3003455

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
VOLUME 20 ISSUE 74 OCTOBER 2016

ISSN 1366-5278
Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum and nausea

and vomiting in pregnancy: a systematic review and
economic assessment
Amy ODonnell, Catherine McParlin, Stephen C Robson, Fiona Beyer,

Eoin Moloney, Andrew Bryant, Jennifer Bradley, Colin Muirhead,
Catherine Nelson-Piercy, Dorothy Newbury-Birch, Justine Norman,
Emma Simpson, Brian Swallow, Laura Yates and Luke Vale
DOI 10.3310/hta20740
Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum
and nausea and vomiting in pregnancy:
a systematic review and economic
assessment
Amy ODonnell,1 Catherine McParlin,2

Stephen C Robson,3 Fiona Beyer,1 Eoin Moloney,4
Andrew Bryant,1 Jennifer Bradley,1 Colin Muirhead,1
Catherine Nelson-Piercy,5 Dorothy Newbury-Birch,1
Justine Norman,6 Emma Simpson,1 Brian Swallow,7
Laura Yates8 and Luke Vale4*
1Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
3Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
4Health Economics Group, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

5Womens Health Academic Centre, Kings Health Partners, Kings College
London, London, UK
6North Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group, Whitley Bay, UK
7Expert Advisor
8UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS) and Institute of Genetic Medicine,
Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
*Corresponding author
Declared competing interests of authors: Luke Vale is a member of the funding panel for the National
Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research and NIHR Health Technology
Assessment. He is also a Director of the NIHR Research Design Service in the North East. Stephen C Robson
is a panel member of NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation. Catherine Nelson-Piercy is a co-developer
of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists green-top guideline on management of nausea
vomiting and hyperemesis gravidarum.
Published October 2016

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
This report should be referenced as follows:
ODonnell A, McParlin C, Robson SC, Beyer F, Moloney E, Bryant A, et al. Treatments for
hyperemesis gravidarum and nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a systematic review and
economic assessment. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(74).
Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Excerpta

Medica/EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) and Current Contents/
Clinical Medicine.
Health Technology Assessment HTA/HTA TAR
ISSN 1366-5278 (Print)
ISSN 2046-4924 (Online)
Impact factor: 4.058
Health Technology Assessment is indexed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the ISI Science Citation Index.
This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).
Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.uk
The full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the
report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journal

Reports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they
are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.
Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed systematic when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to
minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.
HTA programme
The HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research
information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
Health technologies are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation
and long-term care.
The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC)
policy decisions.
For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta
This report
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 12/152/01. The contractual start date
was in September 2013. The draft report began editorial review in December 2014 and was accepted for publication in March 2015. The
authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and
publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on
the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by
authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme
or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the
interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA
programme or the Department of Health.
Queens Printer and Controller of HMSO 2016. This work was produced by ODonnell et al. under the terms of a commissioning
contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and
study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement
is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be
addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre,
Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
Published by the NIHR Journals Library (www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk), produced by Prepress Projects Ltd, Perth, Scotland
(www.prepress-projects.co.uk).
Health Technology Assessment Editor-in-Chief
Professor Hywel Williams Director, HTA Programme, UK and Foundation Professor and Co-Director of the
Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, UK
NIHR Journals Library Editor-in-Chief

Professor Tom Walley Director, NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies and Director of the EME Programme, UK
NIHR Journals Library Editors
Professor Ken Stein Chair of HTA Editorial Board and Professor of Public Health, University of Exeter Medical
School, UK
Professor Andree Le May Chair of NIHR Journals Library Editorial Group (EME, HS&DR, PGfAR, PHR journals)
Dr Martin Ashton-Key Consultant in Public Health Medicine/Consultant Advisor, NETSCC, UK
Professor Matthias Beck Chair in Public Sector Management and Subject Leader (Management Group),
Queens University Management School, Queens University Belfast, UK
Professor Aileen Clarke Professor of Public Health and Health Services Research, Warwick Medical School,
University of Warwick, UK
Dr Tessa Crilly Director, Crystal Blue Consulting Ltd, UK
Dr Eugenia Cronin Senior Scientific Advisor, Wessex Institute, UK
Ms Tara Lamont Scientific Advisor, NETSCC, UK
Professor William McGuire Professor of Child Health, Hull York Medical School, University of York, UK
Professor Geoffrey Meads Professor of Health Sciences Research, Health and Wellbeing Research and
Development Group, University of Winchester, UK
Professor John Norrie Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK

Professor John Powell Consultant Clinical Adviser, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), UK
Professor James Raftery Professor of Health Technology Assessment, Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Southampton, UK
Dr Rob Riemsma Reviews Manager, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, UK
Professor Helen Roberts Professor of Child Health Research, UCL Institute of Child Health, UK
Professor Jonathan Ross Professor of Sexual Health and HIV, University Hospital Birmingham, UK
Professor Helen Snooks Professor of Health Services Research, Institute of Life Science, College of Medicine,
Swansea University, UK
Professor Jim Thornton Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,
University of Nottingham, UK
Professor Martin Underwood Director, Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School,
University of Warwick, UK
Please visit the website for a list of members of the NIHR Journals Library Board:
www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/about/editors
Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.uk
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2016 VOL. 20 NO. 74
Abstract
Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum and nausea and

vomiting in pregnancy: a systematic review and economic
assessment
Amy ODonnell,1 Catherine McParlin,2 Stephen C Robson,3

Fiona Beyer,1 Eoin Moloney,4 Andrew Bryant,1 Jennifer Bradley,1
Colin Muirhead,1 Catherine Nelson-Piercy,5 Dorothy Newbury-Birch,1
Justine Norman,6 Emma Simpson,1 Brian Swallow,7 Laura Yates8
and Luke Vale4*
1Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
3Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
4Health Economics Group, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

5Womens Health Academic Centre, Kings Health Partners, Kings College London, London, UK
6North Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group, Whitley Bay, UK
7Expert Advisor
8UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS) and Institute of Genetic Medicine,
Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
*Corresponding author luke.vale@newcastle.ac.uk
Background: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 85% of all women during pregnancy,
but for the majority self-management suffices. For the remainder, symptoms are more severe and the most
severe form of NVP hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) affects 0.31.0% of pregnant women. There is no
widely accepted point at which NVP becomes HG.
Objectives: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of
treatments for NVP and HG.
Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane
Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts, Latin
American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British
Nursing Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, Conference Proceedings
Index, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, China National Knowledge
Infrastructure, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects
were searched from inception to September 2014. References from studies and literature reviews identified
were also examined. Obstetric Medicine was hand-searched, as were websites of relevant organisations.
Costs came from NHS sources.
Review methods: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for
effectiveness, and population-based case series for adverse events and fetal outcomes. Treatments:
vitamins B6 and B12, ginger, acupressure/acupuncture, hypnotherapy, antiemetics, dopamine antagonists,
5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists, intravenous (i.v.) fluids, corticosteroids, enteral and parenteral
Queens Printer and Controller of HMSO 2016. This work was produced by ODonnell et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals
provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be
vii
addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
ABSTRACT
feeding or other novel treatment. Two reviewers extracted data and quality assessed studies. Results were
narratively synthesised; planned meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity and incomplete
reporting. A simple economic evaluation considered the implied values of treatments.
Results: Seventy-three studies (75 reports) met the inclusion criteria. For RCTs, 33 and 11 studies had a
low and high risk of bias respectively. For the remainder (n = 20) it was unclear. The non-randomised
studies (n = 9) were low quality. There were 33 separate comparators. The most common were
acupressure versus placebo (n = 12); steroid versus usual treatment (n = 7); ginger versus placebo (n = 6);
ginger versus vitamin B6 (n = 6); and vitamin B6 versus placebo (n = 4). There was evidence that ginger,
antihistamines, metoclopramide (mild disease) and vitamin B6 (mild to severe disease) are better than
placebo. Diclectin [Duchesnay Inc.; doxylamine succinate (10 mg) plus pyridoxine hydrochloride (10 mg)
slow release tablet] is more effective than placebo and ondansetron is more effective at reducing nausea
than pyridoxine plus doxylamine. Diclectin before symptoms of NVP begin for women at high risk of severe
NVP recurrence reduces risk of moderate/severe NVP compared with taking Diclectin once symptoms
begin. Promethazine is as, and ondansetron is more, effective than metoclopramide for severe NVP/HG.
I.v. fluids help correct dehydration and improve symptoms. Dextrose saline may be more effective at
reducing nausea than normal saline. Transdermal clonidine patches may be effective for severe HG. Enteral
feeding is effective but extreme method treatment for very severe symptoms. Day case management for
moderate/severe symptoms is feasible, acceptable and as effective as inpatient care. For all other
interventions and comparisons, evidence is unclear. The economic analysis was limited by lack of
effectiveness data, but comparison of costs between treatments highlights the implications of
different choices.
Limitations: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available.
Conclusion: There was evidence of some improvement in symptoms for some treatments, but these data
may not be transferable across disease severities. Methodologically sound and larger trials of the main
therapies considered within the UK NHS are needed.
Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006642.
Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
viii
Contents
List of tables xvii
List of figures xxi
List of boxes xxiii
List of abbreviations xxv
Plain English summary xxvii
Scientific summary xxix
Chapter 1 Introduction and background 1

Background 1
Aetiology 1
Impact on patients 2
Assessment and diagnosis 2
Current interventions for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy/hyperemesis gravidarum 3
Patient-initiated first-line interventions 4
Clinician-prescribed second-line interventions 6
Clinician-prescribed third-line interventions 6
Interventions presented in the report but not routinely used to treat nausea and
vomiting in pregnancy 7
Current guidance and use of therapies within the NHS 7
Aims and objectives 8
Structure of the report 8
Chapter 2 Methods for the systematic review of effectiveness 9

General methodology 9
Inclusion criteria 9
Types of studies 9
Types of participants 9
Types of interventions and comparators 9
Types of outcome measures 10
Search strategy 10
First exclusion process 12
Second exclusion process 12
Data extraction 13
Risk of bias in included studies and quality assessment 13
Data synthesis 14
Chapter 3 Clinical effectiveness: overview of included studies 15

Studies identified 15
Quality of included studies 16
Randomised controlled trials 16
Case series studies 21
Interventions and comparators 22
Participants and symptom severity 26
ix
CONTENTS
Outcome measures 26
Additional sources of outcome data on medications 26
Meta-analysis of included randomised controlled trials 29
Structure of individual results chapters 29
Chapter 4 Clinical effectiveness: ginger 31

Introduction 31
Ginger capsules versus placebo capsules 31
Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting and Retching 31
Author-defined symptom severity/relief scales 31
Nausea outcomes 38
Vomiting outcomes 38
Retching outcomes 39
Safety outcomes 39
Ginger syrup versus placebo syrup 39
Combined severity score 39
Nausea outcomes 39
Safety outcomes 40
Ginger biscuit versus placebo biscuit 40
Nausea outcomes 40
Safety outcomes 40
Ginger versus vitamin B6 40
Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea scale 41
Nausea outcomes 41
Safety outcomes 42
Ginger capsules versus acupressure 42
Nausea outcomes 42
Safety outcomes 43
Ginger versus doxylaminepyridoxine 43
Nausea outcomes 43
Safety outcomes 43
Ginger versus antihistamine (dimenhydrinate) capsules 43
Nausea outcomes 43
Safety outcomes 44
Ginger versus metoclopramide 44
Summary 44
x
Chapter 5 Clinical effectiveness: acupressure, acupuncture and nerve stimulation 45

Introduction 45
Acupressure versus placebo 45
McGill Nausea Questionnaire 63
Nausea outcomes 63
Safety outcomes 64
Acupressure versus vitamin B6 64
Nausea outcomes 64
Safety outcomes 65
Acupressure (case series) 65
Nausea outcomes 65
Safety outcomes 65
Nerve stimulation versus placebo 65
Author-defined scale 66
Nausea outcomes 66
Safety outcomes 66
Acupuncture versus placebo 66
Nausea outcomes 66
Safety outcomes 67
Acupuncture versus metoclopramide 68
Nausea outcomes 68
Safety outcomes 68
Acupuncture versus Chinese herbal medicine versus barbiturates 68
Nausea outcomes 69
Safety outcomes 69
Summary 69
Chapter 6 Clinical effectiveness: aromatherapy 71

Introduction 71
Aromatherapy versus no aromatherapy 71
Nausea outcomes 71
xi
CONTENTS
Safety outcomes 73
Summary 73
Chapter 7 Clinical effectiveness: vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) 75

Introduction 75
Vitamin B6 versus placebo 75
Nausea outcomes 75
Safety outcomes 79
Vitamin B6 and metoclopramide combination versus metoclopramide alone 79
Nausea outcomes 79
Safety outcomes 79
Vitamin B6 versus serotonin antagonist 79
Nausea outcomes 79
Safety outcomes 80
Summary 80
Chapter 8 Clinical effectiveness: pyridoxine/doxylamine combination 81

Introduction 81
Doxylamine/pyridoxine versus placebo 81
Nausea outcomes 81
Safety outcomes 85
Doxylamine/pyridoxine versus ondansetron 85
Nausea outcomes 85
Safety outcomes 85
Pre-emptive doxylamine/pyridoxine 85
Nausea outcomes 86
Safety outcomes 86
Summary 86
Chapter 9 Clinical effectiveness: antihistamines 87

Introduction 87
Antihistamines versus placebo 87
Author-defined symptom severity/relief scale 87
xii
Nausea outcomes 87
Safety outcomes 87
Antihistamines alone or in combination with Vitamin B6 versus control 89
Nausea outcomes 89
Safety outcomes 89
Summary 89
Chapter 10 Clinical effectiveness: dopamine antagonists 91

Introduction 91
Promethazine versus metoclopramide 91
Nausea outcomes 91
Retching score 91
Safety outcomes 91
Summary 94
Chapter 11 Clinical effectiveness: serotonin antagonists (ondansetron) 95

Introduction 95
Ondansetron versus usual treatment 95
Ondansetron versus metoclopramide 95
Nausea outcomes 95
Safety outcomes 100
Ondansetron versus antihistamines 100
Author-defined relief scale 100
Nausea outcomes 100
Safety outcomes 101
Summary 101
Chapter 12 Clinical effectiveness: intravenous fluids 103

Introduction 103
Dextrose saline versus saline only 103
Nausea outcomes 103
Safety outcomes 103
Intravenous fluids versus intravenous fluids plus diazepam 103
Nausea outcomes 105
xiii
CONTENTS

Safety outcomes 105
Summary 105
Chapter 13 Clinical effectiveness: transdermal clonidine 107

Introduction 107
Transdermal clonidine versus placebo patch 107
Nausea outcomes 107
Safety outcomes 107
Summary 107
Chapter 14 Clinical effectiveness: outpatient/day case management 109

Introduction 109
Outpatient management versus standard inpatient care 109
Nausea outcomes 109
Safety outcomes 109
Day case management 109
Summary 109
Chapter 15 Clinical effectiveness: corticosteroids 111

Introduction 111
Corticosteroids versus placebo 111
Nausea outcomes 111
Safety outcomes 117
Corticosteroids versus promethazine (Phenergan) 117
Nausea outcomes 117
Safety outcomes 117
Corticosteroids versus metoclopramide 117
Nausea outcomes 118
Safety outcomes 118
Corticosteroids against usual treatment 118
Nausea outcomes 118
Safety outcomes 118
Summary 118
xiv
Chapter 16 Clinical effectiveness: nasogastric enteral/jejunostomy feeding 119

Introduction 119
Nasogastric enteral feeding 119
Nausea outcomes 119
Safety outcomes 119
Jejunostomy feeding 119
Nausea outcomes 121
Safety outcomes 121
Summary 121
Chapter 17 Clinical effectiveness: gabapentin 123

Introduction 123
Nausea outcomes 123
Safety outcomes 123
Summary 123
Chapter 18 Economic analysis 125

Introduction 125
Systematic review of economic evaluations 125
Methods 125
Results 126
Discussion 126
Economic modelling 127
Introduction 127
Methods 127
Economic evaluation 129
Introduction 129
Estimation of costs of interventions 130
Estimation of total cost of care 130
Methods 140
Results 140
Summary 151
Chapter 19 Issues of importance to patients 153

Introduction 153
Background 153
Relating what patients want to review findings 153
Summary 155
xv
CONTENTS
Chapter 20 Issues of importance to practitioners 157

Introduction 157
Findings 157
First-line over-the-counter interventions and alternative therapies 157
Second-line interventions prescribed by general practitioners in primary care settings 158
Second- and third-line interventions delivered in secondary care settings 159
Summary 160
Chapter 21 Discussion 161

Clinical effectiveness and harms 161
First-line over-the-counter interventions 162
Second-line interventions prescribed by general practitioners in primary care settings 162
Second- and third-line interventions delivered in secondary care settings 163
Cost-effectiveness 164
Strengths and limitations 165
Chapter 22 Conclusions 167

Introduction 167
Implications for women and for practitioners 167
Recommendations for research 168
Trajectory of research 168
Research recommendations 168
Acknowledgements 171
References 173
Appendix 1 Examples of hyperemesis gravidarum/nausea and vomiting in

pregnancy assessment tools 183
Appendix 2 Data abstraction form: clinical effectiveness 185
Appendix 3 Risk of bias for randomised controlled trials 195
Appendix 4 Quality of case series studies 199
Appendix 5 Included papers 207
Appendix 6 Excluded papers and reasons for exclusion 217
Appendix 7 UK Teratology Information Service enquiries and follow-ups relating

to hyperemesis gravidarum/nausea and vomiting in pregnancy medication 227
Appendix 8 Secondary outcome data 231
Appendix 9 Systematic review of published economic evaluations: inclusion criteria 241
Appendix 10 Cost of drug interventions and recommended daily doses 243
xvi
List of tables
TABLE 1 Tools used to measure the severity of NVP 3
TABLE 2 Secondary outcome measures 4
TABLE 3 List of search terms 11
TABLE 4 Risk of bias summary: review authors judgements about each risk of
bias item for included RCTs 17
TABLE 5 Study quality summary: review authors judgements about each risk of
bias item for each included case series or non-randomised study 22
TABLE 6 Number of studies by intervention and comparator 23
TABLE 7 Validated and non-validated symptom severity measures employed by

each included study 27
TABLE 8 Results for ginger-based interventions for NVP 32
TABLE 9 Results for acupressure, nerve stimulation and acupuncture

interventions NVP 46
TABLE 10 Results for aromatherapy interventions for NVP 72
TABLE 11 Results for vitamin B6 interventions for NVP 76
TABLE 12 Results for pyridoxine-doxylamine interventions for NVP 82
TABLE 13 Results for antihistamine interventions for NVP 88
TABLE 14 Results for dopamine antagonist interventions for NVP 92
TABLE 15 Results for serotonin antagonist interventions for NVP/HG 96
TABLE 16 Results for i.v. fluid interventions for NVP and HG 104
TABLE 17 Results for transdermal clonidine interventions for HG 108
TABLE 18 Results for day case/outpatient management for NVP and HG 110
TABLE 19 Results for corticosteroid interventions for NVP and HG 112
TABLE 20 Results for nasogastric enteral/jejunostomy feeding for HG 120
TABLE 21 Results for gabapentin interventions for HG 124
TABLE 22 Weekly costs of pharmacological interventions 131
TABLE 23 Non-pharmacological costs 132
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 24 Cost of patient-initiated first-line interventions 133
TABLE 25 Cost of patient-initiated first-line interventions following a GP visit 133
TABLE 26 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions following a GP visit 134
TABLE 27 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if attending

hospital as a day case 136
TABLE 28 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if admitted as

an inpatient 138
TABLE 29 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions 2 if admitted as

an inpatient 138
TABLE 30 Cost of clinician-prescribed third-line interventions if admitted as

an inpatient 138
TABLE 31 Cost of day case management compared with inpatient management 141
TABLE 32 Cost comparisons of patient-initiated first-line interventions 142
TABLE 33 Cost comparisons of patient-initiated first-line interventions following

a GP visit 143
TABLE 34 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions

(oral antiemetics only) following a GP visit 143
TABLE 35 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if

attending hospital as a day case 144

admitted as an inpatient 147
TABLE 37 Cost comparison of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions 2 if

TABLE 38 Cost comparison of clinician-prescribed third-line interventions if

TABLE 39 Cost comparison of 2-day day case management with 2-day

inpatient management 149
TABLE 40 Examples of bad HG/NVP practice by HCPs 154
TABLE 41 Examples of good HG/NVP practice by HCPs 155
TABLE 42 UK Teratology Information Service enquires relating to

HG/NVP medications 229
TABLE 43 Weekly cost of all interventions 243
TABLE 44 Recommended dose and unit cost for all pharmacological interventions 244
xviii
TABLE 45 Cost of patient-initiated first-line interventions 246
TABLE 46 Cost of patient-initiated first-line interventions following a GP visit 247
TABLE 47 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions following a

GP visit 247
TABLE 48 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if attending

hospital as a day case 248
TABLE 49 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if admitted as

an inpatient 250
TABLE 50 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions 2 if admitted as

an inpatient 252
TABLE 51 Cost of clinician-prescribed third-line interventions if admitted as

an inpatient 252
TABLE 52 Cost of day case management compared with inpatient management 253
TABLE 53 Cost comparisons of patient-initiated first-line interventions 254
TABLE 54 Cost comparisons of patient-initiated first-line interventions following

a GP visit 254
TABLE 55 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions

(oral antiemetics only) following a GP visit 255

attending hospital as a day case 257

TABLE 58 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions 2 if

TABLE 59 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed third-line interventions if

TABLE 60 Cost comparison of 2-day day case management with 2-day

inpatient management 268
xix
List of figures
FIGURE 1 Treatments for NVP 5
FIGURE 2 Flow chart of clinical effectiveness literature 15
FIGURE 3 Risk of bias graph: review authors judgements about each risk of bias
item presented as percentages across all included RCT studies 16
FIGURE 4 Network plot of range of interventions and comparisons for NVP/HG 25
FIGURE 5 Flow diagram showing study selection for economic evaluations review 126
FIGURE 6 Structure of the decision model 128
xxi
List of boxes
BOX 1 Characteristics of the cost-effectiveness analysis 127
xxiii
List of abbreviations
5-HT3 5-hydroxytryptamine OR odds ratio
CI confidence interval P6 pericardium 6
ECG electrocardiogram PSS Pregnancy Sickness Support
EPHPP Effective Public Health Practice PUQE Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of
Project Emesis and Nausea
GP general practitioner QoL quality of life
GRADE Grading of Recommendations QT time between start of the Q wave
Assessment, Development and and of the T wave in the hearts
Evaluation electrical cycle
HCP health-care professional RCT randomised controlled trial
HG hyperemesis gravidarum RINVR Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting
and Retching
i.m. intramuscular
SD standard deviation
IQR interquartile range
SoF summary of findings
i.v. intravenous
TPN total parenteral nutrition
MeSH medical subject heading
UKTIS UK Teratology Information Service
NVP nausea and vomiting in pregnancy
VAS visual analogue scale
NVPI Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy
Instrument
xxv
Plain English summary

U p to 85% of women suffer nausea and vomiting during the first half of pregnancy. Between 30% and
35% of these suffer symptoms that are severe. Hyperemesis gravidarum refers to the most severe
form of nausea and vomiting and affects 0.31.0% of pregnant women.
There are medicinal and non-medicinal treatments for nausea and vomiting. Changes in diet or lifestyle are
often the first treatments women might try. Similarly, women may buy vitamins B6 and B12, or ginger
supplements. Other therapies may also be purchased or recommended by a health-care practitioner
(e.g. acupressure/acupuncture). Some interventions need to be prescribed such as antiemetic drugs.
A small number of women with severe symptoms may receive intravenous fluids, corticosteroids and
assisted feeding.
Our results suggest that ginger preparations, vitamin B6, antihistamines and metoclopramide were better
than placebo for mild disease. Effectiveness of treatments in more severe disease is unclear and evidence
limited. Antihistamines, metoclopramide and ondansetron appear to be effective for some women, but
there is no strong evidence to say which is better than the other. The overall quality of the evidence was
low or very low for all treatment comparisons due to clinical differences between studies, poor and
incomplete reporting of outcomes and concerns regarding risk of bias. Of note, however, was the finding
that symptoms tended to improve after a few days (even with placebo). Therefore, we inferred that if
symptoms have not improved, or not improved sufficiently after a short time, a change of treatment could
be considered.
xxvii
Scientific summary
Background
Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is one of the commonest symptoms of pregnancy affecting
5085% of women during the first half of pregnancy. Symptoms usually start between 6 and 8 weeks,
and most resolve by 20 weeks. Most women (6570%) self-manage, but for the remainder symptoms are
more severe. The most severe form hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) affects 0.31.0% of pregnant
women and is characterised by intractable vomiting, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, nutritional
deficiencies and weight loss. There is no widely accepted point at which NVP becomes HG. A number of
different treatments are available grouped as (1) first-line interventions, usually initiated by women before
seeking medical care and tend to be used in less severe NVP; (2) second-line interventions, typically
prescribed when a women presents to medical care [initially this may be a general practitioner (GP) but
it may involve referral of women with more severe symptoms to hospital care]; and (3) third-line
interventions, reserved for women in hospital with intractable symptoms, despite second-line therapies.
Aims
This study aimed to:
l review systematically the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each treatment for NVP/HG
l determine which therapies are most likely to be cost-effective for implementation into the NHS
l identify and prioritise future research needs.
Methods
Clinical effectiveness review

We conducted a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and
non-randomised comparative studies. Population-based case series were also reviewed for evidence of
estimates of rare adverse events and fetal outcomes.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane
Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts, Latin
American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British
Nursing Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, Conference Proceedings
Index, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, China National Knowledge
Infrastructure, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from
inception up to September 2014. References from included studies and literature reviews were also
examined. Obstetric Medicine was hand-searched, alongside websites of relevant organisations. The search
strategy was based around nausea, vomiting and HG, and pregnancy terms. Costs were obtained from
NHS sources.
All pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions including novel treatments relevant to the NHS
were considered. These included dietary/lifestyle interventions; vitamins such as vitamins B6 and B12;
ginger; acupressure/acupuncture; hypnosis; antiemetic drugs (such as antihistamines; dopamine
antagonists; 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists); corticosteroids; intravenous (i.v.) fluids; enteral
feeding; and total parenteral nutrition.
xxix
SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY
Primary outcomes were severity of symptoms [such as Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and
Nausea (PUQE)]. Secondary outcomes included duration of symptoms; study-specific measures of NVP;
quality of life; health-care utilisation; patient satisfaction; maternal weight; fetal outcomes [fetal or
neonatal death, congenital abnormalities, low birthweight (< 2.5 kg), preterm birth (before 37 weeks
gestation) or small for gestational age (birthweight < 10th centile)]; adverse events, for example pregnancy
complications (as reported in the study); costs; and cost-effectiveness. Both fixed- or random-effect
model meta-analysis and a Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison were planned but were not performed
due to heterogeneity in interventions, trial populations, reporting and definitions of outcome measures
and methods. Thus, data on effectiveness, fetal outcomes and adverse events were tabulated and
narratively reviewed.
Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of the different treatments was planned to be assessed in an economic model but,
due to the limited evidence, a simpler analysis considered the intervention costs, the difference in
effectiveness implied if a more costly intervention was used. The perspective for cost was a health services
perspective and all costs were reported in Great British Pounds (prices correct in 2014).
Results
Clinical effectiveness
Seventy-five papers from 73 studies met the inclusion criteria. For RCTs, 33 studies had a low risk of bias
and 11 had a high risk of bias, with the remainder (n = 20) unclear. The non-randomised studies (n = 9)
were judged low quality. There were 33 separate comparators. The most common comparisons were
acupressure versus placebo (n = 12); steroid versus usual treatment (n = 7); ginger versus placebo (n = 6);
ginger versus vitamin B6 (n = 6) and vitamin B6 versus placebo (n = 4). A common finding was that
symptoms in all arms (including placebo) improved from baseline.
Ginger
Use of ginger was explored in 16 RCTs. The evidence available was at high or unclear risk of bias, in all but
three trials. Six studies comparing ginger preparations with placebo generally reported evidence of ginger
as improving a range of symptoms. Considering low risk of bias studies only, ginger still looked promising
in reducing symptoms but the findings are not conclusive. One trial compared ginger with acupressure.
Ginger again looked promising but the evidence was not very conclusive. For the comparison of ginger
with vitamin B6 there are some higher-quality studies, but little evidence of a difference in the severity of
symptoms between groups. There were few data for the comparisons of ginger with doxylaminepyridoxine
or antihistamine or metoclopramide, and little evidence suggesting any difference between groups.
Overall, ginger might be better than placebo in reducing the severity of symptoms, but these data are
limited to less severe symptoms.
Acupressure, acupuncture and nerve stimulation

Use of either acupuncture or acupressure was explored in 18 RCTs and one case series study. The quality
of evidence available varied between low to high risk of bias. Comparisons with placebo were equivocal:
two studies involving acupressure (both had mild symptoms and low risk of bias) reported better
outcomes, but the remainder found no evidence of a difference or did not report NVP symptoms. The
evidence for nerve stimulation was also mixed. Comparisons of traditional Chinese acupuncture and herbal
medicine with Western medicine were at high risk of bias and impossible to emulate within the NHS.
Overall, acupressure may reduce symptoms of nausea and retching in women with mildmoderate
symptoms, but data were limited and inconclusive.
Aromatherapy
The evidence from two trials available for aromatherapy was at unclear risk of bias. There was no evidence
of a difference compared with placebo or routine antenatal care.
xxx
Vitamin B6
Five studies considered the effectiveness of pyridoxine (vitamin B6), and they were at low risk of bias or risk
of bias was unclear. Participants in all studies had mild to moderate symptoms at baseline. Comparisons
of vitamin B6 preparations with placebo generally reported evidence of reduced symptoms of nausea,
especially for women with more severe symptoms, and vomiting. Higher doses of vitamin B6 resulted in a
greater improvement in symptoms. There was no evidence to suggest that vitamin B6 and metoclopramide
as a combination treatment had an advantage over metoclopramide alone. Overall, there is a suggestion
that vitamin B6 might be better than placebo in reducing the severity of symptoms especially at higher
doses.
Vitaman B6 (pyridoxine)/doxylamine combination

Four studies compared the effectiveness of vitamin B6 and antihistamine with either placebo or
ondansetron (and placebo). Two trials were at low risk of bias and two were at unclear risk of bias.
Diclectin [Duchesnay Inc.; doxylamine succinate (10 mg) plus pyridoxine hydrochloride (10 mg) slow
release tablet] (vitamin B6 and antihistamine combination) appears more effective than placebo.
Ondansetron appears more effective at reducing nausea than pyridoxine plus doxylamine, but with
equivocal evidence for vomiting. Pre-emptive treatment with Diclectin before symptoms of NVP begin in
women at high risk of severe NVP recurrence appears to result in a reduced risk of moderatesevere NVP
compared with women who take Diclectin once symptoms begin.
Antihistamines
Of the three studies, two were at high risk of bias whereas one was at low risk. Participants in all studies
had mild symptoms. Use of antihistamines resulted in an improvement compared with placebo or no
treatment over a range of symptoms. The addition of vitamin B6 does not appear to improve effectiveness.
Dopamine antagonists
Dopamine antagonists were used in one trial (low risk of bias) and one poor-quality non-randomised study.
There is limited evidence suggesting that promethazine is as effective as metoclopramide in reducing the
symptoms of NVP.
Serotonin antagonists
Five trials and one case series study compared serotonin antagonists (ondansetron) against a range of
alternatives. Three trials tested ondansetron against metoclopramide; symptoms were classified as mild to
moderate in two trials and severe in one trial. The remaining two trials compared ondansetron with
antihistamines with symptoms being moderate to severe. Only one trial was at low risk of bias. The studies
comparing ondansetron with metoclopramide had mixed results, with both drugs improving symptoms.
A study with low risk of bias found ondansetron more effective at reducing vomiting compared with
metoclopramide after 4 days. Both ondansetron and antihistamine improve symptoms with no difference
between effects. Overall, ondansetron reduces the severity of symptoms.
Intravenous fluids
Two studies were identified. One compared different compositions of i.v. solution (dextrose saline vs. saline
only), which was at low risk of bias and one compared i.v. fluids containing vitamins with diazepam. I.v.
fluid improves reported symptoms. Dextrose saline may be more effective at improving nausea over time
for those with moderate nausea. Diazepam appears to be more effective than i.v. fluids alone at reducing
nausea on day 2, but there was no evidence post treatment for those with moderatesevere nausea.
Transdermal clonidine
Evidence from one study with unclear risk of bias suggests that the use of transdermal clonidine patches
looks promising for the treatment of severe HG.
xxxi
SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY
Outpatient/day case management

The two studies of day case management were at low and high risk of bias respectively. Day case
management of women with moderate to severe symptoms is feasible and acceptable, and as effective
as inpatient management for some women.
Corticosteroids
The evidence available for corticosteroids was at low (three trials), unclear/high risk of bias (three studies)
or weak (one case study). There was no evidence of a difference between either placebo or promethazine,
but corticosteroids appeared to reduce vomiting episodes when compared with Phenergan (Sanofi-Aventis)
suppositories or metoclopramide.
Nasogastricenteral/jejunostomy feeding
Two case series studies of nasogastric and jejunostomy feeding were identified for treatment of severe HG.
Both were poor quality. Enteral feeding may be an effective but extreme method of supporting women
suffering from very severe symptoms.
Gabapentin
One very small study which examined gabapentin therapy in women with HG was identified. Given the
reported cases of congenital anomalies among the seven exposed infants, more research is needed.
Cost-effectiveness
No relevant economic studies were identified by the systematic review and the economic analysis was
limited by lack of data. Estimates of costs for each therapy (both pharmacological and non-pharmacological)
were derived and used to illustrate the benefits that would be implied if a more costly treatment was
chosen over a less costly one. These data were set against the limited evidence base. For treatments
initiated by women themselves, weekly costs of treatment ranged from 0.12 (vitamin B6) to 90
(hypnotherapy). For care prescribed by clinicians as third-line interventions, costs of treatment ranged from
1994 to 2115 (depending on combination of antiemetics and steroids used) if patients were admitted
as inpatients. The total cost data were used to estimate the implied value for the benefits of treatment
should a decision be made to adopt one treatment over another. The implied valuation showed the
additional benefits that a more expensive treatment would need to provide in order to be considered a
worthwhile use of resources. For patient-initiated interventions, the implied valuations ranged from
1.01 : 1.00 (vitamin B12 vs. vitamin B6) to 41 : 1 (hypnotherapy vs. ginger). For vitamin B12 versus vitamin
B6, the interpretation is that vitamin B12 would need to provide at least 1% more in benefits to be
considered cost-effective. Implied values were calculated for all comparators and related to evidence on
clinical effectiveness, where available. These simple data on costs may be of use to stakeholders when
judging what treatments to use.
Strengths and limitations
The main strength of the review was the comprehensively systematic approach to identifying studies
investigating NVP and HG, which allowed us to identify all relevant studies across all levels of severity.
This is a departure from the preplanned inclusion criteria of severe nausea and vomiting only, but it reflects
the very limited evidence on severe symptoms and the fact that the overall quality of the evidence is either
low or very low for all of the treatment comparisons made in the review for all severities. Quality was
downgraded due to clinical heterogeneity, imprecision, a sparseness of data, or a combination of these
factors. There was considerable variation as to how nausea and vomiting outcomes were recorded and
considerable variation reporting of severity. This prevented the conduct of the planned meta-analysis and
economic modelling. Another major limitation was the lack of comparisons of interventions of relevance to
the NHS. Thus, we were restricted to a narrative review that, at best, was able to consider direction
of effect.
xxxii
Conclusions
Implications for health care

There appears to be evidence that some treatments (ginger, vitamin B6, antihistamines, metoclopramide)
were better than placebo for mild symptoms, but there is little on the effectiveness of treatments in more
severe NVP/HG. Evidence on differences in effectiveness were available for few other comparisons. Of
note, however, was the finding that symptoms tended to improve after a few days (even with placebo).
Therefore, if symptoms have not improved or not improved sufficiently after a short time, a change of
treatment could be considered. Also of note was that day case management for moderatesevere
symptoms is feasible, acceptable and as effective as inpatient care for some women. Overall, uncertainty
exists about most of the estimates reported in the review and further research is very likely to have an
important impact on our confidence in the findings of the review. The findings from the review provide
little other evidence to help inform recommendations on the use of treatments for severe NVP/HG.
Recommendations for research

The main gaps in the evidence base are the lack of direct comparative studies of relevant treatments to
the UK NHS and the consequent lack of robust data to estimate cost-effectiveness. The key research
recommendations in order of importance are:
1. A RCT including economic evaluation to determine which second-line, hospital-prescribed therapy

(i.v. rehydration with antihistamines, dopamine receptor antagonists or serotonin receptor antagonists)
should be adopted as mainstream provision in the UK NHS.
2. A RCT including economic evaluation to test the use of subsequent treatments, such as steroids, as a
third-line therapy. This could examine indication, effectiveness and dose of corticosteroids versus
serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron).
3. A RCT including economic evaluation to determine which second-line, GP-prescribed therapy (e.g.
vitamin B6antihistamine combination vs. dopamine receptor antagonist) should be adopted in UK
primary care.
4. In addition to the use of objective symptom scoring systems like the PUQE, consideration is needed as
to what are the core outcomes of importance to women and further work.
5. The longer-term critical fetal and maternal outcomes (death, congenital abnormality) of all therapies
used in the NHS need to be monitored and analysed to guide further research into stratified care.
Study registration
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006642.
Funding
Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National
Institute for Health Research.
xxxiii
Chapter 1 Introduction and background
Background
Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is one of the most common symptoms of pregnancy affecting
5085% of all women during the first half of pregnancy.1 Symptoms usually start between 6 and 8 weeks
of gestation, rise to a peak before the end of the first trimester and, in the majority of women, resolve by
20 weeks.2 Most women (6570%) self-manage their symptoms with avoidance of dietary triggers and
oral hydration.2 However, in the remainder, symptoms are more severe and/or protracted, leading to
physical and psychosocial sequelae. These can include reduced quality of life (QoL), lost work time and
negative effects on relationships with family and friends.3
The most severe form of NVP is referred to as hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), and is reported to affect 0.31.0%
of pregnant women.1 It is characterised by intractable vomiting, dehydration, ketosis, electrolyte imbalance,
nutritional deficiencies and weight loss (usually defined as > 5% of pre-pregnancy weight). However, there
is no widely accepted point at which NVP becomes HG. Likewise, the distinction between studies of women
with NVP and HG is generally not possible as the degree of dehydration and weight loss prior to the
intervention are rarely reported. Furthermore, although some studies report baseline symptom severity using
a validated scale, this is insufficient to make a diagnosis of HG. For these reasons, study populations are
seldom described as having HG, and are more frequently defined in terms of the severity of NVP. Therefore,
for the purposes of this review, studies on interventions for both NVP and HG have been included.
Aetiology
The underlying pathophysiology of NVP/HG is poorly understood but is thought to involve a combination
of biological, physiological, psychological and sociocultural factors.4
Genetic factors increase the risk of occurrence: results from a Norwegian study which included over
500,000 women found that the risk of HG was 15.2% in the second pregnancy of women who had a
previous history of HG compared with 0.7% in women who did not [odds ratio (OR) 26.4, 95%
confidence interval (CI) 24.2 to 28.7].5 The risk of developing HG is also increased threefold in the
daughters of women who suffered from HG (unadjusted OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.4 to 3.6).6
Endocrine factors, especially higher levels of human chorionic gonadotropin, as is the case in multiple or
molar pregnancies, have been associated with more severe forms of NVP/HG. A recent observational study
found that free human chorionic gonadotropin and pappalysin-1 (also known as pregnancy-associated
plasma protein A) were higher in women suffering from HG than in non-sufferers.7
Gestational transient thyrotoxicosis, has been reported in 60% of women suffering from HG8 and
thyroid-stimulating hormone levels are raised in women with HG.9 Certain human chorionic gonadotropin
subtypes can stimulate thyroid-stimulating hormone receptors and so contribute to the hyperthyroidism.
The degree of hyperthyroidism has been found to correlate with the severity of NVP/HG.10 Higher levels of
oestrogen, progesterone and leptin, and lower levels of adrenocorticotrophic hormone and prolactin have
also been associated with HG.11
Delayed gastric emptying related to relaxation of smooth muscle during pregnancy may influence NVP
symptoms. Furthermore, higher rates of Helicobacter pylori infection have been noted in women suffering
from HG:11 in a meta-analysis of 25 studies investigating the association of H. pylori and HG, 14 studies
demonstrated an increased risk of HG in infected women (with OR between 2.42 and 109.3), and
11 studies found no association.12
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Lack of a definitive physiological trigger for HG has, in the past, led to numerous psychosomatic and
psychological theories such as resentment or ambivalence towards the pregnancy, immaturity, conversion
disorder, symptom of hysteria, neurosis or depression.13 It is now more commonly accepted that
psychological afflictions are a consequence of the condition rather than a cause.4,9
Impact on patients
Severe NVP causes emotional and psychological distress and can have a profound effect on a womens
QoL, behavioural and cognitive function, affecting work capacity, household activities and interaction with
children.1416 Women with HG report feeling isolated, depressed and lonely, unable to cope with routine
daily interactions or simple tasks. Two recent observational studies found higher incidences of depression,
anxiety and stress in women diagnosed with HG compared with controls.17,18 Following cessation of
symptoms the depression, anxiety and stress scores took several weeks to resolve,18 not returning to
control values until the third trimester.17 However, in some women these psychological symptoms do not
fully resolve and can result in post-traumatic stress disorder.19
As a result women make greater use of health-care resources. Based on Hospital Episode Statistics data for
England, there were nearly 26,000 admissions for NVP/HG in 201011 with an average length of stay of
2 days.20 These NHS costs are likely to underestimate the full costs as women may purchase a variety
of products over the counter, pay for alternative therapies, receive treatment in primary care settings or
as a hospital outpatient, and may incur extra child care, living costs and lost earnings. In addition, the
associated increased risk of cognitive, behavioural and emotional dysfunction in pregnancy18 may prompt
the use of further services and resources.
In the absence of a definitive cause, management of NVP/HG tends to focus on the alleviation of
symptoms and prevention of serious morbidity. Typically, women are admitted to hospital, prescribed
intravenous (i.v.) fluid therapy and antiemetic medication, but there is little time spent dealing with their
psychological, social and emotional needs or providing information and guidance about the condition.
The result is that women can feel unsupported, dissatisfied with care and experience negative interpersonal
interactions with health-care providers.21
Finally, severe NVP/HG has implications for offspring. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis
reported that women with HG were more likely to deliver preterm (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.68) and to
have a baby that was small for gestational age (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60), although there was no
evidence of an association with congenital anomalies (pooled results from three studies: OR 1.17, 95% CI
0.68 to 2.03) or perinatal death (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.41).22 A large Swedish birth cohort reported
that women with HG who had their first admission in the second trimester were at increased risk of
preterm pre-eclampsia (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.16), placental abruption (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.88 to
5.00) and to have a baby that was small for gestational age (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.83), suggesting
an association between HG and placental-mediated disease.23
Assessment and diagnosis
The diagnosis of NVP/HG is made after excluding differential diagnoses, including gastrointestinal
disorders, urinary tract infection, metabolic and endocrine disorders, drugs, psychological disorders (such as
eating disorders) and other pregnancy-associated conditions (in particular molar pregnancy). However,
there is currently no widely accepted approach to measuring the severity of symptoms in women.
The most commonly used tools for the assessment of NVP/HG severity are presented in Table 1, with
actual examples of the tools provided in Appendix 1.
2
TABLE 1 Tools used to measure the severity of NVP
Tool Description
PUQE score Three questions regarding nausea, vomiting and retching during previous 12 hours
(PUQE-24 = previous 24 hours)
For each component: 0 = no symptoms, 5 = worst possible symptoms
Maximum score = 15
Scores of 13 indicate severe symptoms2426
RINVR Contains total of eight questions about duration/amount, frequency and distress
caused by symptoms of nausea, vomiting and retching
Maximum score = 40
Scores of 33 indicated severe symptoms2729

McGill Nausea Questionnaire Contains a nausea rating index (nine sets of words which describe sensory,
(measures nausea only) affective, evaluative and miscellaneous afferent feelings related to nausea that
patients rank)
An overall nausea index (05, where 0 = no symptoms, 5 = excruciating symptoms)
Plus a VAS: 0 cm = no nausea, 10 cm = extreme nausea30,31
NVPI Three questions relating to nausea, retching and vomiting over the past 7 days
Maximum score = 15
A score of 8 indicates severe symptoms32,33
VAS Patients rate their symptoms on a scale of 010, where 0 = no symptoms,

10 = extreme symptoms
NVPI, Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy Instrument; PUQE, Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea;
RINVR, Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting and Retching; VAS, visual analogue scale.
However, although the measurement of NVP/HG symptom severity is the main aim for women and
practitioners, other wider outcomes are also relevant when assessing the broader effectiveness of
interventions. Thus, key secondary outcomes in studies to date have included both measures related to
maternal physical and psychosocial health, and fetal or neonatal outcomes (Table 2).
Current interventions for nausea and vomiting in

pregnancy/hyperemesis gravidarum
For the purposes of this report, interventions are considered in three broad groups:
l First-line interventions, usually initiated by women before seeking medical care and hence tend to be
used in less severe NVP.
l Second-line interventions, typically prescribed when a women presents to medical care. Initially this is
likely to be a general practitioner (GP) in primary care but may involve referral of women with more
severe symptoms for inpatient, outpatient or day case care in hospital.
l Third-line interventions, reserved for women in hospital with persistent or recurrent symptoms despite
second-line therapies.
3
TABLE 2 Secondary outcome measures
Maternal: physical Maternal: psychosocial Fetal/neonatal
Admission/readmission rate QoL (SF-12 or SF-36 score) Congenital abnormality
Length of hospital stay General Health Questionnaire Low birthweight (< 2.5 kg)
Antiemetic/other medication use Pregnancy-specific QoL measure Small for gestational age (< 10th centile)
Amount/duration i.v. fluid NVP specific questionnaire Preterm birth (before 37 weeks
administration gestation)
Enteral/TPN Satisfaction with care 5-minute APGAR score
Side effects Direct costs to woman/family Stillbirth/intrauterine death
Economic costs (hospital/medical care) Time lost from work Neonatal death
Adverse pregnancy outcomes Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Spontaneous miscarriage

Scale
Weight loss Admission to special care baby unit
Therapeutic termination of pregnancy Infant development outcomes

APGAR, American Pediatric Gross Assessment Record; SF-12, Short Form questionnaire-12 items; SF-36, Short Form
questionnaire-36 items; TPN, total parenteral nutrition.
The relationship between these three intervention groups is described in Figure 1, with key individual
interventions described in detail in the following sections.
Patient-initiated first-line interventions

When first experiencing the symptoms of NVP, women often access information, advice and services from
a variety of sources. Information is readily available regarding simple lifestyle changes, dietary modifications
and alternative therapies via the internet and in pregnancy magazines. Self-help interventions also include
a range of supplements that are available over the counter. Many women try one or more of these
before seeking medical advice.
Dietary/lifestyle interventions
Women report using a range of dietary/lifestyle interventions (e.g. increasing oral fluid intake, eating small
frequent meals, eating bland foods/protein-predominant meals and avoiding spicy, odorous and fatty
foods, and stopping iron-containing multivitamins).2,34
Vitamins
Vitamins are vital nutrients. They are available over the counter as single vitamin or
multivitamin preparations.
Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) A water-soluble vitamin essential for many metabolic processes within the body.
Usually taken in doses of 1050 mg up to four times daily to treat NVP.
Vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) A water-soluble vitamin essential for normal function of the nervous
system, red blood cell formation and many other metabolic processes.
Ginger
Ginger (Zingiber officinale) is considered a food supplement (not a drug) and is available in several
preparations; powdered fresh root, tablets, capsules and syrup. Its antinausea properties were first
described in traditional Chinese medicine.35
4
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
First-line interventions Second-line interventions Third-line interventions
Clinician initiated:
secondary careb
Failure or Failure or Day case/outpatient

reoccurence reoccurence
Antiemetics (i.v./i.m./oral)
i.v. fluids
Patient initiated Information leaflet and
support
Diet/lifestyle Clinician initiated:
primary carea Repeated failure As inpatient management
Ginger potentially with:
Vitamins (B6/12) of standard
Oral antiemetics secondary care
Acupressure Information (leaflet) corticosteroids (i.v./oral)
Acupuncture and support Inpatient enteral feeding
Hypnotherapy parenteral feeding
As above plus
thiamine supplementation
thromboprophylaxis
FIGURE 1 Treatments for NVP. a, Care may also involve urine blood tests, weight and maternal observations; and b, care will involve urine and blood tests, weight, maternal
observations and pelvic ultrasound. i.m., intramuscular.
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2016 VOL. 20 NO. 74
5
Acupressure/acupuncture
Acupressure involves the application of physical pressure to specific acupuncture points; with respect to
NVP this involves the pericardium 6 (P6) point near the wrist.
Acupuncture involves the manipulation of thin needles inserted into acupuncture points in the skin.
Hypnotherapy
Hypnotherapy employs direct suggestion of symptom removal with the subject under hypnosis.
Aromatherapy
Aromatherapy was first used by ancient civilisations for cosmetics, perfumes and drugs. It involves the use
of plant materials, aromatic plant and essential oils to alter mood, cognitive, psychological or physical
well-being. Oils can either be applied topically via massage, via inhalation or via emersion mixed with
water. Common uses include stress and anxiety relief, to uplift mood or counter depression. Evidence
surrounding efficacy and safety remains unclear for some treatments.
Clinician-prescribed second-line interventions

Second-line interventions tend to be used for more severe symptoms either instead of or, less frequently,
in addition to, first-line interventions. These may be initiated either in primary care by the GP or in a
secondary care hospital setting.
Antiemetic drugs
Antiemetic drugs include antagonists to histamine, acetylcholine, dopamine and 5-hydroxytryptamine
(5-HT3) receptors in the chemoreceptor trigger zone, vestibular apparatus and visceral afferents. Dyspepsia
symptoms which often accompany NVP are also often treated with H2 receptor blockers (e.g. ranitidine)
or proton pump inhibitors (e.g. omeprazole).2
Antihistamines (H1 receptor blockers) are probably the most widely used antiemetics and include
doxylamine, meclizine, diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine, dimenhydrinate and cyclizine. Doxylamine is
sometimes used in combination with vitamin B6 (pyridoxine). This combined therapy could be used as a
treatment option in countries where Diclectin (Duchesnay Inc.; delayed release doxylamine, 10 mg,
plus pyridoxine, 10 mg, available in Canada and the USA but not the UK) is not available.36
Dopamine antagonists are known to stimulate gastrointestinal motility, so encouraging the transit of
substances through the stomach. They also work centrally by antagonising the action on D2 receptors in
the chemoreceptor trigger zone. Several phenothiazines including promethazine and prochlorperazine
have been used to treat NVP/HG. Other drugs in this class used to treat NVP/HG include metoclopramide,
domperidone, droperidol and trimethobenzamide.
5-HT3 receptor antagonists (selective serotonin receptor antagonists) are commonly used to treat
chemotherapy and post-operative induced nausea and vomiting which is caused by release of 5-HT3 from
the upper small intestine. The action of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are mediated through the central
chemoreceptor trigger zone and peripheral (intestinal and spinal) 5-HT3 receptors.
Intravenous fluids
Administration of i.v. fluids treats the consequences of NVP/HG rather than the symptoms. Women who
are severely dehydrated and ketotic need hospital admission and i.v. fluid and electrolyte replacement.
This is routinely carried out in either a day care outpatient setting or on an inpatient ward.
Clinician-prescribed third-line interventions

Third-line interventions are reserved for women who have severe and persisting symptoms and associated
weight loss and dehydration (although latter may have been corrected). Although commenced while the
women are in hospital, some of these interventions may be continued on an outpatient basis.
6
Corticosteroids
Steroids are being increasingly used in refractory cases of NVP/HG which have been unresponsive to other
treatments (i.v. hydrocortisone 100 mg twice daily, followed by oral prednisolone 4050 mg, reducing to
a maintenance dose).
Enteral feeding and total parenteral nutrition

Enteral feeding refers to the delivery of nutrients directly into the stomach, duodenum or jejunum. For
women who cannot tolerate enteral nutrition, the use of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) has been reported
in case series but use is associated with significant maternal morbidity.37
Interventions presented in the report but not routinely used to treat nausea
and vomiting in pregnancy
Diazepam
Diazepam in a benzodiazepine drug used to treat, for example, anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia and
seizures. It enhances the effects of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid which leads to central
nervous system depression. Its use results in sedation, long-term use results in physical dependence.
Clonidine
Clonidine is a centrally acting 2 adrenergic agonist and imidazoline receptor agonist. It is usually used to
treat hypertension, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and, less commonly, anxiety disorders,
withdrawal, migraine and certain chronic pain conditions. Observational data suggests that it may be
effective in the treatment of refractory nausea and vomiting.38
Gabapentin
Gabapentin was originally synthesised to mimic the action of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric
acid, but acts on various brain receptors. It is generally used to treat seizures and neuropathic pain, with
less common uses including the treatment of generalised anxiety disorders, restless leg syndrome and
itching caused by various aetiologies. It has previously been associated with improvements in refractory
nausea in a small study of breast cancer patients.39
Current guidance and use of therapies within the NHS
Currently there are no national guidelines within the NHS pertaining to NVP/HG; however, the Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are in the process of producing said guidelines which should
be published in early 2016. Initially, GPs may try different antiemetics before referring women to hospital.
Traditionally, secondary care would involve admission to either an antenatal or gynaecology ward for
treatment with i.v. fluids, antiemetics and vitamin supplements. Oral intake would gradually be resumed
followed by discharge back into the community. Resumption of symptoms would result in readmission
and a repeat of previous care, possibly trying different antiemetics or a combination thereof.
Increasingly, more obstetric and gynaecology units are using day case management as the first option for
initial referrals. Care usually involves some form of rapid rehydration and treatment with an i.v. antiemetic,
followed by discharge with oral antiemetics, ideally with advice, support and guidance regarding self-help
measures. However, assessing symptom severity, as well as the packages of care, vary substantially and
lack a strong evidence base.
When available, day case, outpatient management does result in fewer admissions to hospital.
Consequently, women who are admitted tend to be suffering from more severe symptoms. These women
are likely to have had repeated hospital attendances and to have tried a number of different combinations
of interventions. This latter group of women are likely to experience persistent severe symptoms, weight
loss, electrolyte imbalance and failure to cope. In some of these women corticosteroid therapy may be
7
considered an appropriate option when more conventional options have failed. In rare circumstances
where this proves unsuccessful, enteral or parenteral nutrition may be instigated and, as a last resort,
some women will opt for termination of pregnancy.
Aims and objectives
This study aimed to:
l review systematically the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each treatment
for NVP/HG
l determine which therapies are most likely to be cost-effective for implementation into the UK NHS
l identify and prioritise future research needs.
Structure of the report
The following chapter (see Chapter 2) describes the methods employed for the systematic review and
synthesis of evidence for interventions for HG and/or NVP. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the identified
evidence, including the quality of the included studies, and a brief discussion of the issues that arose in
attempting to synthesise the emergent data. Chapters 417 detail the findings for each individual
intervention, focussing on the evidence for their effectiveness in terms of nausea, vomiting and retching.
Chapter 18 presents the methods and results of the economic evaluation. Key issues considered likely
to be important from the perspective of both patients and health-care practitioners are described in
Chapters 19 and 20. The implications of the results of this review are discussed in depth in Chapter 21,
with the final conclusions outlined in Chapter 22.
8
Chapter 2 Methods for the systematic review

of effectiveness
General methodology
The systematic review followed the approach suggested by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information
and Co-ordinating Centre at the Institute of Education, London. The review protocol was registered with
PROSPERO, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews,40 and it aimed to systematically
appraise and summarise the evidence on available interventions for NVP/HG within the three broad groups
described in Chapter 1:
l first-line interventions
l second-line interventions
l third-line inpatient interventions.
The review examined the evidence for these groups of interventions in relation to their clinical effectiveness
and associated adverse events, and their cost-effectiveness.
Inclusion criteria
Types of studies
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised comparative studies and population-based case series
were deemed eligible for inclusion. The latter design was included primarily to facilitate calculation of estimates
of rare adverse events and fetal outcomes, and for treatments reserved for the most severe cases such as TPN.
Types of participants
Participants were women experiencing nausea, vomiting and/or retching in pregnancy where recruitment
to a trial took place before 20 weeks gestation. As HG is difficult to differentiate from severe or
intractable NVP, two approaches were used initially to identify relevant populations of women. First,
studies were selected where their study samples were reported as suffering severe symptoms using published
scales and cut-points for severity [e.g. Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE)25
13, the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting and Retching (RINVR)27 33]. These cut-off points are well
correlated.25 For studies of mixed levels of severity, the study was included if > 80% of participants
exceeded these cut-offs. Second, studies were selected if, using the authors definition, women in the
study sample were defined as having severe symptoms. Similarly, studies were included if > 80% of the
sample met this definition. However, due to the inconsistent application of severity scales both within and
across studies, and to ensure completeness, a broader selection of studies was deemed eligible for
inclusion than originally anticipated. Details of the method used by authors to define severity were
recorded for all eligible studies.
Types of interventions and comparators

All pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions relevant to the NHS for delivery in the community,
and in hospital, either as an inpatient or an outpatient, were deemed relevant for this evidence synthesis.
These interventions included dietary/lifestyle interventions; vitamins such as vitamin B6 and vitamin B12;
ginger; acupressure/acupuncture; hypnosis; antiemetic drugs [such as antihistamines; dopamine antagonists,
hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists]; corticosteroids; i.v. fluids; enteral feeding; and TPN. Studies
were included that had a comparative group for assessment of relative effectiveness. This was either a no
treatment group, a treatment as usual group or an alternative intervention group. For the treatment as usual
9
METHODS FOR THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EFFECTIVENESS
group we endeavoured to clearly define what this entailed. For rare fetal or adverse outcomes and for studies
investigating treatments for women with the most severe symptoms (e.g. TPN), no comparator group was
defined as the target studies were population-based series.
Types of outcome measures
Primary outcomes
Severity of symptoms [such as PUQE,25 RINVR,27 McGill Nausea Questionnaire,30 Nausea and Vomiting of
Pregnancy Instrument (NVPI) and34 visual analogue scales (VASs)4143] (see Table 1).
Secondary outcomes
Duration of symptoms (reported period of symptoms, date of symptom relief); study-specific measures of
NVP; health-related QoL; health-care utilisation (including admission and length of stay of the woman,
readmission to hospital of the women, admission and length of stay on special care baby units);
patient satisfaction; maternal weight; fetal outcomes [fetal or neonatal death, congenital abnormalities,
low birthweight (< 2.5 kg), preterm birth (before 37 weeks gestation) or small for gestational age
(birthweight < 10th centile)]; adverse events, for example pregnancy complications (as reported in the
study), but including haemorrhage, hypertension, pre-eclampsia and proteinuria; costs (as defined by
the study authors); and cost-effectiveness (as defined by the study authors) (see Table 2).
Search strategy
The search strategy was designed and executed by an experienced information specialist in collaboration
with the rest of the research team. The original protocol stated that the search strategy would combine
the two main conditions of pregnancy and NVP/HG with associated interventions and QoL outcomes.
However, given both the extensive array of interventions used to address NVP/HG, and the relatively small
available literature in this field, it was subsequently decided not to restrict the scope of the review by
including key interventions or outcomes as search terms. Although such a strategy increases the number of
papers to be reviewed; it minimises the risk of missing any relevant studies. The search was therefore
structured around two core concepts: (1) nausea, vomiting and HG; and (2) pregnancy. Key words for both
concepts were coupled with relevant medical subject heading (MeSH) and thesaurus terms. The search
strategy was designed in MEDLINE and translated as appropriate to the other databases. All terms were
truncated as appropriate and variant spellings were used. In order to reduce the number of studies
returned, search filters for the relevant study types (RCTs or case series studies) were applied where
possible. No time or language limit was set.
The full list of search terms for MEDLINE is presented in Table 3.
We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases on the dates described below, with update
searches executed between the 11 and 16 September 2014 unless otherwise stated. As our initial scoping
search highlighted the number of complementary medicine interventions for NVP/HG, the search was
extended to include additional key databases of non-English-language studies44 (Latin American and
Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and China National Knowledge Infrastructure).
l MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946November 2013, searched 10 December 2013.

l EMBASE (Ovid) 19802013 week 50, searched 12 December 2013.
l Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) issue 11 2013, searched 16 December 2013.
l Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley) issue 11 2013, searched 16 December 2013.
l Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Wiley) issue 11 2013, searched 16 December 2013.
l Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost) 1981November 2013, searched
17 December 2013.
10
TABLE 3 List of search terms
A. HG B. Pregnancy C. Nausea/vomiting D. Exclusions
exp Morning Sickness/ Pregnancy/ Nausea/ Animals/ not humans
Pregnancy Complications/ Vomiting/ Letter/
Sialorrhea/ Editorial/
News/
exp Historical Article/
Anecdotes as Topic/
Comment/
(morning sickness or (pregnan$ adj5 (sick or sickness or nause$ or vomit$ or
hyperemesis gravidarum).ti,ab. retch$ or dry heave or heaving or emesis or hyperemesis or
ptyalism or hypersalivat$ or sialorrh$ or spitting)).ti,ab.
The search carried out was [A or (B and C)] not D.
/ = MeSH heading (translated in other databases where possible).
exp = explode the MeSH heading.
ti = term in the title field.
ab = term in the abstract field.
$ = truncation.
adjx = proximity, terms must be within x words of each other.
l British Nursing Index (NHS Healthcare Databases) 1992January 2014, searched 22 January 2014.
l PsycINFO (Ovid) 1806December week 2 2013, searched 17 December 2013.
l Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts (Ovid) 19102013 week 49, searched
18 December 2013.
l Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (http://regional.bvsalud.org), searched
18 December 2013.
l Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (NHS Healthcare Databases) 1985January 2014,
searched 22 January 2014.
l Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge) 1970November 2013, searched 18 December 2013.
l Social Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge) 1970November 2013, searched
18 December 2013.
l Scopus, searched 8 January 2014.
l Conference Proceedings Index Science (Web of Knowledge) 1990November 2013, searched
18 December 2013.
l ClinicalTrials.gov searched 8 January 2014.
l NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Wiley) issue 11 2013, searched 16 December 2013.
l Health Economic Evaluations Database (Wiley), searched 30 January 2014.
l China National Knowledge Infrastructure (http://eng.cnki.net/grid2008/index.htm), searched
14 March 2014.
In addition, the reference lists of included papers and key relevant literature reviews identified during the
search process were also examined for additional relevant studies, and Obstetric Medicine vol. 1(1)
(September 2008) and vol. 7(2) (June 2014) were hand-searched. Furthermore, the following websites of
relevant organisations were also searched in order to source as much unpublished literature as possible:
l Motherisk (URL: www.motherisk.org/women/drugs.jsp; accessed September 2014).

l American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (URL: www.acog.org/; accessed
September 2014).
11
l Pregnancy Sickness Support (PSS) (URL: www.pregnancysicknesssupport.org.uk; accessed

September 2014).
l National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Clinical Knowledge Summaries (URL: http://cks.nice.
org.uk/nauseavomiting-in-pregnancy; accessed September 2014).
l Hyperemesis Education and Research (URL: www.helpher.org/health-professionals/treatments/index.php;
accessed September 2014).
l UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS) (URL: www.uktis.org/) including checking the references of
the following relevant documents:
treatment of NVP (December 2013)

use of promethazine in pregnancy (October 2010)
use of vitamin B12 in pregnancy (September 2013)
use of pyridoxine (vitamin B6) in pregnancy (January 2011)
use of ginger in pregnancy (March 2013).
l European Medicines Agency (URL: www.ema.europa.eu/ema/; accessed September 2014).

