Use of ondansetron during pregnancy and the risk of major congenital malformations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The Management of Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum (Green-top Guideline No. 69)

An objective and validated index of nausea and vomiting such as the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) and HyperEmesis Level Prediction (HELP) tools can be used to classify the severity of NVP and HG. [Grade C] Ketonuria is not an indicator of dehydration and should not be used to assess severity. [Grade A] There are safety and efficacy data for first line antiemetics such as anti (H1) histamines, phenothiazines and doxylamine/pyridoxine (Xonvea®) and they should be prescribed initially when required for NVP and HG (Appendix III). [Grade A] There is evidence that ondansetron is safe and effective. Its use as a second line antiemetic should not be discouraged if first line antiemetics are ineffective. Women can be reassured regarding a very small increase in the absolute risk of orofacial clefting with ondansetron use in the first trimester, which should be balanced with the risks of poorly managed HG. [Grade B] Metoclopramide is safe and effective and can be used alone or in combination with other antiemetics. [Grade B] Because of the risk of extrapyramidal effects metoclopramide should be used as second-line therapy. Intravenous doses should be administered by slow bolus injection over at least 3 minutes to help minimise these. [Grade C] Women should be asked about previous adverse reactions to antiemetic therapies. If adverse reactions occur, there should be prompt cessation of the medications. [GPP] Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) with additional potassium chloride in each bag, with administration guided by daily monitoring of electrolytes, is the most appropriate intravenous hydration. [Grade C] Combinations of different drugs should be used in women who do not respond to a single antiemetic. Suggested antiemetics for UK use are given in Appendix III. [GPP] Thiamine supplementation (either oral 100 mg tds or intravenous as part of vitamin B complex (Pabrinex®)) should be given to all women admitted with vomiting, or severely reduced dietary intake, especially before administration of dextrose or parenteral nutrition. [Grade D] All therapeutic measures should have been tried before considering termination of pregnancy. [Grade C].

Efficacy and safety of ondansetron for morning sickness in pregnancy: a systematic review of clinical trials

Background: Ondansetron is a selective antagonist of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor that is commonly used to treat morning sickness. It is estimated that 70%-80% of pregnant women suffer from morning sickness, a condition characterized by nausea and vomiting. However, it is still controversial regarding its safety during pregnancy, and continued research will be necessary to fully understand the risks and benefits associated with its use. Therefore, we aimed to identify and provide details of the efficacy and safety of ondansetron in clinical trials. Methods: A search was conducted of the ClinicalTrials.gov database on 13 April 2023, using the search term "ondansetron and pregnancy." Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to identify relevant clinical trials. The inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials related to pregnancy that utilized ondansetron as a treatment, while other clinical trials were excluded from consideration. All data extractions such as study title, study status, study type, intervention details, and outcome were collected. Results: A total of 18 clinical trials were identified, of which only 6 focused on studying the effects of ondansetron. Their respective study titles, statuses, conditions, interventions, outcome measures, and enrollment sizes have been written in detail. The information collected from these trials will contribute to our understanding of the potential benefits and risks of ondansetron in the context of pregnancy and its complications. Conclusion: Ondansetron has been shown to be an effective treatment for nausea and vomiting, including pregnancy-related morning sickness. Further research is needed to better understand the potential risks and benefits associated with its use in pregnant women. Systematic Review Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier.

Ondansetron Use During Pregnancy: Birth Defects and Obstetric Outcomes

Ondansetron is a widely administered medication for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Further examination of its teratogenic capacity is necessary. This study examines the association between ondansetron treatment during pregnancy and birth defects and adverse obstetric outcomes. Patient data were extracted from Clalit Health Services, Israel. A propensity-score analysis was performed matching those exposed to ondansetron with those who were not. Findings identified 774 women exposed to ondansetron, matched 1:1 with unexposed control patients. No significant differences were found between the groups for: cleft palate, cardiovascular congenital abnormalities, spina bifida occulta, preterm delivery, or small for gestational age. Ondansetron may be a useful and safe alternative as treatment for women who suffer from hyperemesis gravidarum and do not respond to other antiemetic drugs. Notwithstanding, additional prospectively designed research is needed to establish the safety of ondansetron treatment during pregnancy.

Systematic evidence map of evidence addressing the top 10 priority research questions for hyperemesis gravidarum

OBJECTIVE

Knowledge gaps regarding hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) are substantial. We aimed to systematically identify and map recent evidence addressing the top 10 priority questions for HG, as published in 2021 in a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

DESIGN

Systematic evidence map.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE on 12 January 2021 and CINAHL on 22 February 2021 with search terms hyperemesis gravidarum, pernicious vomiting in pregnancy and their synonyms. Results were limited to 2009 onwards. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to assess whether the studies addressed a top 10 priority questions for HG. Differences were discussed until consensus was reached. Publications were allocated to one or more top 10 research questions. Study design was noted, as was patient or public involvement. Two reviewers extracted data synchronously and both cross-checked 10%. Extracted data were imported into EPPI-Reviewer software to create an evidence map.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The number and design of studies in the search yield, displayed per the published 10 priority questions.

