Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia

Donel S; Dhini Aiyulie Novri; Yulis Hamidy; Maya Savira

doi:10.12688/f1000research.125944.1

Home Browse Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Donel S ¹, Dhini Aiyulie Novri¹, Yulis Hamidy², Maya Savira³

PUBLISHED 10 Nov 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, 28293, Indonesia
² Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, 28293, Indonesia
³ Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, 28293, Indonesia

Donel S
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Dhini Aiyulie Novri
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Yulis Hamidy
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Maya Savira
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Preeclampsia is a highly prevalent disease among pregnant women. In the event of hypertensive emergency, nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine are assigned as first-line therapies in preeclampsia. Further studies are needed to compare the effectiveness of these drugs to find the most cost-effective drug with minimal side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these drugs in lowering blood pressure during hypertensive emergencies in severe preeclampsia.
Methods: 60 pregnant women with severe preeclampsia were recruited in this multiple centre double-blind randomized clinical trial from May 2021 to April 2022 in Indonesia. The patients were divided equally into three groups and treated with three doses of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine, respectively within one hour with 20 minutes interval. The effectiveness was measured based on systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and mean arterial pressure (MAP). The observation was carried out until five hours post-third dose administration.
Results: The blood pressure was reduced significantly after the administration of the first to the third dose of each antihypertensive (p<0.05). A single dose administration, four, one, and three patients had 20% MAP reduction in nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine group. Three, seven, and one patient had a failure of reaching 20% MAP reduction even after receiving the third dose. The effectiveness of the drugs to achieve 20% reduction of MAP could be ranked as follows: nifedipine>labetalol>hydralazine (57.49%, 42.13%, and 40.87%, respectively) for single dose and hydralazine>nifedipine>labetalol (111.3%, 85.12%, and 90.04%, respectively) for triple dose.
Conclusions: Nifedipine is the most effective drug to reduce the blood pressure when single dose administration is used, but requires more doses to further reduce the blood pressure. Hydralazine is the most effective when the drug administration is maxed up to three doses within 60 minutes with 20 minutes interval.
Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR): TCTR20221014007 (14/10/2022)

Keywords

Hypertension; gestation; systolic blood pressure; diastolic blood pressures; mean arterial pressure; preeclampsia

Corresponding author: Donel S

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2022 S D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: S D, Novri DA, Hamidy Y and Savira M. Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1287 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125944.1) First published: 10 Nov 2022, 11:1287 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125944.1) Latest published: 27 Apr 2023, 11:1287 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125944.2)

Introduction

Preeclampsia and eclampsia are major problems in obstetric cares. Preeclampsia is one of the main causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in addition to infection and bleeding with the prevalence rate between 5–8% among pregnant women.¹ The main cause of preeclampsia is unknown and the disease is therefore also called the disease of theory. As a result, the guidelines of preeclampsia management are updated and changed from time to time.² Research continues to be updated to find the best formulation for diagnosis and management with the main aim to provide the management with the most optimal outcome for the mother and foetus. Termination of pregnancy is still considered the gold standard in severe preeclampsia, but this becomes a problem when the pregnancy is still premature as it can increase the infant mortality rate.¹

High blood pressure is the main indicator in the diagnosis of preeclampsia. Treatment of severe preeclampsia requires anticonvulsant and antihypertensive drugs. The purpose of administering antihypertensive drugs is to prevent cerebral bleeding. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG) states that pregnant women with systolic blood pressure 160 mmHg and/or diastolic 110 mmHg that persist for 15 minutes should be considered an emergency condition and receive antihypertensives immediately, no later than 30 minutes.² To date, ACOG has offered nifedipine, labetalol, or hydralazine as the antihypertensive emergency in preeclampsia.² In June 2020, ACOG issued a statement that women with gestational hypertension presenting with high blood pressure (severe range) should be treated as same as severe preeclampsia.¹

An indicator of a decrease in blood pressure in patients with severe preeclampsia is the mean arterial pressure (MAP). MAP is obtained by the formula of twice the diastolic pressure plus one systolic pressure, then divided by three.³ The target for MAP reduction in patients with severe preeclampsia is around 20–25%.³ This aims to maintain adequate uteroplacental circulation for the foetus. If blood pressure is reduced too low, there will be a sharp decrease in placental perfusion resulting in foetal distress, while the main goal of the management of preeclampsia is not only centred on the mother, but also on the outcome of the baby.

Recommendations for antihypertensive drugs in preeclampsia are growing rapidly. Multiple drugs are included and excluded from the list of drugs of choice for the treatment of severe preeclampsia. Labetalol and intravenous hydralazine have long been considered as first-line therapy in hypertensive emergencies, severe hypertension in pregnant women, and in the postpartum period.⁴ Although there is little information regarding the use of calcium channel blockers, several studies have shown that nifedipine can also be considered as first-line therapy, especially when intravenous access is difficult.² However, further studies are needed to compare the effectiveness of these three drugs with the aim of finding cost-effective drugs with minimal side effects, and right on target.

Previous studies on the effectiveness of these three drugs showed mixed results.⁴^,⁵ Hydralazine and labetalol are considered to have a balanced effectiveness and side effect in lowering blood pressure in preeclampsia.⁴^,⁶ However, labetalol lowered blood pressure more rapidly than hydralazine.⁴ Another study comparing nifedipine and labetalol showed that these two drugs had the same effectiveness in lowering blood pressure in preeclampsia, but single-use nifedipine was more effective than labetalol.⁵

In our preliminary study, the emergency antihypertensive drugs in severe preeclampsia that are often used in the Arifin Achmad Hospital, Riau Province of Indonesia and the affiliated hospitals of Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, are nifedipine and methyldopa. There has never been a standardized study or observation on the safety and effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs in Indonesian population. Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of oral nifedipine, and intravenous labetalol and hydralazine as antihypertensives in severe preeclampsia.

Methods

Study setting and registration

This study was a double-blind, randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of oral nifedipine, intravenous labetalol, and intravenous hydralazine as antihypertensive emergency in severe preeclampsia. The multicentre study was conducted at four hospitals at Riau Province of Indonesia, Arifin Achmad Hospital, Tengku Rafian Siak Sri Indrapura Hospital, Dumai Hospital, and Bengkalis Hospital, from May 2021 to April 2022.

Ethical considerations

The protocol of the study was approved on 28 May 2021 by the Medical and Health Research Ethics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau with the number B/045/UN19.5.1.1.8/UEPKK/2021. This clinical trial has been registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) with identification number is TCTR20221014007 (approved on 14 October 2022). This clinical trial was registered retrospectively in TCTR since the protocol of the study has been registered locally and this following the Indonesia law. All patients gave written informed consent before the enrolment. This study is reported in line with the CONSORT guidelines.²⁰

Patient recruitment and criteria

The severe preeclampsia patients were recruited consecutively from populations that met the inclusion criteria. The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients. This number based on calculation based on formula:

n 1 = n 2 - n 3 = {[\frac{(Zα + Zβ) S}{(x 1 - x 2)}]}^{2} (1 - ρ)

where α is the significance level to be measured (0.05), β is the study power (80%) and x1-x2 is the difference of the score between groups that considered significant (10) and S is standard deviation e between groups.

However, a total of 20 severe preeclampsia patients were recruited for each group to prevent underpower due to drop-out and therefore there were 60 patients included in this study. The severe preeclampsia was defined as pregnant women with systolic blood pressure ≥160 mmHg or diastolic ≥110 mmHg that persisted for 15 minutes. Inclusion criteria were: (a) severe preeclampsia patient with 28–34-week gestation; (b) had live foetus; (c) upper arm circumference 23.5–33 cm; and (d) haemoglobin level at least 10.5 g/dL. All severe preeclampsia patients with decreased consciousness; had complications such as eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, kidney failure, or acute pulmonary oedema; in labour; received antihypertensive therapy in the last 12 hours; had an allergy to the trial drugs; and had asthma and heart disease were excluded. In this study the drop-out criteria were: the mother experienced allergy symptoms, had labour, or emergency symptoms such as placental abruption and foetal distress during the study.

Blinding and study procedure

All severe preeclampsia patients who came to the hospitals were subjected to anamnesis, physical and laboratories examination and then selected based on predetermined inclusion criteria. Blood pressure measurements were carried out using a digital sphygmomanometer with the Omron 7600T brand. The patient was asked to sit and rest for 10 minutes, the measurement was conducted twice on the arm with a distance period of 15 minutes, and the data taken was the second measurement. If the patients met the requirements, they were asked to participate in the study and all patients have to sign the written informed consent before the enrolment. The assigned group was computerized randomized using Randomizer software. Simple randomization was employed. In brief, 60 kits were prepared by the authors and were labelled 1 to 60 and each of kit containing three tables and three ampoules with the same sizes and colours. Kits no 1–20, 21–40 and 41–60 contained nifedipine, labetalol and hydralazine, respectively. For example, for one nifedipine kit, it contained 3 nifedipine tablets and 3 ampoules of placebo liquid. An author created the random sequence list consisting who will receive the kit no 1 until 60 based on random sequences provided by Randomizer software. For example, the patient who arrived first and second to the hospital should be given kit no 41 and 23. Each drug was administered 3 doses within 60 minutes (i.e., 20 minutes interval). Each dose of the drug contained: oral nifedipine (20 mg), intravenous labetalol (20 mg in 10 ml of sodium chloride 0.9%) and intravenous hydralazine (10 mg in 10 ml of sodium chloride 0.9%). Since the study consisted multiple healthcare centers, patient enrolment was conducted in one hospital at one time based on allocated time. Therefore, there were no separation of the sequence list between centres.

The enrolment of the patient was conducted by the healthcare workers in each centre. Health care workers and patients did not know the drugs contained in the kit. Health workers were instructed to administrate one pair of drugs (i.e., one tablet and one ampoule injection; this contained one drug and one placebo) for each time. The blood pressure was assessed 20 minutes after each administration. If the blood pressure did not meet the MAP target, the second pair of drugs (one tablet and one ampoule injection) was given and the blood pressure was reassessed in 20 minutes until the third pair of the drugs. The technique of administering magnesium sulphate and dexamethasone was uniform in all patients. If the MAP was nor reached after the third dose, the patient was treated with other drugs and excluded from the final analysis.

End points

The end points of this study were: (a) systolic blood pressure; (b) diastolic blood pressure; (c) MAP; and (d) side effects. The blood pressure was measured seven times as follows: (1) minute 0 (pre-treatment); (2) 20 min post-first dose; (3) 20 min post-second dose (i.e., 40 min post-first dose); (4) 20 min post-third dose (i.e., 60 min post-first dose); (5) 2 h post-first dose; (6) 4 h post-first dose; and (7) 6 h post-first dose.

Statistical analysis

Characteristics of patients from each group were tested for normality. If the distribution was normal, the data were analysed using one-way ANOVA and followed by post hoc analyses. If the distribution was not normal, the data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis and Friedmann followed by post hoc analyses. Comparison of the effectiveness of the three drugs was tested using N-Gain analysis. To determine how far the differences exist, Cohen's d effect size analysis was used. Further analysis with Kaplan-Meier survival was conducted. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 22 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

The study was conducted on 60 patients with severe preeclampsia and they were divided into 3 groups: 20 patients in the nifedipine group, 20 patients in the labetalol group, and 20 patients in the hydralazine group.¹⁹ Patients were recruited from the population that met the inclusion criteria and were willing to participate in the study by signing an informed consent. Patients were then monitored closely and periodically according to the study protocol. The number of patients for each step of enrolment, allocation, follow-up and analysis are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flowchart of patients’ enrolment, allocation, follow-up and analysis.

Patients’ characteristics

We recruited 60 severe preeclampsia patients and were divided randomly to receive nifedipine, labetalol and hydralazine. The characteristics of the patients including age, gravida, gestational age (gestation), upper arm circumference (UAC), systolic, diastolic, MAP, pulse, and foetal heart rate of each group are presented in Table 1. Our data indicated that there is uniformity of characteristics between the three groups.

Table 1. Characteristics of the patients of three study groups pre-treatment.

Characteristic	Nifedipine n=20	Labetalol n=20	Hydralazine n=20	p-value^a
Age (year)	30.7±5.8	30.3±5.2	30.9±4.2	0.148
Gravida	1.6±0.9	1.5±0.7	1.5±0.6	0.142
Gestation (week)	31.2±3.0	31.7±1.8	31.5±3.6	0.227
Upper arm circumference (mm)	30.7±3.3	28.6±2.3	28.9±2.4	0.588
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	170.7±11.6	177.4±16.0	174.2±13.7	0.088
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	112.6±19.4	105.7±15.8	107.7±16.0	0.645
Mean arterial pressure (mmHg)	132.0±14.5	130.0±12.0	130.0±9.6	0.094
Pulse (min^-1)	83.4±1.8	83.2±1.2	85.5±1.4	0.260
Foetal heart rate (min^-1)	146.4±7	144.3±6.9	144.6±5.4	0.346

a Analysis was conducted using ANOVA.

Required time for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target

Data regarding the time required for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reach the target MAP (20% reduction) are presented in Figure 1. The study found that 4, 1 and 3 patients of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine group achieved the MAP target with only one dose, respectively. There were 3, 7 and 1 patients were unable to achieve the target MAP after three doses of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine, respectively and these patients were excluded from further analyses.

Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reduce the blood pressure

We assessed the effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reduce the systolic and diastolic blood pressure where the data were treated as numerically to provided more detailed blood pressure reduction.

Nifedipine

The effectivity of nifedipine to reduce the systolic, diastolic and MAP is presented in Table 2. Our data indicated that nifedipine decreased the systolic pressure the most at 20 min post-first dose (difference from the first measurement to the second measurement) as much as 13.41 mmHg with a p<0.001. Meanwhile for second dose (second third measurement), and the next dose no longer showed a significant difference. Nifedipine also decreased diastolic pressure the most and significantly at 20 min post-first dose as much as 16.71 mmHg with a p<0.001 (Table 2). Nifedipine decreased the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg 20 min post the first, second and the third dose of nifedipine (Table 2). The MAP reduction on 20 min post the first and third doses was significant statistically with p=0.010 and p=0.024, respectively.

Table 2. Effect of nifedipine to reduce the blood pressure over time in severe preeclampsia patient.

Blood pressure	Time comparation	Mean difference (I-J)^a	95% CI for difference^b		p-value^b
Blood pressure	Time comparation	Mean difference (I-J)^a	Lower bound	Upper bound	p-value^b
Systolic	Pre – 20 min	13.412	7.019	19.805	<0.001^**
	20 min – 40 min	4.412	-4.464	13.288	1.000
	40 min – 60 min	3.765	-4.857	12.387	1.000
	60 min – 2 h	4.529	-14.701	23.760	1.000
	2 h – 4 h	-4.176	-10.050	1.697	0.438
	4 h – 6 h	-7.765	-16.654	1.124	0.131
	6 h – Pre	-14.176	-23.586	-4.767	0.001^**
Diastolic	Pre – 20 min	16.706	9.634	23.778	<0.001^**
	20 min – 40 min	7.353	-1.143	15.849	0.139
	40 min – 60 min	2.471	-5.993	10.934	1.000
	60 min – 2 h	2.118	-8.781	13.016	1.000
	2 h – 4 h	-3.706	-10.410	2.999	1.000
	4 h – 6 h	-7.118	-12.873	-1.362	0.008^**
	6 h – Pre	-17.824	-31.400	-4.247	0.005^**
MAP	Pre – 20 min	15.608	10.391	20.825	<0.001^**
	20 min – 40 min	6.373	-0.925	13.670	0.131
	40 min– 60 min	2.902	-5.090	10.894	1.000
	60 min – 2 h	2.922	-10.434	16.277	1.000
	2 h – 4 h	-3.863	-9.050	1.324	0.343
	4 h – 6 h	-7.333	-12.962	-1.705	0.005^**
	6 h – Pre	-16.608	-26.980	-6.236	0.001^**

a Based on estimated marginal means.

b Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

* The mean difference is significant at p<0.05.

** The mean difference is significant at p<0.01.

The changes of the mean systolic, diastolic and MAP are presented in Figure 2. The data suggested there was a sharp decrease of systolic and diastolic after the first dose of nifedipine and the blood pressure kept decrease until 20 min after the third dose (after 2 hours of first dose) but it started to bounce again afterward (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Dose required to reach target mean arterial pressure (MAP) in patients with severe preeclampsia treated with nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine.

Labetalol

Labetalol decreased systolic blood pressure the most and significantly at 20 min post the first and the third dose (13.38 and 12.00 mmHg) (Table 3). The systolic blood pressure continued to decrease until 5 hours post the third dose (Figure 3). The pattern of the of the reduction was similar with diastolic where the reduction mainly occurred after 20 min post the first and third dose (with reduction about 9.69 and 8.30 mmHg, respectively) (Table 3). In contrast, the diastolic blood pressure increased after the 20 min post the third dose (Figure 3). The changes of the MAP were similar with diastolic and the increase of diastolic and MAP were very small after the third dose (Figure 3).

Table 3. Effect of labetalol to reduce the blood pressure over time in severe preeclampsia patient.

Blood pressure	Time comparation	Mean difference (I-J)^a	95% CI for difference^b		p-value^b
Blood pressure	Time comparation	Mean difference (I-J)^a	Lower bound	Upper bound	p-value^b
Systolic	Pre – 20 min	13.385	2.538	24.232	0.010^**
	20 min – 40 min	5.462	-8.580	19.503	1.000
	40 min – 60 min	12.000	1.158	22.842	0.024^*
	60 min – 2 h	0.692	-6.271	7.656	1.000
	2 h – 4 h	0.538	-5.423	6.500	1.000
	4 h – 6 h	2.077	-2.097	6.251	1.000
	6 h – Pre	-34.154	-46.904	-21.404	<0.001^**
Diastolic	Pre – 20 min	9.692	3.625	15.759	0.001^**
	20 min – 40 min	5.462	-8.012	18.935	1.000
	40 min – 60 min	8.308	2.609	14.006	0.002^**
	60 min – 2 h	-0.846	-7.149	5.456	1.000
	2 h – 4 h	-2.923	-8.335	2.489	1.000
	4 h – 6 h	0.538	-4.307	5.384	1.000
	6 h – Pre	-20.231	-37.391	-3.070	0.015^*
MAP	Pre – 20 min	10.921	4.931	16.910	<0.001^**
	20 min – 40 min	5.464	-5.311	16.240	1.000
	40 min – 60 min	9.538	2.442	16.635	0.005^**
	60 min – 2 h	-0.333	-6.081	5.414	1.000
	2 h – 4 h	-1.769	-5.590	2.052	1.000
	4 h – 6 h	1.051	-2.347	4.450	1.000
	6 h – Pre	-24.872	-36.993	-12.751	<0.001^**

a Based on estimated marginal means.

b Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

* The mean difference is significant at p<0.05.

** The mean difference is significant at p<0.01.

Figure 3. Changes of systolic (A), diastolic (B) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) post nifedipine administration.

The blood pressure is measured: (1) minute 0 (pre-treatment); (2) 20 min post-first dose; (3) 20 min post-second dose; (4) 20 min post-third dose; (5) 1 h post-third dose; (6) 3 h post-third dose; and (7) 5 h post-third dose.

Hydralazine

Effectivity of hydralazine in lowering the blood pressure has been presented in Table 4. Due to abnormal distribution of the systolic data, Friedman's test was carried out instead. The test yielded p-value of less than 0.001. As for the diastolic blood pressure and MAP, significant decreases was obtained until 20 minutes post-third dose. This can be observed in the curve presented in Figure 4, where sharp decreases of systolic pressure were observed up to 20 minutes post-third administration. However, in the case of systolic blood pressure, a mild rebound occurred at 1 hour post-third administration (Figure 4A).

Table 4. Effect of hydralazine to reduce the blood pressure over time in severe preeclampsia patients.

Blood pressure	Time comparation	Mean rank or mean difference (I-J)^a	95% CI for difference^b		p-value^b
Blood pressure	Time comparation	Mean rank or mean difference (I-J)^a	Lower bound	Upper bound	p-value^b
Systolic	Pre – 20 min	6.95
	20 min – 40 min	5.71
	40 min 3 – 60 min	3.85
	60 min – 2 h	2.84
	2 h – 4 h	3.13
	4 h – 6 h	2.92
	6 h – Pre	6.95
Diastolic	Pre – 20 min	12.000	3.928	20.072	0.001**
	20 min – 40 min	8.579	1.175	15.983	0.014*
	40 min 3 – 60 min	8.421	1.412	15.430	0.010*
	60 min – 2 h	0.684	-4.275	5.643	1.000
	2 h – 4 h	-0.737	-3.965	2.491	1.000
	4 h – 6 h	-0.105	-4.567	4.357	1.000
	6 h – Pre	-28.842	-37.887	-19.798	<0.001**
MAP	Pre – 20 min	11.982	4.784	19.180	<0.001**
	20 min – 40 min	9.912	3.542	16.283	0.001**
	40 min 3 – 60 min	7.825	2.416	13.233	0.002**
	60 min – 2 h	0.281	-3.201	3.762	1.000
	2 h – 4 h	0.035	-2.152	2.222	1.000
	4 h – 6 h	0.175	-2.685	3.036	1.000
	6 h – Pre	-30.211	-34.932	-25.489	<0.001**

a Based on estimated marginal means.

b Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

* The mean difference is significant at p<0.05.

** The mean difference is significant at p<0.01.

Figure 4. Changes of systolic (A), diastolic (B) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) post labetalol administration.

Effectiveness comparisons of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine after single and triple dose administration

To compare the effectiveness among the three drugs, N-gain values were calculated based on the MAP reduction and presented in Table 5. The results showed that nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine in a single dose had N-gain values of 0.575 (58%); 0.421 (42%); and 0.408 (41%), respectively. This means, according to Melzer criteria,⁷ these three drugs had medium effectiveness in lowering blood pressure to achieve the target MAP (20%). Meanwhile, if referred to Hake criteria,⁸ nifedipine is highly effective, while labetalol and hydralazine are less effective in achieving a 20% MAP reduction. We also found significant difference of the MAP among the three drugs when administered in a single dose with p=0.037 based on Kruskal-Wallis test (Figure 5). According to pairwise comparative analysis, only hydralazine and nifedipine appeared to have significant difference with p=0.048 (Table 6). While the effectiveness of nifedipine was not significantly different with that of labetalol (p=0.148), also shown by hydralazine versus labetalol (p=1.000) (Table 6).

Table 5. N-gain administration of one dose and triple doses of the test drug.

Dose	Type of anti-hypertensive	N-gain
Dose	Type of anti-hypertensive	Mean	Std. Error
Single dose	Nifedipine	0.574	0.062
	Labetalol	0.421	0.058
	Hydralazine	0.408	0.060
Triple dose	Nifedipine	0.900	0.034
	Labetalol	0.851	0.045
	Hydralazine	1.112	0.060

Figure 5. Changes of systolic (A), diastolic (B) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) post hydralazine administration.

Figure 6. Kruskal-Wallis test on MAP reduction by nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine when administered in a single dose (a) and triple dose (b).

Table 6. Pairwise comparisons of the tested anti-hypertensives at single and triple doses administration.

Dose	Comparison	Test statistic	Std. error	Std. test statistic	adj. p-value
Single	Hydralazine vs. labetalol	2.450	5.523	0.444	1.000
	Hydralazine vs. nifedipine	13.300	5.523	2.408	0.048*
	Labetalol vs. nifedipine	10.850	5.523	1.965	0.148
Triple	Hydralazine vs. labetalol	5.650	5.523	1.023	0.919
	Hydralazine vs. nifedipine	-16.700	5.523	-3.24	0.007**
	Labetalol vs. nifedipine	-11.050	5.523	-2.001	0.136

* The mean difference is significant at p<0.05.

** The mean difference is significant at p<0.01.

After the administration of three doses of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine within 60 minutes, the N-gain values were calculated based on the MAP reduction (Table 5). The mean of N-gain were 0.900 (90%); 0.851 (85%); and 1.113 (111%) for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine, respectively. On the basis of both Melzer and Hake criteria,⁷^,⁸ all the three drugs had highly effective in lowering blood pressure to achieve the target MAP of 20%. Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that the MAP reduction by all drugs were significantly different after three consecutive doses administration (p=0.009) (Figure 5). Based on pairwise comparisons, there were no difference in the effectiveness between labetalol and nifedipine (p=0.919); and between nifedipine and hydralazine (p=0.136) (Table 6). Significantly difference of MAP reduction was observed between labetalol and hydralazine (p=0.007) (Table 6).

Secondary outcome

The presence of side effects such as tachycardia, hypotension, foetal heart rate abnormality, nausea, vomit, dizzy, palpitation, headache, chest pain, and tachypnoea was assessed following the administration of all three drugs. Almost all, but 1 patient in nifedipine group, reported no side effects (Table 7). No other side effects were reported by the patient except tachycardia.

Table 7. Side effects observed during the treatment using nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine.

Secondary outcome	Nifedipine (n=20)	Labetalol (n=20)	Hydralazine (n=20)
Tachycardia	1	0	0
Hypotension	0	0	0
Foetal heart rate abnormality	0	0	0
Nausea	0	0	0
Vomit	0	0	0
Dizzy	0	0	0
Palpitation	0	0	0
Headache	0	0	0
Chest pain	0	0	0
Tachypnoea	0	0	0

Discussion

To date, ACOG has recommended three types of first-line drugs that can be used as emergency management of hypertension in pregnancy: oral nifedipine, intravenous labetalol, and intravenous hydralazine. The blood pressure targets to be achieved in patients with hypertensive emergencies in pregnancy differ from one guideline to another.⁹ The latest ACOG bulletin guidelines did not mention the target blood pressure and only mentioned the blood pressure threshold that clinicians should to achieve. This present study was the first to report the direct comparison of the effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine together. In our study, a 20-25% decrease in MAP from baseline was considered the target blood pressure to be achieved. We also processed the data numerically so that a decrease of 1 mmHg was calculated and analysed to produce a detailed outcome. The blood pressure and pulse rate of the patients at the baseline are similar to previous studies studying the severe preeclampsia.⁹^–¹² No characteristic differences were observed among nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine groups in the present study.