l ProQuest Dissertations and Theses UK & Ireland (URL: www.theses.com/; accessed September 2014).
l e-thesis online service (URL: http://ethos.bl.uk/; accessed September 2014).
l Trip (URL: www.tripdatabase.com/; accessed September 2014).
l System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (URL: www.opengrey.eu/; accessed
September 2014).
l Google Scholar (URL: https://scholar.google.co.uk; accessed September 2014).
First exclusion process
All records were imported into a bibliographic referencing software programme (EndNote v.X7; Thomson
Reuters, CA, USA). Duplicate records were identified and deleted. The remaining references were assessed
for relevancy by two independent investigators on the basis of the title and abstract (or title only if abstract
not available). Papers were considered relevant to the systematic review if they met the inclusion criteria
detailed in Inclusion criteria.
All of the titles and abstracts of all references were read by both investigators and classified as potentially
eligible, not eligible or unclear within EndNote. Reconciliation of the resultant EndNote databases was
conducted via Microsoft Excel 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and any discrepancies
were discussed. In case of doubt, papers went through to the next stage of the exclusion process. Full-text
copies of those papers identified as of potential relevance were obtained.
Second exclusion process
All full-text English-language papers obtained were assessed by two investigators independently and
classified as relevant, not relevant or unclear on the basis of the same inclusion criteria. Any disagreements
at this stage were resolved by discussion between the two researchers. Full-text papers published in
languages other than English (German, French, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Danish and Spanish)
were assessed by native speakers of the relevant languages, working alongside one of the two
investigators to ensure consistency and adequate compliance against the specified inclusion criteria.
Tables of studies excluded at this stage were prepared, detailing reasons for exclusion.
12
Data extraction
Information from all papers identified as meeting the specified inclusion criteria was extracted using a
structured data abstraction form. Key data extracted from eligible papers included:
i. study characteristics (bibliographic details, setting, intervention type, study population including
definition of severity)
ii. methodology and reporting
iii. quantitative findings and conclusions.
For English-language papers, data extraction was carried out by one researcher and checked by another.
For papers published in languages other than English, data extraction was carried out by a native speaker
working alongside an investigator to identify and translate the relevant information. The data abstraction
form for clinical effectiveness is presented as Appendix 2.
Risk of bias in included studies and quality assessment
The quality of the included studies was evaluated in accordance with the comprehensive approach advised
by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group.45
The risk of bias of included RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane Collaborations tool46 (see Appendix 3
for full details). This included assessment of sequence generation; allocation concealment; blinding;
selective reporting of outcomes; incomplete outcome data; and other possible sources of bias. For the
incomplete outcome data item, we coded the satisfactory level of loss to follow-up for each outcome as
low risk of bias, if fewer than 20% of patients were lost to follow-up and reasons for loss to follow-up
were similar in all study arms. Disputes were resolved by discussion with another member of the review
team. The risk of bias for case series studies was assessed using the component-based tool developed by
the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP), Canada47 (see Appendix 4), which possesses a relatively
high degree of inter-rater reliability in comparison to alternative tools.48,49 For English-language papers,
quality assessment was conducted independently by two investigators, with any disputes resolved by
discussion. For papers published in languages other than English, quality assessment was carried out by a
native speaker working alongside an investigator.
We had initially used an objective approach to make decisions about overall risk of bias; if at least one
item was adjudged as being at high risk of bias then the trial was given a high risk of bias overall rating.
Similarly, a trial that had no items scored as being at high risk of bias, but at least one was at an unclear
risk of bias, then the trial was deemed to be at an unclear risk of bias. This meant that only trials that were
scored at low risk of bias for all six risk of bias items could get an overall low risk judgement. Instead, we
used a robust approach to assess overall risk of bias in a study, and which did not simply rely on a vote
counting approach. This approach gave careful consideration to all six risk of bias item judgements, and
the impact of unclear and high risk of bias in individual items, given the scope and context of the trial.
For example, if a study had adequately addressed five of the six individual risk of bias items, but a
placebo-controlled trial was unblinded in some capacity (either patients, personnel or both), then we scored
this trial as being at high overall risk of bias, as this flaw in the conduct of such a trial could seriously impact
on the results. However, in some trials blinding was not possible due to the type of interventions being
compared so although the individual blinding risk of bias item was scored as being at high risk of bias, this
did not necessary mean the overall risk of bias in the study would follow. If other items were generally at
low risk of bias, and we deemed blinding to be of little relevance, then we scored the study as being at low
overall risk of bias. Justification for overall decisions has been provided where necessary.
In addition, two researchers independently assessed all included studies for the potential for imprecision,
inconsistency and indirectness of results, using GRADE guidelines.5054 Summary of findings (SoF) tables
were not presented due to the narrative nature of the review and the heterogeneity of the outcomes.
13
Data synthesis
First, the range of interventions, populations and outcomes that have been studied were described.
The direction and size of the reported effects from effectiveness studies were presented overall, as well as
grouped according to population, intervention type, outcomes and study design. Results are summarised in
tables. Groups of studies using similar definitions of severity were identified, based on the data extracted
and expert opinion. A coding frame was developed for the different definitions used, which was checked
by the second systematic reviewer. Two clinical specialists within the research team then grouped the
studies into the coding frame. The grouping produced was compared and any discrepancies, including
definitions that did not fit into the coding frame, were resolved by discussion.
Meta-analysis was considered to be inappropriate due to heterogeneity, as will be illustrated in the

overview of included studies chapter (see Chapter 3). This judgement was made after consideration of
interventions, trial populations, and especially the reporting and definitions of outcome measures and
methods. We also explored whether data from different studies could be transformed on to a common
scale (e.g. symptom severity might be recoded into number no longer experiencing severe symptoms)
using imputation and subject to sensitivity analysis and methods, but this was not possible. Therefore it
was not necessary for the team to investigate the validity of performing mixed-treatment (indirect)
comparisons, using appropriate methods to compare interventions that have not been compared directly
with each other.55,56 Heterogeneity could not be assessed by visualisation of results or, where relevant in
statistical terms, by the chi-squared test for homogeneity and the I2 statistic as specified a priori. Instead,
a narrative synthesis was conducted, with the effects split into numerous categories and classes of
intervention comparison described in the following chapter (see Chapter 3, Interventions and comparators
and Table 6). Trials with more than two randomised groups may appear in more than one category
depending on the comparisons made.
Data on effectiveness, fetal outcomes and adverse events were tabulated and described narratively,
including variation in the form, setting, study population and delivery of the interventions. Given the
inconsistencies in the application of both published and author-defined severity scales, studies were
recategorised by clinical experts on the review team according to whether the participants were
predominantly suffering from mild, moderate or severe NVP/HG. The effects are generally presented in
terms of whether or not there were statistically significant differences between randomised groups at the
last time point at which outcomes were assessed. However, where possible, magnitude of effects was
reported such as a mean difference or risk ratio with corresponding 95% CIs. All studies are included in
the narrative synthesis, irrespective of their risk of bias but the weight of evidence is discussed accordingly.
Where necessary, comments are made in the text to advise caution for serious methodological shortcomings
as well as applying the GRADE approach5054 in the overall assessment of the quality of the evidence, although
SoF tables were not constructed (see Risk of bias in included studies and quality assessment).
Owing to limited available data, it was not possible to examine publication bias using funnel plots as
specified in the original review protocol. We were also unable to conduct subgroup analyses to explore the
variation with pre-determined factors (e.g. the setting in which the intervention was applied and the
severity and duration of symptoms at baseline) or sensitivity analyses to explore the impact of study design,
including variation in definitions of outcomes, on measures of effectiveness due to lack of suitable data.
14
Chapter 3 Clinical effectiveness: overview of

included studies
Studies identified
A flow chart of the studies is shown in Figure 2. In total, 11,830 papers were identified from the
combination of standard electronic databases (n = 11,659), specialist Chinese databases (n = 102) and
various sources of grey literature (n = 69). Of these, 5152 duplicate papers were identified and deleted
(5150 from the standard electronic databases, and two from the grey literature).
The deletion of duplicate papers left 6678 individual papers for assessment. After screening titles and
abstracts, 322 papers were identified as of potential relevance and full-text copies of 309 papers were
obtained (with the remainder unobtainable). Of these, 96 were judged ineligible for the effectiveness
review and immediately excluded (narrative overviews, systematic literature reviews or economic
evaluations). After the second exclusion process, comprising more detailed reading of each full-text paper,
a further 138 papers were judged not to meet the inclusion criteria of the review and were also excluded.
Records identified through Records identified through Additional records identified

database searching search of Chinese database through other sources
(n = 11,659) (n = 102) (n = 69)
Records after duplicates removed

(n = 6678)
Records excluded by
title/abstract
(n = 6356)
Not English:
(n = 20 of the 213 Records selected title/abstract
full texts) (n = 322) Background, n = 32
Health economics, n = 11
Chinese, n = 3 Systematic reviews, n = 53
(+ 2 from Chinese Unobtainable grey, n = 3
database) Excluded using abstract
Danish, n = 1 Full-text articles assessed or unobtainable, n = 10
French, n = 1 for eligibility
German, n = 2 (n = 213) Full-text articles excluded,
Italian, n = 3 with reasons
Korean, n = 1 (n = 138)
Norwegian, n = 2 Required study design
Portuguese, n = 1 Unpublished data not met, n = 70
Persian, n = 4 from included abstract Required participant
Spanish, n = 1 n=1 inclusion criteria not
Swedish, n = 1 met, n = 34
Required outcomes not
Data extraction reported, n = 34
(n = 75)
From a total of 73 studies
(of which 3 Persian
and 2 Chinese)
FIGURE 2 Flow chart of clinical effectiveness literature.
15
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: OVERVIEW OF INCLUDED STUDIES
Key reasons for exclusion were duplicate paper already included; participant inclusion criteria for the
identified study judged not relevant to our review; did not include any of the pre-specified outcomes; or
ineligible study design (no comparator group).
As a result, 75 papers were identified for data extraction, from a total of 73 separate studies. A full list of
included studies is provided as Appendix 5. A table of excluded studies detailing reasons for exclusion is
provided as Appendix 6.
Quality of included studies
Randomised controlled trials
Overall risk of bias

The results of the quality assessment procedure for the 64 included RCTs (reported in 66 papers) are
displayed in Figure 3 and Table 4. There was variation both in terms of the quality of the studies and the
quality of the reporting. In a large number of papers, there was insufficient detail provided to permit clear
judgement of risk of bias in a range of key areas. Overall, 33 RCTs were classed as having low within-study
risk of bias, 11 RCTs were classed as having high within-study risk of bias, and the remainder (n = 20)
were classed as unclear in this respect. The high proportion of studies at unclear risk of bias was due to
poor reporting and a lack of detail, particularly in the methods section. There were also a number of
publications in abstract form only. As an unclear judgement was often due to poor reporting rather than
specific methodological concerns, it was not judged appropriate to categorise studies with those deemed
at high risk of bias as a result of more serious methodological flaws. Our robust approach to the
assessment of the overall risk of bias within individual studies is described in more detail in Chapter 2, Risk
of bias in included studies and quality assessment. More detail is provided below to illustrate the range in
quality in terms of each individual component of the Cochranes risk of bias tool.46
Random sequence generation

The risk of bias arising from the method of generation of the allocation sequence was low in 39 of the
included RCTs.13,41,57,60,6264,66,67,69,70,76,8083,8589,91,93,94,98104,106108,110,112115 Methods employed included random
number tables, computer-generated sequence generation61,63,64,8183,88,93,94,98,99,106,108,112,114 and randomised
block design.62,67,80,87,89,91,101,102,107,113,115,117 One trial was classed as high risk because women were asked to
draw an envelope from a box with the same appearance but with different contents.111 It was categorised
as unclear in the remaining 24 RCTs due to insufficient information provided by the authors to permit
judgement either way.42,43,58,59,65,68,7175,7779,84,90,92,9597,104,105,109,116
Other sources of bias
Selective outcome reporting
Incomplete outcome data High

Unclear
Blinding of participants, personnel Low
and outcome assessors
Allocation concealment
Random sequence generation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
FIGURE 3 Risk of bias graph: review authors judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages
across all included RCT studies.
16
TABLE 4 Risk of bias summary: review authors judgements about each risk of bias item for included RCTs
Blinding of
participants,
Random personnel and Selective
sequence Allocation outcome Incomplete outcome Other sources Within study
Study generation concealment assessors outcome data reporting of bias risk of bias Comments

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
57
Abas 2014 ? Low Study at low risk of bias
Adamczak 200758 ? ? ? ? ? Unclear Abstract form only, blinding of

participants and personnel not possible
Babaei 201459 ? ? ? Unclear Double-blind RCT, but methods of

sequence generation and allocation
concealment not reported
Basirat 200960 ? Low Study at low risk of bias

Bayreuther 199461 Low Study at low risk of bias
62
Belluomini 1994 ? Low Most women lost to follow-up and
attrition between groups was similar
Biswas 201163 ? Low Study at low risk of bias

64
Bondok 2006 Low Study at low risk of bias
43
Can Gurkan 2008 ? ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
Capp 201465 ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
Carlsson 200066 ? ? Low Not possible to blind personnel to

acupuncture and acupuncture placebo
Chittumma 200767 Low Study at low risk of bias
Diggory 196268 ? ? ? ? High Study at high risk of bias

69
Ditto 1999 ? ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
70
Ensiyeh 2009 ? ? Low Study at low risk of bias
Erez 197171 ? ? Low Labelled as double-blind crossover RCT

and predates 1996 CONSORT statement
Eftekhari 201372 ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
continued
17
18
TABLE 4 Risk of bias summary: review authors judgements about each risk of bias item for included RCTs (continued )
Blinding of
participants,
73
Evans 1993 ? ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
Fischer-Rasmussen ? ? Low Labelled as double-blind crossover RCT

199174 and predates 1996 CONSORT statement
Ghahiri 201175 ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
Ghani 201376 ? ? Low Study at low risk of bias overall, but did

not report control results
Haji Seid Javadi ? ? ? ? ? High Vitamin B6 tablets and ginger capsules

201377 given so trial unblinded
Heazell 200678 ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias

79
Hsu 2003 ? ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
Jamigorn 200780 ? Low Not possible to blind personnel to

acupressure and acupressure placebo
Kashifard 201381 Low Study at low risk of bias
Keating 200282 ? ? Low Study at low risk of bias

83
Knight 2001 Low Study at low risk of bias
84
Koren 2010 ? ? Low Study at low risk of bias
85
Maina 2014 ? Low Study at low risk of bias
Maltepe 201386 ? ? Low Study at low risk of bias

87
Mao 2009 ? High Study at high risk of bias
88
McParlin 2008 Low Not possible to blind patients or
personnel to interventions in this trial
Mohammadbeigi ? High Personnel member gave medicines to

201189 patients and conducted randomisation
Monias 195790 ? ? ? ? High Unclear whether or not this was truly a

RCT and outcomes selectively reported
Blinding of
participants,

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
Naeimi Rad 201291 ? ? Low Not possible to blind personnel, but

patients were blinded to sham devices
Narenji 201292 ? ? High Study at high risk of bias
Nelson-Piercy 200193 ? Low Study at low risk of bias
Neri 200594 ? ? ? High Selective reporting of outcomes and just

2/6 core risk of bias items satisfied
Oliveira 201395 ? ? ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
Ozgoli 200996 ? ? Unclear Unclear details on whether or not trial

was truly randomised, personnel
unblinded
Pasha 201297 ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias

42
Pongrojpaw 2007 ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
Rosen 200398 ? ? Low Not possible to blind personnel, but
patients were blinded to sham devices
Saberi 201313 ? Low Trial of acupressure, ginger and no

treatment so blinding not possible
Safari 199899 ? Low Study at low risk of bias

100
Sahakian 1991 ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
Smith 2002101 Low Not possible to blind personnel to sham

control, but possible to blind patients
Smith 2004102 Low Study at low risk of bias
Sripramote 2003103 Low Study at low risk of bias

104
Steele 2001 ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias
continued
19
20
TABLE 4 Risk of bias summary: review authors judgements about each risk of bias item for included RCTs (continued )
Blinding of
participants,
Sullivan 1996105 ? ? ? Unclear If no change in nausea or emesis was

observed after 48 hours of medication
and hydration, patient was considered a

treatment failure, but unclear if included
in final analyses
Tan 2010106 Low Study at low risk of bias

107
Tan 2009 ? ? Unclear Placebo used Tic Tac (Ferrero UK Ltd,
Greenford, UK) which could potentially
lead to unblinding
Tan 2013108 ? Low Study at low risk of bias
Veciana 2001109 ? ? ? ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias

41
Vutyavanich 1995 ? Low Study at low risk of bias
110
Vutyavanich 2001 Low Study at low risk of bias
111
Werntoft 2001 ? ? ? ? High Study at high risk of bias
Wibowo 2012112 Low Study at low risk of bias

113
Willetts 2003 ? ? High Selective reporting of outcomes and just
Yost 2003114 ? ? ? High Selective reporting of outcomes and just
Zhang 2005115 ? High Study at high risk of bias
Ziaei 2004116 ? ? ? Unclear Study at unclear risk of bias

, high risk of bias; ?, unclear risk of bias; , low risk of bias; CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.
Thirty studies employed allocation concealment methods judged to carry low risk of bias, such as the use
of sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes containing allocation assignment.57,60,61,63,64,66,67,73,76,78,
8085,88,89,93,98,99,102,103,105108,112,118
Thirty studies did not provide sufficient information to allow a judgement of
low or high risk and were therefore classed as unclear.13,4143,58,59,62,65,6871,74,75,77,79,90,91,9497,100,104,109,111,113,114,116,117
The remaining four RCTs were judged as having high risk of allocation concealment bias.72,87,92,115 For example,
one study stated that patients were randomly divided into two groups by those involved in the study,72
or the nature of the intervention being tested meant it was not possible to conceal allocation.87,92,115
Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors

Of the included RCT studies, 32 were judged to have low risk of bias in relation to the blinding of
participants and other personnel involved in the trial,41,57,5964,67,71,72,74,79,8185,90,93,99,100,102,103,105,106,108,110,112,113,116,117
generally through the provision of medication in identical formats for both active and placebo. Sixteen
studies were judged to have high risk of bias in this respect, for example due to clear differences in either the
appearance, dosage rates or mode of delivery between intervention and placebo comparator, or as a result
of evidence that the research staff involved were aware of allocation status.13,58,66,68,75,77,78,80,8789,91,92,96,101,115
In some instances, however, despite lack of blinding, the nature of the intervention meant that this was not
relevant; for example, in McParlin and colleagues88 where blinding of participants and staff was not possible
as the packages of care delivered to the intervention and control groups varied in content. However, it is
important to highlight that although it might not have been possible to blind patients or clinicians, outcome
assessors and analysts handling the resultant data may nevertheless have been blinded. The remaining
16 studies did not provide sufficient information to permit a judgement of low or high bias, often due to
imprecise, poor reporting, and were thus classed as unclear.42,43,65,69,70,73,76,94,95,97,98,104,107,109,111,114
Incomplete outcome data

Most studies (n = 50) were judged as carrying low risk of bias in relation to this component.13,41,42,57,5961,
6365,67,7072,7476,78,8085,8789,9194,9699,102108,110,112118
Although published protocols were rarely available, all data
for the primary outcomes pre-specified in the paper were reported for all randomised participants, or rates
of drop-out were either sufficiently low (< 20%), or proportionately comparable between groups, so that
it was not considered likely to result in a clinically relevant bias. Three studies displayed a high risk of bias
in this regard, all as a result of high numbers of participant drop-outs.62,68,111 The remainder (11 studies in
total) were judged as unclear due to lack of sufficient information.43,58,66,69,73,77,79,90,95,100,109

Six studies were judged as having high risk of bias in terms of selective outcome reporting, due to
either not reporting data for pre-specified outcomes, or for reporting data in the results that were not
pre-specified in either the original study protocol or methods section.87,90,94,113115 Forty-five studies were
classed as having low risk of bias, with all outcomes specified and subsequently reported.13,41,43,57,5967,7072,
7476,78,80,81,8385,88,89,9193,9699,101104,106108,110,112,116,117
Risk of bias was judged as unclear for the final
13 studies.42,58,68,69,73,77,79,82,95,100,105,109,111
Other sources of bias

Twenty of the included RCT studies were judged as having low risk of bias in this area.13,41,42,61,62,64,67,70,71,
74,81,83,88,96,101103,106,110,112
However, a substantial number (n = 44) were classed as unclear, due to lack of
sufficient information in the paper to permit detailed assessment of whether or not an important risk of
bias existed, or due to insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem had introduced serious
levels of bias to the study.43,5760,65,66,68,69,72,73,7580,82,84,85,87,8995,97100,104,105,107109,111,113117,119 For example, in one
paper,76 lack of reporting of full results for the control group resulted in an unclear judgement in this area.
Case series studies

The nine case series or non-randomised studies were quality assessed using the component-based EPHPP
tool,47 which appraises studies on the basis of six core components, rated 14 (where 1 is deemed to be
21
the highest quality of study). These areas are selection bias; strength of overall study design; extent to
which confounders were identified and controlled for in the study; blinding of participants and/or research
personnel; approach to data collection; and rate of withdrawals/drop-outs from study. As shown in the
Table 5, all studies were judged as weak in terms of quality (which corresponds to a high risk of bias
judgement using the standard Cochrane approach for RCTs).
Interventions and comparators
The included studies were grouped into the three broad groups of interventions outlined in Chapter 1:
patient-initiated first-line interventions; clinician-prescribed second-line interventions; and clinician-prescribed
third-line interventions. It should be noted that, for patient-initiated first-line interventions, the only studies
identified that could be classified as lifestyle interventions were those which trialled ginger preparations and/or
vitamin B6. No studies of dietary- or hypnotherapy-based interventions were identified. However, studies of a
number of novel therapies not covered by our original review protocol were identified, namely the use of
aromatherapy, transdermal clonidine and gabapentin. The studies comprising the evidence base for each
group of interventions are detailed in Table 6. Note that all studies are two-arm RCTs unless otherwise stated.
In addition, the network plot (Figure 4) shows the range of interventions from all comparative studies
included in the review. Individual interventions have been grouped where appropriate.
The size of the nodes in the network plot is proportional to the frequency of the intervention in the
review, and the width of the lines indicates the frequency of the comparisons made between two
interventions. These nodes and lines, however, do not represent the weight of evidence in the review as
this would also be influenced by sample size and the precision of estimates, as well as other factors. The
plot did not include a trial on pre-emptive treatment of doxylamine/pyridoxine combination, outpatient
versus inpatient care117,127 or two four-arm trials,68,101 which would have over-reported the number of
comparisons in the network plot. These interventions included dietary instructions only, or together with
either placebo, antihistamines or antihistamine/vitamin B6 combination in one trial68 and traditional
acupuncture, P6 acupuncture, placebo or no acupuncture in another trial.101 Ginger, vitamin B6,
antihistamines, acupressure, metoclopramide, corticosteroids, doxylamine/pyridoxine combination and the
TABLE 5 Study quality summary: review authors judgements about each risk of bias item for each included case
series or non-randomised study
Selection Study Data collection Withdrawals and Overall

Study bias design Confounders Blinding method drop-outs rating
Alalade 2007120 2 3 3 3 1 4 Weak
Ashkenazi-Hoffnung 2 3 3 2 3 1 Weak
201336
Einarson 2004121 1 3 3 3 1 1 Weak

122
Ferreira 2003 2 3 3 3 1 1 Weak
39
Guttuso 2010 1 3 3 N/A 1 1 Weak
123
Hsu 1996 2 3 3 3 1 1 Weak
Markose 2004124 2 3 3 3 1 3 Weak

125
Moran 2002 3 3 3 3 3 1 Weak
126
Saha 2009 3 3 3 2 2 4 Weak
N/A, not applicable.
22
TABLE 6 Number of studies by intervention and comparator
Number of
Intervention/comparator studies Studies
Patient-initiated first-line intervention
Ginger vs. placebo 7a Basirat 200960 (biscuit)
Fischer-Rasmussen 199174
Keating 200282 (syrup)

a
Mohammadbeigi 201189 (also ginger vs.
metoclopramide)
Ozgoli 200996
Vutyanvanich 2001110
Willetts 2003113
Ginger vs. acupressure 1 Saberi 201313
Ginger vs. vitamin B6 6 Chittumma 200767
Ensiyeh 200970
Narenji 201292
Haji Seid Javadi 201377
Smith 2004102
Sripramote 2003103
Ginger vs. doxylamine/pyridoxine 1 Biswas 201163
Ginger vs. antihistamine 1 Pongrojpaw 200742
Ginger vs. metoclopramide 1a a
Mohammadbeigi 201189 (also ginger vs.
placebo)
Vitamin B6 vs. placebo 3 Tan 2009107 [metoclopramide vitamin
B6 (dopamine receptor antagonist)]
Sahakian 1991100
Vutyavanich 199541
High- vs. low-dose vitamin B6 1 Wibowo 2012112 (high- vs. low-dose
vitamin B6)
Antihistamine vitamin B6 2 Babaei 201459
Diggory 196268 (four-arm RCT)

Aromatherapy 2 Ghani 201376
Pasha 201297
Acupressure vs. nocebo 8 Bayreuther 199461
Belluomini 199462
Can Gurkan 200843
Heazell 200678
Hsu 200379
continued
23
TABLE 6 Number of studies by intervention and comparator (continued )
Number of
Naeimi Rad 201291
Steele 2001104
Werntoff 2001111 (three-arm RCT)

Acupressure 1 Markose 2004124 (case series)
Acupressure vs. vitamin B6 1 Jamigorn 200780
Nerve stimulation vs. placebo 3 Evans 199373
Rosen 200398
Veciana 2001109
Acupuncture vs. placebo 3 Carlsson 200066
Knight 200183
Smith 2002101 (four-arm RCT)

Acupuncture vs. metoclopramide 1 Neri 200594
Acupuncture moxibustion vs. Chinese herbal 2 Mao 200987
medicine vs. Western medicine
Zhang 2005115
Clinician-prescribed second-line intervention
Doxylamine/pyridoxine (Diclectin) vs. placebo 1 Koren 201084

Pre-emptive Diclectin vs. Diclectin once symptoms 1 Maltepe 2013117 (pre-emptive therapy)
begin
Koren 2013127
Doxylamine/pyridoxine vs. metoclopramide 1 Ashkenazi-Hoffnung 201336 (cohort study)
Doxylamine/pyridoxine vs. ondansetron 2 Oliveira 201395
Capp 201465
i.v. fluids (D-Saline vs. N-Saline) 1 Tan 2013108
i.v. fluids diazepam 1 Ditto 199969
Antihistamine vs. placebo 1 Erez 197171
Antihistamine + vitamin B6 vs. placebo 1 Monias 195790
Droperidol/antihistamine combination vs. other 1 Ferreira 2003122 (cohort study)
medication (dopamine receptor antagonist)
Metoclopramide vs. antihistamine (phenothiazine) 1 Tan 2010106
(dopamine receptor antagonist)
Serotonin antagonist (ondansetron) vs. antihistamines 2 Eftekhari 201372
Sullivan 1996105
Serotonin antagonist (ondansetron) vs. 3 Abas 201457
metoclopramide
Ghahiri 201175
Kashifard 201381
Serotonin antagonist (ondansetron) vs. other 1 Einarson 2004121 (cohort study)
Transdermal clonidine vs. placebo patch 1 Maina 201485
Out patient management vs. routine inpatient care 1 McParlin 200888 and McParlin
unpublished
Out patient management 1 Alalade 2007120 (case series)
24
TABLE 6 Number of studies by intervention and comparator (continued )
Number of
Clinician-prescribed third-line intervention

Steroids vs. treatment as usual 7 Adamczak 200758
Bondok 200664
Moran 2002125 (case series)
Nelson-Piercy 200193
Safari 1998128
Yost 2003114
Ziaei 2004116
Nasogastric feeding 1 Hsu 1996123 (case series)
Jejunostomy 1 Saha 2009126 (case series)
Gabapentin 1 Guttuso 201039 (case series)
D-Saline, dextrose saline; N-Saline, normal saline.
a Results from a three-arm RCT, ginger vs. placebo vs. metoclopramide; therefore, this study appears twice in the
comparator table.
ine iods
am e sal er
i a ze p
x t ro s
i c ost
Different aromatherapy oil D De r t
Co
Doxylamine/pyridoxine
Ginger biscuit Chinese Herbal Medicine
Aromatherapy oil
Ginger capsules
Antihistamine/droperidol
Ginger syrup
Antihistamine
Ginger tablet
Acupuncture moxibustion
High-dose vitamin B6
Acupuncture
Low-dose vitamin B6
Acupressure
Metoclopramide
Western medicine
Nerve stimulation therapy
Vitamin B6 tablet
Nocebo
Vitamin B6 syrup
Normal saline
Vitamin B6 capsules
Ondansetron
Vitamin B6 + metoclopramide
Other Treatment as usual
Transdermal clonidine
Placebo
(form of placebo varied according to type
of trial and intervention)
FIGURE 4 Network plot of range of interventions and comparisons for NVP/HG. Size of node is proportional to
frequency of intervention and width of line to frequency of comparisons between two interventions. Plot does not
include one pre-emptive trial,117 outpatient care trial127 and two four-arm trials.68,101
25
serotonin antagonist ondansetron are more widely reported than other interventions, but there is also
information on interventions such as acupuncture, nerve stimulation therapy and aromatherapy oils which
have been considered as treatments for NVP/HG. Evidence on the effects of interventions such as Chinese
herbal medicine, dextrose saline, transdermal clonidine and diazepam is very limited and in most cases is
reported in single trials. As expected, placebo interventions are most widely reported as comparators, and
so this has the biggest node on the network plot (emphasised by the square node). The most commonly
reported treatment comparisons are ginger capsules versus placebo; acupressure versus placebo; ginger
capsules versus vitamin B6 capsules; corticosteroids versus treatment as usual; metoclopramide versus
ondansetron; and acupuncture versus nocebo (nocebo is an inert intervention that creates comparable side
effects/harmful effects in a patient, as opposed a placebo, which is an inert substance that creates either a
beneficial response or no response in a patient).
Participants and symptom severity
In addition to substantial variation in terms of the range of interventions and comparators evident within
the literature, it is also important to highlight the heterogeneity of symptom severity found among
patient populations.
It was initially intended that as part of this review only studies that recruited women with severe NVP or
HG would be included. However, assessment of symptom severity varied within and across studies, and it
was not possible to easily place every participant population into categories. We therefore attempted to
categorise the symptom severity of participants for each study, using the description of severity in the
inclusion criteria and, if available, any severity score given at baseline. These two items of information were
assessed by two independent assessors (CMP and SCR) to assign severity as mild, moderate, severe or
unclear. Agreement was reached for all but one study, which was classified as unclear.
This classification was then used in each results chapter to describe symptoms and outcomes in terms
of severity.
Outcome measures
Finally, and linked to the issues discussed above, the identified literature in this field was also characterised
by the range of symptom severity scales employed from study to study to assess intervention outcomes.
Out of the 73 included studies (reported in 75 papers), only 23 used validated NVP/HG assessment scales
such as PUQE (10 studies), RINVR (11 studies) or the McGill Nausea Questionnaire (one study). Thirty-one
studies assessed nausea and/or vomiting severity using a 10-point VAS. Twenty-one studies employed
either a study-specific, non-validated author-defined assessment scale (including, for example, numbers of
episodes of vomiting combined with the use of a Likert scale to assess subjective feelings of symptom
severity among participants), or used the various proxy measures of symptom severity outlined in our
protocol [e.g. percentage weight loss, length of hospital stay, or hospital (re-)admission episodes]. Table 7
illustrates the primary symptom severity outcome measures employed by each included study.
Additional sources of outcome data on medications
The UKTIS is currently commissioned by Public Health England to provide advice to UK health professionals
on the fetal effects of therapeutic, poisoning and chemical exposures in pregnancy, and to conduct
surveillance of known and emerging teratogens. The UKTIS database currently contains a record of just
under 60,000 enquiries dating back to 1978, of which 320 relate to use of specific drugs in the treatment
of HG (period of enquiry 18 June 1978 to 18 March 2014). Surveillance data collected by the UKTIS are
reviewed periodically and published in UKTIS monographs through the National Poisons Information
26
TABLE 7 Validated and non-validated symptom severity measures employed by each included study
McGill Nausea Other scale/proxy

Study PUQE RINVR Questionnaire NVPI VAS measure
Abas 201457
Adamczak 2007 58

Alalade 2007 120

Ashkenazi-Hoffnung 2013 36

Babaei 2014 59

Basirat 2009 60

Bayreuther 199461
Belluomini 1994 62

Biswas 2011 63

Bondok 2006 64

Can Gurkan 2008 43

Capp 2014 65

Carlsson 2000 66

Tan 2010 106

Tan 2013108
Tan 2009 107

Chittumma 2007 67

Diggory 1962 68

Ditto 1999 69

Einarson 2004 121

Ensiyeh 2009 70

Erez 1971 71

Evans 199373
Ferreira 2003 122

Fischer-Rasmussen 1991 74

Ghahiri 2011 75

Ghani 2013 76

Guttuso 2010 39

Heazell 2006 78

Hsu 1996 123

Hsu 200379
Jamigorn 200780
Kashifard 2013 81

Keating 2002 82

Knight 2001 83

Koren 2010 84

Maina 2014 85

Maltepe 2013 86

Mao 200787
Markose 2004 124

continued
27
TABLE 7 Validated and non-validated symptom severity measures employed by each included study (continued )
McGill Nausea Other scale/proxy

Study PUQE RINVR Questionnaire NVPI VAS measure
McParlin 200888
Mohammadbeigi 2011 89

Monias 1957 90

Moran 2002 125

Naeimi Rad 201291
Narenji 2012 92

Nelson-Piercy 2001 93

Neri 2005 94

Oliveira 2013 95

Ozgoli 2009 96

Pasha 2012 97

Pongrojpaw 2007 42

Rosen 200398
Saberi 201313
Safari 1998 99

Saha 2009 126

Sahakian 1991 100

Haji Seid Javadi 2013 77

Smith 2004 102

Smith 2002 101

Sripramote 2003 103

Steele 2001104
Sullivan 1996105
Eftekhari 2014 72

Veciana 2001 109

Vutyavanich 2001 110

Vutyavanich 1995 41

Werntoft 2001 111

Wibowo 2012 112

Willetts 2003113
Yost 2003 114

Zhang 2005 115

Ziaei 2004 116

Service database (www.TOXBASE.org). Data collected by the UKTIS in relation to medications for NVP/HG,
including specific monograph data on ginger, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, promethazine and olanzapine,
are provided in Table 43, Appendix 7 for information.
28
Meta-analysis of included randomised controlled trials
As highlighted in the previous sections, there was wide variation across studies. Specifically, there was
considerable heterogeneity between interventions within each of the categories of comparisons, and in
terms of how interventions were administered/delivered. The measurement of outcomes also differed
substantially between trials reporting the same comparisons, so in most cases the trials were not directly
comparable. In a meta-analysis it is important not to combine outcomes that are too diverse; even if it had
been possible to extract data for a meta-analysis, such an analysis is likely to produced misleading results
due to the considerable heterogeneity between studies.46 Furthermore, many of these trials were extremely
poorly reported and their conduct was often uncertain. In summary, clinical and methodological variations
between studies were considerable, and the intervention effect was likely to be affected by the factors that
varied across studies. Consequently, we have not conducted a meta-analysis of findings from the RCTs.
Structure of individual results chapters
The following chapters present more detailed findings from the evidence review for each individual
intervention. As already indicated, given it was not possible to meta-analyse the data from individual
studies for any group of interventions and comparators, the results are summarised in narrative form.
The narrative content of each chapter focuses on the findings from the included studies in terms of their
reported effectiveness for addressing our primary outcomes of interest, that is, the key symptoms
associated with HG/NVP. Thus, where available, effectiveness is reported in terms of the validated overall
HG/NVP assessment scales (PUQE, RINVR or McGill Nausea Questionnaire). Otherwise, the effectiveness of
interventions is reported in relation to their impact on the three key symptoms: nausea, vomiting and
retching. Data illustrating significant results in relation to these key symptoms are detailed in the narrative
text; otherwise, results are described as not significance or not clear. Data for case series studies are not
included in the narrative but available in the accompanying results tables for information. Additional
secondary outcome data reported by included studies (see Table 2 for a full list) are presented in
Appendix 8.
29
Chapter 4 Clinical effectiveness: ginger
Introduction
Ginger was used as an intervention to treat HG, NVP or various forms of pregnancy sickness in a total of
16 RCTs.13,42,60,63,67,70,74,77,82,89,92,96,102,103,110,113 Heterogeneity was observed in relation to the clinical setting
and patient populations in which the studies were conducted, as well as the interventions, comparators and
outcomes reported in each trial. As previously described (see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included
randomised controlled trials) given the differences between trials in patient populations, settings,
interventions and, in particular, the heterogeneous nature of the reported outcomes across trials, we did
not attempt to perform meta-analyses and have thus reported a narrative summary only for each
intervention and comparator set, with additional outcome data presented in Table 8.
Of the included trials, half (n = 8) described the women participants as experiencing symptoms categorised
at the mild end of the NVP severity scale.60,63,67,70,82,89,110,113 Six were classed as including participants with
mildmoderate symptom severity.13,74,92,96,102,103 The information provided by the remainder was insufficient
to categorise objectively severity, although the authors describe the women as experiencing pregnancy-related
nausea and vomiting.42,77 Of the 16 studies, 4 were judged to carry a high risk of bias,77,89,92,113 10 low
risk,13,60,63,67,70,74,82,102,103,110 and the remainder, unclear due to lack of information.42,96
Ginger capsules versus placebo capsules
Five trials74,89,96,110,113 compared ginger and placebo capsules for the treatment of NVP. The trial by
Mohammadbeigi and colleagues89 was a three-arm RCT which compared ginger, metoclopramide and
placebo.89 Only one trial74 explicitly reported the effects of ginger in the treatment of HG (which they
define as vomiting occurring during pregnancy, presenting prior to the 20th week and of sufficient severity
to require hospital admission). However, it is important to note that this deviates from the standard
definition of HG (see Chapter 1, Background). Three of these trials were judged to carry a low risk of bias,
two high risk due to issues regarding blinding of personnel administering the treatment89 or selective
outcome reporting113 and the risk of bias in the remaining trial was unclear.96
Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting and Retching

In the Mohammadbeigi and colleagues89 trial, the observed differences in the RINVR score on the second
day (ginger: 26.41 4.12; metoclopramide: 25.56 5.51; placebo: 27.35 3.36) and the fifth day
(ginger: 18.71 2.81; metoclopramide: 18.53 5.18; placebo: 23.15 4.03) compared with the first
day of treatment (ginger: 31.68 5.32; metoclopramide: 30.00 8.29; placebo: 30.53 4.64) were
statistically significant in all groups (p < 0.001).89 Although there was a reduction in scores in all three
groups, the authors stated that the intensity of changes was different in ginger (p < 0.01) and
metoclopramide (p = 0.03) groups compared with placebo, but did not differ between the ginger and
metoclopramide groups (p = 0.51). However, it was not clear from the paper how differences in the intensity
of changes were established.
Author-defined symptom severity/relief scales

Fischer-Rasmussen and colleagues74 devised a study-specific severity/relief score based on the degree of
nausea, duration and number of episodes of vomiting and change in body weight, and a subjective
assessment of the extent to which these symptoms had improved, worsened or stayed the same. In this
randomised crossover trial, the authors compared relief scores at day 5 and day 11, following 4 days of
treatment with either ginger or placebo capsules. Fischer-Rasmussen and colleagues74 reported that the
mean severity scores decreased equally in the two groups. However, given the differences in gestational
31
32
TABLE 8 Results for ginger-based interventions for NVP
Research Number of Severity Severity scores

question, participants, inclusion (reviewers Outcome Symptom relief
Study Setting, location study design gestation criteria assessment) Intervention Comparator assessment scale outcomes
Ginger vs. placebo
Basirat 200960 Antenatal clinic, Effect of ginger in 65 (I = 35, C = 35), Author defined, Nausea VAS score: Ginger biscuits Non-ginger VAS for nausea Nausea: average change in
Babol University of a biscuit form on 717 weeks women with I = 5.88 1.83, (0.5 mg of ginger, containing biscuits scores over 4 days in the
Medical Sciences, NVP, double-blind nausea and C = 4.67 1.97 five biscuits daily (five biscuits daily Episodes of ginger group = 2.57
Iran RCT vomiting of for 4 days) for 4 days) vomiting 1.77, placebo group =
pregnancy Episodes of vomiting 1.39 1.62; p = 0.01
I = 1.63 1.18,
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: GINGER
C = 1.3 1.3 Vomiting: average change

in episodes over 4 days in

(MILD) ginger group = 0.96 0.2,
placebo group =
0.62 0.19; p = 0.243
Fischer-Rasmussen Obstetrics and Effectiveness of 30 (I = 15, C = 15), Women 70% of participants Ginger capsules Placebo capsules Author-defined Mean severity scores
199174 Gynaecology ginger capsules on I = 11 weeks (717), admitted to the reported constant (250 mg of (250 mg of lactose) severity score for decreased equally in the
Department, the symptoms of C = 10.8 weeks hospital with nausea at baseline powdered root four times daily for nausea (13) two groups
University Hospital HG, double-blind (716) HG before ginger) four times 4 days, followed by
of Copenhagen, randomised 20th week of 66.6% of women daily for 4 days, a 2-day wash out Author-defined Mean relief scores
Denmark crossover trial gestation and reported vomiting followed by a before alternate relief score for highlighted greater relief
with symptoms two to six times per 2-day wash out treatment nausea and of symptoms after ginger
persisting after day before alternate vomiting (3 to 3) treatment compared to
2 days treatment placebo (p = 0.035)
33.3% of women Episodes of
reported vomiting vomiting
seven or more times
per day
(MILDMODERATE)
82
Keating 2002 Department of Effectiveness of 26 (I = 14, C = 12), Women NR 250 mg ginger + Placebo VAS for nausea Ten women in ginger
Obstetrics and ginger syrup 711 weeks complaining of honey and water. syrup = water, group had 4-point
Gynaecology, mixed in water in nausea with (MILD) One table spoon honey and lemon Episodes of improvement on VAS by
University of treating NVP in and without mixed with oil. One table vomiting day 9. Placebo group:
South Florida, FL, the first trimester vomiting either 48 ounces water spoon mixed with two women had same
USA, private of pregnancy, at a planned or taken four times a 48 ounces water improvement by day 9
practice office double-blind RCT ad hoc obstetric day for 2 weeks. taken four times a
visit and were Both groups day for 2 weeks Eight women in the ginger
not taking a received verbal group stopped vomiting by
prescribed or and written day 6. Only two women in
over-the-counter dietary advice the placebo group stopped
antiemetic by day 6
No statistical analysis

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
Ozgoli 200996 Isfahan City Effects of ginger 70 (I = 35, C = 35) Women with Nausea intensity Capsules Identical placebo VAS for vomiting Nausea intensity: ginger
Hospitals, Iran in nausea and mild and moderate I = 56% containing 250 mg capsules containing symptoms group had a higher rate
vomiting of moderate C = 54%; mild of ginger extract lactose taken of improvement (85% vs.
pregnancy, nausea, with I = 18.7% taken four times following same VAS for nausea 56%; p < 0.01)
single-blind RCT or without C = 25.7%; severe daily for 4 days. regime. Dietary intensity
vomiting I = 8% C = 7% Dietary advice advice given. Vomiting: 50% decrease
given. Twice daily Twice daily VAS in the ginger group vs.
(MILDMODERATE) VAS score score completed 9% in the placebo group;
completed p < 0.05
Vutyavanich Antenatal clinic, Effectiveness of 70 (I = 32, C = 38), First attended Baseline nausea Capsules Identical placebo VAS for nausea Decrease in nausea score:
2001110 Maharaj Nakorn ginger for the I = 10.3 2.6 the clinic before scores (cm): containing 250 mg capsules following ginger group (2.1 1.9)
Chiang Mai treatment of NVP, 17 weeks I = 4.7 2.1, of ginger taken the same regime. Episodes of vs. placebo group
University double-masked gestation and C = 5.4 2.1(MILD) three times/day Dietary advice vomiting (0.9 2.2; p = 0.014)
Hospital, Chiang RCT had nausea of following meals given
Mai, Thailand pregnancy, with and another Decrease in vomiting
or without before bed for episodes: ginger group
vomiting 4 days. Dietary (1.4 1.3) vs. placebo
advice given group (0.3 1.1;
p < 0.001)
Willetts 2003113 Antenatal clinic, Effect of a ginger 120 (I = 60, C = 60) Women who Nausea experience Capsules Identical placebo RINVR score Nausea experience score:
Royal Hospital for extract (EV.EXT35) have experienced score presented as a containing 125 mg capsules containing significantly less for the
Women, Sydney, on the symptoms morning sickness figure, no numerical of ginger extract soya oil taken ginger extract group
NSW, Australia of morning daily for at least values available taken four times following same relative to the placebo
sickness, a week which (MILD) daily for 4 days. regime group after the first day
double-blind RCT had failed RINVR score and each subsequent
to respond to completed 1 hour treatment day
dietary measures later
Retching: reduced by the
ginger extract although to
a lesser extent
Vomiting: no significant
effect observed
continued
33
34
TABLE 8 Results for ginger-based interventions for NVP (continued )

Ginger vs. vitamin B6
Chittumma Antenatal clinic, Effectiveness 126 (I = 63, C = 63), Women who RINVR score: I = 8.7 Ginger capsules, Vitamin B6 RINVR score Symptoms reduced in
200767 Vajira Hospital, of ginger in I = 12 (SD 2) C = 11 had nausea with (SD 2.2), C = 8.3 2 325 mg four capsules, both groups. Ginger from
Bangkok, Thailand comparison with (SD 2) or without (SD 2.5) times daily for 2 12.5 mg four 8.7 2.2 to 5.4 2.0
vitamin B6 for vomiting and 4 days. Dietary times daily for and vitamin B6 from
treatment of NVP, required (MILD) advice given 4 days. Dietary 8.3 2.5 to 5.7 2.3
double-blind RCT treatment advice given (p < 0.05). The mean
score change with ginger
was greater than with

vitamin B6 (3.3 1.5 vs.

2.6 1.3) (p < 0.05)
Ensiyeh 200970 Antenatal clinic, Effectiveness 70 (I = 35, C = 35), Womens first VAS for nausea: Ginger capsules, Vitamin B6 VAS to assess Mean change in nausea
Fatemieh Hospital, of ginger in NR attendance I = 5.4 cm 2.6, 500 mg, twice capsules, 20 mg nausea score over 4 days: ginger
Hamedan, Iran comparison with at clinic and C = 4.6 cm 2.3 daily for 4 days. twice daily for 2.2 1.9 compared with
vitamin B6 for the experienced VAS completed 4 days. VAS Episodes of vitamin B6 group
treatment of NVP, nausea, with or (MILD) three times daily completed three vomiting 0.9 1.7 (p = 0.024)
double-blind RCT without times daily
vomiting Vomiting episodes
decreased in both groups,
but no difference
between groups. Ginger
mean change 0.6 0.7,
vitamin B6 mean change
0.5 1.1 (p = 1.101)
Haji Seid Javadi Health centres, Effectiveness of 95 (I = 47, C = 48), Women NR Ginger tablets, Vitamin B6 tablets, PUQE score Mean change of PUQE
201377 University of ginger in ginger 9 (SD 1.1) suffering from 250 mg, 6-hourly 40 mg, 12-hourly score over 4 days: ginger
Medical Sciences comparison with weeks, vitamin B6 pregnancy (NOT CLEAR) for 4 days for 4 days group 8.32 (SD 2.19),
of Qazvin, Iran vitamin B6 for the 9 (SD 1.6) weeks induced nausea vitamin B6 group 7.77
treatment of NVP, (SD 1.80); p = 0.172
RCT
Retching in vitamin B6
group had a greater,
non-significant reduction;
p = 0.333
Narenji 201292 Antenatal clinic, Effectiveness of 100 (I = 50, C = 50) Women VAS mean (SE): Given i.v. fluids to Given i.v. fluids to VAS to assess Nausea score: vitamin B6
Arak University of ginger syrup in states < 17 weeks attending clinic nausea I = 5.6 rehydrate. Ginger rehydrate, vitamin nausea mean change 0.7 (SD 1.99),
Medical Sciences, comparison suffering from (1.94), C = 6.04 syrup (mix of B6 capsules, 40 mg ginger mean change 1.0
Iran with vitamin B6 at least (2.55); vomiting ginger and twice daily for Episodes of (SD 1.32); p = 0.8
for the treatment 24 hours of I = 5.6 (1.94), honey), one 4 days vomiting
of NVP, RCT nausea C = 6.66 (2.41) teaspoon twice Vomiting decreased in both
daily for 4 days groups but no significant
(MILDMODERATE) difference between groups

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
Smith 2004102 University, Comparison of 301 (I = 146, Women with Use of antiemetics: Ginger capsules, Vitamin B6 RINVR score Nausea: equivalent
Womens and ginger with C = 145), nausea or I = 33 (44%), C = 42 (350 mg) three capsules (25 mg) reduction in score for
Childrens Hospital, pyridoxine I median = 8.5, vomiting (56%) times a day three times a day both treatments. Mean
Adelaide, SA, hydrochloride range 815; for 3 weeks. for 3 weeks. difference 0.2 (90% CI
Australia, referrals (vitamin B6) in the C median = 8.6, (MILDMODERATE) (Participants could (Participants could 0.3 to 0.8)
from GPs and treatment of NVP, range 815 also take any other also take any other
health-care randomised, antiemetics they anti-emetics they Retching: mean difference
providers controlled wanted) wanted) 0.3 (90% CI 0.0 to 0.6)
equivalence trial
Vomiting: mean
difference 0.5 (90% CI
0.0 to 0.9), averaged over
time, with no evidence
of different effects at
the three time points
(7, 14 and 21 days)
Sripramote Antenatal clinic, Efficacy of ginger 138 (I = 68, C = 70), Women with Nausea scores: Ginger capsules, Vitamin B6 VAS for nausea Nausea: decreased in
2003103 Vajira Hospital, in comparison I = 10.1 (SD 2.74), nausea of I = 5.0 cm (SD 1.99), 500 mg, three capsules, 10 mg, both groups
Thailand, and with vitamin B6 in C = 10.3 (SD 2.95) pregnancy, with C = 5.3 cm times daily for following the same Episodes of
Obstetrics and the treatment of or without (SD 2.08). Episodes 3 days. Dietary regime vomiting Ginger: 5.0 (SD 1.99) to
Gynaecology NVP, double-blind vomiting and of vomiting in last advice given. VAS 3.6 (SD 2.48)
Department, RCT requesting 24 hours: I = 1 for nausea
Bangkok antiemetics (range 010), C = 1 completed three Vitamin B6: 5.3 (SD 2.08)
Metropolitan (range 010) times daily, plus to 3.3 (SD 2.07); p < 0.001
Administration record of vomiting
Medical College, (MILDMODERATE) episodes Vomiting: reduced in both
Bangkok groups
Ginger: 1.9 (SD 2.06) to

1.2 (SD 1.75)
Vitamin B6: 1.7 (SD 1.81)

to 1.2 (SD 1.50); p < 0.01
continued
35
36
TABLE 8 Results for ginger-based interventions for NVP (continued )

Ginger vs. acupressure
Saberi 201313 Antenatal clinic, Effectiveness of 159 (I = 53, C = 53, Women having RINVR score: Ginger capsules, C group received RINVR score Mean difference in
Naghvi Hospital, acupressure in control = 53), mild to moderate ginger = 17.91 250 mg, three no I improvement pre and post
Kashan, Iran comparison with ginger = 8.78 nausea and/or (SD 6.11); times daily for I: ginger 8.61 (SD 5.24),
ginger in the (SD 2.32), vomiting acupressure = 17.91 4 days. n = 53 acupressure 4.17 (SD 5.53),
treatment of NVP, acupressure = 9.32 (SD 5.90), C = 17.90 acupressure: C 0.84 (SD 3.72)
three-arm RCT (SD 2.38), (SD 5.30) sea-bands given,
control = 9.11 to be worn p < 0.001 for differences in
(SD 0.18) (MILDMODERATE) continuously for total score and for each
4 days component (nausea,

vomiting and retching)
Ginger vs. vitamin B6 combination
Biswas 201163 Seth Sukhlal Efficacy and 78 (I = 42, C = 36), Women who Median (IQR) VAS Ginger tablets, Doxinate (Sigma VAS for nausea Both groups had a
Karnani Memoria tolerability of I = 10.25 (SD 2.8), sought score nausea: 150 mg, three Laboratories, PVT significant decline in severity
Hospital, Kolkata, ginger extract in C = 9.3 (SD 3.1) treatment for I = 34.5 mm daily LTD, Mumbai) Episodes of of nausea and vomiting
India and R.G. Kar comparison with a the symptoms of (IQR 25.0), (doxylamine 10 mg vomiting from baseline to week 2
Medical College combination of morning sickness C = 30.4 mm (IQR plus pyridoxine
Hospitals, Kolkata, doxylamine between 6 and 34.0). Vomiting: 10 mg) three times Nausea persisted, but with
India 10 mg + pyridoxine 16 weeks of I = 14.5 mm (IQR daily reduced severity median
10 mg, single-blind pregnancy 33.0), C = 22.0 mm values tending towards zero
RCT without having (IQR 35.0) at study end
received any
previous (MILD) No significant difference
treatment between groups
Ginger vs. antihistamine
Pongrojpaw Hospital antenatal To study the 170 (I = 85, C = 85), Pregnant NR Ginger capsules, Dimenhydrate VAS to assess Nausea: mean score on
200742 clinic, Thammasat efficacy of I = 10.25 (SD 2.8), women with 500 mg, twice capsules, 50 mg nausea days 17 decreased in
University Hospital, ginger and C = 9.3 (SD 3.1) nausea and (NOT CLEAR) daily for 1 week twice daily for both groups. Daily score
Thailand dimenhydrinate in vomiting less 1 week Episodes of between groups not
the treatment of than 16 weeks vomiting statistically different
NVP, double-blind of gestation (p > 0.05)
RCT
Vomiting episodes:
on days 17 decreased
in both groups.
Dimenhydrinate
significantly more effective
on days 12 (p < 0.05).
Days 37 scores similar
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740

Ginger vs. metoclopramide
Mohammadbeigi Besat Hospital, To study the 102 (I = 34, C = 34, Women with NR Ginger capsules, Metoclopramide RINVR score Trend in symptom
201189 Kurdistan, Iran effects of ginger placebo = 34), inefficacy of 200 mg, three capsules, 10 mg, improvement to the 5th
NVP with ginger 9.5 2.02, food regimens (MILD) times daily for three times daily, day in all three groups
metoclopramide, metoclopramide in controlling 5 days and placebo
three-arm RCT 10.03 1.99, vomiting and (200 mg flour) for Nausea: ginger (p = 0.003)
placebo nausea 5 days and metoclopramide
10.32 2.25 (p = 0.001) had
significantly better
improvement than
placebo, but no difference
between ginger and
metoclopramide
(p = 0.683)
Vomiting: ginger
(p = 0.046) and
metoclopramide
(p = 0.018) had
significantly better
improvement than
placebo. No difference
between ginger and
metoclopramide group
(p = 0.718)
C, control; I, intervention; IQR, interquartile range; NR, not reported; SD, standard deviation.
37
age at baseline, the scores at points 1 and 11 were not considered directly comparable, and therefore no
statistical analysis was carried out. Mean relief scores showed greater relief of symptoms after ginger
treatment than after placebo (p = 0.035), with analyses of single-item components demonstrating a
particular reduction in vomiting episodes and nausea in the ginger group.
Vutyavanich and colleagues110 used 5-item Likert scales to assess patients subjective response to treatment
in terms of whether general nausea and vomiting symptoms had worsened, improved or stayed the same.
Of the 67 women surveyed, 28 out of 32 (88%) treated with ginger reported that their symptoms
improved, compared with only 10 out of 35 (29%) in the placebo group (p < 0.001).
Nausea outcomes
Willetts and colleagues113 examined the effect of a ginger extract on pregnancy-induced nausea.113 The
RINVR was used to assess nausea experience in terms of frequency, duration and distress (in addition to
vomiting and retching) 1 hour after treatment was administered. For both the ginger extract and placebo
groups, there was a reduction in the overall nausea experience score from baseline to day 1 of treatment,
which then remained at this reduced level until day 4 of treatment. The effect of ginger extract relative
to placebo on nausea experience was calculated as a difference parameter for 4 consecutive days of
treatment post baseline. On days 1, 2 and 4, the authors state that the difference parameter was
significantly less than zero, and that results showed a significant effect for ginger on nausea experience
by/on day 4. However, the authors did not report p-values and added a note of caution as results were
considered likely to be confounded by a regression-to-the-mean effect.
Mohammadbeigi and colleagues89 also measured nausea severity with the RINVR. The observed difference
in nausea severity between the second to the fifth days of the intervention and the first day was
significant in all three groups (p < 0.001). However, there were differences observed in the intensity of
changes in the ginger (p < 0.01) and metoclopramide (p = 0.01) groups compared with the placebo group.
The difference in intensity was not different between the ginger and metoclopramide groups (p = 0.68).
Ozgoli and colleagues96 investigated the effect of ginger capsules on NVP.96 They measured nausea
intensity twice a day for 4 days using a 10-point VAS, which was converted into author-defined categories
of severe, moderate, mild and no nausea (where 10 = most severe and 0 = absence of nausea). Based on
these categories, nausea improved in the ginger group compared with the placebo group: after treatment,
28% of women who had taken ginger capsules had no nausea compared with 10% in the placebo group
(p < 0.05). There were also more women who reported severe nausea in the placebo group (15%)
than in the ginger group (9%) (p < 0.05).
Vutyavanich and colleagues110 also used a VAS to assess severity of nausea. The mean change in nausea
scores (baseline minus average post-therapy nausea scores for all women) was greater in the ginger group
than in the placebo group (p = 0.014). To account for three missing patients in the placebo group, the
authors assumed that their nausea scores changed as much as subjects with the best improvement for the
purposes of intent-to-treat analysis. These results were sensitive to plausible extreme value sensitivity
analysis and differences in nausea scores were no longer significant (p = 0.08). When the mean change in
nausea scores were compared at baseline and at the end of the trial at day 4, there was a greater
reduction in nausea scores in the ginger group than in the placebo group (p = 0.035 and p = 0.005 in
analyses that did and did not impute for three missing placebo values respectively).
Vomiting outcomes
In the Willetts and colleagues113 trial there was no difference between ginger extract and placebo groups
for vomiting symptoms assessed using the RINVR.
Mohammadbeigi and colleagues89 also measured vomiting severity with the RINVR.89 Vomiting severity
decreased in the ginger, metoclopramide and placebo arms between the second to fifth days of
intervention compared with the first day (p < 0.01). There was an observed difference between the ginger
38
(p < 0.05) and metoclopramide (p = 0.02) groups compared with the placebo group. However, there was
no difference between the ginger and metoclopramide groups (p = 0.72).
In the trial of Ozgoli and colleagues,96 there was a 50% decrease in the number of vomiting episodes in
the ginger group post-treatment period (p < 0.05). In the control group, a 9% reduction was reported,
which was not statistically significant. The between-group rate of reduction in number of vomiting
episodes was also significant (p < 0.05).
After 4 days of treatment, the proportion of women in the Vutyavanich and colleagues trial110 who had
vomiting was lower in the ginger compared with the placebo group (37.5% vs. 68.0%; p = 0.021).
Similarly, a greater reduction in vomiting episodes was found in the ginger group compared with placebo
(based on baseline number of episodes minus average number of vomiting episodes over the 4 days of
treatment) (p < 0.001).
Retching outcomes
In the Willetts and colleagues113 trial, using the RINVR to assess symptoms, ginger extract was shown to lower
retching symptom scores compared with the placebo group for the first 2 of 4 consecutive days of treatment.
Safety outcomes
Fetal outcomes and maternal adverse events were reported in four out of five included trials.74,89,96,110
Fischer-Rasmussen and colleagues74 reported one miscarriage and one termination in trial participants.
These data are summarised in the text following but it should be noted that given the anticipated rarity of
these events, small trials are likely to provide unreliable estimates. No congenital anomalies were reported
and the mean birthweight/gestation at delivery were within normal ranges. No adverse effects were
reported in the trial of Ozgoli and colleagues96 Vutyavanich and colleagues110 reported one miscarriage
in the intervention ginger and three in placebo group, delivery at term in the majority of pregnancies in
both groups (placebo = 91.4%, ginger = 96.9%; no p-value reported) and no congenital anomalies.
See Appendix 8, Secondary outcome data for full details, with additional UKTIS ginger data provided in
Appendix 7.
Ginger syrup versus placebo syrup
The trial of Keating and Chez82 reported on the effect of ginger syrup versus non-ginger-containing placebo
syrup on nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. This trial was judged as carrying a low risk of bias.
Combined severity score

No combined score reported.
Nausea outcomes
Nausea severity was measured using the 10-point VAS: 10 out of 13 (77%) women who received ginger
had at least a 4-point improvement on the 10-point nausea scale by day 9; whereas only 2 out of 10
(20%) of the women in the placebo group had the same improvement. Conversely, no woman in the
ginger group, but seven (70%) in the placebo group, had a 2-point improvement on the nausea scale at
both 9 and 14 days. It was not reported whether or not these differences were statistically significant.
Vomiting outcomes
Eight out of 12 women in the ginger group who were vomiting daily at the beginning of treatment
stopped vomiting by day 6 compared with 2 out of 10 (20%) women in the placebo. Again, it was not
reported whether or not this difference was statistically significant.
Retching outcomes
No independent retching outcomes reported.
39
Safety outcomes
No safety-related outcome data were reported by Keating and Chez.82 See Appendix 7 for additional
UKTIS ginger data.
Ginger biscuit versus placebo biscuit
We identified one trial,60 judged at low risk of bias, which reported on the effect of ginger biscuits on
nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.

Basirat and colleagues60 used a 5-item Likert scale to assess patients subjective response to treatment in
terms of whether symptoms had worsened, improved or remained the same. They found that a higher
proportion of women consuming ginger compared with placebo biscuits reported improved symptoms:
28 out of 32 (88%) compared with 21 out of 30 (70%) (p = 0.043).
Nausea outcomes
Nausea severity was assessed via a 10-point VAS. The average improvement in nausea scores (baseline
minus average post-therapy nausea scores of day 14 for all subjects) in the ginger group was significantly
greater than that in the placebo group. The nausea score [standard deviation (SD)] on day 4 in the placebo
and ginger groups decreased to 3.03 (SD 2.47) from 4.67 (SD 1.97) and 3.03 (SD 2.19) from baseline
score of 5.88 (SD 1.83), respectively (p = 0.01).
Vomiting outcomes
The average reduction in the number of vomiting episodes (baseline minus average post-therapy nausea
scores of day 14 for all subjects) was greater in the ginger biscuit group (0.96 0.21) than in the placebo
biscuit group (0.62 0.19). However, this difference was not significant (p = 0.243). After 4 days of
treatment, the proportion of women who had no vomiting in the ginger group (11/32, 34%) was greater
than that in the placebo group (6/30, 20%). It was not reported whether or not this difference
was statistically significant.
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No safety-related outcome data were reported by Basirat and colleagues.60 See Appendix 7 for additional
UKTIS ginger data.
Ginger versus vitamin B6
Six trials compared ginger with vitamin B6 capsules for the treatment of NVP in pregnancy.67,70,77,92,102,103
Most of these trials were judged as being at a low risk of bias.67,70,102,103 However, risk of bias in the trial of
Haji Seid Javari and colleagues77 was judged as unclear, and Nanreji and colleagues92 was judged as being
at a high risk of bias due to concerns with regard to the blinding process and allocation concealment.

Chittumma and colleagues67 used a modified version of the RINVR to assess change in nausea and
vomiting severity (comprised episodes of nausea, duration of nausea and numbers of vomits). The trial
found a reduction in symptoms in both groups [ginger from 8.7 (SD 2.2) to 5.4 (SD 2.0); vitamin B6 from
8.3 (SD 2.5) to 5.7 (SD 2.3); p < 0.05]. However, the mean score reduction (i.e. improvement in symptoms)
with ginger was greater than with vitamin B6 (3.3 1.5 vs. 2.6 1.3) (p < 0.05).
40
Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea scale

Haji Seid Javadi and colleagues77 measured changes in symptoms using the PUQE scoring system (capturing
numbers of nausea, vomiting and retching episodes, along with severity). The study found an improvement
in PUQE scores between baseline and the subsequent 4 days of treatment [ginger 8.32 (SD 2.19), vitamin B6
7.77 (SD 1.80); p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was not significant (p = 0.172).

At the 1-week follow-up point, Ensiyeh and Sakineh70 used a 5-point Likert scale (much worse, worse,
same, better, much better) to assess overall treatment response. On day 7, 29 out of 35 (82.9%) women
in the ginger group reported an improvement in general symptoms, compared with 23 out of 34 (67.6%)
in the vitamin B6 group. However, this difference was not significant (p = 0.52).
Nausea outcomes
Sripramote and Lekhyananda103 used a 10-point VAS to measure nausea severity at baseline (pre treatment)
and days 13 (post treatment).103 Comparing baseline and post treatment, there was a reduction in mean
score change in both ginger (1.4, SD 2.22) and vitamin B6 groups (2.0, SD 2.19) (p < 0.001 for both
groups). However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.136).
Ensiyeh and Sakineh70 also used a 10-point VAS to assess nausea severity between baseline and the first
4 days of treatment. They found a greater mean change in nausea score over the 4 days in the ginger
group (2.2 1.9) compared with the vitamin B6 group (2.2 1.9) (p = 0.024).
Smith and colleagues102 used the RINVR to assess differences in nausea severity between baseline and at
days 7, 14 and 21. Equivalent reductions in mean differences over time were reported for both treatment
groups (mean difference 0.2, 90% CI 0.3 to 0.8).
Narenji and colleagues92 used a 10-point VAS to assess nausea severity. However, although both groups
reduced their mean nausea scores [vitamin B6 mean change 0.7 (SD 1.99), ginger mean change 1.0
(SD 1.32)], there was no difference between groups (p = 0.8).
Vomiting outcomes
Sripramote and Lekhyananda103 assessed vomiting severity by the change in number of vomiting episodes.
Both groups showed a reduction in the mean number of vomiting episodes [ginger group 0.7 (SD 2.18),
p = 0.003; vitamin B6 group 0.5 (SD 1.44), p = 0.008]. However, the mean change difference between
groups was not significant.
Ensiyeh and Sakineh70 also assessed the change in number of vomiting episodes between baseline and
the first 4 days of treatment. Although number of vomiting episodes decreased in both groups (ginger
0.6 0.7, vitamin B6 0.5 1.1), this difference was not statistically significant (p-value reported as
p = 1.101 in the paper, which we assume is a reporting error).
Narenji and colleagues92 also found a reduction in the number of episodes of vomiting in both groups.
However, they reported no difference between groups (although did not provide a p-value).
Smith and colleagues102 used the RINVR to assess differences in vomiting severity between baseline and at
Retching outcomes
Smith and colleagues102 used the RINVR to assess differences in retching severity between baseline and at
In the trial of Haji Seid Javadi and colleagues,77 changes in retching severity were assessed by PUQE scores. There
was no difference in the reduction of retching between the vitamin B6 group and ginger groups (p = 0.333).
41
Safety outcomes
Fetal outcomes and maternal adverse events were reported in four out of the six included trials.67,70,102,103
These data are summarised in the text following but as noted previously, given the anticipated rarity of
these events, small trials are likely to provide unreliable estimates.
No pregnancy outcomes were reported by either Sripramote and Leekhyananda103 or Chittumma and
colleagues,67 and both trials found only minor side effects in both groups. Sripramote and Leekhyananda103
found no difference in rates of sedation (ginger 26.6% vs. vitamin B6 32.8%; p = 0.439), or heartburn
(ginger 9.4% vs. vitamin B6 6.3%; p = 0.510). In the trial of Chittumma and colleagues,67 minor side
effects such as sedation, heartburn and arrhythmia were reported, but the difference between groups
was not significant (% experiencing side effects: ginger 25.4%, vitamin B6 23.8%; p = 0.80).
Ensiyeh and Sakineh70 reported slight drowsiness in 7% of the hydroxyzine-treated patients. In terms of
miscarriages, the ginger group reported two events and the vitamin B6 group reported one event.
However, no congenital abnormalities or neonatal problems were reported in either group. Smith and
colleagues102 reported no differences between groups in terms of live births, congenital abnormalities or
birthweight (p > 0.05). See Appendix 8, Secondary outcome data for full details, with additional UKTIS
ginger data provided in Appendix 7.
Ginger capsules versus acupressure
The trial of Saberi and colleagues13 reported a randomised comparison of the effectiveness of ginger
capsules versus acupressure to relieve NVP. A control arm was also included where no intervention was
performed during the 7 days of the trial. Analysis was performed on all participants. This study was judged
as carrying low risk of bias.

