-
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... May 2022Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties.... (Review)
Review
Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties. Dexketoprofen has a stronger effect than ketoprofen, which makes it a readily used preparation. The review aims to find in recent original publications data about dexketoprofen and its comparison with other painkilling medications. The systematic literature review was conducted in November 2021 (2018 onwards). We selected 12 articles from PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline Complete databases. In the last 4 years, there have been many publications that shed a new light on dexketoprofen. The article is a comparative analysis of dexketoprofen's action vs other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the combination of dexketoprofen with tramadol vs paracetamol with tramadol. The findings of the review confirm that dexketoprofen is a very good pain reliever more potent than paracetamol. Dexketoprofen produces similar effects to lidocaine and dexmedetomidine. Complex preparations containing dexketoprofen and tramadol are very effective painkilling tandem and are more effective than tramadol and paracetamol therapy in the treatment of acute pain.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketoprofen; Tramadol; Tromethamine
PubMed: 35299123
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.112819 -
Korean Journal of Family Medicine Nov 2021Breastfeeding is recognized as the optimal form of nutrition for the physical and neurological development of infants and is considered the most significant way to...
BACKGROUND
Breastfeeding is recognized as the optimal form of nutrition for the physical and neurological development of infants and is considered the most significant way to prevent child mortality. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of metoclopramide for enhancing milk production in lactating women.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials comparing metoclopramide with a placebo, no treatment, or other galactagogue drugs. We included breastfeeding women with term or preterm infants.
RESULTS
We retrieved 164 records from our search of the electronic databases and 20 records from other sources. Eight trials involving 342 lactating women that used metoclopramide were included in this review after assessing the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis of these trials revealed that metoclopramide did not increase the milk volume of the intervention groups compared to that of the control groups. There was a significant increase in the serum concentrations of prolactin when the mothers were administered metoclopramide. No significant adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION
Metoclopramide did not improve milk production in lactating women. Therefore, we do not recommend using metoclopramide to increase milk production in lactating women.
PubMed: 34871486
DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.20.0238 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are commonly prescribed. There is currently no consensus as to the optimum drug treatment of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
OBJECTIVES
To provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of antiemetic medications in the management of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1980 to August 2014) and ISI Web of Science (January 1955 to August 2014). We also searched relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any drug in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the treatment of adults in the ED. Study eligibility was not restricted by language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted authors of studies to obtain missing information if required.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight trials, involving 952 participants, of which 64% were women. Included trials were generally of adequate quality, with six trials at low risk of bias, and two trials at high risk of bias. Three trials with 518 participants compared five different drugs with placebo; all reported the primary outcome as mean change in visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 to 100) for nausea severity from baseline to 30 minutes. Trials did not routinely report other primary outcomes of the change in nausea VAS at 60 minutes or number of vomiting episodes. Differences in mean VAS change from baseline to 30 minutes between placebo and the drugs evaluated were: metoclopramide (three trials, 301 participants; mean difference (MD) -5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.33 to 0.80), ondansetron (two trials, 250 participants; MD -4.32, 95% CI -11.20 to 2.56), prochlorperazine (one trial, 50 participants; MD -1.80, 95% CI -14.40 to 10.80), promethazine (one trial, 82 participants; MD -8.47, 95% CI -19.79 to 2.85) and droperidol (one trial, 48 participants; MD -15.8, 95% CI -26.98 to -4.62). The only statistically significant change in baseline VAS to 30 minutes was for droperidol, in a single trial of 48 participants. No other drug was statistically significantly superior to placebo. Other included trials evaluated a drug compared to "active controls" (alternative antiemetic). There was no convincing evidence of superiority of any particular drug compared to active control. All trials included in this review reported adverse events, but they were variably reported precluding meaningful pooling of results. Adverse events were generally mild, there were no reported serious adverse events. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low, mainly because there were not enough data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In an ED population, there is no definite evidence to support the superiority of any one drug over any other drug, or the superiority of any drug over placebo. Participants receiving placebo often reported clinically significant improvement in nausea, implying general supportive treatment such as intravenous fluids may be sufficient for the majority of people. If a drug is considered necessary, choice of drug may be dictated by other considerations such as a person's preference, adverse-effect profile and cost. The review was limited by the paucity of clinical trials in this setting. Future research should include the use of placebo and consider focusing on specific diagnostic groups and controlling for factors such as intravenous fluid administered.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Ondansetron; Prochlorperazine; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Analog Scale; Vomiting
PubMed: 26411330
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010106.pub2 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Jun 2023Multiple drugs have been used to treat gastroparesis symptoms, yet their therapeutic benefits are poorly understood partly due to lack of insight into response and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Multiple drugs have been used to treat gastroparesis symptoms, yet their therapeutic benefits are poorly understood partly due to lack of insight into response and adverse event rates with placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated these issues systematically in drug trials for gastroparesis.