Our data suggested that oral nifedipine and intravenous labetalol and hydralazine regimens can be used to treat hypertensive emergencies in pregnancy. If 20-25% reduction of MAP is used as the target, where three doses was set as the maximum, the intravenous hydralazine monotherapy had the lowest failure rate (1 patient). In contrast, intravenous labetalol monotherapy had a failure rate 7 patients (35%, 7/20 patients). As reported previously, labetalol group had relatively low efficacy and required cross-treatment or alternative treatment.¹⁰ It is worth noting that the target for MAP reduction may vary across hospitals. Hence, further processing of these ordinal data was not carried out.

Based on the data of systolic pressure following post-administration time, nifedipine had maximum effectiveness by one dose of administration, but experienced a rebound after 4 hours. As in the labetalol group, the blood pressure reduction peaked twice; at post-20 and -60 minutes administration. Patients in hydralazine group had the lowest blood pressures at three points of measurement: at post-20, -40, and -60 minutes administration. These findings suggest that titration dose is required. Comparative analysis among the three drugs using a single dose yielded a statistical significance of p=0.037. When administered with a single dose, nifedipine performed the best, followed by labetalol and hydralazine and no significant difference of efficacy between labetalol and nifedipine. The result is similar to the finding from a previous study¹⁰ where labetalol and nifedipine had no significant different in reduction of the blood pressure. Rapid reduction of the blood pressure in nifedipine group in our study also similar with previous study¹³ where the reduction of the blood pressure was achieved faster by nifedipine compared with hydralazine.¹³ Both nifedipine and hydralazine work by resulting vasodilating effects.¹⁴^,¹⁵ However, hydralazine has more effect on the arteries than veins¹⁵ while nifedipine, as a calcium channel blocker, causes overall vasodilation, thereby leading to a decrease in peripheral vascular resistance.¹⁴ Taken altogether, nifedipine could be the most efficacious when administered at a single dose.

According to the ACOG guidelines, the maximum dose of emergency antihypertension is 3 times administration within 60 minutes. The comparative analysis revealed that hydralazine yielded the most optimum reduction of blood pressure, followed by nifedipine and labetalol, respectively. This could be observed through the significant reduction of blood pressure on the first until the fourth measurements.

We did not witness any adverse effects experienced by the mothers or infants following the drug administration, in which our data are similar to that of reported.¹⁶^–¹⁸ Nonetheless, other studies reported the occurrence of nausea and vomiting as adverse effects of labetalol (16%) or nifedipine (8%).¹⁰ In another study, patients in labetalol and nifedipine group experienced dizziness and/or headaches (24% vs 12%), palpitations (8% vs 4%), and foetal heart rate abnormalities (4% vs 8%).⁹ These different findings on side effect might be due to the maximum dose used in both foregoing studies, which was 5 doses.⁹^,¹⁰

The strengths of this study include the multicentred randomized controlled study design, intensive monitoring, and repeated measurements up to seven times. However, this study is limited by the fact that some of the hospitals only used single blinding because labetalol and hydralazine are new to some doctors. We also did not consider the circadian rhythms in our study.

Conclusions

Our data suggested that nifedipine is the most effective in reducing blood pressure using a single dose administration during hypertensive emergency in severe preeclampsia. The lowering blood pressure effect of nifedipine was not significantly different to labetalol but was significantly superior as compared with hydralazine. Nifedipine had a significant rebound phenomenon in blood pressure after 4 hours of drug administration, hence the necessity of re-administering antihypertensives. In maintaining the low blood pressure, hydralazine was significantly more effective than labetalol and no different effectiveness between hydralazine and nifedipine. All drugs are considered safe after triple dose administration within one hour. Studies assessing laboratory parameters such as soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, endothelin-1, and soluble endoglin post-treatment using those drugs are encouraged in future.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: ‘Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia’. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20933785.¹⁹

This project contains the following underlying data:

- Master Data.xlsx [Table containing the raw data of the study].

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: CONSORT checklist for Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21443028.²⁰

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank you to all healthcare workers in Arifin Achmad Hospital, Tengku Rafian Siak Sri Indrapura Hospital, Dumai Hospital, and Bengkalis Hospital who assisted in this study.

References

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Gestational Hypertension and Preeclampsia. Practice Bulletin No. 222, June 2020.
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Emergent therapy for acute onset, severe hypertension during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Committee Opinion. Feb 2019; (767).
3. Fogagnolo A: Mean Arterial Pressure and Central Venous Pressure Difference as a Prognostic Tool for Postoperative Acute Kidney Injury. Geneva:Euroanaesthesia;2017; 233.
4. Patel P, Koli D, Maitra N, et al.: Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Labetalol Versus Hydralazine for Management of Severe Hypertension in Pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India. 2018; 68(5): 376–381. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Easterling T, Mudle S, Bracken H, et al.: Oral antihypertensive regimens (nifedipine retard, labetalol, and methyldopa) for management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019; 394: 1011–1021. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, et al.: Williams Obstetrics. 25th ed.New York:Mc Graw Hill;2018.
7. Meltzer DE: The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores. Am. J. Phys. 2002; 70(12): 1259–1268. Publisher Full Text
8. Hake RR: Analyzing change/gain scores.1999.Reference Source
9. Biswas SK, Raha SK, Mahbuba.: Oral Nifedipine versus Intravenous Labetalol for Acute Blood Pressure Control in Severe Hypertension of Pregnancy: A Study at Faridpur Medical College Hospital. Faridpur Med. Coll. J. 2021; 16(1): 25–29. Publisher Full Text
10. Raheem IA, Saaid R, Omar SZ, et al.: Oral nifedipine versus intravenous labetalol for acute blood pressure control in hypertensive emergencies of pregnancy: a randomised trial. BJOG. 2012 Jan; 119(1): 78–85. Epub 2011 Oct 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Dhali B, Bhattacharya S, Ganguly RP, et al.: A randomized trial of intravenous labetalol & oral nifedipine in severe pregnancy induced hypertension. Int. J. Reprod. Contracept. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 1: 42–46.
12. Garovic VD, Dechend R, Easterling T, et al.: Hypertension in pregnancy: diagnosis, blood pressure goals, and pharmacotherapy: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2022; 79: e21–e41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Rezaei Z, Sharbaf FR, Pourmojieb M, et al.: Comparison of the efficacy of nifedipine and hydralazine in hypertensive crisis in pregnancy. Acta Med. Iran. 2011; 49(11): 701–706. PubMed Abstract
14. Easterling T, Mundle S, Bracken H, et al.: Oral antihypertensive regimens (nifedipine retard, labetalol, and methyldopa) for management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019 Sep 21; 394(10203): 1011–1021. Epub 2019 Aug 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Antza C, Dimou C, Doundoulakis I, et al.: The flipside of hydralazine in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2020 Jan; 19: 177–186. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Firoz T, Magee LA, MacDonell K, et al.: Oral antihypertensive therapy for severe hypertension in pregnancy and postpartum: a systematic review. BJOG. 2014 Sep; 121(10): 1210–1218; discussion 1220. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Adebayo JA, Nwafor JI, Lawani LO, et al.: Efficacy of nifedipine versus hydralazine in the management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: A randomised controlled trial. Niger. Postgrad. Med. J. 2020 Oct-Dec; 27(4): 317–324. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Aali BS, Nejad SS: Nifedipine or hydralazine as a first-line agent to control hypertension in severe preeclampsia. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2002 Jan; 81(1): 25–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Suhaimi D:Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia. figshare. [Dataset]. Journal Contribution. 2022. Publisher Full Text
20. Suhaimi D:CONSORT checklist for Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia. figshare. 2022. [Dataset]. Journal Contribution. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 10 Nov 2022

Author details Author details

Donel S
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Dhini Aiyulie Novri
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Yulis Hamidy
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Maya Savira
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 27 Apr 2023, 11:1287

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125944.2

version 1

Published: 10 Nov 2022, 11:1287

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125944.1

© 2022 S D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

S D, Novri DA, Hamidy Y and Savira M. Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1287 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125944.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 10 Nov 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 02 Dec 2022

Jon Wantania, Department of Obstetric and Gynaecology, Maternal Foetal Medicine Division, Medical Faculty, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia

Windy Wariki, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, Indonesia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.138303.r155526

This article is useful, but still there are several weaknesses that need to be considered.
The introduction section should describe in more depth what is the novelty and urgency of this study.
The methods, and interpretations of the statistical analysis are not carefully presented. Therefore, further consultations with biostatistician or epidemiologist may potentially improve this article.
The authors may not be careful enough in writing due to some mistakes in grammar and inconsistency in writing.

Introduction
Paragraph 4: The authors mentioned about the recommendations for antihypertension drugs in preeclampsia and stated, “Multiple drugs are included and excluded from the list of drugs of choice for the treatment of severe preeclampsia”. This sentence is a little unclear. Could you please clarify exactly what you mean about multiple drugs being included and also excluded as well? The authors should modify the sentence so that it is easier for the reader to understand.

Paragraph 4: In the third sentence the authors explained the dosage form of hydralazine, without writing down the dosage form of labetalol.

Paragraph 5: The authors stated: “Hydralazine and labetalol are considered to have a balanced effectiveness and side effect in lowering blood pressure in preeclampsia”, and “Another study comparing nifedipine and labetalol…” Here, the authors should explain if the indicator used to measure “lowering blood pressure” were the same, for example the mean arterial pressure (MAP), and need to confirm quantitatively how much the blood pressure declined so that the reader can judge that they are comparable.

Paragraph 6: In the objective of this study, the authors mentioned the dosage form of nifedipine and labetalol. The authors should consistently explain the dosage form of hydralazine as well, bearing in mind that nifedipine and labetalol have different dosage forms.

Methods
Study setting and registration
In line with the subtitle above including registration, the authors should explain matters related to registration in this section instead of explaining it in the ethical considerations section. However, if the authors should explain this in ethical considerations section, can “registration” in this subtitle be eliminated?

Patient recruitment and criteria
In the second sentence the authors stated “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients”. This is different from the explanation in the Results section that the total number of samples was 60. Does it mean that the results of the minimum sample size calculation are 13 patients in each group?

The minimum sample calculation formula used by the authors is for two groups. Considering that this research was an unpaired numerical comparative study conducted on three groups with measurements of seven times, it would be more appropriate if the authors calculated the number of samples based on the above considerations.

Blinding and study procedure
The authors are suggested to explain in more detail about the following sentence “For example, the patient who arrived first and second to the hospital should be given kit no 41 and 23”. Furthermore, the authors also need to describe who are the “health workers” specifically, mentioned in this sentence “Health workers were instructed to administrate one pair of drug….” with reference to Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2020.

Endpoints:
The authors stated “The blood pressure was measured seven times...” As a suggestion, this sentence should be more suitable when explained in the subtitle “Blinding and study procedure” above.

Statistical analysis
The authors have explained that a normality test has been carried out, therefore it is advised to write down the name of the normality test used, for example by taking into account the number of samples, or other considerations or assumptions.

Results
Figure 1: In the last column of the “Analysis” section, it was written that the total number of respondents was 49 patients, quite different from the explanation in the Results section that 60 patients were analyzed. It is suggested that the authors need to be clearer, for example, when and for what to analyzing 60 patients, or only 49 patients.

Required time for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine group achieved the MAP
The authors have explained that the results regarding the time required for the three drugs to reach the target MAP are presented in Figure 1. However, the results shown in figure 1 are different from this explanation.

Nifedipine (page 6)
In this section, the author has directed the reader for three times to see the results in Table 2, even though all the data in this section are only showed in table 2. As a suggestion, it would be better if Table 2 was written only once, for example at the beginning or end of a paragraph of the explanation.
Sentence stating “Nifedipine decrease the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg 20 min post the first…”. However, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg are not found in Table 2. Similar with the sentence sixth which is in Table 2 the p=0.010 and p=0.024 are not found.

Table 2
On the footnote of table 2 was written the mean difference is significant at p<0.005. But in this table, there is no p-value less than 0.05 (p<0.05) which means that this mark (*) no need to be mentioned in the footnote.

Page 7: The description below Figure 2 where the author wants to explain the changes of mean systolic, diastolic and MAP. The authors are asked to be more careful in presenting the results where the appearance of Figure 2 inconsistent from this explanation. Figure 2 is a comparison of the three types of drugs in achieving MAP.

Figure 2:
It would be more informative and flowing if the appearance of Figure 2 and its description are in the “Effectiveness comparisons of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine” section compared to the current view which is in the section or explanation of nifedipine.

Labetalol
The authors are advised to revise the figure number that is not in accordance with the explanation about labetalol, which is different from what is presented in Figure 3.

Hydralazine
In Table 4, the results of the analysis to explain the decrease in systolic blood pressure were not found. Also, Figure 4 is a description of labetalol, not hydralazine.

Page 8: Explanation of the results of Kruskal-Wallis test is not present in the Figure 5, but in Figure 6.

Table 7: Suggestion for the authors regarding reported side effects where there was only one namely tachycardia, it would be better if the result is presented in a narrative manner.

