-
Transfusion and Apheresis Science :... Apr 2021Anti-allergic agents (e.g. dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine or promethazine) are commonly administered to patients prior to blood product transfusions. However, the use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anti-allergic agents (e.g. dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine or promethazine) are commonly administered to patients prior to blood product transfusions. However, the use of these agents is largely experience-based instead of evidence-based. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the evidence behind using anti-allergic agents to attenuate transfusion reactions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biomedical literature (CMB) databases were all queried for related articles. Data from groups treated with and without anti-allergic agents were collected for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. Baseline characteristics and univariate statistics between groups were compared using SPSS 19.0.
RESULTS
Eight eligible articles (six case control studies and two randomized controlled trials, all with high risks of bias) were identified (22060 total cases). Administered anti-allergic agents in these studies only included dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine or promethazine. Baseline characteristics showed no significant age or gender differences between treatment or control groups. There were no significant differences between the pooled experimental or control groups (for each of the three medications) in terms of fever, pruritis, rash, airway spasm or overall transfusion reaction rates.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence that dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine or promethazine can prevent transfusion reactions. Avoiding the arbitrary use of such anti-allergic agents before blood transfusions may potentially avoid needless adverse drug reactions.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Blood Transfusion; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Transfusion Reaction
PubMed: 33455877
DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2020.103041 -
Exploratory Research in Clinical and... Jun 2024High-alert medication (HAM) is more predictable to cause significant harm to the patient, even when used as intended. The damage related to the HAM lead not only... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
High-alert medication (HAM) is more predictable to cause significant harm to the patient, even when used as intended. The damage related to the HAM lead not only suffering to the patient, but also raise the additional costs associated with care.
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the incidence of drug-related adverse events related to the use of high-alert medications.
METHODS
It was conducted an active search for information through COCHRANE databases, LILACS, SciELO, SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE and WEB OF SCIENCE. The search strategy included the following terms: "Patient safety", "Medication errors" and "Hospital" and "High Alert Medications" or "Dangerous Drugs" in different combinations. Then two reviewers independently conducted a preliminary evaluation of relevant titles, abstracts and finally full-text. Studies quality was evaluated according to PRISMA declaration.
RESULTS
The systematic review evaluated seven articles, which showed that only 11 HAM identified in the literature could have serious events. The most frequently cited were warfarin (22.2%) which progressed from deep vein thrombosis to gangrene, suggesting lower initial doses, followed by cyclophosphamide (22.2%) and cyclosporine (22.2%) which presented invasive fungal infection and death. In addition to these, morphine was compared with its active metabolite (M6G), with M6G causing fewer serious clinical events related to nausea and vomiting, reducing the need for concomitant use of antiemetics.
CONCLUSIONS
The most reported drug classes in the articles included that were related to incidence of drug-related adverse events in use of high-alert medications: morphine, M6G-glucuronide, haloperidol, promethazine, ivabradine, digoxin, warfarin, ximelagatran, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, and ATG. The formulate protocols for the use of these medications, with importance placed on evaluating, among the classes, the medication that causes the least harm.
PubMed: 38646469
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100435 -
International Journal of Mental Health... Apr 2020One approach to manage people with behaviours of concern including agitated or aggressive behaviours in health care settings is through the use of fast-acting...
One approach to manage people with behaviours of concern including agitated or aggressive behaviours in health care settings is through the use of fast-acting medication, called chemical restraint. Such management often needs to be delivered in crisis situations to patients who are at risk of harm to themselves or others. This paper summarizes the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of chemical restraint from 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3788 patients. The RCTs were of moderate to high quality and were conducted in pre-hospital, hospital emergency department, or ward settings. Drugs used in chemical restraint included olanzapine, haloperidol, droperidol, risperidol, flunitrazepam, midazolam, promethazine, ziprasidone, sodium valproate, or lorazepam. There was limited comparability between studies in drug choice, combination, dose, method of administration (oral, intramuscular, or intravenous drip), or timing of repeat administrations. There were 31 outcome measures, which were inconsistently reported. They included subjective measures of behaviours, direct measures of treatment effect (time to calm; time to sleep), indirect measures of agitation (staff or patient injuries, duration of agitative or aggressive episodes, subsequent violent episodes), and adverse events. The most common were time to calm and adverse events. There was little clarity about the superiority of any chemical method of managing behaviours of concern exhibited by patients in Emergency Departments or acute mental health settings. Not only is more targeted research essential, but best practice recommendations for such situations requires integrating expert input into the current evidence base.
Topics: Aggression; Conscious Sedation; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Psychomotor Agitation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31498960
DOI: 10.1111/inm.12654