-
Critical Care Explorations Jul 2024Although clinicians may use methylene blue (MB) in refractory septic shock, the effect of MB on patient-important outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Although clinicians may use methylene blue (MB) in refractory septic shock, the effect of MB on patient-important outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the benefits and harms of MB administration in patients with septic shock.
DATA SOURCES
We searched six databases (including PubMed, Embase, and Medline) from inception to January 10, 2024.
STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults comparing MB with placebo or usual care without MB administration.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and data extraction. We pooled data using a random-effects model, assessed the risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included six RCTs (302 patients). Compared with placebo or no MB administration, MB may reduce short-term mortality (RR [risk ratio] 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.94], low certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference [MD] -2.1 d [95% CI, -1.4 to -2.8], low certainty). MB may also reduce duration of vasopressors (MD -31.1 hr [95% CI, -16.5 to -45.6], low certainty), and increase mean arterial pressure at 6 hours (MD 10.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 6.1-14.2], low certainty) compared with no MB administration. The effect of MB on serum methemoglobin concentration was uncertain (MD 0.9% [95% CI, -0.2% to 2.0%], very low certainty). We did not find any differences in adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Among critically ill adults with septic shock, based on low-certainty evidence, MB may reduce short-term mortality, duration of vasopressors, and hospital length of stay, with no evidence of increased adverse events. Rigorous randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of MB in septic shock are needed.
REGISTRATION
Center for Open Science (https://osf.io/hpy4j).
Topics: Methylene Blue; Humans; Shock, Septic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Length of Stay; Critical Illness
PubMed: 38904978
DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001110 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... May 2023Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is a common cause of acute dizziness. Medication use for its treatment remains common despite guideline recommendations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is a common cause of acute dizziness. Medication use for its treatment remains common despite guideline recommendations against their use.
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vestibular suppressants in patients with BPPV compared to placebo, no treatment, or canalith repositioning maneuvers (CRMs).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until March 25, 2022. for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antihistamines, phenothiazines, anticholinergics, and/or benzodiazepines to placebo, no treatment, or a CRM.
RESULTS
Five RCTs, enrolling 296 patients, were included in the quantitative analysis. We found that vestibular suppressants may have no effect on symptom resolution at the point of longest follow-up (14-31 days in four studies) when evaluated as a continuous outcome (standardized mean difference -0.03 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.53 to 0.47). Conversely, CRMs may improve symptom resolution at the point of longest follow-up as a dichotomous outcome when compared to vestibular suppressants (relative risk [RR] 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.78). Vestibular suppressants had an uncertain effect on symptom resolution within 24 h (mean difference [MD] 5 points, 95% CI -16.92 to 26.94), repeat emergency department (ED)/clinic visits (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.15), patient satisfaction (MD 0 points, 95% CI -1.02 to 1.02), and quality of life (MD -1.2 points, 95% CI -2.96 to 0.56). Vestibular suppressants had an uncertain effect on adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with BPPV, vestibular suppressants may have no effect on symptom resolution at the point of longest follow-up; however, there is evidence toward the superiority of CRM over these medications. Vestibular suppressants have an uncertain effect on symptom resolution within 24 h, repeat ED/clinic visits, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and adverse events. These data suggest that a CRM, and not vestibular suppressants, should be the primary treatment for BPPV.
Topics: Humans; Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Patient Positioning; Patient Satisfaction; Emergency Service, Hospital
PubMed: 36268806
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14608 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We searched MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to July 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2017), Embase (1980 to July 2017), and the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (via CENTRAL) using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo for children undergoing non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with a total of 2390 children. The studies were all conducted in hospitals that provided neurodiagnostic services. Most studies assessed the proportion of sedation failure during the neurodiagnostic procedure, time for adequate sedation, and potential adverse effects associated with the sedative agent.The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed, as reflected by a wide variation in their 'Risk of bias' profiles. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 13 studies had high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in single small studies.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had lower sedation failure when compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a higher risk of sedation failure after one dose compared to those who received intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study, low-quality evidence), but after two doses there was no evidence of a significant difference between the two groups (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study, very low-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared to have more sedation failure when compared with music therapy, but the quality of evidence was very low for this outcome (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study). Sedation failure rates were similar between oral chloral hydrate, oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to achieve adequate sedation when compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), and rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study, low-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence).No data were available to assess the proportion of children with successful completion of neurodiagnostic procedure without interruption by the child awakening. Most trials did not assess adequate sedation as measured by specific validated scales, except in the comparison of chloral hydrate versus intranasal midazolam and oral promethazine.Compared to dexmedetomidine, chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 12.04 95% CI 1.58 to 91.96). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate (including behavioural change, oxygen desaturation) although there was an increased risk of adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was very variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine for children undergoing paediatric neurodiagnostic procedures. The sedation failure was similar for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. When compared with intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy, oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate. However, it must be noted that the evidence for the outcomes for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy was of very low to low quality, therefore the corresponding findings should be interpreted with caution.Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially the risk of major adverse effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Chloral Hydrate; Dexmedetomidine; Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological; Electroencephalography; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Melatonin; Midazolam; Music Therapy; Neuroimaging; Pentobarbital; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29099542
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011786.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. This review examined the effects of the high-potency antipsychotic fluphenazine compared to those of low-potency antipsychotics.