RESULTS

Searches returned 4338 results for screening; 406 publications were included in the evidence map. 136 publications addressed multiple questions. Numerous studies address the immediate and long-term outcomes or possible markers for HG (question 8 and 9, respectively 164 and 82 studies). Very few studies seek a possible cure for HG (question 1, 8 studies), preventative treatment (question 4, 2 studies) or how to achieve nutritional requirements of pregnancy (question 10, 17 studies). Case reports/series were most numerous with 125 (30.7%) included. Few qualitative studies (9, 2.2%) were identified. 25 (6.1%) systematic reviews addressed eight questions, or aspects of them. 31 (7.6%) studies included patient involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant gaps and overlap in the current HG literature addressing priority questions. Researchers and funders should direct their efforts at addressing the gaps in the top 10 questions.

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

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

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

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

Selection criteria: Eligible studies included any observational study.

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

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

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

Pregnancy-Associated Liver Diseases

The liver disorders unique to pregnancy include hyperemesis gravidarum, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, acute fatty liver of pregnancy, and preeclampsia-associated hepatic impairment, specifically hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count syndrome (HELLP). Their importance lies in the significant maternal and fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality. Expeditious diagnosis and clinical evaluation is critical to ensure timely, appropriate care and minimize risks to the pregnant woman and her fetus/baby. A multidisciplinary approach is essential, including midwives, maternal-fetal-medicine specialists, anesthetists, neonatologists, and hepatologists.

Assessment of evidence on reported non-genetic risk factors of congenital heart defects: the updated umbrella review

Background

Congenital heart defect (CHD) is the leading cause of birth defects globally, which results in a great disease burden. It is still imperative to detect the risk factors of CHD. This umbrella review aimed to comprehensively summarize the evidence and grade the evidence of the associations between non-genetic risk factors and CHD.

Methods

Databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases were searched from inception to 18 Jan 2022. The reference lists of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) were screened, which aimed to explore the non-genetic risk factors of CHD. Subsequently, titles and abstracts of identified records and full texts of selected SR/MA were screened by two independent reviewers based on predefined eligibility criteria. A priori developed extraction form was used to abstract relative data following the PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed with the AMSTAR2 instrument. Data were synthesized using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses, respectively. Finally, the evidence on the association of non-genetic risk factors and CHD was graded using Ioannidis’s five-class evidence grade.

Results

A total of 56 SRs, encompassing 369 MAs, were identified. The risk factors included relative factors on air pollution, reproductive-related factors, parental age and BMI, parental life habits, working and dwelling environment, maternal drug exposure, and maternal disease. Based on AMSTAR2 criteria, only 16% (9/56) of SRs were classified as “Moderate”. One hundred and two traceable positive association MAs involving 949 component individual studies were included in further analysis and grading of evidence. Family genetic history, number of abortions, maternal obesity, especially moderate or severe obesity, decoration materials, harmful chemicals, noise during pregnancy, folic acid supplementation, SSRIs, SNRIs, any antidepressants in the first trimester, maternal DM (including both PGDM and GDM), and gestational hypertension were convincing and highly suggestive factors for CHD. After sensitivity analyses based on cohort studies, some grades of evidence changed.

Conclusion

The present umbrella review will provide evidence-based information for women of childbearing age before or during pregnancy to prevent CHD. In addition, sensitivity analysis based on cohort studies showed the changed evidence levels. Therefore, future SR/MA should concern the sensitivity analysis based on prospective birth cohort studies and case-control studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-022-04600-7.

A pharmacogenomic investigation of the cardiac safety profile of ondansetron in children and pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Ondansetron is a highly effective antiemetic for the treatment of nausea and vomiting. However, this medication has also been associated with QT prolongation. Pharmacogenomic information on therapeutic response to ondansetron exists, but no investigation has been performed on genetic factors that influence the cardiac safety of this medication.

METHODS

Three patient groups receiving ondansetron were recruited and followed prospectively (pediatric post-surgical patients n = 101; pediatric oncology patients n = 98; pregnant women n = 62). Electrocardiograms were conducted at baseline, and 5- and 30-min post-ondansetron administration, to determine the effect of ondansetron treatment on QT interval. Pharmacogenomic associations were assessed via analyses of comprehensive CYP2D6 genotyping and genome-wide association study data.