Discussion
Discussion section is still having major problems, addition information requested on strength and limitation are not clearly explain.

The authors are lacking in explanation the agreements and disagreements with findings from other studies.

Limitations
The limitation in methodological should be clearly explained and address as one of the limitations of this study.

The authors are suggested to give specific recommendations to the reader as respond to key findings.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: John Wantania : Maternal Fetal Medicine ; Windy Wariki : Clinical Epidemiologist

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 17 Feb 2023

Donel S, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, 28293, Indonesia

17 Feb 2023

Author Response

Thank you for your hard work. As a reviewer, I appreciate the efforts of the authors. The methods and research results presented are excellent and it hoped that great benefits ... Continue reading Thank you for your hard work. As a reviewer, I appreciate the efforts of the authors. The methods and research results presented are excellent and it hoped that great benefits obtained from this article. However, there are still some minor issues to address, which are listed below, in general:
This article is useful, but still there are several weaknesses that need to be considered.
The introduction section should describe in more depth what is the novelty and urgency of this study.
The methods, and interpretations of the statistical analysis are not carefully presented. Therefore, further consultations with biostatistician or epidemiologist may potentially improve this article.
The authors may not be careful enough in writing due to some mistakes in grammar and inconsistency in writing.
RESPONSES: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. The comments and suggestions have improved the quality of our current manuscript significantly.

We have added the required information in the methods as requested. Also, we have corrected some typos in the numbering related to the statistics. We have corrected the labels of the figures. The connection between the figures and the explanation texts have been corrected and checked for the correctness.

Introduction
Paragraph 4: The authors mentioned about the recommendations for antihypertension drugs in preeclampsia and stated, “Multiple drugs are included and excluded from the list of drugs of choice for the treatment of severe preeclampsia”. This sentence is a little unclear. Could you please clarify exactly what you mean about multiple drugs being included and also excluded as well? The authors should modify the sentence so that it is easier for the reader to understand.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence.

Paragraph 4: In the third sentence the authors explained the dosage form of hydralazine, without writing down the dosage form of labetalol.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine have long been considered as first-line therapy in hypertensive emergencies, severe hypertension in pregnant women, and in the postpartum period”.

Paragraph 5: The authors stated: “Hydralazine and labetalol are considered to have a balanced effectiveness and side effect in lowering blood pressure in preeclampsia”, and “Another study comparing nifedipine and labetalol…” Here, the authors should explain if the indicator used to measure “lowering blood pressure” were the same, for example the mean arterial pressure (MAP), and need to confirm quantitatively how much the blood pressure declined so that the reader can judge that they are comparable.
RESPONSES: We have added more detailed of the information related to the studies.

Paragraph 6: In the objective of this study, the authors mentioned the dosage form of nifedipine and labetalol. The authors should consistently explain the dosage form of hydralazine as well, bearing in mind that nifedipine and labetalol have different dosage forms.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of oral nifedipine, and intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine as antihypertensives in severe preeclampsia.”

Methods
Study setting and registration
In line with the subtitle above including registration, the authors should explain matters related to registration in this section instead of explaining it in the ethical considerations section. However, if the authors should explain this in ethical considerations section, can “registration” in this subtitle be eliminated?
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. We have changed the subheading to: “Study setting” only and moved the “registration” into: “Ethical considerations and registration”

Patient recruitment and criteria
In the second sentence the authors stated “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients”. This is different from the explanation in the Results section that the total number of samples was 60. Does it mean that the results of the minimum sample size calculation are 13 patients in each group? RESPONSES: 13 patients are minimal sample size for each group. Therefore, we have revised to: “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients for each arm.”

The minimum sample calculation formula used by the authors is for two groups. Considering that this research was an unpaired numerical comparative study conducted on three groups with measurements of seven times, it would be more appropriate if the authors calculated the number of samples based on the above considerations.
RESPONSES: We have checked again and we confirm that this formula also can be used for three groups.

Blinding and study procedure
The authors are suggested to explain in more detail about the following sentence “For example, the patient who arrived first and second to the hospital should be given kit no 41 and 23”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence and we believe it is clear now. “For example, if the list from the software run was 41, 23, 4 and soon, the patient who arrived first, second and third to the hospital should be given kit no 41, 23 and 4, respectively.”

Furthermore, the authors also need to describe who are the “health workers” specifically, mentioned in this sentence “Health workers were instructed to administrate one pair of drug….” with reference to Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2020.
RESPONSES: They were doctors. And the text has been revised: “The enrolment of the patient was conducted by the doctors in each centre. The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained. The doctors and patients did not know the drugs contained in the kit.”

Endpoints:
The authors stated “The blood pressure was measured seven times...” As a suggestion, this sentence should be more suitable when explained in the subtitle “Blinding and study procedure” above.
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been moved within “Blinding and study procedure” subheading.

Statistical analysis
The authors have explained that a normality test has been carried out, therefore it is advised to write down the name of the normality test used, for example by taking into account the number of samples, or other considerations or assumptions.
RESPONSES: We have added the information of the test used to measure the normality of the data. We added: “The normality of data was measured using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.”

Results
Figure 1: In the last column of the “Analysis” section, it was written that the total number of respondents was 49 patients, quite different from the explanation in the Results section that 60 patients were analyzed. It is suggested that the authors need to be clearer, for example, when and for what to analyzing 60 patients, or only 49 patients.
RESPONSES: Thank you for questioning this. We have added the information related to this. We add: “Out of 60 patients, 11 patients did not achieve the MAP target after three doses of the tested drugs and therefore were excluded for effectiveness analysis of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reduce the blood pressure.”

Required time for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine group achieved the MAP
The authors have explained that the results regarding the time required for the three drugs to reach the target MAP are presented in Figure 1. However, the results shown in figure 1 are different from this explanation.
RESPONSES: Thank you pointing this mistake. It should be Figure 2. Also it has been changed to “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target” “Data regarding the dose required for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reach the target MAP (20% reduction) are presented in Figure 2.”

Nifedipine (page 6)
In this section, the author has directed the reader for three times to see the results in Table 2, even though all the data in this section are only showed in table 2. As a suggestion, it would be better if Table 2 was written only once, for example at the beginning or end of a paragraph of the explanation.
RESPONSES: Now it only mentioned only once in the beginning.

Sentence stating “Nifedipine decrease the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg 20 min post the first…”. However, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg are not found in Table 2. Similar with the sentence sixth which is in Table 2 the p=0.010 and p=0.024 are not found.
RESPONSES: We appreciated with this correction. We have corrected the sentences: “Nifedipine decreased the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 6.37 mmHg and 2.90 mmHg 20 min post the first, second and the third dose of nifedipine. The MAP reduction on 20 min post the first dose was significant statistically with p<0.001.”

Table 2
On the footnote of table 2 was written the mean difference is significant at p<0.005. But in this table, there is no p-value less than 0.05 (p<0.05) which means that this mark (*) no need to be mentioned in the footnote.
RESPONSES: Now the * has been deleted. And ** has been changed to “*The mean difference is significant at p<0.01.” The * in the table also have been deleted. Thank you.

Page 7: The description below Figure 2 where the author wants to explain the changes of mean systolic, diastolic and MAP. The authors are asked to be more careful in presenting the results where the appearance of Figure 2 inconsistent from this explanation. Figure 2 is a comparison of the three types of drugs in achieving MAP.
RESPONSES: Thank you for catch this mistake. We realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. This should be Figure 3 not Figure 2. Now it has been corrected into Figure 3. The revised texts: “The changes of the mean systolic, diastolic and MAP are presented in Figure 3. The data suggested there was a sharp decrease of systolic and diastolic after the first dose of nifedipine and the blood pressure kept decrease until 20 min after the third dose (after 2 hours of first dose) but it started to bounce again afterward (Figure 3).”

Figure 2:
It would be more informative and flowing if the appearance of Figure 2 and its description are in the “Effectiveness comparisons of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine” section compared to the current view which is in the section or explanation of nifedipine.
RESPONSES: We agree with this suggestion because it is hard to follow the texts and the Figure 2.

We have re-requested the layout editor to move Figure 2 directly under the subheading: “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target”.

Labetalol
The authors are advised to revise the figure number that is not in accordance with the explanation about labetalol, which is different from what is presented in Figure 3.
RESPONSES: As we responded previously, we realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. Now all have been corrected.

Hydralazine
In Table 4, the results of the analysis to explain the decrease in systolic blood pressure were not found. Also, Figure 4 is a description of labetalol, not hydralazine.
RESPONSES: The systolic data was not distributed normally and therefore the Friedmann test and this analysis produced one p-value only and no 95%CI. To ensure this is clear, we have included the information as a note under the Table 4. “^c Analysed using Friedmann test.”
As we stated previously, all labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Page 8: Explanation of the results of Kruskal-Wallis test is not present in the Figure 5, but in Figure 6.
RESPONSES: All labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Table 7: Suggestion for the authors regarding reported side effects where there was only one namely tachycardia, it would be better if the result is presented in a narrative manner.
RESPONSES: Now Table 7 has been deleted as suggested and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion
Discussion section is still having major problems, addition information requested on strength and limitation are not clearly explain.
RESPONSES: We have provided the information related to the strengths and limitations of the study.

The authors are lacking in explanation the agreements and disagreements with findings from other studies.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your suggestions. Unfortunately, available studies are limited and therefore it is not possible to compare with previous studies.

Limitations
The limitation in methodological should be clearly explained and address as one of the limitations of this study.
The authors are suggested to give specific recommendations to the reader as respond to key findings.
RESPONSES: We have listed all the limitations of the study. We also have added specific recommendation from the results of the study. We added: “ Based on the present study, in high resource settings, hydralazine is recommended to treat severe preeclampsia cases with hypertensive emergency since it reduces the blood pressure rapidly and has no rebound phenomenon. We recommend to use nifedipine in the low resource settings since it is cheap and easy to use and store while still has good ability to reduce the blood pressure. However, blood pressure maintenance is required because it might rebound after approximately six hours.”
Thank you for your hard work. As a reviewer, I appreciate the efforts of the authors. The methods and research results presented are excellent and it hoped that great benefits obtained from this article. However, there are still some minor issues to address, which are listed below, in general:
This article is useful, but still there are several weaknesses that need to be considered.
The introduction section should describe in more depth what is the novelty and urgency of this study.
The methods, and interpretations of the statistical analysis are not carefully presented. Therefore, further consultations with biostatistician or epidemiologist may potentially improve this article.
The authors may not be careful enough in writing due to some mistakes in grammar and inconsistency in writing.
RESPONSES: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. The comments and suggestions have improved the quality of our current manuscript significantly.

We have added the required information in the methods as requested. Also, we have corrected some typos in the numbering related to the statistics. We have corrected the labels of the figures. The connection between the figures and the explanation texts have been corrected and checked for the correctness.

Introduction
Paragraph 4: The authors mentioned about the recommendations for antihypertension drugs in preeclampsia and stated, “Multiple drugs are included and excluded from the list of drugs of choice for the treatment of severe preeclampsia”. This sentence is a little unclear. Could you please clarify exactly what you mean about multiple drugs being included and also excluded as well? The authors should modify the sentence so that it is easier for the reader to understand.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence.

Paragraph 4: In the third sentence the authors explained the dosage form of hydralazine, without writing down the dosage form of labetalol.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine have long been considered as first-line therapy in hypertensive emergencies, severe hypertension in pregnant women, and in the postpartum period”.

Paragraph 5: The authors stated: “Hydralazine and labetalol are considered to have a balanced effectiveness and side effect in lowering blood pressure in preeclampsia”, and “Another study comparing nifedipine and labetalol…” Here, the authors should explain if the indicator used to measure “lowering blood pressure” were the same, for example the mean arterial pressure (MAP), and need to confirm quantitatively how much the blood pressure declined so that the reader can judge that they are comparable.
RESPONSES: We have added more detailed of the information related to the studies.

Paragraph 6: In the objective of this study, the authors mentioned the dosage form of nifedipine and labetalol. The authors should consistently explain the dosage form of hydralazine as well, bearing in mind that nifedipine and labetalol have different dosage forms.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of oral nifedipine, and intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine as antihypertensives in severe preeclampsia.”

Methods
Study setting and registration
In line with the subtitle above including registration, the authors should explain matters related to registration in this section instead of explaining it in the ethical considerations section. However, if the authors should explain this in ethical considerations section, can “registration” in this subtitle be eliminated?
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. We have changed the subheading to: “Study setting” only and moved the “registration” into: “Ethical considerations and registration”

Patient recruitment and criteria
In the second sentence the authors stated “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients”. This is different from the explanation in the Results section that the total number of samples was 60. Does it mean that the results of the minimum sample size calculation are 13 patients in each group? RESPONSES: 13 patients are minimal sample size for each group. Therefore, we have revised to: “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients for each arm.”

The minimum sample calculation formula used by the authors is for two groups. Considering that this research was an unpaired numerical comparative study conducted on three groups with measurements of seven times, it would be more appropriate if the authors calculated the number of samples based on the above considerations.
RESPONSES: We have checked again and we confirm that this formula also can be used for three groups.

