-
Otology & Neurotology : Official... Aug 2021Vertigo is a debilitating symptom, leading to increased healthcare utilization and lost patient productivity. Vestibular rehabilitation is used to manage the symptomatic...
INTRODUCTION
Vertigo is a debilitating symptom, leading to increased healthcare utilization and lost patient productivity. Vestibular rehabilitation is used to manage the symptomatic manifestations of vestibular disease. However, vestibular rehabilitation is limited by accessibility and time commitment. Recently, virtual reality has been described as a vestibular rehabilitation tool that may circumvent these barriers to treatment. Despite this, the efficacy of virtual reality for vestibular rehabilitation remains unclear. This study aims to review and summarize the current literature on the effectiveness of virtual reality-based vestibular rehabilitation.
METHODS
A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Alternative and Complementary Medicine databases was conducted for prospective studies describing virtual reality-based vestibular rehabilitation.
RESULTS
Our search identified 382 unique articles. Six randomized controlled trials and four other studies were ultimately included. Study sample sizes ranged from 13 to 70 participants and varied in diagnoses from any unilateral peripheral vertigo to specific pathologies. Different virtual reality interventions were used. Comparator groups ranged from supervised vestibular rehabilitation to independent Cawthorne-Cooksey exercises. Outcomes consisted of validated questionnaires, objective clinical tests, and measurements of balance or reflexes.
CONCLUSION
The studies reviewed in this study are preliminary evidence to suggest the benefit of virtual reality-based vestibular rehabilitation. However, these studies are limited by their inclusion criteria, heterogeneity, comparator design, and evidence-based clinical outcomes. Further research should address these limitations.
Topics: Humans; Postural Balance; Prospective Studies; Vertigo; Vestibular Diseases; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 33782257
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003155 -
Cureus Aug 2021Intranasal form of esketamine, the S-enantiomer of racemic ketamine, was approved by the US FDA in 2019 for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in adults. Since... (Review)
Review
Intranasal form of esketamine, the S-enantiomer of racemic ketamine, was approved by the US FDA in 2019 for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in adults. Since intranasal esketamine is a newly approved drug with a novel mechanism of action, much still remains unknown in regard to its use in TRD. The objective of this study is to systematically review the latest existing evidence on intranasal esketamine, and provide a better insight into its safety and efficacy in TRD in adults. PubMed, MEDLINE (through PubMed), and Google Scholar were systematically searched from 2016 to 2021, using automation tools. After removal of duplicates and screening on the basis of title/abstract, eligibility criteria were applied and quality appraisal was done independently by two reviewers. A total of 10 studies were selected for the final review which included five clinical trials (three short-term trials, one withdrawal design relapse prevention study, and one long-term study), three post hoc studies, one case/non-case study, and one review article. Out of three short-term clinical trials, only one demonstrated a statistically significant difference between treatment with esketamine plus oral antidepressant (OAD) vs placebo plus OAD. The result of the relapse prevention study showed significantly delayed relapse of depressive symptoms in esketamine plus OAD arm when compared to placebo plus OAD arm. Similarly, the result of the long-term clinical trial showed that the improvement in depressive symptoms was found to be sustained in those using esketamine. The most common adverse effects of esketamine included nausea, dizziness, dissociation, headache, vertigo, somnolence, and dysgeusia (altered sense of taste); most were mild-moderate in severity. One case/non-case study reported rare adverse effects including panic attacks, mania, ataxia, akathisia, self-harm ideation, increased loquacity (talkativeness), and autoscopy. Intranasal esketamine has shown efficacy in reducing depressive symptoms in clinical trials, but the clinical meaningfulness of the treatment effect in the real-world population still needs to be explored. Although the safety profile of esketamine appears to be favorable in most clinical trials, some serious side effects are being reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, and therefore requires further investigation. More robust clinical trials, especially long-term randomized controlled trials are needed which can help provide a better assessment on the efficacy and safety of intranasal esketamine in the treatment of TRD.
PubMed: 34447651
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.17352 -
JAMA Neurology Sep 2022Acute vertigo can be disabling. Antihistamines and benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed as "vestibular suppressants," but their efficacy is unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Acute vertigo can be disabling. Antihistamines and benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed as "vestibular suppressants," but their efficacy is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of antihistamines and benzodiazepines in the treatment of acute vertigo from any underlying cause.
DATA SOURCES
We searched the PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to January 14, 2019, without language restrictions. Bibliographies of the included studies and relevant reviews were also screened.
STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing antihistamine or benzodiazepine use with another comparator, placebo, or no intervention for patients with a duration of acute vertigo for 2 weeks or less. Studies of healthy volunteers, prophylactic treatment, or induced vertigo were excluded, as were studies that compared 2 medications from the same class.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 authors independently for each study. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The predefined primary outcome was change in 10- or 100-point vertigo or dizziness visual analog scale (VAS) scores at 2 hours after treatment. Secondary outcomes included change in nausea VAS scores at 2 hours, use of rescue medication at 2 hours, and improvement or resolution of vertigo at 1 week or 1 month.
RESULTS
Of the 27 trials identified in the systematic review, 17 contributed to the quantitative meta-analysis and involved a total of 1586 participants. Seven trials with a total of 802 participants evaluated the primary outcome of interest: single-dose antihistamines resulted in significantly more improvement on 100-point VAS scores compared with benzodiazepines (difference, 16.1 [95% CI, 7.2 to 25.0]) but not compared with other active comparators (difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -6.1 to 11.5]). At 1 week and 1 month, neither daily benzodiazepines nor antihistamines were reported to be superior to placebo. RCTs comparing the immediate effects of medications (at 2 hours) after a single dose generally had a low risk of bias, but those evaluating 1-week and 1-month outcomes had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Moderately strong evidence suggests that single-dose antihistamines provide greater vertigo relief at 2 hours than single-dose benzodiazepines. Furthermore, the available evidence did not support an association of benzodiazepine use with improvement in any outcomes for acute vertigo. Other evidence suggested that daily antihistamine use may not benefit patients with acute vertigo. Larger randomized trials comparing both antihistamines and benzodiazepines with placebo could better clarify the relative efficacy of these medications.
Topics: Benzodiazepines; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Vertigo
PubMed: 35849408
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.1858 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Mar 2023We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy, safety and indirect comparisons of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature.
BACKGROUND
We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.
METHODS
MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 11 February 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials examining all formulations of lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine, were included. Data were extracted following the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Seven studies (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, Study 302, Study 303, ACHIEVE I and II) involving = 12,859 patients were included. All treatments were superior in efficacy to placebo. Lasmiditan 200 mg showed the highest two-hour pain freedom, while two-hour freedom from most bothersome symptom was equally achieved by the higher doses of lasmiditan (100 and 200 mg), rimegepant and the higher doses of ubrogepant (50 and 100 mg). The odds of treatment-emergent adverse events were greatest with all doses of lasmiditan.
CONCLUSION
Lasmiditan 200 mg was the most effective intervention in the treatment of migraine attacks, although it was associated with high degrees of dizziness, nausea and somnolence. Rimegepant showed slightly lower, but similar efficacy rates to lasmiditan. Ubrogepant had overall the best tolerability profile. These conclusions are limited by the absence of head-to-head comparisons, limitations of individual trials and of the meta-analysis methodology itself. CRD42022308224.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Migraine Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36786357
DOI: 10.1177/03331024231151419 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology Jun 2020Withania somnifera popularly known as Aswagandha or Indian Ginseng/Poison Gooseberry have thousands years of history of use in Indian traditional medicine. Besides,...
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Withania somnifera popularly known as Aswagandha or Indian Ginseng/Poison Gooseberry have thousands years of history of use in Indian traditional medicine. Besides, finding place root of the plant as Indian Ginseng, Ayurveda also uses root of this plant as general health tonic, adaptogenic, nootropic, immunomodulatory etc. With its widespread and growing use, it becomes prudent to scientifically evaluate and document both the efficacy and safety of this plant in humans.
AIM OF THE STUDY
Aswagnadha root is rapidly gaining popularity abroad for use as medicine. Current article attempts to primarily review the human efficacy and safety of Aswagandha generated through clinical trials.
METHODS
A systematic search both for indexed and non-indexed literature was made for W. somnifera using various search engines and databases and the details of research articles pertaining to all clinical trials/human studies, animal studies addressing safety issues of CNS, CVS, general toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, reproductive safety and herb-drug interactions were reviewed and compiled comprehensively from full texts.