RESULTS

In the entire cohort, 62 patients (24.1%) met the criteria for prolonged QT, with 1.2% of the cohort exhibiting unsafe QT prolongation. The most significant shift from baseline occurred at five minutes post-ondansetron administration (P = 9.8 × 10^-4). CYP2D6 activity score was not associated with prolonged QT. Genome-wide analyses identified novel associations with a missense variant in TLR3 (rs3775291; P = 2.00 × 10^-7) and a variant linked to the expression of SLC36A1 (rs34124313; P = 1.97 × 10^-7).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has provided insight into the genomic basis of ondansetron-induced cardiac changes and has emphasized the importance of genes that have been implicated in serotonin-related traits. These biologically-relevant findings represent the first step towards understanding this adverse event with the overall goal to improve the safety of this commonly used antiemetic medication.

Emerging Progress in Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum: Challenges and Opportunities

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is a common condition that affects up to 70% of pregnant women. Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is considered the serious form of NVP, which is reported in 0.3–10.8% of pregnant women. NVP has a relatively benign course, but HG can be linked with some poor maternal, fetal, and offspring outcomes. The exact causes of NVP and HG are unknown, but various factors have been hypothesized to be associated with pathogenesis. With the advance of precision medicine and molecular biology, some genetic factors such as growth/differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) have become therapeutic targets. In our review, we summarize the historical hypotheses of the pathogenesis of NVP and HG including hormonal factors, Helicobacter pylori, gastrointestinal dysmotility, placenta-related factors, psychosocial factors, and new factors identified by genetics. We also highlight some approaches to the management of NVP and HG, including pharmacological treatment, complementary treatment, and some supporting treatments. Looking to the future, progress in understanding NVP and HG may reduce the adverse outcomes and improve the maternal quality of life during pregnancy.

Herbalism for Modern Obstetrics

More pregnant and nursing mothers are using herbal remedies than health care providers realize. Lack of familiarity with herbalism in addition to the sparsity of high-quality research for many complementary and alternative medicines are barriers for the western practitioner to engage a patient about herbal therapies. This review provides historical information and available evidence for Traditional Chinese and Western herbal medicines commonly sought by pregnant and nursing mothers. We will review herbs commonly used for: nausea and vomiting, constipation, gestational diabetes, threatened miscarriage, immune system support, parturition preparation, postpartum depression, postpartum bleeding and pain, wound healing, and lactation support.

A patient-clinician James Lind Alliance partnership to identify research priorities for hyperemesis gravidarum

OBJECTIVE

There are many uncertainties surrounding the aetiology, treatment and sequelae of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). Prioritising research questions could reduce research waste, helping researchers and funders direct attention to those questions which most urgently need addressing. The HG priority setting partnership (PSP) was established to identify and rank the top 25 priority research questions important to both patients and clinicians.

METHODS

Following the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology, an HG PSP steering group was established. Stakeholders representing patients, carers and multidisciplinary professionals completed an online survey to gather uncertainties. Eligible uncertainties related to HG. Uncertainties on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and those on complementary treatments were not eligible. Questions were verified against the evidence. Two rounds of prioritisation included an online ranking survey and a 1-hour consensus workshop.

RESULTS

1009 participants (938 patients/carers, 118 professionals with overlap between categories) submitted 2899 questions. Questions originated from participants in 26 different countries, and people from 32 countries took part in the first prioritisation stage. 66 unique questions emerged, which were evidence checked according to the agreed protocol. 65 true uncertainties were narrowed via an online ranking survey to 26 unranked uncertainties. The consensus workshop was attended by 19 international patients and clinicians who reached consensus on the top 10 questions for international researchers to address. More patients than professionals took part in the surveys but were equally distributed during the consensus workshop. Participants from low-income and middle-income countries noted that the priorities may be different in their settings.

CONCLUSIONS

By following the JLA method, a prioritised list of uncertainties relevant to both HG patients and their clinicians has been identified which can inform the international HG research agenda, funders and policy-makers. While it is possible to conduct an international PSP, results from developed countries may not be as relevant in low-income and middle-income countries.

Management of primary headaches during pregnancy, postpartum, and breastfeeding: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to best and most safely manage them.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review (SR) of interventions to prevent or treat primary headaches in women who are pregnant, attempting to become pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of SRs, and Epistemonikos for primary studies of pregnant women with primary headache and existing SRs of harms in pregnant women regardless of indication. No date or language restrictions were applied. We assessed strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods.