The authors calculated the mean difference in the overall RINVR scores between the three groups by
subtracting the pre-intervention (3 days before intervention) from the post-intervention (4 days after
treatment) scores. It was significantly greater (p < 0.001) in the ginger group (8.61 5.32) than in the
acupressure (4.17 5.53) and control groups (0.84 3.72). The authors reported that the total RINVR
scores was reduced by 49% in the ginger group and by 29% in the acupressure group. There was little
change in the control group (raised to 0.06%). It was not reported if the difference between these
three groups was significant.
Nausea outcomes
The difference in nausea severity (as assessed by the RINVR in the same way as above) was found to be
lower in the ginger group (3.94 2.58) compared with the acupressure (2.00 2.37) or control groups
(0.18 1.24) (p = 0.001 for differences between groups). A similar trend was observed in the reduction
percentage of scores (ginger 48%, acupressure 29%, control 0.03%), although it was not reported if this
difference was significant.
Vomiting outcomes
The difference in vomiting severity (as assessed by the RINVR in the same way as above) was found to be
lower in the ginger group (2.66 2.64) compared with the acupressure (0.64 2.14) or control groups
(0.17 2.12) (p = 0.001). A similar trend was observed in the reduction percentage of scores (ginger,
52%; acupressure, 19%; control, 0.24%), although it was not reported if this difference was significant.
Retching outcomes
The difference in retching severity (assessed as above) was also found to be lower in the ginger group
(2.01 1.56) compared with the acupressure (1.52 1.86) or control groups (0.31 1.36) (p = 0.001 for
42
differences between groups). A similar trend was observed in the percentage reduction of scores (ginger
46%, acupressure 37%, control 0.09%), although it was not reported if this difference was significant.
Safety outcomes
Saberi and colleagues13 did not report pregnancy-related outcomes and found no side effects in trial
participants. See Appendix 7 for additional UKTIS ginger data.
Ginger versus doxylaminepyridoxine
Biswas and colleagues63 reported a randomised, comparison of ginger extract tablets versus doxinate
(doxylamine 10 mg plus pyridoxine 10 mg) in the treatment of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.
Patients were blinded to the treatment, whereas investigators were not. However, overall, this study was
judged to have a low risk of bias.

Nausea outcomes
Nausea was assessed in terms of severity (using the 10-point VAS) and number of spells. Both groups
showed a significant decline in nausea severity median score {ginger from 34.5 [interquartile range (IQR)
0.091.0] to 0.00 [IQR 0.052.0]; doxylaminepyridoxine from 30.4 [IQR 0.0100.0] to 0.0 [IQR 0.065.0]}
and number of nausea spells {ginger from 3.0 [IQR 1.010.0] to 0.43 [IQR 0.0012.00]; doxylamine-
pyridoxine from 4.0 [IQR 0.012.00(sic)] to 0.6 [IQR 0.07.7]} (p = 0.001). However, between group
differences were not significant at any time point.
Vomiting outcomes
Vomiting was assessed in terms of severity (using the 10-point VAS) and number of episodes. Again, both
groups showed a decline in severity [ginger from median 14.00 (range 0.0073.00) to median 0.00
(range 0.0030.00); doxylaminepyridoxine from median 22.00 (range 0.0087.00) to median 0.00 (range
0.0047.00)] and vomiting episodes [ginger from median 0.14 (range 0.005.50) to median 0.15
(range 0.005.50); doxylaminepyridoxine from median 2.00 (range 0.006.00) to median 0.00 (range
0.002.80)]. However, as above, between group differences were not significant at any time point.
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No stillbirths, congenital anomalies, neonatal or fetal complications were reported in the trial of Biswas and
colleagues63 See Appendix 7 for additional UKTIS ginger data.
Ginger versus antihistamine (dimenhydrinate) capsules
Pongrojpaw and colleagues42 examined the effect of ginger versus antihistamine (dimenhydrinate) capsules
in the treatment of NVP. Risk of bias was unclear due to lack of information provided in this abstract.

Nausea outcomes
The mean nausea score during days 17 of the treatment decreased in both groups. There was no
significant difference in the daily mean nausea scores between both groups (p > 0.05).
43
Vomiting outcomes
The frequency of vomiting episodes during days 17 of the treatment decreased in both groups. There was
no significant difference in the daily mean number of vomiting episodes between days 37 post treatment
(p > 0.05), although the daily mean number of vomiting episodes in the dimenhydrinate group during days
1 and 2 of the treatment was less than in the ginger group (p < 0.05).
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes were reported; however, Pongrojpaw and colleagues42 found a significant
difference in drowsiness after treatment (dimenhydrinate 77.6% compared with ginger 5.9%; p < 0.01).
These data are summarised in the text following, but it should be noted that given the anticipated rarity
of these events small trials are likely to provide unreliable estimates. See Appendix 8, Secondary outcome
data for full details, noting the aforementioned caveat in relation to generalisability of this safety data,
with additional UKTIS ginger data provided in Appendix 7.
Ginger versus metoclopramide
The 2011 trial of Mohammadbeigi and colleagues89 randomised women to ginger, metoclopramide
or placebo capsules for the treatment of pregnancy sickness. Details are reported in Ginger capsules versus
placebo capsules concerning ginger versus placebo. In summary, both were found to be were efficacious
but there was no evidence that one treatment was superior to the other. Furthermore, as detailed above,
the trial was judged as carrying a high risk of bias due to concerns over lack of blinding of trial personnel.
Summary
l The evidence available for ginger was predominantly at low risk of bias or the risk of bias was unclear,
with four exceptions.77,89,92,113
l Ginger is one of the most widely reported interventions but the evidence is limited and generalisability
relates to women with less severe nausea and vomiting symptoms receiving ginger treatment.
l The quality of the evidence for ginger versus placebo is low and was downgraded due to clinical
heterogeneity and imprecision. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our
confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. There was a sparseness of data in
the other comparisons, so they were further downgraded to very low quality of evidence and we are
very uncertain about the estimates.
l The identified studies comparing ginger preparations with placebo generally reported evidence of an
improvement over a range of symptoms with the use of ginger.
l When consideration is restricted to those studies at low risk of bias, the results are less clear cut.
Ginger looks promising in reducing symptoms, but the findings are not conclusive.
l For the comparison of ginger preparations with acupressure, ginger again looks promising, but the
evidence is very limited in both quantity and quality.
l For the comparison of ginger versus vitamin B6 there are some higher-quality studies, but in general
there was little evidence of a difference in the severity of symptoms between groups. There were few
data for the comparisons of ginger against doxylaminepyridoxine or antihistamine or metoclopramide,
and minimal evidence suggesting any difference between groups.
l Overall, there is a suggestion that ginger might be better than placebo in reducing the severity of
symptoms, but more larger, better-quality studies are required for this and all other comparators.
44
Chapter 5 Clinical effectiveness: acupressure,

acupuncture and nerve stimulation
Introduction
Acupuncture or acupressure was used as an intervention for NVP in a total of 18 RCTs and one case series
study. The majority (n = 13) of studies compared acupressure, acupuncture or nerve stimulation against
placebo or sham treatment. However, heterogeneity was observed in relation to the clinical setting and patient
populations in which the studies were conducted, as well as the interventions, comparators and outcomes
reported in each trial. As previously described (see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included randomised controlled
trials), given the differences between trials in patient populations, settings, interventions and, in particular, the
heterogeneous nature of the reported outcomes across trials, we did not attempt to perform meta-analyses.
We have thus reported a narrative summary only for each intervention and comparator set, with additional
outcome data presented in Table 9.
Of the identified trials, eight were judged as being low risk of bias,61,62,66,80,83,91,98,101 with a further six
unclear due to lack of sufficient information on the research process.43,73,78,79,104,109 Four were judged as
carrying high risk of bias on the basis of incomplete outcome data and weak randomisation process,115
lack of blinding,87 or selective outcome reporting.94,111,115 We also identified a case series which evaluated
the effect of P6 acupressure by Markose and colleagues,124 which was categorised as weak based on the
EPHPP tool.
The severity of symptoms for patient participants in the studies comprising this group of interventions
varied substantially. Three studies were classed as focussing on women with mild NVP,61,62,104 seven with
mild to moderate,43,80,83,91,98,101,124 two with moderate severity,78,115 four with moderate to severe,66,87,94,111
and a final three for which severity was not possible to classify.73,79,109
Acupressure versus placebo
Eight trials compared acupressure with placebo or sham treatment.43,61,62,78,79,91,104,111 Seven

trials43,61,62,78,79,104,111 involved the comparison of acupressure administered to the P6 acupoint, which lies
between the tendons of the palmaris longus and flexor carpi radialis muscles, four centimetres proximal to
the wrist crease.129 Six of these trials examined the application of acupressure to point P6 by the use of
pressure bands worn by study participants;43,61,78,79,104,111 one comprised self-administered acupressure at
the P6 acupoint.62 A final acupressure versus placebo trial compared acupressure self-administered with the
two KID21 acupoints, which are located above the navel.91 The placebo comparison intervention came in
a two formats. The vast majority of studies (7/8) compared the active acupressure intervention with the
application of acupressure to a sham acupoint (i.e. at which there is no known acupressure point or
meridian pathway).43,61,62,78,79,91,111 One final study compared the use of pressure bands with the wearing
of placebo pressure bands which did not have a pressure button.104 Three of these trials were judged as
having low risk of bias61,62,91 and four were judged to be unclear.43,78,79,104 Werntoff and Dykes111 was judged
as having high risk of bias on the basis of incomplete outcome data and weak randomisation process.

Belluomini and colleagues62 used the RINVR as a combined measure of change in nausea, vomiting and
retching between the pre-treatment period (mean of days 13) and the post-treatment period (mean of
days 57). The study found a significant reduction in combined scores for both groups (intervention from
12.64 5.7 to 8.69 5.0; p 0.001; placebo from 11.47 4.9 to 10.03 4.6; p = 0.019).
45
46
TABLE 9 Results for acupressure, nerve stimulation and acupuncture interventions NVP
Research Number of Severity Severity scores Outcome

question, study participants, inclusion (reviewers assessment Symptom relief
Study Setting, location design gestation criteria assessment) Intervention Comparator scale outcomes
Acupressure vs. placebo

Bayreuther General practices, Effectiveness of n = 23 (I n = 11; Patients NR Sea-bands at Sea-bands at placebo VAS for Mean levels of nausea
199461 Southampton, UK acupressure at comparator n = 12) presenting with P6 point for position for 7 nausea between conditions/treatment
P6, RCT early morning (MILD) 7 consecutive days consecutive days difference: (1) paired t-test
sickness followed by 2 days followed by 2 days Episodes of 1.69; (2) two-sample
no treatment no treatment emesis t-tests 1.67; (3) Wilcoxon
signed-rank test 1.65;
(4) MannWhitney U-test 1.61
Belluomini Physician and Effectiveness of n = 60 (I n = 30; Women Baseline nausea 3-day control period 3-day control period RINVR Nausea scores post
199462 midwife practices, acupressure in comparator n = 30). complaining of scores: I = 8.38 2.2, (no treatment) then (no treatment) treatment: (1) I 5.80 2.9
San Francisco, CA reducing nausea At study entry: nausea with or C = 7.99 2.5; self-administered followed by self- (p 0.001); (2) comparator
and vomiting of (1) I 8.5 1.4; without emesis baseline emesis acupressure for administered 7.04 2.6 (p 0.001)
pregnancy, RCT (2) comparator scores: I = 2.09 2.5, 10 minutes four acupressure for
8.6 1.4 C = 1.83 2.7 times a day for 10 minutes four Emesis scores post treatment:
7 consecutive days at times a day for (1) I 1.28 1.9 (p = 0.03);
Total scores baseline: point PC-6 7 consecutive days at (2) comparator 1.63 2.3
(1) I 12.64 5.7; a placebo point (p-value not reported)
(2) comparator
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: ACUPRESSURE, ACUPUNCTURE AND NERVE STIMULATION
11.47 4.9 Total scores post treatment:

(1) I 8.69 5.0 (p 0.001);
(MILD) (2) comparator 10.03 4.6
(p = 0.019)
Can Gurkan Antenatal Effect of n = 75 (I n = 26; Women with a NR Three-step process: Three-step process: VAS for Frequency of nausea:
200843 polyclinic of a acupressure on C n = 25; placebo nausea severity (1) days 13 no (1) days 13 no nausea
maternity and nausea and n = 24) of at least 50 (MILDMODERATE) treatment; (2) days treatment; (2) days First 3 days compared with
child hospital in vomiting during using VAS, with 46 acupressure 46 acupressure Episodes of second 3 days: (1) I z = 3.35

Istanbul, Turkey pregnancy, RCT or without wristbands applied wristbands applied to vomiting (p < 0.001); (2) placebo
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
vomiting in the to the P6 point to be a placebo point z = 0.28 (p < 0.05);

last 24 hours only taken off at (upper side of the (3) C z = 0.92 (p > 0.05)
night when going to wrist, being the
sleep and replaced opposite direction of Second 3 days compared with
before leaving their the P6 point) to be third 3 days: (1) I z = 1.28
beds in the morning; only taken off at (p > 0.05); (2) placebo
and (3) days 79 no night when going to z = 10.18 (p > 0.05);
treatment (bands sleep and replaced (3) C z = 1.40 (p > 0.05)
were not worn) before leaving their
beds in the morning; Severity of nausea:
and (3) days 79 no
treatment (bands First 3 days compared
were not worn) with second 3 days:
(1) I z = 3.04 (p < 0.05);
(2) placebo z = 2.96
(p < 0.05); (3) C z = 1.02
(p > 0.05)
Second 3 days compared with

third 3 days: (1) I z = 1.48
(p > 0.05); (2) placebo
z = 1.26 (p > 0.05);
(3) C z = 0 (p > 0.05)
Intensity of discomfort felt from

nausea:
First 3 days compared with

second 3 days: (1) I z = 3.7
(p < 0.001); (2) placebo
z = 2.4 (p < 0.05);
(3) C z = 1.2 (p > 0.05)

third 3 days: (1) I z = 0.22
(p > 0.05); (2) placebo z = 1.4
(p > 0.05); (3) C z = 0.44
(p > 0.05)
continued
47
48
TABLE 9 Results for acupressure, nerve stimulation and acupuncture interventions NVP (continued )

Number of vomiting episodes:
First 3 days compared with

second 3 days: (1) I z = 1.38
(p > 0.05); (2) placebo
z = 1.85 (p > 0.05);
(3) C z = 0.37 (p > 0.05)

third 3 days: (1) I z = 1.3
(p > 0.05); (2) placebo z = 0.7
(p > 0.05); (3) C z = 0.57
(p > 0.05)
Cross-comparison of
symptoms in treatment group
and placebo group on
days 46:
Number of nausea:
(1) I MR = 24.52; (2) placebo
group MR = 26.56, p > 0.05
Severity of nausea:
(1) I MR = 24.9, U = 296.5,
p > 0.05; (2) placebo
MR = 26.15, U = 296.5,
p > 0.05
Intensity of discomfort:
(1) I MR = 23.98, U = 272.5,
p > 0.05; (2) placebo
MR = 27.15, U = 272.5,
p > 0.05
Number of vomiting:
(1) I MR = 22.67, U = 238.5,
p > 0.05; (2) placebo
MR = 28.56, U = 238.5,
p > 0.05
Heazell Inner city Efficacy of n = 80 (I n = 40; Women with NR Acupressure bead Patients assigned to Not reported Not reported

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
200678 secondary care acupressure at comparator n = 40). NVP on their placed at the P6 the placebo group
centre, the P6 point for At study entry: first inpatient (MODERATE) meridian point for had the beads placed
Manchester, UK the inpatient (1) I 8.5 (standard admission 8 hours a day, from at a site on the dorsal
treatment of error of the mean (at least 2+ of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. In aspect of the forearm
severe nausea 0.32, range 614); ketonuria on addition, patients which is not thought
and vomiting in (2) comparator urinalysis, an were treated to be effective for
early pregnancy, 9.0 (standard error inability to according to a 8 hours a day, from
RCT of the mean 0.36, tolerate oral standard protocol: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
range 514) fluids, and a 3 l of i.v. fluid in In addition, patients
requirement for 24 hours and were treated
antiemetic parenteral antiemetic according to a
medication) medication while the standard protocol:
patient was unable 3 l of i.v. fluid in
to tolerate oral fluids 24 hours and
and thiamine parenteral antiemetic
(100 mg) that was medication while the
taken orally once patient was unable to
daily. When the tolerate oral fluids
patient could tolerate and thiamine (100 mg)
oral fluids, the that was taken orally
antiemetic medication once daily. When the
was administered patient could tolerate
orally. There was a oral fluids, the
defined antiemetic antiemetic medication
protocol that used was administered
cyclizine as a orally. There was a
first-line agent, defined antiemetic
prochlorperazine as a protocol that used
second-line agent and cyclizine as a
metoclopramide, first-line agent,
ondansetron or prochlorperazine as a
phenothiazine as a second-line agent and
third-line agent metoclopramide,
ondansetron or
phenothiazine as a
third-line agent
continued
49
50

Hsu 200379 Emergency Effect of n = 77 (I n = 38; Women with NR Acupressure device Acupressure device McGill Nausea No difference between I and
department acupressure comparator n = 39). nausea/vomiting placed over the P6 placed over the sham Questionnaire comparator was detected at
(triage), hospital wristband on At study entry: related to (NOT CLEAR) point for 60 minutes site for 60 minutes baseline, 30 or 60 minutes
setting, USA pregnancy- (1) I = 9 (range pregnancy for any of the indexes
related nausea/ 318); (p < 0.2 for all)
vomiting during (2) comparator = 9

the initial period (range 318)
of emergency
department
evaluation, RCT
Naeimi Rad Prenatalogy clinic, Efficacy of KID21 n = 80 (I = 40; Women with Nausea intensity Provision of routine Provision of routine VAS for Intensity of nausea, median
201291 Rouhani Hospital, point (Youmen) comparator = 40). moderate to before acupressure: advice to reduce advice to reduce nausea VAS scores (IQR):
Babol University of acupressure on At study entry: severe nausea median I = 8 (IQR nausea and vomiting nausea and vomiting (1) I first day = 7 (IQR 86),
Medical Science, nausea and (1) I 9.55 1.81; and vomiting, 107); median C = 8 via educational via educational second day = 6 (IQR 7.754),
Iran Vomiting of (2) comparator but normal (IQR 97). Vomiting pamphlets. All women pamphlets. All women third day = 5 (IQR 53),
pregnancy, RCT 9.45 2.02 electrolytes intensity before took vitamin B6 took vitamin B6 fourth day = 4 (IQR 52);
acupressure: median (40 mg twice daily). (40 mg twice daily). (2) comparator first day = 7
I = 2 (IQR 41); Acupressure to the Acupressure to a false (IQR 86), second day = 7
median C = 2 two symmetrical point, gradually (IQR 86), third day = 7
(IQR 31) KID21 points for increasing in pressure, (IQR 85), fourth day = 7
20 minutes for for 20 minutes for (IQR 85)
(MILDMODERATE) 4 consecutive days. 4 consecutive days
Women were Frequency of nausea, median
also advised to VAS scores (IQR): (1) I first
self-administer day = 1 (IQR 20), second

acupressure whenever day = 0 (IQR 10), third
they felt nausea and day = 0 (IQR 10), fourth
vomiting to the KID21 day = 0 (IQR 0.750);
point (2) comparator first day = 1
(IQR 21), second day = 1
(IQR 20.25), third day = 1
(IQR 20), fourth day = 1
(IQR 20)

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
Steele Obstetric and Effect of n = 110 (I = 68; Women who NR Sea-bands with Placebo sea-bands Author Nausea frequency
2001104 gynaecology acupressure by comparator = 42) self-report of acupressure buttons without acupressure defined (four (days 14): (1) I MR = 40.30;
offices and clinics, sea-bands on one or more (MILD) on each wrist for buttons on each wrist closed-ended (2) comparator MR = 72.82
Michigan, MI, USA nausea and episodes of 7 consecutive days for 7 consecutive questions on
vomiting of pregnancy- (removed only when days (removed only frequency Nausea severity (days 14):
pregnancy, RCT related nausea bathing) followed when bathing) and severity of (1) I MR = 40.13;
and/or vomiting by a 72-hour followed by a nausea with (2) comparator MR= 73.09
no-treatment control 72-hour no-treatment responses
period control period recorded on a Vomiting frequency
5-point Likert (days 14): (1) I MR = 41.51;
scale) (2) comparator MR = 70.94
Vomiting severity
(days 14): (1) I MR = 39.28:
(2) comparator MR = 73.65
Nausea frequency
(days 57): (1) I MR = 47.18;
Nausea severity (days 57):

(1) I MR = 49.46;
Vomiting frequency
(days 57): (1) I MR = 50.44;
Vomiting severity
(days 57): (1) I MR = 46.63;
continued
51
52

Werntoft Antenatal clinics, Effect of n = 60 (I = 20; Women VAS: P6 = 8.4 Acupressure Acupressure VAS for Before pregnancy: (1) I 1.4
2001111 Sweden acupressure on placebo = 20; no described as (SD 1.2); wristbands with wristbands with nausea (SD 1.4); (2) placebo 1.1
nausea and treatment = 20). experiencing placebo = 8.4 button at P6 point button at placebo (SD 0.9); (3) no treatment 1.5

vomiting during At onset: (1) I = 5.8 NVP (SD 1.4); no worn for 2 weeks, point on the upper (SD 2.4)
pregnancy, (SD 2.3); treatment = 8.0 removing it only side of the wrist,
three-arm RCT (2) placebo = 5.6 (SD 1.5) when showering worn for 2 weeks, Before treatment: (1) I 8.4
(SD 1.2); (3) no removing it only (SD 1.2); (2) placebo 8.4
treatment = 5.6 (MODERATESEVERE) when showering. (SD 1.4); (3) no treatment 8.0
(SD 2.0). At study A third group received (SD 1.5)
entry: (1) I = 9.8 no treatment
(SD 1.9); After 1 day: (1) I 5.2
(2) placebo = 9.6 (SD 2.7); (2) placebo 5.6
(SD 1.6); (3) no (SD 2.5); (3) no treatment 7.6
treatment = 10.8 (SD 1.6)
(SD 2.2)
After 3 days: (1) I 5.6
(SD 2.3); (2) placebo 5.5
(SD 2.8); (3) no treatment 7.2
(SD 1.3)

(SD 2.4); (2) placebo 6.3

(SD 2.0)

(SD 2.6); (2) placebo 5.9
(SD 2.2)
Nerve stimulation vs. placebo

Evans 199373 Obstetrics clinic, Effect of Women NR An active battery- Not applicable Author- Average nausea score:
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
n = 25
University of stimulation of a diagnosed with powered SAS wrist defined (1) active unit 2.4;
California, CA, region on the NVP by their (NOT CLEAR) unit was provided to subjective (2) placebo 2.7 (p < 0.05)
USA wrist by either physician participants which change in
surface pressure they were told would nausea and Improvement in nausea:
or micro-voltage produce a perceptible vomiting (1) active unit 15; (2) placebo
electrical current tingling sensation in (improved, 10 (p < 0.05)
on NVP, the wrist and hand worsened, no
randomised when active, while change)
crossover trial the inactive unit
would produce only a
pressure sensation
on the wrist when
stimulating the
median nerve Each
subject was instructed
to wear the device
continually for
48 hours successively
Rosen Hospital clinics To evaluate the n = 230 Women with RINVR score: I = 13.5 Nerve stimulation for Participants given RINVR Mean change from baseline:
200398 and physicians effectiveness of symptoms of (SD 6.0); C = 12.0 3 weeks via a an identical I = 6.48 (95% CI 5.31 to
private offices, low-level nerve mild to severe (SD 5.3) ReliefBand Model non-stimulating 7.66), C = 4.65 (95% CI 3.67
Morristown, New stimulation nausea and WB-R (Woodside device (n = 113) to 5.63); p = 0.02
Jersey, NJ, USA, therapy over the vomiting (MILDMODERATE) Biomedical Inc.,
Eastern Virginia volar aspect of Carlsbad, CA, USA)
Medical School, the wrist at the [a non-invasive,
Norfolk, VA, USA, P6 point to treat portable (34 g),
University of nausea and battery-powered,
Arizona Health vomiting in early watch-like
Sciences Centre, pregnancy, acustimulation
Arizona, AZ, USA, multicentre RCT device]. A rotary dial
and New York on the device allows
University School users to select
of Medicine, between five
New York, NY, intensities (n = 117)
USA
continued
53
54

Veciana Obstetrics and RCT n = 460 (I = 230; Women with NR Nerve stimulation Non-stimulating RINVR No significant difference in

2001109 gynecology, comparator = 230). symptoms of device worn at device worn at RINVR score between groups
Eastern Virgina At study entry: all mild to severe (NOT CLEAR) P6 point P6 point
Medical School, 612 weeks nausea and
Norfolk, VA, USA vomiting
Jamigorn Antenatal clinic, Effectiveness of n = 66 (I = 33; Women who RINVR score: Acupressure Sea-bands with a RINVR Significant improvement
200780 department of acupressure comparator = 33) suffered from I = 14.3 3.3; wristbands (sea-bands) button on a dummy of nausea, retching and
obstetrics and compared with mild to C = 15.4 3.0 with a button on point and 50 mg- vomiting symptoms in both
gynaecology, vitamin B6 in At onset: moderate P6 point worn tablets of vitamin B6 acupressure (p < 0.001) and
faculty of reducing NVP, (1) I 8.1 1.7; nausea and/or (MILDMODERATE) continuously as were prescribed every vitamin B6 groups (p < 0.001)
medicine, RCT (2) comparator vomiting possible on days 15 12 hours for 5 days.
Chulalongkorn 8.9 3.5 plus a placebo tablet Also advised to divide No statistically significant
University, to mimic vitamin B6. their meals into differences in scores between
Bangkok, Thailand At study entry: Also instructed to use frequent small ones baseline and end of treatment
(1) I 6.2 1.0; oral dimenhydrinate rich in carbohydrates (evening of the fifth day)
(2) comparator (50 mg) every 6 hours and low fat and not between both groups
6.8 1.5 when they had to take any other (p > 0.05)
nausea and vomiting, medications
to divide their meals
into frequent small

ones rich in
carbohydrates and
low fat and advised
not to take any other
medications
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740

Acupuncture vs. metoclopramide/vitamin B12
Neri 200594 Department of Efficacy of n = 81 (I = 43; Diagnosis of HG NR. States no Twice-weekly Metoclopramide Author Nausea intensity, number
obstetrics and acupuncture C = 38). (Both following the difference between (for 2 weeks) infusion (20 mg/ defined of cases improved (%):
gynaecology, sessions plus groups less than commonly groups at baseline acupuncture with 500 ml saline for (intensity of (1) I first session 1 (2.3%);
University of acupressure 12 weeks gestation) accepted criteria 0.3 mm diameter 60 minutes) at the nausea, second session 11 (25.5%);
Modena and compared with of nausea and (MODERATESEVERE) sterile disposable hospital twice a week number of third session 19 (44.1%);
Reggio Emilia, metoclopramide/ vomiting leading steel needles (length for 2 weeks plus oral vomiting (2) comparator first session 1
University of Turin, vitamin B12 to clinical 52 mm) to a depth supplementation with episodes and (2.3%); second session
Italy treatment, RCT symptoms of of 1030 mm to vitamin B12 complex rate of food 9 (23.6%); third session
dehydration and points PC6, CV12 [pyridoxine, intake) 12 (31.5%)
> 5% weight and ST36, hydroxycobalamine,
loss manipulated until 30 mg/day Vomiting episodes,
the patient reported (Benadon, Roche)] number of cases improved:
the characteristic was prescribed at (1) I first session 7 (16.2%);
irradiating sensation, home second session 15 (34.8%);
then left in situ for third session 24 (55.8%);
20 minutes without (2) comparator first session 4
any further manual (10.5%); second session 12
stimulation. Patients (31.5%); third session
also advised to wear 14 (36.8%)
an acupressure
device (sea-band) at
the PC6 point for
68 hours a day at
home
continued
55
56

Acupuncture vs. placebo

Carlsson University hospital, Effect of n = 33 (group A Women No numerical values Group A: on days 1 Group B: on days 1 VAS for Nausea in active
200066 department of acupuncture plus n = 17; group B suffering from for severity at baseline and 2, active and 2, sham nausea acupuncture: (1) group A
obstetrics and standard n = 16) HG and not provided. However, acupuncture was acupuncture (needles pre-acupuncture, post-VAS
gynaecology in treatment on HG, responding to 25 women had performed at point were inserted only Episodes of reduction = 4; (2) group B
Uppsala, Sweden randomised conventional previously tried PC6 for 30 minutes 12 mm in the skin) vomiting pre-acupuncture, post-VAS
crossover study outpatient antihistamines three times per day. was performed for reduction = 3
treatment No acupuncture was 30 minutes three
(MODERATESEVERE) performed on days 3 times per day. No Nausea in placebo
and 4 (wash-out acupuncture was acupuncture: (1) group B
period). On days 5 performed on days 3 pre-placebo, post-VAS-
and 6, sham and 4 (wash-out reduction = 1.7; (2) group A
acupuncture (needles period). On days 5 pre-acupuncture, post-VAS
were inserted only and 6, active reduction = 0.1
12 mm in the skin) acupuncture was
was performed for performed at point Vomiting occurrence:
30 minutes three PC6 for 30 minutes (1) I 7 out of 17 women
times per day. three times per day. were still vomiting after
During the study, the During the study, the 2 acupuncture days;
women also received women also received (2) comparator 12 out of

parenteral nutrition parenteral nutrition 16 women were still vomiting
with 5% glucose with 5% glucose after 2 placebo treatment
and patients were and patients were days
discharged on day 7 discharged on day 7

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
Knight Maternity unit, Effectiveness of n = 55 (I n = 28; Women Nausea scores, At the first visit a Sham treatment VAS for Median nausea score
200183 Royal Devon and acupuncture comparator n = 27) complaining of median (IQR): traditional Chinese consisted of tapping nausea (IQR): (1) I day 1 85.5
Exeter Hospital, compared with nausea, with or I = 85.5 (IQR medical diagnosis a blunt cocktail stick, (IQR 71.2589.75), 3 days
Devon, UK placebo (1) I 7.8 1.0; without 71.2589.75); was made and supported by a plastic Episodes of after session one 63.0
acupuncture for (2) comparator vomiting, who sham = 87.0 each woman was guide tube, over a vomiting (IQR 50.7586.5), 3 days
treatment of 8.0 1.0 approached a (IQR 73.090.0) allocated one of bony prominence in after session two 65.0
nausea of community three categories the region of each (IQR 36.2579.5), 3 days
pregnancy, RCT midwife (MILDMODERATE) and treated with acupuncture point. after session three 44.0
acupuncture to a Sham needles were (IQR 29.077.25), 3 days
combination of the left in place for 15 after session four 47.5
following points: minutes, given twice (IQR 29.2569.5);
stomach 36; in the first week and (2) comparator day 1 87.0
conception vessel 12; once weekly for (IQR 73.090.0), 3 days
spleen 4; P6; 2 weeks after session one 69.0
stomach 44; and (IQR 45.087.0), 3 days
stomach 34 and P6. after session two 61.0
40 0.25-mm (IQR 30.080.0), 3 days
needles (Seirin, after session three 53.0
Japan) inserted to a (IQR 25.080.0), 3 days
depth of 0.51.0 cm after session four 48.0
with the assistance (IQR 14.080.0)
of a guide tube, then
manipulated.
Needles were left in
place for 15 minutes,
given twice in the
first week and once
weekly for 2 weeks
continued
57
58

Smith Womens and Effectiveness of I n = 148; Women with RINVR score, (1) Serin (Japan) (2) comparator RINVR Nausea: (1) I day 7: 5.0
2002101 childrens hospital acupuncture comparator symptoms of I = nausea 8.3 (SD 0.2 30 mm needles women allocated to (SD 3.0), day 14: 4.6 (SD
in Adelaide, SA, (traditional and n = 148; sham nausea or 2.5), dry retching were inserted to a the P6 study group 3.1), day 21: 3.8 (SD 3.1),
Australia P6) compared n = 148; vomiting 2.5, (SD 1.9) depth 0.51.0 cun received acupuncture day 26: 3.4 (SD 3.0);
with sham C n = 149 vomiting 2.3 (SD using a guide tube to this single point (2) comparator day 7: 5.4
(placebo) 2.7); C = nausea 8.2 (maximum of six only for a 20-minute (SD 3.3), day 14: 4.8
acupuncture or (SD 2.6), dry retching needles per session) period (twice during (SD 3.6), day 21: 4.3
no acupuncture 2.5 (SD 2.2), then manipulated the first week and (SD 3.3), day 26: 4.0 (SD
on NVP, RCT vomiting 2. (SD 2.8) and left for a then weekly for

3.3); (3) sham day 7: 5.7
20-minute period. 3 further weeks); (SD 2.8), day 14: 5.0 (SD
(MILDMODERATE) Treatment was (3) sham women 3.0), day 21: 4.4 (SD 2.7),
based on a allocated to the sham day 26: 3.7 (SD 2.8);
traditional Chinese acupuncture group (4) C day 7: 6.1 (SD 2.9),
medicine diagnosis. received acupuncture day 14: 6.0 (SD 3.1), day 21:
Treatment points needles inserted into 5.8 (SD 3.1), day 26: 5.0
included stomach an area close to, but (SD 3.0). (p-values day 7
points 19, 20, 21; not on, acupuncture p = 0.05, day 14 p = 0.01,
kidney points 21, 20; points over similar day 21 p = 0.001, day 26
and conception time points; p = 0.001)
vessel points 14, 13, (4) C a standardised
12, 11, or 10 plus information sheet Dry retching: (1) I day 7:
points to treat the was made available 1.3 (SD 1.4), day 14: 0.9
traditional Chinese about advice on diet, (SD 1.3), day 21: 0.9
medicine diagnosis lifestyle and the use (SD 1.4), day 26: 0.8
of vitamin B6 during (SD 1.4); (2) comparator
the 4-week study day 7: 1.6 (SD 1.7),
period. Women in day 14: 1.3 (SD 1.5), day 21:
this group received a 0.9 (SD 1.3), day 26: 0.9

weekly 10-minute (SD 1.3); (3) sham day 7:
telephone call from 1.5 (SD 1.8), day 14: 1.3
the study investigator (SD 1.7), day 21: 0.9 (SD
to assess their 1.3), day 26: 0.9 (SD 1.4);
general sense of (4) C day 7: 1.7 (SD 1.7),
well-being and to day 14: 1.3 (SD 1.7), day 21:
encourage 1.6 (SD 1.7), day 26: 1.6
compliance with (SD 1.7). (p-values day 7
participating in the p = ns, day 14 p = 0.01,
trial day 21 p = 0.001, day 26
p = 0.001)
Vomiting: (1) I day 7: 1.4

(SD 2.0), day 14: 1.1

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
(SD 1.8), day 21: 0.9

(SD 1.6), day 26 0.9 (SD 1.5);
(2) comparator day 7: 1.2
(SD 2.0), day 14: 1.3
(SD 2.2), day 21: 1.2
(SD 2.1), day 26 = 0.9 (SD
1.8); (3) sham day 7: 1.5
(SD 2.2), day 14: 1.4 (SD
2.1), day 21: 1.0 (SD 1.7),
day 26 = 1.0 (SD 1.6);
(4) C day 7: 1.5 (SD 2.1),
day 14: 1.6 (SD 2.2), day 21:
1.1 (SD 2.1), day 26 = 1.4
(SD 2.0). (p-values all
non-significant)
Acupuncture vs. Chinese herbal medicine vs. Western medicine
Mao 200987 Jiuquan Hospital Effectiveness of n = 90 (I n = 30; Women I mean number of All women given i.v. Comparator 1, Author- Symptom severity on day 4:
of Traditional acupuncture vs. comparator 1 attending vomiting episodes per fluids to rehydrate i.v. fluids given defined scale (1) I complete recovery 12
Chinese Medicine, Chinese herbal n = 30; comparator hospital clinic 24 hours = 18.20 and correct to rehydrate, (change in (40%), obvious improvement
Jiuquan, China medicine vs. 2 n = 30) with vomiting (8.54); comparator 1 electrolyte phenobarbitol given symptoms) 8 (26.7%), slight improvement
Western and unable to mean number of imbalance. (30 mg) three times a 9 (30.0%), no effect 1 (3.3%);
medicine, (1) I 8.30 (SD 1.60); tolerate oral vomiting episodes per Traditional Chinese day for 7 days (2) comparator 1 complete
three-arm RCT (2) comparator 1 intake 24 hours = 17.57 acupuncture twice recovery 2 (6.7%), obvious
8.33 (SD 1.38); (7.06); comparator 2 daily for 7 days Comparator 2, improvement 10 (10.0%),
(3) comparator 2 mean number of i.v. fluids given to slight improvement 7
8.57 (SD 1.66) vomiting episodes per rehydrate, traditional (23.3%), no effect 18
24 hours = 17.27 herbal remedy made (60.0%); (3) comparator 2
(8.50) daily and given in complete recovery 3
small doses through (10.0%), obvious
(MODERATESEVERE) the day. Aim for improvement 1 (3.3%),
three doses but if slight improvement
difficult to swallow 8 (26.7%), no effect 18
then split into smaller (60.0%)
more frequent doses
continued
59
60

Day 4, proportion of women

with symptom relief: (1) I
96.7%; (2) comparator 1
40.0%; (3) comparator 2
40.0%

Symptom severity on day 8:
(1) I complete recovery 27
(90.0%), obvious
improvement 2 (6.7%),
slight improvement 0 (0%),
no effect 1 (3.3%);
(2) comparator 1 complete
recovery 1 (3.3%), obvious
slight improvement 4
(13.3%), no effect 16
(53.4%); (3) comparator
2 complete recovery 3
(10.0%), obvious
slight improvement 5
(16.7%), no effect 12 (40%)
Proportion of women
gaining some benefit at

day 8: (1) I 96.7%;
(2) comparator 1 46.6%;
(3) comparator 2 60.0.%
Acupuncture significantly
better than other two
groups, no significant
differences between other
two groups
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740

Zhang Dongguan City, Effectiveness of n = 150 (I n = 50; Women Number of women Traditional Chinese Comparator 1, Author- (1) I acupuncture plus
2005115 Zhangmutou Chinese comparator 1 attending per severity of acupuncture at specific traditional defined scale moxibustion complete
Hospital, acupuncture plus n = 50; comparator hospital with vomiting: I < 5 times/ specific points plus formula of herbs (change in recovery 21 (42%), obvious
Guangdone, moxibustion vs. 2 n = 50) abnormal day n = 15, 610 gentle warming boiled and made into symptoms) improvement 13 (26%),
China Chinese herbal vomiting and times/day n = 30, moxibustion for drink. Full daily dose slight improvement 9 (18%),
medicine vs. At study entry: (1) I unable to > 10 times/day n = 5; 1015 minutes twice given in two parts no effect 7 (14%);
Western 68 weeks n = 30, tolerate oral comparator 1 < 5 daily for 7 days. If over 7 days (repeated (2) comparator 1 complete
medicine, three- 812 weeks n = 17, intake times/day n = 11, the first round of if not effective for recovery 9 (18%), obvious
arm RCT > 12 weeks n = 3; 610 times/day treatment is further 7 days) improvement 7 (14%),
(2) comparator 1 n = 27, > 10 times/ ineffective a 3-day slight improvement 5 (10%),
68 weeks n = 28, day n = 12; rest period was given Comparator 2, no effect 29 (58%);
812 weeks n = 20, comparator 2 < 5 before repeating the 25003000 mls i.v. (3) comparator 2 complete
> 12 weeks n = 2; times/day n = 13, 7 days fluids given daily to recovery 5 (10%), obvious
(3) comparator 3 610 times/day correct dehydration improvement 8 (16%), slight
68 weeks n = 25, n = 32, > 10 times/ and electrolyte improvement 6 (12%), no
812 weeks n = 22, day n = 5 imbalance. effect 31 (62%)
> 12 weeks n = 3 Phenobarbitol
(MODERATE) (30 mg) given orally
three times daily for
7 days. If not
effective treatment
repeated for another
7 days after a 3-day
rest period
continued
61
62

Acupressure vs. no comparator

Markose Christian Medical To evaluate the n = 35 recruited, Women Percentage of Acupressure on None, days 13 RINVR Frequency of nausea:
2004124 College Hospital, effect of P6 n = 17 completed experiencing women experiencing point P6 from the classed as a control day 1 52.9%, day 3 58.8%,
Vellore, India acupressure in nausea with or symptoms and fourth day (the first period day 7 11.7%; p = 0.008
women who without distress: frequency 3 days being the
were given vomiting of nausea 52.9%; control phase), four Frequency of vomiting:
reassurance frequency of times a day for day 1 88.2%, day 3 100%,
about the vomiting 88.2%; 10 minutes on each day 7 17.6%; p < 0.001
natural frequency of dry hand
regression of retches 58.8%; Frequency of dry retches:
nausea and who distress due to day 1 58.8%, day 3 58.8%,
were not under nausea 58.8%; day 7 5.8%; p = 0.004
any medication, distress due to
case series vomiting 82.3%; Distress due to dry retches:
distress due to dry day 1 70.5%, day 3 64.7%,
retches 70.5% day 7 23.5%; p = 0.016
(MILDMODERATE) Distress due to vomiting:

day 1 82.3%, day 3 76.4%,
day 7 29.4%; p = 0.008
Distress due to nausea:

day 1 58.8%, day 3 70.5%,
day 7 11.7%; p = 0.002
C, control; CV, Central Venter; I, intervention; IQR, interquartile range; MR, mean rank; NR, not reported; ns, not significant; SAS, sensory afferent stimulation; ST36, Stomach 36.
McGill Nausea Questionnaire

Only one trial used the McGill Nausea Questionnaire (a combined measure of various nausea severity
indices) to assess symptom relief. Hsu and colleagues79 reported no difference between intervention and
sham comparator at baseline, 30 or 60 minutes for any of the indices (p = 0.2 for all).
Nausea outcomes
The trial of Bayreuther and colleagues61 used the 10-point VAS to assess the difference in mean levels of
nausea severity between groups. They reported that the mean level of nausea was significantly lower for the
intervention group (3.23 points on the VAS) than for the placebo group (4.92 points on the VAS) (p = 0.019).
Can Gurkan and Arslan43 assessed the frequency, severity and discomfort from nausea using the VAS.
They compared the difference in mean VAS scores between (1) the first 3 days and the second 3 days of the
study; and (2) the second 3 days and the third 3 days for the each study group (intervention, placebo and
a third no-treatment control arm). For frequency of nausea, a significant difference was reported between
the first and second 3 days in both intervention (z = 3.35; p < 0.001) and placebo groups (z = 0.28;
p < 0.05), but not in the control group (z = 0.92; p > 0.05). For frequency of nausea between the second
and third 3 days of the study, no significant difference was found in any group (intervention z = 1.28,
placebo z = 10.18, control z = 1.40; p > 0.05). For severity of nausea, the difference between the first and
second 3 days was significant in the intervention and placebo group (z = 0.04 and z = 2.96, respectively;
p < 0.05), but not in the control group (z = 1.02; p > 0.05). No significant difference was found in any
group between the second and third 3 days (intervention z = 1.48; placebo z = 1.26, control z = 0;
p > 0.05). The difference in the intensity of discomfort felt from nausea was significant for both the
intervention group (z = 3.7; p < 0.001) and placebo group (z = 2.4; p < 0.05) but not control (z = 1.2;
p > 0.05) between the first and second 3 days. However, the difference for any group for the second
to third 3 was not significant (intervention z = 0.22; p > 0.05; placebo z = 1.4, p > 0.05; control
z = 0.44; p > 0.05).
Naeimi Rad and colleagues91 also used the 10-point VAS to assess nausea severity between intervention
(acupressure at point KID21) and placebo (false point) groups. Median VAS scores showed no significant
difference between groups at day 1 [intervention 7 (IQR 86), comparator 7 (IQR 86); p = 0.473].
However, the difference was significant at day 2 [intervention 6 (IQR 7.754), comparator 7 (IQR 86);
p = 0.012] and highly significant at days 3 [intervention 5 (IQR 53), comparator 7 (IQR 85); p < 0.001]
and 4 [intervention 4 (IQR 52), comparator 7 (IQR 85); p < 0.001].
Werntoft and Dykes111 assessed the difference in nausea severity using the 10-point VAS between an
intervention group receiving acupressure at the P6 acupoint compared with either a placebo treatment
group or a third control group receiving no treatment at all. Although significant differences were
observed between both intervention and placebo group compared with control at days 1 and 3 (p = 0.005
and p = 0.038, respectively), no differences in favour of the intervention group compared with the placebo
and control groups were found at days 6 and 14 of treatment (p = 0.17 and p = 0.11 respectively).
Belluomini and colleagues62 measured nausea via the RINVR between the pre-treatment period (mean of
days 13) and the post-treatment period (mean of days 57). Both intervention and comparator groups
reported a significant reduction in nausea scores [intervention from 8.38 2.2 to 5.80 2.9 (p 0.001);
comparator from 7.99 2.5 to 7.04 2.6 (p 0.001)].
An author-defined assessment scale composed of number of episodes and self-reported severity of nausea
was used in Steele and colleagues104 to determine impact of acupressure at point P6 against placebo.
During the 4 days of treatment, significant differences in favour of the intervention group were detected
on both measures (mean rank for nausea frequency: intervention 40.30, comparator 72.82, p < 0.001;
nausea severity: intervention 40.13, comparator 73.09, p < 0.001). However, when comparing the mean
differences between the treatment period (days 14) and the post-treatment period (days 57), only the
frequency of nausea showed a significant reduction (p < 0.05).
63
Vomiting outcomes
Emesis was measured with the RINVR in the trial of Belluomini and colleagues62 [change between the
pre-treatment period (mean of days 13) and the post-treatment period (mean of days 57)]. A significant
reduction was reported for the intervention group (from 2.09 2.5 to 1.28 1.9; p = 0.03). However,
although the comparator group showed a reduction (from 1.83 2.7 to 1.63 2.3), it was not reported if
this change was significant.
Naeimi Rad and colleagues91 used the 10-point VAS to compare vomiting frequency91 between
intervention (acupressure at point KID21) and placebo (false point) groups. Increasingly significant
differences between intervention and placebo groups were recorded on all days of treatment [day 1,
intervention 1 (IQR 20), comparator 1 (IQR 21), p = 0.012; day 2, intervention 0 (IQR 10), comparator 1
(IQR 20.25), p = 0.003; day 3, intervention 0 (IQR 10), comparator 1 (IQR 20), p = 0.001; day 4,
intervention 0 (IQR 0.750), comparator 1 (IQR 20), p < 0.001].
Can Gurkan and Arslan43 assessed the difference in number of vomiting episodes between (1) the first and
second 3 days of the study; and (2) the second and third 3 days for the each study group (intervention,
placebo and a third no-treatment control arm).43 No significant difference was observed at either time
point in any of the three study groups [first 3 days compared with second 3 days: intervention z = 1.38,
placebo z = 1.85 and control z = 0.37 (p > 0.05); second 3 days compared with third 3 days:
intervention z = 1.3, placebo z = 0.7 and control z = 0.57 (p > 0.05)]. Bayreuther and colleagues61
recorded episodes of vomiting in both intervention and comparator groups but did not report those
findings in their paper.
As above, Steele and colleagues104 employed an author-defined assessment scale composed of number of
episodes and self-reported severity of vomiting to measure the effectiveness of acupressure at point P6
against placebo. Significant differences favouring intervention were reported for both the frequency
(intervention mean rank 41.51, comparator mean rank 70.94; p < 0.001) and severity (intervention mean
rank 39.28, comparator mean rank 73.65; p < 0.001) of vomiting during the 4 intervention days. However,
only the difference between groups for the severity of vomiting was significant when comparing days 14,
with days 57 (p < 0.05).
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or adverse events were reported for any of the included trials. There were no
relevant data on this intervention from the UKTIS.
Acupressure versus vitamin B6
One trial (Jamigorn and Phupong80), judged as having a low risk of bias, compared the use of acupressure
administered via a pressure band at acupoint P6 against vitamin B6 taken in tablet form.

Jamigorn and Phupong80 used the RINVR to measure changes in combined nausea, vomiting and retching
scores. They reported significant improvements in overall scores in both the acupressure (p < 0.001) and
vitamin B6 groups (p < 0.001) (see Figure 2). However, there were no statistically significant differences in
the reduction of RINVR scores between baseline and end of treatment score between groups (p > 0.05).
Nausea outcomes
No independent nausea outcomes reported.
64
Vomiting outcomes
No independent vomiting outcomes reported.
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or adverse events were reported in any of the included trials. There were no
Acupressure (case series)
Markose and colleagues124 was a case series study that evaluated the effect of P6 acupressure on women
with mild to moderate nausea following an initial control phase of 3 days without treatment (categorised
as weak in terms of quality).

The RINVR was used to assess symptoms, but the actual RINVR score was not presented. Results for
individual components of score (nausea, vomiting and retching) are presented below.
Nausea outcomes
The RINVR was used to measure nausea outcomes. A significant reduction in the frequency of nausea
(defined as percentage of women experiencing three or more adverse events) (day 1 52.9%, day 3 58.8%,
day 7 11.7%; p = 0.008) and distress due to nausea (day 1 58.8%, day 3 70.5%, day 7 11.7%; p = 0.002)
was reported.
Vomiting outcomes
Emesis outcomes were measured using the RINVR in terms of both the frequency of vomiting and the
vomiting-related distress reported by the women themselves.124 As with vomiting, the authors report a
significant trend of reduced vomiting frequency by day 7 (defined as percentage of women reporting
three or more events) (day 1 88.2%, day 3 100%, day 7 17.6%; p < 0.001). A similar positive trend was
reported for distress experienced as a result of vomiting (defined as percentage of women self-reporting
moderate to severe distress) (day 1 82.3%, day 3 76.4%, day 7 29.4%; p = 0.008).
Retching outcomes
Finally, Markose and colleagues124 also measured the frequency of, and distress caused by, dry retches
using the RINVR. A significant reduction in both retching outcomes (defined as percentage of women
reporting three or more events, and distress from moderate to severe) was reported (retching frequency:
day 1 58.8%, day 3 58.8%, day 7 5.8%, p = 0.004; distress due to dry retches: day 1 70.5%, day 3
64.7%, day 7 23.5%, p = 0.016).
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or adverse events were reported in any of the included trials. There were no
relevant data available on these interventions from the UKTIS.
Nerve stimulation versus placebo
Three studies compared the effect of a nerve stimulation device administered at pressure point P6
(as described in Acupressure versus placebo) against an identical inactive unit.73,98,109 Of these trials, two
provided insufficient data to permit a clear judgement of bias,73,109 and the other trial was judged as having
a low risk of bias.98 Given the differences between trials in patient populations, settings, interventions and
65
in particular the heterogeneous nature of the reported outcomes across trials, we did not attempt to
perform meta-analyses and have outlined individual trial results in a narrative.

Rosen and colleagues98 used the RINVR to assess overall change in symptom severity. They determined that
the time-averaged change in the RINVR score for total experience was significantly better in the study
group than in the control group [6.48 (95% CI 5.31 to 7.66) vs. 4.65 (95% CI 3.67 to 5.63); p = 0.02].
Veciana and colleagues109 also used the RINVR to detect the difference symptom severity scores between
the intervention and control groups. However, they found no significant difference in RINVR score
between groups (p-value not reported).
Author-defined scale
Evans and colleagues73 measured subjective change in nausea and vomiting between those wearing active
versus inactive nerve stimulation units via an author-defined scale (improved, worsened, no change).
A significant change favouring the intervention group was detected in terms of both average nausea
score (active unit 2.4, placebo 2.7; p < 0.05) and improvement in nausea score (active unit 15,
placebo 10; p < 0.05).
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
The trial of Rosen and colleagues98 did not report pregnancy outcomes, but three dehydration events were
reported in the study group compared with 12 events in the control group (p = 0.013).98 Neither of the
other two trials reported pregnancy outcomes or side effects,73,109 and there were no UKTIS data available
on this intervention.
Acupuncture versus placebo
The trials of Carlsson and colleagues66 and Knight and colleagues83 both compared acupuncture at
various treatment points with placebo (sham) treatment. Smith and colleagues101 was a four-arm RCT
comparing a combination of various treatment points (group 1); with comparators including single point
acupuncture to P6 (group 2); sham acupuncture to ineffective points (group 3); and a control comprising
a standard information sheet and telephone support (group 4). Smith and colleagues101 and Knight and
colleagues83 were both judged as carrying a low risk of bias; however, Carlsson and colleagues66 was
judged as high due to lack of blinding.

Nausea outcomes
Carlsson and colleagues66 assessed nausea severity between day 0 and day 1, and day 4 and day 5, in their
crossover trial with the 10-point VAS. Focussing on speed of change, the VAS reductions were calculated
as the difference between the VAS estimates the day before acupuncture and those the day following
the 2 acupuncture days for each patient. This intergroup crossover analysis showed a significantly faster
reduction of nausea when giving the patients active acupuncture than when giving them placebo
66
acupuncture (p = 0.032). However, they found no time effect (p = 0.138). The VAS was also used by
Knight and colleagues83 to measure changes in nausea outcomes. They found evidence of a time effect
(p < 0.001) in all groups [intervention scores reduced from 85.50 (IQR 71.2589.75) on day 1 to 47.5
(IQR 29.2569.5) at 3 days after session four; comparator scores reduced from 87.0 (IQR 73.090.0) on
day 1 to 48.0 (IQR 14.080.0) at 3 days after session four. However, the authors reported that they found
no evidence of a group effect (p = 0.9) or a grouptime interaction (p = 0.8).
Smith and colleagues101 measured nausea severity with the RINVR. They found that women in the
traditional acupuncture group were more likely to be free from nausea compared with women in the no
acupuncture control group (relative risk 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) at the end of their first week of
treatment. During the second week of the trial, women who received traditional acupuncture (p < 0.001),
and P6 acupuncture (p < 0.05) reported lower nausea scores compared with women in the no
acupuncture control group. This improvement in nausea continued for women receiving traditional
acupuncture (p < 0.001) and P6 acupuncture (p < 0.01) into the third week compared with women in the
no acupuncture control group. From the third week, women in the sham acupuncture group also reported
lower nausea scores compared with women in the no acupuncture control group (p < 0.01). In the final
week of the study, improvements in nausea continued for women in the traditional acupuncture (reported
in the paper as p < 001, but actual value is not clear), P6 acupuncture (p < 0.05) and sham acupuncture
(p < 0.01) groups compared with women in the no acupuncture group.
Vomiting outcomes
In the crossover trial of Carlsson and colleagues,66 occurrence of vomiting (i.e. emesis vs. no emesis) was
compared between study groups. For active acupuncture treatment, they reported that 7 out of 17 women
were still vomiting after 2 acupuncture days. For the placebo group, 12 out of 16 women were still vomiting
at the same time point. They did not report if this difference was significant. Knight and colleagues83
measured number of vomiting episodes, but did not report these data.
Smith and colleagues101 measured vomiting severity with the RINVR. Lowered vomiting scores were
recorded in all groups [intervention: day 7, mean 1.4 (SD 2.0) to day 26, mean 0.9 (SD 1.5); single point
acupuncture: day 7, mean 1.2 (SD 2.0) to day 26, mean 0.9 (SD 1.8); placebo: day 7, mean 1.5 (SD 2.2) to
day 26, mean 1.0 (SD 1.6)], including a small reduction in the control arm [day 7, mean 1.5 (SD 2.1) to day 26,
mean 1.4 (SD 2.0)]. However, the differences between groups were not significant.
Retching outcomes
Smith and colleagues101 measured retching severity with the RINVR. They found that women in the
traditional acupuncture (p < 0.001), P6 acupuncture (p < 0.01) and sham acupuncture (p < 0.001) groups
all experienced fewer periods of dry retching compared with women in the no acupuncture control group
at the end of the study. Sixty-eight (56%) women in the traditional acupuncture group were free from dry
retching compared with 46 (39%) women in the no acupuncture control group by the end of the third
week (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.93; p < 0.01; number needed to treat 6, 95% CI 3 to 22). In
the sham acupuncture group, 72 (59%) women were free from dry retching compared with 46 (39%)
women in the no acupuncture control group (relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.87; p < 0.001; number
needed to treat 6, 95% CI 3 to 13). These improvements continued to the end of the trial. In the P6
acupuncture group, no difference occurred in women free from dry retching compared with women in the
no acupuncture control group.
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or adverse events were reported in any of the included trials. There was no
67
Acupuncture versus metoclopramide
The trial of Neri and colleagues94 compared acupuncture to acupoints PC6, Central Venter 12 and
Stomach 36 plus the wearing of an acupressure device at the PC6 point against the administration of a
metoclopramide infusion at hospital plus oral supplementation with a vitamin B12 complex. The trial was
judged as carrying a high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting.

Nausea outcomes
Neri and colleagues94 measured the number of cases self-reporting improvements in the intensity of
nausea (scored as 0 = no nausea; 1 = low intensity, no discomfort; 2 = high intensity, discomfort).
Improvements were reported for both interventions [n (%) per session] [acupuncture: first session 1
(2.3%); second session 11 (25.5%); third session 19 (44.1%); metoclopramide: first session 1 (2.3%);
second session 9 (23.6%); third session 12 (31.5%)], and the difference between groups was not reported
as being non-significant (first session p = 0.3; second session p = 0.6; third session p = 0.2).
Vomiting outcomes
Neri and colleagues94 measured improvements in the number of cases reporting improvements in vomiting
episodes (grouped as 0 = no episodes, 1 = 13/day, 2 = > 3/day). Both groups showed improvements
[n (%) per session] [acupuncture: 7 (16.2%) for the first session; 15 (34.8%) for the second session; and
24 (55.8%) for the third session; metoclopramide: 4 (10.5%) for the first session; 12 (31.5%) for the
second session; 14 (36.8%) for the third session]. However, the difference between groups was not found
to be significant (p = 0.4 for first session and p = 0.5 for the second), although it approached significance
after the third treatment session, in favour of acupuncture (p = 0.07).
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or adverse events were reported in by Neri and colleagues.94 There were no
Acupuncture versus Chinese herbal medicine

versus barbiturates
Two studies compared acupuncture against both Chinese herbal medicine and Western medicine. In the
Mao and Liang trial,87 all women were given i.v. fluids for rehydration purposes and to correct electrolyte
imbalance. The following interventions were then compared: (1) traditional Chinese acupuncture at
acupoints BL11, ST37, PC6 and SP4; (2) a traditional herbal remedy; and (3) phenobarbital. In the Zhang
2005 trial,115 traditional Chinese acupuncture was compared with a traditional herbal drink and i.v. fluids
plus phenobarbitol. Both trials were found to have a high risk of bias due to inadequate blinding and/or
selective outcome reporting.
Mao and Liang87 assessed symptom severity using an author-defined scale (complete recovery, obvious
improvement, slight improvement, no effect) on days 4 and 8, alongside the proportion of women with
symptom relief in each group. They reported that the acupuncture performed significantly better than
comparator intervention groups (with no significant difference between those other two groups). However,
they did not report p-values. In the trial of Zhang,115 a similar author-defined scale was also used to assess
symptom relief. It reported the highest proportion of complete recovery (21 patients, 42%) among the
68
acupuncture group [compared with herbal medicine 9 (18%) or Western medicine 5 (10%)], but did not
report if this difference was significant. The lowest numbers of patients reporting no effect were also
found in the acupuncture group compared with either the herbal remedy or Western medicine groups
[7 (14%) vs. 29 (58%) vs. 31 (62%) respectively]. However, again, it was not reported if this difference
was significant.
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or adverse events were reported in the included trials. There were no relevant
data on this intervention from the UKTIS.
Summary
l The quality of evidence available for this group of interventions varied considerably, from low
(eight studies61,62,66,80,83,91,98,101) to high (five studies87,94,111,115,124) risk of bias.
l Comparisons with placebo were equivocal: two studies (both where participants had mild symptoms
and at low risk of bias)61,62 found no evidence of a difference or did not report the outcome for nausea
and vomiting symptoms respectively.
l Acupressure at the KID21 acupoint reduced both nausea and vomiting compared with placebo.
l No evidence of a difference between acupressure and vitamin B6.80
l Two studies73,98 of nerve stimulation at the P6 acupressure point reported better outcomes versus a
non-stimulating device [one study = participants with mildmoderate severity with low risk of bias,98
one study = unclear severity and risk of bias73]. A third study found no evidence of a difference
(unclear severity and risk of bias).109
l Three studies66,83,101 compared acupuncture with placebo. There was no evidence of an effect on
vomiting but one study (mildmoderate symptoms, low risk of bias)101 reported reduced nausea and
retching in both traditional and P6 acupuncture groups.
l No evidence of a difference between acupuncture compared with metoclopramide, but symptoms
improved from baseline in both groups (one study: high risk of bias, severity assessed
as moderatesevere94).
l Comparisons of traditional Chinese acupuncture and herbal medicine with Western medicine were at
high risk of bias and impossible to emulate within the UK NHS setting.
l Overall conclusions are limited by the quality of included studies. Many participants appear to have
improved symptoms from baseline in all treatment arms.
l There is some suggestion that acupressure may have some beneficial effect in women with mild
symptoms of NVP.
l Acupressure at the KID21 point appears to improve symptoms of nausea and vomiting compared with
acupressure to a false point, but data are limited.
l The evidence for nerve stimulation is mixed.
l Acupuncture may reduce symptoms of nausea and retching in women with mildmoderate symptoms,
but data are limited and inconclusive.
l More larger, better-quality studies are required for these interventions.
69
Chapter 6 Clinical effectiveness: aromatherapy
Introduction
Aromatherapy was used as an intervention to treat nausea and/or vomiting in two pilot RCTs.76,97
Heterogeneity was observed in relation to the clinical setting and patient populations in which the studies
were conducted, as well as the interventions, comparators and outcomes reported in each trial. As
previously described (see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included randomised controlled trials) given these,
we did not attempt to perform meta-analyses, and have thus reported a narrative summary only for each
intervention and comparator set.
One trial compared aromatherapy with placebo in pre-natal wards97 whereas the other trial compared
aromatherapy with routine antenatal care.76 Both trials were at unclear risk of bias: mainly due to poor
reporting in the trial of Pasha and colleagues;97 and for uncertainty surrounding whether the trial was truly
randomised or was a quasi-RCT in Ghani and Ibrahim.76 The women were described as experiencing
symptoms at the mild to moderate end of the severity spectrum at baseline in both trials (Table 10).
Aromatherapy versus no aromatherapy
One trial97 compared mint oil aromatherapy against placebo for the treatment of mild NVP.97 Another trial
compared mixed essential oils (lavender and peppermint) and routine antenatal care, where no treatment
oils were given, in women with mild to moderate nausea and/or vomiting (i.e. requiring antiemetics but
not hospitalisation).

