-
JAMA Jun 2016Five medications have been approved for the management of obesity, but data on comparative effectiveness are limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Five medications have been approved for the management of obesity, but data on comparative effectiveness are limited.
OBJECTIVE
To compare weight loss and adverse events among drug treatments for obesity using a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central from inception to March 23, 2016; clinical trial registries.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials conducted among overweight and obese adults treated with US Food and Drug Administration-approved long-term weight loss agents (orlistat, lorcaserin, naltrexone-bupropion, phentermine-topiramate, or liraglutide) for at least 1 year compared with another active agent or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators identified studies and independently abstracted data using a predefined protocol. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed and relative ranking of agents was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Proportions of patients with at least 5% weight loss and at least 10% weight loss, magnitude of decrease in weight, and discontinuation of therapy because of adverse events at 1 year.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight randomized clinical trials with 29 018 patients (median age, 46 years; 74% women; median baseline body weight, 100.5 kg; median baseline body mass index, 36.1) were included. A median 23% of placebo participants had at least 5% weight loss vs 75% of participants taking phentermine-topiramate (odds ratio [OR], 9.22; 95% credible interval [CrI], 6.63-12.85; SUCRA, 0.95), 63% of participants taking liraglutide (OR, 5.54; 95% CrI, 4.16-7.78; SUCRA, 0.83), 55% taking naltrexone-bupropion (OR, 3.96; 95% CrI, 3.03-5.11; SUCRA, 0.60), 49% taking lorcaserin (OR, 3.10; 95% CrI, 2.38-4.05; SUCRA, 0.39), and 44% taking orlistat (OR, 2.70; 95% CrI, 2.34-3.09; SUCRA, 0.22). All active agents were associated with significant excess weight loss compared with placebo at 1 year-phentermine-topiramate, 8.8 kg (95% CrI, -10.20 to -7.42 kg); liraglutide, 5.3 kg (95% CrI, -6.06 to -4.52 kg); naltrexone-bupropion, 5.0 kg (95% CrI, -5.94 to -3.96 kg); lorcaserin, 3.2 kg (95% CrI, -3.97 to -2.46 kg); and orlistat, 2.6 kg (95% CrI, -3.04 to -2.16 kg). Compared with placebo, liraglutide (OR, 2.95; 95% CrI, 2.11-4.23) and naltrexone-bupropion (OR, 2.64; 95% CrI, 2.10-3.35) were associated with the highest odds of adverse event-related treatment discontinuation. High attrition rates (30%-45% in all trials) were associated with lower confidence in estimates.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among overweight or obese adults, orlistat, lorcaserin, naltrexone-bupropion, phentermine-topiramate, and liraglutide, compared with placebo, were each associated with achieving at least 5% weight loss at 52 weeks. Phentermine-topiramate and liraglutide were associated with the highest odds of achieving at least 5% weight loss.
Topics: Anti-Obesity Agents; Bayes Theorem; Benzazepines; Drug Combinations; Female; Fructose; Humans; Lactones; Liraglutide; Male; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Obesity; Orlistat; Phentermine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topiramate; Weight Loss
PubMed: 27299618
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.7602 -
JAMA Nov 2023Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVE
To compare efficacy and comparative efficacy of therapies for alcohol use disorder.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched from November 2012 to September 9, 2022 Literature was subsequently systematically monitored to identify relevant articles up to August 14, 2023, and the PubMed search was updated on August 14, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
For efficacy outcomes, randomized clinical trials of at least 12 weeks' duration were included. For adverse effects, randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies that compared drug therapies and reported health outcomes or harms were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers evaluated each study, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Numbers needed to treat were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was alcohol consumption. Secondary outcomes were motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms.