RESULTS

We screened 8549 citations for studies and 2788 citations for SRs. Sixteen studies (mostly high risk of bias) comprising 14,185 patients (total) and 26 SRs met the criteria. For prevention, we found no evidence addressing effectiveness. Antiepileptics, venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, prednisolone, and oral magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be (1 single-group study and 11 SRs; low-to-moderate SoE). For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine for migraine or tension headache (1 randomized controlled trial; low SoE). Triptans may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects (8 nonrandomized comparative studies; low SoE). Acetaminophen, prednisolone, indomethacin, ondansetron, antipsychotics, and intravenous magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but low-dose aspirin may not be (indirect evidence; low-to-moderate SoE). We found insufficient evidence regarding non-pharmacologic treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

For prevention of primary headache, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine. Triptans and low-dose aspirin may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. Future research should identify effective and safe interventions in pregnancy and postpartum.

Ondansetron in pregnancy revisited: Assessment and pregnancy labelling by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) & Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC)

Ondansetron is an effective antiemetic that is being widely used as a second-line treatment option for severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in accordance with clinical guidelines. The safety of ondansetron during pregnancy has-following publication of controversial and seemingly contradictory results-been subject to considerable academic turmoil, specifically with respect to the risk of congenital cardiac malformations and oral cleft. In July 2019, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) released an updated, comprehensive assessment report on the use of ondansetron in the first trimester. The ensuing Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) was updated in November 2019 with important changes to section on "Fertility, pregnancy and lactation." The SmPC now states that ondansetron should not be used in the first trimester of pregnancy. ENTIS, The European Network of Teratology Information Services, believes that the implementation of this regulatory step-which has important clinical consequences-is insufficiently substantiated and is not serving the interest of pregnant women with severe nausea and vomiting. Herein, we discuss the underlying evidence and argue the case against the EMA decision.

Update on the Management of Breast Cancer during Pregnancy

The diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy represents a challenging situation for the patient, her caregivers and physicians. Pregnancy adds complexity to oncological treatment planning, as many therapies can be potentially dangerous to the fetus. Therefore, a multidisciplinary approach is needed to offer a proper care for obtaining the best possible outcomes for the mother and the future child. Breast surgery is feasible throughout the pregnancy while radiotherapy should be postponed after delivery. Administration of chemotherapy is considered safe and can be given during the second and third trimesters, while it is contraindicated in the first trimester due to the high risk of fetal malformations. Endocrine therapy and targeted agents are not recommended during the whole pregnancy period; however, limited data are available on the use of the majority of new anticancer drugs in this context. The aim of the current review is to provide an update on the current state of art about the management of women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy.

Patterns of prescription medicine dispensing before and during pregnancy in New Zealand, 2005-2015

Objective

To describe prescription medicine dispensing before and during pregnancy in New Zealand, 2005–2015.

Methods

Members of the New Zealand Pregnancy Cohort were linked with their dispensing records in a national database of prescription products dispensed from community pharmacies. We identified the proportion of pregnancies during which at least one prescription medicine was dispensed, the number of different medicines used and the most commonly dispensed medicine groups both during pregnancy and in the 270 days before conception. Dispensing during pregnancy was assessed by several maternal characteristics.

Results

874,884 pregnancies were included. Over the study timeframe, the proportion of pregnancies exposed to a non-supplement prescription medicine increased from 38.5% to 67.2%. The mean number of different non-supplement medicines dispensed during pregnancy increased from 2.5 to 3.2. Dispensing during pregnancy was weakly associated with body mass index, smoking status and ethnicity. Pregnancy exposure was highest for Antibacterials (26.0%), Analgesics (16.7%) and Antinausea & Vertigo Agents (11.0%).

Conclusions

From 2005–2015, both the proportion of exposed pregnancies and the number of different medicines dispensed to pregnant women in New Zealand increased.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is a common condition that affects as many as 70% of pregnant women. Although no consensus definition is available for hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), it is typically viewed as the severe form of NVP and has been reported to occur in 0.3-10.8% of pregnant women. HG can be associated with poor maternal, fetal and child outcomes. The majority of women with NVP can be managed with dietary and lifestyle changes, but more than one-third of patients experience clinically relevant symptoms that may require fluid and vitamin supplementation and/or antiemetic therapy such as, for example, combined doxylamine/pyridoxine, which is not teratogenic and may be effective in treating NVP. Ondansetron is commonly used to treat HG, but studies are urgently needed to determine whether it is safer and more effective than using first-line antiemetics. Thiamine (vitamin B1) should be introduced following protocols to prevent refeeding syndrome and Wernicke encephalopathy. Recent advances in the genetic study of NVP and HG suggest a placental component to the aetiology by implicating common variants in genes encoding placental proteins (namely GDF15 and IGFBP7) and hormone receptors (namely GFRAL and PGR). New studies on aetiology, diagnosis, management and treatment are under way. In the next decade, progress in these areas may improve maternal quality of life and limit the adverse outcomes associated with HG.