-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
In total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups. The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%). Using GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) -5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI -5.91 to -0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP. In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -42.00, 95% CI -87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). In palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine).
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS
Different interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Capsaicin; Cromolyn Sodium; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Palliative Care; Paroxetine; Receptors, Opioid; Rifampin; Zinc Sulfate
PubMed: 37314034
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008320.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Itch in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common, often very distressing and associated with depression, reduced quality of life, and increased death. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Itch in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common, often very distressing and associated with depression, reduced quality of life, and increased death. The most common first-line treatment has been the use of antihistamines despite the lack of substantial evidence for its use for uraemic itch. Few recommendations and guidelines exist for treatment.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to determine: 1) the benefits and harms (both absolute and relative) of all topical and systemic interventions for the treatment of uraemic itch, either alone or in combination, when compared with placebo or standard care; and, 2) the dose strength or frequency, stage of kidney disease or method of dialysis used (where applicable) in cases where the effects of these interventions vary depending on co-interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 17 December 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with CKD stages 4 or 5 comparing treatments (pharmacological, topical, exposure, dialysis modality) for CKD associated itch to either placebo or other established treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality. Data were analysed using a random effects meta-analysis design estimating the relative effects of treatment versus placebo. Estimates of the relative effects between treatments are included where possible. For continuous measures of severity of itch up to three months, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) were used. When reported, adverse effects were tabulated. The certainty of the evidence was estimated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Ninety-two RCTs, randomising 4466 participants were included. Fifty-eight studies (3285 participants) provided sufficient data to be meta-analysed. Of these, 30 compared an intervention to a placebo or control. The 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was the dominant instrument utilized for itch reporting and the Duo score was used in a minority of studies. GABA analogues including, gabapentin and pregabalin, reduce itch in patients with CKD (5 studies, 297 participants: 4.95 cm reduction, 95% CI 5.46 to 4.44 lower in VAS compared to placebo; high certainty evidence). Kappa opioid agonists, including nalfurafine also reduced itch in this population (6 studies, 661 participants: 1.05 cm reduction, 95% CI 1.40 to 0.71 lower in VAS compared to placebo; high certainty evidence). Ondansetron had little or no effect on itch scores (3 studies, 183 participants: 0.38 cm reduction, 95% CI 1.04 lower to 0.29 higher in VAS compared to placebo; high certainty evidence). Reduction in the severity of itch was reported with oral montelukast, turmeric, zinc sulfate and topical capsaicin. For all other interventions, the certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, and the interventions had uncertain effects on uraemic pruritus. Six studies have disclosed significant financial support from their respective manufacturers, six were affected by lack of blinding, and 11 studies have 15 participants or less. Older, smaller RCTs often failed to follow intention-to-treat protocols with unexplained dropouts after randomisation. Adverse effects were generally poorly and inconsistently reported across all RCTs. No severe adverse events were reported for any intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The RCTs of this meta-analysis contain a large array of interventions with a diverse set of comparators. For many interventions, trials are sparse. This served to make informative meta-analysis challenging. Of all treatments for uraemic pruritus, gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) were the most studied and show the greatest reduction in itch scores. Further RCTs, even of the scale of the largest trials included in this review, are unlikely to significantly change this finding. Kappa-opioid agonists (mainly nalfurafine) also may reduce itch, but indirect comparison suggests a much more modest effect in comparison to GABA analogues. Evidence for oral montelukast, turmeric, zinc sulfate, and topical capsaicin also showed an itch score reduction. However, these reductions were reported in small studies, and warrant further investigation. Ondansetron did not reduce itch. It is somewhat unlikely that a further study of ondansetron will change this result.
Topics: Analgesics; Antipruritics; Humans; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 33283264
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011393.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 125 studies involving 9469 women. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids) Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloid Fewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81; 2009 women; 27 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women; very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.78, 5 studies, 413 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19, 14 studies, 1058 women, I² = 29%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 10 studies, 730 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrine There were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus control Ondansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus control Lower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lying There was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence). Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections. External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.