In the trial of Ghani and Ibrahim,76 the observed difference in the overall change from baseline RINVR score
in the aromatherapy group was reduced to 17.60 (SD 6.08) from 23.06 (SD 6.37) at the end of the 3-day
trial (p < 0.001). The change score in the no aromatherapy control group was not reported so it is unclear
if the aromatherapy was effective in reducing nausea and vomiting or if it was due to the time lag.
Nausea outcomes
Pasha and colleagues97 examined the effectiveness of mint aromatherapy on pregnancy-induced nausea
intensity using a VAS. There was no significant difference between the two groups. However, the authors
reported a trend towards improvement by day 4 in the mint group, where the score had reduced to 3.50
(SD 1.95) from 4.78 (SD 1.62) at baseline, and an increase in nausea score at the end of day 4 from
baseline score in the placebo group [mean 4.38 (SD 2.18) at day 4 compared with mean 3.00 (SD 2.19)
at baseline].
Vomiting outcomes
The trial of Pasha and colleagues97 also examined the effect of mint aromatherapy on the number of
vomiting episodes.97 There was no significant difference between the two groups. However, there was a
reported trend towards improvement by day 4 in the mint group where the mean number of episodes had
reduced to 2.23 (SD 1.88) from 4.85 (SD 1.82) at baseline. In the placebo group there was no significant
difference between the number of vomiting episodes at the end of day 4 and baseline [mean 2.55 (SD 2.55)
at day 4 compared with mean 2.52 (SD 2.4) at baseline].
Retching outcomes
71
72
TABLE 10 Results for aromatherapy interventions for NVP

Pasha 201297 Pre-natal wards of To evaluate the n = 67; I = 9.07 Women Mean of nausea and Assigned to use a As I except given VAS for Trend towards
seven health clinics, effect of mint oil (SD 1.31), C = 9.73 complaining of vomiting intensity bowl of water with saline instead of mint nausea improvement by day 4 in
Iran on nausea and (SD 2.2) nausea and was: I = 4.78 1.62, four drops of pure oil (n = 34) mint group
vomiting during vomiting C = 3.00 2.19 and mint oil placed on Episodes of
pregnancy, pilot I = 4.85 1.82, the floor near vomiting Mint group, mean scores
RCT their beds for over the 4 days: nausea

C = 2.52 2.4, 7
days before 4 consecutive nights 3.50 (SD 1.95), vomiting
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: AROMATHERAPY
treatment before sleeping. 2.23 (SD 1.88)

Dietary advice also
(MILD) given (n = 33) Placebo, mean scores
over the 4 days: nausea
4.38 (SD 2.18), vomiting
2.55 (SD 2.55)
Not significant
Ghani Outpatient To estimate the n = 101; I = 10 Women who had RINVR score: Four drops of Routine care, no RINVR score Treatment group:
201376 department, effect of mixed (SD 2.61), C = 10.2 nausea and/or I = 23.06 (SD 6.37), lavender oils plus one treatment/oils given, change in score from
maternity teaching essential oils (SD 2.29) vomiting and C = 21.74 (SD 7.30) drop peppermint oil no medication taken, 23.06 (SD 6.37) to
hospital plus three inhalation on required in one spoon of diet/lifestyle advice 17.60 (SD 6.08);
maternal and child nausea and antiemetics but (MILDMODERATE) water (ratio 4 : 1 : 1) given (n = 51) p < 0.001
health centres in vomiting in early were not heated using an oil
Abha Kingdom, pregnancy, pilot hospitalised burner. Perform twice Results from the C
Saudi Arabia RCT a day for 3 days group not reported
before sleep. Women
were instructed to
breathe deeply for
20 minutes. No other
medication taken,
diet/lifestyle advice
given (n = 50)
C, control; I, intervention.
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or adverse events were reported in either of the included trials. There were no
Summary
l The evidence from the two trials76,97 available for aromatherapy was predominantly at an unclear risk
of bias.
l The identified studies reported evidence of an improvement in symptoms over time, but there was no
evidence of a difference compared with placebo or routine antenatal care.
l Overall, few data are available with no evidence of an effect.
l More larger, better-quality studies are required for to make any conclusions about this intervention.
73
Chapter 7 Clinical effectiveness: vitamin B6

(pyridoxine)
Introduction
Five trials compared the effectiveness of pyridoxine (vitamin B6) for the treatment of NVP.41,59,100,107,112
Two trials compared doses of vitamin B6 against placebo tablets,41,100 and they were at low41 and unclear100
risk of bias, respectively. Tan and colleagues107 examined the effect of vitamin B6 and metoclopramide
combination versus metoclopramide alone and was at an unclear risk of bias, mainly due to the use of a
dubious placebo (Tic Tac, Ferrero UK Ltd, Greenford, UK). The trial of Wibowo and colleagues112 compared
high and low doses of vitamin B6, and was at low risk of bias. Babaei and Foghaha59 compared the
effectiveness of vitamin B6 against dimenhydrinate in the treatment of NVP and was at an unclear risk
of bias.
In all five studies,41,59,100,107,112 women were described as experiencing mild to moderate symptoms at
baseline (Table 11). However, as previously described (see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included randomised
controlled trials), given the differences between trials in patient populations, settings, interventions and,
in particular, the heterogeneous nature of the reported outcomes across trials, we did not attempt to
perform meta-analyses. Thus we reported a narrative summary only for each intervention and
comparator set.
Vitamin B6 versus placebo

Wibowo and colleagues112 measured the change in overall symptom severity using the PUQE scale for
lower versus higher doses of vitamin B6. They found a higher mean change for the high dosage compared
with lower, and there was a statistically significant improvement in PUQE score with the higher dose.
Nausea outcomes
The trial of Vutyavanich and colleagues41 used the 10-point VAS to assess mean change in nausea
symptoms.41 The study determined a higher mean change in the pyridoxine group [2.9 (SD 2.2) vs. placebo
2.0 (SD 2.7)], and this difference was significant (p < 0.001). The Sahakian and colleagues100 trial also
employed the VAS to assess mean change in nausea. Overall, the study did not detect a significant
difference between groups. However, for patients experiencing severe nausea, a significant mean change
was observed in favour of the pyridoxine group (p < 0.001).
Vomiting outcomes
The change in the number of vomiting episodes was measured by Vutyavanich and colleagues.41 However,
although a greater reduction was observed in the pyridoxine group, this was not significant (p = 0.055).
Sahakian and colleagues100 also assessed vomiting outcomes via number of vomiting episodes.100 They
observed a significant improvement both in the pyridoxine group as a whole (p < 0.05), and for the
subgroup of women experiencing severe symptoms (p < 0.055).
Retching outcomes
75
76
TABLE 11 Results for vitamin B6 interventions for NVP

Vitamin B6 vs. placebo
Vutyavanich Antenatal clinic, To determine the n = 342; I 10.9 Women with Nausea and vomiting Vitamin B6: 10-mg Placebo: identical VAS for Nausea mean change in
199541 Maharaj Nakorn effectiveness of ( 2.7), C 10.9 nausea, with or pregnancy instrument: tablets of pyridoxine tablets 8-hourly for nausea score: pyridoxine 2.9
Chiang Mai pyridoxine for ( 2.8) without vomiting I 5.2 ( 5.3), C 4.9 hydrochloride 8-hourly 5 days. Dietary advice (SD 2.2) vs. placebo 2.0

Hospital, Chiang NVP, double- ( 2.4) for 5 days. Dietary given, advised not to Episodes of (SD 2.7) (p < 0.001)
Mai University, blind RCT advice given, advised take any other vomiting
Thailand Episodes of vomiting not to take any other medication (n = 169) Vomiting episodes
in past 24 hours: medication (n = 173) change: pyridoxine 1.22
I 1.8 2.3, C 1.6 2.0 (SD 2.0) vs. placebo 0.65
(SD 2.4) (p = 0.055)
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: VITAMIN B6 (PYRIDOXINE)
(MILDMODERATE)
Sahakian General obstetric To determine the n = 74; I 9.3 Women VAS for nausea: I 6.4 Vitamin B6 25-mg Placebo: identical VAS for Nausea mean change:
1991100 clinic, Iowa, IA, efficacy of (range 615.5), suffering from (SD 1.8), C 6.6 (SD 1.9) tablets of pyridoxine tablets 8-hourly for nausea pyridoxine 2.9 (SD 2.4),
USA pyridoxine for C 9.7 (range 619) nausea and 8-hourly for 3 days. 3 days. Dietary advice placebo 1.9 (SD 2.0),
the treatment of vomiting but (MILDMODERATE) Dietary advice given given (n = 28) Episodes of p-value non-significant
NVP, double- not requiring (n = 31) vomiting
blind RCT hospitalisation Severe nausea mean
change: pyridoxine 4.3
(SD 2.1), placebo 1.8
(SD 2.2); p < 0.01
Vomiting: improvement
in total pyridoxine group
(p < 0.05) and severe
symptoms (p < 0.05).
Crude OR for vomiting
vs. no vomiting in
pyridoxine vs.
placebo = 0.3014 (95%
CI 0.102 to 0.893);
p < 0.05

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
Wibowo Cipto To determine if 60 sufferers (+60 Women PUQE: I 7 (range Pyridoxine (5 mg) As I but equivalent PUQE score Change in score:
2012112 Mangunkusumo supplementation non-sufferers who suffering nausea 415), C 6 (range mixed with 40 g of dose of pyridoxine high-dose vitamin B6
National Hospital, with vitamin B6 did not receive any and vomiting 411) powdered milk twice (0.64 mg) twice daily 3.86 2.12 vs. low-dose
University of improves NVP treatment but acted a day for 2 weeks. for 2 weeks vitamin B6 2.80 1.78;
Indonesia, (and to compare as comparison for (MILD) Dose of pyridoxine ( = 1.28 mg per day). p < 0.05
Indonesia circulating plasma plasma B6 was equivalent to Women were asked
vitamin B6 concentrations) 10 mg per day. not to take any other
between Women were asked medications (n = 30)
sufferers and C: < 8 weeks not to take other
non-sufferers), gestation (n = 12); medications
RCT 812 weeks
gestation (n = 18)
I: < 8 weeks
gestation (n = 8);
812 weeks
gestation (n = 22)
Tan 2009107 University of To evaluate the n = 94; I 10.5 3.1, Women with Nausea score via i.v. rehydration with As I group, except VAS for Nausea score after
Malaya Medical oral use of C 9.6 2.8 severe nausea VAS: I median 7 saline ( potassium instead of pyridoxine nausea 2 weeks: I median 2
Centre, Malaysia pyridoxine in and vomiting (IQR 5), C median 7 chloride), pyridoxine two mint Tic Tac (IQR 3), usual care
conjunction with during (IQR 4) two 10 mg-tablets (Ferrero UK Ltd, Episodes of median 2.5 (IQR 4);
standard therapy pregnancy with given plus i.v. Greenford, UK) given vomiting p = 0.69
in women clinical features (MODERATE) metoclopramide (n = 46)
hospitalised for (10 mg) given three Vomiting after 2 weeks:
HG, RCT times daily plus oral I mean 1.4 (SD 1.3),
thiamine (10 mg) usual care mean 1.4
daily. Discharged (SD 1.6); p = 0.98
with pyridoxine, two
tablets three times
daily plus oral
metoclopramide and
thiamine (n = 48)
continued
77
78
TABLE 11 Results for vitamin B6 interventions for NVP (continued )


Vitamin B6 vs. serotonin antagonists
Babaei 201459 Two antenatal To compare 140 participants, Not reported RINVR nausea Vitamin B6 tablet Dimenhydrinate RINVR Both groups decreased
clinics of referral effectiveness of gestation (exclusion vomiting scores mean (50 mg) orally every tablet (50 mg) orally nausea and vomiting
hospitals affiliated vitamin B6 and < 16 weeks criteria included (SD) at baseline were morning for 1 week every morning for scores from baseline
to Shiraz dimenhydrinate hospitalisation 8.6 (SD 2.9) for (n = 70). Both 1 week (n = 70) values
University of in the treatment for severe vitamin B6 (group A) vitamin B6 and
Medical Sciences, of NVP, double- vomiting) and 8.3 (SD 7.4) for dimenhydrinate Average score change in
Shiraz, Southern blind RCT dimenhydrinate tablets were identical the vitamin B6 group
Iran (group B) in size, colour and was less than that in the
odour dimenhydrinate group
(MILD) [mean 4.4 (SD 1.6) vs.
mean 5.7 (SD 5.5);
p < 0.05]
Each day, there were

significant differences
in score change of
vitamin B6 group vs.
dimenhydrinate group
C, control; I, intervention.
Safety outcomes
None of the included trials reported on pregnancy outcomes or adverse events. UKTIS data on vitamin B6
enquiries are provided in Appendix 7.
Vitamin B6 and metoclopramide combination versus

metoclopramide alone
The trial of Tan and colleagues107 used the 10-point VAS to assess median nausea scores in women with
severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy with clinical features. The trial also reported the mean
number of daily vomiting episodes.107

Nausea outcomes
Tan and colleagues107 reported no significant difference in nausea score after 2 weeks between the
pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and metoclopramide as a combination treatment and metoclopramide alone
[combination median 2 (IQR 3), metoclopramide alone median 2.5 (IQR 4); p = 0.69].
Vomiting outcomes
Tan and colleagues107 reported no significant difference in the mean number of daily vomiting episodes after
2 weeks between the vitamin B6 and metoclopramide as a combination treatment and metoclopramide
alone [combination mean 1.4 (SD 1.3), metoclopramide alone mean 1.4 (SD 1.6); p = 0.98].
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
Tan and colleagues107 did not report on pregnancy outcomes or adverse events. UKTIS data on vitamin B6
enquiries are provided in Appendix 7.
Vitamin B6 versus serotonin antagonist
The trial of Babaei and Foghaha59 compared effectiveness of vitamin B6 against dimenhydrinate in the
treatment of NVP in a double-blind RCT which was adjudged as being at unclear risk of bias.

Babaei and Foghaha59 compared nausea and vomiting scores at baseline and post treatment using the
RINVR. Results showed that both vitamin B6 and dimenhydrinate groups decreased nausea and vomiting
scores from baseline. However, the average score change in the vitamin B6 group was less than that in the
dimenhydrinate group [mean 4.4 (SD 1.6) vs. mean 5.7 (SD 5.5); p < 0.05].
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
79
Safety outcomes
Babaei and Foghaha59 did not report on pregnancy outcomes. Occurrence of drowsiness was significantly
lower in the vitamin B6 group compared with the dimenhydrinate group [5 (4.5%) as opposed to 36
(53%); p < 0.01]. No other adverse effect was observed in either group during the 1-week follow-up.
UKTIS data on vitamin B6 enquiries are provided in Appendix 7.
Summary
l The evidence available for vitamin B6 was predominantly at low risk of bias or the risk of bias
was unclear.
l Participants in the five studies41,59,100,107,112 had symptoms categorised as mild to moderate at baseline.
l Comparisons of vitamin B6 preparations with placebo generally reported evidence of a reduction in
symptoms of nausea, especially in women with more severe symptoms, and vomiting.
l Higher doses of vitamin B6 preparations resulted in a greater improvement in NVP symptoms.
l There was no evidence to suggest that vitamin B6 and metoclopramide as a combination treatment
had an advantage over metoclopramide alone.
l Overall, there is a suggestion that vitamin B6 might be better than placebo in reducing the severity of
symptoms especially at higher doses, but more studies are required using a range of comparators.
80
Chapter 8 Clinical effectiveness: pyridoxine/

doxylamine combination
Introduction
Four trials65,84,95,117 assessed the effectiveness of vitamin B6 in combination with doxylamine for the
treatment of NVP in comparison with a placebo (Koren and colleagues84), ondansetron (Capp and
colleagues65 and Oliveira and colleagues95) or when administered pre-emptively versus following symptom
onset (Maltepe and Koren117). In the Koren and colleagues84 and Maltepe and Koren117 studies this took
the form of Diclectin (delayed-release doxylamine/pyridoxine combination), while Oliveira and colleagues95
and Capp and colleagues65 gave pyridoxine and doxylamine as separate preparations.
One of the trials95 was only available in abstract form and risk of bias was unclear, whereas the trial of
Koren and colleagues84 was at a low risk of bias. Another trial117 examined pre-emptive treatment with
Diclectin and this trial appeared to be at low risk of bias but some items were unclear. Capp and
colleagues65 was at unclear risk of bias due to lack of provided details across a number of measures.65
The reporting of severity of symptoms was not possible for the Maltepe and Koren117 pre-emptive study,
poor for the Oliveira and colleagues95 study and unclear for the Capp and colleagues65 study, but in the
Koren and colleagues84 study, severity appeared to range from mild to moderate. As previously described
(see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included randomised controlled trials), given the differences between trials
in patient populations, settings, interventions and, in particular, the heterogeneous nature of the reported
outcomes across trials, we did not attempt to perform meta-analyses, and have thus reported a narrative
summary only for each intervention and comparator set.
We also identified a non-randomised prospective observational study (Ashkenazi-Hoffnung and colleagues36)

which compared a combination regimen of doxylamine and pyridoxine versus metoclopramide only (control
group). This study is prone to extreme selection bias and there was a noticeable difference at baseline:
moderate to severe symptoms were present in 97% of the intervention group women versus 69% of control
group women (p < 0.01). A summary of study conduct and results is depicted in Table 12 for completeness.
Doxylamine/pyridoxine versus placebo
One double-blind, multicentre placebo-controlled trial84 compared treatment with Diclectin, a combination
preparation of doxylamine succinate (10 mg) and pyridoxine hydrochloride (10 mg), to placebo in women
with symptoms of NVP and a PUQE score 7. Women in the trial had not previously responded to
conservative management.

Diclectin led to significantly greater improvement in NVP symptoms as compared with placebo (PUQE
score: 4.8 2.7 vs. 3.9 2.6; p = 0.006). The mean area under the curve of the change in PUQE from
baseline as measured day-by-day was significantly larger with Diclectin compared with placebo
(61.5 36.9 in the Diclectin group vs. 53.5 37.5 in the placebo group; p < 0.001).
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
81
82
TABLE 12 Results for pyridoxine-doxylamine interventions for NVP

Pyridoxine/doxylamine vs. placebo
Koren Three university The effectiveness n = 280; I 9.3 2.0, Women Mean PUQE: I Diclectin, two tablets Identical placebo PUQE score Greater improvement in
201084 medical centres: of Diclectin C 9.3 1.8 suffering from 9.0 2.1, C 8.8 2.1 at night, increasing tablet: two tablets at mean score change in
the University of [doxylamine NVP with a up to four tablets night, increasing up Diclectin group vs.
Texas, Texas, TX, succinate (10 mg), PUQE score of Median PUQE: I 9.0, daily as needed. to four tablets daily placebo (PUQE score:

USA; University pyridoxine 6 and had not C 8.0 Follow-up clinic visits as needed. Follow-up 4.8 2.7 vs. 3.9 2.6;
of Pittsburgh, hydrochloride responded to and telephone calls clinic visits and p = 0.006)
Pittsburgh, PA, USA; (10 mg), delayed- conservative (MODERATE) (n = 140) telephone calls
and Georgetown release management (n = 140) The mean area under
University, preparation] vs. (dietary/lifestyle the curve of the change
Washington, DC, placebo for NVP, advice) in PUQE score from
USA double-blind RCT baseline was significantly
larger with Diclectin as
compared with placebo
(61.5 36.9 vs.
53.5 37.5; p < 0.001)
Maltepe Women recruited Does pre-emptive N/A (recruited Diclectin, two tablets Diclectin, two tablets PUQE score Pre-emptive group,
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: PYRIDOXINE/DOXYLAMINE COMBINATION
n = 60, NR Not applicable see

2013117 who were calling treatment before onto study Severity inclusion at bedtime following at bedtime on first 43.3% reduction in HG
the Motherisk NVP the symptoms before symptoms criteria pregnancy day of NVP symptoms between the previous
Helpline for begin vs. when stated) confirmation, gradual with gradual increase pregnancy (19/30) and
counselling, the symptoms increase if symptoms if symptoms the present one (6/30),
Canada begin improve escalate. Frequent escalated. Frequent vs. 17.2% reduction
symptoms in additional counselling additional counselling (from 11/29 to 6/29) in
patients at a high provided, Motherisk provided, Motherisk the C group (p = 0.047)
risk for recurrence algorithm of algorithm of
of severe NVP, treatment followed treatment followed Pre-emptive group:
RCT (n = 31) (n = 29) 70% fewer cases of
moderatesevere NVP
(PUQE 11) [4/26
(15.4%) vs. 9/23
(39.13%)] in the
C group during the first
3 weeks of NVP
(p < 0.04)

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
Pyridoxine/doxylamine vs. metoclopramide
Ashkenazi- Recruitment via To evaluate the 58, NR Women who Categorised as having Pyridoxine (50 mg) Metoclopramide Maternal Moderate/severe
Hoffnung BELTIS, a free efficacy and safety contacted the moderatesevere twice daily. If (10 mg) 8-hourly as report on the symptoms in 28/29 of
201336 call-in centre for of pyridoxine BELTIS regarding NVP: I = 28/29 (97%), vomiting persisted needed (n = 29) severity of treatment group (97%)
queries regarding (50 mg twice daily) treatment of C = 18/26 (69%) plus doxylamine NVP (mild, vs. 18/26 in the C group
drug use during and doxylamine NVP were (25 mg) at night, with moderate, (69%) (p < 0.01) at
pregnancy and (2550 mg) as an eligible for (NOT CLEAR) two additional doses severe) and baseline
lactation, CA, USA alternative inclusion of 12.5 mg if required efficacy of
treatment for (n = 29) treatment Comparison of the
NVP, described as (no or mild, treatment vs. C following
a prospective moderate, treatment = similar
casecontrolled high) efficacy in 20/29 (69%)
observational vs. 18/25 (72%) of
study women (p = 0.65)
Pyridoxine/doxylamine vs. ondansetron
Capp Naval Medical To determine Trial was only NR Thirty-six women 4-mg ondansetron 25-mg pyridoxine VAS for Patients randomised
201465 Centre, San whether available in abstract were enrolled in the plus a placebo tablet plus 12.5-mg nausea and to ondansetron
Diego, CA, USA ondansetron or form so reporting trial with 30 fully every 8 hours for doxylamine every vomiting demonstrated a greater
the combination lacks detail. Severity completing the study. 5 days 8 hours for 5 days reduction in nausea as
of doxylamine plus was NR so likely to Presumably 18 were compared with those
pyridoxine was have included all randomised in each taking pyridoxine and
superior for ranges from mild to group initially, doxylamine (p < 0.05)
treatment of NVP, severe gestation in weeks
double-blind RCT NR authors stated Furthermore, women
first trimester of taking ondansetron
pregnancy only reported less vomiting
(p < 0.05)
(UNCLEAR)
continued
83
84
TABLE 12 Results for pyridoxine-doxylamine interventions for NVP (continued )

Oliveira Naval Medical Is ondansetron or 17, first trimester Women with NR One tablet of One tablet of VAS for Greater mean reduction
2013 Centre, San the combination nausea and pyridoxine (25 mg) ondansetron (4 mg) nausea, and in nausea with
(abstract)95 Diego, CA, USA of doxylamine plus vomiting during (MILDMODERATE) plus one tablet of plus a second vomiting ondansetron (5615 mm)
pyridoxine first trimester doxylamine (12.5 mg) (placebo) tablet vs. pyridoxine plus
superior for and present at (P + D group) every (O group) (n = 8) doxylamine (2729 mm);
treating NVP, the emergency 8 hours for 5 days p = 0.02
double-blind RCT department (n = 9)
No difference in vomiting
between groups
(2825 mm for
ondansetron vs.
1031 mm
for pyridoxine plus
doxylamine; p = 0.38)
BELTIS, Beilinson Teratology Information Service; C, control; I, intervention; N/A, not applicable; NR, not reported.
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
Koren and colleagues84 did not report on pregnancy outcomes or adverse events. UKTIS data on
doxylamine/pyridoxine combination treatment are provided in Appendix 7.
Doxylamine/pyridoxine versus ondansetron
The double-blind RCT of Oliveira and colleagues95 was in abstract form only and randomised women in the
first trimester of pregnancy requesting treatment for NVP to either one tablet of ondansetron (4 mg) plus a
second (placebo) tablet or one tablet of pyridoxine (25 mg) plus one tablet of doxylamine (12.5 mg)
administered every 8 hours for 5 days.95 All study medications were identical in appearance. Capp and
colleagues65 also compared 4-mg ondansetron plus a placebo tablet administered every 8 hours for 5 days
against 25-mg pyridoxine plus 12.5-mg doxylamine.65

Nausea outcomes
Oliveira and colleagues95 found a significantly greater mean reduction in nausea (p = 0.02) using the VAS
in patients using ondansetron (56 15 mm) compared with those taking pyridoxine plus doxylamine
(27 29 mm). A significant difference in favour of ondansetron was also reported by Capp and
colleagues.65 However, no detailed scores were provided as the paper was in abstract form only (p < 0.05).
Vomiting outcomes
There was no significant difference in vomiting between the two groups reported by Oliveira and
colleagues95 (28 25 mm for ondansetron vs. 10 31 mm for pyridoxine plus doxylamine; p = 0.38).
However, Capp and colleagues65 found a significant improvement in the ondansetron groups in terms of
reduction in vomiting using the VAS (p < 0.05), although, as with nausea scores, no exact values were
reported in the abstract.
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
Oliveira and colleagues95 did not report on pregnancy outcomes or adverse events. The trial of Capp and
colleagues65 did not report on pregnancy outcomes either but found no statistically significant difference
between groups with respect to sedation or constipation (p > 0.05) (see Appendix 8). UKTIS data on
doxylamine/pyridoxine combination treatment are provided in Appendix 7.
Pre-emptive doxylamine/pyridoxine
One RCT117 compared pre-emptive treatment with Diclectin before the onset of symptoms of NVP, versus
when the symptoms first began in patients at high risk for recurrence of severe NVP.

In the pre-emptive group there were 70% fewer cases of moderatesevere NVP (PUQE score of 11)
compared with the control group [4/26 (15.4%) vs. 9/23 (39.13%)] during the first 3 weeks of NVP
(p = 0.05). In addition, in the pre-emptive group there was a 43% reduction in HG between the previous
85
pregnancy (19/30) and the present one (6/30) compared with a 17% reduction (from 11/29 to 6/29) in the
control group (p = 0.047).
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
The trial of Maltepe and Koren117 did not report either pregnancy outcomes or adverse events. UKTIS data
on doxylamine/pyridoxine combination treatment are provided in Appendix 7.
Summary
l The evidence available for pyridoxine/doxylamine combinations is varied, but two trials appeared to be
at low risk of bias84,117 with the other two having an unclear risk of bias profile.65,95
l The quality of the evidence is low and was downgraded due to clinical heterogeneity and sparseness of
data in most comparisons. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in
the estimate of effect and may change the estimates.
l Diclectin appears to be more effective at relieving symptoms of NVP than placebo.
l Ondansetron appears more effective at reducing nausea than pyridoxine plus doxylamine but there was
no difference for vomiting.
l Limited data from a single small study36 showed no difference in efficacy between pyridoxine plus
vitamin B6 versus metoclopramide but was subject to selection bias.
l Pre-emptive treatment with Diclectin appears to result in a reduced risk of moderate/severe NVP
compared with treatment initiation once symptoms begin.
l Further larger, well-conducted trials are required to test the effectiveness of Diclectin or pyridoxine/
doxylamine in combination compared with other treatment options.
86
Chapter 9 Clinical effectiveness: antihistamines
Introduction
Antihistamines were used as an intervention to treat nausea and/or vomiting in three RCTs.68,71,90
Heterogeneity was observed in relation to the clinical setting, and the patient populations in which the
studies were conducted, but most notably there were differences in interventions, comparators and
outcomes reported in each trial. As previously described (see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included
randomised controlled trials), given these differences, we did not attempt to perform meta-analyses and
have thus reported a narrative summary only for each intervention and comparator set.
The three trials had varying risk of bias profiles, with just one of the trials appearing to be at low risk of
bias,71 and the remaining two at high risk of bias due to concerns with regard to blinding and incomplete
outcome reporting,68 and selective outcome reporting.90 The women were described as experiencing mild
symptoms at baseline in all three trials (Table 13).
Antihistamines versus placebo
Two trials71,90 compared antihistamines and placebo: one trial71 in women with mild recurrent nausea and
who had vomited at least three times per week over the previous 2 weeks; and the other trial90 in women
complaining of nausea and/or vomiting. Hydroxyzine hydrochloride (25 mg) capsules were given twice
daily for 3 weeks in the trial of Erez and colleagues,71 and cyclizine pyridoxine (dose not reported) tablets
twice daily for 2 weeks in the Monias90 trial.
Author-defined symptom severity/relief scale

Hydroxyzine significantly relieved symptoms of nausea and vomiting compared with placebo in the trial of
Erez and colleagues,71 resulting in partial or initial or complete relief in 82% of women, whereas the
placebo produced some effect in only 22% of women (p < 0.01). This trial was at low risk of bias.
In the trial of Monias,90 78, 5 and 17 out of 100 women experienced complete, partial and no relief in the
intervention group, respectively. In the placebo group (also n = 100), only 13 women experienced
complete relief, five partial relief, and in 82 women no relief of symptoms was observed. The intervention
relieved symptoms in a higher percentage of women than the placebo group; however, no formal
statistical analysis was undertaken.
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
No independent vomiting scores reported.
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
The trial of Erez and colleagues71 found no statistically significant differences in terms of miscarriage, perinatal
outcomes and fetal outcomes between groups (p > 0.05), and only minor side effects (slight drowsiness) were
reported by 7% of the intervention group. No pregnancy outcomes or adverse events were reported by
Monias.90 See Appendix 8 for details, with UKTIS data on hydroxyzine reported in Appendix 7.
87
88
TABLE 13 Results for antihistamine interventions for NVP

Antihistamines vs. placebo
Erez 197171 Prenatal clinics, To investigate n = 150 (I n = 100, Women reporting NR Hydroxyzine Identical placebo Patient Hydroxyzine, partial or
Kasimpasa Naval the effectiveness C n = 50); states recurrent nausea hydrochloride capsules two times a assessment: complete relief in 82%
Hospital and of hydroxyzine treatment in first and had vomited (MILD) capsules (25 mg) two day (a.m. and 2 p.m. (1) complete of the patients; placebo,
Golcuk Naval hydrochloride as 2 months of at least three times a day (a.m. for 3 weeks) (n = 50) relief; (2) some effect in 22% of
Hospital, Ismit, an antiemetic in pregnancy only times per week and 2 p.m. for partial relief; the patients (p < 0.01)
Turkey pregnancy and over the previous 3 weeks) (n = 100) and (3) no
its effect on fetal 2 weeks relief
outcomes, RCT

Antihistamines vitamin B6
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: ANTIHISTAMINES
Diggory Antenatal clinic, To compare n = 139 (group 1 Women attending NR Group 3 = dietary Group 1 = dietary Author- Group 1 good (n = 6),
196268 Queen Charlottes meclozine n = 29, group 2 antenatal clinics info sheet plus info sheet only. defined fair (n = 4); poor
and Chelsea hydrochloride n = 34, group 3 who were (MILD) antihistamines Group 2 = dietary severity scale (n = 19); group 2 good
Hospital, London, pyridoxine with n = 41, group 4 experiencing (25 mg a.m., 50 mg info sheet plus based on (n = 5), fair (n = 11),
UK placebo and n = 35); 14 weeks nausea or p.m.). Group 4 = placebo disruption to poor (n = 18); group 3
simple dietary vomiting dietary info sheet life (good, good (n = 28), fair
advice, four-arm plus antihistamines fair, poor) (n = 12), poor (n = 1);
RCT (25 mg a.m., 50 mg group 4 good (n = 22),
a.m. plus pyridoxine fair (n = 11), poor (n = 2)
50 mg a.m., 100 mg
p.m.) No differences between
groups 1 and 2 or 3 and 4,
but both groups 3 and 4
significantly improved
compared with groups 1
and 2; p < 0.001 in all
cases
Monias Military hospital, To evaluate the n = 200 (n = 100 Women NR Instructed to take Instructed to take Author I group: complete relief
195790 Massachusetts, effectiveness of each arm); complaining of two cyclizine plus two placebo tablets defined n = 78, partial relief
MA, USA cyclizine plus 620 weeks nausea and/or (MILD) pyridoxine tablets half an hour before (complete, n = 5, no relief n = 17
pyridoxine in vomiting half an hour before breakfast and an partial or no
treating NVP, breakfast and an additional tablet relief) Comparator: complete
RCT additional tablet before lunch if felt it relief n = 13, partial
before lunch if was required, for relief n = 5, no relief
required for 10 days. 10 days (n = 100) n = 82
Dose not reported
(n = 100)
C, control; I, intervention; NR, not reported.

Antihistamines alone or in combination with Vitamin B6

versus control
One four-arm trial68 compared antihistamines (meclizine hydrochloride) with and without vitamin B6
(pyridoxine) with a placebo group and a no treatment group in women experiencing mild nausea or
vomiting. In the intervention arms, meclizine hydrochloride was given at doses of 25 mg and 50 mg in
the morning and evening, respectively. In the combination group, pyridoxine was given at 50 mg in the
morning and 100 mg in the evening.
The trial used an author-defined severity scale based on disruption to life whereby women were asked to
judge symptoms on the basis of whether the impact of the treatment on restoring disrupted routine could
be categorised as good, fair or poor. No differences between the control groups or the two intervention
groups were observed (p > 0.05). However, based on subjective assessments of restoration of disrupted
routine, both the antihistamine alone and antihistamine with vitamin B6 groups significantly improved
(p < 0.001) in comparison to the two control groups (no treatment group: good n = 6, fair n = 4, poor
n = 19; placebo group: good n = 5, fair n = 11, poor n = 18; antihistamine alone: good n = 28, fair n = 12,
poor n = 1; antihistamine with vitamin B6: good n = 22, fair n = 11, poor n = 2).
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
No independent vomiting scores reported.
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or adverse events were reported by Diggory and Tomkinson68 and there were no
UKTIS data relating to meclizine hydrochloride.
Summary
l Of the three studies available for antihistamines, two were at high risk of bias68,90 while one was at low
risk.71 The quality of the evidence was very low and was downgraded due to the reporting of
author-defined scales to measure symptom severity, and other concerns about the overall risk of bias
in included RCTs. We are very uncertain about the effectiveness estimates in terms of validation and
estimates may change in future trials.
l Participants in all three studies68,71,90 had mild symptoms so generalisability is restricted.
l Use of antihistamines resulted in an improvement over a range of symptoms.
l The addition of vitamin B6 does not appear to improve effectiveness.
l Evidence is limited in both quantity and quality.
l Antihistamines appear to be better than placebo in reducing the severity of symptoms, but
better-quality, large studies are required for this and all other comparators.
89
Chapter 10 Clinical effectiveness: dopamine

antagonists
Introduction
Dopamine antagonists were used as an intervention to treat HG in the trial of Tan and colleagues.106
The trial was a head-to-head comparison of two interventions (promethazine vs. metoclopramide) and was
at low risk of bias. We will focus on the results from this trial here. We also identified a non-randomised
prospective study122 which examined two study groups (67 patients treated with i.v. droperidol 1 mg/hour
plus diphenhydramine 2550 mg every 6 hours; and 34 patients treated with i.v. droperidol 0.5 mg/hour
plus diphenhydramine 50 mg every 6 hours; and a historical control of 54 patients receiving conventional
antiemetic treatment). The study groups were then gradually weaned onto oral hydroxyzine and
metoclopramide. This study is prone to extreme selection bias and other biases, and classified as weak
according to the EPHPP quality assessment tool. A summary of study conduct and results is depicted in
Table 14, with safety data reported in Appendix 8.
Promethazine versus metoclopramide
The trial of Tan and colleagues106 randomised women in early pregnancy (gestation of 16 weeks) with
clinical HG to either 25-mg promethazine (n = 76) or 10-mg metoclopramide (n = 73), administered
intravenously every 8 hours for 24 hours.

Nausea outcomes
There were no significant differences in median nausea scores during all monitored time points
(at baseline and at 8, 16 and 24 hours) between the promethazine and metoclopramide groups (p = 0.95).
The median nausea score at 24 hours was 2 (IQR 14) in the promethazine group and 2 (IQR 15) in the
metoclopramide group (p = 0.99).
Vomiting outcomes
There was no significant difference in the median number of vomiting episodes between the promethazine
and metoclopramide groups [median episodes were 2 (range 03) and 1 (range 05) in the promethazine and
metoclopramide groups respectively; p = 0.8].
Retching score
No independent retching score reported.
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes were reported by Tan and colleagues106 and only minor side effects, with
significantly more women in the promethazine group reporting drowsiness (p = 0.001) and dizziness
(p < 0.001). Additional UKTIS data on promethazine are reported in Appendix 7.
91
92
TABLE 14 Results for dopamine antagonist interventions for NVP

question, study participants, inclusion (reviewers Outcome Symptom relief
Study Setting, location design gestation criteria assessment) Intervention Comparator assessment scale outcomes
Dopamine antagonists vs. conventional treatment
Ferreira Sainte-Justine To compare the Group A n = 54, Women Mean score National Two groups A retrospective National Cancer Mean score on day 1
2003122 Hospital, Montral, efficacy of the group B n = 67, hospitalised for Cancer Institutes (groups B, C). Both control group (A), Institutes (SD) to during

Qubec, Canada droperidol/ group C n = 34 HG with at least Common Toxicity groups received i.v. treated with a variety Common Toxicity hospitalisation:
diphenhydramine one of the three Criteria scale: nausea rehydration plus of antiemetic Criteria scale:
combination with Group following criteria: (scale 03) group multivitamins. treatments (i.m. nausea analogue Nausea (n = 155): group
other conventional A = 11.1 4.6, group weight loss 5% A = 2.24 0.8, group chlorpromazine, i.v. scale varies from 0 A = 2.24 (SD 0.87) to
treatments used. B = 10.3 3.9, group of pre-pregnancy B = 1.33 1.05, Group B: i.v. dimenhydrinate, i.v. to 3, and the 1.48 (SD 0.49); group
Described as a C = 10.4 2.8 weight, ketonuria group droperidol infusion metoclopramide, or a vomiting scale B = 1.33 (SD 1.05) to
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: DOPAMINE ANTAGONISTS
casecontrol (objectified on C = 1.03 1.00; at 1 mg/hour plus combination of varies from 0 to 4 0.78 (SD 0.70); group
study but actually urinary test vomiting (scale 04) i.v. diphenhydramine doxylamine C = 1.03 (SD 1.00) to
a cohort study strips), or group (2550 mg) 6-hourly pyridoxine (Diclectin) 0.58 (SD 0.60);
hypokalemia A = 1.06 1.00, taken orally) p < 0.001
(< 3.5 mEq/l) group Group C: i.v. according to the
B = 0.34 0.66, droperidol at 0.5 physicians choice Vomiting: group A =
group C = 0.41 0.74 mg/hour plus i.v. 1.06 (SD 1.00) to 0.62
diphenhydramine (SD 0.54); group B =
(MODERATE) (50 mg) 6-hourly. 0.34 (SD 0.66) to 0.25
Gradually oral (SD 0.36); group C =
antiemetic treatment 0.41 (SD 0.74) to 0.24
consisting of (SD 0.39). p < 0.001 in
hydroxyzine and favour of group B
metoclopramide was
started This trend continued
through the hospital
stay, although it was
not clear whether or
not analysis accounted
for group differences at
baseline
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740

question, study participants, inclusion (reviewers Outcome Symptom relief
Study Setting, location design gestation criteria assessment) Intervention Comparator assessment scale outcomes
Dopamine antagonists vs. metoclopramide
Tan 2010106 Gynaecology To compare the n = 159; Women Nausea score via Metoclopramide Promethazine VAS for nausea Vomiting:
ward, university effects of metoclopramide hospitalised with VAS: I = median 5 (10 mg) given i.v. (25 mg) given i.v. metoclopramide = 1
hospital in Kuala promethazine 9.2 2.3, presumed (IQR 2.757), C = after randomisation, after randomisation Episodes of (IQR 05),
Lumpur, Malaysia with those of promethazine hyperemesis who median 5 (IQR 1.57) at 8, 16 and and at 8, 16 and vomiting promethazine = 2
metoclopramide 9.3 2.6 were determined 24 hours (n = 79) 24 hours (n = 80) (IQR 03); p = 0.81
for HG, double- clinically to (MODERATE)
blind RCT require i.v. Nausea at 24 hours:
antiemetic metoclopramide = 2
therapy (IQR 15),
promethazine = 2
(IQR 14); p = 0.99
(Nausea scores at 8 and

16 hours also showed
no significant difference)
Repeated measures
analysis of variance for
nausea score: p = 0.95
C, control; I, intervention; i.m., intramuscular.
93
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: DOPAMINE ANTAGONISTS
Summary
l Limited data suggest that promethazine is as effective as metoclopramide in reducing the symptoms
of NVP.
l The quality of evidence was very low and was downgraded due to sparseness of data and imprecision,
although the one trial106 that reported a comparison on promethazine and metoclopramide was at low
risk of bias.
l We are very uncertain about the estimates of effectiveness. Further, well-conducted studies are
required to compare the effectiveness of metoclopramide against other comparators.
94
Chapter 11 Clinical effectiveness: serotonin

antagonists (ondansetron)
Introduction
A total of five trials57,72,75,81,105 and one cohort study121 compared the serotonin antagonist (ondansetron)
against a range of alternatives for the treatment of women experiencing various severities of nausea in
pregnancy. Of these, one study focussed on the safety of ondansetron versus the usual treatment
regimen,121 with symptom severity not specified. Three trials tested ondansetron against metoclopramide,
with participants symptoms classified as mild to moderate in two trials,75,81 and severe in one trial.57 The
remaining two trials compared ondansetron with antihistamines,72,105 with women classed as experiencing
symptoms at the moderate to severe end of the spectrum.
Two of the identified trials were found to have a low risk of bias.57,81 The trial of Sullivan and colleagues105
was classed as unclear due to insufficient information, with the remaining two found to carry a high risk
of bias.72,75 The included cohort study of Einarson and colleagues121 was classed as weak according to
the EPHPP quality assessment tool. As previously described (see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included
randomised controlled trials), given the differences between trials in patient populations, settings,
interventions and, in particular, the heterogeneous nature of the reported outcomes across trials, we did
not attempt to perform meta-analyses and have thus reported a narrative summary only for each
intervention and comparator set. A summary of study conduct and results is depicted in Table 15,
with safety data reported in Appendix 8.
Ondansetron versus usual treatment
Einarson and colleagues121 examined ondansetron versus the usual treatment regimen.121 As this involved a
telephone survey of women already taking ondansetron, however, no direct measures of symptom relief
were assessed. The outcomes of interest related to the incidence of fetal abnormalities in the surveyed
patient population. These data are provided in Appendix 8, with additional UKTIS data on the intervention
detailed in Appendix 7.
Ondansetron versus metoclopramide

Nausea outcomes
All three trials comparing ondansetron against metoclopramide assessed nausea severity using the
10-point VAS.57,75,81
The trial of Kashifard and colleagues81 (classed as low risk of bias), measured nausea in a group of women
taking ondansetron versus a comparison group taking metoclopramide for pregnancy-related nausea and
vomiting. They found that nausea scores for the ondansetron group were significantly less on the third and
fourth days of treatment in comparison with those taking metoclopramide (p = 0.024 and p = 0.023
respectively). However, there was no significant difference between groups in the overall nausea trend
over time.
95
96
TABLE 15 Results for serotonin antagonist interventions for NVP/HG
Research Number of Severity scores Outcome

question, study participants, Severity (reviewers assessment Symptom relief
Study Setting, location design gestation inclusion criteria assessment) Intervention Comparator scale outcomes
Ondansetron vs. usual treatment
Abas 201457 Full-service, state- To compare n = 160; 16 weeks Presence of nausea Nausea score: 4-mg ondansetron 10-mg VAS for Nausea visual numeric
funded university effectiveness of with clinical and intractable ondansetron median was diluted in 100-ml metoclopramide was nausea rating scale scores [median
hospital, Kuala ondansetron with dehydration and vomiting sufficient 8 (IQR 79); normal saline and diluted in 100-ml (IQR)] at 8 hours [4 (IQR
Lumpur, Malaysia metoclopramide ketonuria (of 2+ or to cause metoclopramide standard 100-ml normal saline and the Episodes of 36) vs. 5 (IQR 46)],
in the treatment greater) dehydration and median 8 (IQR 710) normal saline packs standard 100-ml vomiting 16 hours [3 (IQR 14) vs. 3

of HG metabolic were labelled as A or normal saline packs (IQR 24.75)], and
disturbance of a (SEVERE) B (n = 80) were labelled as A or 24 hours [1 (IQR 13) vs. 2
severity to require B (n = 80) (IQR 13)] after
hospitalisation randomisation were not
significantly different
when assessed separately
at each time point
Vomiting episodes in the

first 24 hours were
median 1 (IQR 02) vs.
median 2 (IQR 02.75)
(p = 0.38) for ondansetron
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: SEROTONIN ANTAGONISTS (ONDANSETRON)
and metoclopramide
respectively
Repeated measures
analysis of variance also
showed no difference
across the trial arms
(p = 0.22) for nausea
visual numeric rating scale
scores, although generally
across both arms, nausea
score lessened significantly
over at 24 hours (12.5%
compared with 30%;
p = 0.01; number needed
to treat to benefit, 6) for
the ondansetron arm
Einarson Women calling To determine Group 1 n = 188 Women who NR Group 1: women Group 2: women PUQE NR
2004121 the Helpline or TIS whether or not (ondansetron), called either the who called either who called one of
at the Motherisk the use of group 2 n = 176 Motherisk and (NOT CLEAR) service and were the helplines but

Program in ondansetron (antiemetics), group 3 MotherSafe taking ondansetron were not exposed to
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
Toronto, Canada, during n = 176 counselling at the time of call ondansetron (used
or the MotherSafe pregnancy is (non-teratogen) services, who within a 2-year other antiemetics
Program in Sydney, associated with were taking period were enrolled including Diclectin,
Australia an increased risk ondansetron for metoclopramide,
for major NVP phenothiazines and
malformations. ginger)
Prospective,
three-arm, Group 3: women
comparative exposed to other
study drugs considered safe
to use in pregnancy
or those who had not
used any medication
Ondansetron vs. metoclopramide
Kashifard Ruhani Hospital of To compare the n = 83, gestational Women vomiting NR Ondansetron Metoclopramide VAS for Nausea was significantly
201381 Babol University of effectiveness of age in weeks 8.7 three times a day hydrochloride tablets (10 mg), three times nausea less in the ondansetron
Medical Sciences, ondansetron vs. (SD 2.6) both with weight loss (MILDMODERATE) (4 mg), three times a daily following same group on third and
North Iran metoclopramide groups > 3 kg and day for 1 week. regime Episodes of fourth days of treatment
in the treatment presence of Dose gradually vomiting vs. metoclopramide
of HG, double- ketonuria reduced and group (p = 0.024 and
blind RCT discontinues: two p = 0.023, respectively)
times a day for
3 days; once a day Vomiting episodes in the
for 4 days. ondansetron group were
Medication stopped fewer than the
after second week metoclopramide group
from the second to the
eighth days
Trend of change for

vomiting in the
ondansetron group was
lower (p = 0.045)
No difference in nausea
trend
continued
97
98
TABLE 15 Results for serotonin antagonist interventions for NVP/HG (continued )

Ghahiri Shahid Beheshti To compare the n = 70; Women suffering Mean (SE): nausea All participants All participants VAS for No difference in severity
201175 Hospital, Iran effectiveness of metoclopramide from chronic NVP, VAS I 3.14 (SE 0.55), rehydrated with i.v. rehydrated with i.v. nausea of NVP at 3 days or
ondansetron vs. 12 weeks (SD 3.8), requiring C 3.09 (SE 0.66); fluids plus 10-mg fluids plus 1 week
metoclopramide ondansetron 10.8 hospitalisation and vomiting VAS I 2.29 metoclopramide ondansetron (4 mg) Episodes of
in the treatment weeks (SD 3.3) treatment (SE 0.71), C 2.09 twice daily orally for orally twice daily for vomiting At 2 weeks nausea was
of NVP, RCT (SE 0.78) 3 weeks (n = 35) 3 weeks (n = 35) less in ondansetron
group, (p = 0.05) and
(MILDMODERATE) vomiting was less in the

metoclopramide group
(p = 0.04)
At 3 weeks vomiting
was less in the
ondansetron group
(p = 0.02)
Ondansetron vs. antihistamines
Sullivan Women admitted To investigate n = 30, (n = 15 in Women admitted NR i.v. hydration. As I except VAS for Daily VAS score
1996105 to the University whether or not each arm); I 11.0 to hospital with Ondansetron (10 mg) promethazine nausea presented graphically,
of Mississippi ondansetron (SD 2.7), C 10.2 severe HG, > 5 lb (MODERATESEVERE) given intravenously in (50 mg) given no numerical values
Medical Centre, may be an (SD 3.8) weight loss, 50 ml of compatible intravenously in 50 ml presented
MS, USA effective ketonuria i.v. fluid over of compatible i.v.

antiemetic in > 80 mg/dl, 30 minutes. First dose fluid over No significant difference
pregnancy, RCT hypokalemia mandatory, then as 30 minutes for initial between treatments over
< 3.0 mEq/dl, needed 8-hourly. I.v. and subsequent 5 days of treatment via
hyponatremia hydration continued inpatient doses p-values
< 134 mEq/dl until patient ingesting
requiring i.v. a bland diet.
replacement, Discharged with
positive serum promethazine
acetone, two or suppositories plus
more visits to dietary instructions.
obstetric Seen in clinic on a
emergency weekly basis. If no
department for HG change after
which required i.v. 48 hours patient
hydration or considered treatment
promethazine failure and was
suppositories, as an excluded
outpatient
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740

Eftekhari University hospital, To compare the n = 60 (n = 30 in Women with NR All participants All participants Author- Mean change severity:
201372 Kerman, Iran effectiveness of each group); I 71.56 chronic vomiting, rehydrated with i.v. rehydrated with i.v. defined ondansetron = 6.4
treating HG days (SD 15125), not able to take (MODERATESEVERE) fluids. The fluids. Promethazine symptom and (SD 202),
with either C 80.06 days oral fluids, ondansetron group group received 25 mg relief scales promethazine = 5.34
ondansetron or (SD 35128) dehydration, received 8 mg i.m. i.m. 6-hourly for (SD 3.1); p = 0.46
promethazine, weight loss, 8-hourly for 48 hours 48 hours
RCT in need of Relief: ondansetron =
hospitalisation 12.16 (SD 3.7),
promethazine = 11.65
(SD 3.4); p = 0.178
C, control; I, intervention; i.m., intramuscular; NR, not reported; TIS, Teratology Information Service.
99
Ghahiri and colleagues75 (classified as unclear risk of bias), compared women taking metoclopramide
versus a comparison group taking ondansetron for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting. They found no
difference in symptom severity at either 3 days or 1 week. However, nausea was significantly lower in the
ondansetron group at 2 weeks (p = 0.05).
Finally, the trial of Abas and colleagues57 compared the effectiveness of ondansetron with metoclopramide
in the treatment of HG. No significant difference in the median (IQR) of well-being VAS scores were found
between treatment arms [intervention = 9 (IQR 810) vs. comparator = 9 (IQR 710) (p = 0.33)].
Vomiting outcomes
Kashifard and colleagues81 measured vomiting outcomes using the number of episodes of vomiting
recorded per group. They reported that both fewer episodes of vomiting were found in the ondansetron
group compared with the metoclopramide group, and that the trend over time for vomiting in the
ondansetron group was significantly lower compared with the comparator (p = 0.045). Ghahiri and
colleagues75 found no differences in episodes of vomiting between groups until 2 weeks, when episodes
were lower in the metoclopramide group (p = 0.04). However, by 3 weeks episodes of vomiting were
significantly lower in the ondansetron group (p = 0.02). Finally, no significant difference was reported by
Abas and colleagues57 in terms of median (IQR) number of vomiting episodes in the first 24 hours
between treatment arms [intervention median 1 (IQR 02) compared with comparator median 2
(IQR 02.75); p = 0.38].
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No adverse events were reported in the trial of Kashifard and colleagues,81 in terms of either pregnancy
outcomes or side effects. Ghahiri and colleagues75 found no significant difference between groups in
relation to minor side effects [headaches, dizziness, sedation or anxiety (p > 0.05)]. However, although
Abas and colleagues57 also reported some minor side effects (difficulty sleeping, dizziness, diarrhoea,
headache, palpitations and skin rash) in similar proportions across the trial arms (p > 0.5), significant
differences were found in self-reported drowsiness (p = 0.011) and dry mouth (p = 0.003) in favour of
ondansetron. Full details are presented in Appendix 8 (although as previously emphasised, given the
anticipated rarity of these events small trials are likely to provide unreliable estimates). Additional UKTIS
data on ondansetron and metoclopramide enquiries can be found in Appendix 7.
Ondansetron versus antihistamines
Author-defined relief scale

The study by Eftekhari and Mehralhasani72 used an author-defined scale to assess change in symptom
severity and relief. No significant difference between treatment groups was found for either category
(severity p = 0.46, relief p = 0.178). Furthermore, this trial was found to have a high risk of bias due to
inadequate allocation concealment procedures.
Nausea outcomes
Sullivan and colleagues105 (classified as unclear risk of bias due to lack of information), assessed daily scores
using the VAS. No significant difference between ondansetron and antihistamine was reported during the
5-day treatment period (data presented graphically, therefore no specific p-value is available).
Vomiting outcomes
100
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or adverse event data were reported in the trial of Eftekhari and Mehralhasani.72
In the trial of Sullivan and colleagues,105 eight women reported sedation versus none in the ondansetron
group (p = 0.002). UKTIS data on ondansetron related inquiries are presented in Appendix 7.
Summary
l The evidence available for serotonin receptor antagonists, specifically ondansetron, was predominantly
at high or unclear risk of bias with only one at low risk.81
l Evidence for the comparison of ondansetron with metoclopramide was mixed, with both drugs
improving symptoms.
l Low risk of bias studies found ondansetron more effective at reducing symptoms of vomiting compared
with metoclopramide after 4 days.
l Both ondansetron and antihistamine improved symptoms with no evidence of a difference
between them.
l Overall, ondansetron does reduce the severity of symptoms, but more larger, better-quality studies are
required to assess benefit over other comparators.
101
Chapter 12 Clinical effectiveness: intravenous

fluids
Introduction
Two studies compared the effectiveness of i.v. fluids for the treatment of women with HG.69,108 One trial
by Tan and colleagues108 tested different compositions of i.v. solution (dextrose plus saline vs. saline only)108
and was judged as low risk of bias. The other study compared the use of diazepam against i.v. fluids
containing vitamins69 but was judged as carrying an unclear risk of bias due to lack of sufficient
information in a number of areas. Both papers described the trial participants as suffering from HG;
however, we classified severity as either moderate,69 or moderate to severe108 based on the participant
data provided. As previously described (see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included randomised controlled
trials), given the differences between trials in patient populations, settings, interventions and, in particular,
the heterogeneous nature of the reported outcomes across trials, we did not attempt to perform
meta-analyses and have thus reported a narrative summary only for each intervention and comparator set.
A summary of study conduct and results is depicted in Table 16, with safety data reported in Appendix 8.
Dextrose saline versus saline only

Nausea outcomes
The 10-point VAS was used by Tan and colleagues108 to assess nausea in their trial comparing dextrose
plus saline versus saline only i.v. fluids. Although the difference after 24 hours between groups was not
found to be significant [dextrose plus saline, VAS score = 2 (SD 14), saline only, VAS score = 2 (SD 24);
p = 0.39], repeated-measures of the analysis of variance for nausea scores detected a significantly greater
reduction in favour of the dextrose plus saline preparation (p = 0.046).
Vomiting outcomes
Tan and colleagues108 measured number of episodes of emesis to assess vomiting outcomes and did
not detect a difference in the median change in episodes between groups [both groups = 0
(IQR 02); p = 0.66].
Retching outcomes
No independent retching scores reported.
Safety outcomes
Tan and colleagues108 did not report any pregnancy outcomes or side effects. No specific UKTIS data were
available on this intervention.
Intravenous fluids versus intravenous fluids plus diazepam

No combined score presented.
103
104
TABLE 16 Results for i.v. fluid interventions for NVP and HG

I.v. fluids D-Saline vs. N-Saline
Tan 2013108 University hospital, To compare 5% n = 222 (n = 111 Women at their VAS median nausea 5% dextrose, 0.9% 0.9% saline by i.v. Numerical Median vomiting
Kuala Lumpur, dextrose, 0.9% each group); first hospitalisation score 9 (IQR 710) for saline by i.v. infusion, infusion, 125 ml/hour scale 010 for episodes both groups 0
Malaysia saline against I 9.8 2.8, C for HG (intractable both groups 125 ml/hour over over 24 hours plus nausea (IQR 02); p = 0.66
0.9% saline 9.8 2.5 nausea and 24 hours plus potassium chloride
solution in the vomiting of (MODERATESEVERE) potassium chloride (9.5 mmol) as Episodes of Nausea in D-Saline

i.v. rehydration pregnancy with (9.5 mmol) as required, required, plus vomiting group at 24 hours = 2
of HG, double- dehydration and plus multivitamin multivitamin (IQR 14), N-Saline
blind RCT starvation clinically containing 250-mg containing 250-mg group = 2 (IQR 24);
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: INTRAVENOUS FLUIDS
judged to require thiamine given thiamine given p = 0.39

hospitalisation for intraveniously. I.v. intraveniously. I.v.
i.v. rehydration antiemetic prescribed antiemetic prescribed Repeated-measures
and antiemetic according to health- according to analysis of variance of
drug administration) care providers health-care providers nausea score: p = 0.046
preference. If capillary preference. If capillary in favour of D-Saline
glucose > 8 mmol/l, glucose > 8 mmol/l,
infusion fluid changed infusion fluid
to open-label standard changed to
0.9% saline open-label standard
0.9% saline
i.v. fluids diazepam
Ditto 199969 Department of The efficacy of n = 50; i.v. fluids Women with HG Numerical values for i.v. fluids plus i.v. fluids plus VAS for There was a significant
obstetrics and parenteral fluids plus diazepam nausea and baseline multivitamins given multivitamins only. nausea decrease in nausea in
gynaecology, with vitamins group 11.2 not provided. plus diazepam (10 mg) Discharged with both groups but for
Siena University with or without weeks 3.17, i.v. Proportion of i.v. twice daily. placebo tablets Episodes of women on diazepam
Hospital, Italy diazepam fluids only 11.5 women who had Discharged with oral (n = 25) vomiting the reduction was
sedation in cases weeks 2.96 lost > 5% of pre- diazepam tablets significantly greater on
of HG pregnancy weight: (5 mg), twice daily day 2 (p < 0.002) and
I 52%, C 56% (n = 25) day 3 than for the
comparator group
(MODERATE)
C, control; D-Saline, dextrose saline; I, intervention; N-Saline, normal saline.

Nausea outcomes
For patients with a nausea score of 4+ (classed by the authors as severe nausea), significant reductions for
both groups were found on the second and third days of therapy using the VAS (p < 0.05) in the trial of
Ditto and colleagues69 They reported that on day 2, this reduction was significantly greater in the
diazepam group (p < 0.002); however, post treatment, the difference between groups was not significant
(no p-value reported).
Vomiting outcomes
Ditto and colleagues69 assessed vomiting outcomes via number of vomiting episodes. No significant
difference between groups was observed (exact p-value not provided).
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No side effects were reported in the trial of Ditto and colleagues,69 and no statistically significant
differences were reported in terms of gestation at delivery; preterm delivery; caesarean section rate; mean
birthweight or neonatal abnormalities (p-value not reported). As above, no specific UKTIS data were
available on this intervention.
Summary
l The evidence available for i.v. fluids was at low108 or unclear69 risk of bias.
l i.v. fluid improves reported symptoms. Dextrose saline may be more effective at improving nausea over
time for those with moderate nausea.
l Diazepam appears to be more effective than i.v. fluids alone at reducing nausea on day 2 but there
was no evidence post treatment for those with moderate/severe nausea.
l Overall, i.v. fluids help correct dehydration and improve symptoms, dextrose saline may be more
effective at reducing nausea than normal saline. (The lower concentration of sodium in dextrose saline
may exacerbate any pre-existing hyponatraemia. High doses/concentrations of dextrose solutions may
increase the risk of Wernickes encephalopathy, but concentrations in dextrose saline are unlikely to
provoke this response.)
l Future studies are required which focus on interventions given alongside rehydration therapy.
105
Chapter 13 Clinical effectiveness: transdermal

clonidine
Introduction
One trial by Maina and colleagues85 studied the efficacy of a 5-mg transdermal clonidine patch in the
treatment of HG, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover RCT. Patients were classified at the
severe end of the HG spectrum, with the trial judged as having a low risk of bias. A summary of study
conduct and results is depicted in Table 17, with safety data reported in Appendix 8.
Transdermal clonidine versus placebo patch

Maina and colleagues85 assessed overall improvements in symptom severity using the PUQE scale.
They reported that the transdermal clonidine patch led to a greater improvement in PUQE score [mean 6.3
(95% 5.5 to 7.1) vs. mean 8.5 (95% CI 7.7 to 9.3); p = 0.001].
Nausea outcomes
The 10-point VAS was also used to assess nausea severity. As above, the study found an improvement
in VAS scores favouring the intervention group [mean 22 (95% CI 19 to 26) vs. mean 29 (95% CI
25 to 32); p = 0.009].
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
A number of pregnancy outcomes were reported in the trial of Maina and colleagues.85 These included
two major pregnancy complications: a central venous catheter-related sepsis and a postpartum
haemorrhage. In addition, one baby was small for gestational age. However, no adverse fetal outcomes
were reported (defined as miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm delivery or low birthweight) and no major or
minor birth defects were detected. In addition, there was no significant association to an increase of
adverse effects such as lassitude, drowsiness, dry mouth, headache, dizziness, fainting or skin intolerance
in comparison with the placebo group (p = 0.2). These data are reported in Appendix 8 (with the proviso
that this was a small trial in terms of the generalisabilty of the results). No UKTIS data were available on
transdermal clonidine patches.
Summary
l Evidence from one study85 suggests that the use of transdermal clonidine patches may be effective for
the treatment of severe HG, but more and larger studies are required to compare effectiveness
against comparators.
107
108
TABLE 17 Results for transdermal clonidine interventions for HG


Maina 201485 The trial was To study the Major grade of HG Clinical severity Twelve women of With and without Sham patch PUQE Clonidine vs. placebo,
carried out in a efficacy of clinical severity who was defined by a gestational age transdermal clonidine crossover trial, mean (95% CI): PUQE
single hospital transdermal were unresponsive PUQE score index 612 weeks (5-mg clonidine patch or see column 7 VAS score 6.3 (95% CI 5.5
setting (Ospedale clonidine in the to standard 13 sham patch) for two to 7.1), 8.5 (95% CI
SantAnna, Italy) treatment of antiemetic treatment (SEVERE) consecutive periods of 7.7 to 9.3); p = 0.001
after admission of severe refractory (e.g. pyridoxine, 5 days, other antiemetic MannWhitney U-test,
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: TRANSDERMAL CLONIDINE
patients HG, randomised, metoclopramide or drugs and antireflux VAS score 22 (95% CI
double-blind, ondansetron plus an drugs (ranitidine, 19 to 26), 29 (95% CI
placebo- antireflux medication omeprazole) being 25 to 32); p = 0.009
controlled, such as ranitidine or administered on a
crossover design omeprazole) scheduled or as-needed
(RCT) basis. All women
received i.v. hydration
and supplementation
with thiamine during
both periods. The use of
steroids was allowed as
a rescue medication in
the case of further
worsening of symptoms
I, intervention.
Chapter 14 Clinical effectiveness: outpatient/day

case management
Introduction
One study compared the effectiveness of either midwife-led outpatient management versus standard
inpatient care,88 while another examined the feasibility of day case management,120 for the treatment of
moderate to severe HG/NVP. The trial of McParlin and colleagues88 was judged as having a low risk of bias,
while a 2007 case series study by Alalade and colleagues120 was classed as of weak quality. A summary of
study conduct and results is depicted in Table 18, with safety data reported in Appendix 8.
Outpatient management versus standard inpatient care

In the trial of McParlin and colleagues,88 the effectiveness of the same treatments (i.v. cyclizine and i.v.
fluids), administered via an outpatient management setting versus standard inpatient care was assessed via
mean change in PUQE scores.88 No significant difference was found between groups [intervention = 6.9
(SD 4.1), comparator = 6.2 (SD 2.3); p > 0.05] when followed up for 7 days from initiation of treatment.
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No adverse events were reported in the trial of McParlin and colleagues88 and no significant differences
between groups were found in the rates of miscarriage, termination of pregnancy, gestation at delivery,
birthweight, incidence of small for gestational age, or admissions to a special care baby unit (see Appendix 8
for full data). There were no UKTIS data available for this intervention and, given the anticipated rarity of
these events, small trials are unlikely to provide unreliable estimates.
Day case management

The feasibility and efficacy of day case management of HG was assessed by Alalade and colleagues120 using
rates of patient discharges within a 24-hour period. These case series data are reported in Appendix 8.
Summary
l The evidence available for day case management was at low risk88 and high risk120 of bias.
l The identified studies indicate that day case management of women with moderate to severe
symptoms is feasible and acceptable to women.
l The results indicate that day case management is as effective at improving severity scores as inpatient
management for some women.
l More, larger studies are required to provide definitive results and womens views.
109
110
TABLE 18 Results for day case/outpatient management for NVP and HG

McParlin Maternity To compare the n = 53, (I n = 27, Women attending Mean PUQE score: Cyclizine (50 mg, i.v.), Admission to PUQE score Mean change in PUQE
200888 assessment unit, effectiveness of C n = 26); I = 9.3 the maternity I 12.6 (2.2), C 11.5 given followed by 3 l of antenatal ward for score: I 6.9 (SD 4.1),
Newcastle upon midwife-led (SD 2.8), C = 10.3 assessment unit (2.2) Hartmanns solution routine care, i.v. C 6.2 (SD 2.3); p > 0.05
Tyne Hospitals, UK outpatient (SD 2.9) with severe over 6 hours (i.e. fluids, i.v. cyclizine,

management NVP/PUQE score (MODERATESEVERE) 1 hour, 2 hours and oral thiamine
versus standard of 9 3 hours). 50 mg of oral
inpatient care, thiamine given,
RCT discharged home with
prescription for oral
cyclizine (50 mg), three
times daily. Women
telephoned on day 3
and day 7 to offer
ongoing support and
advice
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: OUTPATIENT/DAY CASE MANAGEMENT
Alalade Whipps Cross Feasibility and 27; 8.8 weeks Women suffering Not applicable Direct admission to the N/A Not assessed Not reported
2007120 University clinical efficacy from NVP with gynaecological day
Hospital, London, of day case severe dehydration; (MODERATESEVERE) ward. 2 l of normal
UK management of inability to retain saline were infused
HG and patients fluids orally; urine over 4 hours with
satisfaction dipstick 4+ ketones 20 mmol of potassium
and electrolyte chloride in each bag.
imbalance Regular i.m./i.v.
antiemetics were
given. Discharged with
oral antiemetics, folic
acid and thiamine
C, control; I, intervention; i.m., intramuscular; N/A, not applicable.