METHODS
We searched the medical literature through August 2, 2022 to identify RCTs comparing active drug with placebo in patients with gastroparesis. We assessed placebo response rates according to at least one of the following endpoints: improvement according to a composite outcome, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness, as well as total adverse events, and adverse events leading to withdrawal. We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses with dropouts assumed to be treatment failures. We pooled placebo response and adverse event rates using a random effects model and expressed as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies were eligible. Among 23 trials reporting a composite endpoint of improvement, the pooled placebo response rate was 29.3% (95% CI, 23.7%-35.2%). Pooled placebo response rates were higher in idiopathic compared with diabetic gastroparesis (34.2% vs 28.1%), among trials that did not use validated symptom questionnaires (31.2% vs 27.4%), and in RCTs of shorter duration (<4 weeks, 32.6% vs ≥9 weeks, 23.2%). Adverse events occurred in 33.8% (95% CI, 26.4%-41.8%) of patients with placebo, in 27 trials, and were less common in idiopathic compared with diabetic gastroparesis (17.9% vs 43.4%), trials of shorter duration (<4 weeks, 33.7% vs ≥9 weeks, 40.7%), and trials with lower randomization ratios of active drug to placebo (1:1, 26.7% vs 3:1, 50.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis assessed placebo response and adverse event rates in gastroparesis. To accurately assess therapeutic gain, future trials should be a minimum of 8 weeks duration, use validated questionnaires, and distinguish gastroparesis subtypes.
Topics: Humans; Gastroparesis; Vomiting; Nausea
PubMed: 36270614
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.09.033 -
Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) May 2017The prokinetic cisapride, an important therapeutic option in functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, was withdrawn from the market 15 years ago due to rare severe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Modulation of gastrointestinal motility beyond metoclopramide and domperidone : Pharmacological and clinical evidence for phytotherapy in functional gastrointestinal disorders.
The prokinetic cisapride, an important therapeutic option in functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, was withdrawn from the market 15 years ago due to rare severe side effects. Likewise in 2014, the use of metoclopramide (MCP) and domperidone in functional GI disorders (FGID) was restricted, consequently leaving a therapeutic gap in clinical practice. A systematic review revealed that the herbal medicinal product (HMP) STW 5 presents a therapeutic option equivalent to MCP and cisapride. STW 5 is the only HMP for which efficacy has been shown in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome, based on its multitarget effect on numerous etiological factors. Due to an outstanding favorable safety profile, STW 5 allows an effective and safe use in FGID without a limitation of the duration of the treatment.
Topics: Domperidone; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Gastrointestinal Motility; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Metoclopramide; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28424994
DOI: 10.1007/s10354-017-0557-3 -
Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and... Jun 2022This investigation examined the efficacy of ondansetron (intervention) versus metoclopramide (control) in managing parturient females with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG),...
This investigation examined the efficacy of ondansetron (intervention) versus metoclopramide (control) in managing parturient females with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), by pooling data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a meta-analysis approach. From inception until January 2022, five information sources were screened: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. Quality assessment was done through the Cochrane Risk of Bias (version 2) assessment tool. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to summarize the continuous data in a fixed- or random-effects model, depending on the extent of between-study heterogeneity. Five RCTs were included, comprising a total of 695 patients (355 and 340 females were assigned to ondansetron and metoclopramide, respectively). Four RCTs had an overall "low" risk of bias, whereas one RCT had an overall "some concerns" due to lack of sufficient information about randomization. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the pregnancy-unique quantification of emesis and nausea score [MD=0.23, 95% CI (-0.42, 0.88), p=0.49], length of hospital stay [MD=-0.17 days, 95% CI (-0.35, 0.02), p=0.08], the number of doses of drug received [MD=0.45, 95% CI (-0.08, 0.98), p=0.10], and duration of intravenous fluids [MD=-1.73 hours, 95% CI (-5.79, 2.33), p=0.40]. Among parturient females with HG, there was no substantial difference in efficacy between both agents. Nevertheless, ondansetron is favored over metoclopramide in view of its trending therapeutic efficacy and better safety profile.
PubMed: 35770443
DOI: 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2022.14367 -
The Journal of Rheumatology Dec 2021The epidemiology and treatment of peripheral neuropathy in systemic sclerosis (SSc) is poorly understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the incidence,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The epidemiology and treatment of peripheral neuropathy in systemic sclerosis (SSc) is poorly understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the incidence, prevalence, risk factors, and treatments of peripheral neuropathy in SSc.
METHODS
A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases for literature reporting peripheral neuropathy in SSc was performed. Studies evaluating incidence, prevalence, risk factors, and treatments were synthesized. A metaanalysis using a random effects model was used to evaluate the prevalence of peripheral neuropathy.
RESULTS
This systematic review identified 113 studies that reported 949 of 2143 subjects with at least 1 type of peripheral neuropathy. The mean age was 48.5 years. The mean time between SSc onset and detection of peripheral neuropathy was 8.85 years. The pooled prevalence of neuropathy was 27.37% (95% CI 22.35-32.70). Risk factors for peripheral neuropathy in SSc included advanced diffuse disease, anticentromere antibodies, calcinosis cutis, ischemia of the vasa nervorum, iron deficiency anemia, metoclopramide, pembrolizumab, silicosis, and uremia. There were 73 subjects with successful treatments (n = 36 restoring sensation, n = 37 restoring motor or sensorimotor function). Treatments included decompression surgery, prednisone, cyclophosphamide, carbamazepine, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, tricyclic antidepressants, and intravenous Ig.