Topics: Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Antiemetics; Cesarean Section; Colloids; Crystalloid Solutions; Ephedrine; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Intraoperative Complications; Isotonic Solutions; Ondansetron; Phenylephrine; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Walking
PubMed: 32619039
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002251.pub4 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology May 2016To examine the risk of birth defects in children born to women who used ondansetron early in pregnancy for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy or hyperemesis gravidarum. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine the risk of birth defects in children born to women who used ondansetron early in pregnancy for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy or hyperemesis gravidarum.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Journals@Ovid Fulltext, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included for review if they were written in English, included a comparison population of patients not exposed to ondansetron, and reported human data, original research, exposure to ondansetron during the first trimester, and structural birth defects as an outcome.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
A total of 423 records were identified. After accounting for duplicate records and including only relevant articles, a total of eight records met criteria for review. Data from the various studies were conflicting: whereas the three largest studies showed no increased risk of birth defects as a whole (36 malformations, 1,233 exposed compared with 141 malformations and 4,932 unexposed; 58/1,248 exposed compared with 31,357/895,770 unexposed; and 38/1,349 exposed compared with 43,620/1,500,085 unexposed; with odds ratios [ORs] of 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.82), 1.3 [95% CI 1.0-1.7], and 0.95 [95% CI 0.72-1.26], respectively), two of these studies demonstrated a slightly increased risk of cardiac defects specifically (OR 2.0 [95% CI 1.3-3.1] and 1.62 [95% CI 1.04-2.14]), a finding that was not replicated in other studies. The most consistent association (if any) appears to be a small increase in the incidence of cardiac abnormalities, the bulk of which are septal defects.
CONCLUSION
The overall risk of birth defects associated with ondansetron exposure appears to be low. There may be a small increase in the incidence of cardiac abnormalities in ondansetron-exposed neonates. Therefore, ondansetron use for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy should be reserved for those women whose symptoms have not been adequately controlled by other methods.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Antiemetics; Female; Humans; Hyperemesis Gravidarum; Infant, Newborn; Ondansetron; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 27054939
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001388 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Ondansetron is a selective antagonist of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor that is commonly used to treat morning sickness. It is estimated that 70%-80% of pregnant women...
Ondansetron is a selective antagonist of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor that is commonly used to treat morning sickness. It is estimated that 70%-80% of pregnant women suffer from morning sickness, a condition characterized by nausea and vomiting. However, it is still controversial regarding its safety during pregnancy, and continued research will be necessary to fully understand the risks and benefits associated with its use. Therefore, we aimed to identify and provide details of the efficacy and safety of ondansetron in clinical trials. A search was conducted of the ClinicalTrials.gov database on 13 April 2023, using the search term "ondansetron and pregnancy." Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to identify relevant clinical trials. The inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials related to pregnancy that utilized ondansetron as a treatment, while other clinical trials were excluded from consideration. All data extractions such as study title, study status, study type, intervention details, and outcome were collected. A total of 18 clinical trials were identified, of which only 6 focused on studying the effects of ondansetron. Their respective study titles, statuses, conditions, interventions, outcome measures, and enrollment sizes have been written in detail. The information collected from these trials will contribute to our understanding of the potential benefits and risks of ondansetron in the context of pregnancy and its complications. Ondansetron has been shown to be an effective treatment for nausea and vomiting, including pregnancy-related morning sickness. Further research is needed to better understand the potential risks and benefits associated with its use in pregnant women. ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier.
PubMed: 37936910
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1291235 -
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 2023Pruritus is a symptom of several cholestatic liver diseases (CLDs) that can impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite evidence-based guideline therapy,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pruritus is a symptom of several cholestatic liver diseases (CLDs) that can impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite evidence-based guideline therapy, managing cholestatic pruritus (CP) remains challenging, thus making the need for newer, more effective therapeutic agents more evident.
OBJECTIVE
Our study evaluated the efficacy of existing CP therapies.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
From inception until March 2023, we conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, and other sources, including pharmaceutical webpages and conference proceedings published in English that reported on CP interventions.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently conducted screening and full-text review of articles with extraction conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The methodological quality of studies included in our qualitative synthesis was assessed by using the Cochrane ROBINS-I and ROBINS-II tools for interventional studies and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. The primary outcome assessed in our systematic review was the severity of CP after therapy.
RESULTS
Of 3293 screened articles, 92 studies were eligible for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis. Some patients' HRQoL improved with evidence-based standard therapy. Others, particularly those with severe and refractory CP, often required conversion to or addition of experimental noninvasive (e.g., ondansetron) or extracorporeal liver support to alleviate CP. In addition, studies investigating a newer class drug, the ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor (IBATi), demonstrate its effectiveness in reducing serum bile acid and alleviating CP with sustained improvement noted in patients with the inherited childhood cholestatic disorders - progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis and Alagille syndrome.
CONCLUSION
Our findings consolidate data on the efficacy of guideline-based approaches and newer therapies for CP. While the initial findings are promising, additional clinical trials will be needed to determine the full extent of IBATi's efficacy and potential use in treating other common CLDs. These results provide a foundation for future research and highlight the need for continued investigation into the management and treatment of CLDs.
PubMed: 37255856
DOI: 10.1177/17562848231172829 -
Ondansetron-induced QT prolongation among various age groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Egyptian Heart Journal : (EHJ) :... Jul 2023Ondansetron is a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 serotonin-receptor antagonist with antiemetic properties used inadvertently in the emergency department for...