RESULTS
Data from 118 clinical trials and 20 976 participants were included. The numbers needed to treat to prevent 1 person from returning to any drinking were 11 (95% CI, 1-32) for acamprosate and 18 (95% CI, 4-32) for oral naltrexone at a dose of 50 mg/d. Compared with placebo, oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) was associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking, with a number needed to treat of 11 (95% CI, 5-41). Injectable naltrexone was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, -4.99 days; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.49 days) Adverse effects included higher gastrointestinal distress for acamprosate (diarrhea: risk ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.27-1.97) and naltrexone (nausea: risk ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.51-1.98; vomiting: risk ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.23-1.91) compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone at 50 mg/d and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder.
Topics: Humans; Acamprosate; Alcohol Drinking; Alcoholism; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Naltrexone; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; United States; Alcohol Deterrents; Psychosocial Intervention
PubMed: 37934220
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.19761 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range between 6% and 10%. Current pharmacological treatment options for neuropathic pain afford substantial benefit for only a few people, often with adverse effects that outweigh the benefits. There is a need to explore other treatment options, with different mechanisms of action for treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain. Herbal cannabis is currently strongly promoted by some patients and their advocates to treat any type of chronic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabis-based medicines (herbal, plant-derived, synthetic) compared to placebo or conventional drugs for conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries for published and ongoing trials, and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised, double-blind controlled trials of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults, with a treatment duration of at least two weeks and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data of study characteristics and outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 30% and 50% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardised mean differences for pain intensity, sleep problems, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychological distress. For tolerability, we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawal due to adverse events and specific adverse events, nervous system disorders and psychiatric disorders. For safety, we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies with 1750 participants. The studies were 2 to 26 weeks long and compared an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (10 studies), a synthetic cannabinoid mimicking THC (nabilone) (two studies), inhaled herbal cannabis (two studies) and plant-derived THC (dronabinol) (two studies) against placebo (15 studies) and an analgesic (dihydrocodeine) (one study). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality. We defined studies with zero to two unclear or high risks of bias judgements to be high-quality studies, with three to five unclear or high risks of bias to be moderate-quality studies, and with six to eight unclear or high risks of bias to be low-quality studies. Study quality was low in two studies, moderate in 12 studies and high in two studies. Nine studies were at high risk of bias for study size. We rated the quality of the evidence according to GRADE as very low to moderate.Primary outcomesCannabis-based medicines may increase the number of people achieving 50% or greater pain relief compared with placebo (21% versus 17%; risk difference (RD) 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.09); NNTB 20 (95% CI 11 to 100); 1001 participants, eight studies, low-quality evidence). We rated the evidence for improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with cannabis to be of very low quality (26% versus 21%;RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.17); NNTB 11 (95% CI 6 to 100); 1092 participants, six studies). More participants withdrew from the studies due to adverse events with cannabis-based medicines (10% of participants) than with placebo (5% of participants) (RD 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.07); NNTH 25 (95% CI 16 to 50); 1848 participants, 13 studies, moderate-quality evidence). We did not have enough evidence to determine if cannabis-based medicines increase the frequency of serious adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03); 1876 participants, 13 studies, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesCannabis-based medicines probably increase the number of people achieving pain relief of 30% or greater compared with placebo (39% versus 33%; RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.15); NNTB 11 (95% CI 7 to 33); 1586 participants, 10 studies, moderate quality evidence). Cannabis-based medicines may increase nervous system adverse events compared with placebo (61% versus 29%; RD 0.38 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.58); NNTH 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); 1304 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence). Psychiatric disorders occurred in 17% of participants using cannabis-based medicines and in 5% using placebo (RD 0.10 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15); NNTH 10 (95% CI 7 to 16); 1314 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence).We found no information about long-term risks in the studies analysed.Subgroup analysesWe are uncertain whether herbal cannabis reduces mean pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Herbal cannabis and placebo did not differ in tolerability (very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The potential benefits of cannabis-based medicine (herbal cannabis, plant-derived or synthetic THC, THC/CBD oromucosal spray) in chronic neuropathic pain might be outweighed by their potential harms. The quality of evidence for pain relief outcomes reflects the exclusion of participants with a history of substance abuse and other significant comorbidities from the studies, together with their small sample sizes.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Cannabidiol; Chronic Pain; Codeine; Dronabinol; Humans; Medical Marijuana; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29513392