CONCLUSION
All-cause peripheral neuropathy is not uncommon in SSc. Compression neuropathies can be treated with decompression surgery. Observational data reporting immunosuppressives and anticonvulsants to treat peripheral neuropathy in SSc are limited and conflicting. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of these interventions.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Iron Deficiencies; Middle Aged; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Risk Factors; Scleroderma, Systemic
PubMed: 34210833
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.201299 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Physicians often prescribe opioids for pain in the acute care setting. Nausea and vomiting are well-described adverse events, occurring in over one-third of patients.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Physicians often prescribe opioids for pain in the acute care setting. Nausea and vomiting are well-described adverse events, occurring in over one-third of patients. Prophylactic antiemetics may be one option to reduce opioid-associated nausea and vomiting. However, these medications also have their own adverse effects, so it is important to understand their efficacy and safety prior to routine use. This is a review of randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care for preventing opioid-associated nausea and vomiting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prophylactic antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in adults (aged 16 years or older) receiving intravenous opioids in the acute care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) from inception to January 2022, and Google Scholar (17 January 2022). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and screened reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials of prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care in adults prior to receiving an intravenous opioid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MG, JNC) independently determined the eligibility of each study according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors (MG, GDP) then independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included nausea severity, number of vomiting episodes, and number of participants requiring antiemetic rescue therapy. We presented outcomes as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (e.g. presence of vomiting, presence of nausea, number of participants requiring rescue medication, adverse events) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference for continuous data (e.g. number of vomiting episodes, nausea severity) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies involving 527 participants (187 women and 340 men) with a mean age of 42 years. All studies used intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg) as the intervention and a placebo for the comparator. No studies assessed any other antiemetic or compared the intervention to standard care. Compared to placebo, metoclopramide did not reduce vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.32; low-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; low-certainty evidence) and there was no difference in adverse events (RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.47 to 11.61; low-certainty evidence). No data were available regarding the number of vomiting episodes. Metoclopramide did reduce the severity of nausea compared with placebo (MD -0.49, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.23; low-certainty evidence) but did not reduce the need for rescue medication (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.16; low-certainty evidence). Two studies were at unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, one for blinding of outcome assessors, one for incomplete outcome data, and two for selective reporting. The studies were at low risk of bias for all remaining components.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence that prophylactic metoclopramide affected the risk of vomiting, nausea, or the need for rescue medication when provided prior to intravenous opioids in the acute care setting. There was a clinically insignificant difference in nausea severity when comparing prophylactic metoclopramide with placebo. Overall, the evidence was of low certainty. Future research could better delineate the effects of prophylactic antiemetics on specific populations, and new studies are needed to evaluate the use of other prophylactic antiemetic agents, for which there were no data.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Antiemetics; Female; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Vomiting
PubMed: 35588093
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013860.pub2 -
Nutrition in Clinical Practice :... Apr 2022Metoclopramide is frequently prescribed as an adjuvant for the postpyloric placement of nasoenteric tubes (NETs). However, a recent meta-analysis showed that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Metoclopramide is frequently prescribed as an adjuvant for the postpyloric placement of nasoenteric tubes (NETs). However, a recent meta-analysis showed that metoclopramide was not beneficial in adults. Thus, this study aimed to reevaluate the effect of metoclopramide on the postpyloric placement of NETs.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang data was conducted up to August 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metoclopramide with placebo or no intervention. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used for the primary outcomes (the success rate of the postpyloric placement of NETs).
RESULTS
Seven eligible RCTs that included 520 participants were identified. The results of the pooled effect sizes showed that metoclopramide significantly facilitated the postpyloric placement of NETs (relative risk [RR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11-1.97; P = .007; I = 37%). However, the risk-of-bias assessment and the TSA results indicated that the qualities of the RCTs and the sample sizes were insufficient to confirm the efficacy of metoclopramide. Further subgroup analysis revealed that successful postpyloric placement was more pronounced in studies in which spiral NETs were employed (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.41-2.43; P < .001; I = 0%). Additionally, overall adverse events were minimal.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence accumulated so far was not strong enough to demonstrate metoclopramide's beneficial effects on the postpyloric placement of NETs. Further high-quality, large-sample RCTs are required to elucidate the effects of metoclopramide.
Topics: Adult; Critical Care; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Metoclopramide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34155678
DOI: 10.1002/ncp.10725 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Sep 2022This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache.
METHODS
We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomized controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons: ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1 h under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.09, p = 0.74) or metoclopramide (SMD = 0.02, p = 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines (risk ratio [RR] =0.98, p = 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 0.64, p = 0.13]), need for rescue medication (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines [RR = 1.72, p = 0.27], ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR 2.20, p = 0.18]), and frequency of adverse effects (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 1.07, p = 0.82]). Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1 h compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone; had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines; and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained headache freedom within 24 h.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone, and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.
Topics: Caffeine; Dexamethasone; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketorolac; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Pain; Phenothiazines; Sumatriptan; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35138658
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14457