Literature DB >> 30277556

Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy.

Edgardo Abalos1, Lelia Duley, D Wilhelm Steyn, Celina Gialdini.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve pregnancy outcome. This Cochrane Review is an updated review, first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2007 and 2014.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatments for women with mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 September 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy, defined as systolic blood pressure 140 to 169 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 to 109 mmHg. Comparisons were of one or more antihypertensive drug(s) with placebo, with no antihypertensive drug, or with another antihypertensive drug, and where treatment was planned to continue for at least seven days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN
RESULTS: For this update, we included 63 trials (data from 58 trials, 5909 women), with moderate to high risk of bias overall.We carried out GRADE assessments for the main 'antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug' comparison only. Evidence was graded from very low to moderate certainty, with downgrading mainly due to design limitations and imprecision.For many outcomes, trials contributing data evaluated different hypertensive drugs; while we did not downgrade for this indirectness, results should be interpreted with caution.Antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug (31 trials, 3485 women)Primary outcomes: moderate-certainty evidence suggests that use of antihypertensive drug(s) probably halves the risk of developing severe hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.60; 20 trials, 2558 women), but may have little or no effect on the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.14; 23 trials, 2851 women; low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence also shows that antihypertensive drug(s) probably have little or no effect in the risk of total reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) (aRR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04; 29 trials, 3365 women), small-for-gestational-age babies (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18; 21 trials, 2686 babies) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; 15 trials, 2141 women). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: we are uncertain of the effect of antihypertensive drug(s) on the risk of maternal death, severe pre-eclampsia, or eclampsia, orimpaired long-term growth and development of the baby in infancy and childhood, because the certainty of this evidence is very low. There may be little or no effect on the risk of changed/stopped drugs due to maternal side-effects, or admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery (low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of elective delivery (moderate-certainty evidence).Antihypertensive drug versus another antihypertensive drug (29 trials, 2774 women)Primary outcomes: beta blockers and calcium channel blockers together in the meta-analysis appear to be more effective than methyldopa in avoiding an episode of severe hypertension (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88; 11 trials, 638 women). There was also an increase in this risk when other antihypertensive drugs were compared with calcium channel blockers (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.15; 5 trials, 223 women), but no evidence of a difference when methyldopa and calcium channel blockers together were compared with beta blockers (RR1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.48; 10 trials, 692 women). No evidence of a difference in the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia was found when alternative drugs were compared with methyldopa (aRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06; 11 trials, 997 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR: 1.24, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.19; 5 trials, 375 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.67; 12 trials, 1107 women).For the babies, we found no evidence of a difference in the risk oftotal reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) when comparing other antihypertensive drugs with methyldopa (aRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.14; 22 trials, 1791 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.57; nine trials, 700 babies), or with beta blockers (aRR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.88; 19 trials, 1652 babies); nor in the risk for small-for-gestational age in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.20; seven trials, 597 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.73; four trials, 200 babies), or with beta blockers (average RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.60; 7 trials, 680 babies). No evidence of an overall difference among groups in the risk of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) was found in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.22; 11 trials, 835 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.23; six trials, 330 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.66; 9 trials, 806 women). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: There were no cases of maternal death andeclampsia. There is no evidence of a difference in the risk of severe pre-eclampsia, changed/stopped drug due to maternal side-effects, elective delivery, admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery when other antihypertensive drugs are compared with methyldopa, calcium channel blockers or beta blockers. Impaired long-term growth and development in infancy and childhood was not reported for these comparisons. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy reduces the risk of severe hypertension. The effect on other clinically important outcomes remains unclear. If antihypertensive drugs are used, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers appear to be more effective than the alternatives for preventing severe hypertension. High-quality large sample-sized randomised controlled trials are required in order to provide reliable estimates of the benefits and adverse effects of antihypertensive treatment for mild to moderate hypertension for both mother and baby, as well as costs to the health services, women and their families.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30277556      PMCID: PMC6517078          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002252.pub4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  138 in total

1.  To study the changes in fetal hemodynamics with intravenous labetalol or nifedipine in acute severe hypertension.

Authors:  Shalini Gainder; Monika Thakur; S C Saha; Mahesh Prakash
Journal:  Pregnancy Hypertens       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 2.899

2.  OS013. Reduction of preeclampsia related complications with with theNO-donor penterythriltetranitrat (petn) in risk pregnancies - Aprospective randomized double-blind placebo pilot study.