OBJECTIVES
To review the effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
The review currently includes seven randomised trials and 1567 participants that compared fluphenazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 40 and 438 participants. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Fluphenazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (fluphenazine 55%, low-potency drug 55%, 2 RCTs, n = 105, RR 1.06 CI 0.75 to 1.50, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal numbers of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (fluphenazine 36%, low-potency antipsychotics 36%, 6 RCTs, n = 1532, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.14, moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for numbers experiencing at least one adverse effect (fluphenazine 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 88%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.79 CI 0.58 to 1.07, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 3 RCTs, n = 971, RR 2.11 CI 1.41 to 3.15, low quality of evidence). In contrast, low-potency antipsychotics produced significantly more sedation (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 64%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.31 CI 0.13 to 0.77, high quality evidence). No data were available for the outcomes of death and quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in a number of subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Adverse effects such as akathisia (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 5 RCTs, n = 1209, RR 2.28 CI 1.58 to 3.28); dystonia (fluphenazine 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 4 RCTs, n = 1309, RR 2.66 CI 1.25 to 5.64); loss of associated movement (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 338, RR 11.15 CI 3.95 to 31.47); rigor (fluphenazine 27%, low-potency antipsychotics 12%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.18 CI 1.20 to 3.97); and tremor (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.53 CI 1.37 to 4.68) occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group.For other adverse effects such as dizziness (fluphenazine 8%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.49 CI 0.32 to 0.73); drowsiness (fluphenazine 18%, low-potency antipsychotics 25%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.67 CI 0.53 to 0.86); dry mouth (fluphenazine 11%, low-potency antipsychotics 18%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.63 CI 0.45 to 0.89); nausea (fluphenazine 4%, low-potency antipsychotics 15%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.25 CI 0.14 to 0.45); and vomiting (fluphenazine 3%, low-potency antipsychotics 8%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.36 CI 0.18 to 0.72) results favoured fluphenazine with significantly more events occurring in the low-potency antipsychotic group for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results do not show a clear difference in efficacy between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics. The number of included studies was low and their quality moderate. Therefore, further studies would be needed to draw firm conclusions about the relative effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics.
Topics: Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Fluphenazine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 25087165
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009230.pub2 -
PloS One 2022Adhesion is a primary challenge following surgery, and the anti-adhesive effect of methylene blue (MB) has been investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Adhesion is a primary challenge following surgery, and the anti-adhesive effect of methylene blue (MB) has been investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of MB on postoperative adhesions in experimental studies. We initially searched OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar in February 2021, and then in May 2021. The anti-adhesive efficacy of MB was compared with that of the control (either placebo or nothing) after the surgical procedure. The primary and secondary outcomes were the macroscopic and microscopic adhesion scores, respectively. Traditional meta-analysis, meta-regression, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed to analyze the retrieved outcomes. We included 13 experimental studies of 367 rats (200 rats received MB and 167 rats received placebo or nothing). The macroscopic adhesion scores were significantly lower in the MB-administered group than in the control group (standardized mean difference, 2.313; 95% confidence interval, 1.104 to3.523; I2 = 94.0%, Tau = 2.059). Meta-regression analysis showed that macroscopic adhesion tended to decrease with an increase in MB dose. TSA demonstrated that the cumulative Z curve crossed both the conventional test and trial sequential monitoring boundary for the macroscopic adhesion score. MB had a beneficial effect on intraperitoneal adhesion following laparotomy, and adhesions decreased with increase in dose.
Topics: Animals; Laparotomy; Methylene Blue; Rats; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 35588404
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268178 -
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine : a... Jun 2020Shock refractory to fluid and catecholamine therapy has significant morbidity and mortality in children. The use of methylene blue to treat refractory shock in children...