Blinding and study procedure
The authors are suggested to explain in more detail about the following sentence “For example, the patient who arrived first and second to the hospital should be given kit no 41 and 23”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence and we believe it is clear now. “For example, if the list from the software run was 41, 23, 4 and soon, the patient who arrived first, second and third to the hospital should be given kit no 41, 23 and 4, respectively.”

Furthermore, the authors also need to describe who are the “health workers” specifically, mentioned in this sentence “Health workers were instructed to administrate one pair of drug….” with reference to Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2020.
RESPONSES: They were doctors. And the text has been revised: “The enrolment of the patient was conducted by the doctors in each centre. The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained. The doctors and patients did not know the drugs contained in the kit.”

Endpoints:
The authors stated “The blood pressure was measured seven times...” As a suggestion, this sentence should be more suitable when explained in the subtitle “Blinding and study procedure” above.
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been moved within “Blinding and study procedure” subheading.

Statistical analysis
The authors have explained that a normality test has been carried out, therefore it is advised to write down the name of the normality test used, for example by taking into account the number of samples, or other considerations or assumptions.
RESPONSES: We have added the information of the test used to measure the normality of the data. We added: “The normality of data was measured using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.”

Results
Figure 1: In the last column of the “Analysis” section, it was written that the total number of respondents was 49 patients, quite different from the explanation in the Results section that 60 patients were analyzed. It is suggested that the authors need to be clearer, for example, when and for what to analyzing 60 patients, or only 49 patients.
RESPONSES: Thank you for questioning this. We have added the information related to this. We add: “Out of 60 patients, 11 patients did not achieve the MAP target after three doses of the tested drugs and therefore were excluded for effectiveness analysis of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reduce the blood pressure.”

Required time for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine group achieved the MAP
The authors have explained that the results regarding the time required for the three drugs to reach the target MAP are presented in Figure 1. However, the results shown in figure 1 are different from this explanation.
RESPONSES: Thank you pointing this mistake. It should be Figure 2. Also it has been changed to “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target” “Data regarding the dose required for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reach the target MAP (20% reduction) are presented in Figure 2.”

Nifedipine (page 6)
In this section, the author has directed the reader for three times to see the results in Table 2, even though all the data in this section are only showed in table 2. As a suggestion, it would be better if Table 2 was written only once, for example at the beginning or end of a paragraph of the explanation.
RESPONSES: Now it only mentioned only once in the beginning.

Sentence stating “Nifedipine decrease the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg 20 min post the first…”. However, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg are not found in Table 2. Similar with the sentence sixth which is in Table 2 the p=0.010 and p=0.024 are not found.
RESPONSES: We appreciated with this correction. We have corrected the sentences: “Nifedipine decreased the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 6.37 mmHg and 2.90 mmHg 20 min post the first, second and the third dose of nifedipine. The MAP reduction on 20 min post the first dose was significant statistically with p<0.001.”

Table 2
On the footnote of table 2 was written the mean difference is significant at p<0.005. But in this table, there is no p-value less than 0.05 (p<0.05) which means that this mark (*) no need to be mentioned in the footnote.
RESPONSES: Now the * has been deleted. And ** has been changed to “*The mean difference is significant at p<0.01.” The * in the table also have been deleted. Thank you.

Page 7: The description below Figure 2 where the author wants to explain the changes of mean systolic, diastolic and MAP. The authors are asked to be more careful in presenting the results where the appearance of Figure 2 inconsistent from this explanation. Figure 2 is a comparison of the three types of drugs in achieving MAP.
RESPONSES: Thank you for catch this mistake. We realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. This should be Figure 3 not Figure 2. Now it has been corrected into Figure 3. The revised texts: “The changes of the mean systolic, diastolic and MAP are presented in Figure 3. The data suggested there was a sharp decrease of systolic and diastolic after the first dose of nifedipine and the blood pressure kept decrease until 20 min after the third dose (after 2 hours of first dose) but it started to bounce again afterward (Figure 3).”

Figure 2:
It would be more informative and flowing if the appearance of Figure 2 and its description are in the “Effectiveness comparisons of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine” section compared to the current view which is in the section or explanation of nifedipine.
RESPONSES: We agree with this suggestion because it is hard to follow the texts and the Figure 2.

We have re-requested the layout editor to move Figure 2 directly under the subheading: “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target”.

Labetalol
The authors are advised to revise the figure number that is not in accordance with the explanation about labetalol, which is different from what is presented in Figure 3.
RESPONSES: As we responded previously, we realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. Now all have been corrected.

Hydralazine
In Table 4, the results of the analysis to explain the decrease in systolic blood pressure were not found. Also, Figure 4 is a description of labetalol, not hydralazine.
RESPONSES: The systolic data was not distributed normally and therefore the Friedmann test and this analysis produced one p-value only and no 95%CI. To ensure this is clear, we have included the information as a note under the Table 4. “^c Analysed using Friedmann test.”
As we stated previously, all labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Page 8: Explanation of the results of Kruskal-Wallis test is not present in the Figure 5, but in Figure 6.
RESPONSES: All labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Table 7: Suggestion for the authors regarding reported side effects where there was only one namely tachycardia, it would be better if the result is presented in a narrative manner.
RESPONSES: Now Table 7 has been deleted as suggested and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion
Discussion section is still having major problems, addition information requested on strength and limitation are not clearly explain.
RESPONSES: We have provided the information related to the strengths and limitations of the study.

The authors are lacking in explanation the agreements and disagreements with findings from other studies.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your suggestions. Unfortunately, available studies are limited and therefore it is not possible to compare with previous studies.

Limitations
The limitation in methodological should be clearly explained and address as one of the limitations of this study.
The authors are suggested to give specific recommendations to the reader as respond to key findings.
RESPONSES: We have listed all the limitations of the study. We also have added specific recommendation from the results of the study. We added: “ Based on the present study, in high resource settings, hydralazine is recommended to treat severe preeclampsia cases with hypertensive emergency since it reduces the blood pressure rapidly and has no rebound phenomenon. We recommend to use nifedipine in the low resource settings since it is cheap and easy to use and store while still has good ability to reduce the blood pressure. However, blood pressure maintenance is required because it might rebound after approximately six hours.”
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 17 Feb 2023

Donel S, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, 28293, Indonesia

17 Feb 2023

Author Response

Thank you for your hard work. As a reviewer, I appreciate the efforts of the authors. The methods and research results presented are excellent and it hoped that great benefits ... Continue reading Thank you for your hard work. As a reviewer, I appreciate the efforts of the authors. The methods and research results presented are excellent and it hoped that great benefits obtained from this article. However, there are still some minor issues to address, which are listed below, in general:
This article is useful, but still there are several weaknesses that need to be considered.
The introduction section should describe in more depth what is the novelty and urgency of this study.
The methods, and interpretations of the statistical analysis are not carefully presented. Therefore, further consultations with biostatistician or epidemiologist may potentially improve this article.
The authors may not be careful enough in writing due to some mistakes in grammar and inconsistency in writing.
RESPONSES: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. The comments and suggestions have improved the quality of our current manuscript significantly.

We have added the required information in the methods as requested. Also, we have corrected some typos in the numbering related to the statistics. We have corrected the labels of the figures. The connection between the figures and the explanation texts have been corrected and checked for the correctness.

Introduction
Paragraph 4: The authors mentioned about the recommendations for antihypertension drugs in preeclampsia and stated, “Multiple drugs are included and excluded from the list of drugs of choice for the treatment of severe preeclampsia”. This sentence is a little unclear. Could you please clarify exactly what you mean about multiple drugs being included and also excluded as well? The authors should modify the sentence so that it is easier for the reader to understand.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence.

Paragraph 4: In the third sentence the authors explained the dosage form of hydralazine, without writing down the dosage form of labetalol.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine have long been considered as first-line therapy in hypertensive emergencies, severe hypertension in pregnant women, and in the postpartum period”.

Paragraph 5: The authors stated: “Hydralazine and labetalol are considered to have a balanced effectiveness and side effect in lowering blood pressure in preeclampsia”, and “Another study comparing nifedipine and labetalol…” Here, the authors should explain if the indicator used to measure “lowering blood pressure” were the same, for example the mean arterial pressure (MAP), and need to confirm quantitatively how much the blood pressure declined so that the reader can judge that they are comparable.
RESPONSES: We have added more detailed of the information related to the studies.

Paragraph 6: In the objective of this study, the authors mentioned the dosage form of nifedipine and labetalol. The authors should consistently explain the dosage form of hydralazine as well, bearing in mind that nifedipine and labetalol have different dosage forms.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of oral nifedipine, and intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine as antihypertensives in severe preeclampsia.”

Methods
Study setting and registration
In line with the subtitle above including registration, the authors should explain matters related to registration in this section instead of explaining it in the ethical considerations section. However, if the authors should explain this in ethical considerations section, can “registration” in this subtitle be eliminated?
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. We have changed the subheading to: “Study setting” only and moved the “registration” into: “Ethical considerations and registration”

Patient recruitment and criteria
In the second sentence the authors stated “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients”. This is different from the explanation in the Results section that the total number of samples was 60. Does it mean that the results of the minimum sample size calculation are 13 patients in each group? RESPONSES: 13 patients are minimal sample size for each group. Therefore, we have revised to: “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients for each arm.”

The minimum sample calculation formula used by the authors is for two groups. Considering that this research was an unpaired numerical comparative study conducted on three groups with measurements of seven times, it would be more appropriate if the authors calculated the number of samples based on the above considerations.
RESPONSES: We have checked again and we confirm that this formula also can be used for three groups.

Blinding and study procedure
The authors are suggested to explain in more detail about the following sentence “For example, the patient who arrived first and second to the hospital should be given kit no 41 and 23”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence and we believe it is clear now. “For example, if the list from the software run was 41, 23, 4 and soon, the patient who arrived first, second and third to the hospital should be given kit no 41, 23 and 4, respectively.”

Furthermore, the authors also need to describe who are the “health workers” specifically, mentioned in this sentence “Health workers were instructed to administrate one pair of drug….” with reference to Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2020.
RESPONSES: They were doctors. And the text has been revised: “The enrolment of the patient was conducted by the doctors in each centre. The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained. The doctors and patients did not know the drugs contained in the kit.”

Endpoints:
The authors stated “The blood pressure was measured seven times...” As a suggestion, this sentence should be more suitable when explained in the subtitle “Blinding and study procedure” above.
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been moved within “Blinding and study procedure” subheading.

Statistical analysis
The authors have explained that a normality test has been carried out, therefore it is advised to write down the name of the normality test used, for example by taking into account the number of samples, or other considerations or assumptions.
RESPONSES: We have added the information of the test used to measure the normality of the data. We added: “The normality of data was measured using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.”

Results
Figure 1: In the last column of the “Analysis” section, it was written that the total number of respondents was 49 patients, quite different from the explanation in the Results section that 60 patients were analyzed. It is suggested that the authors need to be clearer, for example, when and for what to analyzing 60 patients, or only 49 patients.
RESPONSES: Thank you for questioning this. We have added the information related to this. We add: “Out of 60 patients, 11 patients did not achieve the MAP target after three doses of the tested drugs and therefore were excluded for effectiveness analysis of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reduce the blood pressure.”

Required time for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine group achieved the MAP
The authors have explained that the results regarding the time required for the three drugs to reach the target MAP are presented in Figure 1. However, the results shown in figure 1 are different from this explanation.
RESPONSES: Thank you pointing this mistake. It should be Figure 2. Also it has been changed to “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target” “Data regarding the dose required for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reach the target MAP (20% reduction) are presented in Figure 2.”

Nifedipine (page 6)
In this section, the author has directed the reader for three times to see the results in Table 2, even though all the data in this section are only showed in table 2. As a suggestion, it would be better if Table 2 was written only once, for example at the beginning or end of a paragraph of the explanation.
RESPONSES: Now it only mentioned only once in the beginning.

Sentence stating “Nifedipine decrease the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg 20 min post the first…”. However, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg are not found in Table 2. Similar with the sentence sixth which is in Table 2 the p=0.010 and p=0.024 are not found.
RESPONSES: We appreciated with this correction. We have corrected the sentences: “Nifedipine decreased the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 6.37 mmHg and 2.90 mmHg 20 min post the first, second and the third dose of nifedipine. The MAP reduction on 20 min post the first dose was significant statistically with p<0.001.”

Table 2
On the footnote of table 2 was written the mean difference is significant at p<0.005. But in this table, there is no p-value less than 0.05 (p<0.05) which means that this mark (*) no need to be mentioned in the footnote.
RESPONSES: Now the * has been deleted. And ** has been changed to “*The mean difference is significant at p<0.01.” The * in the table also have been deleted. Thank you.

Page 7: The description below Figure 2 where the author wants to explain the changes of mean systolic, diastolic and MAP. The authors are asked to be more careful in presenting the results where the appearance of Figure 2 inconsistent from this explanation. Figure 2 is a comparison of the three types of drugs in achieving MAP.
RESPONSES: Thank you for catch this mistake. We realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. This should be Figure 3 not Figure 2. Now it has been corrected into Figure 3. The revised texts: “The changes of the mean systolic, diastolic and MAP are presented in Figure 3. The data suggested there was a sharp decrease of systolic and diastolic after the first dose of nifedipine and the blood pressure kept decrease until 20 min after the third dose (after 2 hours of first dose) but it started to bounce again afterward (Figure 3).”