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012182.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2017To compare the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people with opioid dependence during and after substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To compare the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people with opioid dependence during and after substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine and to characterise trends in risk of mortality after initiation and cessation of treatment. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and LILACS to September 2016. Prospective or retrospective cohort studies in people with opioid dependence that reported deaths from all causes or overdose during follow-up periods in and out of opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality. Mortality rates in and out of treatment were jointly combined across methadone or buprenorphine cohorts by using multivariate random effects meta-analysis. There were 19 eligible cohorts, following 122 885 people treated with methadone over 1.3-13.9 years and 15 831 people treated with buprenorphine over 1.1-4.5 years. Pooled all cause mortality rates were 11.3 and 36.1 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 3.20, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 3.86) and reduced to 4.3 and 9.5 in and out of buprenorphine treatment (2.20, 1.34 to 3.61). In pooled trend analysis, all cause mortality dropped sharply over the first four weeks of methadone treatment and decreased gradually two weeks after leaving treatment. All cause mortality remained stable during induction and remaining time on buprenorphine treatment. Overdose mortality evolved similarly, with pooled overdose mortality rates of 2.6 and 12.7 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 4.80, 2.90 to 7.96) and 1.4 and 4.6 in and out of buprenorphine treatment. Retention in methadone and buprenorphine treatment is associated with substantial reductions in the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people dependent on opioids. The induction phase onto methadone treatment and the time immediately after leaving treatment with both drugs are periods of particularly increased mortality risk, which should be dealt with by both public health and clinical strategies to mitigate such risk. These findings are potentially important, but further research must be conducted to properly account for potential confounding and selection bias in comparisons of mortality risk between opioid substitution treatments, as well as throughout periods in and out of each treatment.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Drug Overdose; Humans; Methadone; Narcotics; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Risk
PubMed: 28446428
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j1550 -
World Journal of Surgery Apr 2022The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of different analgesic modalities trialled in AP.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science conducted up until June 2021, identified all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. A pooled analysis was undertaken of the improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), metamizole, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol, and placebo. Across all modalities, the pooled VAS scores showed global improvement from baseline to day 2. Epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in VAS within the first 24 h but is equivalent to opiates by 48 h. Within 24 h, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant statistical and methodological heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting.
CONCLUSIONS
There is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management in AP with small datasets per study. Epidural administration appears effective within the first 24 h of AP although infrequently used and featured in only a single RCT. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24 h.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Opiate Alkaloids; Pain; Pain Management; Pancreatitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34994837
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06420-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Cannabis; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Codeine; Lung Neoplasms; Medical Marijuana; Morphine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37283486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014915.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.
Topics: Adolescent; Albuterol; Antitussive Agents; Apitherapy; Bromelains; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cough; Dextromethorphan; Diphenhydramine; Honey; Humans; Infant; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29633783
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub5 -
BJS Open Feb 2019Postoperative urinary retention (PO-UR) is an acute and painful inability to void after surgery that can lead to complications and delayed hospital discharge. Standard...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative urinary retention (PO-UR) is an acute and painful inability to void after surgery that can lead to complications and delayed hospital discharge. Standard treatment with a urinary catheter is associated with a risk of infection and can be distressing, undignified and uncomfortable. This systematic review aimed to identify effective interventions for the prevention and treatment of PO-UR that might be alternatives to urinary catheterization.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched from inception to September 2017. Randomized trials of interventions for the prevention or treatment of PO-UR were eligible for inclusion. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane (2.0) tool. Two reviewers were involved at all review stages. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The overall quality of the body of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Some 48 studies involving 5644 participants were included. Most interventions were pharmacological strategies to prevent PO-UR. Based on GRADE, there was high-certainty evidence to support replacing morphine in a regional anaesthetic regimen, using alpha-blockers (number needed to treat to prevent one case of PO-UR (NNT) 5, 95 per cent c.i. 5 to 7), the antispasmodic drug drotaverine (NNT 9, 7 to 30) and early postoperative mobilization (NNT 5, 4 to 8) for prevention, and employing hot packs or gauze soaked in warm water for treatment (NNT 2, 2 to 4). Very few studies reported on secondary outcomes of pain, incidence of urinary tract infection or duration of hospital stay.