Chapter 15 Clinical effectiveness: corticosteroids
Introduction
Corticosteroids were tested against a variety of alternative treatments in seven individual

studies.58,64,93,99,114,116,125 Two trials compared the effectiveness of corticosteroids against placebo tablets in
patient populations categorised as experiencing moderate to severe symptoms.93,114 Three trials compared
corticosteroids with either promethazine99,116 or phenergan suppositories58 in patients classed as
experiencing moderate, unclear or moderate to severe level symptoms respectively. One trial tested the
effectiveness of steroids against metoclopramide for women with moderate to severe HG.116 As previously
described (see Chapter 3, Meta-analysis of included randomised controlled trials), given the differences
between trials in patient populations, settings, interventions and, in particular, the heterogeneous nature
of the reported outcomes across trials, we did not attempt to perform meta-analyses and have thus
reported a narrative summary only for each intervention and comparator set.
Of these trials, three were classed as carrying a low risk of bias64,93,99 and two were unclear due to lack of
information.58,116 One study was judged to have a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and unclear
outcome reporting.114 A final case series study examined the effect of corticosteroids in comparison with
the usual treatment regimen in women with severe HG.125 A summary of study conduct and results is
depicted in Table 19, with safety data reported in Appendix 8.
Corticosteroids versus placebo

Nausea outcomes
Nelson-Piercy and colleagues93 assessed the effect of corticosteroids compared with placebo tablets on
nausea symptoms using the VAS. However, although the observed change was greater in the intervention
group [median 6.5 (range 2.010.0) compared with median 4.0 (range 5.0 to 9.0)], this difference was
not significant (relative risk for proportion with nausea 0.10; CI not reported).
Vomiting outcomes
In the trial of Nelson-Piercy and colleagues,93 changes in vomiting status were assessed using numbers of
patients still vomiting at 1 week of treatment; numbers of patients vomiting more than five times a day
at day 5 of treatment; and via an author-defined scale which coded severity from 0 to 4.93 Overall,
although reported scores favoured the steroid treatment group across all three measures, the difference in
effect sizes was not found to be significant [number still vomiting at 1 week, relative risk 1.4 (range
0.63.2); number vomiting more than five times per day, relative risk 2.5 (range 0.610.5); median
reduction in vomiting score intervention 2.0 (range 1.0 to 4.0) vs. comparator 1.5 (range 3.0 to 4.0)].
The trial of Yost and colleagues114 assessed the difference in the impact on readmission rates between
groups. These data are presented in Appendix 8.
Retching outcomes
111
112
TABLE 19 Results for corticosteroid interventions for NVP and HG

question, study participants, Severity inclusion (reviewers assessment Symptom relief
Corticosteroids vs. placebo
Nelson- Inpatient To test the I: number vomiting A 1-week course of A 1-week course of VAS for nausea Number still vomiting

n = 25, I n = 13, Onset NVP < 12
Piercy gynaecology hypothesis that C n = 12 weeks, dependent five or more times prednisolone, 20 mg placebo (four 5-mg at 1 week: I 5, C 7;
200193 wards in eight corticosteroids on i.v. fluids for at per day = 6; number (four 5-mg tablets) tablets) orally Episodes of relative risk 1.4
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: CORTICOSTEROIDS
collaborating would lead to least 1 week (first requiring one or orally 12-hourly, If, 12-hourly. If, vomiting (95% CI 0.6 to 3.2)
centres in the UK rapid and admission for HG) more antiemetics = 4 following 72 hours, following 72 hours,
complete or 24 hours a woman was still a woman was still Number vomiting five
remission of the (second or C: number vomiting vomiting or vomiting vomiting or vomiting or more times per
symptoms of NVP subsequent five or more times tablets, and still tablets, and still day: I 2, C 5; relative
in cases of severe admission), per day = 6; number dependent on i.v. dependent on i.v. risk 2.5 (95% CI 0.6
HG, RCT receiving regular requiring one or fluids and electrolyte fluids and electrolyte to 10.5)
treatment with at more antiemetics = 2 replacement, the replacement, the
least 1 antiemetic, therapy was changed therapy was changed Reduction in
ketonuria on (MODERATESEVERE) to an i.v. equivalent to an i.v. equivalent vomiting score:
admission, [i.e. hydrocortisone (i.e. N-Saline) I median 2.0
vomiting at least (100 mg) 12-hourly] (range 1.0 to 4.0),
two times per day C median 1.5
or nausea so severe (range 3.0 to 4.0)
that unable to eat
or drink, receiving Nausea score
regular treatment improvement I = 6.5
with oral thiamine (range 2.010.0),
or a single dose of C = 4.0 (range 5.0
parenteral thiamine to 9.0), relative risk
0.10 for proportion
with nausea
Yost Parkland Memorial To estimate the n = 126, I n = 64, Women who NR All women: i.v. All women: i.v. N/A Not reported
2003114 Hospital, Dallas, effect of C n = 62 previously had not rehydration with rehydration with
TX, USA corticosteroids in responded to (MODERATESEVERE) crystalloid until crystalloid until
reducing the outpatient therapy ketonuria cleared ketonuria cleared
number of women and had three or [first litre included [first litre included

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
requiring four dipstick thiamine (100 mg)]. thiamine (100 mg)].

rehospitalisation urinary ketones as Conventional treatment: Conventional
for HG, RCT evidence of severe promethazine (25 mg) treatment:
dehydration and metoclopramide promethazine
(10 mg) intravenously (25 mg) and
every 6 hours for metoclopramide
24 hours, followed by (10 mg) intravenously
the same regimen orally every 6 hours for
until discharge from the 24 hours, followed by
hospital. The women the same regimen
were also randomised, orally until discharge
I = methylprednisolone from the hospital.
(125 mg, i.v.). This was The women were
followed by a tapering also randomised,
regimen of oral C = i.v. placebo. This
prednisone (40 mg for was followed by an
1 day, 20 mg for 3 days, identical tapering
10 mg for 3 days, and regimen)
5 mg for 7 days)
Corticosteroids vs. phenothiazines/promethazine/Phenergan (Sanofi-Aventis)
Adamczak Unclear, obstetrics To compare SDP n = 110, I n = 55, Patients presenting Diagnosed with NVP SDP included 8-mg Phenergan Episodes of I (SDP), number of
200758 and gynaecology with Phenergan C n = 55; states with NVP t.i.d. tapered over suppositories were vomiting vomiting episodes:
department, suppositories in 814 weeks (NOT CLEAR) 6 days dosed at 25-mg q.i.d. day 1: 7.1 (SD 1.8),
hospital, New the treatment of day 3: 3.0 (SD 1.9),
Jersey, NJ, USA symptomatic NVP, day 7: 1.8 (SD 1.6),
RCT day 14: 0.6 (SD 0.8)
C, number of
vomiting episodes:
day 1: 6.6 (SD 1.9),
day 3: 4.7 (SD 1.8),
day 7: 3.9 (SD 1.7),
day 14: 2.5 (SD 1.4)
p-values for
differences: day 1
p = 0.2, days 3, 7
and 14 p < 0.05
continued
113
114
TABLE 19 Results for corticosteroid interventions for NVP and HG (continued )


Safari Womens and To compare the n = 40, I n = 20, Diagnosed with HG, NR. The duration of Methylprednisolone Promethazine (25 mg) NR Not reported
199899 childrens hospital, efficacy of C n = 20; I given i.v. hydration HG before admission (16 mg) orally three orally three times a
Los Angeles, CA, methylprednisolone gestational age in but with no was longer in the times a day for 3 days, day for 2 weeks
USA with that of weeks = 9.8 (SD resolution of promethazine group followed by a tapering (10 a.m., 2 p.m.,
promethazine for 2.1), C gestational symptoms, or than in the regimen, halving of 8 p.m.). After 2 days
the treatment of age in weeks = 9.5 second admission methylprednisolone dose every 3 days, to women were
HG, RCT (SD 2.7) for HG group (p = 0.03) none during the course discharged with study
of 2 weeks (10 a.m., medication. If no
(MODERATESEVERE) 2 p.m., 8 p.m.). After improvement study
2 days women were allocation unblinded
discharged with their and patients
study medication. If no withdrawn from
improvement study further data collection
allocation unblinded
and patients
withdrawn from
further data collection
Ziaei Najmieh Hospital, To determine n = 80, I n = 40, Vomiting more Episodes of Prednisolone, (5 mg) Promethazine was VAS for nausea Severity of nausea:
2004116 Iran whether or not C n = 40 than three times vomiting/day: I 3 given once in the administered (25 mg),
low dosages of per day during the (range 25), C 3 morning for 10 days three times daily for Episodes of Mild/moderate: first
prednisolone are last 72 hours or (range 26) 10 days vomiting 48 hours, I = 20
effective in the ketonoria that did (50%), C = 30 (75%);

treatment of not respond to (MODERATE) third to tenth day,
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
outpatients with dietary manipulation I = 6 (65%), C = 25

HG, RCT and caused weight (62.5%); seventeenth
loss day, I = 17 (43.6%),
C = 12 (30.8%)
Severe: first 48 hours,

I = 20 (50%), C = 10
(25%); third to
tenth day, I = 14
(35%), C = 15
(37.5%); seventeenth
day, I = 22 (56.4%),
C = 27 (69.2%)
For prednisolone
group OR (95% CI) of
nausea: during first
48 hours OR 0.33
(95% CI 0.13 to
0.86); between third
and tenth days OR
1.11 (95% CI 0.14 to
2.6); seventeenth day
OR 1.7 (95% CI 0.68
to 4.4)
Episodes of vomiting:
first 48 hours, I
median 3 (range 17),
C median 1 (range
04), p = 0.04; third
to tenth day, I median
1.5 (range 15), C
p = 0.80; tenth to
seventeenth day, I
C median 3
(range 05), p = 1.0
continued
115
116
TABLE 19 Results for corticosteroid interventions for NVP and HG (continued )

Corticosteroids vs. metoclopramide
Bondok Intensive care unit To compare the n = 40, I n = 20, Women admitted to NR 300 mg of i.v. 10 mg of Episodes of Mean vomiting
200664 of Ain Shams efficacy of pulsed C n = 20; the intensive care hydrocortisone for metoclopramide, in a vomiting episodes:
University hydrocortisone I = 10 2.68, unit with intractable (MODERATESEVERE) 3 days, followed by a 10-ml syringe diluted hydrocortisone group
Maternity therapy with that of C = 11 2.44 hyperemesis tapering regimen of in normal saline, reduced by 40.9% on
Hospital, Cairo, metoclopramide for (defined as severe 200 mg for 2 days, then intravenously every second day, 71.6%
Egypt the management persistent vomiting, 100 mg for another 8 hours for the same on third day, and
of intractable HG, ketonuria and 2 days. Patients received 7-day period 95.8% on seventh
prospective weight loss > 5% of three syringes, each day. Metoclopramide
double-blind study pre-pregnancy every 8 hours, 10 ml group reduced by

weight) each, one containing 16.5% on second
the drug diluted in day, 51.2% on third
normal saline and the day, and 76.6%

other two containing on seventh day
normal saline. Nursing (p < 0.001)
services recorded the
daily number of emetic
episodes
Corticosteroids vs. usual treatment
Moran Inpatient To document Thirty pregnancies HG requiring Assessed by Oral prednisolone Retrospective VAS for nausea Six women completed
2002125 antenatal ward, the effect of in 25 women in hospital admission physician and (10 mg) 8-hourly case series of VAS for nausea over
hospital, prednisolone treatment group, plus weight loss deemed severe prescribed, replacing 25 consecutive 1 week
Newcastle upon therapy in women matched with > 5 kg and/or enough to meet traditional antiemetics. women hospitalised
Tyne, UK with defined 25 women treated evidence of muscle inclusion criteria If unable to tolerate for hyperemesis but Data for intensity
severity of HG, with conventional wasting; onset of tablets stabilisation judged not to require show a clear pattern
case series therapy (i.v. fluids nausea and vomiting (SEVERE) achieved with i.v. steroid therapy of resolution in the
and antiemetics), before 6 weeks; hydrocortisone (50 mg) active group
treatment group ketonuria on 8-hourly. Prednisolone
median age in admission; i.v. fluids dosage was reduced in Three comparator
weeks = 9.6 (range for > 1 week or a stepwise fashion. group women
8.611.1) > 24 hours if a Typically dosage received steroids
repeat admission; decreased to 15 mg
failure of traditional daily within 5 weeks, Median number of in
antiemetic remaining between patient days pre-
treatment; vomiting 12.5 mg and 15 mg for steroid treatment = 8
at least twice per a further 38 weeks (range 414) and after
day or severe nausea commencement = 3
precluding any oral (range 16.5)
intake; gestation
over 8 weeks
C, control; I, intervention; N/A, not applicable; NR, not reported; N-Saline, normal saline; q.i.d., four times a day; SDP, solumedrol dose pack; t.i.d., three times a day.
Safety outcomes
Nelson-Piercy and colleagues93 did not report side effects, but found no difference in birthweight or
gestational age at delivery (excluding the triplet pregnancy) between groups (p > 0.05), or in terms of the
numbers of babies born with birthweights less than the 5th centile (p > 0.05). Yost and colleagues114
reported no significant differences between groups in terms of spontaneous abortion (p = 0.6); gestational
diabetes (p = 0.96); hypertension (p = 0.2); preterm delivery (p = 0.4); or primary or repeat caesarean
delivery (p = 0.06 and p = 0.5 respectively). Full data are reported in Appendix 8. No UKTIS data were
available on this intervention and it should be noted that given the anticipated rarity of these events, small
trials are unlikely to provide unreliable estimates.
Corticosteroids versus promethazine (Phenergan)

Nausea outcomes
Ziaei and colleagues116 used the VAS to assess severity of nausea and found that women who received
promethazine responded better in the first 48 hours of treatment (p = 0.02). However, with continuation
of the treatment, the difference decreased, and 1 week after completion of the treatment, the subjects
who had received corticosteroids had fewer symptoms, although this difference was not significant
(p = 0.23).
Vomiting outcomes
Number of episodes of vomiting was assessed in the trials of Zaiei and colleagues116 and Adamczak and
colleagues.58 In the Zaiei and colleagues116 study, median episodes of vomiting in the first 4 hours were
lower in the promethazine group.116 However, as with nausea severity, by the end of the study period,
there was no significant difference between groups (p = 1.0). In contrast, Adamczak and colleagues58
reported that episodes of emesis were significantly lower in the steroid intervention group compared with
those receiving Phenergan suppositories at days 3, 7 and 14 (p < 0.05 at all time points).58
The primary outcome in the Safari and colleagues99 study related to numbers of patients for whom therapy
had failed at different points in the treatment period. These are reported in detail in Appendix 8.
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcomes or side effects were reported by Adamczak and colleagues.58 Safari and
colleagues99 reported no significant difference between the two groups in relation to birthweight or
American Pediatric Gross Assessment Record scores at 1 and 5 minutes (p > 0.05). One patient in the
methylprednisolone group was delivered at 35 weeks gestation of a male infant with SmithLemliOpitz
syndrome. No pregnancy outcomes were reported by Zaiei and colleagues,116 but significant differences
were found in terms of drowsiness during the first 48 hours, and between the third and tenth days
(p = 0.026 in both instances in favour of the intervention). These data are detailed in Appendix 8, but it
should be noted that given the anticipated rarity of these events, small trials are unlikely to provide
unreliable estimates. No UKTIS data were available on this intervention.
Corticosteroids versus metoclopramide

117
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
One trial by Bondok and colleagues64 compared the effectiveness of corticosteroids against
metoclopramide in terms of recorded episodes of emesis. A significant improvement was observed in
favour of the corticosteroid group (p < 0.001).
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No pregnancy outcome or side effect data were reported in the trial of Bondok and colleagues,64 and no
UKTIS data were available.
Corticosteroids against usual treatment

Nausea outcomes
Moran and Taylor125 assessed the change in nausea symptoms in 6 out of the 25 case series patients who
were treated with oral or i.v. corticosteroids for severe HG using the VAS. Data presented graphically
suggested that the intensity of nausea experienced showed a pattern of improvement in the intervention
group. However, no precise numerical scores were provided.
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
Moran and Taylor125 did not report any side effects and there was no difference in mean gestation at
delivery or birthweight for term infants. Full data are reported in Appendix 8.
Summary
l Evidence available for corticosteroids was predominantly at low risk of bias (three studies64,93,99), or the
risk of bias was unclear/high (three studies58,114,116).
l Steroids versus placebo had a trend towards improved symptoms, but results were not
statistically significant.
l For steroids versus promethazine, there was no evidence of a difference in improvement by 1 week.
l Steroids were more effective at reducing vomiting episodes than Phenergan suppositories
or metoclopramide.
l Overall, treatment with corticosteroids reduces the severity of symptoms, but more and larger studies
are required to compare effectiveness against comparators.
118
Chapter 16 Clinical effectiveness: nasogastric

enteral/jejunostomy feeding
Introduction
Two case series of nasogastric123 and jejunostomy126 feeding for women experiencing HG at the severe end
of the spectrum were found. Both studies were judged as weak in quality. A summary of study conduct
and results is depicted in Table 20, with safety data reported in Appendix 8.
Nasogastric enteral feeding
Hsu and colleagues123 reported their experience of treating HG with nasogastric enteral feeding in a case
study with seven women conducted at the Genesee Hospital, Rochester, New York. Enteral feeding was
administered via an 8-Fr Dobbhoff nasogastric tube (Ross Products Division, Abbott Laboratories,
Columbus, OH), delivering Jevity or Osmolite incrementally to meet daily caloric requirements (initial rate of
25 ml/hour, increasing as tolerated by 25 ml an hour per day). Patients were discharged once stabilised.
Six women continued enteral feedings at home with nasogastric feedings discontinuing when nutritional
needs were being met orally. Key outcomes of interest were the period of time (in days) after which
patients were discharged and the mean duration of feedings (see Appendix 8).

No combined scores reported.
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No UKTIS data were available on this intervention.
Jejunostomy feeding
A further case series study by Saha and colleagues126 looked at the feasibility and efficacy of feeding via
jejunostomy in five women with HG compared with standard therapy at the Women and Infants Hospital,
Providence, Rhode Island. Participants all displayed persistent severe nausea and vomiting plus one of the
following: weight loss of > 5% of pre-pregnancy weight; ketonuria; multiple emergency room visits for
dehydration; and/or inability to tolerate oral intake, despite i.v. hydration, i.v. ondansetron, i.v. ranitidine or
pantoprazole, and i.v. metoclopramide. The J-tubes were placed between 12 and 26 weeks gestation
(median 14 weeks) for a mean duration of 19 weeks (range 828 weeks). Four J-tubes remained in place
until delivery. One tube was removed at 34 weeks at the patients request because of emotional distress
and one tube fell out at 30 weeks gestation and was not replaced. They reported that all patients had
continued nausea and vomiting over the study period which required continued standard therapy in
119
120
TABLE 20 Results for nasogastric enteral/jejunostomy feeding for HG

Nasogastric feeding
Hsu 1996123 The Genesee To report Seven participants Hospitalised due to NR Enteral feeding via an NA NR NR
Hospital, experiences of (reported as intractable nausea, 8-Fr Dobbhoff nasogastric
Rochester, NY, treating HG with individual not as vomiting and (SEVERE) tube, of Jevity or Osmolite
USA nasogastric enteral mean) weight loss, incrementally to meet
feeding, case symptoms present daily caloric requirements.
series at 14 weeks and Initial rate of 25 ml/hour,
had failed to increasing as tolerated by
respond to dietary 25 ml/hour/day. Patients

manipulation and were discharged once
antiemetics stabilised. Six women
continued enteral
feedings at home.
Patients were instructed
to eat when they felt
able. Nasogastric feedings
were discontinued when
nutritional needs were
being met orally
Jejunostomy
Saha 2009126 Women and To assess the Five patients Persistent severe NR The J-tubes were placed NA NR All patients had
Infants Hospital, feasibility and (covering nausea and vomiting between 12 and continued nausea
CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: NASOGASTRIC ENTERAL/JEJUNOSTOMY FEEDING
Providence, RI, efficacy of 6 pregnancies), and one of the (SEVERE) 26 weeks gestation and vomiting
USA surgically placed 16.3 weeks following: weight (median 14 weeks). The
feeding loss of > 5% of J-tubes were in place for
jejunostomy pre-pregnancy a mean duration of
(J-tube) in women weight, ketonuria, 19 weeks (range 828
with HG refractory multiple ER visits for weeks). Four J-tubes
to standard dehydration, and/or remained in place until
therapy, case series inability to tolerate delivery. One tube was
oral intake, despite removed at 34 weeks
i.v. hydration/ at the patients request
ondansetron/ because of emotional
ranitidine or distress (patient 1) and
pantoprazole, and one tube fell out at 30
metoclopramide weeks gestation and was
not replaced (patient 2)
ER, emergency room; I, intervention; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported.
addition to J-tube feedings. Outcomes measured by the study included use of additional medication and
adverse events (see Appendix 8).

No combined scores reported.
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
Safety outcomes
No UKTIS data were available on this intervention.
Summary
l Enteral feeding is an effective but extreme method of supporting women suffering from very severe
symptoms as a last resort.
121
Chapter 17 Clinical effectiveness: gabapentin
Introduction
No controlled trials of gabapentin use in the treatment of HG were identified. The only available data were
derived from one uncontrolled pilot study by Guttuso and colleagues39 which enrolled seven consecutive
women of 20 weeks gestation with HG to examine gabapentin therapy. This study was classed as weak
by the EPHPP quality assessment tool.
The authors concluded that gabapentin appeared to be well-tolerated and may be effective in the
treatment of HG but that they did not recommend the use of gabapentin in the treatment of HG until
larger controlled trials have properly assessed gabapentins efficacy in HG. This is only a very small pilot
study, but a summary of study conduct and results is depicted in Table 21.
Nausea outcomes
Vomiting outcomes
Retching outcomes
No independent retching outcomes.
Safety outcomes
Guttuso and colleagues39 reported two serious congenital defects among seven of the subjects infants
(tethered spinal cord and hydronephrosis). Four subjects experienced mildmoderate side effects of
sleepiness or dizziness when first starting gabapentin. It is important to highlight that this was a very small
trial so unlikely to provide reliable estimates; however, the authors did conclude that gabapentins safety
during pregnancy needed to be further assessed. No UKTIS data were available on this intervention but full
details are reported in Appendix 8, Secondary outcome data.
Summary
l We identified only one very small pilot trial which examined gabapentin therapy in women with HG.
l More research is needed, including monitoring of safety, in light of the reported cases of congenital
anomalies among the seven exposed infants.
123
124
TABLE 21 Results for gabapentin interventions for HG

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: GABAPENTIN

Guttuso 201039 Combination of To perform an Seven participants, Eligible subjects All seven subjects had Gabapentin initiated at N/A PUQE scale Mean reductions in
inpatients and open-label pilot 8 weeks needed to have at least 3+ ketonuria 300 mg orally, three times nausea and emesis
outpatients study examining severe nausea and and 5% weight daily. Every day the total from baseline to days
included, Buffalo, the safety, vomiting, refractory loss from their dose could be increased 1214 of 80% and
NY, USA tolerability and to at least pre-pregnancy weight by 300 mg (maximum of 94%, respectively,
effectiveness of one antiemetic, at baseline 3600 mg/day) if the and 84% and 98%,
gabapentin in causing at least subject was still respectively, from
the treatment of 3+ ketonuria or (MODERATESEVERE) experiencing nausea or baseline to days
HG, case series 5% weight loss emesis and was not 1921. There was a
compared with the experiencing bothersome 3 times increase in
pre-pregnancy side effects. After 14 days mean nausea and a
weight of therapy, gabapentin seven times increase
was discontinued for in mean emesis
2 days and could then be scores associated
resumed on day 17 and with discontinuing
for the remainder of the gabapentin during
pregnancy, if necessary days 1516
I, intervention; N/A, not applicable.

Chapter 18 Economic analysis
Introduction
This chapter has two aims: (i) to review systematically the published evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness
of interventions used in the treatment of NVP/HG; and (ii) to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of such
interventions from a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. To assess cost-effectiveness, an economic
model was developed in the first instance. However, due to the lack of evidence required to populate the
economic model, an alternative method of economic evaluation was used. The methods and findings of the
systematic review are presented first, followed by those of the economic evaluation.
Systematic review of economic evaluations
Methods
The broad methods of this systematic review were similar to those presented in Chapter 2 and thus,
only key details relevant to the economic review are given here.
Search strategy
Searches for economic studies were run on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied
Health Literature, PsycInfo, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Cochrane
Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and
Health Economic Evaluations Database. The same terms as used for the main review were used, with the
addition of health economic-related terms (included in Appendix 9).
Study selection
As part of the main review, titles and abstracts were screened for relevance and any potentially relevant
articles were to be obtained for scrutiny against the full selection criteria by the health economics lead.
The criteria were:
Study design Costconsequence analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, costbenefit analysis, costutility

analysis, cost studies.
Population Women experiencing severe nausea, vomiting and/or retching in pregnancy where recruitment
to a trial took place up to 20 weeks gestation. Owing to the difficulty in differentiating between HG and
severe or intractable NVP, specific approaches were used to identify relevant populations of women
(described in Chapter 3). Studies with mixed populations were to be included as long as data for relevant
patients were extractable.
Intervention All pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions relevant to the NHS in the
community and in hospital as either an inpatient or an outpatient. The list of eligible interventions has
been outlined previously in Chapter 2.
Comparator A no treatment group, a treatment as usual group or an alternative intervention group.
Outcome Cost-effectiveness, cost estimates, utilisation estimates, QoL estimates.
125
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Data extraction and quality assessment strategy

Data on the following, where available, were to be extracted from included studies by one health
economic reviewer and checked by another:
l study characteristics, such as study question, form of economic analysis, populations, interventions,
comparators, perspective, time horizon and form of modelling used
l clinical effectiveness and cost parameters, such as effectiveness data, health state valuations (utilities),
resource use data, unit cost data, price year, discounting and key assumptions; and
l results and sensitivity analyses.
Studies were to be quality assessed using the following tools as part of the data extraction process: the
Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list130 for economic evaluations and the checklist by Philips
and colleagues131 for model-based analyses.
Results
From the main systematic review, 11 papers (no duplicates) were identified. None of the records were
deemed relevant to this economic review and, as such, no hard copies were obtained for scrutiny against
the inclusion criteria for the review. A flow diagram presenting the process of selecting studies can be
found in Figure 5.
Discussion
No economic evaluations were found during the search for literature on the cost and cost-effectiveness of
interventions used in the treatment of NVP/HG.
Records identified through Additional records identified

Identification
database searching through other sources

(n = 11) (n = 0)
Records after duplicates removed

(n = 11)
Screening
Records screened Records excluded

(n = 11) (n = 11)
Full-text articles Full-text articles

assessed for eligibility excluded, with reasons
(n = 0) (n = 0)
Eligibility
Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n = 0)
Included
Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(meta-analysis)
(n = 0)
FIGURE 5 Flow diagram showing study selection for economic evaluations review.
126
Economic modelling
Introduction
This section provides a detailed description of the economic model developed to estimate the relative
cost-effectiveness of interventions used to treat pregnant women suffering from NVP/HG. The model
describes the potential care pathways experienced by patients at different levels of severity (mild, moderate
and severe). A separate, identical model was created for each group, with the plan to adjust probabilities
and outcomes in each model to reflect reality. Unfortunately, due to the lack of available clinical evidence
it was not possible to populate the economic model. However, a model now exists for analysis should
additional information become available. An overview of the key characteristics of the proposed
cost-effectiveness analysis is presented in Box 1.
Methods
Outline of model
We initially proposed to develop an economic model to estimate costs, long-term effects and relative
cost-effectiveness of the alternative interventions for NVP and HG from the perspective of the UK NHS
and Personal Social Services. The model was to describe the pathways of individuals who have different
severities of symptoms and have treatment initiated in different sectors of the health service (primary care,
hospital outpatients and hospital inpatients). It was to cover the period of initial intervention and the costs
and consequences of any subsequent outcomes including further interventions. Some of the effects
of NVP and HG are short term; however, there may be some persisting impact on the mother and
longer-term effects on the child. It was the intention to model the cumulative costs and quality-adjusted
life-years for the mother and longer-term effects on the child (reported either in natural units or, if data
allowed, quality-adjusted life-years). An outline structure of the core pathways for this proposed model is
presented in Figure 6. The full model is available from the authors.
BOX 1 Characteristics of the cost-effectiveness analysis
Intervention: All clinically relevant interventions used to treat pregnant women suffering from NVP and HG.
Comparator: Alternative interventions used in the treatment of NVP/HG.
Population: Cohort of patients suffering from mild, moderate or severe NVP/HG and who are receiving a
clinically relevant intervention in response.
Time frame: Lifetime time horizon, 3-month time cycle.
Perspective: NHS/Personal Social Services.
Effects: Any adverse events and necessary hospital treatments related to NVP/HG.
Costs: Pharmacological costs associated with medical treatment and changing medical treatment and the
non-pharmacological costs associated with treating patients who have experienced a progression of symptoms
or an adverse event.
Outcomes: Mortality, QoL, QALYs.
Assessment of cost-effectiveness: Cost per additional QALY gained.
QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.
127
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Second-line
treatment
Symptoms ...
worsen
... Third-line
treatment
New first-line ...
treatment
... Symptoms
stay the same
Symptoms do ...
not worsen
... Symptoms
resolve
... ...
New second-line
treatment
Symptoms ...
worsen
... Third-line
treatment
Second-line ...
treatment
... Symptoms
stay the same
Symptoms do ...
Symptoms not worsen
worsen ... Symptoms
... resolve
... ...
Symptoms
stay the same
New third-line ... ...
treatment
... Symptoms
resolve
Symptoms ... ...
worsen
... Symptoms
stay the same
Come off ... ...
treatment
... Symptoms
resolve
... ...
Symptoms
First-line Third-line
stay the same
treatment treatment New third-line ...
...
... treatment
... Symptoms
resolve
Symptoms stay ... ...
the same
... Symptoms
stay the same
Come off ... ...
Symptoms do treatment
not worsen ... Symptoms
... resolve
... ...
Symptoms
resolve
...
Symptom
Severity Symptoms stay
the same
Symptoms do ...
not worsen
... Symptoms
resolve
... ...
Symptoms
worsen
Second-line ...
treatment
Symptoms do
not worsen
...
Symptom
worsen
Third-line ...
treatment
Symptoms do
not worsen
...
FIGURE 6 Structure of the decision model.
128
The economic model was built in TreeAge Pro 2014 (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to
estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of the pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions used
to treat NVP/HG. The populations considered were women experiencing mild, moderate and severe
nausea, vomiting and/or retching in pregnancy.
The decision tree structure can be described as follows. Depending on the severity of symptoms, patients
began treatment on first-, second- or third-line treatment. The categorisation of interventions is described
in detail in Chapter 2 but can be distinguished loosely as patient-initiated treatments (first line),
clinician-prescribed antiemetics (second line) and clinician-prescribed corticosteroids (third line). The
categorisation of these treatments as first line, second line and third line is not medically recognised and
there may be discrepancies in how clinicians describe particular interventions. However, such a hierarchy
allows us to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of categories of treatments rather than the multiple
individual treatments that exist, while allowing us to think through the sequence of treatments that are
likely to be relevant to patients at the different levels of severity of symptoms.
Beginning at first-line treatment, symptoms may worsen or not worsen. If symptoms worsened, patients
moved to a new first-line treatment, second-line treatment or third-line treatment. From each of these
points, symptoms may again worsen or not worsen. If symptoms worsened, patients moved to the next
hierarchical treatment strategy. This sequence was followed until patients reached third-line treatment, at
which point symptoms may worsen or not worsen. If symptoms worsened, patients moved to a new
third-line treatment or came off treatment, at which point symptoms could either stay the same or
resolve (terminal nodes). Beginning at the same starting point (first-line treatment), if symptoms did not
worsen, symptoms could stay the same or resolve (terminal node). If symptoms stayed the same, the
pathways described at the same point as symptoms worsening were replicated.
For those patients beginning at second-line and third-line treatment, the subsequent care pathways were
broadly similar to those previously described. However, the model assumes that those patients starting at
second- and third-line treatments are unable to progress to less severe treatment strategies. Therefore, the
care pathways are progressively shorter as we move through the hierarchy of treatments. The decision
model allows one to assess costs and effects across the three alternative treatment strategies and to assess
the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions used to treat NVP/HG.
Economic evaluation
Introduction
Unfortunately, as described in previous chapters, the evidence base supporting alternative treatments was
not sufficiently robust to support an informative model. Therefore, the focus of the economic component
was to estimate the cost of delivering each of the interventions and then use these data in a disaggregated
form of economic evaluation. The differences between interventions, in terms of resource use (costs) and
natural and clinical measures of effectiveness are presented. Such an approach serves to highlight the
choices and trade-offs between the various treatments. Nonetheless, any decision based on this approach
is made using an implicit (rather than explicit) synthesis of the available data. These differences between
interventions are presented for each of the comparisons presented in Chapters 417.
The cost data are used to estimate the implied value for the benefits of treatment should a decision be
made to adopt one treatment over another. The approach relies on the conditions required for an efficient
allocation of resources. When resources are efficiently allocated the ratio of marginal costs to marginal
benefits for all interventions a to n must be equal, that is:
MC a MC b MC c MC n
= = = ::: . (1)
MBa MBb MBc MBn
129
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Rearranging the above and simplifying shows that when there is an efficient allocation of resources the
ratio of costs is equal to the ratio of benefits, such that:
MC a MBa
= . (2)
MC b MBb
Although benefits may not be clearly known, it is possible to use information about the costs of
interventions a and b to imply how much more effective a needs to be compared with b to be considered
efficient. For example, if the ratio of the costs of a to b is 1.2 : 1 then this means that a is 20% more costly
than b and for a to be considered a worthwhile use of resources compared with b it should provide at
least 20% more benefits. This implied value is then compared with the evidence on effectiveness reported
in Chapters 417 to inform judgements made on the relative cost-effectiveness of treatments. This section
provides a detailed description of the costs of interventions used in the treatment of NVP/HG.
Estimation of costs of interventions

In order to inform the economic evaluation, a detailed cost analysis of interventions used in the treatment
of NVP/HG was performed. The interventions considered were categorised as follows: (1) patient-initiated
first-line interventions; (2) clinician-prescribed second-line interventions; and (3) clinician-prescribed
third-line interventions. The cost of interventions includes both the pharmacological (medication) and
non-pharmacological (GP visits, outpatient care, inpatient care, medical tests and management) costs of
treatment. The weekly pharmacological costs of clinically relevant interventions (as advised by clinical
experts) are listed in Table 22, whereas non-pharmacological costs are listed in Table 23. A full table of
interventions included in the analysis can be seen in Appendix 10. These additional treatments were
included for completeness but are rarely prescribed in the NHS.
The costs of medication were sourced from the British National Formulary 2014.132 For all medications, the
non-proprietary costs were sought in the first instance. However, if these were unavailable the patented
drug costs were used. Where available, the costs of medications which have been incorporated into a
tablet or capsule were obtained. Clinical experts in the study team were able to advise on which
medications are also commonly administered by i.v. or intramuscular (i.m.) injection and through
suppositories, and the relevant costs were included. The overall cost of medication and the average daily
dose were used to calculate a low- and high-estimate weekly cost of medication, unless otherwise stated.
Where average daily dose was presented as a minimum and maximum, the minimum was used to
calculate the low-estimate cost and the maximum was used to calculate the high-estimate cost. Where
average daily dose was not presented over a range, costs have been included under high-estimate weekly
cost. These drug costs and the recommended daily doses are included in Appendix 10.
Non-pharmacological costs included the unit costs of health and social care services, as well as any tests
and medication administered, in a primary and secondary care setting. Clinical experts advised on the
tests and treatments which are commonly given to women suffering from NV/HG in each setting. Standard
sources such as the NHS Reference Healthcare Research Group tariffs 201213,133 the British National
Formulary 2014132 for medications and the Personal Social Services Research Unit Unit Costs of Health and
Social Care 2013134 were used to obtain these costs.
Estimation of total cost of care

In order to estimate the total cost of interventions, the pharmacological and non-pharmacological costs
were combined together in informative packages of care. All likely scenarios experienced by patients
suffering from NVP/HG, based on the advice of clinical experts, were included. These scenarios ranged
from treatments initiated before consultation with a medical professional to treatments prescribed in
primary and secondary care. The flow chart presented in Figure 1 shows the treatments that patients are
likely to receive at each level of care and the scenarios presented in this section are based on these care
pathways. The costs of managing patients in each setting, as well as the costs of treatment, were used
to estimate the overall cost of care. For patient-initiated interventions and medication prescribed in a
130
TABLE 22 Weekly costs of pharmacological interventions
Patient-initiated first-line Low-estimate

Preparation intervention weekly cost High-estimate weekly cost
Tablets Vitamin B6: pyridoxine hydrochloride 0.12 2.59

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Vitamin B12: cyanocobalamin 0.87 2.62

(non-proprietary)
Solution Ginger (FortiCare) NE 2.21 (assumes 125 ml per

week)a
Physical therapy Acupressure/acupuncture NE First appointment: 5070
Subsequent appointments:
3550a
Hypnosis Hypnotherapy NE 5090 for a private
hypnotherapy sessiona
Clinician-prescribed second-line Low-estimate

Preparation interventions weekly cost High-estimate weekly cost
Antihistamines
Tablets Cyclizine (non-proprietary) 0.74 2.22

i.v./i.m. injection Cyclizine: Valoid (Amdipharm NE 13.65
Mercury Company Ltd)
Tablets Chlorpromazine (non-proprietary) NE 1.55
i.v./i.m. injection Chlorpromazine (non-proprietary) 12.60 33.60

Tablets Promethazine: Phenergan 0.74 2.22

a
i.v./i.m. injection Promethazine (non-proprietary) 0.68 (daily) 1.20 (daily)a
Tablets Prochlorperazine (non-proprietary) 0.47 1.42
i.v./i.m. injection Prochlorperazine (non-proprietary) NE 0.52 (daily)a
Tablets Domperidone (non-proprietary) 0.39 1.17
Tablets Metoclopramide (non-proprietary) 0.22 0.66

i.v./i.m. injection Metoclopramide (non-proprietary) 2.24 6.72
Tablets Ondansetron (non-proprietary) NE 8.69 (daily)a
i.v./i.m. injection Ondansetron (non-proprietary) NE 1.00 (daily)a
Clinician-prescribed third-line Low-estimate

Corticosteroids
i.v./i.m. injection Methylprednisolone: Solu-Medrone NE 17.30 (daily)a

(Pharmacia)
Tablets Prednisone: Lodotra (Napp 12.46 24.92

Pharmaceuticals Limited)
Tablets Prednisolone (non-proprietary) 0.67 1.33

a
i.v./i.m. injection Hydrocortisone: Efcortesol 3.24 (daily) 19.56 (daily)a
(Amdipharm Mercury Company Ltd)
NE, not estimated.
a All costs are weekly, unless otherwise stated.
131
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 23 Non-pharmacological costs
Primary care Costs
GP consultation
Per surgical consultation lasting 11.7 minutes 45

Ketone Reagent Strips: Ketosis (Bayer Diabetes Care) (50 pack) 2.50
Secondary care
Outpatient
Obstetrics 122
Ultrasound scan in obstetrics (less than 20 minutes) 38
Urinary test (urine culture) 8.51
Liver function test 6.80
Thyroid function test 13.55
Glucose 2.96
Urea and electrolytes 5.84
Full blood count 4.94
Sodium chloride i.v. infusion 1.29 per litre
Potassium chloride concentrate, sterile (non-proprietary) (10-ml ampoule) 0.48
Cost of administering the fluid 50.42 per day
Thiamine supplements 0.05 per day/0.35 per week (low estimate)
0.08 per day/0.56 per week (high estimate)

Inpatient
Non-elective inpatient (long stay) excess bed-days 265

Urinary test (urine culture) 8.51
Liver function test 6.80
Thyroid function test 13.55
Glucose 2.96
Urea and electrolytes 5.84
Full blood count 4.94
Sodium chloride i.v. infusion 1.29 per litre
Potassium chloride concentrate, sterile (non-proprietary) (10-ml ampoule) 0.48
Cost of administering the fluid 50.42 per day

Pabrinex (Archimedes Pharma) (10 ml) 2.25 per week
Treatment for thromboembolism:
Clexane (Sanofi-Aventis) (40 mg) 3.03 per day
Tinzaparin (Innohep, Leo Laboratories) (4500 units) 3.56 per day
Fragmin (Pfizer) (5000 units) 2.56 per day
9.15 per day

Bold text represents the point at which individual drug costs are added to calculate the total daily cost of treatment
for thromboembolism.
132
primary care setting, costs were estimated on a weekly basis. For all other interventions administered in
a secondary care setting, costs were estimated according to length of stay. The packages of care are
described in scenarios 17 below, and total costs for all clinically relevant interventions, as advised by clinical
experts, are displayed in Tables 2430. The estimation of total costs for all interventions is included in
Appendix 10.
Packages of care
Scenario 1
Initially, we assumed that the patient does not visit her GP. Rather, she initiates treatment herself.
The patient may seek advice from a community midwife or GP at this stage. However, costs are for the
medication or treatment costs alone. These costs are outlined in Table 24.
Scenario 2
We assumed that the patient visits her GP and receives a urinary test. The GP decides to reassure the
patient and advises her to remain on one of the patient-initiated first-line interventions. It was judged
unlikely that the GP would advise on acupressure/acupuncture or hypnosis at this stage as these therapies
are not routinely available on the NHS. Costs are displayed in Table 25.
TABLE 24 Cost of patient-initiated first-line interventions
Pharmacological Total low-estimate Total high-estimate

preparation Patient-initiated first-line intervention weekly cost weekly cost

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Vitamin B12: cyanocobalamin (non-proprietary) 0.87 2.62
Solution Ginger (FortiCare) NE 2.21 (assuming

125 ml per week)
Physical therapy Acupressure/acupuncture 35 50
Hypnosis Hypnotherapy 50 90
NE, not estimated.
TABLE 25 Cost of patient-initiated first-line interventions following a GP visit
Patient-initiated Total Total Urine

Pharmacological first-line low-estimate high-estimate GP clinic ketones
preparation intervention weekly cost weekly cost consultation strip Total
Tablets Vitamin B6: 0.12 2.59 45 0.05 45.1747.64

pyridoxine
hydrochloride
(non-proprietary)

cyanocobalamin
(non-proprietary)
Solution Ginger (FortiCare) NE 2.21 (assuming 45 0.05 47.26

125 ml per week)
NE, not estimated.
133
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Scenario 3
We assumed that the patient visits her GP and receives a urinary test. Symptoms are severe enough that
the GP prescribes one of the clinician-prescribed second-line interventions (oral antiemetic only).
Costs are displayed in Table 26.
Scenario 4
If the patient is in a serious enough condition that they cannot be managed in primary care, the GP may
refer the woman to secondary care (or alternatively, women may refer themselves to hospital maternity
services). The following costs reflect those costs that might be incurred in a secondary care setting.
In Table 27 we include the costs of the woman attending hospital as a day case, receiving the relevant
outpatient tests, receiving an antiemetic and then being discharged. Included also are the daily cost of
receiving a thiamine supplement (high estimate) and the cost of receiving 3 l (in severe cases) of sodium
chloride i.v. infusion along with the appropriate amount of potassium chloride. All costs are calculated on
a daily basis.
Scenario 5
In very severe cases, or where the patient refuses outpatient treatment, or if outpatient treatment fails
(i.e. the patient feels as unwell at the end of outpatient treatment), the woman may be admitted as an
inpatient. In Table 28 the assumption is that the woman is admitted as an inpatient for 2 days (based on
expert opinion). In this scenario, it is assumed that the woman would have received a one-off ultrasound
scan prior to being admitted as an inpatient and thus, this cost is not included. Based on expert clinical
advice, we have assumed that the patient receives all relevant tests on day of admission and day of
discharge, medication used in the prevention of venous thromboembolism, i.v. infusion of 3 l of sodium
chloride solution every day along with the appropriate amount of potassium chloride, i.v. thiamine
(Pabrinex, 10 ml) once a week, and appropriate antiemetics (as advised by clinical experts) (no steroids)
over the course of the 2-day admission before being discharged.
TABLE 26 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions following a GP visit
Clinician-prescribed Total Total Urine

Pharmacological second-line low-estimate high-estimate GP clinic ketones
preparation intervention weekly cost weekly cost consultation strip Total
Antihistamines
Tablets Cyclizine 0.74 2.22 45 0.05 45.7947.27

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Chlorpromazine NE 1.55 45 0.05 46.60

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Domperidone 0.39 1.17 45 0.05 45.4446.22

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Metoclopramide 0.22 0.66 45 0.05 45.2745.71

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Prochlorperazine 0.47 1.42 45 0.05 45.5246.47

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Promethazine: 0.74 2.22 45 0.05 45.7947.27

Phenergan
Tablets Ondansetron NE 60.83 45 0.05 105.88

(non-proprietary)
NE, not estimated.
134
Scenario 6
In this scenario, it is assumed that the patient has not responded to the single antiemetic prescribed while
admitted as an inpatient and so has been admitted as an inpatient for 2 days (based on expert opinion)
with two antiemetics prescribed. Based on expert clinical advice, we have assumed that the patient
receives all relevant tests on day of admission and day of discharge, i.v. infusion of 3 l of sodium chloride
solution every day along with the appropriate amount of potassium chloride, medication used in the
prevention of venous thromboembolism, i.v. thiamine (Pabrinex, 10 ml) once a week, and a combination
of two antiemetics (no steroids) over the course of the 2-day admission before being discharged. Owing
to the minimal difference in cost between antiemetics, the low- and high-estimate costs represent
combinations of the two cheapest and two most expensive medications (based on high-estimate daily
cost). These costs are displayed in Table 29.
Scenario 7
In this scenario, it is assumed that the patient has so far not responded to any antiemetics prescribed while
admitted as an inpatient. In the following table of costs (see Table 30), the assumption is that the woman
has been admitted as an inpatient for 5 days (based on expert opinion) to follow a regime of multiple
antiemetics and steroids. Up until this point the woman has experienced (a) weight loss, (b) failed
second-line interventions, or (c) difficulty coping. As the condition of the patient is so severe, it is assumed
that she receives all relevant tests on each day of admission (following the guidance of clinical experts).
It is assumed that i.v. infusion of 3 l of sodium chloride solution is given every day along with the
appropriate amount of potassium chloride, medication used in the prevention of venous thromboembolism
is given for each night of stay, i.v. thiamine (Pabrinex, 10 ml) is given once over the course of the
admission, and a combination of three antiemetics is given to the patient for the first 3 days before a
steroid is provided in days 4 and 5, before discharge. Owing to the minimal difference in cost between
antiemetics, the low- and high-estimate costs represent combinations of the three cheapest and three
most expensive medications (based on high-estimate daily cost). Similarly, there is little difference in cost
between steroids and so, the low- and high-estimate costs are representative of packages including the
cheapest and most expensive steroid (based on high-estimate daily cost). These costs are displayed in
Table 30.
The packages of care presented above are representative scenarios that combine the pharmacological and
non-pharmacological costs of interventions used in the treatment of patients suffering from NVP and HG.
If symptoms have not resolved following scenario 7, extreme measures such as enteral or parenteral nutrition
may sometimes be used. However, this is quite rare and the costs can be significant. Kilonzo estimated the
mean cost of treatment for standard parenteral nutrition to be 337 among a group of patients in intensive
care units and high-dependency units for 48 hours, with gastrointestinal failure and requiring parenteral
nutrition (Kilonzo M, University of Aberdeen, 2014, personal communication). Enteral and parenteral
feeding is a last-resort therapy among women suffering from NVP/HG and would usually only ever be used
as a last resort.
The packages of care indicate that the costs of treatment increase rapidly as women move through the
hierarchy of treatments. In scenario 1, we see that in less severe cases, where women initiate treatment
themselves, costs may be as low as 0.12 per week. Alternative patient-initiated treatment strategies such
as acupressure/acupuncture or hypnosis are significantly more expensive, but may only be required on a
one-off basis. If symptoms are persistent, it is likely that the woman would seek the advice of a clinician
and begin to take oral prescribed medication. In scenarios 2 and 3, we see the cost of attending a GP and
taking oral medication for 1 week. Following this first week, costs would revert back to the cost of
medication alone, which is small in comparison with the cost of attending the GP, provided no further
consultations are required. In scenario 4, we see the costs that would be incurred if the woman was to be
referred to hospital as a day case. This is the womans first point of contact with secondary care services,
and a number of tests, including an ultrasound scan and relevant bloods, are likely to be done at this
stage. When we factor in the costs of hospital care and medication that is likely to be administered at
this stage, costs range from 286 in the least costly scenario to 295 in the most costly (based on
135
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 27 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if attending hospital as a day case
Clinician-prescribed Total Total Ultrasound scan Urinary

Pharmacological second-line low-estimate high-estimate Obstetrics (< 20 minutes) test (urine
preparation intervention daily cost () daily cost () unit () () culture) ()
Antihistamines
Tablets Cyclizine 0.11 0.32 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Cyclizine: Valoid NE 1.95 122 38 8.51
Tablets Chlorpromazine NE 0.22 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Chlorpromazine 1.80 4.80 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Promethazine: 0.11 0.32 122 38 8.51

Phenergan
i.v./i.m. injection Promethazine 0.68 1.20 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Prochlorperazine 0.07 0.20 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Prochlorperazine NE 0.52 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Domperidone 0.06 0.17 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Metoclopramide 0.03 0.09 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Metoclopramide 0.32 0.96 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Ondansetron NE 8.69 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Ondansetron NE 1.00 122 38 8.51

(non-proprietary)
NE, not estimated.
136
Normal saline +
a proportional
amount of
potassium
Urine Liver Thyroid Urea and Full Thiamine chloride + cost of
ketones function function Glucose electrolytes blood supplement administering
strip () test () test () () () count () () the fluid () Total ()
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.93286.14
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 287.77
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.04
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 287.62290.62
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.93286.14
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.50287.02
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.89286.02
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.34
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.88285.99
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.85285.91
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.14286.78
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 294.51
0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.82
137
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 28 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if admitted as an inpatient
Total low- Total high- Inpatient

Clinician-prescribed estimate estimate excess Urinary test Urine Liver
Pharmacological second-line daily daily bed-days (urine culture) ketones function
preparation interventions cost 2 () cost 2 () 2 () 2 () strip 2 () test 2 ()
Antihistamines
i.v./i.m. injection Cyclizine: Valoid NE 3.90 530 17.02 0.10 13.60
Tablets Chlorpromazine NE 0.44 530 17.02 0.10 13.60

(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Chlorpromazine 3.60 9.60 530 17.02 0.10 13.60

(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Metoclopramide 0.64 1.92 530 17.02 0.10 13.60

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Prochlorperazine 0.13 0.41 530 17.02 0.10 13.60

(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Prochlorperazine NE 1.04 530 17.02 0.10 13.60

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Domperidone 0.11 0.33 530 17.02 0.10 13.60

(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Ondansetron NE 2.00 530 17.02 0.10 13.60

(non-proprietary)
NE, not estimated.
TABLE 29 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions 2 if admitted as an inpatient
Clinician- Inpatient Urinary Urine

prescribed Total daily cost excess test (urine ketones Liver Thyroid
second-line (two antiemetics) bed-days culture) strip function function
intervention 2 () 2 () 2 () 2 () test 2 () test 2 ()
Least costly 0.50 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10
Most costly 50.70 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10

combination
TABLE 30 Cost of clinician-prescribed third-line interventions if admitted as an inpatient
Clinician- Inpatient Urinary Urine Thyroid

prescribed Total daily cost Total daily cost excess test (urine ketones Liver function
third-line (three antiemetics) (corticosteroid) bed-days culture) 5 strip 5 function test 5
intervention 3 () 2 () 5 () () () test 5 () ()
Least costly 1.26 0.38 (prednisolone 1325 42.55 0.25 34.00 67.75
combination tablets)
Most costly 82.86 39.12 (hydrocortisone 1325 42.55 0.25 34.00 67.75
combination injection)
138
Normal saline +
a proportional
Treatment amount of potassium
Thyroid for thrombo Thiamine chloride 2 + cost of
function Urea and Full blood embolism supplement administering the
test 2 Glucose 2 electrolytes 2 count 2 (1-night stay) (Pabrinex) 1 fluid over
() () () () () () 2 days () Total ()
27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 796.78
27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.32
27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 796.48802.48
27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.52794.80
27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.01793.29
27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.92
27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 792.99793.21
27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 794.88
Normal saline + a
proportional amount
Thiamine of potassium
Urea and Full blood Treatment for supplement chloride 2 + cost of
Glucose 2 electrolytes 2 count 2 thromboembolism (Pabrinex) 1 administering the Total
() () () (1-night stay) () () fluid over 2 days () ()
5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.38
5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 843.58
Normal saline + a
proportional amount
Full Thiamine of potassium
Urea and blood Treatment for supplement chloride 5 + cost of
Glucose 5 electrolytes 5 count 5 thromboembolism (Pabrinex) 1 administering the
() () () (4-night stay) () () fluid over 5 days () Total ()
14.80 29.20 24.70 36.60 2.25 415.45 1994.19
14.80 29.20 24.70 36.60 2.25 415.45 2114.53
139
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
high-estimate costs). Again, the cost of managing the woman in this setting is the main cost driver,
with medication costs becoming less significant in comparison. Finally, scenarios 57 are representative of
scenarios where the woman has been admitted to hospital as an inpatient due to the extremity of her
symptoms. This is the point at which costs escalate rapidly, largely driven by length of stay. This is
reflected in the fact that there is very little difference in the total cost of care between scenarios 5 and 6,
despite antiemetics being doubled in the latter scenario. Similarly, in the most severe cases, where
women are admitted for a 5-day period, < 6% of the total cost of care is accounted for by the
medication costs.
As we have seen, the cost of medication used in the treatment of NVP/HG is less important when
compared with the cost of managing women with the condition in a primary and secondary care
setting. One issue which may be of importance to decision-makers is whether it is more economical to
manage women with NVP/HG as day cases or as inpatients. In Table 31, the cost of first-, second- and
third-line interventions is omitted and the focus is placed solely on the hospital management costs.
The cost of managing women as day cases on 2 separate days is presented alongside the cost of
managing women as inpatients over a 2-day period. All treatment costs relevant to each scenario
are presented.
The difference in cost between inpatient management and day case management is largely driven by the
fact that inpatient bed-days are substantially more expensive than the obstetrics unit day case costs. The
only other major cost differentials are that an ultrasound scan is likely to initially be carried out on day case
patients, whereas it is assumed that patients would have received a scan prior to being admitted as an
inpatient. Additionally, clinical experts have advised that inpatients would require prophylactic treatment to
prevent deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, whereas this cost is not incurred when treating
day case patients. The total cost difference is 259, with inpatient treatment significantly more expensive
than day case treatment in the 2-day scenario presented in Table 31.
Methods
The total cost data were used to estimate the implied value for the benefits of treatment should a decision
be made to adopt one treatment over another. Within each package of care, the ratio of the cost of
one treatment to another was calculated, with the results informing us as to the increase in benefits that
the more expensive option would need to provide in order to be considered a worthwhile use of
resources. Benefits of treatment are not clearly known, but these results were used to imply how much
more effective one treatment needs to be compared with another to be considered efficient. The implied
value was then used to compare with the evidence on effectiveness reported in Chapters 417, in a
disaggregated form of economic evaluation. Each comparison presented in Chapters 417 is included.
The implied value for the benefits of treatments is presented in the subsequent section.
Results
Implied value for the benefits of treatment

Within each package of care, the ratio of the cost of one treatment to another was calculated. The size of
the ratio was indicative of the increase in benefits that the more costly option would need to provide in
order to be considered efficient compared with the less costly option. Effect sizes were categorised
according to Grimshaw and colleagues135 review of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies
and, in particular, the description of the size of effect for process dichotomous measures. The effects sizes
were categorised as follows:
l small to describe effect sizes 5%

l modest to describe effect sizes > 5% and 10%
l moderate to describe effect sizes > 10% and 20%
l large to describe effect sizes > 20%.
140
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
TABLE 31 Cost of day case management compared with inpatient management
Normal saline and a

proportional amount
Ultrasound Urinary Urine Liver of potassium chloride
scan (< 20 test (urine ketones function Thyroid Urea and Thiamine and cost of
Obstetrics minutes) 1 culture) 2 strip 2 test 2 function electrolytes 2 Full blood count 2 supplement 2 administering the Total
Day case unit 2 () () () () () test 2 () Glucose 2 () () () () fluid on 2 days () ()
244 38 17.02 0.10 13.60 27,10 5.92 11.68 9.88 0.16 166.18 533.64
Normal saline and a

proportional amount
Inpatient Urinary test Liver Thyroid of potassium chloride
excess (urine Urine function function Urea and Treatment for Thiamine and cost of
bed-days 2 culture) 2 ketones test 2 test 2 Glucose 2 electrolytes 2 Full blood thromboembolism supplement administering the Total
Inpatient () () strip 2 () () () () () count 2 () (1-night stay) () (Pabrinex) () fluid over 2 days () ()
530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 792.88
141
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Cost comparisons for all clinically relevant interventions in the UK, as advised by clinical experts, were
based on the high-estimate costs and are presented in Tables 3239. Unfortunately, in a large number of
cases, while a comparison of costs could be made between interventions within each package of care,
evidence on effect was unavailable. Cost comparisons for all interventions included in the analysis can be
seen in Appendix 10.
For patient-initiated first-line interventions, the ratio of the cost of vitamin B6 to ginger was 1.2 : 1.
Therefore, in order to be considered a worthwhile use of resources, vitamin B6 would need to provide at
least 20% more in benefits than ginger. It is feasible that such a difference in effect could exist. However,
there was no evidence to support a difference of this magnitude. The ratio of the cost of acupressure/
acupuncture to both vitamin B6 and ginger is extremely large and it is inconceivable that an equally large
difference in effectiveness could exist to justify this. The evidence on effect showed no significant
difference between the interventions, although the evidence was limited. Finally, ginger, acupressure/
acupuncture and vitamin B6 were all compared with placebo. Although an implied valuation was not
assessable, evidence on effect showed that all three treatments looked promising in reducing symptoms
compared with placebo, but the findings were not conclusive. With respect to ginger and vitamin B6
the cost of these therapies might be considered modest and were quite similar. From an economics
perspective, this suggests that we are indifferent about which is used as a first treatment.
For patient-initiated first-line interventions following a GP visit, the ratio of the cost of vitamin B6 to ginger
was 1.008 : 1. Therefore, vitamin B6 would only need to provide 0.8% more in benefits than ginger in
TABLE 32 Cost comparisons of patient-initiated first-line interventions
Implied
Comparison valuation Effect size Evidence on effect
Vitamin B6 : ginger 1.2 : 1 Moderate No evidence of a difference between groups
Vitamin B12 : vitamin B6 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
Vitamin B12 : ginger 1.2 : 1 Moderate Unknown
Acupressure/acupuncture: 19.1 : 1 Large Unknown

vitamin B12
Acupressure/ 19.3 : 1 Large No evidence of a difference between groups

acupuncture : vitamin B6
Acupressure/ 22.6 : 1 Large Ginger looks promising in reducing symptoms when

acupuncture : ginger compared with acupressure but findings are not
conclusive
Hypnotherapy : acupressure/ 1.8 : 1 Large Unknown

acupuncture
Hypnotherapy : vitamin B12 34.4 : 1 Large Unknown
Hypnotherapy : ginger 40.7 : 1 Large Unknown
Ginger : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Ginger looks more effective when compared with
placebo. Additional cost of ginger is small
Acupressure/acupuncture : Not assessable Not assessable Acupressure looks promising in reducing symptoms
placebo when compared with placebo in a small number of
studies, while the rest show no difference between the
groups
Vitamin B6 : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Vitamin B6 looks more effective when compared with
placebo. Additional cost of vitamin B6 is small
142
TABLE 33 Cost comparisons of patient-initiated first-line interventions following a GP visit
Implied
Vitamin B6 : ginger 1.008 : 1 Small No evidence of a difference in effect

Vitamin B12 : ginger 1.009 : 1 Small Unknown
Ginger : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Ginger looks promising in reducing symptoms when
compared with placebo, but findings are not conclusive
Vitamin B6 : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Vitamin B6 looks promising in reducing symptoms when
compared with placebo, but findings are not conclusive
TABLE 34 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions (oral antiemetics only) following a GP visit
Implied Effect
Comparison valuation size Evidence on effect
Domperidone : metoclopramide 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown

Prochlorperazine : domperidone 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown
Prochlorperazine : metoclopramide 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Chlorpromazine : prochlorperazine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
Chlorpromazine : domperidone 1.008 : 1 Small Unknown
Chlorpromazine : metoclopramide 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine : chlorpromazine 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine : prochlorperazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine : domperidone 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine : metoclopramide 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : cyclizine 1:1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : chlorpromazine 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : prochlorperazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : domperidone 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : metoclopramide 1.03 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is as
effective as metoclopramide in reducing the
symptoms of NVP
Ondansetron : promethazine 2.2 : 1 Large Unknown
Ondansetron : cyclizine 2.2 : 1 Large Both ondansetron and antihistamines improve
symptoms, with no evidence of significant
difference in effects
Ondansetron : chlorpromazine 2.3 : 1 Large Both ondansetron and antihistamines improve
symptoms, with no evidence of significant
Ondansetron : prochlorperazine 2.3 : 1 Large Unknown
Ondansetron : domperidone 2.3 : 1 Large Unknown
Ondansetron : metoclopramide 2.3 : 1 Large Evidence comparing ondansetron with
metoclopramide showed mixed results, with both
improving symptoms. Ondansetron was found to
be more effective at reducing symptoms of
vomiting than metoclopramide after 4 days
Antihistamines : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Antihistamines appear to be better than placebo
in reducing the severity of symptoms, but more
larger, better-quality studies are required
143
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 35 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if attending hospital as a day case
Implied Effect
Domperidone (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (tablets) : domperidone 1.0001 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Prochlorperazine 1.0004 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets) : metoclopramide (tablets)
Chlorpromazine (tablets) : prochlorperazine 1.00007 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (tablets) : domperidone 1.0002 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Cyclizine (tablets) : chlorpromazine 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Cyclizine (tablets) : prochlorperazine 1.0004 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Cyclizine (tablets) : domperidone 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Cyclizine (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.0008 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Promethazine (tablets) : cyclizine 1:1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Promethazine (tablets) : chlorpromazine 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Promethazine 1.0004 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets) : prochlorperazine (tablets)
Promethazine (tablets) : domperidone 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Promethazine (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.0008 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is
(tablets) as effective as metoclopramide in reducing
the symptoms of NVP
Prochlorperazine (injection) : promethazine 1.0007 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (injection) : cyclizine 1.0007 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (injection) : 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
chlorpromazine (tablets)
prochlorperazine (tablets)
Prochlorperazine (injection) : domperidone 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
metoclopramide (tablets)
Metoclopramide (injection) : 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
prochlorperazine (injection)
Metoclopramide (injection) : promethazine 1.002 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is
the symptoms of NVP
Metoclopramide (injection) : cyclizine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
144
(continued )
Implied Effect

Metoclopramide (injection) : domperidone 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Ondansetron (injection) : metoclopramide 1.0001 : 1 Small Evidence comparing ondansetron with
(injection) metoclopramide showed mixed results,
with both improving symptoms.
Ondansetron was found to be more
effective at reducing symptoms of vomiting
than metoclopramide after 4 days
Ondansetron (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
Ondansetron (injection) : promethazine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Ondansetron (injection) : cyclizine 1.002 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
(tablets) improve symptoms, with no significant
Ondansetron (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.003 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
(tablets)
Ondansetron (injection) : domperidone 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
(tablets) metoclopramide showed mixed results,
Promethazine (injection) : ondansetron 1.0007 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
Promethazine 1.0008 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is
(injection) : metoclopramide (injection) as effective as metoclopramide in reducing
the symptoms of NVP
Promethazine (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
Promethazine (injection) : promethazine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Promethazine (injection) : cyclizine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Promethazine (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
(tablets)
Promethazine (injection) : domperidone 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
continued
145
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
(continued )
Implied Effect
Promethazine (injection) : metoclopramide 1.004 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is
the symptoms of NVP
Cyclizine (injection) : promethazine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
Cyclizine (injection) : ondansetron 1.003 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
(injection) improve symptoms, with no significant
Cyclizine (injection) : metoclopramide 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
Cyclizine (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
(tablets)
Cyclizine (injection) : cyclizine (tablets) 1.006 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.006 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
(tablets)
Cyclizine (injection) : domperidone 1.006 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : cyclizine 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
promethazine (injection)
Chlorpromazine 1.01 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
(injection) : ondansetron (injection) improve symptoms, with no significant
metoclopramide (injection)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : promethazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : domperidone 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Ondansetron (tablets) : chlorpromazine 1.01 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
146
(continued )
Implied Effect
Ondansetron (tablets) : cyclizine 1.02 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Ondansetron (tablets) : promethazine 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
Ondansetron (tablets) : ondansetron 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
Ondansetron (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.03 : 1 Small Evidence comparing ondansetron with
Ondansetron (tablets) : prochlorperazine 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
(tablets)
Ondansetron (tablets) : cyclizine (tablets) 1.03 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
improve symptoms, with no significant
(tablets)
Ondansetron (tablets) : domperidone 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
(tablets) metoclopramide showed mixed results,
Antihistamines : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Antihistamines appear to be better than
placebo in reducing the severity of
symptoms, but more larger, better-quality
studies are required
TABLE 36 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if admitted as an inpatient
Implied

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine 1.00004 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets) : prochlorperazine (tablets)
(tablets)
continued
147
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

(continued )
Implied

(tablets)
(tablets)
(injection)
(tablets)
(tablets)
Cyclizine (injection) : ondansetron 1.002 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
(injection)
(injection)
(tablets)
(tablets)
Cyclizine (injection) : domperidone 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
(injection)
Chlorpromazine 1.01 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
(injection) : ondansetron (injection) improve symptoms, with no significant
metoclopramide (injection)
148

