-
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 -
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 -
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 -
PloS One 2021Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy affects up to 80% of pregnant women, it typically occurs during the first trimester which is the most sensitive time for environmental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy affects up to 80% of pregnant women, it typically occurs during the first trimester which is the most sensitive time for environmental exposures given organogenesis. Metoclopramide is an antiemetic drug used widely during NVP, but the findings of studies evaluating its safety of use in pregnancy is inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether metoclopramide use during first trimester of pregnancy is associated with the risk of major congenital malformations.
METHODS
The systematic search using database included Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane library. Studies written in English, comprising with an exposed group and a control group, reporting major congenital malformation as an outcome were included.
RESULTS
Six studies assessing a total number of 33374 metoclopramide-exposed and 373498 controls infants were included in this meta-analysis. No significant increase in the rate of major congenital malformation was detected following metoclopramide use during first trimester (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.93-1.38).
CONCLUSIONS
Metoclopramide use during first trimester of pregnancy was not associated with the risk of major congenital malformations.
Topics: Antiemetics; Congenital Abnormalities; Female; Humans; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Odds Ratio; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Vomiting
PubMed: 34543335
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257584 -
World Journal of Methodology Jul 2022Metoclopramide may be used to treat people suffering from acute migraine. However, no comprehensive investigation on this issue has been recorded. This review will...
BACKGROUND
Metoclopramide may be used to treat people suffering from acute migraine. However, no comprehensive investigation on this issue has been recorded. This review will provide more solid evidence for the use of metoclopramide in treating acute migraine.
AIM
To compare the efficacy of intravenous metoclopramide with other therapies in migraine attack treatment in an emergency department (ED).
METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials of participants older than 18 years with acute migraine headaches, which included at least one arm that received intravenous (IV) metoclopramide at the ED. A literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration, and Reference Citation Analysis on December 31, 2021 retrieved other drugs or placebo-controlled studies without language limitation. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary endpoint was pain reduction at 60 min or closest to 1 h after treatment, as measured by the pain scale. Secondary endpoints included adverse effects or reactions resulting from metoclopramide or comparisons.
RESULTS
Fourteen trials with a total of 1661 individuals were eligible for review. The risk of bias ranged from low to intermediate. IV metoclopramide administration was not associated with higher pain reduction at 1 h (Standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.33-0.28, = 0.87). However, metoclopramide was associated with better pain reduction than placebo (SMD = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.50-1.58, = 0.0002). In addition, side effects were not significantly different between IV metoclopramide and other drugs or placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.48-1.19, = 0.09 and OR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.31-2.74, = 0.54, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Metoclopramide is more effective than placebo in treating migraine in the ED. Despite the observed tendency of decreased side effects, its effectiveness compared to other regimens is poorly understood. More research on this area is needed to treat migraine in acute care settings effectively.
PubMed: 36159095
DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v12.i4.319