Oral antihypertensive regimens (nifedipine retard, labetalol, and methyldopa) for management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.
Administration, Oral
Adult
Antihypertensive Agents
/ administration & dosage
Blood Pressure
/ drug effects
Female
Humans
Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced
/ drug therapy
India
/ epidemiology
Infant, Newborn
Labetalol
/ administration & dosage
Methyldopa
/ administration & dosage
Nifedipine
/ administration & dosage
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome
/ epidemiology
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Journal
Lancet (London, England)
ISSN: 1474-547X
Titre abrégé: Lancet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 2985213R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Sep 2019
21 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
12
03
2019
revised:
15
05
2019
accepted:
24
05
2019
pubmed:
6
8
2019
medline:
18
10
2019
entrez:
6
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hypertension is the most common medical disorder in pregnancy, complicating one in ten pregnancies. Treatment of severely increased blood pressure is widely recommended to reduce the risk for maternal complications. Regimens for the acute treatment of severe hypertension typically include intravenous medications. Although effective, these drugs require venous access and careful fetal monitoring and might not be feasible in busy or low-resource environments. We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of three oral drugs, labetalol, nifedipine retard, and methyldopa for the management of severe hypertension in pregnancy. In this multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared these oral antihypertensives in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India. Pregnant women were eligible for the trial if they were aged at least 18 years; they were pregnant with fetuses that had reached a gestational age of at least 28 weeks; they required pharmacological blood pressure control for severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥110 mm Hg); and were able to swallow oral medications. Women were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg oral nifedipine, 200 mg oral labetalol (hourly, in both of which the dose could be escalated if hypertension was maintained), or 1000 mg methyldopa (a single dose, without dose escalation). Masking of participants, study investigators, and care providers to group allocation was not possible because of different escalation protocols in the study groups. The primary outcome was blood pressure control (defined as 120-150 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and 70-100 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure) within 6 h with no adverse outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912677, and the Clinical Trial Registry, India, number ctri/2013/08/003866. Between April 1, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, we screened 2307 women for their inclusion in the study. We excluded 1413 (61%) women who were ineligible, declined to participate, had impending eclampsia, were in active labour, or had a combination of these factors. 11 (4%) women in the nifedipine group, ten (3%) women in the labetalol group, and 11 (4%) women in the methyldopa group were ineligible for treatment (because they had only one qualifying blood pressure measurement) or had treatment stopped (because of delivery or transfer elsewhere). 894 (39%) women were randomly assigned to a treatment group and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 298 (33%) women were assigned to receive nifedipine, 295 (33%) women were assigned to receive labetalol, and 301 (33%) women were assigned to receive methyldopa. The primary outcome was significantly more common in women in the nifedipine group than in those in the methyldopa group (249 [84%] women vs 230 [76%] women; p=0·03). However, the primary outcome did not differ between the nifedipine and labetalol groups (249 [84%] women vs 228 [77%] women; p=0·05) or the labetalol and methyldopa groups (p=0·80). Seven serious adverse events (1% of births) were reported during the study: one (<1%) woman in the labetalol group had an intrapartum seizure and six (1%) neonates (one [<1%] neonate in the nifedipine group, two [1%] neonates in the labetalol group, and three [1%] neonates in the methyldopa group) were stillborn. No birth had more than one adverse event. All oral antihypertensives reduced blood pressure to the reference range in most women. As single drugs, nifedipine retard use resulted in a greater frequency of primary outcome attainment than labetalol or methyldopa use. All three oral drugs-methyldopa, nifedipine, and labetalol-are viable initial options for treating severe hypertension in low-resource settings. PREEMPT (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; grantee of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hypertension is the most common medical disorder in pregnancy, complicating one in ten pregnancies. Treatment of severely increased blood pressure is widely recommended to reduce the risk for maternal complications. Regimens for the acute treatment of severe hypertension typically include intravenous medications. Although effective, these drugs require venous access and careful fetal monitoring and might not be feasible in busy or low-resource environments. We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of three oral drugs, labetalol, nifedipine retard, and methyldopa for the management of severe hypertension in pregnancy.