OBJECTIVES
Shock refractory to fluid and catecholamine therapy has significant morbidity and mortality in children. The use of methylene blue to treat refractory shock in children is not well described. We aim to collect and summarize the literature and define physicians' practice patterns regarding the use of methylene blue to treat shock in children.
DESIGN
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane for studies involving the use of methylene blue for catecholamine-refractory shock from database inception to 2019. Collected studies were analyzed qualitatively. To describe practice patterns of methylene blue use, we electronically distributed a survey to U.S.-based pediatric critical care physicians. We assessed physician knowledge and experience with methylene blue. Survey responses were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated.
SETTING
Pediatric critical and cardiac care units.
PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS
Patients less than or equal to 25 years old with refractory shock treated with methylene blue.
INTERVENTIONS
None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
One-thousand two-hundred ninety-three abstracts met search criteria, 139 articles underwent full-text review, and 24 studies were included. Studies investigated refractory shock induced by a variety of etiologies and found that methylene blue was generally safe and increased mean arterial blood pressure. There is overall lack of studies, low number of study patients, and low quality of studies identified. Our survey had a 22.5% response rate, representing 125 institutions. Similar proportions of physicians reported using (40%) or never even considering (43%) methylene blue for shock. The most common reasons for not using methylene blue were unfamiliarity with this drug, its proper dosing, and lack of evidentiary support.
CONCLUSIONS
Methylene blue appears safe and may benefit children with refractory shock. There is a stark divide in familiarity and practice patterns regarding its use among physicians. Studies to formally assess safety and efficacy of methylene blue in treating pediatric shock are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Catecholamines; Child; Humans; Methylene Blue; Shock; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32453920
DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000002295 -
PloS One 2015Hypotensive state is frequently observed in several critical conditions. If an adequate mean arterial pressure is not promptly restored, insufficient tissue perfusion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Hypotensive state is frequently observed in several critical conditions. If an adequate mean arterial pressure is not promptly restored, insufficient tissue perfusion and organ dysfunction may develop. Fluids and catecholamines are the cornerstone of critical hypotensive states management. Catecholamines side effects such as increased myocardial oxygen consumption and development of arrhythmias are well known. Thus, in recent years, interest in catecholamine-sparing agents such as vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue has increased; however, few randomized trials, mostly with small sample sizes, have been performed. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials to investigate the effect of non-catecholaminergic vasopressors on mortality.
METHODS
PubMed, BioMed Central and Embase were searched (update December 31st, 2014) by two independent investigators. Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, at least one group receiving a non-catecholaminergic vasopressor, patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock. Exclusion criteria were: crossover studies, pediatric population, non-human studies, studies published as abstract only, lack of data on mortality. Studied drugs were vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue. Primary endpoint was mortality at the longest follow-up available.
RESULTS
A total of 1,608 patients from 20 studies were included in our analysis. The studied settings were sepsis (10/20 studies [50%]), cardiac surgery (7/20 [35%]), vasodilatory shock due to any cause (2/20 [19%]), and acute traumatic injury (1/20 [5%]). Overall, pooled estimates showed that treatment with non-catecholaminergic agents improves survival (278/810 [34.3%] versus 309/798 [38.7%], risk ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 0.98, p = 0.02). None of the drugs was associated with significant reduction in mortality when analyzed independently. Results were not confirmed when analyzing studies with a low risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Catecholamine-sparing agents in patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock may improve survival. Further researches on this topic are needed to confirm the finding.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Humans; Lypressin; Methylene Blue; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis; Shock; Terlipressin; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins
PubMed: 26558621
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142605 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Apr 2024This study aimed to assess the influence of methylene blue (MB)-mediated adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) when compared to conventional mechanical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy of methylene blue-mediated antimicrobial photodynamic therapy on clinical and radiographic outcomes among patients with periodontal diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess the influence of methylene blue (MB)-mediated adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) when compared to conventional mechanical debridement (MD) alone on periodontal clinical and radiographic outcomes among periodontitis patients.
METHODS
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were incorporated by conducting an electronic search in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed for articles published in English up to August 2023 to address the following focused question based on the PICO format: "Whether the application of MB-mediated aPDT as an adjunctive to MD (Intervention) leads to improved periodontal clinical and/or radiographic outcomes (Outcome) among participants with and without periodontal diseases (Population) as compared to MD alone (Conparison)". The risk of bias (RoB) of the included studies was assessed using the modified Jadad scale. A meta-analysis was conducted, and it included the presentation of the standard mean difference (SMD) along with a 95 % confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
In total, 11 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant improvements in periodontal plaque index (SMD: -0.72 % [95 % CI: -0.99 % to -0.45 %]; p<0.00001), probing depth (SMD: -0.38 % [95 % CI: -0.57 % to -0.19 %; p<0.00001), and bleeding on probing (SMD: -0.44 % [95 % CI: -0.68 % to -0.20 %]; p = 0.0003) scores at the final follow-up visit after the application of MB-mediated aPDT in comparison with MD alone. Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference was observed in periodontal clinical attachment level values (SMD: -0.01 % [95 % CI: -0.21 % to 0.19 %]; p = 0.95) between the control group and the experimental group. Six studies achieved a low RoB, five were rated as having medium RoB, while no study received a high RoB.