Figure 2:
It would be more informative and flowing if the appearance of Figure 2 and its description are in the “Effectiveness comparisons of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine” section compared to the current view which is in the section or explanation of nifedipine.
RESPONSES: We agree with this suggestion because it is hard to follow the texts and the Figure 2.

We have re-requested the layout editor to move Figure 2 directly under the subheading: “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target”.

Labetalol
The authors are advised to revise the figure number that is not in accordance with the explanation about labetalol, which is different from what is presented in Figure 3.
RESPONSES: As we responded previously, we realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. Now all have been corrected.

Hydralazine
In Table 4, the results of the analysis to explain the decrease in systolic blood pressure were not found. Also, Figure 4 is a description of labetalol, not hydralazine.
RESPONSES: The systolic data was not distributed normally and therefore the Friedmann test and this analysis produced one p-value only and no 95%CI. To ensure this is clear, we have included the information as a note under the Table 4. “^c Analysed using Friedmann test.”
As we stated previously, all labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Page 8: Explanation of the results of Kruskal-Wallis test is not present in the Figure 5, but in Figure 6.
RESPONSES: All labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Table 7: Suggestion for the authors regarding reported side effects where there was only one namely tachycardia, it would be better if the result is presented in a narrative manner.
RESPONSES: Now Table 7 has been deleted as suggested and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion
Discussion section is still having major problems, addition information requested on strength and limitation are not clearly explain.
RESPONSES: We have provided the information related to the strengths and limitations of the study.

The authors are lacking in explanation the agreements and disagreements with findings from other studies.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your suggestions. Unfortunately, available studies are limited and therefore it is not possible to compare with previous studies.

Limitations
The limitation in methodological should be clearly explained and address as one of the limitations of this study.
The authors are suggested to give specific recommendations to the reader as respond to key findings.
RESPONSES: We have listed all the limitations of the study. We also have added specific recommendation from the results of the study. We added: “ Based on the present study, in high resource settings, hydralazine is recommended to treat severe preeclampsia cases with hypertensive emergency since it reduces the blood pressure rapidly and has no rebound phenomenon. We recommend to use nifedipine in the low resource settings since it is cheap and easy to use and store while still has good ability to reduce the blood pressure. However, blood pressure maintenance is required because it might rebound after approximately six hours.”
Thank you for your hard work. As a reviewer, I appreciate the efforts of the authors. The methods and research results presented are excellent and it hoped that great benefits obtained from this article. However, there are still some minor issues to address, which are listed below, in general:
This article is useful, but still there are several weaknesses that need to be considered.
The introduction section should describe in more depth what is the novelty and urgency of this study.
The methods, and interpretations of the statistical analysis are not carefully presented. Therefore, further consultations with biostatistician or epidemiologist may potentially improve this article.
The authors may not be careful enough in writing due to some mistakes in grammar and inconsistency in writing.
RESPONSES: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. The comments and suggestions have improved the quality of our current manuscript significantly.

We have added the required information in the methods as requested. Also, we have corrected some typos in the numbering related to the statistics. We have corrected the labels of the figures. The connection between the figures and the explanation texts have been corrected and checked for the correctness.

Introduction
Paragraph 4: The authors mentioned about the recommendations for antihypertension drugs in preeclampsia and stated, “Multiple drugs are included and excluded from the list of drugs of choice for the treatment of severe preeclampsia”. This sentence is a little unclear. Could you please clarify exactly what you mean about multiple drugs being included and also excluded as well? The authors should modify the sentence so that it is easier for the reader to understand.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence.

Paragraph 4: In the third sentence the authors explained the dosage form of hydralazine, without writing down the dosage form of labetalol.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine have long been considered as first-line therapy in hypertensive emergencies, severe hypertension in pregnant women, and in the postpartum period”.

Paragraph 5: The authors stated: “Hydralazine and labetalol are considered to have a balanced effectiveness and side effect in lowering blood pressure in preeclampsia”, and “Another study comparing nifedipine and labetalol…” Here, the authors should explain if the indicator used to measure “lowering blood pressure” were the same, for example the mean arterial pressure (MAP), and need to confirm quantitatively how much the blood pressure declined so that the reader can judge that they are comparable.
RESPONSES: We have added more detailed of the information related to the studies.

Paragraph 6: In the objective of this study, the authors mentioned the dosage form of nifedipine and labetalol. The authors should consistently explain the dosage form of hydralazine as well, bearing in mind that nifedipine and labetalol have different dosage forms.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of oral nifedipine, and intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine as antihypertensives in severe preeclampsia.”

Methods
Study setting and registration
In line with the subtitle above including registration, the authors should explain matters related to registration in this section instead of explaining it in the ethical considerations section. However, if the authors should explain this in ethical considerations section, can “registration” in this subtitle be eliminated?
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. We have changed the subheading to: “Study setting” only and moved the “registration” into: “Ethical considerations and registration”

Patient recruitment and criteria
In the second sentence the authors stated “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients”. This is different from the explanation in the Results section that the total number of samples was 60. Does it mean that the results of the minimum sample size calculation are 13 patients in each group? RESPONSES: 13 patients are minimal sample size for each group. Therefore, we have revised to: “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients for each arm.”

The minimum sample calculation formula used by the authors is for two groups. Considering that this research was an unpaired numerical comparative study conducted on three groups with measurements of seven times, it would be more appropriate if the authors calculated the number of samples based on the above considerations.
RESPONSES: We have checked again and we confirm that this formula also can be used for three groups.

Blinding and study procedure
The authors are suggested to explain in more detail about the following sentence “For example, the patient who arrived first and second to the hospital should be given kit no 41 and 23”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence and we believe it is clear now. “For example, if the list from the software run was 41, 23, 4 and soon, the patient who arrived first, second and third to the hospital should be given kit no 41, 23 and 4, respectively.”

Furthermore, the authors also need to describe who are the “health workers” specifically, mentioned in this sentence “Health workers were instructed to administrate one pair of drug….” with reference to Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2020.
RESPONSES: They were doctors. And the text has been revised: “The enrolment of the patient was conducted by the doctors in each centre. The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained. The doctors and patients did not know the drugs contained in the kit.”

Endpoints:
The authors stated “The blood pressure was measured seven times...” As a suggestion, this sentence should be more suitable when explained in the subtitle “Blinding and study procedure” above.
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been moved within “Blinding and study procedure” subheading.

Statistical analysis
The authors have explained that a normality test has been carried out, therefore it is advised to write down the name of the normality test used, for example by taking into account the number of samples, or other considerations or assumptions.
RESPONSES: We have added the information of the test used to measure the normality of the data. We added: “The normality of data was measured using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.”

Results
Figure 1: In the last column of the “Analysis” section, it was written that the total number of respondents was 49 patients, quite different from the explanation in the Results section that 60 patients were analyzed. It is suggested that the authors need to be clearer, for example, when and for what to analyzing 60 patients, or only 49 patients.
RESPONSES: Thank you for questioning this. We have added the information related to this. We add: “Out of 60 patients, 11 patients did not achieve the MAP target after three doses of the tested drugs and therefore were excluded for effectiveness analysis of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reduce the blood pressure.”

Required time for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine group achieved the MAP
The authors have explained that the results regarding the time required for the three drugs to reach the target MAP are presented in Figure 1. However, the results shown in figure 1 are different from this explanation.
RESPONSES: Thank you pointing this mistake. It should be Figure 2. Also it has been changed to “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target” “Data regarding the dose required for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reach the target MAP (20% reduction) are presented in Figure 2.”

Nifedipine (page 6)
In this section, the author has directed the reader for three times to see the results in Table 2, even though all the data in this section are only showed in table 2. As a suggestion, it would be better if Table 2 was written only once, for example at the beginning or end of a paragraph of the explanation.
RESPONSES: Now it only mentioned only once in the beginning.

Sentence stating “Nifedipine decrease the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg 20 min post the first…”. However, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg are not found in Table 2. Similar with the sentence sixth which is in Table 2 the p=0.010 and p=0.024 are not found.
RESPONSES: We appreciated with this correction. We have corrected the sentences: “Nifedipine decreased the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 6.37 mmHg and 2.90 mmHg 20 min post the first, second and the third dose of nifedipine. The MAP reduction on 20 min post the first dose was significant statistically with p<0.001.”

Table 2
On the footnote of table 2 was written the mean difference is significant at p<0.005. But in this table, there is no p-value less than 0.05 (p<0.05) which means that this mark (*) no need to be mentioned in the footnote.
RESPONSES: Now the * has been deleted. And ** has been changed to “*The mean difference is significant at p<0.01.” The * in the table also have been deleted. Thank you.

Page 7: The description below Figure 2 where the author wants to explain the changes of mean systolic, diastolic and MAP. The authors are asked to be more careful in presenting the results where the appearance of Figure 2 inconsistent from this explanation. Figure 2 is a comparison of the three types of drugs in achieving MAP.
RESPONSES: Thank you for catch this mistake. We realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. This should be Figure 3 not Figure 2. Now it has been corrected into Figure 3. The revised texts: “The changes of the mean systolic, diastolic and MAP are presented in Figure 3. The data suggested there was a sharp decrease of systolic and diastolic after the first dose of nifedipine and the blood pressure kept decrease until 20 min after the third dose (after 2 hours of first dose) but it started to bounce again afterward (Figure 3).”

Figure 2:
It would be more informative and flowing if the appearance of Figure 2 and its description are in the “Effectiveness comparisons of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine” section compared to the current view which is in the section or explanation of nifedipine.
RESPONSES: We agree with this suggestion because it is hard to follow the texts and the Figure 2.

We have re-requested the layout editor to move Figure 2 directly under the subheading: “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target”.

Labetalol
The authors are advised to revise the figure number that is not in accordance with the explanation about labetalol, which is different from what is presented in Figure 3.
RESPONSES: As we responded previously, we realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. Now all have been corrected.

Hydralazine
In Table 4, the results of the analysis to explain the decrease in systolic blood pressure were not found. Also, Figure 4 is a description of labetalol, not hydralazine.
RESPONSES: The systolic data was not distributed normally and therefore the Friedmann test and this analysis produced one p-value only and no 95%CI. To ensure this is clear, we have included the information as a note under the Table 4. “^c Analysed using Friedmann test.”
As we stated previously, all labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Page 8: Explanation of the results of Kruskal-Wallis test is not present in the Figure 5, but in Figure 6.
RESPONSES: All labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Table 7: Suggestion for the authors regarding reported side effects where there was only one namely tachycardia, it would be better if the result is presented in a narrative manner.
RESPONSES: Now Table 7 has been deleted as suggested and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion
Discussion section is still having major problems, addition information requested on strength and limitation are not clearly explain.
RESPONSES: We have provided the information related to the strengths and limitations of the study.

The authors are lacking in explanation the agreements and disagreements with findings from other studies.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your suggestions. Unfortunately, available studies are limited and therefore it is not possible to compare with previous studies.

Limitations
The limitation in methodological should be clearly explained and address as one of the limitations of this study.
The authors are suggested to give specific recommendations to the reader as respond to key findings.
RESPONSES: We have listed all the limitations of the study. We also have added specific recommendation from the results of the study. We added: “ Based on the present study, in high resource settings, hydralazine is recommended to treat severe preeclampsia cases with hypertensive emergency since it reduces the blood pressure rapidly and has no rebound phenomenon. We recommend to use nifedipine in the low resource settings since it is cheap and easy to use and store while still has good ability to reduce the blood pressure. However, blood pressure maintenance is required because it might rebound after approximately six hours.”
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 14 Nov 2022

Talha Bin Emran, Department of Pharmacy, BGC Trust University Bangladesh, Chittagong, Bangladesh

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.138303.r155523

The study was well-designed

The study was well-designed and conducted with balanced conclusions.
The title of the study is clear and balanced however the information on RCT is needed such as: “Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia: a randomized control trial”.
The structured abstract contains all important information, including the registry number.
The introduction section provides the importance and significance of the problem as well as the scientific gap. The aim of the study is also clearly stated.
The study setting is clearly stated although the justification for choosing those hospitals might be helpful.
The sample size is relatively small, but the justification and calculation are provided on how the sample was calculated.
Double blinding and randomization were conducted to avoid bias.
The procedures are explained adequately but the information on whether the healthcare workers received the training from the researchers is important to ensure that they worked following the guideline.
The Results assisted with a flowchart, and this helps the readers to understand each step of enrolment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis.
The baseline of the data of the patients between the group are relatively homogeneous.
The comparations between drugs were conducted for each endpoint and should be appreciated.
Table 7. The information in this table can basically be written in two sentences only since there were no side effects in the labetalol and hydralazine groups. Also “Secondary outcome” could be changed to “Side effect.”
Discussion and conclusion are balanced; the study's strengths and limitations are discussed. However, some suggestions to measure soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, endothelin-1, and soluble endoglin likely do not support the data of this study.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Immunology, Alternative Medicine, Public Health, Bioinformatics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 17 Feb 2023

Donel S, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, 28293, Indonesia

17 Feb 2023

Author Response

The study assessed the effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia (SP). SP is a significantly important health problem in both developed and developing countries. ... Continue reading The study assessed the effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia (SP). SP is a significantly important health problem in both developed and developing countries. My comments: The study was well-designed and conducted with balanced conclusions.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The title of the study is clear and balanced however the information on RCT is needed such as: “Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia: a randomized control trial”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the tittle by adding: “: a randomized control trial”

The structured abstract contains all important information, including the registry number.
The introduction section provides the importance and significance of the problem as well as the scientific gap. The aim of the study is also clearly stated.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The study setting is clearly stated although the justification for choosing those hospitals might be helpful.
RESPONSES: The reasons have been provided: “These hospitals were chosen because they are affiliated with Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau.”

