DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, within-subject cross-over trial.

SETTING: Single-centre, tertiary, university hospital in Malaysia.

PARTICIPANTS: 72 women within 24-hour of first admission for HG who were 18 years or above, with confirmed clinical pregnancy of less than 16 weeks' gestation were recruited and analysed. Women unable to consume food due to extreme symptoms, known taste or swallowing disorder were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS: Each participant chewed and swallowed a small piece of apple, watermelon, cream cracker and white bread in random order and was observed for 10 min after each tasting followed by a 2 min washout for mouth rinsing and data collection.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was food agreeability scored after 10 min using an 11-point 0-10 Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS). Nausea was scored at baseline (prior to tasting) and 2 and 10 min using an 11-point VNRS. Intolerant responses of gagging, heaving and vomiting were recorded.

RESULTS: On agreeability scoring, apple (mean±SD 7.2±2.4) ranked highest followed by watermelon (7.0±2.7) and crackers (6.5±2.6), with white bread ranked lowest (6.0±2.7); Kruskal-Wallis H test, p=0.019. Apple had the lowest mean nausea score and mean rank score, while white bread had the highest at both 2 and 10 min; the Kruskal-Wallis H test showed a significant difference only at 10 min (p=0.019) but not at 2 min (p=0.29) in the ranking analyses. The intolerant (gagged, heaved or vomited) response rates within the 10 min study period were apple 3/72 (4%), watermelon 7/72 (10%), crackers 8/72 (11%) and white bread 12/72 (17%): χ2 test for trend p=0.02.

DESIGN: Randomised trial.

SETTING: University Hospital, Malaysia: April 2016-April 2017.

POPULATION: One hundred and sixty women hospitalised for HG.

METHOD: Women were randomised upon admission to fasting for 12 hours or expedited oral feeding. Standard HG care was instituted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was satisfaction score with overall treatment at 24 hours (0-10 Visual Numerical Rating Scale VNRS), vomiting episodes within 24 hours and nausea VNRS score at enrolment, and at 8, 16 and 24 hours.

RESULTS: Satisfaction score, median (interquartile range) 8 (5-9) versus 8 (7-9) (P = 0.08) and 24-hour vomiting episodes were 1 (0-4) versus 1 (0-5) (P = 0.24) for 12-hour fasting versus expedited feeding, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of nausea scores over 24 hours showed no difference (P = 0.11) between trial arms. Participants randomised to 12-hour fasting compared with expedited feeding were less likely to prefer their feeding regimen in future hospitalisation (41% versus 65%, P = 0.001), to recommend to a friend (65% versus 84%, P = 0.01; RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and to adhere to protocol (85% versus 95%, P = 0.04; RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8-1.0). Symptoms profile, ketonuria status at 24 hours and length of hospital stay were not different.

CONCLUSION: Advisory of 12-hour fasting compared with immediate oral feeding resulted in a non-significant difference in satisfaction score but adherence to protocol and fidelity to and recommendation of immediate oral feeding to a friend were lower. The 24-hour nausea scores and vomiting episodes were similar.

METHODS: Women at their first hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum were enrolled on admission to the ward and randomly assigned to receive either 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline by intravenous infusion at a rate 125 mL/h over 24 hours in a double-blind trial. All participants also received thiamine and an antiemetic intravenously. Oral intake was allowed as tolerated. Primary outcomes were resolution of ketonuria and well-being (by 10-point visual numerical rating scale) at 24 hours. Nausea visual numerical rating scale scores were obtained every 8 hours for 24 hours.

RESULTS: Persistent ketonuria rates after the 24-hour study period were 10 of 101 (9.9%) compared with 11 of 101 (10.9%) (P>.99; relative risk 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4-2.2) and median (interquartile range) well-being scores at 24 hours were 9 (8-10) compared with 9 (8-9.5) (P=.73) in the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline and 0.9% saline arms, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of the nausea visual numerical rating scale score as assessed every 8 hours during the 24-hour study period showed a significant difference in favor of the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline arm (P=.046) with the superiority apparent at 8 and 16 hours, but the advantage had dissipated by 24 hours. Secondary outcomes of vomiting, resolution of hyponatremia, hypochloremia and hypokalemia, length of hospitalization, duration of intravenous antiemetic, and rehydration were not different.

CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous rehydration with 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline solution in women hospitalized for hyperemesis gravidarum produced similar outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register, www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn, ISRCTN65014409.

RECENT FINDINGS: The cause of hyperemesis is continuing to be elaborated. Recent data attest to the effectiveness of the oral doxylamine-pyridoxine in NVP. Follow-up data of children exposed in early pregnancy to doxylamine-pyridoxine for NVP are reassuring. Evidence is increasing for ginger as an effective herbal remedy for NVP. Metoclopramide is effective in NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, with a good balance of efficacy and tolerability. A recent large-scale study on first trimester exposure to metoclopramide is reassuring of its safety. Evidence is emerging for the treatment of acid reflux to ameliorate NVP. The role of corticosteroids for hyperemesis gravidarum remains controversial. Transpyloric feeding may be warranted for persistent weight loss, despite optimal antiemetic therapy.

METHODS: Women at their first hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum were approached when intravenous antiemetic therapy was needed. They were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg promethazine or 10 mg metoclopramide every 8 hours for 24 hours in a double-blind study. Primary outcomes were vomiting episodes by diary and well-being visual numerical rating scale score (10-point scale) in the 24-hour main study period. Participants also filled out an adverse-effects questionnaire at 24 hours and a nausea visual numerical rating scale score at recruitment and at 8, 16, and 24 hours.