RESULTS
A total of 69 (39 pre-clinical and 30 clinical) studies documenting efficacy and safety aspects were identified and the desired information of these studies is comprehensively presented in this review. Retrieved thirty(30) human studies demonstrated reasonable efficacy of root preparations in subclinical hypothyroidism (1), schizophrenia (3), chronic stress (2), insomnia (2), anxiety (1), memory and cognitive improvement (2), obsessive-compulsive disorder (1), rheumatoid arthritis (2), type-2 diabetes (2), male infertility (6), fertility promotion activity in females (1), adaptogenic (3), growth promoter in children (3) and chemotherapy adjuvant (1). Reasonable safety of root preparations of Aswagandha has been established by these retrieved 30 human trials. No serious adverse events or any changes in haematological, biochemical or vital parameters were reported in these human studies. Only mild and mainly transient type adverse events of somnolence, epigastric pain/discomfort and loose stools were reported as most common (>5%); and giddiness, drowsiness, hallucinogenic, vertigo, nasal congestion (rhinitis), cough, cold, decreased appetite, nausea, constipation, dry mouth, hyperactivity, nocturnal cramps, blurring of vision, hyperacidity, skin rash and weight gain were reported as less common adverse events. Pre-clinical chronic toxicity studies conducted up to 8 months also found root extracts to be safe. No mutagenicity or genotoxicity was reported for the root; only mild CNS depression and increase in thyroxine (T4) levels were reported with rootby some studies. Further, there was no in vitro and in vivo inhibition seen for CYP3A4 and CYP2D6, the two major hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes.
CONCLUSION
Root of the Ayurvedic drug W. somnifera (Aswagandha) appears a promising safe and effective traditional medicine for management of schizophrenia, chronic stress, insomnia, anxiety, memory/cognitive enhancement, obsessive-compulsive disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, type-2 diabetes and male infertility, and bears fertility promotion activity in females adaptogenic, growth promoter activity in children and as adjuvant for reduction of fatigue and improvement in quality of life among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Properly designed, randomized-controlled, large-size, prospective trials with standardized preparations are needed to ascertain efficacy of Aswagandha root in previously studied and other new indications.
Topics: Herb-Drug Interactions; Humans; Patient Safety; Plant Extracts; Plant Roots; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Withania
PubMed: 32201301
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2020.112768 -
Audiology & Neuro-otology 2022Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is...
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is thought to be specifically effective for Ménière's disease, no evidence for a benefit from the use of betahistine exists, despite its widespread use. Reassessment of the effect of betahistine for Ménière's disease is now warranted.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, and additional sources for published and unpublished trials, in which betahistine was compared to placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our outcomes involved vertigo, significant adverse effect (upper gastrointestinal discomfort), hearing loss, tinnitus, aural fullness, other adverse effects, and disease-specific health-related quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies: 5 studies used a crossover design and the remaining 5 were parallel-group RCTs. One study with a low risk of bias found no significant difference between the betahistine groups and placebo with respect to vertigo after a long-term follow-up period. No significant difference in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal discomfort was found in 2 studies (low-certainty evidence). No differences in hearing loss, tinnitus, or well-being and disease-specific health-related quality of life were found (low- to very low-certainty of evidence). Data on aural fullness could not be extracted. No significant difference between the betahistine and the placebo groups (low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated in the other adverse effect outcome with respect to dull headache. The pooled risk ratio for other adverse effect in the long term demonstrated a lower risk in favor of placebo over betahistine.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality studies evaluating the effect of betahistine on patients with Ménière's disease are lacking. However, one study with low risk of bias found no evidence of a difference in the effect of betahistine on the primary outcome, vertigo, in patients with Ménière's disease when compared to placebo. The main focus of future research should be on the use of comparable outcome measures by means of patient-reported outcome measures.
Topics: Betahistine; Deafness; Humans; Meniere Disease; Syndrome; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 34233329
DOI: 10.1159/000515821 -
American Journal of Therapeutics Feb 2021Albendazole is an anthelmintic drug used worldwide for prophylactic or curative treatment. Side effects include diarrhea, abdominal pain, elevated levels of hepatic...
BACKGROUND
Albendazole is an anthelmintic drug used worldwide for prophylactic or curative treatment. Side effects include diarrhea, abdominal pain, elevated levels of hepatic transaminases, dizziness, neutropenia, and alopecia.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
The main question of the systematic review is if albendazole administration can cause liver injury or liver failure.
DATA SOURCES
Two researchers conducted the search on PubMed and the key words used were: "albendazole," "anthelmintic," "drug-induced liver injury," and "acute hepatitis." Two new case reports were included in the systematic review.
RESULTS
Literature search concluded in 10 cases listed on PubMed. Another 2 new case reports from our experience are included in the systematic review. Most common symptoms presented are jaundice, anorexia, and vomiting after the single-use of albendazole or long-term usage. All cases presented high levels of transaminases, with remission after stopping the administration of albendazole. The treatment with albendazole was mostly given for liver hydatid cysts or empirically.