(continued )
Implied

(tablets)
Antihistamines : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Antihistamines appear to be better than
placebo in reducing the severity of
TABLE 37 Cost comparison of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions 2 if admitted as an inpatient
Comparison Implied valuation Effect size Evidence on effect
Most expensive : least expensive 1.06 : 1 Modest Unknown
TABLE 38 Cost comparison of clinician-prescribed third-line interventions if admitted as an inpatient
TABLE 39 Cost comparison of 2-day day case management with 2-day inpatient management
Inpatient : day case 1.5 : 1 Large Results indicate that day case management is as effective at
improving severity scores as inpatient management for some
women. However, more, larger studies are required to provide
definitive results
order to be considered a worthwhile use of resources within this package of care. Unfortunately, there
was little evidence on effect available and a conclusion could not be drawn. Both ginger and vitamin B6
look promising in reducing symptoms compared with placebo, but the findings from the effectiveness
review were not conclusive. The main difference in cost between the use of vitamin B6 and ginger was the
difference in medications. The cost of these therapies might be considered modest and were quite similar.
From an economics perspective this suggests that we are indifferent about which is used.
Although this may not be considered acceptable to women or clinically, the results from Tables 32 and 33
allow comparisons to be drawn whether or not women are encouraged to self-medicate before seeking
medical treatment from primary care. For example, as an initial response to NVP, seeking advice from
a GP who goes on to recommend vitamin B6 as opposed to self-medicating with vitamin B6 implies
that the benefits of advice and treatment from the GP are at least 17 times more than the benefits of
self-medication. The question for decision-makers is whether or not the benefits from the advice and
reassurance gained from contacting a GP are of sufficient value to be worth the additional cost.
149
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Cost comparisons were carried out for all clinician-prescribed second-line interventions (oral antiemetics
only) following a GP visit. In the comparison between promethazine and metoclopramide the implied
valuation was 1.03 : 1, meaning that in order to be considered efficient, promethazine would need to
provide at least 3% more benefits than metoclopramide. No difference in effectiveness was reported from
the review; however, it is feasible that such a difference in effect could exist. Ondansetron was compared
with both antihistamines (cyclizine and chlorpromazine) within this package of care. Although ondansetron
is more expensive (2.2 : 1 and 2.3 : 1, respectively), no difference in effects was shown in the review. In the
cost comparison between ondansetron and metoclopramide, the ratio of the cost of ondansetron to the
cost of metoclopramide was 2.3 : 1. While the evidence on effect showed that ondansetron was more
effective at reducing the symptoms of vomiting than metoclopramide after 4 days, it would need to
provide at least 1.3 times more in benefits than metoclopramide in order to be considered a worthwhile
use of resources. Finally, antihistamines were compared with placebo and, while an implied valuation was
not assessable, the limited information available from the effectiveness review showed that antihistamines
appear to be better than placebo in reducing the severity of symptoms.
Within this package of care, it is the patient management costs which are the main cost drivers. Therefore,
the difference in cost between all interventions in this package of care was extremely small. The cost
comparison ratios ranged from 1 : 1 to 1.03 : 1. From the evidence on effect, ondansetron was more
effective at reducing the symptoms of vomiting than metoclopramide after 4 days. Antihistamines also
appear to be better than placebo in reducing the severity of symptoms. Other than this, there was no
significant difference in effect between any of the comparators included in the effectiveness review within
this package of care. Owing to the small difference in cost between all comparators, it is conceivable that
any of the more costly options could provide sufficient benefit in order to be worthwhile. However, the
limited data available on clinical effectiveness mean that a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn.
As before, it is the patient management costs which are the main cost drivers within this package of care.
Cost comparison ratios ranged from 1.00004 : 1 in the smallest instance to 1.01 : 1 in the largest. From
the evidence on effect, ondansetron was more effective at reducing the symptoms of vomiting than
metoclopramide after 4 days. Antihistamines also appear to be better than placebo in reducing the severity
of symptoms. Other than this, there was no significant difference in effect between any of the
comparators included in the effectiveness review within this package of care. Again, because of the small
difference in cost between all comparators, it is conceivable that any of the more costly options could
provide sufficient benefit in order to be considered worthwhile. However, the limited data available on
clinical effectiveness mean that a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn.
In order to be considered a worthwhile use of resources, the more expensive option of second-line
inpatient care would need to provide at least 6% more in benefits than the less expensive option. Evidence
on effect is unknown but it is not implausible that such a difference could exist.
In order to be considered a worthwhile use of resources, the more expensive option would need to
provide at least 6% more in benefits than the less expensive option. Evidence on effect is unknown.
The cost of inpatient management compared with day case management in the 2-day scenario presented
is almost 50% greater. This means that the benefits of inpatient management would need to be at least
50% greater than those of day case management in order for it to be considered a worthwhile use of
resources. Although the results are not definitive due to limited data, the evidence on effectiveness
indicates that day case management is as effective at improving severity scores as inpatient management
for some women. Therefore, the additional cost of inpatient management in the scenario presented may
represent an inefficient use of resources.
For a large number of comparators included in this section, evidence on effect is unknown. All clinically
relevant interventions in the UK were included in each package of care; however, clinical evidence is
unavailable for many interventions. The ratio of the cost of one intervention to another was calculated
150
within packages of care to determine the increase in effectiveness that the more costly option would need
to provide in order to be considered a worthwhile use of resources. However, as illustrated above, this
technique could also be applied to treatments in separate packages of care. This would allow one to,
for instance, compare a patient-initiated first-line intervention with a clinician-prescribed second-line
intervention to calculate the implied valuation. This information may be of interest to decision-makers.
Summary
l Currently, there are no economic evaluations on the cost-effectiveness of interventions used in the
treatment of NVP/HG.
l An economic model has been developed to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions
used in the treatment of NVP/HG and may be used in a model-based economic evaluation once
additional information becomes available.
l Pharmacological and non-pharmacological costs of treatment have been combined together to develop
informative packages of care. The cost of treatment increases rapidly as patients move from patient-
initiated first-line interventions to clinician-prescribed second-line interventions to clinician-prescribed
third-line interventions. The cost of medication is small in comparison with the cost of care.
l An implied valuation form of economic evaluation has been used to assess cost-effectiveness. Within
each package of care, cost comparisons have been carried out in order to determine the increase in
benefits that the more costly option would need to provide in order to be considered efficient.
l For patient-initiated first-line interventions, the cost comparison ratios ranged from 1.01 : 1 in the
comparison between vitamin B12 and vitamin B6 to 41 : 1 for the comparison between hypnotherapy
and ginger.
l The final cost comparison between inpatient management and day case management indicated that
inpatient management would need to provide at least 50% more benefits than day case management
to be considered worthwhile. The results on clinical effectiveness indicate that day case management is
equally as effective.
l The economic evaluation requires additional information on clinical effectiveness for a large number of
interventions in order to make definitive conclusions on cost-effectiveness.
151
Chapter 19 Issues of importance to patients
Introduction
Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy is a frequently occurring, often debilitating condition which can result
in physical, emotional and psychological distress, and a reduced QoL for sufferers. Management of the
condition by health-care providers is inconsistent, with many women reporting a poor experience of the
health-care system. It is therefore essential to consider the views and opinions of previous sufferers
alongside research evidence for clinical effectiveness if the care and the treatment of this condition is to
be improved.
Key to carrying out this review was the role played by practitioners and service user members of the
research team. Women who had suffered from NVP and/or HG were members of our Project Steering
Group along with representatives of key patient advocacy groups in the field. These members represented
their own views, not necessarily the views of the advocacy groups. These representatives were consulted at
the start of the study, when we informed them about the evidence review and invited their comments on
how the project could be improved. Engagement continued throughout the project, so that they were able
contribute to meetings in the latter stages of the review when we sought their input to help the research
team generate ideas for dissemination.
Background
Previous research and an online survey carried out by the PSS Group (unpublished data, 2014,
www.pregnancysicknesssupport.co.uk/), has highlighted the problems women face when seeking advice,
support and care from health-care professionals (HCPs). Tables 40 and 41 represent themes and examples
drawn from comments made to women that were reported as part of this survey.
Relating what patients want to review findings
The remit of this systematic review was to evaluate the available research evidence surrounding
interventions to treat NVP/HG. It is hoped that results from this review can be used to make suggestions
as to how to address some of the problems women face.
Women want HCPs to acknowledge that NVP/HG is a chronic condition and that symptoms can vary
dramatically between individuals, from mild to very severe, with no time limit on when symptoms will
cease. The review has highlighted inconsistencies with assessing severity of symptoms in many of the
included studies. This is likely to be the case within the wider health-care system. HCPs need to
acknowledge and be able to assess the wide spectrum of symptoms severity that can be experienced.
The introduction of a validated, standard method of assessment may help, so enabling HCPs to discuss the
most appropriate treatment options with women. This decision-making process should take into
consideration the individual womans situation, experience, knowledge and past history. Pre-emptive
therapy may be appropriate in some cases where women have a history of HG in a previous pregnancy.
The review results will inform clinical guidelines which in turn will support HCPs to advise and prescribe the
most effective treatment depending on location, gestation and severity. Different pathways of care make
it clear that not all treatments work for all women and that there are different options which should
be tried.
153
ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO PATIENTS
TABLE 40 Examples of bad HG/NVP practice by HCPs
Theme Explanation Quotes
Knowledge and beliefs l Lack of knowledge regarding Biggest difficulty trying to find GP who understood
NVP and HG or would prescribe help
l Unaware of appropriate
medication or believing Medical care awful if Id been diagnosed earlier
medication harmful and given medication earlier I wouldnt have
terminated three babies
I felt that they dismissed my symptoms, even tried

to convince me I had gastroenteritis
I was responsible for researching all options

regarding drugs and asking for things
The total lack of understanding and support from

the medical profession both during and after
my pregnancy
Despair at lack of understanding or clear direction

from GP and hospital staff
Had to see 4 doctors before I was prescribed

Buccastem. Previous doctors refused to prescribe
me any medication
Attitudes l Trivialising the condition Told (by GP) that only stupid people need
l Patronising admitted to hospital
l Judgemental
I was very much treated as weak and hysterical by
hospital staff and when I asked for injections
I was made to feel like I was wasting their

[community midwife and consultant] time and that
it was a normal part of pregnancy
Despair at lack of understanding or clear direction

from GP and hospital staff
I was treated by medical professionals as though

HG was a matter of my mind and not real
His [GP] exact words were you cant expect

pregnancy to be a walk in the park
Lack of sympathy/ l Disbelief that symptoms could Made to feel as if should just get on with it
understanding be so bad
l Psychosomatic I regret the termination and feel if the medical
l Comparing women who are profession had shown any empathy I might have
suffering from severe symptoms been able to get through the HG that first time
with those suffering mild
symptoms No empathy from GPs. Felt as though I had to beg
for medication
I was ignored by my GP, turned away from the

hospital due to no ketones in my urine. Little to no
support from healthcare professionals until I found
a consultant who specialised in HG
154
TABLE 41 Examples of good HG/NVP practice by HCPs
Theme Explanation Quotes
Communication l Being listened too When my GP did see me, she was fantastic but had to rush
and attitude l Being believed me into hospital due to dehydration
l Feeling supported
l No fuss made when asking Midwife was awful and ended up complaining and
for help changing at 30 weeks, wish Id done it sooner as the next
midwife was amazing!
Knowledge and l Given appropriate advice I was lucky to have an excellent GP who was quick to
understanding l Medication prescribed diagnose, quick to treat, and got me through
without hesitation
l Early recognition of
the condition
l Admission to hospital for
treatment when needed
The results from this review can also provide women with evidence-based information about different
treatment options. Women experiencing NVP for the first time may want to try patient initiated options
before seeking medical support. For example, trying preparations of fresh root ginger or acupressure
regularly for 34 days may help to reduce mild symptoms. Similarly, vitamin B6 taken regularly for at least
3 days may help to reduce mild to moderate symptoms in some women.
If women do seek medical support, prior knowledge relating to treatment effectiveness may then help to
empower them, enabling a more satisfactory interaction and outcome.
Summary
Although it is beyond the scope of this review to address all the problems and issues sufferers of NVP/HG
have had with their care, it will add to the body of evidence-based knowledge surrounding treatment. This
in turn should inform clinical guidelines, so leading to improved care, attitudes and advice for women
suffering from NVP/HG. Similarly, if women also have this information they will hopefully be less likely to
be treated dismissively and inappropriately.
Dissemination of findings to appropriate audiences will be essential. As well as the published report, the
findings will be presented at conferences (medical, midwifery, service users so that women have access to
the information) and submitted to peer-reviewed journals.
155
Chapter 20 Issues of importance to practitioners
Introduction
When providing care and support to women suffering from moderate or severe NVP, HCPs need to
consider the evidence on effectiveness and safety as well as the direct and indirect costs to the NHS and to
the women. The effectiveness of any intervention is likely to be dependent on the severity of symptoms.
Ideally, the severity of NVP should be assessed in a reliable and valid way (e.g. using the PUQE, RINVR or
Nausea Questionnaire score). A mild, moderate or severe score, alongside an assessment of how the
individual woman is coping, will help HCPs make appropriate recommendations.
The following findings include evidence of effectiveness from the results of the review and associated
treatment costs from the economic evaluation presented in Chapter 18, Economic evaluation. No reliable
data on fetal outcomes [fetal or neonatal death, congenital abnormalities, low birthweight (< 2.5 kg),
preterm birth (before 37 weeks gestation) or small for gestational age (birthweight < 10th centile)] were
identified as part of the systematic review. All safety data presented below are derived from large
population-based observational studies. This evidence is indirect in that it relates to pregnancy but not
specifically to NVP.
The interventions that can be recommended to women fall into three categories:
1. Self-help, over-the-counter interventions which can be recommended by GPs, midwives, practice

nurses and pharmacists, in information leaflets and on NHS approved websites.
2. Primary care interventions which can be prescribed by GPs. These may be in addition to or instead of
self-help interventions.
3. Secondary care interventions which are delivered in a hospital setting. Some women are referred to
hospital by primary care/community HCPs after failure of self-help and/or primary care interventions.
However, increasingly, women refer themselves to hospital maternity services (via day/maternity
assessment units) often without any prior intervention. Depending on symptom severity and duration,
sufferers may need to progress from one category to another and possibly try a number of different, or
combinations of interventions.
Findings
First-line over-the-counter interventions and alternative therapies
Ginger
Fresh root ginger may be effective in improving mild symptoms, especially nausea, but findings are not
conclusive. When compared with acupressure, ginger may be more effective, but the quality and quantity
of evidence is limited. There are too few data to suggest ginger is any better or worse than vitamin B6 or
pharmacological interventions.
Ginger appears to be safe for women during pregnancy. Data from two birth cohorts and several small RCTs
suggest there is no evidence of an increased risk of congenital anomalies or adverse perinatal outcomes.136,137
In a birth cohort of 68,522 women, 1020 reported using ginger, with no associated increased risks of
congenital malformations, stillbirth, perinatal death, preterm birth or low birthweight babies.137
The estimated weekly cost of using a ginger preparation was 2.20.
157
ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO PRACTITIONERS
Acupressure at pericardium point P6

Acupressure using correctly placed sea-bands may be effective in improving symptoms of NVP in women
with mild to moderate symptoms. Acupressure at KID21 may also be effective but data are limited. The
quality of the evidence is low and it is difficult to ascertain whether acupressure is more or less effective
than other interventions.
Acupressure is a non-invasive intervention and no safety data are available. The price of sea-bands is
approximately 10.
Acupuncture
The evidence of effectiveness of acupuncture is inconclusive. The cost of acupuncture consultations
and treatments range between 35 and 70. These data suggest that acupuncture should not be
recommended.
Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine)
Vitamin B6 appears to have some effectiveness at improving NVP in women with mild to moderate
symptoms, especially at higher doses ( 10 mg three times daily for at least 34 days).
There is little information regarding the safety of vitamin B6 in isolation. However, the safety of vitamin B6
in combination with antihistamines (doxylamine) has been studied extensively. The results of two
meta-analyses, which involved over 200,000 women, found no evidence of increased risk of congenital
malformations (relative risk 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04138 and OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55).139 These
findings have since been confirmed by several epidemiological studies.
The weekly cost of vitamin B6 preparations has been estimated at between 0.12 and 2.60.
Second-line interventions prescribed by general practitioners in primary

care settings
All quoted medication costs will require the addition of 45 for the GP consultation.
Doxylamine plus pyridoxine

A combination of high-dose pyridoxine and doxylamine may be as effective as metoclopramide at relieving
moderate symptoms of NVP. However, a combination of these medications has not been shown to be as
effective as ondansetron. Given other data, it can be inferred that this therapy is more effective than no
treatment (proxied by placebo in trials).
Evidence suggests that the combined therapy of doxylamine and pyridoxine is safe to use during
pregnancy (see Appendix 7).
The cost of this combined therapy would be 0.122.60 plus cost of doxylamine [price currently not
available as not routinely used in the UK NHS, price of alternative antihistamine (e.g. cyclizine)
is 0.742.22].
Diclectin (delayed release doxylamine 10 mg plus pyridoxine 10 mg) appears to be more effective than
placebo when given to treat moderate symptoms and when given pre-emptively to women with a history
of moderate NVP in a previous pregnancy. However, Diclectin is currently not available in the UK.
Antihistamines (hydroxyzine, meclizine, cyclizine)

Evidence from the review suggests that these drugs appear to be more effective in treating mild symptoms
of NVP compared with no treatment.
A large meta-analysis which involved over 200,000 women who took antihistamines during pregnancy
found no evidence of an increased risk of teratogenicity (OR for major malformations was 0.76, 95% CI
0.60 to 0.94), with no other serious maternal or fetal outcomes.140
Estimated weekly cost of treatment with oral cyclizine was 0.742.22.

158
Dopamine receptor antagonists

There was no evidence of a difference between metoclopramide and promethazine in improving
symptoms in moderate cases of NVP. There was also very low-quality evidence from a non-randomised
study that droperidol may be effective, especially at higher doses but higher-quality evidence is needed to
confirm or refute this.
Dopamine antagonists such as the phenothiazines promethazine and prochlorperazine are regarded as safe:
a meta-analysis of eight studies (n = 2948) identified no difference in the risk of major malformations
(pooled relative risk 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22).141 Other drugs in this class used to treat NVP/HG include
domperidone, droperidol, trimethobenzamide and metoclopramide. Limited evidence suggests that
trimethobenzamide is safe while a recent large study of metoclopramide used during the first trimester of
pregnancy (n = 3458) found no evidence of an increased risk of major malformations (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89
to 1.14) or adverse obstetric outcome.142 These findings agreed with those of a large, Danish birth cohort
(exposed cases n = 28,486), which reported no increased risk of congenital malformations (OR 0.95, 95% CI
0.88 to 1.03), miscarriages or stillbirths.143 The estimated weekly costs of these drugs are metoclopramide
0.220.66, promethazine 0.742.22, prochlorperazine 0.471.42, domperidone 0.391.17.
Serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron)

Ondansetron appears to be effective at all levels of symptom severity. However, there is little evidence to
say that it is more effective than metoclopramide or antihistamines.
Serotonin antagonists may be safe in pregnancy but experience is limited. One recent casecontrol study
reported an increased risk of cleft palate (adjusted OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.76).144 However, another
Danish study, involving over 600,000 pregnancies, found no association with any adverse fetal
outcomes.145 Concerns have been raised regarding the risk of cardiac arrhythmias [time between start
of the Q wave and of the T wave in the hearts electrical cycle (QT) prolongation] with large doses of
i.v. ondansetron. A recent systematic review identified that out of all cases of QT prolongation, 67%
of patients had a significant medical history or were using a concomitant QT prolonging medication. The
study concluded that prior screening of electrocardiogram (ECG) and electrolytes should be limited to high
risk patients receiving ondansetron intravenously.146
The estimated weekly cost of prescribing oral ondansetron was 60.83.
Second- and third-line interventions delivered in secondary care settings
Outpatient/day case management

Limited evidence suggests that this could be an effective alternative to inpatient admission for women with
moderate to severe symptoms where i.v. rehydration is required.
There is no population-based safety data regarding pregnancy outcomes following outpatient/day

case management.
The estimated cost of an outpatient attendance, which would involve i.v. rehydration, i.v. antiemetics,
appropriate blood and urine tests and an ultrasound scan, would be approximately 290.
Inpatient management costs

The estimated cost of a 2-night inpatient admission, which would involve i.v. rehydration, i.v./oral
antiemetics, appropriate blood and urine test, an ultrasound scan, thromboprophylaxis and thiamine
supplementation, was approximately 800. If a combination of, or alternative antiemetics were required
this cost could rise to 850.
159
ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO PRACTITIONERS
Corticosteroids
Evidence is limited but corticosteroids appear to reduce symptom severity, and appear to be more effective
at reducing episodes of vomiting than metoclopramide and Phenergan.
Concerns remain about the safety of corticosteroids. In one meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio for cohort
and casecontrol studies combined revealed no increased risk of major malformations associated with first
trimester exposure (cumulative OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.60). However, a subanalysis of casecontrol
studies revealed an increase in the risk of the fetus developing an oral cleft palate (OR 3.35, 95% CI 1.97
to 5.69) and the results were homogeneous between studies.147 However, other studies do not show this
association with cleft palate formation.148,149
Treatment with corticosteroids would generally be initiated following failure of other antiemetic therapies,
when the woman is suffering from severe symptoms and during an inpatient admission. The estimated
cost of a 5-day inpatient admission in which corticosteroid therapy was given was estimated
at 20002100.
Enteral nutrition
Enteral feeding appears to be a potentially effective but extreme method of supporting women suffering
from very severe symptoms, but no comparative studies were identified.
Costs were not available for enteral feeding but in a recent economic evaluation of total parental feeding
the cost per patient of the intervention itself and excluding other hospital based costs was approximately
340 per patient (Kilonzo M, personal communication).
Summary
Overall, there are some data to guide the choice of therapy, but there is little information to guide the
choice between therapies. The evidence reviewed suggests that treatments tend to improve symptoms
quickly over a small number of days. Therefore, if a woman gets insufficient relief from a first treatment
then this suggests an alternative treatment could be tried. For some treatments there are no data currently
available to support their use. Thus, while there may be few safety concerns with some of these
treatments, lack of robust effectiveness data can nevertheless guide practitioners in the advice that is given
to women.
One obvious concern is around safety. In part this is prompted by the legacy of thalidomide. No reliable
evidence directly applicable to the target group of pregnant women was found although evidence from
large population sources exists. These data have generally suggested that there is no evidence of any
safety concerns with the medications, but this is not the same as ruling out any important differences in
safety outcomes. In many cases the CIs are sufficiently wide to include clinically important differences both
in favour and against the treatments. Although women need reassurance that treatments are safe, this
should not offer false reassurance, therefore advice on safety should be tempered by these findings.
160
Chapter 21 Discussion
Clinical effectiveness and harms
This study aimed to systematically identify and assess the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and
cost-effectiveness of treatments for severe NVP and HG. This review was complicated because there is no
agreed point where severe NVP becomes HG, and because studies in this area were both poorly indexed
and generally poorly described in terms of severity of symptoms. Scoping searches indicated that the total
size of the evidence base in this area was, for a systematic review, relatively small. For this reason the
search strategy adopted was unusually comprehensive and included terms related to NVP and HG, but
made no restrictions around study design, intervention or language. As such it considers all studies related
to NVP and HG.
The study aimed to conduct both a fixed- or random-effect model meta-analysis as well as a Bayesian
mixed-treatment comparison. Full details of the proposed methods are reported in the review protocol
(PROSPERO CRD42013006642). However, these planned analyses were not performed due to
heterogeneity in interventions, trial populations, reporting and definitions of outcome measures and
methods. As a consequence the data on effectiveness, fetal outcomes and adverse events were tabulated
and reported in narrative fashion. The implication of this is that summary quantitative statistics of the
relative performance of different treatments against each other are not available. Rather the focus has
been on the consistency of the direction of effect and on the quality of the evidence available. Where
possible we have attempted to draw out the implications for both women and practitioners.
In total, 11,830 papers were identified from the combination of standard electronic databases, specialist
Chinese databases and various sources of grey literature. From these, 75 papers were identified for data
extraction, based on a total of 73 separate studies. The key reasons for exclusion were duplicate papers
already included; participant inclusion criteria for the identified study judged not relevant to our review;
not including any of the pre-specified outcomes; or as ineligible study design (no comparator group)
for effectiveness data or not a population-based case series for rarer maternal and fetal outcomes.
The 73 included studies were made up of 64 RCTs and nine case series or non-randomised studies.
With respect to overall quality of the evidence, there was variation both in terms of the quality of the
studies and the quality of the reporting. For almost half of all RCTs identified there was insufficient detail
provided to permit clear judgement of risk of bias in a range of key areas. Overall, 33 RCTs were classed as
having a low within-study risk of bias, 11 RCTs were classed as having a high within-study risk of bias, and
the remainder (n = 20) were classed as unclear in this respect. The high proportion of studies at unclear
risk of bias was due to poor reporting and a lack of detail, particularly in the methods section. All the case
series or non-randomised studies were judged as weak methodologically.
The included studies were grouped into the three broad groups of interventions outlined in Chapter 1:
1. First-line over-the-counter interventions, which can be recommended by HCPs, in information leaflets

and on NHS approved websites, for women to try before seeking medical care. Alternative therapies
were included in this group and there were 17 comparisons drawn from 43 studies.
2. Second-line interventions, usually delivered in primary health-care settings and prescribed by a GP, but
may also involve referral of women with more severe symptoms for inpatient, outpatient or day case
care in hospital. There were 16 comparisons from 20 studies.
3. Third-line interventions reserved for women in hospital with persistent or recurrent symptoms, despite
second-line therapies, which are prescribed in hospital settings. There were four comparisons, drawn
from 10 studies.
161
DISCUSSION
First-line over-the-counter interventions

The most common comparisons drawn were acupressure versus nocebo (n = 8); steroid versus usual
treatment (n = 7); ginger versus placebo (n = 7); and ginger versus B6 (n = 6). Other comparators were
considered in only one or two studies. A common finding was that symptoms in all arms (including
placebo) improved from baseline.
The evidence on the use of ginger came from 16 RCTs13,42,60,63,67,70,74,77,82,89,92,96,102,103,110,113 which were
predominantly at low or unclear risk of bias, with four exceptions.77,89,92,113 Seven studies compared
ginger preparations with placebo60,74,82,89,96,110,113 and these generally reported a statistically significant
improvement over a range of nausea and vomiting symptoms. However, these data are potentially
unreliable because of the number of studies that were judged to have a high or unclear risk of bias. When
the comparison was restricted just to those studies at low risk of bias the results were not conclusive.
For the comparison of ginger with vitamin B667,70,77,92,102,103 there are some higher-quality studies, but little
evidence of a difference in effectiveness. There was a similar finding for the comparison of ginger with
the other active treatments (doxylaminepyridoxine63 or antihistamine42 or metoclopramide89). For the
comparison of ginger versus acupressure,13 ginger again looked promising but the evidence was very
limited. Overall, ginger might be better than placebo in reducing the severity of symptoms, but these data
are limited to less severe symptoms.
A similar picture emerged for vitamin B6. Comparisons of B6 preparations with placebo41,100 generally
reported evidence of reduced symptoms of nausea, especially for women with more severe symptoms and
vomiting. Higher doses of vitamin B6 resulted in a greater improvement in symptoms. However, for other
head-to-head comparisons of treatments there were few data identified that suggested a difference in
performance.59,107,112 Furthermore, for the comparatively well researched acupuncture or acupressure (data
were available from 18 trials43,61,62,66,73,7880,83,87,91,94,98,101,104,109,111,115), there is a suggestion that acupressure
may reduce symptoms of nausea and retching in women with mildmoderate symptoms; however, the
data are limited and inconclusive. A similar situation was observed for nerve stimulation73,98,109 and
aromatherapy.76,97 Comparisons of traditional Chinese acupuncture and herbal medicine with Western
medicine were at high risk of bias and impossible to emulate within the NHS.87,115
No reliable direct evidence was identified in the review on the impact on maternal weight; fetal outcomes
[fetal or neonatal death, congenital abnormalities; low birthweight (< 2.5 kg), preterm birth (before
37 weeks gestation) or small for gestational age (birthweight < 10th centile)]; or adverse events
(e.g. pregnancy complications). The identified studies were all too small to provide any reliable data.
Indirect evidence came from a variety of large population studies and these data suggested that there was
no evidence of any increased risk of adverse fetal or maternal outcomes.
Overall, it is disappointing that the evidence base to guide women in the choice of therapy and
practitioners in the advice is so severely lacking. What evidence did exist mainly related to those with
milder symptoms and not severe NVP/HG.
Second-line interventions prescribed by general practitioners in primary

care settings
For antihistamines, their use resulted in an improvement compared with placebo or no treatment over a
range of symptoms.68,71,90 Diclectin (a vitamin B6 and antihistamine combination), which is not currently
available within the UK, also appears to be more effective than placebo.65,84,117 Further, pre-emptive
treatment with Diclectin before symptoms of NVP begin in women at high risk of severe NVP recurrence
appears to result in a reduced risk of moderate/severe NVP compared with women who take Diclectin
once symptoms begin.117
Dopamine antagonists were used in one trial which was judged to be at low risk of bias106 and one
poor-quality non-randomised study.122 These studies provided limited evidence suggesting that
promethazine is as effective as metoclopramide in reducing the symptoms of NVP. Five trials57,72,75,81,105
162
and one case series study121 compared serotonin antagonists (ondansetron) against a range of alternatives.
Three trials tested ondansetron against metoclopramide: symptoms were classified as mild to moderate in
two trials75,81 and severe in one trial.57 The identified studies comparing ondansetron with metoclopramide
had mixed results, with both drugs improving symptoms. However, the evidence from one study81 with
low risk of bias found ondansetron more effective at reducing vomiting compared with metoclopramide
after 4 days. There was some suggestion that ondansetron appears more effective at reducing nausea than
vitamin B6 plus doxylamine, but with equivocal evidence for vomiting. However, evidence from two
trials72,105 comparing ondansetron with antihistamines among women whose symptoms were classified as
being moderate to severe found there was no evidence of a significant difference between treatments.
The data from one small study85 also suggests that the use of transdermal clonidine patches may be
effective for the treatment of severe NVP/HG.
With respect to safety, the only data available was indirect sources from large population-based
observational studies relating to pregnancy rather than NVP or HG. These sources found no evidence of
increased risk of congenital malformations, miscarriages or stillbirths (see Chapter 20 for details). For
ondansetron, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of cardiac arrhythmias (QT prolongation),
relating to the administration of large doses of i.v. ondansetron. However, a recent systematic review146
concluded that prior screening of an ECG and electrolytes should be limited to high risk patients receiving
ondansetron intravenously.
Second- and third-line interventions delivered in secondary care settings

For interventions provided in secondary care, one issue is whether they should be provided as inpatient
therapy, or can be provided in a day case or outpatient setting. For women with moderate to severe
symptoms day case care is feasible and acceptable, and the data suggest that day case management is as
effective at improving severity scores as inpatient management for some women.
In terms of specific therapies, there were two studies69,108 identified that compared i.v. fluids. One108
compared different compositions of i.v. solution (dextrose + saline vs. saline only, which was at low risk of
bias), and one69 compared i.v. fluids containing vitamins with diazepam. The findings suggest that i.v. fluid
improves reported symptoms and that dextrose saline may be more effective at improving nausea over
time for those with moderate nausea. The lower concentration of sodium in dextrose saline may
exacerbate any pre-existing hyponatraemia. High doses/concentrations of dextrose solutions may increase
the risk of Wernickes encephalopathy. However, concentrations in dextrose saline are unlikely to provoke
this response. Diazepam appears to be more effective than i.v. fluids at reducing nausea on day 2, but
there was no evidence post treatment for those with moderate/severe nausea or HG.
The use of corticosteroids was better researched with seven studies58,64,93,99,114,116,125 identified (three at low
risk of bias,64,93,99 three where the risk of bias was unclear/high58,114,116 and one weak case series study125).
The evidence suggested a trend towards improved symptoms with steroids compared with placebo, but the
results were not statistically significant. There was a small amount of evidence suggesting steroids were more
effective at reducing vomiting episodes than Phenergan suppositories or metoclopramide. Nevertheless,
the overall evidence base on effectiveness is limited and there are concerns over safety. As reported in
Chapter 20, a subanalysis of casecontrol studies identified an increase in the risk of the fetus developing an
oral cleft palate (OR 3.35, 95% CI 1.97 to 5.69) and the results were homogeneous between studies,147
although other studies did not show this association.148,149 Few data were found on the use of assisted
feeding in this patient group, but the limited data showed that enteral feeding is an effective, but extreme,
method of supporting women suffering from very severe symptoms as a last resort.
In summary, the evidence on effectiveness of all treatments was severely limited by the poor quality of
the evidence available. Although there appears to be some evidence that some treatments (ginger
preparations, vitamin antihistamines, metoclopramide, B6) were better than placebo for mild disease, there
is little on the effectiveness of treatments for more severe disease. Evidence on differences in effectiveness
was available for few other comparisons.
163
DISCUSSION
Cost-effectiveness
As part of the systematic review, a review of the economic evaluations was planned but no studies that
met the inclusion criteria were identified. Likewise, an economic evaluation based on a modelling exercise
was planned. Given the paucity of the effectiveness data this proved not to be possible. As a consequence,
a simpler analysis was conducted that estimated the cost of the intervention and then used these data to
consider the difference in effectiveness that would be implied if a more costly intervention was used
instead of a less costly intervention. This form of analysis is based on the theoretical conditions required for
an efficient allocation of resources. The implied relative effectiveness estimated along with information on
cost were then set alongside the limited evidence on effectiveness.
The results of the economic analysis indicate that the cost of treating patients with NVP/HG increases
rapidly with severity. The ranges of costs are as follows: patient-initiated first-line interventions,
cost between 0.12 and 90 per week; patient-initiated first-line interventions following a GP visit, cost
between 45 and 47 per week; and clinician-prescribed second-line interventions (e.g. antihistamines),
cost between 45 and 106 per week, including the cost of the GP visit itself.
Some women are referred to hospital by primary care/community HCPs after failure of self-help and/or
primary care interventions. Women may also self-refer themselves to hospital maternity services (via day/
maternity assessment units), often without any prior intervention. This opens up a range of other potential
interventions and potentially greatly increases costs. For example, for a clinician-prescribed second-line
intervention when a woman attends hospital as a day case the cost would be between almost 300 per
day. Whereas if the woman were admitted to hospital as an inpatient, the cost for a 2-day admission
would be approximately 800. For those women with the most severe or intractable symptoms,
combinations of medications may be administered and should the woman be admitted for 5 days, the
cost was estimated to be between 2000 and 2100. However, the actual medication costs as a
component of total cost is relatively small, with the majority of cost incurred for the inpatient stay itself.
These data on costs are not of much practical value without information on effectiveness (although they
may help in assessing budget impacts). As noted, data on effectiveness are very limited. Nevertheless, what
data there is can be interpreted, along with the cost data. For patient-initiated first-line interventions, the
cost comparison ratios ranged from 1.01 : 1 for the comparison between vitamin B12 and vitamin B6
(i.e. vitamin B12 would only need to be 1% more effective than vitamin B6 to be considered cost-effective)
to 41 : 1 for the comparison between hypnotherapy and ginger. In cost terms there is little difference
between possible medications and some evidence that ginger and vitamin B6 may provide some relief.
Therefore, in economic terms the results suggest that we are indifferent between these treatments.
There is also evidence that acupressure may be effective, but the cost of acupressure consultations and
treatments range from 35 to 70. Comparing this with the cost of a medication like ginger or vitamin B6,
therefore, choosing acupressure over either ginger or vitamin B6, would imply that acupressure is at least
13 times better (taking the costs most in favour of acupressure, 35 for acupressure and 2.60 for the
weekly cost of ginger or vitamin B6). A judgement is required whether or not this is plausible. If it is not
judged plausible then this suggests that acupressure should not be adopted as an initial treatment, but it
does not rule it out as a second treatment if the first does not provide sufficient symptom relief.
The relatively small medication costs in comparison to the cost of accessing primary or secondary care had a
direct impact on the results of the implied value method of economic evaluation. For the majority of cost
comparisons in the remaining packages of care, the difference in cost was so small that only a marginal
increase in clinical effectiveness would be required in order for the more costly interventions to be considered
a worthwhile use of resources. Nevertheless, the same sort of judgement described above still applies.
A final cost comparison considered was between inpatient management and day case management. The
results of this analysis indicated that inpatient management would need to be 1.5 times more effective
than day case management. The question for decision-makers is whether or not this difference is plausible
164
given that the evidence from the systematic review provided no evidence of a difference in effectiveness
between inpatient and day case care.
Overall, however, even though costs for the different treatments can be estimated, it must be emphasised
that the evidence on cost-effectiveness is constrained by the very limited data available on effectiveness.
Strengths and limitations
The main strength of this review was the comprehensive and systematic approach taken to review the
literature. The searches sought to be exhaustive, and have included the major electronic databases, grey
literature sources and non-English-language databases. The search strategy itself was broadly defined and
included terms related to NVP and HG, but made no restrictions on language, study design or type of
intervention. Taken together, the searches should have identified all relevant studies. It is possible,
however, that there exist some relevant data that remains hidden because of non-publication, but it is
questionable about what this might add given the generally very small size of identified studies and their
often very limited methodology. Thus, it seems implausible that a large high-quality study was missed.
The process of assembling data on interventions was also rigorous. As noted above, no studies were
excluded on the basis of language, and where necessary translations were sought. Risk of bias assessments
were conducted for included RCTs and for non-randomised studies using high-quality tools. Data were
extracted for pre-specified outcomes onto a standard form to prevent biases caused by selective data
extraction. The choice of outcomes for the systematic review was itself based on the advice of our expert
clinical panel and from advice from women themselves and patient representative groups.
The study included a pre-planned economic component and although the proposed economic modelling
was not possible, information were rigorously assembled and presented in such a way as to help facilitate
judgements about alternative therapies. As such, although less sophisticated than the proposed model,
it is entirely consistent with the role of economic evaluation as an aid to decision-making.
The review itself identified 73 studies but very few were available for most comparisons and not every
study contributed data to each outcome, including our pre-specified primary outcome of severity of
symptoms (such as PUQE, RINVR, McGill Nausea Questionnaire, NVPI, VASs). This was compounded by the
differences in reporting of studies that precluded the opportunity for meta-analysis. As a consequence, we
were restricted to a narrative review that was not able to produce summary measures that quantified the
effect on outcomes. Rather we were restricted to reporting on the likely direction of effect. This problem
will remain and there is a need for future studies to use standardised measures of severity and include
patient-centric outcomes such as QoL. The development of a standardised set of outcomes that would be
measured and reported for all studies is required.
One set of outcome measures that are likely to be very important to women and practitioners are around
safety. In this study we sought to assemble data on fetal outcomes and adverse events to both the mother
and child. No reliable data meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. To partially overcome this
limitation we looked at large population-based observational studies. This evidence is indirect in that it
relates to pregnancy but not specifically to NVP. Nevertheless, it does provide some reassurance that many
of the treatments are not clearly associated with an increase in adverse events. However, by the same
token, these data do not rule out differences that would be considered important by the women
themselves or by practitioners.
With respect to the economic element of the research, this element shares many of the strengths and
limitations already described. The main manifestation of this limitation is that the planned economic
modelling was not possible. An alternative approach was used and although this may provide some useful
data for decision-making its value is limited.
165
Chapter 22 Conclusions
Introduction
In developing these conclusions, we worked with a range of individuals and organisations to ensure their
relevancy to patients and practitioners. Women who had suffered from NVP and/or HG and representatives
of key patient advocacy groups in the field were members of our Project Steering Group, and were
consulted in shaping both the review implications and our recommendations for future research. Our
Steering Group and Project Management Group also included a number of clinicians working with women
sufferers of NVP and/or HG in a range of health-care settings, representing midwifery, general practice,
obstetrics, teratology, paediatrics and clinical pharmacology.
Implications for women and for practitioners
l Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy occurs frequently. Even without treatment, the symptoms for
some women will resolve. For women who do experience more persistent problems there are some
simple approaches that they could adopt themselves that might improve symptoms and/or QoL.
These could include increasing oral fluid intake, eating small frequent meals, eating bland foods/
protein-predominant meals, avoiding spicy, odorous and fatty foods and stopping iron-containing
multivitamins. However, for others there are a range of treatments available to women where there is
some evidence that they might help.
l Where symptoms are mild, there are a number of first-line over-the-counter or self-purchased therapies
where there is some evidence that they work. These therapies may also be considered as initial
treatments if a woman sees a doctor, nurse, midwife or other HCP. These treatments are ginger
supplements and vitamin B6. These are generally low cost and there is no evidence that they are a risk to
the health of the mother or baby. There is no proof that a more expensive version of either ginger or
vitamin B6 is any better than a lower cost option. Higher doses of vitamin B6 were found to be more
effective than lower doses in reducing symptoms (0.64 mg twice daily vs. 1.28 mg per day). There is also
some evidence that acupressure may be effective, but the evidence is very limited. The available evidence
suggests that any benefit derived from these over-the-counter therapies will be evident within 34 days.
Thus, women need to know that, in such cases, it is worth trying something else or consulting with a GP
as there are other treatments available via prescription. There is no evidence that these treatments are
unsafe to use. Further details on dosage and effects are in Chapters 47 and Tables 811.
l Where symptoms are mild to moderate and/or if the above over-the-counter therapies have not proved
helpful to women, a number of second-line interventions are available via prescription. Of the drugs that a
GP might prescribe there is evidence that an antihistamine can help reduce symptoms (either alone or
combined with vitamin B6) compared with no treatment. Limited data suggests that metoclopramide and
promethazine may also help when symptoms are moderate. Droperidol may also be effective, especially at
higher doses. Available evidence indicates these treatments are likely to be safe, but more research is
needed to clarify this (further details on dosage and effects are in Chapter 9 and Table 13).
l A GP may also prescribe ondansetron when other treatments have failed. This treatment may be effective
for some women in reducing symptoms. The drug appears to be safe in pregnancy but experience is
limited and more research is needed. Where women are given large doses of ondansetron and have a
risk of some cardiac conditions, they may need an ECG and to have their blood chemistry checked
(further details on dosage and effects are in Chapter 8 and Table 12).
167
CONCLUSIONS
l Where symptoms are more severe or persistent, based on assessment using a validated measurement
scale, care may be provided in hospital, and for these women a further range of treatments are
available. Evidence suggests that where available these treatments can be provided as an outpatient or
day case patient rather than requiring an admission, and usually involve rehydration with i.v. fluids.
Dextrose saline appears to be more effective at reducing nausea when compared with normal saline,
but must be administered with care as excessive dextrose can exacerbate the potential problem of
Wernickes encephalopathy (see Chapter 12 and Table 16 for more details).
l Treatment with corticosteroids does work but would generally only be used following failure of other
treatments, when the woman is suffering from severe symptoms and during an inpatient admission.
This is because doctors and other HCPs are cautious about the safety of these treatments and the side
effect they may have for both the mother and the fetus. Therefore, doctors would like to use other
options first if possible. Ideally, more evidence is needed comparing corticosteroids to other antisickness
medications (further details on dosage and effects are in Chapter 15 and Table 19).
l Where symptoms are extremely severe, and when the prolonged effects of severe nausea and vomiting
have made women extremely ill, assisted feeding either by tube directly into the stomach or, in very
rare cases, by i.v. catheter may be effective. As there are risks associated with this type of treatment,
it is restricted to women suffering from very severe symptoms (see Chapter 16 and Table 20 for
more details).
Recommendations for research
Trajectory of research
Any recommendations for further research need to take into account the trajectory of new research.
Research on treatments and management of NVP/HG is ongoing: since the date of the last systematic
update of published research for this study (September 2014) new evidence has been published. Although
not assembled systematically, scoping searches conducted in early December 2014 identified two
potentially relevant studies. The first was a review of the use of gabapentin in pregnancy150 and the second
was a RCT comparing day care with inpatient management.151 Neither study was formally assessed, but
the authors conclusions were that further clinical trials were needed on the use of gabapentin for HG, and
that day case care was acceptable and reduced length of stay. These conclusions are consistent with the
findings reported in this review.
There are also a number of studies recorded as ongoing on searches of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.
clinicaltrials.gov) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/
default.aspx) (searches of both were conducted in December 2014). Ongoing studies are investigating:
(a) gabapentin versus ondansetron for HG in a double-blind RCT of 80 women with HG (NCT02163434,
due to finish in May 2018)
(b) Diclectin as a pre-emptive treatment for NVP versus treatment with Diclectin when symptoms occur in
a RCT (NCT00293644, due to end in April 2015)
(c) rapid hydration with hospital admission for HG (ISRCTN24659467)
(d) enteral feeding with oral rehydration for the treatment of HG.
Research recommendations
Given the trajectory of research and the evidence gaps identified by this study, in order of priority, the
following recommendations for research are made:
l A well-designed multicentre RCT to determine which second-line, hospital-prescribed therapy should be

adopted as mainstream provision for the treatment of NVP in the UK NHS. This could compare day
case or inpatient delivery of (a) a combination of antiemetic therapy (antihistamines or dopamine
receptor antagonists or serotonin receptor antagonists) with i.v. rehydration (rapid i.v. hydration
or standard inpatient care) as required; against (b) alternative antiemetic therapy (antihistamines or
dopamine receptor antagonists or serotonin receptor antagonists) with i.v. rehydration (rapid i.v.
hydration or standard inpatient care).
168
l A well-designed multicentre RCT to test the use of subsequent treatments, such as steroids, as a
third-line therapy. This could examine, for example, the effectiveness of corticosteroids versus serotonin
receptor antagonists (ondansetron). In this trial, the indication for steroid use could also be
investigated. For example, failure of successful treatment following three admissions for i.v. rehydration
and medication. The dose, duration of treatment and effectiveness could also be examined.
l A well-designed multicentre RCT to determine which second-line, GP-prescribed therapy should be
adopted as mainstream provision for the treatment of NVP in UK primary care. This could compare the
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vitamin B6antihistamine combination against, for example,
a dopamine receptor antagonist.
l Six key factors should be incorporated within any future research trial of second-line, third-line or
GP-initiated NVP/HG therapies:
i. Stakeholder co-design: all stakeholders and, in particular, the women themselves, should be involved
in the design of future studies to ensure that future research produces information of relevance to
them as well as to health services.
ii. Embedded process evaluation in order to examine the views of women participants on the
intervention/therapy being trialled, study how the intervention is implemented in practice, investigate
contextual factors that affect the delivery of an intervention, and study the way effects vary
in subgroups.
iii. Mental health and well-being outcomes: we know from other sources that severe NVP has an
impact on mental health both ante- and post-natally. Therefore consideration needs to be given as
to how to capture the impact on women regarding these factors. A variety of approaches are
possible, but it may for example include qualitative work and/or the use of existing validated tools
such as (a) QoL indices such as Short Form questionnaire-36 items (total and subscales); (b) measures
of mental health and well-being such as Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; and (c) satisfaction
with care as measured by Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8.
iv. Validated symptom severity scale: given the problems identified in this review with the lack of
consistent outcome measures in the existing evidence base, entry to future trials should be based
on PUQE criteria as an objective means of establishing severity, with subsequent outcome
measurements also based on the same score.
v. Standard reporting criteria for adverse events, maternal and fetal outcomes: all studies of drugs
administered during the first trimester of pregnancy should have obligatory reporting of rates of
adverse events and maternal/fetal outcomes to the UKTIS central database to support the availability
of reliable prospective controlled data. In addition, all trials of NVP/HG interventions in the UK NHS
should include sufficiently long-term participant follow-up periods to enable the capture of relevant
maternal and fetal outcomes given the safety profile of the therapies compared. These outcome
data should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any associations between particular
therapies and/or characteristics of women, in order to guide further research into stratified care.
vi. Economic evaluation of NVP/HG therapies: as there may be trade-offs between cost and effects,
future studies should also include an economic evaluation.
l A large simple RCT of self-medication. The choice of interventions should be informed by the
preferences of women about which treatments are of most relevance to them. Points 15 listed above
also apply, but the inclusion of an economic component would also need to be justified given the
anticipated low cost of the intervention and that a more effective treatment would save subsequent
management costs.
169
Acknowledgements
W e thank Professor Gideon Koren (Director, the Motherisk Program; Professor of Pediatrics,
Pharmacology, Pharmacy, Medicine and Medical Genetics at The University of Toronto; Senior
Scientist at The Research Institute Hospital for Sick Children; and The Ivey Chair in Molecular Toxicology, at
the University of Western Ontario Canada) for advice on clinical aspects of the research. We thank our
patient and public representatives, Dr Nicolette Rousseau and Juliet Hall, for providing ongoing advice and
support as part of the Review Steering Group. We thank Dr Margaret OHara and the other women
volunteers from PSS for sharing their views and experiences on the review topic, and for the contribution
of survey data to the chapter on patient issues. We thank the UKTIS for the provision of enquiry data
relating to medications for HG/NVP. We thank Astrid McIntyre for secretarial support and assistance with
obtaining full-text papers. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the
funding bodies. Any errors are the responsibility of the authors.
Contributions of authors
Amy ODonnell (Research Associate) and Catherine McParlin (Senior Research Midwife) took the role as
co-first authors. They screened the search results, assessed full-text studies for inclusion, undertook data
extraction and quality assessment, drafted the introduction and background chapter, methods, overview of
included studies, individual intervention results chapters and co-ordinated the review.
Stephen C Robson (Professor of Fetal Medicine), Catherine Nelson-Piercy (Professor of Obstetric

Medicine), Justine Norman (GP) and Laura Yates (Consultant in Clinical Genetics and Head of
Teratology) provided expert advice on clinical aspects of the review.
Fiona Beyer (Information Scientist) developed and ran the search strategies, reconciled search results,
obtained papers and managed the reference database.
Eoin Moloney drafted the chapter on the economic evaluation, supervised by Luke Vale (Professor of
Health Economics).
Andrew Bryant undertook quality assessment and data extraction, contributed to the drafting of the
overview chapter, individual results chapters, with particular responsibility for the sections on risk of bias
including the production of the SoF tables, supervised by Colin Muirhead (Lecturer in Medical Statistics).
Jennifer Bradley (Research Assistant) and Emma Simpson (Research Assistant) undertook data extraction
and quality assessment of included papers, supervised by Amy ODonnell.
Dorothy Newbury-Birch (Lecturer in Public Health) provided expert advice on the systematic
review process.
Brian Swallow (Expert Advisor) provided expert advice in relation to the patient perspective.
Stephen C Robson and Luke Vale were coprinciple investigators and take overall responsibility for
the study.
All authors assisted in preparing the manuscript, reading and commenting on drafts, and reading the
final draft.
171
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Publication
McParlin C, ODonnell A, Robson SC, Beyer F, Moloney E, Bryant A, et al. Treatments for hyperemesis
gravidarum and nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a systematic review. JAMA 2016;316:1392401.
Data sharing statement
All available data can be obtained from the corresponding author.
172
References
1. Niebyl JR. Clinical practice. Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2010;363:154450.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1003896
2. Jarvis S, Nelson-Piercy C. Management of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. BMJ
2011;342:d3606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d3606
3. Attard CL, Kohli MA, Coleman S, Bradley C, Hux M, Atanackovic G, et al. The burden of illness
of severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2002;186:S2207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.122605
4. Jueckstock JK, Kaestner R, Mylonas I. Managing hyperemesis gravidarum: a multimodal challenge.
BMC Med 2010;8:46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-46
5. Trogstad LIS, Stoltenberg C, Magnus P, Skjaerven R, Irgens LM. Recurrence risk in hyperemesis
gravidarum. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:16415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.
00765.x
6. Vikanes AV, Skjaerven R, Grijibovski AM, Gunnes N, Vangen S, Magnus P. Recurrence
of hyperemesis gravidarum across generations: population based cohort study. BMJ 2010;340:c2050.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0b013e3182021d24
7. Derbent AU, Yanik FF, Simavli S, Atasoy L, Urun E, Kuscu UE, et al. First trimester maternal serum
PAPP-A and free beta-HCG levels in hyperemesis gravidarum. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:4503.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.2715
8. Goodwin TM, Poursharif B, Korst LM, MacGibbon KW, Romero R, Fejzo MS. Secular trends in the
treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. Am J Perinatol 2008;25:1417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/
s-2008-1040344
9. Ismail SK, Kenny L. Review on hyperemesis gravidarum. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol
2007;21:75569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2007.05.008
10. Yamazaki K, Sato K, Shizume K, Kanaji Y, Ito Y, Obara T, et al. Potent thyrotropic activity of
human chorionic gonadotrophin variants in terms of 125I incorporation and de novo synthesized
thyroid hormone release in human thyroid follicles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1995;80:4739.
11. Verberg MF, Gillott DJ, Al-Fardan N, Grudzinskas JG. Hyperemesis gravidarum, a literature review.
Hum Reprod Update 2005;11:52739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmi021
12. Sandven I, Abdelnoor M, Nesheim B-I, Melby KK. Helicobacter pylori infection and hyperemesis
gravidarum: a systematic review and meta-analysis of casecontrol studies. Acta Obstet Gynecol
Scand 2009;88:1190200. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016340903284927
13. Saberi F, Sadat Z, Abedzadeh-Kalahroudi M, Taebi M. Acupressure and ginger to relieve nausea
and vomiting in pregnancy: a randomized study. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2013;15:85461.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.12984
14. Mazzotta P, Maltepe C, Navioz Y, Magee LA, Koren G. Attitudes, management and
consequences of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in the United States and Canada.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000;70:35965. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(00)00255-1
15. Smith C, Crowther C, Beilby J, Dandeaux J. The impact of nausea and vomiting on women:
a burden of early pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2000;40:397401. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1479-828X.2000.tb01167.x
173
REFERENCES
16. Poursharif B, Korst LM, MacGibbon KW, Fejzo MS, Romero R, Goodwin TM. Elective pregnancy
termination in a large cohort of women with hyperemesis gravidarum. Contraception
2007;76:4516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.08.009
17. Tan PC, Zaidi SN, Azmi N, Omar SZ, Khong SY. Depression, anxiety, stress and hyperemesis
gravidarum: temporal and case controlled correlates. PLOS ONE 2014;9:e92036. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0092036
18. McCarthy FP, Khashan AS, North RA, Moss-Morris R, Baker PN, Dekker G, et al. A prospective
cohort study investigating associations between hyperemesis gravidarum and cognitive
behavioural and emotional well-being in pregnancy. PLOS ONE 2011;6:e27678. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0027678
19. Ayyavoo A, Derraik JGB, Hofman PL, Cutfield WS. Hyperemesis gravidarum and long-term
health of the offspring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:5215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ajog.2013.11.035
20. NHS Information Centre. Hospital Episode Statistics for England. In-Patient Statistics Diagnosis.
Leeds: NHS Information Centre; 2012.
21. Locock L, Alexander J, Rozmovitz L. Womens responses to nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
Midwifery 2008;24:14352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2006.12.001
22. Veenendaal MV, van Abeelen AF, Painter RC, van der Post JA, Roseboom TJ. Consequences of
hyperemesis gravidarum for offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG
2011;118:130213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03023.x
23. Bolin M, Akerud H, Cnattingius S, Stephansson O, Wikstrom AK. Hyperemesis gravidarum and
risks of placental dysfunction disorders: a population-based cohort study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol
2013;120:5417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12132
24. Koren G, Boskovic R, Hard M, Maltepe C, Navioz Y, Einarson A. Motherisk-PUQE (pregnancy-unique
quantification of emesis and nausea) scoring system for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:S22831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.123054
25. Koren G, Piwko C, Ahn E, Boskovic R, Maltepe C, Einarson A. Validation studies of the Pregnancy
Unique-Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) scores. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;25:2414. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/01443610500060651
26. Lacasse A, Rey E, Ferreira E, Morin C, Berard A. Validity of a modified Pregnancy-Unique
Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE) scoring index to asses severity of nausea and
vomiting of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:71.e1 71.e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ajog.2007.05.051
27. Rhodes V, Watson P, Johnson M. Development of reliable and valid measures of nausea and
vomiting. Cancer Nurs 1984;7:3341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00002820-198402000-00003
28. Zhou Q, OBrien B, Soeken K. Rhodes Index of nausea and vomiting-Form 2 in pregnant women.
A confirmatory factor analysis. Nurs Res 2001;50:2517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
00006199-200107000-00009
29. OBrien B, Relyea MJ, Taerum T. Efficacy of P6 acupressure in the treatment of nausea and
vomiting during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:70815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0002-9378(96)70454-4
30. Melzack R, Rosberger Z, Hollingsworth M. New approaches to measuring nausea. CMAJ
1985;133:7558.
174
31. Lacroix R, Eason E, Melzack R. Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: a prospective study
of its frequency, intensity, and patterns of change. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:9317.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(00)70349-8
32. Swallow BL, Lindow SW, Masson EA, Hay DM. Women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy
demonstrate worse health and are adversely affected by odours. J Obstet Gynaecol
2005;25:5449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443610500230783
33. Swallow BL, Lindow SW, Masson EA, Hay DM. Development of an instrument to measure nausea
and vomiting in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;22:4815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0144361021000003582
34. Chandra K, Magee L, Einarson A, Koren G. Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: results of a survey
that identified interventions used by women to alleviate their symptoms. J Psychosom Obstet
Gynaecol 2003;24:715. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01674820309042804
35. Thomson M, Corbin R, Leung L. Effects of ginger for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy:
a meta-analysis. J Am Board Fam Med 2014;27:11522. http://dx.doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2014.
01.130167
36. Ashkenazi-Hoffnung L, Merlob P, Stahl B, Klinger G. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of
bi-daily therapy with pyridoxine and doxylamine for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
IMAJ 2013;15:236.
37. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. American Congress of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists (ACOG) practice bulletin #52: nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol
2004;103:80316.
38. Maina A, Todros T. A novel approach to hyperemesis gravidarum: evaluation by a visual analogue
scale score and treatment with transdermal clonidine. Obstetric Medicine 2011;4:1569.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/om.2011.110050
39. Guttuso TJr, Robinson LK, Amankwah KS. Gabapentin use in hyperemesis gravidarum: a pilot
study. Early Hum Dev 2010;86:656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2009.11.003
40. ODonnell A, Vale L, Moloney E, Muirhead C, Bryant A, Beyer F, et al. A Systematic Review and
Economic Modelling of the Relative Clinical- and Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions for
Hyperemesis gravidarum. PROSPERO 2013:CRD42013006642 URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/
PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013006642 (accessed on 4 September 2014).
41. Vutyavanich T, Wongtra-ngan S, Ruangsri R. Pyridoxine for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy:
a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:8814.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(95)90359-3
42. Pongrojpaw D, Somprasit C, Chanthasenanont A. A randomized comparison of ginger and
dimenhydrinate in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. J Med Assoc Thai
2007;90:17039.
43. Can Gurkan O, Arslan H. Effect of acupressure on nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.
Complement Ther Clin Pract 2008;14:4652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2007.07.002
44. Pham B, Klassen TP, Lawson ML, Moher D. Language of publication restrictions in systematic
reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional
or complementary. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:76976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclinepi.2004.08.021
45. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
BMJ 2004;328:14904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490
175
REFERENCES
46. Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. URL: www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed
16 March 2015).
47. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative
Studies Method. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University; 2008. URL: www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/
eng/15.html (accessed April 2011).
48. Armijo-Olivio S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Cummings GG. Assessment of study quality for
systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the
Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval
Clin Pract 2010;18:1218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x
49. Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature:
providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based
Nurs 2004;1:17684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04006.x
50. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6.
Rating the quality of evidence imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:128393. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012
51. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines 8.
Rating the quality of evidence indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:130310. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014
52. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines 7.
Rating the quality of evidence inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1294302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017
53. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines 5. Rating
the quality of evidence publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:127782. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011
54. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines 4.
Rating the quality of evidence study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:40715.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017
55. Jones B, Roger J, Lane PW, Lawton A, Fletcher C, Cappelleri JC, et al. Statistical approaches for
conducting network meta-analysis in drug development. Pharmaceut Stat 2011;10:52331.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pst.533
56. Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials.
Stat Methods Med Res 2008;17:279301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280207080643
57. Abas MN, Tan PC, Azmi N, Omar SZ. Ondansetron compared with metoclopramide for
hyperemesis gravidarum: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:12729.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000242
58. Adamczak J, Kasdaglis J, Rinehart B, Antebi Y, Wolf E, Terrone D. A prospective randomized trial
of solumedrol dose pack vs. Phenergan for the treatment of symptomatic nausea and vomiting
in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:S88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.10.292
59. Babaei AH, Foghaha MH. A randomized comparison of vitamin B6 and dimenhydrinate in the
treatment of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2014;19:199202.
60. Basirat Z, Moghadamnia AA, Kashifard M, Sarifi-Razavi A. The effect of ginger biscuit on nausea
and vomiting in early pregnancy. Acta Med Iran 2009;47:516.
176
61. Bayreuther J, Lewith GT, Pickering R. A doubleblind cross-over study to evaluate the
effectiveness of acupressure at pericardium 6 (P6) in the treatment of early morning sickness
(EMS). Complement Ther Med 1994;2:706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0965-2299(94)90002-7
62. Belluomini J, Litt RC, Lee KA, Katz M. Acupressure for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy:
a randomized, blinded study. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:2458.
63. Biswas SC, Dey R, Kamliya GS, Bal R, Hazra A, Tripathi SK. A single-masked, randomized,
controlled trial of ginger extract in the treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
JIMSA 2011;24:1679.
64. Bondok RS, El Sharnouby NM, Eid HE, Abd Elmaksoud AM. Pulsed steroid therapy is an effective
treatment for intractable hyperemesis gravidarum. Crit Care Med 2006;34:27813. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000242156.15757.70
65. Capp S, Oliveira L, Carstairs S, You W. Ondansetron versus doxylamine/pyridoxine for treatment
of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2014;210:S39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.092
66. Carlsson CP, Axemo P, Bodin A, Carstensen H, Ehrenroth B, Madegard-Lind I, et al. Manual
acupuncture reduces hyperemesis gravidarum: a placebo-controlled, randomized, single-blind,
crossover study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2000;20:2739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-3924
(00)00185-8
67. Chittumma P, Kaewkiattikun K, Wiriyasiriwach B. Comparison of the effectiveness of ginger and
vitamin B6 for treatment of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy: a randomized double-blind
controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90:1520.
68. Diggory PL, Tomkinson JS. Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. A trial of meclozine
dihydrochloride with and without pyridoxine. Lancet 1962;2:3702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0140-6736(62)90228-3
69. Ditto A, Morgante G, la Marca A, De Leo V. Evaluation of treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum
using parenteral fluid with or without diazepam. A randomized study. Gynecol Obstet Invest
1999;48:2326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000010189
70. Ensiyeh J, Sakineh MA. Comparing ginger and vitamin B6 for the treatment of nausea and vomiting
in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Midwifery 2009;25:64953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.midw.2007.10.013
71. Erez S, Schifrin BS, Dirim O. Double-blind evaluation of hydroxyzine as an antiemetic in
pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1971;7:357.
72. Eftekhari N, Mehralhasani Y. A comparison of ondansetron and promethasin in treating
hyperemesis gravidarum. JKUMS 2013;20:35465.
73. Evans AT, Samuels SN, Marshall C, Bertolucci LE. Suppression of pregnancy-induced nausea and
vomiting with sensory afferent stimulation. J Reprod Med 1993;38:6036.
74. Fischer-Rasmussen W, Kjaer SK, Dahl C, Asping U. Ginger treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991;38:1924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-2243(91)
90202-V
75. Ghahiri AA, Abdi F, Mastoo R, Ghasemi M. The effect of ondansetron and metoclopramide in
nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. JIMS 2011;29:25965.
76. Ghani RMA, Ibrahim ATA. The effect of aromatherapy inhalation on nausea and vomiting in early
pregnancy: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Nat Sci Res 2013;3:1022.
177
REFERENCES
77. Haji Seid Javadi E, Salehi F, Mashrabi O. Comparing the effectiveness of vitamin B6 and ginger in
treatment of pregnancy-induced nausea and vomiting. Obstet Gynecol Int 2013;927834.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/927834
78. Heazell A, Thorneycroft J, Walton V, Etherington I. Acupressure for the in-patient treatment of
nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy: a randomized control trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2006;194:81520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.042
79. Hsu E, Pei V, Shofer FS, Abbuhl SB. A prospective randomized controlled trial of acupressure vs.
sham for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting in the emergency department. Acad Emerg
Med 2003;10:437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/aemj.10.5.437
80. Jamigorn M, Phupong V. Acupressure and vitamin B6 to relieve nausea and vomiting in
pregnancy: a randomized study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2007;276:2459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00404-007-0336-2
81. Kashifard M, Basirat Z, Kashifard M, Golsorkhtabar-Amiri M, Moghaddamnia A. Ondansetrone
or metoclopromide? Which is more effective in severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy?
A randomized trial double-blind study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2013;40:12730.
82. Keating A, Chez RA. Ginger syrup as an antiemetic in early pregnancy. Altern Ther Health Med
2002;8:8991.
83. Knight B, Mudge C, Openshaw S, White A, Hart A. Effect of acupuncture on nausea of
pregnancy: a randomized, controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:1848. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0029-7844(00)01152-2
84. Koren G, Clark S, Hankins GD, Caritis SN, Miodovnik M, Umans JG, et al. Effectiveness of
delayed-release doxylamine and pyridoxine for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a randomized
placebo controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:571.e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ajog.2010.07.030
85. Maina A, Arrotta M, Cicogna L, Donvito V, Mischinelli M, Todros T, et al. Transdermal clonidine in
the treatment of severe hyperemesis. A pilot randomised control trial: CLONEMESI. BJOG
2014;121:155662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12757
86. Maltepe C, Koren G. The management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and hyperemesis
gravidarum a 2013 update. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 2013;20:e18492.
87. Mao ZN, Liang CE. Observation on therapeutic effect of acupuncture on hyperemesis gravidarum.
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu 2009;29:9736.
88. McParlin C, Carrick-Sen D, Steen IN, Taylor P, Robson SC. Hyperemesis in pregnancy study:
a randomised controlled trial of midwife-led outpatient care. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
2008;93:Fa9.
89. Mohammadbeigi R, Shahgeibi S, Soufizadeh N, Rezaiie M, Farhadifar F. Comparing the effects of
ginger and metoclopramide on the treatment of pregnancy nausea. Pak J Biol Sci 2011;14:81720.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2011.817.820
90. Monias M. Evaluation of cyclizine with pyridoxine in vomiting of pregnancy. Mil Med
1957;121:4034.
91. Naeimi Rad M, Lamyian M, Heshmat R, Jaafarabadi MA, Yazdani S. A randomized clinical trial of
the efficacy of KID21 point (youmen) acupressure on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
Iran Red Crescent Med J 2012;14:697701. http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.2153
92. Narenji F, Delavar M, Rafiei M. Comparison the effects of the ginger fresh root and vitamin B6 on
the nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. IJOGI 2012;15:3943.
178
93. Nelson-Piercy C, Fayers P, Swiet M. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of