BACKGROUND
Ondansetron is a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 serotonin-receptor antagonist with antiemetic properties used inadvertently in the emergency department for controlling nausea. However, ondansetron is linked with a number of adverse effects, including prolongation of the QT interval. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the occurrence of QT prolongation in pediatric, adult, and elderly patients receiving oral or intravenously administered ondansetron.
METHODS
A thorough electronic search was conducted on PubMed (Medline) and Cochrane Library from the databases' inception to August 10, 2022. Only those studies were considered in which ondansetron was administered orally or intravenously to participants for the treatment of nausea and vomiting. The prevalence of QT prolongation in multiple predefined age groups was the outcome variable. Analyses were conducted using Review manager 5.4 (Cochrane collaboration, 2020).
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies involving 687 ondansetron group participants were statistically analyzed. The administration of ondansetron was associated with a statistically significant prevalence of QT prolongation in all age groups. An age-wise subgroup analysis was conducted which revealed that the prevalence of QT prolongation among participants younger than 18 years was not statistically significant, whereas it was statistically significant among participants aged 18-50 years and among patients older than 50 years.
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis provides further evidence that oral or intravenous administration of Ondansetron may lead to QT prolongation, particularly among patients older than 18 years of age.
PubMed: 37395900
DOI: 10.1186/s43044-023-00385-y -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology... Jul 2018Ondansetron, not approved for use in pregnancy, is increasingly being prescribed for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum. A number of recent...
OBJECTIVE
Ondansetron, not approved for use in pregnancy, is increasingly being prescribed for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum. A number of recent lawsuits have highlighted the possibility that ondansetron may cause congenital malformations. The aim of this study was to systematically review epidemiological evidence on the potential association of prenatal exposure to ondansetron and congenital malformations.
METHODS
Systematic searches in Medline and Embase were performed in June 2017 using controlled vocabulary and key words, and references of search results were reviewed. Full papers (RCTs, cohort, and case-control studies) were eligible for inclusion if they reported fetal outcomes of prenatal ondansetron exposure in humans. Excluded were: case reports, studies involving pre-medication with ondansetron prior to CS, animal studies, and foreign languages studies.
RESULTS
Ten epidemiologic studies were included: five large retrospective cohort studies, two prospective observational studies, two population-based case-controls. and a retrospective case series. Sample sizes ranged from 17 to 1 501 434 infants exposed to ondansetron. A case-control study identified an association between prenatal exposure to ondansetron and cleft palate, and one cohort study found an increased risk of cardiovascular defects. These findings were not reproduced in the other studies.
CONCLUSION
While further investigation of the literature is needed, our results highlight the paucity of evidence linking prenatal exposure to ondansetron to an increased risk of congenital malformations. There is a need for additional epidemiologic studies to confirm whether ondansetron represents a safe and effective alternative treatment for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum.
Topics: Antiemetics; Congenital Abnormalities; Female; Humans; Hyperemesis Gravidarum; Ondansetron; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29754832
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.10.024 -
Medicine Sep 2023Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain.
CONCLUSION
Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Lidocaine; Ondansetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37746949
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035021 -
Cureus Jun 2023In a generation where advancements in research and understanding have led to remarkable achievements in medicine, it is still unfathomable that, after more than a... (Review)
Review
In a generation where advancements in research and understanding have led to remarkable achievements in medicine, it is still unfathomable that, after more than a century, the cause of schizophrenia is still a mystery. While antipsychotics, without a doubt, have brought on an exemplary revolution in the way psychiatric disorders are now treated, there are still imperative deficits that need to be addressed to ultimately enable individuals with schizophrenia to function normally in society. However, without a definite cause of schizophrenia, even though speculation has been made on its inflammatory and neurodegenerative nature, it has provided an unnecessary hindrance to finding further potential treatment modalities for these patients. Nevertheless, some trials are investigating potential adjunctive treatment regimens to antipsychotics, which can help achieve complete remission. Exploring these drugs will have significant implications for managing schizophrenia in future clinical practices. This systematic review was conducted between January 2012 to July 2022 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ondansetron and simvastatin as adjunctive treatment to antipsychotics in adult patients with schizophrenia. This review included nine randomized controlled trials. Overall, both simvastatin and ondansetron, when used as adjunctive treatment in schizophrenia, appear to be safe. Ondansetron showed promising results, with all studies on this drug showing positive overall results on schizophrenia symptoms. On the other hand, simvastatin demonstrated mixed results, which can be attributed to the limited participants in the studies and the shorter duration of the trials. However, more extensive trials with uniform assessment tools are needed to demonstrate concrete evidence of the effectiveness of these drugs, whether alone or in combination with each other or perhaps another drug such as aspirin in schizophrenia.
PubMed: 37456496
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40474