CONCLUSIONS
Albendazole is a prescription-based drug used by most patients without medical advice, without knowing the risk of side effects. The anthelmintic drug may induce liver injury, even in small doses; in result, practitioners and patients should take this information in consideration.
Topics: Albendazole; Anthelmintics; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury, Chronic; Echinococcosis, Hepatic; Humans
PubMed: 33590990
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001341 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Sep 2023Vestibular migraine is in the process of recognition as an individual clinical entity. At present, no guidelines exist for its management. This study aimed to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Vestibular migraine is in the process of recognition as an individual clinical entity. At present, no guidelines exist for its management. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of available prophylactic medication.
METHOD
literature search was performed using PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases. Qualitative and quantitative analysis were performed as well as risk of bias analysis. Meta-analysis for the mean differences for pre- and post-treatment impact based on Dizziness Handicap Inventory and Vertigo Symptom Scale were performed. Proportionate transformation meta-analysis for the successful event rate based on complete symptoms control was explored.
RESULTS
Thirteen publications were identified: 3 were randomised, controlled trials and 10 were non-randomised, controlled trials. Propranolol and venlafaxine improved the Vertigo Symptom Scale score by -13.31 points and -4.16 points, respectively, and the Dizziness Handicap Inventory score by -32.24 and -21.24, respectively. Only propranolol achieved statistically significant impact with 60 per cent of patients achieving complete symptom control.
CONCLUSION
Propranolol should be offered as the first-line treatment for vestibular migraine followed by venlafaxine. Amitriptyline, flunarizine and cinnarizine showed a trend for symptom improvement, but this was not statistically significant.
Topics: Humans; Dizziness; Propranolol; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vertigo; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 36200521
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215122001979 -
Brain Sciences Jul 2022Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 include symptoms of vertigo and dizziness, which is rather unsurprising, since SARS-CoV-2 neurotropism may inflict a broad spectrum... (Review)
Review
Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 include symptoms of vertigo and dizziness, which is rather unsurprising, since SARS-CoV-2 neurotropism may inflict a broad spectrum of neuropathic effects. The widespread nature of central and peripheral audiovestibular pathways suggests that there may be several probable pathophysiological mechanisms. The cytokine storm, CNS infiltration of the virus through ACE 2 receptors, and other systemic factors can be responsible for the significant number of COVID-19 patients reported to experience symptoms of vertigo and dizziness. In this paper, we present a systematic review of clinical studies reporting the detection of dizziness and vertigo as clinical manifestations of COVID-19 and discuss their etiopathogenesis.
PubMed: 35884754
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12070948 -
European Review For Medical and... Jul 2023The aim of the study was to summarize the findings of the studies documenting the efficacy and safety of perampanel when used in children/adolescents or adults, either... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to summarize the findings of the studies documenting the efficacy and safety of perampanel when used in children/adolescents or adults, either as add-on therapy or as monotherapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus. Only studies with a cohort-based approach (either prospective or retrospective) were included. We were interested in real-world studies and therefore, studies with a highly regulated environment, such as randomized controlled trials, were excluded. The primary outcomes of interest were retention rates, response rates and seizure-free rates. Random effects model was used for the analysis. Effect sizes were reported as pooled prevalence along with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies were included. The retention rates, within 24 months from initiation of treatment as an add-on therapy, ranged between 65% to 77% among children and adolescents. For adults, the retention rate varied between 56 to 77% within 24 months from initiation of treatment. The response rate was around 70% in children/adolescents and 52% in adults at 24 months of follow-up. Around 25% of children and adolescents and 37% of adults were seizure-free at 24 months follow-up period. The proportion of children/adolescents and adults reporting any treatment-related adverse effects was 29% and 41%, respectively. The commonly reported adverse effects were dizziness/drowsiness, somnolence, behavioral problems (irritability, aggression, anxiety, mood changes), postural instability/gait problems, fatigue and weight gain.
CONCLUSIONS
Perampanel might be an effective anti-epileptic drug in both children/adolescents and adults when used as an adjunct therapy. More data is required to comment on its use as monotherapy. Careful monitoring for psychiatric problems and behavioral disturbances is required, both prior to initiating treatment as well as during the course of management. Studies with long-term follow-up may are needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Adult; Child; Adolescent; Humans; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsies, Partial; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Epilepsy; Nitriles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37458642
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202307_32957