corticosteroids for the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. BJOG 2001;108:915. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/s0306-5456(00)00017-6
94. Neri I, Allais G, Schiapparelli P, Blasi I, Benedetto C, Facchinetti F. Acupuncture versus
pharmacological approach to reduce Hyperemesis gravidarum discomfort. Minerva Ginecol
2005;57:4715.
95. Oliveira LG, Capp S, You WB, Carstairs SD. Ondansetron versus doxylamine/pyridoxine for
treatment of nausea and vomiting in first trimester pregnancy: a prospective randomized
double-blind controlled study. Acad Emerg Med 2013;1:S101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
AOG.0000000000000479
96. Ozgoli G, Goli M, Simbar M. Effects of ginger capsules on pregnancy, nausea, and vomiting.
J Altern Complement Med 2009;15:2436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/acm.2008.0406
97. Pasha H, Behmanesh F, Mohsenzadeh F, Hajahmadi M, Moghadamnia AA. Study of the effect of
mint oil on nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2012;14:72730.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.3477
98. Rosen T, de Veciana M, Miller HS, Stewart L, Rebarber A, Slotnick RN. A randomized controlled
trial of nerve stimulation for relief of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol
2003;102:12935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00375-2
99. Safari HR, Fassett MJ, Souter IC, Alsulyman OM, Goodwin TM. The efficacy of methylprednisolone
in the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:9214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70189-9
100. Sahakian V, Rouse D, Sipes S, Rose N, Niebyl J. Vitamin B6 is effective therapy for nausea and
vomiting of pregnancy: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Obstet Gynecol
1991;78:336.
101. Smith C, Crowther C, Beilby J. Acupuncture to treat nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy:
a randomized controlled trial. Birth 2002;29:19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-536X.2002.
00149.x
102. Smith C, Crowther C, Willson K, Hotham N, McMillian V. A randomized controlled trial of ginger
to treat nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:63945. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1097/01.AOG.0000118307.19798.ec
103. Sripramote M, Lekhyananda N. A randomized comparison of ginger and vitamin B6 in the
treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. J Med Assoc Thai 2003;86:84653.
104. Steele NM, French J, Gatherer-Boyles J, Newman S, Leclaire S. Effect of acupressure by sea-bands
on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2001;30:6170.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2001.tb01522.x
105. Sullivan CA, Johnson CA, Roach H, Martin RW, Stewart DK, Morrison JC. A pilot study of
intravenous ondansetron for hyperemesis gravidarum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:15658.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70607-5
106. Tan PC, Khine PP, Vallikkannu N, Omar SZ. Promethazine compared with metoclopramide for
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d99290
107. Tan PC, Yow CM, Omar SZ. A placebo-controlled trial of oral pyridoxine in hyperemesis
gravidarum. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2009;67:1517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000181182
179
REFERENCES
108. Tan PC, Norazilah MJ, Omar SZ. Dextrose saline compared with normal saline rehydration of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827c5e99
109. Veciana M, Stewart L, Miller H, Slotnick R, Rebarber A, Rosen T. Multicenter randomized
controlled trial of nerve stimulation therapy for the relief of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:S182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(01)80402-6
110. Vutyavanich T, Kraisarin T, Ruangsri R. Ginger for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: randomized,
double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:57782. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0029-7844(00)01228-X
111. Werntoft E, Dykes AK. Effect of acupressure on nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.
A randomized, placebo-controlled, pilot study. J Reprod Med 2001;46:8359.
112. Wibowo N, Purwosunu Y, Sekizawa A, Farina A, Tambunan V, Bardosono S. Vitamin B6
supplementation in pregnant women with nausea and vomiting. Int J Gynaecol Obstet
2012;116:20610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.09.030
113. Willetts KE, Ekangaki A, Eden JA. Effect of a ginger extract on pregnancy-induced nausea:
a randomised controlled trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;43:13944. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1046/j.0004-8666.2003.00039.x
114. Yost NP, McIntire DD, Wians FH Jr, Ramin SM, Balko JA, Leveno KJ. A randomized,
placebo-controlled trial of corticosteroids for hyperemesis due to pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol
2003;102:12504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obstetgynecol.2003.08.013
115. Zhang HH. Observation on therapeutic effect of acupuncture and moxibustion on hyperemesis
gravidarum. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu 2005;25:46970.
116. Ziaei S, Hosseiney FS, Faghihzadeh S. The efficacy low dose of prednisolone in the treatment of
hyperemesis gravidarum. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004;83:2725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.0001-6349.2004.0141.x
117. Maltepe C, Koren G. Preemptive treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: results of a
randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol Int 2013;809787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/
2013/809787
118. Smith C, Crowther C, Beilby J. Pregnancy outcome following womens participation in a
randomised controlled trial of acupuncture to treat nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.
Complement Ther Med 2002;10:7883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/ctim.2002.0523
119. Biswas SC, Bal R, Kamilya GS, Mukherjee J, Hazra A, Narender S, et al. A single-masked,
randomized, controlled trial of ginger extract in the treatment of nausea and vomiting of
pregnancy. 49th All India Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology: Cochin, Kerala State, India;
69 January 2006. URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/832/
CN-00582832/frame.html (accessed 28 November 2014).
120. Alalade AO, Khan R, Dawlatly B. Day-case management of hyperemesis gravidarum: feasibility
and clinical efficacy. J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;27:3634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01443610701327396
121. Einarson A, Maltepe C, Navioz Y, Kennedy D, Tan MP, Koren G. The safety of ondansetron for
nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a prospective comparative study. BJOG 2004;111:9403.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00236.x
122. Ferreira E, Bussieres JF, Turcotte V, Duperron L, Ouellet G. Case-control study comparing
droperidol plus diphenhydramine with conventional treatment in hyperemesis gravidarum.
JPT 2003;19:34954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/875512250301900602
180
123. Hsu JJ, Clark-Glena R, Nelson DK, Kim CH. Nasogastric enteral feeding in the management of
hyperemesis gravidarum. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:3436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844
(96)00174-3
124. Markose MT, Ramanathan K, Vijayakumar J. Reduction of nausea, vomiting, and dry retches with
P6 acupressure during pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85:1689. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijgo.2003.09.008
125. Moran P, Taylor R. Management of hyperemesis gravidarum: the importance of weight loss as a
criterion for steroid therapy. QJM 2002;95:1538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/95.3.153
126. Saha S, Loranger D, Pricolo V, Degli-Esposti S. Feeding jejunostomy for the treatment of severe
hyperemesis gravidarum: a case series. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2009;33:52934. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0148607109333000
127. Koren G, Maltepe C. Preemptive Diclectin therapy for the management of nausea and vomiting
of pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:S20. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.205
128. Safari HR, Fassett MJ, Souter IC, Goodwin TM. Randomized double-blind trial of
methylprednisolone versus promethazine in the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:S60.
129. Yang LC, Jawan B, Chen CN, Ho RT, Chang KA, Lee JH. Comparison of P6 acupoint injection
with 50% glucose in water and intravenous droperidol for prevention of vomiting after
gynecological laparoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1993;37:1924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1399-6576.1993.tb03699.x
130. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of
methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J
Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:2405.
131. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic
modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment.
Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:35571. http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006
132. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. 65th ed. London: BMJ Group and
Pharmaceutical Press; 2014.
133. Department of Health. Payment by Results in the NHS: Tariff for 2012 to 2013. URL: www.gov.
uk/government/publications/confirmation-of-payment-by-results-Pbr-arrangements-for-201213
(accessed 28 November 2014).
134. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2013. University of Kent: Personal Social Services
Research Unit; 2013.
135. Grimshaw J, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay C, Vale L, et al. Effectiveness and
efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess
2004;8(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta8060
136. Portnoi G, Chng L, Karimi-Tabesh L, Koren G, Tan MP, Einarson A. Prospective comparative study
of the safety and effectiveness of ginger for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;190:1140374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00649-5
137. Heitmann K, Nordeng H, Holst L. Safety of ginger use in pregnancy: results from a large
population-based cohort study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013;69:26977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00228-012-1331-5
138. Einarson T, Leeder J, Koren G. A method for metaanalysis of epidemiological studies. Drug Intell
Clin Pharm 1988;22:81324.
181
REFERENCES
139. McKeigue PM, Lamm SH, Linn S, Kutcher JS. Bendectin and birth defects: I. A meta-analysis of
the epidemiologic studies. Teratology 1994;50:2737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tera.1420500105
140. Seto A, Einarson T, Koren G. Pregnancy outcome following first trimester exposure to
antihistamines: meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol 1997;14:11924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/
s-2007-994110
141. Mazzotta P, Magee LA. A risk-benefit assessment of pharmacological and nonpharmacological
treatments for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Drugs 2000;59:781800. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2165/00003495-200059040-00005
142. Matok I, Gorodischer R, Koren G, Sheiner E, Wiznitzer A, Levy A. The safety of metoclopramide
use in the first trimester of pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2009;360:252835. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1056/NEJMoa0807154
143. Pasternak B, Svanstrom H, Molgaard-Nielsen D, Melbye M, Hviid A. Metoclopramide in pregnancy
and risk of major congenital malformations and fetal death. JAMA 2013;310:160111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.278343
144. Anderka M, Mitchell AA, Louik C, Werler MM, Hernandez-Diaz S, Rasmussen SA, et al.
Medications used to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and the risk of selected birth
defects. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2012;94:2230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
bdra.22865
145. Pasternak B, Svanstrom H, Hviid A. Ondansetron in pregnancy and risk of adverse fetal outcomes.
N Engl J Med 2013;368:81423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1211035
146. Freedman SB, Uleryk E, Rumantir M, Finkelstein Y. Ondansetron and the risk of cardiac arrhythmias:
a systematic review and postmarketing analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2014;64:1925,e16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.10.026
147. Park-Wyllie L, Mazzotta P, Pastuszak A, Moretti M, Beique L, Hunnisett L, et al. Birth defects after
maternal exposure to corticosteroids: prospective cohort study and meta-analysis of epidemiological
studies. Teratology 2000;62:38592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1096-9926(200012)62:6<385::
AID-TERA5>3.0.CO;2-Z
148. Czeizel AE, Rockenbauer M. Population-based case-control study of teratogenic potential of
corticosteroids. Teratology 1997;56:33540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9926(199711)
56:5<335::AID-TERA7>3.0.CO;2-W
149. Tata LJ, Lewis SA, McKeever TM, Smith CJP, Doyle P, Smeeth L, et al. Effect of maternal asthma,
exacerbations and asthma medication use on congenital malformations in offspring: a UK
population-based study. Thorax 2008;63:981987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thx.2008.098244
150. Guttuso T Jr, Shaman M, Thornburg LL. Potential maternal symptomatic benefit of gabapentin
and review of its safety in pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;181:2803.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.08.013
151. McCarthy FP, Murphy A, Khashan AS, McElroy B, Spillane N, Marchocki Z, et al. Day care compared
with inpatient management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial.
Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:7438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000449
152. UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS). Use of Ginger in Pregnancy. London: UKTIS; 2013.
153. UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS). Use of Vitamin B12 in Pregnancy. London: UKTIS; 2013.
154. UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS). Use of Vitamin B6 in Pregnancy. London: UKTIS; 2011.
155. UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS). Use of Promethazine in Pregnancy. London: UKTIS; 2010.
156. UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS). Use of Ondansetron in Pregnancy. London: UKTIS; 2014.
182
Appendix 1 Examples of hyperemesis

gravidarum/nausea and vomiting in pregnancy
assessment tools
T his assessment has been reproduced with permission from Professor Gideon Koren, Director,
The Motherisk Program; Professor of Pediatrics, Pharmacology, Pharmacy, Medicine and Medical Genetics
at The University of Toronto; Senior Scientist at The Research Institute Hospital for Sick Children; and
The Ivey Chair in Molecular Toxicology at the University of Western Ontario Canada, 2014,
personal communication.
Motherisk PUQE-24 scoring system
Please fill out the Motherisk PUQE Scoring System for the last 24 hours (please tick box and
write total score)
1. In the last 24 hours, for how long Not at 1 hour 2-3 4-6 More Total Mild: 6
have you felt nauseated or sick at your all or less hours hours than 6 hrs Moderate:
stomach, hours 7-12
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Severe: 13
2. In the last 24 hours, have you 7 or 5-6 3-4 1-2 I did not Total
vomited or thrown up, more throw up #
times
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
3. In the last 24 hours, how many times No time 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 or more Total
have you had retching or dry heaves #
without bringing anything up, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Total
score:____
How many hours have you slept out of 24 hours? _______ Why?
______________________________________
On a scale of 0-10, how would you rate your Well Being?
0 (Worst possible) _______________________________10 (The best you felt before

pregnancy)
Can you tell me what causes you to feel that way?

__________________________________________________________________
183
APPENDIX 1
Likert scale example (6-point)
Frequency
0 1 2 3 4 5
(occasionally)
(not at all) (3-6 days (daily) (more than (all the
during the once a time)
week) day)
(1) How often have

you felt like being sick
(nauseous) in the past
week?
(2) How often have

you retched (but
without actually being
sick) in the past week?
(3) How often have

you been physically
sick during the past
week?
Visual Analogue Scale
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No Severe
nausea nausea
184
Appendix 2 Data abstraction form:

clinical effectiveness
185
APPENDIX 2
186
187
APPENDIX 2
188
189
APPENDIX 2
190
191
APPENDIX 2
192
193
Appendix 3 Risk of bias for randomised

controlled trials
Domain Description Review authors judgement
Sequence generation Describe the method used to generate the allocation Was the allocation sequence
sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of adequately generated?
whether or not it should produce comparable groups
Allocation concealment Describe the method used to conceal the allocation Was allocation adequately
sequence in sufficient detail to determine whether or concealed?
not intervention allocations could have been foreseen in
advance of, or during, enrolment
Blinding of participants, Describe all measures used, if any, to blind study Was knowledge of the
personnel and outcome participants and personnel from knowledge of which allocated intervention
assessors intervention a participant received. Provide any adequately prevented during
information relating to whether the intended blinding the study?
Assessments should be made was effective
for each main outcome
(or class of outcomes)
Incomplete outcome data Describe the completeness of outcome data for each Were incomplete outcome
main outcome, including attrition and exclusions from data adequately addressed?
Assessments should be made the analysis. State whether attrition and exclusions were
for each main outcome reported, the numbers in each intervention group
(or class of outcomes) (compared with total randomised participants), reasons
for attrition/exclusions where reported, and any
reinclusions in analyses performed by the review authors
Selective outcome reporting State how the possibility of selective outcome reporting Are reports of the study free
was examined by the review authors, and what was of suggestion of selective
found outcome reporting?
Other sources of bias State any important concerns about bias not addressed Was the study apparently free
in the other domains in the tool of other problems that could
put it at a high risk of bias?
If particular questions/entries were pre-specified in the
reviews protocol, responses should be provided for
each question/entry
Possible approach for summary assessments outcome

(across domains) within and across studies
Risk of bias Interpretation Within a study Across studies
Low risk of bias Plausible bias unlikely to Low risk of bias for all key Most information is from studies
seriously alter the results domains at low risk of bias
Unclear risk of Plausible bias that raises some Unclear risk of bias for one Most information is from studies
bias doubt about the results or more key domains at low or unclear risk of bias
High risk of bias Plausible bias that seriously High risk of bias for one or The proportion of information
weakens confidence in the more key domains from studies at high risk of bias
results is sufficient to affect the
interpretation of the results
195
APPENDIX 3
Criteria for judging risk of bias in the risk of bias

assessment tool
Sequence generation
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated? [Short form: Adequate sequence generation?]
Criteria for a judgement of YES The investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation process
(i.e. low risk of bias) such as:
l referring to a random number table; using a computer random number generator;

coin tossing; shuffling cards or envelopes; throwing dice; drawing of lots;
minimisationa
Criteria for the judgement of The investigators describe a non-random component in the sequence generation
NO (i.e. high risk of bias) process. Usually, the description would involve some systematic, non-random
approach, for example:
l sequence generated by odd or even date of birth

l sequence generated by some rule based on date (or day) of admission
l sequence generated by some rule based on hospital or clinic record number
Other non-random approaches happen much less frequently than the systematic
approaches mentioned above and tend to be obvious. They usually involve judgement
or some method of non-random categorisation of participants, for example:
l allocation by judgement of the clinician

l allocation by preference of the participant
l allocation based on the results of a laboratory test or a series of tests
l allocation by availability of the intervention
Criteria for the judgement Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of
of UNCLEAR (uncertain YES or NO
risk of bias)
Was allocation adequately concealed? [Short form: Allocation concealment?]
Criteria for a judgement of YES Participants and investigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment
(i.e. low risk of bias) because one of the following, or an equivalent method, was used to conceal
allocation:
l central allocation (including telephone, web-based, and pharmacy-controlled,

randomisation)
l sequentially numbered drug containers of identical appearance
l sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes
Criteria for the judgement of Participants or investigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments
NO (i.e. high risk of bias) and thus introduce selection bias, such as allocation based on:
l using an open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers)

l assignment envelopes were used without appropriate safeguards (e.g. if envelopes
were unsealed or non-opaque or not sequentially numbered)
l alternation or rotation
l date of birth
l case record number
l any other explicitly unconcealed procedure
Criteria for the judgement Insufficient information to permit judgement of YES or NO. This is usually the case if
of UNCLEAR (uncertain the method of concealment is not described or not described in sufficient detail to
risk of bias) allow a definite judgement; for example, if the use of assignment envelopes is
described, but it remains unclear whether envelopes were sequentially numbered,
opaque and sealed
196
Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors
Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented during the study? [Short form: Blinding?]
Criteria for a judgement of YES Any one of the following:

(i.e. low risk of bias)
l no blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome and the outcome
measurement are not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
l blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured, and unlikely that the
blinding could have been broken
l either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, but outcome
assessment was blinded and the non-blinding of others unlikely to introduce bias
Criteria for the judgement of Any one of the following:

NO (i.e. high risk of bias)
l no blinding or incomplete blinding, and the outcome or outcome measurement is
likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
l blinding of key study participants and personnel attempted, but likely that the
blinding could have been broken
l either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, and the
non-blinding of others likely to introduce bias
Criteria for the judgement Any one of the following:

of UNCLEAR (uncertain
risk of bias) l insufficient information to permit judgement of YES or NO
l the study did not address this outcome
Incomplete outcome data
Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? [Short form: Incomplete outcome data addressed?]
Criteria for a judgement of YES Any one of the following:

l no missing outcome data
l reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome (for
survival data, censoring unlikely to be introducing bias)
l missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar
reasons for missing data across groups
l for dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared
with observed event risk not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the
intervention effect estimate
l for continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or
standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes not enough to have a
clinically relevant impact on observed effect size
l missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods

l reason for missing outcome data likely to be related to true outcome, with either
imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups
l for dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared
with observed event risk enough to induce clinically relevant bias in intervention
effect estimate
l For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or
standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes enough to induce
clinically relevant bias in observed effect size
l as-treated analysis done with substantial departure of the intervention received
from that assigned at randomisation
l potentially inappropriate application of simple imputation
Criteria for the judgement Any one of the following:

risk of bias) l insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgement of YES or NO
(e.g. number randomised not stated, no reasons for missing data provided)
l The study did not address this outcome
197
APPENDIX 3
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? [Short form: Free of selective
reporting?]
Criteria for a judgement of YES Any of the following:

l the study protocol is available and all of the studys pre-specified (primary and
secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the
pre-specified way
l the study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include
all expected outcomes, including those that were pre-specified (convincing text
of this nature may be uncommon)

l not all of the studys pre-specified primary outcomes have been reported
l one or more primary outcomes is reported using measurements, analysis methods
or subsets of the data (e.g. subscales) that were not pre-specified
l one or more reported primary outcomes were not pre-specified (unless clear
justification for their reporting is provided such as an unexpected adverse effect)
l one or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that
they cannot be entered in a meta-analysis
l the study report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected
to have been reported for such a study
Criteria for the judgement Insufficient information to permit judgement of YES or NO. It is likely that the
of UNCLEAR (uncertain majority of studies will fall into this category
risk of bias)
Other potential threats to validity
Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a risk of bias? [Short form: Free of other
bias?]
Criteria for a judgement of YES The study appears to be free of other sources of bias
Criteria for the judgement of There is at least one important risk of bias. For example, the study:
l had a potential source of bias related to the specific study design used; or
l stopped early due to some data-dependent process (including a
formal-stopping rule); or
l had extreme baseline imbalance; or
l has been claimed to have been fraudulent; or
l had some other problem
Criteria for the judgement There may be a risk of bias, but there is either:
risk of bias) l insufficient information to assess whether or not an important risk of bias exists; or
l insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem will introduce bias
a Minimisation may be implemented without a random element, and this is considered to be equivalent to being random.
198
Appendix 4 Quality of case series studies
COMPONENT RATINGS
A) SELECTION BIAS
(Q1) Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative
of the target population?
1 Very likely
2 Somewhat likely
3 Not likely
4 Cant tell
(Q2) What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate?
1 80 - 100% agreement
2 60 79% agreement
3 less than 60% agreement
4 Not applicable
5 Cant tell
B) STUDY DESIGN
Indicate the study design
1 Randomised controlled trial
2 Controlled clinical trial
199
APPENDIX 4
3 Cohort analytic (two group pre + post)
4 Case-control
5 Cohort (one group pre + post (before and after))
6 Interrupted time series
7 Other specify ____________________________
8 Cant tell
Was the study described as randomized? If NO, go to Component C.
No Yes
If Yes, was the method of randomization described? (See dictionary)
No Yes
If Yes, was the method appropriate? (See dictionary)
No Yes
C) CONFOUNDERS
(Q1) Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention?
Yes
No
Cant tell
The following are examples of confounders:
Race
Sex
Marital status/family
200
Age
SES (income or class)
Education
Health status
Pre-intervention score on outcome measure
(Q2) If yes, indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled
(either in the design (e.g. stratification, matching) or analysis)?
80 100% (most)
60 79% (some)
Less than 60% (few or none)
Cant Tell
D) BLINDING
(Q1) Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status
of participants?
Yes
No
Cant tell
(Q2) Were the study participants aware of the research question?
Yes
No
Cant tell
201
APPENDIX 4
E) DATA COLLECTION METHODS
(Q1) Were data collection tools shown to be valid?
Yes
No
Cant tell
(Q2) Were data collection tools shown to be reliable?
Yes
No
Cant tell
F) WITHDRAWALS AND DROP-OUTS
(Q1) Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons
per group?
Yes
No
Cant tell
Not Applicable (i.e. one time surveys or interviews)
(Q2) Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study. (If the percentage
differs by groups, record the lowest).
80 -100%
60 - 79%
202
less than 60%
Cant tell
Not Applicable (i.e. Retrospective case-control)
G) INTERVENTION INTEGRITY
(Q1) What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure

of interest?
80 -100%
60 - 79%
less than 60%
Cant tell
(Q2) Was the consistency of the intervention measured?
Yes
No
Cant tell
(Q3) Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or

co-intervention) that may influence the results?
Yes
No
Cant tell
H) ANALYSES
(Q1) Indicate the unit of allocation (circle one)
203
APPENDIX 4
community organisation/institution practice/office individual
(Q2) Indicate the unit of analysis (circle one)
community organisation/institution practice/office individual
(Q3) Are the statistical methods appropriate for the study design?
Yes
No
Cant tell
(Q4) Is the analysis performed by intervention allocation status (i.e. intention to treat)
rather than the actual intervention received? (per protocol)
Yes
No
Cant tell
GLOBAL RATING
COMPONENT RATINGS
Please transcribe the information from the boxes on pages 1-4 onto this page. See
dictionary on how to rate this section.
204
GLOBAL RATING FOR THIS PAPER (circle one):
1 STRONG (no WEAK ratings)
2 MODERATE (one WEAK rating)
3 WEAK (two or more WEAK ratings)
With both reviewers discussing the ratings:
Is there a discrepancy between the two reviewers with respect to the component (A-F)
ratings?
No Yes
If yes, indicate the reason for the discrepancy
1 Oversight
2 Differences in interpretation of criteria
3 Differences in interpretation of study
Final decision of both reviewers (circle one):
1 STRONG
2 MODERATE
3 WEAK
205
Appendix 5 Included papers

Abas 2014
Abas MN, Tan PC, Azmi N, Omar SZ. Ondansetron compared with metoclopramide for hyperemesis
gravidarum: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:12729.
Adamczak 2007
Adamczak J, Kasdaglis J, Rinehart B, Antebi Y, Wolf E, Terrone D. A prospective randomized trial of

solumedrol dose pack vs. Phenergan for the treatment of symptomatic nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:S88.
Alalade 2007
Alalade AO, Khan R, Dawlatly B. Day-case management of hyperemesis gravidarum: feasibility and clinical
efficacy. J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;27:3634.
Ashkenazi-Hoffnung 2013
Ashkenazi-Hoffnung L, Merlob P, Stahl B, Klinger G. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of bi-daily
combination therapy with pyridoxine and doxylamine for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Isr Med Assoc J
2013;15:236.
Babaei 2014
Babaei AH, Foghaha MH. A randomized comparison of vitamin B6 and dimenhydrinate in the treatment of
nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2014;19:199202.
Basirat 2009
Basirat Z, Moghadamnia AA, Kashifard M, Sarifi-Razavi A. The effect of ginger biscuit on nausea and
vomiting in early pregnancy. Acta Medica Iranica 2009;47:516.
Bayreuther 1994
Bayreuther J, Lewith GT, Pickering R. A double-blind cross-over study to evaluate the effectiveness of
acupressure at pericardium 6 (P6) in the treatment of early morning sickness (EMS). Complement Ther Med
1994;2:706.
Belluomini 1994
Belluomini J, Litt RC, Lee KA, Katz M. Acupressure for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a randomized,
blinded study. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:2458.
207
APPENDIX 5
Biswas 2011
Biswas SC, Dey R, Kamliya GS, Bal R, Hazra A, Tripathi SK. A single-masked, randomized, controlled trial of
ginger extract in the treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. JIMSA 2011;24:1679.
Bondok 2006
Bondok RS, El Sharnouby NM, Eid HE, Abd Elmaksoud AM. Pulsed steroid therapy is an effective treatment
for intractable hyperemesis gravidarum. Crit Care Med 2006;34:27813.
Capp 2014
Capp S, Oliveira L, Carstairs S, You W. Ondansetron versus doxylamine/pyridoxine for treatment of nausea
and vomiting in pregnancy: a prospective randomized double-blind trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2014;210:S39.
Can Gurkan 2008
Can Gurkan O, Arslan H. Effect of acupressure on nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Complement
Ther Clin Pract 2008;14:4652.
Carlsson 2000
Carlsson CP, Axemo P, Bodin A, Carstensen H, Ehrenroth B, Madegard-Lind I, et al. Manual acupuncture
reduces hyperemesis gravidarum: a placebo-controlled, randomized, single-blind, crossover study.
J Pain Symptom Manage 2000;20:2739.
Chittumma 2007
Chittumma P, Kaewkiattikun K, Wiriyasiriwach B. Comparison of the effectiveness of ginger and vitamin

B6 for treatment of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy: a randomized double-blind controlled trial.
J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90:1520.
Diggory 1962
Diggory PL, Tomkinson JS. Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. A trial of meclozine dihydrochloride with
and without pyridoxine. Lancet 1962;2:3702.
Ditto 1999
Ditto A, Morgante G, la Marca A, De Leo V. Evaluation of treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum using

parenteral fluid with or without diazepam. A randomized study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1999;48:2326.
208
Eftekhari 2013
Eftekhari N, Mehralhasani Y. A comparison of ondansetron and promethasin in treating hyperemesis

gravidarum. JKUMS 2013;20:35465.
Einarson 2004
Einarson A, Maltepe C, Navioz Y, Kennedy D, Tan MP, Koren G. The safety of ondansetron for nausea and
vomiting of pregnancy: a prospective comparative study. BJOG 2004;111:9403.
Ensiyeh 2009
Ensiyeh J, Sakineh MA. Comparing ginger and vitamin B6 for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in
pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Midwifery 2009;25:64953.
Erez 1971
Erez S, Schifrin BS, Dirim O. Double-blind evaluation of hydroxyzine as an antiemetic in pregnancy.

J Reprod Med 1971;7:357.
Evans 1993
Evans AT, Samuels SN, Marshall C, Bertolucci LE. Suppression of pregnancy-induced nausea and vomiting
with sensory afferent stimulation. J Reprod Med 1993;38:6036.
Ferreira 2003
Ferreira E, Bussieres JF, Turcotte V, Duperron L, Ouellet G. Case-control study comparing droperidol plus
diphenhydramine with conventional treatment in hyperemesis gravidarum. JPT 2003;19:34954.
Fischer-Rasmussen 1991
Fischer-Rasmussen W, Kjaer SK, Dahl C, Asping U. Ginger treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum.

Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991;38:1924.
Ghahiri 2011
Ghahiri AA, Abdi F, Mastoo R, Ghasemi M. The effect of ondansetron and metoclopramide in nausea and
vomiting of pregnancy. JIMS 2011;29:25965.
Ghani 2013
Ghani RMA, Ibrahim ATA. The effect of aromatherapy inhalation on nausea and vomiting in early
pregnancy: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Nat Sci Res 2013;3:1022.
209
APPENDIX 5
Guttuso 2010
Guttuso T Jr, Robinson LK, Amankwah KS. Gabapentin use in hyperemesis gravidarum: a pilot study.
Early Hum Dev 2010;86:656.
Haji Seid Javadi 2013
Haji Seid Javadi E, Salehi F, Mashrabi O. Comparing the effectiveness of vitamin B6 and ginger in
treatment of pregnancy-induced nausea and vomiting. Obstet Gynecol Int 2013;927834.
Heazell 2006
Heazell A, Thorneycroft J, Walton V, Etherington I. Acupressure for the inpatient treatment of nausea and
vomiting in early pregnancy: a randomized control trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:81520.
Hsu 1996
Hsu JJ, Clark-Glena R, Nelson DK, Kim CH. Nasogastric enteral feeding in the management of hyperemesis
gravidarum. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:3436.
Hsu 2003
Hsu E, Pei V, Shofer FS, Abbuhl SB. A prospective randomized controlled trial of acupressure vs sham for
pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:437.
Jamigorn 2007
Jamigorn M, Phupong V. Acupressure and vitamin B6 to relieve nausea and vomiting in pregnancy:
a randomized study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2007;276:2459.
Kashifard 2013
Kashifard M, Basirat Z, Kashifard M, Golsorkhtabar-Amiri M, Moghaddamnia A. Ondansetrone or

metoclopromide? Which is more effective in severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy? A randomized trial
double-blind study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2013;40:12730.
Keating 2002
Keating A, Chez RA. Ginger syrup as an antiemetic in early pregnancy. Altern Ther Health Med
2002;8:8991.
Knight 2001
Knight B, Mudge C, Openshaw S, White A, Hart A. Effect of acupuncture on nausea of pregnancy:

a randomized, controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:1848.
210
Koren 2010
Koren G, Clark S, Hankins GD, Caritis SN, Miodovnik M, Umans JG, et al. Effectiveness of delayed-release
doxylamine and pyridoxine for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a randomized placebo controlled trial.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:571.e17.
Koren 2013
Koren G, Maltepe C. Preemptive Diclectin therapy for the management of nausea and vomiting of
pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:S20.
Maina 2014
Maina A, Arrotta M, Cicogna L, Donvito V, Mischinelli M, Todros T, et al. Transdermal clonidine in the
treatment of severe hyperemesis. A pilot randomised control trial: CLONEMESI. BJOG 2014;121:155662.
Maltepe 2013
Maltepe C, Koren G. Preemptive treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: results of a randomized
controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol Int 2013;809787.
Mao 2009
Mao ZN, Liang CE. [Observation on therapeutic effect of acupuncture on hyperemesis gravidarum.]
Zhongguo Zhenjiu 2009;29:9736.
Markose 2004
Markose MT, Ramanathan K, Vijayakumar J. Reduction of nausea, vomiting, and dry retches with P6
acupressure during pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85:1689.
McParlin 2008
Primary reference
McParlin C, Carrick-Sen D, Steen IN, Taylor P, Robson SC. Hyperemesis in pregnancy study: a randomised
controlled trial of midwife-led outpatient care. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2008;93:Fa9.
Secondary reference
McParlin C, Carrick-Sen D, Steen IN, Taylor P, Robson SC. Hyperemesis in pregnancy study: a randomised
controlled trial of midwife-led outpatient care. Unpublished.
Mohammadbeigi 2011
Mohammadbeigi R, Shahgeibi S, Soufizadeh N, Rezaiie M, Farhadifar F. Comparing the effects of ginger

and metoclopramide on the treatment of pregnancy nausea. Pak J Biol Sci 2011;14:81720.
211
APPENDIX 5
Monias 1957
Monias M. Evaluation of cyclizine with pyridoxine in vomiting of pregnancy. Mil Med 1957;121:4034.
Moran 2002
Moran P, Taylor R. Management of hyperemesis gravidarum: the importance of weight loss as a criterion
for steroid therapy. QJM 2002;95:1538.
Naeimi Rad 2012
Naeimi Rad M, Lamyian M, Heshmat R, Jaafarabadi MA, Yazdani S. A randomized clinical trial of
the efficacy of KID21 point (youmen) acupressure on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Iran
2012;14:697701.
Narenji 2012
Narenji F, Delavar M, Rafiei M. Comparison the effects of the ginger fresh root and vitamin B6 on the
nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. IJOGI 2012;15:3943.
Nelson-Piercy 2001
Nelson-Piercy C, Fayers P, Swiet M. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of corticosteroids

for the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. BJOG 2001;108:915.
Neri 2005
Neri I, Allais G, Schiapparelli P, Blasi I, Benedetto C, Facchinetti F. Acupuncture versus pharmacological

approach to reduce hyperemesis gravidarum discomfort. Minerva Ginecol 2005;57:4715.
Oliveira 2013
Oliveira LG, Capp S, You WB, Carstairs SD. Ondansetron versus doxylamine/pyridoxine for treatment of
nausea and vomiting in first trimester pregnancy: a prospective randomized double-blind controlled study.
Acad Emerg Med 2013;1:S101.
Ozgoli 2009
Ozgoli G, Goli M, Simbar M. Effects of ginger capsules on pregnancy, nausea, and vomiting. J Altern
Complement Med 2009;15:2436.
Pasha 2012
Pasha H, Behmanesh F, Mohsenzadeh F, Hajahmadi M, Moghadamnia AA. Study of the effect of mint oil
on nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2012;14:72730.
212
Pongrojpaw 2007
Pongrojpaw D, Somprasit C, Chanthasenanont A. A randomized comparison of ginger and dimenhydrinate

in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90:17039.
Rosen 2003
Rosen T, de Veciana M, Miller HS, Stewart L, Rebarber A, Slotnick RN. A randomized controlled trial of
nerve stimulation for relief of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:12935.
Saberi 2013
Saberi F, Sadat Z, Abedzadeh-Kalahroudi M, Taebi M. Acupressure and ginger to relieve nausea and
vomiting in pregnancy: a randomized study. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2013;15:85461.
Safari 1998
Safari HR, Fassett MJ, Souter IC, Alsulyman OM, Goodwin TM. The efficacy of methylprednisolone in the
treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1998;179:9214.
Saha 2009
Saha S, Loranger D, Pricolo V, Degli-Esposti S. Feeding jejunostomy for the treatment of severe
hyperemesis gravidarum: a case series. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2009;33:52934.
Sahakian 1991
Sahakian V, Rouse D, Sipes S, Rose N, Niebyl J. Vitamin B6 is effective therapy for nausea and vomiting of
pregnancy: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:336.
Smith 2002
Smith C, Crowther C, Beilby J. Acupuncture to treat nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy:
a randomized controlled trial. Birth 2002;29:19.
Smith 2004
Smith C, Crowther C, Willson K, Hotham N, McMillian V. A randomized controlled trial of ginger to treat
nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:63945.
Sripramote 2003
Sripramote M, Lekhyananda N. A randomized comparison of ginger and vitamin B6 in the treatment of

nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. J Med Assoc Thai 2003;86:84653.
213
APPENDIX 5
Steele 2001
Steele NM, French J, Gatherer-Boyles J, Newman S, Leclaire S. Effect of acupressure by sea-bands on

nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2001;30:6170.
Sullivan 1996
Sullivan CA, Johnson CA, Roach H, Martin RW, Stewart DK, Morrison JC. A pilot study of intravenous
ondansetron for hyperemesis gravidarum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:15658.
Tan 2009
Tan PC, Yow CM, Omar SZ. A placebo-controlled trial of oral pyridoxine in hyperemesis gravidarum.
Gynecol Obstet Invest 2009;67:1517.
Tan 2010
Tan PC, Khine PP, Vallikkannu N, Omar SZ. Promethazine compared with metoclopramide for hyperemesis
Tan 2013
Tan PC, Norazilah MJ, Omar SZ. Dextrose saline compared with normal saline rehydration of hyperemesis
Veciana 2001
Veciana M, Stewart L, Miller H, Slotnick R, Rebarber A, Rosen T. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of
nerve stimulation therapy for the relief of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2001;185:S182.
Vutyavanich 1995
Vutyavanich T, Wongtra-ngan S, Ruangsri R. Pyridoxine for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy:

a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:8814.
Vutyavanich 2001
Vutyavanich T, Kraisarin T, Ruangsri R. Ginger for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: randomized,
double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:57782.
Wentoft 2001
Werntoft E, Dykes AK. Effect of acupressure on nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. A randomized,
placebo-controlled, pilot study. J Reprod Med 2001;46:8359.
214
Wibowo 2012
Wibowo N, Purwosunu Y, Sekizawa A, Farina A, Tambunan V, Bardosono S. Vitamin B6 supplementation

in pregnant women with nausea and vomiting. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012;116:20610.
Willetts 2003
Willetts KE, Ekangaki A, Eden JA. Effect of a ginger extract on pregnancy-induced nausea: a randomised
controlled trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;43:13944.
Yost 2003
Yost NP, McIntire DD, Wians FH Jr, Ramin SM, Balko JA, Leveno KJ. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial
of corticosteroids for hyperemesis due to pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:12504.
Zhang 2005
Zhang HH. [Observation on therapeutic effect of acupuncture and moxibustion on hyperemesis

gravidarum.] Zhongguo Zhenjiu 2005;25:46970.
Ziaei 2004
Ziaei S, Hosseiney FS, Faghihzadeh S. The efficacy low dose of prednisolone in the treatment of
hyperemesis gravidarum. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004;83:2725.
215
Appendix 6 Excluded papers and reasons

for exclusion
Required study design not met (n = 70)
Abas MN, Tan PC, Azmi N, Omar SZ. Ondansetron compared with metoclopramide for hyperemesis
Agren A, Berg M. Tactile massage and severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy womens
experiences. Scand J Caring Sci 2006;20:16976.
Ajufo I. Four-year retrospective review of day admission service provision for hyperemesis gravidarum (HG)
at St Thomas Hospital London [UK]. BJOG 2013;120:5345.
Bailit JL. Hyperemesis gravidarium: epidemiologic findings from a large cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2005;193:81114.
Balestri F. [Treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum with combined inositol and pyridoxine.] Gazz Med Ital
1955;114:2257.
Bond S. Large study finds metoclopramide can be safely used for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.
J Midwifery Womens Health 2009;54:51011.
Boone SA, Shields KM. Treating pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting with ginger. Ann Pharmacother
2005;39:171013.
Boskovic R, Einarson A, Maltepe C, Wolpin J, Koren G. Diclectin therapy for nausea and vomiting of
pregnancy: effects of optimal dosing. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003;25:8303.
Bozzo P, Koren G, Nava-Ocampo AA, Einarson A. The incidence of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy
(NVP): a comparison between depressed women treated with antidepressants and non-depressed women.
Clin Invest Med 2006;29:34750.
Brill JR. Acupressure for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a randomized, blinded study (4). Obstet
Gynecol 1995;85:15960.
Brodbaek HB, Damkier P. [The treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum with chlorobutanol-caffeine rectal
suppositories in Denmark: practice and evidence.] Ugeskr Laeger 2007;169:21223.
Bufano G, Cervellin G, Calderini MC, Coscelli C. [Enteral nutrition in hyperemesis gravidarum.] Rivista
Italiana di Nutrizione Parenterale ed Enterale 1992;10:2605.
Buttino L Jr, Coleman SK, Bergauer NK, Gambon C, Stanziano GJ. Home subcutaneous metoclopramide
therapy for hyperemesis gravidarum. J Perinatol 2000;20:35962.
Charlin V, Borghesi L, Hasbun J, Von Mulenbrock R, Moreno MI. Parenteral nutrition in hyperemesis
gravidarum. Nutrition 1993;9:2932; discussion 68.
Crawford-Faucher A. Which drug is more effective for treating hyperemesis gravidarum? Am Fam
Physician 2011;83:842.
217
APPENDIX 6
Fejzo MS, Magtira A, Schoenberg FP, MacGibbon K, Mullin P, Romero R, et al. Antihistamines and other
prognostic factors for adverse outcome in hyperemesis gravidarum. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
2013;170:716.
Fuchs K, Paldi E, Abramovici H, Peretz BA. Treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum by hypnosis. Int J Clin Exp
Hyp 1980;28:31323.
Gordon GH. Dextrose saline compared with normal saline rehydration of hyperemesis gravidarum:
a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:1360.
Heitmann K, Holst L, Maltepe C, Lupattelli A, Nordeng H. Treatment of nausea during pregnancy results
from a multinational, cross-sectional, internet-based study. Res Soc Adm Pharm 2014;10:e578.
Gill SK, Maltepe C, Mastali K, Koren G. The effect of acid-reducing pharmacotherapy on the severity of
nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Int 2009;585269.
Golaszewski T, Frigo P, Mark HE, Rattay F, Schaller A. [Treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum by

electrostimulation of the vestibular apparatus.] Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 1995;199:10710.
Goodwin TM, Poursharif B, Korst LM, MacGibbon KW, Romero R, Fejzo MS. Secular trends in the
treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. Am J Perinatol 2008;25:1417.
Gulley RM, Pleog NV, Gulley JM. Treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum with nasogastric feeding.
Nutr Clin Pract 1993;8:335.
Hordern CE, Medina Lucena H, Stanley KP, Sule MM. HARP Hyperemesis Ambulatory Rehydration
Project: development, implementation and improvement to minimise hospital stay. BJOG 2013;120:4323.
Hyde E. Acupressure therapy for morning sickness. A controlled clinical trial. J Nurse Midwifery
1989;34:1718.
Jednak MA, Shadigian EM, Kim MS, Woods ML, Hooper FG, Owyang C, et al. Protein meals reduce
nausea and gastric slow wave dysrhythmic activity in first trimester pregnancy. Am J Physiol
1999;277:G85561.
Jewell D, Young G, Hall PF. Review: antiemetic drugs reduce nausea in early pregnancy. Evid-Based
Med 2002;7:155.
Jungmayr P. [Pregnancy hyperemesis: a cohort study confirms safety of metoclopramide.] Deutsche

Apotheker Zeitung 2009;149:423.
Kawakami SI, Furuki Y, Kubota T, Souda Y, Souda T, Kyono K, et al. Effect of Chinese Herbal Medicine
Suppositories for Hyperemesis Gravidarum by Using an Index for Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy. In
Koren G, Bishai R, editors. Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy: State of the Art 2000. Toronto: Hospital
Sick Children, Motherisk Program; 2000. pp. 1227.
Khan TN, Karpate S, Shehmar M. Hyperemesis day centre audit. BJOG 2013;120:5278.
King TL, Murphy PA. Evidence-based approaches to managing nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.
J Midwifery Womens Health 2009;54:43044.
Koren G. Appraisal of drug therapy for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: I. The placebo
effect methodological and practical considerations. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2000;7:1357.
218
Lacasse A, Rey E, Ferreira E, Morin C, Brard A. Validity of a modified Pregnancy-Unique Quantification

of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE) scoring index to assess severity of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:71.e17.
Lacasse A, Berard A. Validation of the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy specific health related quality of
life questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:32.
Long MA, Simone SS, Tucher JJ. Outpatient treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum with stimulus control
and imagery procedures. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1986;17:1059.
Low KG. Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a review of the research. J Gender Culture Health
1996;1:15172.
Magee LA, Chandra K, Mazzotta P, Stewart D, Koren G, Guyatt GH. Development of a health-related
quality of life instrument for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:S2328.
Maina A, Todros T. A novel approach to hyperemesis gravidarum: evaluation by a visual analogue scale
score and treatment with transdermal clonidine. Obstet Med 2011;4:1569.
Matok I, Umans J, Feghali MN, Clark S, Caritis S, Miodovnik M, et al. Characteristics of women with
nausea and vomiting of pregnancy who chose to continue compassionate use of placebo after a
randomised trial. J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;33:55760.
Maxwell CI, Hilden K, Delegge MH, Kinikini MM, Olafsson S, Fang JC. Feasibility of percutaneous direct
jejunal feeding tubes in pregnant patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:AB2689.
McCauley L, Coleman S, Jacques D, Palmer B, Stanziano G. Safety and efficacy of ondansetron therapy for
nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:24S.
Milkovich L, van den Berg BJ. An evaluation of the teratogenicity of certain antinauseant drugs. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 1976;125:2448.
Munch S. A qualitative analysis of physician humanism: womens experiences with hyperemesis

gravidarum. J Perinatol 2000;20:5407.
Munch S, Schmitz MF. The Hyperemesis Beliefs Scale (HBS): a new instrument for assessing beliefs about
severe nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2007;28:21929.
Nelson-Piercy C, De Swiet M. Corticosteroids for the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. Br J Obstet

Gynaecol 1994;101:1013.
Norheim AJ, Pedersen EJ, Fonnebo V, Berge L. Acupressure treatment of morning sickness in pregnancy.
A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Scand J Prim Health Care 2001;19:437.
Nulman I, Rovet J, Barrera M, Knittel-Keren D, Feldman BM, Koren G. Long-term neurodevelopment of

children exposed to maternal nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and diclectin. J Pediatr
2009;155:4550,e12.
Onghena G, De ROM. [Clinical study of prochlorperazine in hyperemesis gravidarum.] Brux Med

1960;40:15514.
Palatty PL, Haniadka R, Valder B, Arora R, Baliga MS. Ginger in the prevention of nausea and vomiting:
a review. Clin Rev Food Sci Nutr 2013;53:65969.
219
APPENDIX 6
Pasquinucci C. [Association of vitamins B 1 and B 6 in high doses in therapy of hyperemesis gravidarum.]

Ann Ostet Ginecol Med Perinat 1965;87:6570.
Pasternak B, Svanstrom H, Molgaard-Nielsen D, Melbye M, Hviid A. Metoclopramide in pregnancy and risk

of major congenital malformations and fetal death. JAMA 2013;310:160111.
Pasternak B, Svanstrom H, Hviid A. Ondansetron in pregnancy and risk of adverse fetal outcomes. N Engl J
Med 2013;368:81423.
Portnoi G, Chng LA, Karimi-Tabesh L, Koren G, Tan MP, Einarson A. Prospective comparative study of the
safety and effectiveness of ginger for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2003;189:13747.
Puangsricharern A, Mahasukhon S. Effectiveness of auricular acupressure in the treatment of nausea and

vomiting in early pregnancy. J Med Assoc Thai 2008;91:16338.
Seidner HM. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy; preliminary trial of bonamine in sixteen patients. Ill Med J
1956;109:201.
Shrim A, Boskovic R, Maltepe C, Navios Y, Garcia-Bournissen F, Koren G. Pregnancy outcome following

use of large doses of vitamin B6 in the first trimester. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;26:74951.
Slotnick RN. Safe, successful nausea suppression in early pregnancy with P-6 acustimulation. J Reprod
Med 2001;46:81114.
Smith C, Crowther C. The placebo response and effect of time in a trial of acupuncture to treat nausea
and vomiting in early pregnancy. Complement Ther Med 2002;10:21016.
Smith C, Crowther C, Beilby J. Pregnancy outcome following womens participation in a randomised

controlled trial of acupuncture to treat nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Complement Ther
Med 2002;10:7883.
Sorensen HT, Nielsen GL, Christensen K, Tage-Jensen U, Ekbom A, Baron J. Birth outcome following
maternal use of metoclopramide. The Euromap study group. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000;49:2648.
Stainton MC, Neff EJ. The efficacy of SeaBands for the control of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
Health Care Women Int 1994;15:56375.
Subramaniam R, Soh EB, Dhillon HK, Abidin HZ. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and steroid usage in
the management of hyperemesis gravidarum. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;38:33941.
Taylor R. Successful management of hyperemesis gravidarum using steroid therapy. QJM 1996;89:1037.
Tompsett H, Ajala T, Dixon G, Kelly T. The implementation of an ambulatory care bundle for the treatment
of hyperemesis gravidarum. BJOG 2013;120:477.
Trovik J, Haram K, Berstad A, Flaatten H. [Nasoenteral tube feeding in hyperemesis gravidarum.

An alternative to parenteral nutrition.] Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1996;116:24424.
Vaisman N, Kaidar R, Levin I, Lessing JB. Nasojejunal feeding in hyperemesis gravidarum a preliminary
study. Clin Nutr 2004;23:537.
220
Wang Y, Lin Y, Wu X. The effect of total parenteral nutrition on hyperemesis gravidarum and pregnancy
ending. Clin Med China 2001;8:634.
Weinstein BB, Wohl Z, Mitchell GJ, Sustendal GF. Oral administration of pyridoxme hydrochloride in the
treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Amur J Obstet Gynecol 1944;47:38994.
Westfall RE, Janssen PA, Lucas P, Capler R. Survey of medicinal cannabis use among childbearing women:
patterns of its use in pregnancy and retroactive self-assessment of its efficacy against morning sickness.
Complement Ther Clin Pract 2006;12:2733.
Whittaker R. Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Corticosteroids for the Treatment of

Hyperemesis Gravidarum. 2003. URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/519/
CN-00473519/frame.html
Required participant inclusion criteria not met (n = 34)
Atanackovic G, Navioz Y, Moretti ME, Koren G. The safety of higher than standard dose of doxylamine-
pyridoxine (Diclectin) for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. J Clin Pharmacol 2001;41:8425.
Bethea RC. Evaluation of a combination of meclizine and pyridoxine in the control of nausea and vomiting
in pregnancy. Int Rec Med 1960;173:2837.
Bisley BL, Kay CR. Anti-emetic effects of a phenothiazine compared with an antihistamine. Practitioner
1964;193:35860.
Boneva RS, Moore CA, Botto L, Wong LY, Erickson JD. Nausea of Pregnancy, Antinausea Preparations and
Congenital Heart Defects: A Population-Based CaseControl Study. In Koren G, Bishai R, editors. Nausea
and Vomiting of Pregnancy: State of the Art 2000. Toronto: Hospital Sick Children, Motherisk Program;
2000. pp. 6072.
Christer C. Manual acupuncture at pc6 reduces hyperemesis gravidarum-a placebo-controlled randomised

crossover study. Akupunktur 1998;26:2612.
Coleman L, OSullivan M, Dilloway L, Sinha A, Epee M. An innovative ambulatory care service for women
suffering with hyperemesis gravidarum. BJOG 2014;121:19.
Cottin J, Beghin D, Jonville-Bera AP, Boyer M, Zenut M, Damase-Michel C, et al. First trimester exposure to
domperidone: a comparative prospective study. Fundam Clin Pharm 2013;27:44.
Czeizel AE, Dudas I, Fritz G, Tecsoi A, Hanck A, Kunovits G. The effect of periconceptional
multivitamin-mineral supplementation on vertigo, nausea and vomiting in the first trimester of pregnancy.
Arch Gynecol Obstet 1992;251:1815.
Dorsey CW. The use of pyridoxine and suprarenal cortex combined in the treatment of nausea and
vomiting of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1949;58:10738.
Duggar CR, Carlan SJ. The efficacy of methylprednisolone in the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum:
a randomized double-blind controlled study. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:45.
Dundee JW, Sourial FB, Ghaly RG, Bell PF. P6 acupressure reduces morning sickness. J R Soc Med
1988;81:4567.
221
APPENDIX 6
Durham MP. Clinical trial of buclizine hydrochloride for vomiting of pregnancy. Br Med J 1956;2:12767.
Eriksson G, Jullig D, Tysk U. [Postadoxin-a new remedy for nausea and emesis gravidarum. A clinical test
with the double-blind method.] Sven Lakartidn 1961;58:17225.
Fletcher SJ, Waterman H, Nelson L, Carter LA, Chuang LH, Roberts C, et al. The effectiveness and
cost-effectiveness of a holistic assessment and individualised package of care of women with hyperemesis
gravidarum: randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2013;120:5523.
Ge Q. The therapeutic effect of intravenous nutritional solution combined with psychological interventions
on 100 cases of hyperemesis gravidarum. China J Health Psychol 2012;9:13224.
Gill SK, Maltepe C, Koren G. The effectiveness of discontinuing iron-containing prenatal multivitamins on
reducing the severity of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol 2009;29:1316.
Hart BF, McConnell WT, Pickett AN. Vitamin and endocrine therapy in nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 1944;48:2513.
He XL, Zhong G, He Y. [Clinical observation on treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum by integrative

Chinese and Western medicine and its influence on serum motilin.] Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi
2009;29:8724.
Henker FO III. Psychotherapy as adjunct in treatment of vomiting during pregnancy. South Med J
1976;69:15857.
Klauser CK, Fox NS, Istwan N, Rhea D, Rebarber A, Desch C, et al. Treatment of severe nausea and
vomiting of pregnancy with subcutaneous medications. Am J Perinatol 2011;28:71521.
Koren G, Maltepe C. Pre-emptive therapy for severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and hyperemesis
gravidarum. J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;24:5303.
Lacasse A, Lagoutte A, Ferreira E, Berard A. Metoclopramide and diphenhydramine in the treatment of

hyperemesis gravidarum: effectiveness and predictors of rehospitalisation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod
Biol 2009;143:439.
Lacasse A, Lagoutte A, Ferreira E, Berard A. Metoclopramide and diphenhydramine in the treatment of

hyperemesis gravidarum: effectiveness, safety, and predictors of rehospitalisation. Pharmacoepidem Dr S
2007;16:S146S7.
Liu S-J. Clinical study on TCM and acupuncture combined treating hyperemesis gravidarum.
LNUTCM 2007;6:1456.
Modares M, Besharat S, Kian FR, Besharat S, Mahmoudi M, Sourmaghi HS. Effect of ginger and
chamomile capsules on nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. J Gorgan Uni Med Sci 2012;14:e46e50.
Mulla NP. Evaluation of trimethobenzamide with pyridoxine in nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Clin
Med 1963;70:20524.
Newlinds JS. Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a trial of thiethylperazine. Med J Aust 1964;1:2346.
OBrien B, Relyea MJ, Taerum T. Efficacy of P6 acupressure in the treatment of nausea and vomiting during
pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:70815.
222
Price JJ, Barry MC. A double blind study of fluphenazine with pyridoxine. Pa Med J 1964;67:3740.
Shin HS, Song YA, Seo S. Effect of Nei-Guan point (P6) acupressure on ketonuria levels, nausea and
vomiting in women with hyperemesis gravidarum. J Adv Nurs 2007;59:51019.
Shin HS, Song YA. [The effect of P6 acupressure for symptom control in pregnant women having
hyperemesis gravidarum.] Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi 2005;35:593601.
Sullivan CL. Treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy with chlorpromazine; a report of 100 cases.
Postgrad Med 1957;22:42932.
Yavari Kia P, Safajou F, Shahnazi M, Nazemiyeh H. The effect of lemon inhalation aromatherapy on nausea
and vomiting of pregnancy: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Iran 2014;16:e14360.
Zhu Z-N, Fa Y-H, Wang C-R. Injection plus acupuncture clinical observation hyperemesis gravidarum
44 cases. J Pract Tradit Chinese Intern Med 2011;6:12930.
Required outcomes not reported (n = 34)
Albertazzi E, Bellodi P, Guerzoni G. Phosphorate carbohydrate solutions in the treatment of vomiting in

pregnancy. Curr Ther Res Clin E 1989;46:105967.
Anderka M, Mitchell AA, Louik C, Werler MM, Hernandez-Diaz S, Rasmussen SA, et al. Medications used
to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and the risk of selected birth defects. Birth Defects Res Part A
Clin Mol Teratol 2012;94:2230.
Andersen JT, Jimenez-Solem E, Andersen NL, Poulsen HE. Ondansetron use in early pregnancy and the
risk of congenital malformations-a register based nationwide cohort study. Pharmacoepidem Dr S
2013;22:1314.
Aselton P, Jick H, Chentow SJ, Perera DR, Hunter JR, Rothman KJ. Pyloric stenosis and maternal Bendectin
exposure. Am J Epidemiol 1984;120:2516.
Asker C, Norstedt Wikner B, Kallen B. Use of antiemetic drugs during pregnancy in Sweden. Eur J Clin
Pharmacol 2005;61:899906.
Babaee PAG. Determining the effect of pyridoxine on nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. J Matern Fetal
Neonatal Med 2010;23:129.
Balsamo SB, Sampaio LF, Nobre Nde S, Rozas A, Barros HC, Neme B. [Clinical trial of thiethylperazine
(Torecan).] Hospital (Rio J) 1966;70:4517.
Berkovitch M, Mazzota P, Greenberg R, Elbirt D, Addis A, Schuler-Faccini L, et al. Metoclopramide for

nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a prospective multicenter international study. Am J Perinatol
2002;19:31116.
Bsat FA, Hoffman DE, Seubert DE. Comparison of three outpatient regimens in the management of nausea
and vomiting in pregnancy. J Perinatol 2003;23:5315.
Costantine MM, Matok I, Chiossi G, Clark S, Miodovnik M, Umans JG, et al. Determinants of adherence
to delayed-release doxylamine and pyridoxine in patients with nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
Ther Drug Monit 2012;34:56973.
223
APPENDIX 6
de Aloysio D, Penacchioni P. Morning sickness control in early pregnancy by Neiguan point acupressure.
Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:8524.
Farazmand T, Khadem N. Comparison of the effect of methylprednisolone and promethazine in the

treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum (20012002). Int J Gynecol Obstet 2009;107:S523.
Folk JJ, Leslie-Brown HF, Nosovitch JT, Silverman RK, Aubry RH. Hyperemesis gravidarum: outcomes and
complications with and without total parenteral nutrition. J Reprod Med 2004;49:497502.
Fuchs K, Paldi E, Abramovici H, Peretz BA. Treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum by hypnosis. Int J Clin Exp
Hyp 1980;28:31323.
Gant H, Reinken L, Dapunt O, Scholz K. Vitamin B-6 depletion in hyperemesis gravidarum. Wiener Klinische
Wochenschrift 1975;87:51013.
Gawande S, Vaidya M, Tadke R, Kirpekar V, Bhave S. Progressive muscle relaxation in hyperemesis

gravidarum. SAFOG 2011;3:2832.
Habek D, Barbir A, Habek JC, Janculiak D, Bobic-Vukovic M. Success of acupuncture and acupressure of the
Pc 6 acupoint in the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd
2004;11:203.
Hasbun J, Charlin V, Von Mulhenbrock R, Munoz H, Yuri C. [Total parenteral nutrition in severe
hyperemesis gravidarum.] Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 1994;59:37882.
Heazell AEP, Langford N, Judge JK, Heazell MA, Downey GP. The use of levomepromazine in hyperemesis
gravidarum resistant to drug therapy a case series. Reprod Toxicol 2005;20:56972.
Holmgren C, Aagaard-Tillery KM, Silver RM, Porter TF, Varner M. Hyperemesis in pregnancy: an evaluation
of treatment strategies with maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:56.e14.
Kutcher JS, Engle A, Firth J, Lamm SH. Bendectin and birth defects. II: Ecological analyses. Birth Defects Res
Part A Clin Mol Teratol 2003;67:8897.
Lacasse A, Rey E, Ferreira E, Morin C, Berard A. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: what about quality of
life? BJOG 2008;115:148493.
Levine MG, Esser D. Total parenteral nutrition for the treatment of severe hyperemesis gravidarum:
maternal nutritional effects and fetal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72:1027.
Lombardi DG, Istwan NB, Rhea DJ, OBrien JM, Barton JR. Measuring outpatient outcomes of emesis and
nausea management in pregnant women. Manag Care 2004;13:4852.
Matok I, Gorodischer R, Koren G, Sheiner E, Wiznitzer A, Levy A. The safety of metoclopramide use in the
first trimester of pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2009;360:252835.
Moessner GF. Clinical evaluation of a meprobamatepromazine combination for control of nausea and
vomiting in pregnancy; a preliminary report. West J Surg Obstet Gynecol 1959;67:1802.
Paridokht A, Gholamreza B. Determine effect VB6 on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. J Matern Fetal
224
Reyhani M, Eskandari M. Evaluation of the achillea millefolum effect in nausea and vomiting of early
pregnancy. Iran J Pharmaceut Res 2013;12:232.
Rotman J. [Clinical trial of plitican in vomiting of pregnancy.] Semaine des Hopitaux 1986;62:13840.
Tabatabaii A, Sekhavat L, Mojibian M. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of corticosteroids for

hyperemesis gravidarum. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2008;21:225.
Tasci Y, Demir B, Dilbaz S, Haberal A. Use of diazepam for hyperemesis gravidarum. J Matern Fetal
Wheatley D. Treatment of pregnancy sickness. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1977;84:4447.
Xu C-Z. The clinical study of 654-II in treating hyperemesis gravidarum. Hebei Medicine 2005;10:9234.
Ylikorkala O, Kauppila A, Ollanketo ML. Intramuscular ACTH or placebo in the treatment of hyperemesis
gravidarum. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1979;58:4535.
225
Appendix 7 UK Teratology Information Service

enquiries and follow-ups relating to hyperemesis
gravidarum/nausea and vomiting in pregnancy
medication
UK Teratology Information Service follow-up data
Ginger
The UKTIS has followed up a single prospective case of ginger exposure during pregnancy. Ginger
exposure occurred at an unknown stage of pregnancy and the outcome was a live-born infant with no
reported congenital malformations or neonatal problems.152
Vitamin B12
The UKTIS has followed up 21 cases of vitamin B12 (hydroxocobalamin and cyanocobalamin) exposure
during pregnancy. There were 20 prospective therapeutic exposures and one retrospective case.153
Prospective therapeutic exposure data

The frequency of congenital malformations in live-born infants (0/21; 0%, 95% CI 0% to 19.2%) was not
significantly higher than the background rate. However, due to the small numbers of cases and wide CIs
due to the consequent uncertainty, the conclusions that can be drawn from these data are limited.
Retrospective therapeutic exposure data

The UKTIS occasionally receives retrospective information on the outcome of pregnancies. Although
retrospective reports are biased in that adverse outcomes are more likely to be reported, these data may
be useful in identifying patterns of malformations that may be suggestive of a teratogenic syndrome and
are therefore analysed periodically.
The UKTIS have retrospective follow-up data for one pregnancy following therapeutic exposure to vitamin
B12 at 5 weeks. The infant had microcephaly and dysmorphic facial features.
Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine)
The UKTIS has followed up 23 cases of pyridoxine exposure during pregnancy including 18 prospective
therapeutic exposures, three overdoses and two retrospective cases.154

The frequency of congenital malformations in live-born infants (3/15; 20%, 95% CI 5.3% to 48.6%) was
significantly higher than the background rate; however, the numbers involved are very small and no
pattern of malformation was observed. One of the malformations reported is an inherited disorder (Apert
syndrome) and not expected to be linked to the maternal exposure.
Prospective overdose data

The UKTIS have collected prospective follow up data on three pregnancies in which pyridoxine was taken
in overdose (amounts ingested ranged from 1250 mg to 3500 mg). The outcomes were two healthy babies
and one elective termination.

The UKTIS have retrospective follow-up data for two pregnancies following therapeutic exposure to
pyridoxine. In the first case, exposure to an unreported amount of pyridoxine occurred between 11 and
227
APPENDIX 7
15 weeks gestation. The outcome was an infant with multiple congenital anomalies including a bent ulna
with a malformed hand, polydactyly on the other hand, and one leg with talipes and abnormal digits. In
the second case maternal use of 50-mg pyridoxine per day throughout pregnancy resulted in an infant
delivered with polydactyly. In addition to the pyridoxine, 20-mg paroxetine was taken each day throughout
pregnancy, and 600-mg rifampicin and 300-mg isoniazid was administered per day from 0 to 12 weeks
gestation.
Promethazine
The UKTIS has followed up 67 cases of promethazine exposure during pregnancy. There were
45 prospective therapeutic exposures, 15 overdoses and seven retrospective cases.155

The frequency of congenital malformations in live-born infants (2/41; 4.9%, 95% CI 0.85% to 17.8%)
was not significantly higher than the background rate.
Retrospective exposure data

The UKTIS have retrospective follow-up data for seven pregnancies following exposure to promethazine,
six therapeutic and one overdose. Malformations were reported in all cases but showed no consistent
pattern suggestive of teratogenesis.
Ondansetron
The UKTIS has followed up 48 cases of ondansetron exposure during pregnancy. There were 42
prospective therapeutic exposures and six retrospective cases.156

The frequency of live-born infants with one or more major congenital malformation (1/34; 2.9%, 95% CI
0.15% to 17.1%) was not significantly higher than the background rate (23%).

