Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2021 Nov;25(63):1-116. doi: 10.3310/hta25630.
Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed.
To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women.
This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations.
Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation.
Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment.
The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit.
Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, = 8; double dummy, = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported.
The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care.
The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
约三分之一的孕妇患有中重度恶心和呕吐,这导致身体和情绪不适,降低了生活质量。目前对于妊娠剧吐还没有治愈方法。治疗的重点在于缓解症状和预防发病,往往需要止吐治疗。国家指南对一线、二线和三线止吐治疗提出了建议,尽管不同医院的护理情况有所不同,而且女性报告感到不被支持、不满意和沮丧。
确定昂丹司琼与安慰剂相比,甲氧氯普胺与安慰剂相比,在药物起始后 10 天内是否降低了治疗失败率;在药物起始后 2、5 和 10 天是否改善了症状严重程度;在药物起始后 10 天是否改善了生活质量;以及是否具有可接受的副作用和安全性。从 NHS 和女性的角度来估计避免每例治疗失败的增量成本和净货币效益。
这是一项多中心、双盲、双模拟、2×2 析因随机试验(有内部试点阶段),并进行了定性和健康经济评估。
33 名患者(<17 周妊娠,在一线止吐药物治疗后症状改善不佳或没有改善的情况下就诊),他们参加了英格兰 12 家二级保健 NHS 信托机构,22 名医疗保健专业人员和 21 名女性参加了定性评估。
参与者被随机分配到以下四个治疗组之一(1:1:1:1 比例):(1)甲氧氯普胺和模拟昂丹司琼;(2)昂丹司琼和模拟甲氧氯普胺;(3)甲氧氯普胺和昂丹司琼;或(4)双重模拟。试验药物最初静脉给药,然后在女性能够耐受口服液体后最多 10 天的治疗时间内继续口服。
主要终点是经历治疗失败的参与者人数,定义为在治疗后 12 小时至 10 天之间症状恶化需要进一步治疗的情况。主要的经济结果是每例额外成功治疗的增量成本和增量净效益。
在 592 名筛选的患者中,有 122 名被认为符合条件,其中 33 名被招募进入内部试点(甲氧氯普胺和模拟昂丹司琼,n=8;昂丹司琼和模拟甲氧氯普胺,n=8;甲氧氯普胺和昂丹司琼,n=8;双重模拟,n=9)。由于招募进展缓慢,试验没有超出试点阶段。30 名可评估参与者中有 15 名经历了治疗失败。没有进行统计分析。主要的不合格原因是先前使用过试验药物,这反映了在治疗途径的几个点上,对止吐药物的处方实践发生了意外变化。定性评估确定了研究方案与抗恶心药物指南的要求以及护理途径的多样性是招募的关键障碍,而研究人员的作用是关键的促成因素。没有报告重要的不良事件或副作用。
由于护理提供方面的意外变化,试点试验未能达到招募目标。
该试验未能提供支持临床医生关于妊娠剧吐二线止吐药物最佳选择的证据。
当前对照试验 ISRCTN82232662 和 EudraCT 2017-001651-31。
该项目由英国国家卫生研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估计划资助,将在 ; Vol. 25, No. 63 中全文发表。有关该项目的更多信息,请参见 NIHR 期刊库网站。