The sample size is relatively small, but the justification and calculation are provided on how the sample was calculated.
Double blinding and randomization were conducted to avoid bias.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The procedures are explained adequately but the information on whether the healthcare workers received the training from the researchers is important to ensure that they worked following the guideline.
RESPONSES: We have added the information that the healthcare workers have been trained: “The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained.”

The Results assisted with a flowchart, and this helps the readers to understand each step of enrolment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis.
The baseline of the data of the patients between the group are relatively homogeneous.
The comparations between drugs were conducted for each endpoint and should be appreciated
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

Table 7. The information in this table can basically be written in two sentences only since there were no side effects in the labetalol and hydralazine groups. Also “Secondary outcome” could be changed to “Side effect.”
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. Now Table 7 has been deleted and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion and conclusion are balanced; the study's strengths and limitations are discussed. However, some suggestions to measure soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, endothelin-1, and soluble endoglin likely do not support the data of this study.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the suggestion. This sentence has been deleted.
The study assessed the effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia (SP). SP is a significantly important health problem in both developed and developing countries. My comments: The study was well-designed and conducted with balanced conclusions.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The title of the study is clear and balanced however the information on RCT is needed such as: “Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia: a randomized control trial”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the tittle by adding: “: a randomized control trial”

The structured abstract contains all important information, including the registry number.
The introduction section provides the importance and significance of the problem as well as the scientific gap. The aim of the study is also clearly stated.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The study setting is clearly stated although the justification for choosing those hospitals might be helpful.
RESPONSES: The reasons have been provided: “These hospitals were chosen because they are affiliated with Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau.”

The sample size is relatively small, but the justification and calculation are provided on how the sample was calculated.
Double blinding and randomization were conducted to avoid bias.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The procedures are explained adequately but the information on whether the healthcare workers received the training from the researchers is important to ensure that they worked following the guideline.
RESPONSES: We have added the information that the healthcare workers have been trained: “The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained.”

The Results assisted with a flowchart, and this helps the readers to understand each step of enrolment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis.
The baseline of the data of the patients between the group are relatively homogeneous.
The comparations between drugs were conducted for each endpoint and should be appreciated
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

Table 7. The information in this table can basically be written in two sentences only since there were no side effects in the labetalol and hydralazine groups. Also “Secondary outcome” could be changed to “Side effect.”
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. Now Table 7 has been deleted and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion and conclusion are balanced; the study's strengths and limitations are discussed. However, some suggestions to measure soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, endothelin-1, and soluble endoglin likely do not support the data of this study.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the suggestion. This sentence has been deleted.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 17 Feb 2023

Donel S, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, 28293, Indonesia

17 Feb 2023

Author Response

The study assessed the effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia (SP). SP is a significantly important health problem in both developed and developing countries. ... Continue reading The study assessed the effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia (SP). SP is a significantly important health problem in both developed and developing countries. My comments: The study was well-designed and conducted with balanced conclusions.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The title of the study is clear and balanced however the information on RCT is needed such as: “Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia: a randomized control trial”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the tittle by adding: “: a randomized control trial”

The structured abstract contains all important information, including the registry number.
The introduction section provides the importance and significance of the problem as well as the scientific gap. The aim of the study is also clearly stated.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The study setting is clearly stated although the justification for choosing those hospitals might be helpful.
RESPONSES: The reasons have been provided: “These hospitals were chosen because they are affiliated with Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau.”

The sample size is relatively small, but the justification and calculation are provided on how the sample was calculated.
Double blinding and randomization were conducted to avoid bias.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The procedures are explained adequately but the information on whether the healthcare workers received the training from the researchers is important to ensure that they worked following the guideline.
RESPONSES: We have added the information that the healthcare workers have been trained: “The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained.”

The Results assisted with a flowchart, and this helps the readers to understand each step of enrolment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis.
The baseline of the data of the patients between the group are relatively homogeneous.
The comparations between drugs were conducted for each endpoint and should be appreciated
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

Table 7. The information in this table can basically be written in two sentences only since there were no side effects in the labetalol and hydralazine groups. Also “Secondary outcome” could be changed to “Side effect.”
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. Now Table 7 has been deleted and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion and conclusion are balanced; the study's strengths and limitations are discussed. However, some suggestions to measure soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, endothelin-1, and soluble endoglin likely do not support the data of this study.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the suggestion. This sentence has been deleted.
The study assessed the effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia (SP). SP is a significantly important health problem in both developed and developing countries. My comments: The study was well-designed and conducted with balanced conclusions.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The title of the study is clear and balanced however the information on RCT is needed such as: “Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia: a randomized control trial”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the tittle by adding: “: a randomized control trial”

The structured abstract contains all important information, including the registry number.
The introduction section provides the importance and significance of the problem as well as the scientific gap. The aim of the study is also clearly stated.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The study setting is clearly stated although the justification for choosing those hospitals might be helpful.
RESPONSES: The reasons have been provided: “These hospitals were chosen because they are affiliated with Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau.”

The sample size is relatively small, but the justification and calculation are provided on how the sample was calculated.
Double blinding and randomization were conducted to avoid bias.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The procedures are explained adequately but the information on whether the healthcare workers received the training from the researchers is important to ensure that they worked following the guideline.
RESPONSES: We have added the information that the healthcare workers have been trained: “The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained.”

The Results assisted with a flowchart, and this helps the readers to understand each step of enrolment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis.
The baseline of the data of the patients between the group are relatively homogeneous.
The comparations between drugs were conducted for each endpoint and should be appreciated
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

Table 7. The information in this table can basically be written in two sentences only since there were no side effects in the labetalol and hydralazine groups. Also “Secondary outcome” could be changed to “Side effect.”
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. Now Table 7 has been deleted and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion and conclusion are balanced; the study's strengths and limitations are discussed. However, some suggestions to measure soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, endothelin-1, and soluble endoglin likely do not support the data of this study.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the suggestion. This sentence has been deleted.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 10 Nov 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 27 Apr 23	read	read
Version 1 10 Nov 22	read	read

Talha Bin Emran, BGC Trust University Bangladesh, Chittagong, Bangladesh
Jon Wantania, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, Indonesia

Windy Wariki, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, Indonesia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

12 Views

02 Jun 2023 | for Version 2

Jon Wantania, Department of Obstetric and Gynaecology, Maternal Foetal Medicine Division, Medical Faculty, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia

Windy Wariki, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, Indonesia

12 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Thank you for revision of your manuscript.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

John Wantania : Maternal Fetal Medicine ; Windy Mariane Virenia Wariki : Clinical Epidemiologist

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

02 May 2023 | for Version 2

Talha Bin Emran, Department of Pharmacy, BGC Trust University Bangladesh, Chittagong, Bangladesh

14 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Authors addressed all of my comments. The revised manuscript can be accepted for indexing.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Immunology, Alternative Medicine, Public Health, Bioinformatics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

31 Views

02 Dec 2022 | for Version 1

Jon Wantania, Department of Obstetric and Gynaecology, Maternal Foetal Medicine Division, Medical Faculty, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia

Windy Wariki, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, Indonesia

31 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

This article is useful, but still there are several weaknesses that need to be considered.
The introduction section should describe in more depth what is the novelty and urgency of this study.
The methods, and interpretations of the statistical analysis are not carefully presented. Therefore, further consultations with biostatistician or epidemiologist may potentially improve this article.
The authors may not be careful enough in writing due to some mistakes in grammar and inconsistency in writing.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

John Wantania : Maternal Fetal Medicine ; Windy Wariki : Clinical Epidemiologist

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

17 Feb 2023

Donel S, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, 28293, Indonesia

Thank you for your hard work. As a reviewer, I appreciate the efforts of the authors. The methods and research results presented are excellent and it hoped that great benefits obtained from this article. However, there are still some minor issues to address, which are listed below, in general:
This article is useful, but still there are several weaknesses that need to be considered.
The introduction section should describe in more depth what is the novelty and urgency of this study.
The methods, and interpretations of the statistical analysis are not carefully presented. Therefore, further consultations with biostatistician or epidemiologist may potentially improve this article.
The authors may not be careful enough in writing due to some mistakes in grammar and inconsistency in writing.
RESPONSES: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. The comments and suggestions have improved the quality of our current manuscript significantly.

We have added the required information in the methods as requested. Also, we have corrected some typos in the numbering related to the statistics. We have corrected the labels of the figures. The connection between the figures and the explanation texts have been corrected and checked for the correctness.

Introduction
Paragraph 4: The authors mentioned about the recommendations for antihypertension drugs in preeclampsia and stated, “Multiple drugs are included and excluded from the list of drugs of choice for the treatment of severe preeclampsia”. This sentence is a little unclear. Could you please clarify exactly what you mean about multiple drugs being included and also excluded as well? The authors should modify the sentence so that it is easier for the reader to understand.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence.

Paragraph 4: In the third sentence the authors explained the dosage form of hydralazine, without writing down the dosage form of labetalol.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine have long been considered as first-line therapy in hypertensive emergencies, severe hypertension in pregnant women, and in the postpartum period”.

Paragraph 5: The authors stated: “Hydralazine and labetalol are considered to have a balanced effectiveness and side effect in lowering blood pressure in preeclampsia”, and “Another study comparing nifedipine and labetalol…” Here, the authors should explain if the indicator used to measure “lowering blood pressure” were the same, for example the mean arterial pressure (MAP), and need to confirm quantitatively how much the blood pressure declined so that the reader can judge that they are comparable.
RESPONSES: We have added more detailed of the information related to the studies.

Paragraph 6: In the objective of this study, the authors mentioned the dosage form of nifedipine and labetalol. The authors should consistently explain the dosage form of hydralazine as well, bearing in mind that nifedipine and labetalol have different dosage forms.
RESPONSES: Have been included: “Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of oral nifedipine, and intravenous labetalol and intravenous hydralazine as antihypertensives in severe preeclampsia.”

Methods
Study setting and registration
In line with the subtitle above including registration, the authors should explain matters related to registration in this section instead of explaining it in the ethical considerations section. However, if the authors should explain this in ethical considerations section, can “registration” in this subtitle be eliminated?
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. We have changed the subheading to: “Study setting” only and moved the “registration” into: “Ethical considerations and registration”

Patient recruitment and criteria
In the second sentence the authors stated “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients”. This is different from the explanation in the Results section that the total number of samples was 60. Does it mean that the results of the minimum sample size calculation are 13 patients in each group? RESPONSES: 13 patients are minimal sample size for each group. Therefore, we have revised to: “The minimal sample size of the study was 13 patients for each arm.”

The minimum sample calculation formula used by the authors is for two groups. Considering that this research was an unpaired numerical comparative study conducted on three groups with measurements of seven times, it would be more appropriate if the authors calculated the number of samples based on the above considerations.
RESPONSES: We have checked again and we confirm that this formula also can be used for three groups.

Blinding and study procedure
The authors are suggested to explain in more detail about the following sentence “For example, the patient who arrived first and second to the hospital should be given kit no 41 and 23”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the sentence and we believe it is clear now. “For example, if the list from the software run was 41, 23, 4 and soon, the patient who arrived first, second and third to the hospital should be given kit no 41, 23 and 4, respectively.”

Furthermore, the authors also need to describe who are the “health workers” specifically, mentioned in this sentence “Health workers were instructed to administrate one pair of drug….” with reference to Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2020.
RESPONSES: They were doctors. And the text has been revised: “The enrolment of the patient was conducted by the doctors in each centre. The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained. The doctors and patients did not know the drugs contained in the kit.”

Endpoints:
The authors stated “The blood pressure was measured seven times...” As a suggestion, this sentence should be more suitable when explained in the subtitle “Blinding and study procedure” above.
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been moved within “Blinding and study procedure” subheading.

Statistical analysis
The authors have explained that a normality test has been carried out, therefore it is advised to write down the name of the normality test used, for example by taking into account the number of samples, or other considerations or assumptions.
RESPONSES: We have added the information of the test used to measure the normality of the data. We added: “The normality of data was measured using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.”

Results
Figure 1: In the last column of the “Analysis” section, it was written that the total number of respondents was 49 patients, quite different from the explanation in the Results section that 60 patients were analyzed. It is suggested that the authors need to be clearer, for example, when and for what to analyzing 60 patients, or only 49 patients.
RESPONSES: Thank you for questioning this. We have added the information related to this. We add: “Out of 60 patients, 11 patients did not achieve the MAP target after three doses of the tested drugs and therefore were excluded for effectiveness analysis of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reduce the blood pressure.”