METHODS
METHODS
In this multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared these oral antihypertensives in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India. Pregnant women were eligible for the trial if they were aged at least 18 years; they were pregnant with fetuses that had reached a gestational age of at least 28 weeks; they required pharmacological blood pressure control for severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥110 mm Hg); and were able to swallow oral medications. Women were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg oral nifedipine, 200 mg oral labetalol (hourly, in both of which the dose could be escalated if hypertension was maintained), or 1000 mg methyldopa (a single dose, without dose escalation). Masking of participants, study investigators, and care providers to group allocation was not possible because of different escalation protocols in the study groups. The primary outcome was blood pressure control (defined as 120-150 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and 70-100 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure) within 6 h with no adverse outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912677, and the Clinical Trial Registry, India, number ctri/2013/08/003866.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Between April 1, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, we screened 2307 women for their inclusion in the study. We excluded 1413 (61%) women who were ineligible, declined to participate, had impending eclampsia, were in active labour, or had a combination of these factors. 11 (4%) women in the nifedipine group, ten (3%) women in the labetalol group, and 11 (4%) women in the methyldopa group were ineligible for treatment (because they had only one qualifying blood pressure measurement) or had treatment stopped (because of delivery or transfer elsewhere). 894 (39%) women were randomly assigned to a treatment group and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 298 (33%) women were assigned to receive nifedipine, 295 (33%) women were assigned to receive labetalol, and 301 (33%) women were assigned to receive methyldopa. The primary outcome was significantly more common in women in the nifedipine group than in those in the methyldopa group (249 [84%] women vs 230 [76%] women; p=0·03). However, the primary outcome did not differ between the nifedipine and labetalol groups (249 [84%] women vs 228 [77%] women; p=0·05) or the labetalol and methyldopa groups (p=0·80). Seven serious adverse events (1% of births) were reported during the study: one (<1%) woman in the labetalol group had an intrapartum seizure and six (1%) neonates (one [<1%] neonate in the nifedipine group, two [1%] neonates in the labetalol group, and three [1%] neonates in the methyldopa group) were stillborn. No birth had more than one adverse event.
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
All oral antihypertensives reduced blood pressure to the reference range in most women. As single drugs, nifedipine retard use resulted in a greater frequency of primary outcome attainment than labetalol or methyldopa use. All three oral drugs-methyldopa, nifedipine, and labetalol-are viable initial options for treating severe hypertension in low-resource settings.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
PREEMPT (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; grantee of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).
Identifiants
pubmed: 31378394
pii: S0140-6736(19)31282-6
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31282-6
pmc: PMC6857437
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antihypertensive Agents
0
Methyldopa
56LH93261Y
Nifedipine
I9ZF7L6G2L
Labetalol
R5H8897N95
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01912677']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1011-1021Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Soc Sci Med. 1994 Apr;38(8):1091-110
pubmed: 8042057
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014 May;36(5):416-41
pubmed: 24927294
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Sep;84(9):1906-1916
pubmed: 29974489
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013 Mar;35(3):215-223
pubmed: 23470109
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1987;10 Suppl 3:S101-3
pubmed: 2446054
BJOG. 2016 Jun;123(7):1143-51
pubmed: 26265372
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Oct;181(4):858-61
pubmed: 10521742
Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018 Jul;13:291-310
pubmed: 29803330
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 31;(7):CD001449
pubmed: 23900968
Lancet. 2013 May 18;381(9879):1747-55
pubmed: 23683641
Can J Cardiol. 2018 May;34(5):526-531
pubmed: 29731014
BJOG. 2005 Jul;112(7):875-80
pubmed: 15957986
Lancet. 2002 Jun 1;359(9321):1877-90
pubmed: 12057549
BJOG. 2000 Jun;107(6):759-65
pubmed: 10847232
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;187(4):1046-50
pubmed: 12389003
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Apr;129(4):e90-e95
pubmed: 28333820