Authors:  T Groten; J Fitzgerald; T Lehmann; U Schneider; C Kähler; E Schleussner
Journal:  Pregnancy Hypertens       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 2.899

3.  Early blood pressure control improves pregnancy outcome in primigravid women with mild hypertension.

Authors:  A F Phippard; W E Fischer; J S Horvath; A G Child; A R Korda; D Henderson-Smart; G G Duggin; D J Tiller
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1991-03-18       Impact factor: 7.738

4.  L-arginine supplementation in women with chronic hypertension: impact on blood pressure and maternal and neonatal complications.

Authors:  Isabella Neri; Francesca Monari; Laura Sgarbi; Alberto Berardi; Giuseppe Masellis; Fabio Facchinetti
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2010-10-20

5.  Neonatal adaptation in hypertensive pregnancy--a study of labetalol vs hydralazine treatment.

Authors:  R Hjertberg; G Faxelius; H Lagercrantz
Journal:  J Perinat Med       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 1.901

6.  Propranolol in pregnancy three year prospective study.

Authors:  I Livingstone; P W Craswell; E B Bevan; M T Smith; M J Eadie
Journal:  Clin Exp Hypertens B       Date:  1983

7.  Uterine and fetal hemodynamics and fetal cardiac function after atenolol and pindolol infusion. A randomized study.

Authors:  J Räsänen; P Jouppila
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 2.435

8.  The effect of sublingual nifedipine on uteroplacental blood flow in hypertensive pregnancy.

Authors:  S W Lindow; N Davies; D A Davey; J A Smith
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1988-12

9.  The fetal outcome in a randomized double-blind controlled trial of labetalol versus placebo in pregnancy-induced hypertension.

Authors:  C J Pickles; E M Symonds; F Broughton Pipkin
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1989-01

10.  Randomised comparison of methyldopa and oxprenolol for treatment of hypertension in pregnancy.

Authors:  E D Gallery; D M Saunders; S N Hunyor; A Z Györy
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1979-06-16
View more
  32 in total

Review 1.  Preeclampsia beyond pregnancy: long-term consequences for mother and child.

Authors:  Hannah R Turbeville; Jennifer M Sasser
Journal:  Am J Physiol Renal Physiol       Date:  2020-04-06

2.  Optimal blood pressure target to prevent severe hypertension in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Makiko Abe; Hisatomi Arima; Yuichi Yoshida; Ako Fukami; Atsushi Sakima; Hirohito Metoki; Kazuhiro Tada; Asako Mito; Satoshi Morimoto; Hirotaka Shibata; Masashi Mukoyama
Journal:  Hypertens Res       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 3.872

3.  Tight control of blood pressure in pregnant women with nonsevere hypertension: expectations for decreasing adverse maternal and fetal pregnancy outcomes.

Authors:  Akihide Ohkuchi; Atsuhiro Ichihara
Journal:  Hypertens Res       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 3.872

Review 4.  The Impact of Pregnancy on Antihypertensive Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics: Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Ian R Mulrenin; Julian E Garcia; Muluneh M Fashe; Matthew Shane Loop; Melissa A Daubert; Rachel Peragallo Urrutia; Craig R Lee
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 4.481

5.  Severe hypertension in pregnancy.

Authors:  Kate Wiles; Mellisa Damodaram; Charlotte Frise
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2021-09       Impact factor: 5.410

6.  Historical and Recent Changes in Maternal Mortality Due to Hypertensive Disorders in the United States, 1979 to 2018.

Authors:  Cande V Ananth; Justin S Brandt; Jennifer Hill; Hillary L Graham; Sonal Grover; Meike Schuster; Haylea S Patrick; K S Joseph
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 9.897

7.  Clinical practice guideline on pregnancy and renal disease.

Authors:  Kate Wiles; Lucy Chappell; Katherine Clark; Louise Elman; Matt Hall; Liz Lightstone; Germin Mohamed; Durba Mukherjee; Catherine Nelson-Piercy; Philip Webster; Rebecca Whybrow; Kate Bramham
Journal:  BMC Nephrol       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 2.388

Review 8.  Updates in Diagnosis and Management of Preeclampsia in Women with CKD.

Authors:  Kate Wiles; Lucy C Chappell; Liz Lightstone; Kate Bramham
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 8.237

Review 9.  Blood Pressure Variability in Pregnancy: an Opportunity to Develop Improved Prognostic and Risk Assessment Tools.

Authors:  Jane V Vermunt; Stephen H Kennedy; Vesna D Garovic
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 5.369

10.  A Validation Study on the Frequency and Natural History of Miscarriages Using the Spanish Primary Care Database BIFAP.

Authors:  Sara Sanchez Ortiz; Consuelo Huerta; Ana Llorente-García; Paloma Ortega; Paloma Astasio; Lucía Cea-Soriano
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.