The UKTIS occasionally receives retrospective information on the outcome of pregnancies. These data are
analysed periodically to look for patterns of malformations (Table 42). No specific pattern has been
observed for ondansetron. The UKTIS have retrospective follow-up data for six pregnancies following
therapeutic exposure to ondansetron.
228
TABLE 42 UK Teratology Information Service enquires relating to HG/NVP medications
Total number of enquiries Annual enquiries by 5-year period
Total number Enquiries for HG enquiries for

of enquiries which indication which pregnancy
Drugs for exposure was HG outcome knowna Pre 1990 19904 19959 20004 20059 201014b

Calcium carbonate 188 1 0 1
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
Cetirizine 356 6 3 1 3 2
Cyclizine (Valoid) 433 221 58 7 36 79 99

Dimenhydrinate (Dramamine , Prestige Brands 4 1 1 1
Holdings, Inc.)
Diphenhydramine 68 2 1 1 1
Doxylamine 12 3 1 1 2
Doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine hydrochloride 2 1 0 1
Hydroxyzine 62 2 0 1 1
Hydrocortisone 265 19 4 6 12 1
Methylprednisolone 58 2 0 1 1
Metoclopramide 278 108 33 2 7 17 43 39
Ondansetron 235 140 33 8 17 53 62
Peppermint 76 1 0 1
Prednisolone 559 21 8 1 5 10 5
Prochlorperazine (Stemetil, Sanofi) 426 207 43 9 11 35 92 60
Promethazine (Avomine, Manx Healthcare Ltd, 405 93 28 1 7 4 16 31 34
Phenergan)
Pyridoxine (vitamin B6) 100 12 6 1 8 3
Ranitidine 377 35 17 2 7 8 10 8
Thiamine 97 18 7 2 3 12 1
Vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) 144 2 2 2
a
Total enquiries 219 2 21 49 145 358 320a
a Data for 201014 are incomplete.
b Incomplete 5-year period as 2014 ongoing, some of these pregnancies will not yet have ended so follow-up rate likely to be slightly higher.
229
Appendix 8 Secondary outcome data

Study Pregnancy outcomes Other outcomes
57
Abas 2014 l Not reported l No statistically significant difference in rates of
overall treatment curtailment; treatment
curtailment attributable to adverse events;
or need for continuation with open-label i.v.
antiemetic (p > 0.05)
l No statistically significant difference in length
of hospital stay between trial arms
[intervention: 1.9 (IQR 1.52.4) days vs.
comparator: 2.0 (IQR 1.72.7) days; p = 0.1]
l Significant differences were found in
self-reported drowsiness (p = 0.011) and dry
mouth (p = 0.003) in favour of ondansetron,
but other minor side effects (difficulty sleeping,
dizziness, diarrhoea, headache, palpitations,
and skin rash) were reported in similar
proportions across the trial arms (p > 0.5)
Adamczak 200758 l Not reported l Not reported
120
Alalade 2007 l Not reported l All patients managed as day cases were
discharged within 24 hours
l None of them were readmitted
l A total of 51% of patients were treated and
discharged between 12 and 24 hours
Ashkenazi-Hoffnung l One miscarriage control group, two in l Not reported
201336 treatment group. No difference in mean
birthweight. One congenital abnormality in
control group (hypospadias). Late preterm
birth: B6 combination 5/28 (18%) vs.
metoclopramide 0/28 (0%); p = 0.03
Babaei 201459 l Not reported l Occurrence of drowsiness significant lower in
the vitamin B6 group compared with the
dimenhydrinate group [5 (4.5%) vs. 36 (53%);
p < 0.01]
l No other adverse effect was observed in either
group during the 1-week follow-up
Basirat 200960 l Not reported l 28/32 (87.5%) of ginger group vs. 21/30
(70%) of placebo group reported a subjective
improvement in overall symptoms (p = 0.043)
Bayreuther 199461 l Not reported l Not reported
62
Belluomini 1994 l Not reported l Not reported
63
Biswas 2011 l No reported stillbirths, congenital l No difference in reported overall well-being
anomalies, neonatal or fetal complications between groups (p > 0.05)
Bondok 200664 l Not reported l No patients from the hydrocortisone group
but six from the metoclopramide group were
readmitted to the intensive care unit for
recurrence of severe vomiting (p < 0.001)
Capp 201465 l Not reported l No statistically significant difference between
the groups with respect to sedation or
constipation (p > 0.05)
Can Gurkan 200843 l Not reported l Not reported
Carlsson 200066 l Not reported l Not reported
67
Chittumma 2007 l Not reported l Minor side effects such as sedation, heartburn,
arrhythmia were reported, but the difference
between groups was not significant
(% experiencing side effects: ginger 25.4%,
vitamin B6 23.8%; p = 0.80)
231
APPENDIX 8
Diggory 1962 68
l Not reported l Duration of symptoms (weeks): group 1 = 6.4;
group 2 = 7.1; group 3 = 3.8; group 4 = 3.5
l No statistically significant differences between
groups 1 and 2, or 3 and 4, but both groups 3
and 4 significantly improved compared with 1
and 2 (p < 0.001 in all cases)
Ditto 199969 l No statistically significant differences l Readmission rate was less in diazepam group
reported in terms of gestation at delivery; 1 (4%) than the comparison group 6 (27%).
preterm delivery; caesarean section rate; Difference was described as significant but
mean birthweight or neonatal abnormalities p-value was not reported
(p-value not reported)
Eftekhari 201372 l Not reported l No statistically significant difference in the
womens views regarding the effectiveness of
treatments using author-defined scales
l Symptoms of dizziness were significantly
higher in the promethazine group (p = 0.001)
Einarson 2004121 l No statistically significant differences l Not reported
reported in terms of miscarriage,
terminations, live births, stillbirths, major
malformations, mean birthweight or
gestational age at birth (p > 0.05)
Ensiyeh 200970 l Ginger group reported two miscarriages; l On day 7, 29/35 women in the ginger group
vitamin B6 group reported one miscarriage reported an improvement in nausea
l No congenital abnormalities or neonatal symptoms, compared with 23/34 in the
problems were reported in either group vitamin B6 group, but this was not statistically
significant (p = 0.52)
Erez 197171 l No statistically significant differences l Slight drowsiness was reported by 7% of the
reported in terms of miscarriage, perinatal hydroxyzine-treated patients
outcomes and fetal outcomes between
groups (p > 0.05)
Evans 199373 l Not reported l Not reported
122
Ferreira 2003 l No statistically significant differences in l Lower proportion of patients readmitted in
spontaneous/elective medical abortions, group B compared with the two other groups,
preterm births, live births or major but this was not statistically significant
malformations reported (p > 0.05) (p = 0.17)
l No statistically significant difference reported
in terms of average length of stay (days)
(group A 3.53 1.69, group B 2.85 1.19,
group C 3.25 1.59; p > 0.05)
Fischer-Rasmussen l One miscarriage and one termination l 19 women (70.4%) stated preference to
199174 were reported ginger (p = 0.003)
l Mean birthweight 3585 g
(range 24505150 g)
l Mean gestation at delivery: 39.9 weeks
(range 3641 weeks)
l No congenital abnormalities reported
75
Ghahiri 2011 l Not reported l No statistically significant difference in
reported headaches, dizziness, sedation or
anxiety (p > 0.05)
Ghani 201376 l Not reported l Mood and fatigue score improved in both
groups [mood score (energy) increased
(positive outcome) from 1.94 (SD 1.54) to
4.62 (SD 0.69) in treatment group (p < 0.001)
and fatigue severity score decreased (positive
outcome) from 50.68 (SD 7.66) to 44.92
(SD 6.83) in treatment group (p < 0.001)].
Results were not reported for the control
group
232

39
Guttuso 2010 l Two congenital defects were reported l Subjects gained an average 0.85 lb from
among seven of the subjects infants baseline to day 21
(tethered spinal cord and hydronephrosis) l The initial three subjects enrolled as inpatients
l The gestational ages when gabapentin was were discharged after a mean of 2.3 days
initiated were 8 and 9 weeks respectively after initiating gabapentin therapy
l None of the subjects required admission/
readmission for hyperemesis after starting
gabapentin
l Four subjects experienced mildmoderate side
effects of sleepiness or dizziness when first
starting gabapentin
Haji Seid Javadi l Not reported l No side effects reported
201377
Heazell 200678 l Not reported l Median number of women staying > 4 days:
(1) intervention 11; (2) comparator 18
(p < 0.05, not clear if this is exact p-value)
l Median length of stay in days: (1) intervention
3 (range 24); (2) comparator 3 (range 25)
(p > 0.05)
l Number of antiemetic doses: (1) intervention
7.1 (range 310); (2) comparator 7.4 (range
49.8) (p > 0.05)
l Number of antiemetic doses per day:
(1) intervention 2.5 (range 1.43);
(2) comparator 2.3 (range 1.52.8) (p > 0.05)
l Total amount of i.v. fluid (l): (1) intervention: 4
(range 27); (2) comparator 5 (range 36)
(p > 0.05)
Hsu 1996123 l Gestational age at delivery ranged from l Mean reported weight gain: 12.6 lb
37 to 41 weeks (range 322 lb)
l Birthweight ranged from 2766 to 3949 g
79
Hsu 2003 l Not reported l Subsequent antiemetic administration:
(1) intervention 72%; (2) comparator 75%
(p = 1)
l Length of emergency department stay:
(1) intervention 6.3 hours; (2) comparator
5.5 hours (p = 0.3)
Jamigorn 200780 l Not reported l There was no statistically significant change in
maternal weight between the two groups
(p > 0.05): (1) acupressure group
pre-pregnancy weight (kg) 52.4 ( 7.0); weight
on the participation day (kg) 53.5 ( 7.6);
weight at the end of the trial (kg) 55.1 ( 7.4);
(2) comparator group: pre-pregnancy weight
(kg) 49.9 ( 4.7); weight on the participation
day (kg) 50.7 ( 4.5); weight at the end of the
trial (kg) 50.7 ( 4.6)
Kashifard 201381 l All mothers and infants were healthy at the l None of the patients showed any side effects
time of birth of the offered medicines
Keating 200282 l Not reported l Three women in the ginger group lost
between 0.57 and 1 kg at 4 weeks compared
with weight losses between 0.34 and 0.9 kg
for four women in the placebo group in the
same time interval (p-value not reported but
authors state most women in both groups
maintained their weight or gained weight at
the 4-week follow-up visit)
233
APPENDIX 8

83
Knight 2001 l Not reported l Anxiety scores at each treatment median
(IQR): intervention (1) 8 (IQR 69), (2) 8.5
(IQR 69), (3) 7 (IQR 69), (4) 7 (IQR 49);
comparator (1) 10 (IQR 713), (2) 8
(IQR 611), (3) 7 (IQR 510), (4) 8 (IQR 59).
For the anxiety score there was evidence of
a time effect (p = 0.006) but no evidence of a
group effect (p = 0.4) or a group-time effect
(p = 0.2)
l Depression scores at each treatment median
(IQR): intervention (1) 9.5 (IQR 815), (2) 9
(IQR 711), (3) 8.5 (IQR 712), (4) 7 (IQR
511); comparator (1) 11 (IQR 814), (2) 9
(IQR 712), (3) 8 (IQR 712), (4) 8 (IQR 610).
For the depression scores there was evidence
of a time effect (p = 0.002) and again
no group (p = 0.9) or grouptime
interaction (p = 0.5)
Koren 201084 l Not reported l More women in placebo group (n = 46, 36%)
than Diclectin (n = 31, 23.7%) used alternate
therapies for NVP (p = 0.04)
l At completion 48.9% of Diclectin group
requested compassionate use of medication
vs. 32.8% of placebo group (p = 0.009)
Koren 2013127 l Not reported l Not reported
85
Maina 2014 l Two major pregnancy complications l No statistically significant association to an
occurred in the follow-up: a central venous increase of any adverse effects such as
catheter-related sepsis and a lassitude, drowsiness, dry mouth, headache,
postpartum haemorrhage dizziness, fainting or skin intolerance as
l No adverse fetal outcomes were reported compared with placebo group (p = 0.2)
(defined as miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm
delivery or low birthweight)
l One baby was small for gestational age
l No major or minor birth defects were
detected
Maltepe 201386 l Median gestation at resolution: 26 weeks in l More cases of NVP were reported as resolved
the pre-emptive group vs. 33 weeks in the before labour in the intervention compared
control group (p = 0.18) with the control group [18/23 (78.2%) vs.
11/22 (50%); p < 0.002]
Mao 200987 l Not reported l Not reported
124
Markose 2004 l Not reported l Not reported
88
McParlin 2008 l No statistically significant difference in rates l No statistically significant differences reported
of miscarriage, termination of pregnancy, in terms of QoL using the SF-36 v2 [physical
gestation at delivery, birthweight, incidence component score intervention = 42.75
of small for gestational age, or admissions (SD 6.9) vs. comparator = 39.1 (SD 8.6);
to the special care baby unit mental component score intervention
intervention = 31.0 (SD 9.8) vs.
comparator = 35.1 (SD 12.5); p > 0.05]
l No statistically significant difference between
groups in reported satisfaction with care
[intervention = 29.2 (SD 3.3) vs.
comparator = 29.5 (SD 4.8); p > 0.05]
l Lower total admission time reported for the
intervention group [27.2 hours (SD 50.7) vs.
the comparator 84.1 hours (SD 86.2);
p = 0.001]
Mohammadbeigi l Not reported l Not reported
201189
Monias 195790 l Not reported l Not reported
234
Moran 2002 125

l No difference in mean gestation at delivery l Total number of admissions: steroid group = 3
or birthweight for term infants (IQR 111); comparator = 1 (IQR 17) (p < 0.005)
l Two preterm deliveries l Max weight loss (kg): steroid group = 6.5
(IQR 58); comparator = 2 (IQR 0.83.5)
(p < 0.005)
l No serious side effects reported in
steroid group
Naeimi Rad 201291 l Not reported l Not reported
92
Narenji 2012 l Not reported l Satisfaction rate of treatment was higher in
the ginger syrup than in the vitamin B6 group
(94% vs. 54%) (p-value not available)
Nelson-Piercy 200193 l No difference in birthweight or gestational l Length of stay post-randomisation (days):
age at delivery (excluding the triplet intervention = 7.0 (range 2.021.0),
pregnancy) between groups (p > 0.05) comparator = 7.0 (range 2.026.0),
l No difference in the numbers of babies relative risk = 0.84 (no CI reported)
born with birthweights less than the 5th l Duration of i.v. fluids (hours):
centile (p > 0.05) intervention = 72.0 (range 0168.0),
comparator = 96.0 (range 24.0168.0),
relative risk = 0.92 (no CI reported)
l Well-being rating improvement:
intervention = 6.5 (range 1.010.0),
comparator = 3.5 (range 2.0 to 8.0),
relative risk = 0.021 (no CI reported)
l Weight change (kg): intervention = 1.25
(range 0.5 to 5.0), comparator = 1.0
(range 2.0 to 4.5), relative risk = 0.025
(no CI reported)
l No. readmitted for hyperemesis:
intervention = 5, comparator = 8,
relative risk = 1.6 (0.73.5)
Neri 200594 l Not reported l Rate of food intake number of cases
improved: intervention (first) 7 (16.2%),
(second) 15 (34.8%), (third) 21 (48.8%);
comparator (first) 2 (5.2%), (second) 10
(26.3%), (third) 14 (36.8%). There was no
statistically significant difference between the
two groups (p > 0.2). but statistically
significant improvement was noted at each
time point measured within each treatment
compared with baseline (p < 0.05 and more
specifically p = 0.001 in most cases)
Oliveira 201395 l Not reported l Four patients in each group reported
sedation (p > 0.05)
Ozgoli 200996 l States no adverse effects reported l None of the participants reported any
complications during the treatment period
Pasha 201297 l Not reported l Not reported
42
Pongrojpaw 2007 l Not reported l Statistically significant difference in the side
effect of drowsiness after treatment reported:
dimenhydrinate (77.6%) compared with
ginger (5.9%) (p < 0.01)
Rosen 200398 l Not reported l 77% of the intervention group gained weight
compared with 54% of the control group
(p = 0.001)
l Three dehydration events reported in the
study group compared with 12 events in
the control group (p = 0.013)
l No statistically significant difference in the use
of other medication or ketonuria between
groups
Saberi 201313 l Not reported l No side effects experienced
235
APPENDIX 8

99
Safari 1998 l No statistically significant difference in the l No patients from the methylprednisolone
two groups of neonates with respect to group but five patients from the promethazine
birthweight or APGAR scores at 1 and group were readmitted for recurrence of
5 minutes (p > 0.05) vomiting (p = 0.001)
l One patient in the methylprednisolone
group was delivered at 35 weeks gestation
of a male infant with SmithLemliOpitz
syndrome; this infant subsequently died on
the second day after birth
Saha 2009126 l All pregnancies ended with term deliveries l Tube-related complications were limited to
(3640 weeks gestation) of healthy late tube dislodgement requiring simple
infants replacement via the established percutaneous
l Mean infant birthweight was 2995 g tract in two patients
(22704000 g)
Sahakian 1991100 l Not reported l Not reported
101
Smith 2002 l Not reported l Medical Outcomes Study 36 Short Form
Health Survey:
l Social function: (1) intervention day 1 48.3
(SD 28.6), day 14 51.9 (SD 29.0), day 28 54.0
(SD 27.1); (2) comparator day 1 45.1
(SD 30.3), day 14 50.7 (SD 28.4), day 28 51.4
(SD 32.0); (3) sham day 1 42.9 (SD 28.5),
day 14 48.5 (SD 28.1), day 28 48.9 (SD 28.0);
(4) control day 1 45.3 (SD 28.5), day 14
45.1 (SD 28.7), day 28 37.8 (SD 22.5)
(p = 0.01, p = 0.01 and p = 0.001 for
differences in SF-36 scores across groups, time
observation of the SF-36 score at days 1, 14
and 28, and differences in SF-36 scores across
all groups over time respectively)
l Vitality: (1) intervention day 1 23.4
(SD 18.0), day 14 30.0 (SD 19.7), day 28 31.9
(SD 17.7), day 14 27.4 (SD 23.1), day 28 27.0
(SD 18.9); (3) sham day 1 22.6 (SD 18.3),
day 14 25.8 (SD 18.0), day 28 27.0 (SD 19.0);
22.8 (SD 15.1), day 28 26.0 (SD 17.0)
(p > 0.05, p = 0.001 and p = 0.05 for
l Physical function: (1) intervention day 1 63.7
(SD 24.6), day 14 68.5 (SD 26.1), day 28 68.0
(SD 26.5), day 14 63.3 (SD 23.1), day 28 64.0
(SD 23.5); (3) sham day 1 63.1 (SD 25.0),
day 14 66.0 (SD 24.5), day 28 66.0 (SD 21.0):
59.4 (SD 27.3), day 28 63.3 (SD 25.0)
(p > 0.05, p = 0.01 and p = 0.05 for
l Physical role function: (1) intervention day 1
12.6 (SD 26.4), day 14 7.3 (SD 14.6), day 28
8.7 (SD 15.5); (2) comparator day 1 11.7
(SD 7.0), day 14 6.3 (SD 13.5), day 28 6.6
(SD 14.1); (3) sham day 1 11.4 (SD 26.8),
day 14 6.0 (SD 11.9), day 28 5.0 (SD 11.7);
(4) control day 1 9.3 (SD 23.0), day 14 4.1
(SD 10.4), day 28 11.9 (SD 25.0) (p > 0.05,
p = 0.001 and p = 0.05 for differences in
236
SF-36 scores across groups, time observation

of the SF-36 score at days 1, 14 and 28, and
differences in SF-36 scores across all groups
over time respectively)
l Bodily pain: (1) intervention day 1 60.0
(SD 24.5), day 14 65.9 (SD 22.5), day 28 65.2
(SD 26.7), day 14 66.5 (SD 24.7), day 28 68.0
(SD 23.0); (3) sham day 1 59.0 (SD 26.1),
day 14 60.0 (SD 24.5), day 28 65.0 (SD 25.1);
65.9 (SD 23.0), day 28 66.6 (SD 22.7)
(p > 0.05, p = 0.001 and p > 0.05 for
l Mental health: (1) intervention day 1 59.2
(SD 18.0), day 14 66.2 (SD 20.2), day 28 64.7
(SD 18.4), day 14 60.0 (SD 20.1), day 28 62.0
(SD 19.1); (3) sham day 1 57.3 (SD 18.1),
day 14 62.0 (SD 17.7), day 28 64.6 (SD 17.7);
58.2 (SD 19.9), day 28 58.6 (SD 20.0)
(p = 0.05, p = 0.001 and p = 0.01 for
all groups over time, respectively)
l Emotional role function: (1) intervention
day 1 54.9 (SD 45.5), day 14 61.4 (SD 44.7),
day 28 68.7 (SD 43.0); (2) comparator day 1
47.4 (SD 44.5), day 14 49.1 (SD 45.8), day 28
57.2 (SD 52.0); (3) sham day 1 54.0
(SD 46.6), day 14 59.7 (SD 45.8), day 28 60.7
(SD 44.4); (4) control day 1 52.7 (SD 45.4),
day 14 54.7 (SD 45.3), day 28 53.2 (SD 45.0)
(p > 0.05, p = 0.001 and p > 0.05 for
l General health perception: (1) intervention
day 1 67.9 (SD 19.1), day 14 65.3 (SD 19.4),
day 28: 67.0 (SD 20.6); (2) comparator
day 1 64.1(SD 21.0), day 14 62.6 (SD 19.0),
day 28 63.8 (SD 20.3); (3) sham day 1 67.7
(SD 20.9), day 14 64.7 (SD 19.4), day 28 66.1
(SD 19.5); (4) control day 1 67.7 (SD 7.5),
day 14 63.4 (SD 18.7), day 28 65.3 (SD 21.6)
(p > 0.05, p = 0.001 and p > 0.05 for
Smith 2004102 l No statistically significant differences l Not reported
between groups reported in terms of live
birth, congenital abnormalities or
birthweight (p > 0.05)
Sripramote 2003103 l Not reported l Minor side effects reported in both groups:
sedation (ginger 26.6% vs. vitamin B6 32.8%;
p = 0.439), and heartburn (ginger 9.4% vs.
vitamin B6 6.3%; p = 0.510)
Steele 2001104 l Not reported l Not reported
237
APPENDIX 8

105
Sullivan 1996 l Not reported l Hospital stay (days), similar between groups
(ondansetron 4.47 2.3 vs. promethazine
4.47 1.5 days; p = 1.00)
l Only reported side effect was sedation; eight
women in the promethazine group vs. none in
ondansetron group (p = 0.002)
Tan 2009107 l Not reported l No statistically significant difference in rates of
hospital re-admission (p > 0.05)
Tan 2010106 l Not reported l No statistically significant difference in
reported well-being score:
metoclopramide = 7.6 (SD 2.2),
promethazine = 7.1 (SD 2.3); p = 0.24
l No statistically significant difference in
reported hospital stay (days):
metoclopramide = 1.8 (IQR 1.52.5),
promethazine = 1.7 (IQR 1.52.4); p = 0.71
l Statistically significantly more women in the
promethazine group reported feeling drowsy
(p = 0.001) and dizzy (p < 0.001)
Tan 2013108 l Not reported l No statistically significant difference in hospital
stays: D-Saline = 43 21 compared with
48 21 for N-Saline (p = 0.14)
Veciana 2001109 l Not reported l Women in the intervention group gained
statistically significantly more weight
compared with control (2.9 lb vs. 1.2 lb;
p = 0.003)
Vutyavanich 199541 l Not reported l Not reported
110
Vutyavanich 2001 l Miscarriages: one in ginger group, three in l On day 7, 88% of ginger group reported
placebo group symptom improvement vs. 29% of placebo
l Delivery at term: 91.4% in the placebo group (p < 0.001)
group, 96.9% in the ginger group
l No congenital anomalies
111
Werntoft 2001 l Not reported l Not reported
112
Wibowo 2012 l Not reported l Change in plasma B6 high dose
(78.59 73.89) vs. (low dose:
35.32 89.41) (p < 0.05)
Willetts 2003113 l Two miscarriages, one stillbirth and one l Not reported
neonatal death reported in the
ginger group
l Reported birth defects were minor and
similar to general hospital population
Yost 2003114 l Spontaneous abortion: steroid n = 2 (4%), l Number of emergency room visits: steroids
placebo n = 3 (6%); p = 0.6 0.7 1.2, placebo 0.5 1.0 (p = 0.4)
l Gestational diabetes: steroid n = 3 (5%), l Number of admissions: steroids 1.9 1.8,
placebo n = 3 (6%); p = 0.96 placebo 1.6 1.0 (p = 0.3)
l Pregnancy hypertension: steroid n = 4 (7%), l Women rehospitalised, n (%): steroids 19 (34),
placebo n = 8 (15%); p = 0.2 placebo 19 (35) (p = 0.9)
l Preterm delivery 36 weeks: steroid n = 7 l Hospital days, first admission: steroids
(13%), placebo n = 4 (7%); p = 0.4 1.9 0.9, placebo 2.2 1.2 (p = 0.5)
l Caesarean delivery: l Total hospital days, all admissions: steroids
Primary: steroid n = 6 (11%), placebo 7.6 18.0, placebo 4.3 4.3 (p = 0.2)
n = 13 (24%); p = 0.06
Repeat: steroid n = 4 (7%), placebo
n = 6 (11%); p = 0.5
Zhang 2005115 l Not reported l Not reported
238

116
Ziaei 2004 l Not reported l Drowsiness during first 48 hours: intervention
n = 0 (0%) vs. comparator n = 6 (15%);
p = 0.026
l Drowsiness between the third and the
10th days: intervention n = 0 (0%) vs.
comparator n = 6 (15%); p = 0.026
APGAR, American Pediatric Gross Assessment Record; D-Saline, dextrose saline; N-Saline, normal saline.
239
Appendix 9 Systematic review of published

economic evaluations: inclusion criteria
A systematic review to identify any existing economic studies will be undertaken. The method will be
similar to the review of clinical effectiveness studies except that (i) the inclusion criteria for study design
will target cost analysis, cost-effectiveness, costutility, costconsequence and costbenefit studies;
decision model-based analyses and outcomes will be QoL, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios;
(ii) quality assessment will be appropriate to the study design, for example the Consensus on Health
Economic Criteria list130 for economic evaluations and the Philips checklist131 for model-based analyses;
(iii) data considered relevant will be extracted. If available, economic models will be reviewed and utilised
where appropriate to inform a model-based economic evaluation based on the above proposed
systematic review.
241
Appendix 10 Cost of drug interventions and

recommended daily doses
TABLE 43 Weekly cost of all interventions


(non-proprietary)
(non-proprietary)
Solution Ginger (FortiCare) NE 2.21 (assumes 125 ml per week)
Physical therapy Acupressure/acupuncture NE First appointment: 5070a
Subsequent appointments: 3550a
Hypnosis Hypnotherapy NE 5090 for a private hypnotherapy
sessiona
Clinician-prescribed second-line Low-estimate
Antihistamines
Tablets Hydroxyzine: Atarax (Alliance) 0.91 1.22

Tablets Cyclizine (non-proprietary) 0.74 2.22
i.v./i.m. injection Cyclizine: Valoid NE 13.65

Tablets Dimenhydrinate: Arlevert (Hennig NE 5.04
Arzneimittel)
Tablets Chlorpromazine (non-proprietary) NE 1.55
i.v./i.m. injection Chlorpromazine (non-proprietary) 12.60 33.60
Tablets Codeine phosphate (non-proprietary) 1.09 2.24
i.v./i.m. injection Codeine phosphate (non-proprietary) 24.89 49.77
Capsules Benadryl: acrivastine (non-proprietary) NE 4.16
Tablets Cetirizine (non-proprietary) NE 0.24
Tablets Promethazine: Phenergan 0.74 2.22

a
i.v./i.m. injection Promethazine (non-proprietary) 0.68 (daily) 1.20 (daily)a
Tablets Prochlorperazine (non-proprietary) 0.47 1.42
i.v./i.m. injection Prochlorperazine (non-proprietary) NE 0.52 (daily)a
Tablets Domperidone (non-proprietary) 0.39 1.17
Tablets Metoclopramide (non-proprietary) 0.22 0.66
i.v./i.m. injection Metoclopramide (non-proprietary) 2.24 6.72
Tablets Ondansetron (non-proprietary) NE 8.69 (daily)a

i.v./i.m. injection Ondansetron (non-proprietary) NE 1.00 (daily)a
Other drugs
Tablets Antiepileptic: gabapentin 0.34 1.03

(non-proprietary)
continued
243
APPENDIX 10
TABLE 43 Weekly cost of all interventions (continued )

Tablets Diazepam 0.64 0.70

a
i.v./i.m. injection Diazepam (non-proprietary) 0.90 (daily) 1.80 (daily)a
Rectal tubes Diazepam (non-proprietary): assume NE 41.10 (every 12 hours as
weight of 60 kg required)a
Tablets Dicycloverine (non-proprietary) 12.64 15.88
Clinician-prescribed third-line Low-estimate
Corticosteroids
Tablets Methylprednisolone: medrone 0.91 10.02

i.v./i.m. injection Methylprednisolone: Solu-Medrone NE 17.30 (daily)a
Tablets Prednisone: Lodotra 12.46 24.92
Tablets Prednisolone (non-proprietary) 0.67 1.33

i.v./i.m. injection Prednisolone acetate: Deltastab 6.87 54.96
(Amdipharm Mercury Company Ltd)
Rectal foam Prednisolone (non-proprietary) 34 68
Tablets Hydrocortisone (non-proprietary) 17.03 29.05
a
i.v./i.m. injection Hydrocortisone: Efcortesol 3.24 (daily) 19.56 (daily)a
NE, not estimated.
a All costs are weekly, unless otherwise stated.
TABLE 44 Recommended dose and unit cost for all pharmacological interventions
Patient-initiated Recommended Recommended

first-line daily dose daily dose
Preparation interventions (low estimate) (high estimate) Unit cost
Tablets Vitamin B6 20 mg 3 50 mg 3 10 mg, net price 500 = 8.48;

20 mg, net price 500 = 8.53;
50 mg, net price 28 = 3.46
Tablets Vitamin B12 50 g 150 g 50 g, net price 50 = 6.24
Solution Ginger (FortiCare) 125 ml weekly a
NE Bottle, 4 125 ml = 8.84
Antihistamines
Tablets Hydroxyzine: Atarax 25 mg 3 25 mg 4 10 mg, net price 84 = 2.18;
25 mg, net price 28 = 1.22
Tablets Cyclizine 50 mg 50 mg 3 50 mg, net price
(non-proprietary) 100 = 10.58
i.v./i.m. injection Cyclizine: Valoid NE 50 mg 3 50 mg/ml, 1-ml
ampoule = 0.65
Tablets Dimenhydrinate: NE 30 mg 3 Cinnarizine 20 mg,
Arlevert dimenhydrinate 40 mg, net
price 100 = 24.00
Tablets Chlorpromazine NE 25 mg 3 25 mg, net price 28 = 2.07;
(non-proprietary) 50 mg, net price 28 = 2.21;
100 mg, net price 28 = 2.21
i.v./i.m. injection Chlorpromazine 25 mg 3 50 mg 4 25 mg/ml, 1-ml
(non-proprietary) ampoule = 0.60
244
TABLE 44 Recommended dose and unit cost for all pharmacological interventions (continued )
Patient-initiated Recommended Recommended

first-line daily dose daily dose
Tablets Codeine phosphate 30 mg 3 60 mg 3 15 mg, net price 28 = 1.23;

60 mg, net price 28 = 2.99
i.v./i.m. injection Codeine phosphate 30 mg 3 60 mg 3 60 mg/ml, 1-ml
Capsules Benadryl: Acrivastine NE 8 mg 3 8 mg, 12 capsule
(non-proprietary) pack = 2.75; 8 mg, 24
capsule pack = 4.76
Tablets Cetirizine NE 10 mg 10 mg, net price 30 = 1.01
(non-proprietary)
Tablets Promethazine: 10 mg 2 20 mg 3 10 mg, net price 56 = 2.96;

Phenergan 25 mg, net price 56 = 4.65
i.v./i.m. injection Promethazine 25 mg 50 mg 25 mg/ml, 1-ml
(non-proprietary) ampoule = 0.68;
25 mg/ml, 2-ml
ampoule = 1.20
Tablets Prochlorperazine 5 mg 2 10 mg 3 5 mg, net price 28 = 0.95;
(non-proprietary) 5 mg, net price 84 = 1.37
i.v./i.m. injection Prochlorperazine 12.5 mg NE 12.5 mg/ml, 1-ml
(non-proprietary) (when required)a ampoule = 0.52
Tablets Domperidone 10 mg 10 mg 3 10 mg, net price 30 = 1.67;
Tablets Metoclopramide 10 mg 10 mg 3 10 mg, net price 28 = 0.88
(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Metoclopramide 10 mg 10 mg 3 5 mg/ml, 2-ml
Tablets Ondansetron NE 16 mg 4 mg, net price 30 = 5.37;

i.v./i.m. injection Ondansetron NE 4 mg 2 mg/ml, 2-ml
Other drugs
Tablets Antiepileptic: 300 mg 300 mg 3 600 mg, net price
gabapentin 100 = 9.81; 800 mg,
(non-proprietary) net price 100 = 32.22
Tablets Diazepam 2 mg 3 30 mg 2 mg, net price 28 = 0.86;
5 mg, net price 28 = 0.88;
10 mg, net price 28 = 0.94
i.v./i.m. injection Diazepam 5 mg 4 10 mg 4 5 mg/ml, 2-ml
Rectal tubes Diazepam 500 g/kg NE 2 mg/ml, net price 1.25 ml
(non-proprietary): (repeated after (2.5 mg) tube = 1.13; 2.5 ml
assume weight of 12 hours as (5 mg) tube = 1.09; 4 mg/ml,
60 kg required)a 2.5 ml (10 mg) tube = 1.37
Tablets Dicycloverine 10 mg 3 20 mg 3 10 mg, net price
(non-proprietary) 100 = 60.19; 20 mg, net
price 84 = 63.52
continued
245
APPENDIX 10
TABLE 44 Recommended dose and unit cost for all pharmacological interventions (continued )
Clinician-prescribed Recommended Recommended

third-line daily dose daily dose
Corticosteroids
Tablets Methylprednisolone: 2 mg 40 mg 2 mg, net price 30 = 3.88;

Medrone 4 mg, net price 30 = 6.19;
16 mg, net price 30 = 17.17;
100 mg, net price
20 = 48.32
i.v./i.m. injection Methylprednisolone: NE 1g 40-mg vial = 1.58;
Solu-Medrone 125-mg vial = 4.75;
500-mg vial = 9.60;
1-g vial = 17.30;
2 g vial = 32.86
Tablets Prednisone: Lodotra 10 mg 20 mg 1 mg, net price 30 = 26.70;
2 mg, net price 30 = 26.70;
2 mg, net price 100 = 89.00;
5 mg, net price 30 = 26.70;
5 mg, net price 100 = 89.00
Tablets Prednisolone 10 mg 20 mg 1 mg, net price 28 = 1.25;
25 mg, net price 56 = 50.00
i.v./i.m. injection Prednisolone acetate: Varies according to NE 25 mg/ml, 1-ml
Deltastab sizea ampoule = 6.87
Rectal foam Prednisolone 1-metred 1-metred 20 mg, 14 application
(non-proprietary) application (20 mg) application canister = 68.00
(20 mg) 2
Tablets Hydrocortisone 20 mg 30 mg 10 mg, net price 30 = 51.46;
i.v./i.m. injection Hydrocortisone: 100 mg 3 500 mg 4 100 mg/ml, 1-ml
Efcortesol ampoule = 1.08; 5-ml
ampoule = 4.89
NE, not estimated.
a Recommended doses are listed on a daily basis, unless otherwise stated.
TABLE 45 Cost of patient-initiated first-line interventions
Pharmacological Patient-initiated first-line Total low-estimate Total high-estimate

preparation intervention weekly cost () weekly cost ()
Tablets Vitamin B6: pyridoxine 0.12 2.59

hydrochloride (non-proprietary)
(non-proprietary)
Solution Ginger (FortiCare) NE 2.21 (assuming 125 ml
per week)
Physical therapy Acupressure/acupuncture 35 50
Hypnosis Hypnotherapy 50 90
NE, not estimated.
246
TABLE 46 Cost of patient-initiated first-line interventions following a GP visit
Total low-
Patient-initiated estimate Total GP clinic Urine
Pharmacological first-line weekly high-estimate consultation ketones
preparation intervention cost () weekly cost () () strip () Total ()
pyridoxine
hydrochloride
(non-proprietary)
cyanocobalamin
(non-proprietary)
Solution Ginger (FortiCare) NE 2.21 (assuming 45 0.05 47.26

125 ml per week)
NE, not estimated.
TABLE 47 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions following a GP visit
Clinician- Total low- Total high-

prescribed estimate estimate GP clinic Urine
Pharmacological second-line weekly weekly consultation ketones
preparation intervention cost () cost () () strip () Total ()
Antihistamines
Tablets Cyclizine 0.74 2.22 45 0.05 45.7947.27

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Hydroxyzine: Atarax 0.91 1.22 45 0.05 45.9646.27
Tablets Dimenhydrinate: NE 5.04 45 0.05 50.09

Arlevert
Tablets Chlorpromazine NE 1.55 45 0.05 46.60

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Codeine phosphate 1.09 2.24 45 0.05 46.1447.29
(non-proprietary)
Capsules Benadryl: NE 4.16 45 0.05 49.21

acrivastine
(non-proprietary)
Tablets Cetirizine NE 0.24 45 0.05 45.29

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Domperidone 0.39 1.17 45 0.05 45.4446.22
(non-proprietary)
Tablets Metoclopramide 0.22 0.66 45 0.05 45.2745.71

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Prochlorperazine 0.47 1.42 45 0.05 45.5246.47

(non-proprietary)
Tablets Promethazine: 0.74 2.22 45 0.05 45.7947.27

Phenergan
Tablets Ondansetron NE 60.83 45 0.05 105.88

(non-proprietary)
NE, not estimated.
247
248
TABLE 48 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if attending hospital as a day case
APPENDIX 10
Normal
saline + a
proportional
amount of
Total Total potassium
low- high- Inpatient chloride 2 +
Clinician- estimate estimate excess Urinary Urine Liver Thyroid Full Thiamine cost of
prescribed daily daily bed- test (urine ketones function function Urea and blood Treatment for supplement administering
Pharmacological second-line cost 2 cost 2 days 2 culture) 2 strip 2 test 2 test 2 Glucose 2 electrolytes 2 count 2 thromboembolism (Pabrinex) 1 the fluid over
preparation interventions () () () () () () () () () () (1-night stay) () () 2 days () Total ()
Antihistamines

Tablets Hydroxyzine: 0.13 0.17 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.95
Atarax 285.99
Tablets Cyclizine 0.11 0.32 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.93
(non-proprietary) 286.14
i.v./i.m. injection Cyclizine: Valoid NE 1.95 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 287.77
Tablets Chlorpromazine NE 0.22 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.04
(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Chlorpromazine 1.80 4.80 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 287.62
Tablets Dimenhydrinate: NE 0.72 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.54
Arlevert
Tablets Codeine 0.16 0.32 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.98
phosphate 286.14
(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Doxylamine: 3.56 7.11 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 289.38
codeine 292.93
phosphate
(non-proprietary)
Capsules Benadryl: NE 0.59 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.41
Acrivastine
(non-proprietary)
Tablets Cetirizine NE 0.03 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.85
(non-proprietary)
TABLE 48 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if attending hospital as a day case (continued )
Normal
saline + a

DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
proportional
amount of
Pharmacological second-line cost 2 cost 2 days 2 culture) 2 strip 2 test 2 test 2 Glucose 2 electrolytes 2 count 2 thromboembolism (Pabrinex) 1 the fluid over
preparation interventions () () () () () () () () () () (1-night stay) () () 2 days () Total ()
Tablets Promethazine: 0.11 0.32 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.93
Phenergan 286.14
i.v./i.m. injection Promethazine 0.68 1.20 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.50
Tablets Prochlorperazine 0.07 0.20 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.89
i.v./i.m. injection Prochlorperazine NE 0.52 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.34
(non-proprietary)
Tablets Domperidone 0.06 0.17 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.88
Tablets Metoclopramide 0.03 0.09 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 285.85
i.v./i.m. injection Metoclopramide 0.32 0.96 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.14
Tablets Ondansetron NE 8.69 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 294.51
(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Ondansetron NE 1.00 122 38 8.51 0.05 6.80 13.55 2.96 5.84 4.94 0.08 83.09 286.82
(non-proprietary)
NE, not estimated.
249
250
TABLE 49 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if admitted as an inpatient
Normal
APPENDIX 10
saline + a
proportional
amount of
Pharmacological second-line cost 2 cost 2 days 2 culture) 2 strip 2 test 2 test 2 Glucose 2 electrolytes 2 count 2 thromboembolism (Pabrinex) 1 the fluid over Total
preparation interventions () () () () () () () () () () (1-night stay) () () 2 days () ()
Antihistamines

i.v./i.m. injection Cyclizine: Valoid NE 3.90 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 796.78
Tablets Chlorpromazine NE 0.44 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.32
(non-proprietary)
i.v./i.m. injection Chlorpromazine 3.60 9.60 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 796.48
i.v./i.m. injection Metoclopramide 0.64 1.92 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.52
Tablets Prochlorperazine 0.13 0.41 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.01
i.v./i.m. injection Prochlorperazine NE 1.04 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.92
(non-proprietary)
Tablets Domperidone 0.11 0.33 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 792.99
i.v./i.m. injection Ondansetron NE 2.00 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 794.88
(non-proprietary)
Other drugs
Tablets Antiepileptic: 0.10 0.29 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 792.98
gabapentin 793.17
(non-proprietary)
Tablets Benzodiazepines: 0.18 0.20 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.06
diazepam 793.08
(non-proprietary)
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
TABLE 49 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if admitted as an inpatient (continued )
Normal
saline + a
proportional
amount of
Pharmacological second-line cost 2 cost 2 days 2 culture) 2 strip 2 test 2 test 2 Glucose 2 electrolytes 2 count 2 thromboembolism (Pabrinex) 1 the fluid over Total
preparation interventions () () () () () () () () () () (1-night stay) () () 2 days () ()
i.v./i.m. injection Diazepam 1.80 3.60 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 794.68
Rectal tubes Diazepam NE 41.10 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 833.98
(non-proprietary)
Tablets Dicycloverine 3.61 4.54 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 796.49
NE, not estimated.
251
252
APPENDIX 10
TABLE 50 Cost of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions 2 if admitted as an inpatient
Normal saline + a
proportional
amount of
Inpatient potassium
Clinician- Total daily excess Urinary Urine Liver Thyroid Full Thiamine chloride 2 + cost
prescribed cost (two bed- test (urine ketones function function Urea and blood Treatment for supplement of administering
second-line antiemetics) 2 days 2 culture) 2 strip 2 test 2 test 2 Glucose 2 electrolytes 2 count 2 thromboembolism (Pabrinex) 1 the fluid over Total
intervention () () () () () () () () () (1-night stay) () () 2 days () ()

Cheapest 0.50 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 793.38
combination
Most 50.70 530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 843.58
expensive
combination
TABLE 51 Cost of clinician-prescribed third-line interventions if admitted as an inpatient
Normal saline + a
proportional
amount of
Inpatient potassium
Clinician- Total daily excess Urinary Urine Liver Thyroid Full Thiamine chloride 5 + cost
prescribed cost (three Total daily cost bed- test (urine ketones function function Urea and blood Treatment for supplement of administering
third-line antiemetic) 3 (corticosteroid) 2 days 5 culture) 5 strip 5 test 5 test 5 Glucose 5 electrolytes 5 count 5 thromboembolism (Pabrinex) 1 the fluid over Total
intervention () () () () () () () () () () (4-night stay) () () 5 days () ()
Cheapest 1.26 0.38 (prednisolone 1325 42.55 0.25 34.00 67.75 14.80 29.20 24.70 36.60 2.25 415.45 1994.19
combination tablets)
Most 82.86 39.12 1325 42.55 0.25 34.00 67.75 14.80 29.20 24.70 36.60 2.25 415.45 2114.53
expensive (hydrocortisone
combination injection)
DOI: 10.3310/hta20740
TABLE 52 Cost of day case management compared with inpatient management
Normal saline and a

proportional amount
Ultrasound Urinary Urine Liver of potassium
Scan (< 20 test (urine ketones function Thyroid Urea and Thiamine chloride and cost of
Obstetrics minutes) 1 culture) 2 strip 2 test 2 function electrolytes 2 Full blood supplement 2 administering the Total
Day case unit 2 () () () () () test 2 () Glucose 2 () () count 2 () () fluid on 2 days () ()
244 38 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 0.16 166.18 533.64
Normal saline and a

Inpatient proportional amount
excess Urinary test Liver Thyroid of potassium
bed- (urine Urine function function Urea and Treatment for Thiamine chloride and cost of
days 2 culture) 2 ketones test 2 test 2 Glucose 2 electrolytes 2 Full blood thromboembolism supplement administering the Total
Inpatient () () strip 2 () () () () () count 2 () (1-night stay) () (Pabrinex) () fluid over 2 days () ()
530 17.02 0.10 13.60 27.10 5.92 11.68 9.88 9.15 2.25 166.18 792.88
253
APPENDIX 10
TABLE 53 Cost comparisons of patient-initiated first-line interventions
Vitamin B6 : ginger 1.2 : 1 Moderate Little evidence on effect
Vitamin B12 : ginger 1.2 : 1 Moderate Unknown
Acupressure/acupuncture : 19.1 : 1 Large Unknown

vitamin B12
Acupressure/acupuncture : 19.3 : 1 Large In the comparison between acupressure and

vitamin B6 vitamin B6, there was an improvement in both
groups but no difference between groups
Acupressure/acupuncture : 22.6 : 1 Large Ginger looks promising in reducing symptoms

ginger when compared with acupressure, but findings
are not conclusive
Hypnotherapy : acupressure/ 1.8 : 1 Large Unknown
acupuncture

Hypnotherapy : ginger 40.7 : 1 Large Unknown
Ginger : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Ginger looks promising in reducing symptoms
when compared with placebo, but findings are
not conclusive
Acupressure/acupuncture : Not assessable Not assessable Acupressure looks promising in reducing

placebo symptoms when compared with placebo in a
small number of studies while the rest show no
difference between the groups
Vitamin B6 : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Vitamin B6 looks promising in reducing
symptoms when compared with placebo but
findings are not conclusive
TABLE 54 Cost comparisons of patient-initiated first-line interventions following a GP visit
Vitamin B6 : ginger 1.008 : 1 Small Little evidence on effect
Vitamin B12 : ginger 1.009 : 1 Small Unknown

Ginger : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Ginger looks promising in reducing symptoms
when compared with placebo, but findings are
not conclusive
Vitamin B6 : placebo Not assessable Not assessable Vitamin B6 looks promising in reducing
symptoms when compared with placebo, but
findings are not conclusive
254
TABLE 55 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions (oral antiemetics only) following a
GP visit
Implied Effect
Metoclopramide : cetirizine 1.009 : 1 Small Unknown
Domperidone : metoclopramide 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
Domperidone : cetirizine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Hydroxyzine : domperidone 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
Hydroxyzine : metoclopramide 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
Hydroxyzine : cetirizine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

Prochlorperazine : hydroxyzine 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown
Prochlorperazine : domperidone 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown
Prochlorperazine : metoclopramide 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Prochlorperazine : cetirizine 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown
Chlorpromazine : prochlorperazine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
Chlorpromazine : hydroxyzine 1.007 : 1 Small Unknown
Chlorpromazine : domperidone 1.008 : 1 Small Unknown

Chlorpromazine : metoclopramide 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Chlorpromazine : cetirizine 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine : chlorpromazine 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine : prochlorperazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine : hydroxyzine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine : domperidone 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine : metoclopramide 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown

Cyclizine : cetirizine 1.04 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : cyclizine 1:1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : chlorpromazine 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : prochlorperazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : hydroxyzine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : domperidone 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine : metoclopramide 1.03 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is as

effective as metoclopramide in reducing the
symptoms of NVP
Promethazine : cetirizine 1.04 : 1 Small Unknown
Codeine phosphate : promethazine 1.0004 : 1 Small Unknown
Codeine phosphate : cyclizine 1.0004 : 1 Small Unknown
Codeine phosphate : chlorpromazine 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
Codeine phosphate : prochlorperazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Codeine phosphate : hydroxyzine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

Codeine phosphate : domperidone 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Codeine phosphate : metoclopramide 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown

continued
255
APPENDIX 10
GP visit (continued )
Implied Effect
Codeine phosphate : cetirizine 1.04 : 1 Small Unknown
Benadryl : codeine phosphate 1.04 : 1 Small Unknown
Benadryl : promethazine 1.04 : 1 Small Unknown
Benadryl : cyclizine 1.04 : 1 Small Unknown

Benadryl : chlorpromazine 1.06 : 1 Modest Unknown
Benadryl : prochlorperazine 1.06 : 1 Modest Unknown
Benadryl : hydroxyzine 1.06 : 1 Modest Unknown
Benadryl : domperidone 1.06 : 1 Modest Unknown
Benadryl : metoclopramide 1.08 : 1 Modest Unknown
Benadryl : cetirizine 1.09 : 1 Modest Unknown
Dimenhydrinate : benadryl 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

Dimenhydrinate : codeine phosphate 1.06 : 1 Modest Unknown
Dimenhydrinate : promethazine 1.06 : 1 Modest Unknown
Dimenhydrinate : cyclizine 1.06 : 1 Modest Unknown
Dimenhydrinate : chlorpromazine 1.07 : 1 Modest Unknown
Dimenhydrinate : prochlorperazine 1.08 : 1 Modest Unknown
Dimenhydrinate : hydroxyzine 1.08 : 1 Modest Unknown
Dimenhydrinate : domperidone 1.08 : 1 Modest Unknown

Dimenhydrinate : metoclopramide 1.1 : 1 Modest Unknown
Dimenhydrinate : cetirizine 1.1 : 1 Modest Unknown
Ondansetron : dimenhydrinate 2.1 : 1 Large Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Ondansetron : benadryl 2.2 : 1 Large Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Ondansetron : codeine phosphate 2.2 : 1 Large Both ondansetron and antihistamines
Ondansetron : promethazine 2.2 : 1 Large Unknown
Ondansetron : cyclizine 2.2 : 1 Large Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Ondansetron : chlorpromazine 2.3 : 1 Large Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Ondansetron : prochlorperazine 2.3 : 1 Large Unknown
Ondansetron : hydroxyzine 2.3 : 1 Large Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Ondansetron : domperidone 2.3 : 1 Large Unknown
256
GP visit (continued )
Implied Effect
Ondansetron : metoclopramide 2.3 : 1 Large Evidence comparing ondansetron with

metoclopramide showed mixed results, with
both improving symptoms. Ondansetron was
found to be more effective at reducing
symptoms of vomiting than metoclopramide
after 4 days
Ondansetron : cetirizine 2.3 : 1 Large Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Antihistamines : placebo Not Not Antihistamines appear to be better than
assessable assessable placebo in reducing the severity of
Implied Effect
Metoclopramide (tablets) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.0002 : 1 Small Unknown
Domperidone (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Domperidone (tablets) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown
Hydroxyzine (tablets) : domperidone (tablets) 1:1 Small Unknown
Hydroxyzine (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Hydroxyzine (tablets) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown
Prochlorperazine (tablets) : hydroxyzine 1.0001 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.0004 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (tablets) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.0006 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (tablets) : hydroxyzine 1.0002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (tablets) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.0007 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine (tablets) : chlorpromazine (tablets) 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown

continued
257
APPENDIX 10
TABLE 56 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if attending hospital as a

day case (continued )
Implied Effect
Cyclizine (tablets) : prochlorperazine (tablets) 1.0004 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine (tablets) : hydroxyzine (tablets) 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine (tablets) : domperidone (tablets) 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine (tablets) : metoclopramide (tablets) 1.0008 : 1 Small Unknown

Cyclizine (tablets) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
Codeine phosphate (tablets) : cyclizine 1:1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Codeine phosphate (tablets) : 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown


Codeine phosphate (tablets) : hydroxyzine 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Codeine phosphate (tablets) : domperidone 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

Codeine phosphate (tablets) : cetirizine 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Promethazine (tablets) : codeine Phosphate 1:1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Promethazine (tablets) : cyclizine (tablets) 1:1 Small Unknown
Promethazine (tablets) : chlorpromazine 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Promethazine (tablets) : prochlorperazine 1.0004 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Promethazine (tablets) : hydroxyzine (tablets) 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine (tablets) : domperidone 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Promethazine (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.0008 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is as
(tablets) effective as metoclopramide in reducing the
symptoms of NVP
Promethazine (tablets) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
Prochlorperazine (injection) : promethazine 1.0007 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (injection) : codeine 1.0007 : 1 Small Unknown

phosphate (tablets)
Prochlorperazine (injection) : cyclizine 1.0007 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

Prochlorperazine (injection) : hydroxyzine 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
258

Implied Effect

(tablets)

Prochlorperazine (injection) : cetirizine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Benadryl (capsules) : prochlorperazine 1.0002 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Benadryl (capsules) : promethazine (tablets) 1.0009 : 1 Small Unknown
Benadryl (capsules) : codeine phosphate 1.0009 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Benadryl (capsules) : cyclizine (tablets) 1.0009 : 1 Small Unknown
Benadryl (capsules) : chlorpromazine 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Benadryl (capsules) : prochlorperazine 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Benadryl (capsules) : hydroxyzine (tablets) 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
Benadryl (capsules) : domperidone (tablets) 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
Benadryl (capsules) : metoclopramide 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Benadryl (capsules) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : benadryl 1.0005 : 1 Small Unknown

(capsules)
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : prochlorperazine 1.0007 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : promethazine 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : codeine 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown

phosphate (tablets)
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : cyclizine (tablets) 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : chlorpromazine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : prochlorperazine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : hydroxyzine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : domperidone 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Dimenhydrinate (tablets) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
continued
259
APPENDIX 10

Implied Effect
Metoclopramide (injection) : dimenhydrinate 1.0008 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Metoclopramide (injection) : benadryl 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown

(capsules)
Metoclopramide (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Metoclopramide (injection) : promethazine 1.002 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is as
symptoms of NVP
Metoclopramide (injection) : codeine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
phosphate (tablets)
Metoclopramide (injection) : cyclizine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Metoclopramide (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

(tablets)
Metoclopramide (injection) : hydroxyzine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)

(tablets)
Metoclopramide (injection) : metoclopramide 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Metoclopramide (injection) : cetirizine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
(injection) metoclopramide showed mixed results, with
after 4 days
Ondansetron (injection) : dimenhydrinate 1.001 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Ondansetron (injection) : benadryl (capsules) 1.001 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
(injection)
Ondansetron (injection) : promethazine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Ondansetron (injection) : codeine phosphate 1.002 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
Ondansetron (injection) : cyclizine (tablets) 1.002 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
260

Implied Effect


(tablets)
Ondansetron (injection) : hydroxyzine 1.003 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines


(tablets)

(tablets) metoclopramide showed mixed results, with
after 4 days
Ondansetron (injection) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.003 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
Promethazine (injection) : ondansetron 1.0007 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Promethazine (injection) : metoclopramide 1.0008 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is as
(injection) effective as metoclopramide in reducing the
symptoms of NVP
Promethazine (injection) : dimenhydrinate 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Promethazine (injection) : benadryl 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
(capsules)

(injection)
Promethazine (injection) : promethazine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Promethazine (injection) : codeine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown

phosphate (tablets)
Promethazine (injection) : cyclizine (tablets) 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown
Promethazine (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
(tablets)
Promethazine (injection) : hydroxyzine 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Promethazine (injection) : domperidone 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Promethazine (injection) : metoclopramide 1.004 : 1 Small Limited data suggest that promethazine is as
symptoms of NVP
Promethazine (injection) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown
continued
261
APPENDIX 10

Implied Effect

(injection)
Cyclizine (injection) : ondansetron (injection) 1.003 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

(injection)
Cyclizine (injection) : dimenhydrinate 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Cyclizine (injection) : benadryl (capsules) 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Cyclizine (injection) : promethazine (tablets) 1.006 : 1 Small Unknown

Cyclizine (injection) : codeine phosphate 1.006 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Cyclizine (injection) : cyclizine (tablets) 1.006 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

(tablets)
Cyclizine (injection) : hydroxyzine (tablets) 1.006 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine (injection) : domperidone (tablets) 1.006 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Cyclizine (injection) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.007 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)

(injection)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : ondansetron 1.01 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Chlorpromazine (injection) : metoclopramide 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : dimenhydrinate 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : benadryl 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown
(capsules)


(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : codeine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

phosphate (tablets)
(tablets)
262

Implied Effect
Chlorpromazine (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

Chlorpromazine (injection) : hydroxyzine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

(tablets)

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : cetirizine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Doxylamine (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.008 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Doxylamine (injection) : cyclizine (injection) 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Doxylamine (injection) : promethazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Doxylamine (injection) : ondansetron 1.02 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Doxylamine (injection) : metoclopramide 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Doxylamine (injection) : dimenhydrinate 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Doxylamine (injection) : benadryl (capsules) 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Doxylamine (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Doxylamine (injection) : promethazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Doxylamine (injection) : codeine phosphate 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Doxylamine (injection) : cyclizine (tablets) 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

Doxylamine (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Doxylamine (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Doxylamine (injection) : hydroxyzine (tablets) 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Doxylamine (injection) : domperidone 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Doxylamine (injection) : metoclopramide 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Doxylamine (injection) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.02 : 1 Small Unknown
Ondansetron (tablets) : doxylamine 1.005 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

continued
263
APPENDIX 10

Implied Effect

Ondansetron (tablets) : cyclizine (injection) 1.02 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

(injection)
Ondansetron (tablets) : ondansetron 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)

after 4 days
Ondansetron (tablets) : dimenhydrinate 1.03 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Ondansetron (tablets) : benadryl (capsules) 1.03 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

(injection)

(tablets)
Ondansetron (tablets) : codeine phosphate 1.03 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
Ondansetron (tablets) : cyclizine (tablets) 1.03 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines


(tablets)
Ondansetron (tablets) : hydroxyzine (tablets) 1.03 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
Ondansetron (tablets) : domperidone 1.03 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
(tablets) metoclopramide showed mixed results, with
after 4 days
Ondansetron (tablets) : cetirizine (tablets) 1.03 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines
264

Implied Effect

Implied Effect
Gabapentin (tablets) : diazepam (tablets) 1.0001 : 1 Small Unknown
Domperidone (tablets) : gabapentin (tablets) 1.00005 : 1 Small Unknown
Domperidone (tablets) : diazepam (tablets) 1.0002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (tablets) : gabapentin 1.0002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (tablets) : diazepam (tablets) 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (tablets) : gabapentin 1.0002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (tablets) : diazepam (tablets) 1.0003 : 1 Small Unknown

Prochlorperazine (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.0008 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.0008 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (injection) : gabapentin 1.0009 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Prochlorperazine (injection) : diazepam 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)

(injection)
Metoclopramide (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

(tablets)
(tablets)
continued
265
APPENDIX 10
TABLE 57 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions if admitted as an inpatient (continued )
Implied Effect
Metoclopramide (injection) : gabapentin 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Metoclopramide (injection) : diazepam 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

after 4 days

(injection)


(tablets)

(tablets)
Ondansetron (injection) : gabapentin (tablets) 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
Ondansetron (injection) : diazepam (tablets) 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
Diazepam (injection) : ondansetron (injection) 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown
Diazepam (injection) : metoclopramide 1.002 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Diazepam (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Diazepam (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Diazepam (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Diazepam (injection) : domperidone (tablets) 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown
Diazepam (injection) : gabapentin (tablets) 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown
Diazepam (injection) : diazepam (tablets) 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown

Cyclizine (injection) : diazepam (injection) 1.0004 : 1 Small Unknown
Cyclizine (injection) : ondansetron (injection) 1.002 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

(injection)

(injection)
Cyclizine (injection) : chlorpromazine (tablets) 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Cyclizine (injection) : domperidone (tablets) 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown

Cyclizine (injection) : gabapentin (tablets) 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown
266
Implied Effect
Cyclizine (injection) : diazepam (tablets) 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown

Dicycloverine (tablets) : cyclizine (injection) 1.0008 : 1 Small Unknown
Dicycloverine (tablets) : diazepam (injection) 1.001 : 1 Small Unknown
Dicycloverine (tablets) : ondansetron 1.003 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines

Dicycloverine (tablets) : metoclopramide 1.003 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Dicycloverine (tablets) : prochlorperazine 1.004 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Dicycloverine (tablets) : chlorpromazine 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Dicycloverine (tablets) : prochlorperazine 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Dicycloverine (tablets) : domperidone (tablets) 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown
Dicycloverine (tablets) : gabapentin (tablets) 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown
Dicycloverine (tablets) : diazepam (tablets) 1.005 : 1 Small Unknown

Chlorpromazine (injection) : dicycloverine 1.006 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)

(injection)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : diazepam 1.008 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : ondansetron 1.01 : 1 Small Both ondansetron and antihistamines


(injection)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : chlorpromazine 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : prochlorperazine 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : gabapentin 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Chlorpromazine (injection) : diazepam 1.01 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : chlorpromazine 1.04 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : dicycloverine 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : cyclizine (injection) 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown

continued
267
APPENDIX 10
Implied Effect
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : diazepam (injection) 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown

Diazepam (rectal tubes) : ondansetron 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown
(injection)
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : metoclopramide 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : prochlorperazine 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown

(injection)
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : chlorpromazine 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : prochlorperazine 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown
(tablets)
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : domperidone 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown

(tablets)
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : gabapentin (tablets) 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown
Diazepam (rectal tubes) : diazepam (tablets) 1.05 : 1 Small Unknown

TABLE 58 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed second-line interventions 2 if admitted as an inpatient
TABLE 59 Cost comparisons of clinician-prescribed third-line interventions if admitted as an inpatient

TABLE 60 Cost comparison of 2-day day case management with 2-day inpatient management
Inpatient : day case 1.5 : 1 Large Results indicate that day case management is as
effective at improving severity scores as inpatient
management for some women. However, more, larger
studies are required to provide definitive results
268
EME
HS&DR
HTA
PGfAR
PHR
Part of the NIHR Journals Library
www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
This report presents independent research funded by the

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views
expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily
those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health
Published by the NIHR Journals Library

3003455

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationHEG

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

3003455

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3003455

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

VOLUME 20 ISSUE 74 OCTOBER 2016

Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum and nausea

Amy ODonnell, Catherine McParlin, Stephen C Robson, Fiona Beyer,

Amy ODonnell,1 Catherine McParlin,2

Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Published October 2016

Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Excerpta

ISSN 1366-5278 (Print)

ISSN 2046-4924 (Online)

Impact factor: 4.058

Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.uk

Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journal

NIHR Journals Library Editor-in-Chief

NIHR Journals Library Editors

Dr Martin Ashton-Key Consultant in Public Health Medicine/Consultant Advisor, NETSCC, UK

Dr Tessa Crilly Director, Crystal Blue Consulting Ltd, UK

Dr Eugenia Cronin Senior Scientific Advisor, Wessex Institute, UK

Ms Tara Lamont Scientific Advisor, NETSCC, UK

Professor John Norrie Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK

Dr Rob Riemsma Reviews Manager, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, UK

Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.uk

NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum and nausea and

Amy ODonnell,1 Catherine McParlin,2 Stephen C Robson,3

Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

*Corresponding author luke.vale@newcastle.ac.uk

List of tables xvii

List of figures xxi

List of boxes xxiii

List of abbreviations xxv

Plain English summary xxvii

Scientific summary xxix

Chapter 1 Introduction and background 1

Chapter 2 Methods for the systematic review of effectiveness 9

Chapter 3 Clinical effectiveness: overview of included studies 15

Chapter 4 Clinical effectiveness: ginger 31

Chapter 5 Clinical effectiveness: acupressure, acupuncture and nerve stimulation 45

Chapter 6 Clinical effectiveness: aromatherapy 71

Chapter 7 Clinical effectiveness: vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) 75

Chapter 8 Clinical effectiveness: pyridoxine/doxylamine combination 81

Chapter 9 Clinical effectiveness: antihistamines 87

Chapter 10 Clinical effectiveness: dopamine antagonists 91

Chapter 11 Clinical effectiveness: serotonin antagonists (ondansetron) 95

Chapter 12 Clinical effectiveness: intravenous fluids 103

Retching outcomes 105

Chapter 13 Clinical effectiveness: transdermal clonidine 107

Chapter 14 Clinical effectiveness: outpatient/day case management 109

Chapter 15 Clinical effectiveness: corticosteroids 111

Chapter 16 Clinical effectiveness: nasogastric enteral/jejunostomy feeding 119

Chapter 17 Clinical effectiveness: gabapentin 123

Chapter 18 Economic analysis 125

Chapter 19 Issues of importance to patients 153

Chapter 20 Issues of importance to practitioners 157

Chapter 21 Discussion 161

Chapter 22 Conclusions 167