CONCLUSION
Promising interventions exist for PO-UR, but they need to be evaluated in randomized trials investigating comparative clinical and cost effectiveness, and acceptability to patients.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia; Early Ambulation; Humans; Hyperthermia, Induced; Morphine; Parasympatholytics; Postoperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Retention
PubMed: 30734011
DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50114 -
General Hospital Psychiatry 2022Schizophrenia and antipsychotic use are associated with clinically significant weight gain and subsequent increased mortality. Despite weight loss medications (WLMs)... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia and antipsychotic use are associated with clinically significant weight gain and subsequent increased mortality. Despite weight loss medications (WLMs) licensed by regulatory bodies (FDA, EMA, and MHRA) being available, current psychiatric guidelines recommend off-label alternatives, which differ from non-psychiatric guidelines for obesity.
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the efficacy of licensed WLMs on treating antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG) and obesity in schizophrenia and psychosis (OSP).
METHOD
A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library online databases for human studies using licensed WLMs to treat AIWG and OSP.
RESULTS
Three RCTs (two liraglutide, one naltrexone-bupropion), one unpublished open-label trial (naltrexone-bupropion), and seven observational studies (five liraglutide, one semaglutide, one multiple WLMs) were identified. Results for liraglutide showed statistically significant improvement in weight, BMI, waist circumference, HbA1c, cholesterol, and LDL readings on meta-analysis. Evidence was mixed for naltrexone-bupropion with no detailed studies conducted for setmelanotide, or stimulants.
CONCLUSION
Evidence is strongest for liraglutide compared to other licensed WLMs. The findings, particularly the inclusion of human trial data, provide evidence for liraglutide use in treating AIWG and OSP, which would better align psychiatric practice with non-psychiatric practices around obesity. The findings also identify continued literature gaps regarding other licensed WLMs.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Bupropion; Humans; Liraglutide; Naltrexone; Obesity; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia; Weight Gain
PubMed: 35863294
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2022.07.006 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2020To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports.
METHODS
We searched Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials.gov (May 2016) to identify pivotal trials; we then sent a freedom of information request to the European Medicines Agency (July 2016). We included pivotal, phase III placebo-controlled trials. We assessed the risks of bias using the Cochrane criteria, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Over a 27-month period (July 2016 to August 2018), we received 31 batches of clinical study report documents containing over 65 000 pages of data from 4 pivotal trials (n = 4536). Significantly more participants who took naltrexone-bupropion achieved ≥5% reduction in body weight: risk ratio (RR) = 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.35-3.28), P = .001, GRADE = low, number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit = 5 (3-17); this represents a 2.53 kg (1.85-3.21) reduction in baseline body weight compared with placebo. Naltrexone-bupropion had significantly beneficial effects on other cardiovascular risk factors; however, the true effect sizes for these are uncertain because of incomplete outcome data. Naltrexone-bupropion significantly increased the risk of adverse events: RR = 1.11 (1.05-1.18, P = .0004, GRADE = low, NNT to harm = 12 7-27); serious adverse events: RR = 1.70 (1.38-2.1, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to harm = 21 13-38); and discontinuation because of adverse events: RR = 1.92 (1.65-2.24, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to discontinue treatment = 9 8-13).
CONCLUSIONS
Naltrexone-bupropion significantly reduces body weight by a small amount but significantly increases the risk of adverse events. A rigorous process of postmarketing surveillance is required.
Topics: Bupropion; Drug Combinations; Humans; Naltrexone; Obesity
PubMed: 31918448
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14210