CONCLUSION
MB-mediated aPDT, when used as an adjunct to conventional MD contributes to the improvement of periodontal clinical outcomes including PI, PD, and BOP in patients with periodontitis.
Topics: Methylene Blue; Humans; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Periodontal Diseases
PubMed: 38316339
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.104000 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cannabinoids; Chlorpromazine; Dizziness; Domperidone; Euphoria; Humans; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Neoplasms; Prochlorperazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 26561338
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009464.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using an opioid for treatment of NAS due to withdrawal from opioids in newborn infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs which enrolled infants born to mothers with opioid dependence and who were experiencing NAS requiring treatment with an opioid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials (1110 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. Seven studies at low risk of bias were included in sensitivity analysis. Opioid versus no treatment / usual care: a single trial (80 infants) of morphine and supportive care versus supportive care alone reported no difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 4.07; very low certainty evidence). No infant had a seizure. The trial did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. Morphine increased days hospitalisation (mean difference (MD) 15.00, 95% CI 8.86 to 21.14; very low certainty evidence) and treatment (MD 12.50, 95% CI 7.52 to 17.48; very low certainty evidence), but decreased days to regain birthweight (MD -2.80, 95% CI -5.33 to -0.27) and duration (minutes) of supportive care each day (MD -197.20, 95% CI -274.15 to -120.25). Morphine versus methadone: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.67; 2 studies, 147 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study reported no difference in days hospitalisation (MD 1.40, 95% CI -3.08 to 5.88; 116 infants; low certainty evidence), whereas data from two studies found an increase in days treatment (MD 2.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.21; 147 infants; low certainty) for infants treated with morphine. A single study reported no difference in breastfeeding, adverse events, or out of home placement. Morphine versus sublingual buprenorphine: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; 3 studies, 113 infants; very low certainty evidence). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. There was moderate certainty evidence of an increase in days hospitalisation (MD 11.45, 95% CI 5.89 to 17.01; 3 studies, 113 infants), and days treatment (MD 12.79, 95% CI 7.57 to 18.00; 3 studies, 112 infants) for infants treated with morphine. A single adverse event (seizure) was reported in infants exposed to buprenorphine. Morphine versus diluted tincture of opium (DTO): a single study (33 infants) reported no difference in days hospitalisation, days treatment or weight gain (low certainty evidence). Opioid versus clonidine: a single study (31 infants) reported no infant with treatment failure in either group. This study did not report seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. This study did not report adverse events. Opioid versus diazepam: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80; 2 studies, 86 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study of 34 infants comparing methadone versus diazepam reported no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment (very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Opioid versus phenobarbital: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74; 6 studies, 458 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found a reduction in treatment failure in trials titrating morphine to ≧ 0.5 mg/kg/day (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45; 3 studies, 230 infants), whereas a single study using morphine < 0.5 mg/kg/day reported no difference compared to use of phenobarbital (subgroup difference P = 0.05). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study (111 infants) of paregoric versus phenobarbital reported seven infants with seizures in the phenobarbital group, whereas no seizures were reported in two studies (170 infants) comparing morphine to phenobarbital. There was no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. A single study (96 infants) reported no adverse events in either group. Opioid versus chlorpromazine: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of morphine versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; 1 study, 90 infants; moderate certainty evidence). No seizures were reported in either group. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days treatment. This trial reported no adverse events in either group. None of the included studies reported time to control of NAS. Data for duration and severity of NAS were limited, and we were unable to use these data in quantitative synthesis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to supportive care alone, the addition of an opioid may increase duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but may reduce days to regain birthweight and the duration of supportive care each day. Use of an opioid may reduce treatment failure compared to phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. Use of an opioid may have little or no effect on duration of hospitalisation or treatment compared to use of phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. The type of opioid used may have little or no effect on the treatment failure rate. Use of buprenorphine probably reduces duration of hospitalisation and treatment compared to morphine, but there are no data for time to control NAS with buprenorphine, and insufficient evidence to determine safety. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of clonidine.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Methadone; Morphine; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34231914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002059.pub4