possesses the potential of serving as a safe and effective adjuvant to oral nifedipine in treating women with preeclampsia against hypertension, possibly through the upregulation of IL-10 and the downregulation of TNF-α.

Efficacy of resveratrol to supplement oral nifedipine treatment in pregnancy-induced preeclampsia

OBJECTIVE

Preeclampsia (PE) is a complication affecting pregnant women worldwide, which usually manifests as severe maternal hypertension. Resveratrol (RESV), a naturally existing polyphenol, is known to exhibit beneficial effects in cardiovascular disease including hypertension. We evaluated the outcome of treatment combining oral nifedipine (NIFE) and RESV against PE.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Using a randomized group assignment, 400 PE patients were enrolled and received oral treatments of either NIFE + RESV or NIFE + placebo. Primary endpoints were defined as time to control blood pressure and time before a new hypertensive crisis. Secondary endpoints were defined as the number of doses needed to control blood pressure, maternal and neonatal adverse effects.

RESULTS

Compared with the NIFE + placebo group, the time needed to control blood pressure was significantly reduced in NIFE + RESV group, while time before a new hypertensive crisis was greatly delayed in NIFE + RESV group. The number of treatment doses needed to control blood pressure was also categorically lower in NIFE + RESV group. No differences in maternal or neonatal adverse effects were observed between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Our data support the potential of RESV as a safe and effective adjuvant of oral NIFE to attenuate hypertensive symptoms among PE patients.

In-utero exposure to antihypertensive medication and neonatal and child health outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although medication is generally avoided wherever possible during pregnancy, pharmacotherapy is required for the treatment of pregnancy associated hypertension, which remains a leading cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. The long-term effects to the child of in-utero exposure to antihypertensive agents remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically review published studies on adverse outcomes to the child associated with in-utero exposure to antihypertensive medications.

METHODS

OVID, Scopus, EBSCO Collections, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant publications published between January 1950 and October 2016 and a total of 688 potentially eligible studies were identified.

RESULTS

Following review, 47 primary studies were eligible for inclusion. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist was used to assess study quality. Five studies were of excellent quality; the remainder were either mediocre or poor. Increased risk of low birth weight, low size for gestational age, preterm birth, and congenital defects following in-utero exposure to all antihypertensive agents were identified. Two studies reported an increased risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder following exposure to labetalol, and an increased risk of sleep disorders following exposure to methyldopa and clonidine.

CONCLUSION

The current systematic review demonstrates a paucity of relevant published high-quality studies. A small number of studies suggest possible increased risk of adverse child health outcomes; however, most published studies have methodological weaknesses and/or lacked statistical power thus preventing any firm conclusions being drawn.