Required time for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine group achieved the MAP
The authors have explained that the results regarding the time required for the three drugs to reach the target MAP are presented in Figure 1. However, the results shown in figure 1 are different from this explanation.
RESPONSES: Thank you pointing this mistake. It should be Figure 2. Also it has been changed to “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target” “Data regarding the dose required for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reach the target MAP (20% reduction) are presented in Figure 2.”

Nifedipine (page 6)
In this section, the author has directed the reader for three times to see the results in Table 2, even though all the data in this section are only showed in table 2. As a suggestion, it would be better if Table 2 was written only once, for example at the beginning or end of a paragraph of the explanation.
RESPONSES: Now it only mentioned only once in the beginning.

Sentence stating “Nifedipine decrease the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg 20 min post the first…”. However, 5.46 mmHg and 12.00 mmHg are not found in Table 2. Similar with the sentence sixth which is in Table 2 the p=0.010 and p=0.024 are not found.
RESPONSES: We appreciated with this correction. We have corrected the sentences: “Nifedipine decreased the MAP 15.61 mmHg, 6.37 mmHg and 2.90 mmHg 20 min post the first, second and the third dose of nifedipine. The MAP reduction on 20 min post the first dose was significant statistically with p<0.001.”

Table 2
On the footnote of table 2 was written the mean difference is significant at p<0.005. But in this table, there is no p-value less than 0.05 (p<0.05) which means that this mark (*) no need to be mentioned in the footnote.
RESPONSES: Now the * has been deleted. And ** has been changed to “*The mean difference is significant at p<0.01.” The * in the table also have been deleted. Thank you.

Page 7: The description below Figure 2 where the author wants to explain the changes of mean systolic, diastolic and MAP. The authors are asked to be more careful in presenting the results where the appearance of Figure 2 inconsistent from this explanation. Figure 2 is a comparison of the three types of drugs in achieving MAP.
RESPONSES: Thank you for catch this mistake. We realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. This should be Figure 3 not Figure 2. Now it has been corrected into Figure 3. The revised texts: “The changes of the mean systolic, diastolic and MAP are presented in Figure 3. The data suggested there was a sharp decrease of systolic and diastolic after the first dose of nifedipine and the blood pressure kept decrease until 20 min after the third dose (after 2 hours of first dose) but it started to bounce again afterward (Figure 3).”

Figure 2:
It would be more informative and flowing if the appearance of Figure 2 and its description are in the “Effectiveness comparisons of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine” section compared to the current view which is in the section or explanation of nifedipine.
RESPONSES: We agree with this suggestion because it is hard to follow the texts and the Figure 2.

We have re-requested the layout editor to move Figure 2 directly under the subheading: “Required dose for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target”.

Labetalol
The authors are advised to revise the figure number that is not in accordance with the explanation about labetalol, which is different from what is presented in Figure 3.
RESPONSES: As we responded previously, we realized that there was a shift of the labels of the figures. Now all have been corrected.

Hydralazine
In Table 4, the results of the analysis to explain the decrease in systolic blood pressure were not found. Also, Figure 4 is a description of labetalol, not hydralazine.
RESPONSES: The systolic data was not distributed normally and therefore the Friedmann test and this analysis produced one p-value only and no 95%CI. To ensure this is clear, we have included the information as a note under the Table 4. “^c Analysed using Friedmann test.”
As we stated previously, all labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Page 8: Explanation of the results of Kruskal-Wallis test is not present in the Figure 5, but in Figure 6.
RESPONSES: All labels of the figures have been rechecked and corrected.

Table 7: Suggestion for the authors regarding reported side effects where there was only one namely tachycardia, it would be better if the result is presented in a narrative manner.
RESPONSES: Now Table 7 has been deleted as suggested and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion
Discussion section is still having major problems, addition information requested on strength and limitation are not clearly explain.
RESPONSES: We have provided the information related to the strengths and limitations of the study.

The authors are lacking in explanation the agreements and disagreements with findings from other studies.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your suggestions. Unfortunately, available studies are limited and therefore it is not possible to compare with previous studies.

Limitations
The limitation in methodological should be clearly explained and address as one of the limitations of this study.
The authors are suggested to give specific recommendations to the reader as respond to key findings.
RESPONSES: We have listed all the limitations of the study. We also have added specific recommendation from the results of the study. We added: “ Based on the present study, in high resource settings, hydralazine is recommended to treat severe preeclampsia cases with hypertensive emergency since it reduces the blood pressure rapidly and has no rebound phenomenon. We recommend to use nifedipine in the low resource settings since it is cheap and easy to use and store while still has good ability to reduce the blood pressure. However, blood pressure maintenance is required because it might rebound after approximately six hours.”

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

26 Views

14 Nov 2022 | for Version 1

Talha Bin Emran, Department of Pharmacy, BGC Trust University Bangladesh, Chittagong, Bangladesh

26 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

The study was well-designed and conducted with balanced conclusions.
The title of the study is clear and balanced however the information on RCT is needed such as: “Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia: a randomized control trial”.
The structured abstract contains all important information, including the registry number.
The introduction section provides the importance and significance of the problem as well as the scientific gap. The aim of the study is also clearly stated.
The study setting is clearly stated although the justification for choosing those hospitals might be helpful.
The sample size is relatively small, but the justification and calculation are provided on how the sample was calculated.
Double blinding and randomization were conducted to avoid bias.
The procedures are explained adequately but the information on whether the healthcare workers received the training from the researchers is important to ensure that they worked following the guideline.
The Results assisted with a flowchart, and this helps the readers to understand each step of enrolment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis.
The baseline of the data of the patients between the group are relatively homogeneous.
The comparations between drugs were conducted for each endpoint and should be appreciated.
Table 7. The information in this table can basically be written in two sentences only since there were no side effects in the labetalol and hydralazine groups. Also “Secondary outcome” could be changed to “Side effect.”
Discussion and conclusion are balanced; the study's strengths and limitations are discussed. However, some suggestions to measure soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, endothelin-1, and soluble endoglin likely do not support the data of this study.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Immunology, Alternative Medicine, Public Health, Bioinformatics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

17 Feb 2023

Donel S, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, 28293, Indonesia

The study assessed the effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia (SP). SP is a significantly important health problem in both developed and developing countries. My comments: The study was well-designed and conducted with balanced conclusions.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The title of the study is clear and balanced however the information on RCT is needed such as: “Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia: a randomized control trial”.
RESPONSES: We have revised the tittle by adding: “: a randomized control trial”

The structured abstract contains all important information, including the registry number.
The introduction section provides the importance and significance of the problem as well as the scientific gap. The aim of the study is also clearly stated.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The study setting is clearly stated although the justification for choosing those hospitals might be helpful.
RESPONSES: The reasons have been provided: “These hospitals were chosen because they are affiliated with Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau.”

The sample size is relatively small, but the justification and calculation are provided on how the sample was calculated.
Double blinding and randomization were conducted to avoid bias.
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

The procedures are explained adequately but the information on whether the healthcare workers received the training from the researchers is important to ensure that they worked following the guideline.
RESPONSES: We have added the information that the healthcare workers have been trained: “The doctors have been informed about the study and have been trained.”

The Results assisted with a flowchart, and this helps the readers to understand each step of enrolment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis.
The baseline of the data of the patients between the group are relatively homogeneous.
The comparations between drugs were conducted for each endpoint and should be appreciated
RESPONSES: Thank you for your appreciation.

Table 7. The information in this table can basically be written in two sentences only since there were no side effects in the labetalol and hydralazine groups. Also “Secondary outcome” could be changed to “Side effect.”
RESPONSES: Thank you for the suggestion. Now Table 7 has been deleted and we have added “side effects” after the secondary outcome.

Discussion and conclusion are balanced; the study's strengths and limitations are discussed. However, some suggestions to measure soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, endothelin-1, and soluble endoglin likely do not support the data of this study.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the suggestion. This sentence has been deleted.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Gestational Hypertension and Preeclampsia. Practice Bulletin No. 222, June 2020.

[2] 2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Emergent therapy for acute onset, severe hypertension during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Committee Opinion. Feb 2019; (767).

[3] 3. Fogagnolo A: Mean Arterial Pressure and Central Venous Pressure Difference as a Prognostic Tool for Postoperative Acute Kidney Injury. Geneva:Euroanaesthesia;2017; 233.

[4] 4. Patel P, Koli D, Maitra N, et al.: Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Labetalol Versus Hydralazine for Management of Severe Hypertension in Pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India. 2018; 68(5): 376–381. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Easterling T, Mudle S, Bracken H, et al.: Oral antihypertensive regimens (nifedipine retard, labetalol, and methyldopa) for management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019; 394: 1011–1021. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, et al.: Williams Obstetrics. 25th ed.New York:Mc Graw Hill;2018.

[7] 7. Meltzer DE: The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores. Am. J. Phys. 2002; 70(12): 1259–1268. Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Hake RR: Analyzing change/gain scores.1999.Reference Source

[9] 9. Biswas SK, Raha SK, Mahbuba.: Oral Nifedipine versus Intravenous Labetalol for Acute Blood Pressure Control in Severe Hypertension of Pregnancy: A Study at Faridpur Medical College Hospital. Faridpur Med. Coll. J. 2021; 16(1): 25–29. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Raheem IA, Saaid R, Omar SZ, et al.: Oral nifedipine versus intravenous labetalol for acute blood pressure control in hypertensive emergencies of pregnancy: a randomised trial. BJOG. 2012 Jan; 119(1): 78–85. Epub 2011 Oct 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Dhali B, Bhattacharya S, Ganguly RP, et al.: A randomized trial of intravenous labetalol & oral nifedipine in severe pregnancy induced hypertension. Int. J. Reprod. Contracept. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 1: 42–46.

[12] 12. Garovic VD, Dechend R, Easterling T, et al.: Hypertension in pregnancy: diagnosis, blood pressure goals, and pharmacotherapy: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2022; 79: e21–e41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Rezaei Z, Sharbaf FR, Pourmojieb M, et al.: Comparison of the efficacy of nifedipine and hydralazine in hypertensive crisis in pregnancy. Acta Med. Iran. 2011; 49(11): 701–706. PubMed Abstract

[14] 14. Easterling T, Mundle S, Bracken H, et al.: Oral antihypertensive regimens (nifedipine retard, labetalol, and methyldopa) for management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019 Sep 21; 394(10203): 1011–1021. Epub 2019 Aug 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Antza C, Dimou C, Doundoulakis I, et al.: The flipside of hydralazine in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2020 Jan; 19: 177–186. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Firoz T, Magee LA, MacDonell K, et al.: Oral antihypertensive therapy for severe hypertension in pregnancy and postpartum: a systematic review. BJOG. 2014 Sep; 121(10): 1210–1218; discussion 1220. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Adebayo JA, Nwafor JI, Lawani LO, et al.: Efficacy of nifedipine versus hydralazine in the management of severe hypertension in pregnancy: A randomised controlled trial. Niger. Postgrad. Med. J. 2020 Oct-Dec; 27(4): 317–324. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Aali BS, Nejad SS: Nifedipine or hydralazine as a first-line agent to control hypertension in severe preeclampsia. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2002 Jan; 81(1): 25–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Suhaimi D:Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia. figshare. [Dataset]. Journal Contribution. 2022. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Suhaimi D:CONSORT checklist for Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia. figshare. 2022. [Dataset]. Journal Contribution. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine as emergency antihypertension in severe preeclampsia

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Study setting and registration

Ethical considerations

Patient recruitment and criteria

Blinding and study procedure

End points

Statistical analysis

Results

Figure 1. Flowchart of patients’ enrolment, allocation, follow-up and analysis.

Patients’ characteristics

Table 1. Characteristics of the patients of three study groups pre-treatment.

Required time for nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to achieve MAP target

Effectiveness of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine to reduce the blood pressure

Table 2. Effect of nifedipine to reduce the blood pressure over time in severe preeclampsia patient.

Figure 2. Dose required to reach target mean arterial pressure (MAP) in patients with severe preeclampsia treated with nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine.

Table 3. Effect of labetalol to reduce the blood pressure over time in severe preeclampsia patient.

Figure 3. Changes of systolic (A), diastolic (B) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) post nifedipine administration.

Table 4. Effect of hydralazine to reduce the blood pressure over time in severe preeclampsia patients.

Figure 4. Changes of systolic (A), diastolic (B) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) post labetalol administration.

Effectiveness comparisons of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine after single and triple dose administration

Table 5. N-gain administration of one dose and triple doses of the test drug.

Figure 5. Changes of systolic (A), diastolic (B) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) post hydralazine administration.

Figure 6. Kruskal-Wallis test on MAP reduction by nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine when administered in a single dose (a) and triple dose (b).

Table 6. Pairwise comparisons of the tested anti-hypertensives at single and triple doses administration.

Secondary outcome

Table 7. Side effects observed during the treatment using nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine.

Discussion

Conclusions

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated