-
Developmental Medicine and Child... Dec 2017To evaluate the actual evidence of efficacy of oral pharmacological treatments in the management of dyskinetic cerebral palsy (CP). (Review)
Review
AIM
To evaluate the actual evidence of efficacy of oral pharmacological treatments in the management of dyskinetic cerebral palsy (CP).
METHOD
A systematic review was performed according to the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine (AACPDM) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. Articles were searched for in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness, OTSeeker, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, REHABDATA, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
RESULTS
Sixteen articles met the eligibility criteria. Eight studies on trihexyphenidyl and two on levodopa showed contradictory results. Low efficacy was reported for diazepam, dantrolene sodium, perphenazine, and etybenzatropine. Tetrabenazine, gabapentin and levetiracetam should be studied in more detail. The updated available evidence does not support any therapeutic algorithm for the management of dyskinetic CP.
INTERPRETATION
This lack of evidence is partially owing to the inconsistency of classifications of patients and of outcome measures used in the reviewed studies. Further randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pharmacological trials, optimized for different age groups, based on valid, reliable, and disease-specific rating scales are strongly needed. Outcome measures should be selected within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS
Evidence to prove (or disprove) the efficacy of oral drugs in dyskinetic cerebral palsy is low. The most investigated drugs, trihexyphenidyl and levodopa, show contradictory results. Tetrabenazine, levetiracetam, and gabapentin efficacy should be studied in more detail. Lack of evidence is partially due to the inconsistency of classifications and outcome measures used. Outcome measures should be selected within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in next clinical trials.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Cerebral Palsy; Dyskinesias; Humans; Neurotransmitter Agents; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 28872668
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13532 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2004Acute psychotic illnesses, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Clotiapine, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute psychotic illnesses, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Clotiapine, a dibenzothiazepine neuroleptic, is being used for this purpose in several countries.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of clotiapine when compared to other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments for acute psychotic illnesses in controlling disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (April 2004)
SELECTION CRITERIA
The review included randomised clinical trials comparing clotiapine with any other treatment for people with acute psychotic illnesses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Relevant studies were selected for inclusion, their quality was assessed and data extracted. Data were excluded where more than 50% of participants in any group were lost to follow up. For binary outcomes we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, endpoint data were preferred to change data. Non-skewed data from valid scales were summated using a weighted mean difference (WMD).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five relevant trials. None compared clotiapine with placebo, but control drugs were either antipsychotics (chlorpromazine, perphenazine, trifluoperazine and zuclopenthixol acetate) or benzodiazepines (lorazepam). Versus the antipsychotics, the results for 'no important global improvement' did not suggest clotiapine to be superior, or inferior, to chlorpromazine, perphenazine, or trifluoperazine (n = 83, 3 RCTs, RR 0.82 CI 0.22 to 3.05, I-squared 58%). Use of clotiapine when compared with chlorpromazine did change the proportion of people ready for hospital discharge by the end of the study (n = 49, 1 RCT, RR 1.04 95%CI 0.96 to 2.12). Overall, attrition rates were low. No significant difference was found for those allocated to clotiapine compared with people randomised to other antipsychotics (n = 121, RR 2.26 95%CI 0.40 to 13). Weak data suggests that clotiapine may result in less need for antiparkinsonian treatment compared with zuclopenthixol acetate (n = 38, RR 0.43 95%CI 0.02 to 0.98). Compared with lorazepam, clotiapine, when used to control aggressive/violent outbursts for people already treated with haloperidol, did not significantly improve mental state (WMD -3.36 95%CI -8.09 to 1.37). We could not pool much data due to skew or inadequate presentation of results. Economic outcomes and satisfaction with care were not addressed.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence to support the use of clotiapine in preference to other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments for management of people with acute psychotic illness. All trials in this review have important methodological problems. We do not wish to discourage clinicians from using clotiapine in the psychiatric emergency, but well-designed, conducted and reported trials are needed to properly determine the efficacy of this drug.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antipsychotic Agents; Dibenzothiazepines; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15495032
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002304.pub2 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2006Postoperative vomiting (POV) remains one of the commonest causes of significant morbidity after tonsillectomy in children. A variety of prophylactic anti-emetic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Postoperative vomiting (POV) remains one of the commonest causes of significant morbidity after tonsillectomy in children. A variety of prophylactic anti-emetic interventions have been reported, but there has only been a limited systematic review in this patient group. A systematic search was performed by using Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of prophylactic anti-emetic interventions in children undergoing tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy. The outcome of interest was POV in the first 24 h. Summary estimates of the effect of each prophylactic anti-emetic strategy were derived using fixed effect meta-analysis. Where appropriate, dose-response effects were estimated using logistic regression and 22 articles were identified. Good evidence was found for the prophylactic anti-emetic effect of dexamethasone [odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.16-0.33], and the serotinergic antagonists ondansetron (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.29-0.46), granisetron (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.06-0.19), tropisetron (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.35) and dolasetron (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.1-0.59). Metoclopramide was also found to be efficacious (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.77). There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that dimenhydrinate, perphenazine or droperidol, in the doses studied, are efficacious, nor were gastric aspiration or acupuncture. In conclusion, dexamethasone and the anti-serotinergic agents appear to be the most effective agents for the prophylaxis for POV in children undergoing tonsillectomy.
Topics: Antiemetics; Child; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Antagonists; Tonsillectomy
PubMed: 17005507
DOI: 10.1093/bja/ael256 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jul 2021Cognitive deficits are a core aspect of psychotic disorders; however, it is not clear to which extent different pharmacological treatments could distinctly impact these... (Review)
Review
Cognitive deficits are a core aspect of psychotic disorders; however, it is not clear to which extent different pharmacological treatments could distinctly impact these outcomes. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and ten network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials to compare the effect of antipsychotics on cognitive performance of individuals with psychotic disorders. Fifty-four trials were included in the analyses, enrolling 5866 patients. Compared to other antipsychotics, amisulpride performed better on verbal learning; quetiapine on composite score, attention and verbal learning; lurasidone on composite score; olanzapine on composite score and most cognitive domains; perphenazine on composite score, executive function, working memory, and verbal learning; risperidone on executive function and verbal learning; sertindole on processing speed; and ziprasidone on composite score, working memory, and verbal learning. Oppositely, haloperidol performed poorer on all cognitive domains, occupying the last positions in all rankings; and clozapine performed poorer on composite score, executive function, verbal learning, and visuoconstruction. We hope that these results should be taken into account when assessing and treating individuals with psychosis.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Cognition; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 33812977
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.03.028 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2001Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, requires urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Clotiapine, a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, requires urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Clotiapine, a dibenzothiazepine neuroleptic, is being used for this purpose in several countries.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of clotiapine when compared to other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments of acute psychotic illness in controlling disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2000), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (May 2000), EMBASE (1980-2000), MEDLINE (1966-2000), PASCAL (1973-2000) and PsycLIT (1970-2000) were methodically searched. This was supplemented by hand searching reference lists, contacting industry and relevant authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing clotiapine to any treatment, for people with acute psychotic illnesses such as in schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, manic phase of bipolar disorder, brief psychotic episode or organic psychosis following substance abuse.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Studies were reliably selected, quality assessed and data extracted. Data were excluded where more than 50% of participants in any group were lost to follow up. For binary outcomes a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Where possible, the weighted number needed to treat statistic (NNT), and its 95% confidence interval (CI), was also calculated. If heterogeneity was found, a random effects model was used. For continuous outcomes, endpoint data were preferred to change data. Non-skewed data from valid scales were summated using a weighted mean difference (WMD). Again, if heterogeneity was found a random effects model was used. A Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test was used to investigate the possibility of heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials were included. None compared clotiapine with placebo, but control drugs were either antipsychotics (chlorpromazine, perphenazine, trifluoperazine and zuclopenthixol acetate) or benzodiazepines (lorazepam). Versus antipsychotics: results for global clinical outcome were heterogeneous (p=0.09) but did not suggest clotiapine to be superior, or inferior, to chlorpromazine, perphenazine, or trifluoperazine (total randomised = 83). Use of clotiapine did change the proportion of people ready for hospital discharge by the end of the study in one small trial (n=49, RR 1.04 95%CI 0.96 to 2.12). Overall, attrition rates were low. No significant difference was found for those allocated to clotiapine compared with people randomised to other antipsychotics (n=121, RR 2.26 95%CI 0.40 to 13). Weak data suggests that clotiapine may result in less need for antiparkinsonian treatment compared with zuclopenthixol acetate (n=38, RR 0.43 95%CI 0.02 to 0.98). Versus lorazepam: when used to control aggressive/violent outbursts for people already treated with haloperidol, clotiapine did not significantly improve mental state compared to lorazepam (WMD -3.36 95%CI -8.09 to 1.37). Much data could not be pooled due to skew or inadequate presentation of results. Economic outcomes and satisfaction with care were not addressed.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
We found no significant evidence to support the use of clotiapine rather than other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments for the management of acute psychotic illness. The trials included in this review all present important methodological flaws. We do not wish to discourage clinicians from using clotiapine in the psychiatric emergency, we would just like to point out the fact that good quality controlled trials are needed on this subject.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Dibenzothiazepines; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 11279762
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002304 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Jan 2000The role of dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is unclear. We reviewed efficacy and safety data of dexamethasone for prevention... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
The role of dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is unclear. We reviewed efficacy and safety data of dexamethasone for prevention of PONV. A systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, hand searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to April 1999) was done for full reports of randomized comparisons of dexamethasone with other antiemetics or placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (0 to 6 h postoperatively), late PONV (0 to 24 h), and adverse effects. Data from 1,946 patients from 17 trials were analyzed: 598 received dexamethasone; 582 received ondansetron, granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide, or perphenazine; 423 received a placebo; and 343 received a combination of dexamethasone with ondansetron or granisetron. With placebo, the incidence of early and late PONV was 35% and 50%, respectively. Sixteen different regimens of dexamethasone were tested, most frequently, 8 or 10 mg IV in adults, and 1 or 1.5 mg/kg IV in children. With these doses, the number needed to treat to prevent early and late vomiting compared with placebo in adults and children was 7.1 (95% CI 4.5 to 18), and 3.8 (2.9 to 5), respectively. In adults, the number needed to treat to prevent late nausea was 4.3 (2.3 to 26). The combination of dexamethasone with ondansetron or granisetron further decreased the risk of PONV; the number needed to treat to prevent late nausea and vomiting with the combined regimen compared with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists alone was 7.7 (4.8 to 19) and 7.8 (4.1 to 66), respectively. There was a lack of data from comparisons with other antiemetics for sensible conclusions. There were no reports on dexamethasone-related adverse effects.
IMPLICATIONS
When there is a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a single prophylactic dose of dexamethasone is antiemetic compared with placebo, without evidence of any clinically relevant toxicity in otherwise healthy patients. Late efficacy seems to be most pronounced. It is very likely that the best prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting currently available is achieved by combining dexamethasone with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Optimal doses of this combination need to be identified.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Serotonin Antagonists
PubMed: 10625002
DOI: 10.1097/00000539-200001000-00038 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2006Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a disorder of altered bowel habits associated with abdominal pain or discomfort. The pain, discomfort, and impairment from IBS often lead... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a disorder of altered bowel habits associated with abdominal pain or discomfort. The pain, discomfort, and impairment from IBS often lead to healthcare medical consultation (Talley 1997) and workplace absenteeism, and associated economic costs (Leong 2003). A recent randomized controlled trial shows variable results but no clear evidence in support of acupuncture as an effective treatment for IBS (Fireman 2001).
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review is to determine whether acupuncture is more effective than no treatment, more effective than 'sham' (placebo) acupuncture, and as effective as other interventions used to treat irritable bowel syndrome. Adverse events associated with acupuncture were also assessed.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The following electronic bibliographic databases were searched irrespective of language, date of publication, and publication status: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, the Chinese Biomedical Database, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED). References in relevant reviews and RCTs were screened by hand. The last date for searching for studies was 7 February 2006.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of acupuncture therapy for IBS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All eligible records identified were dually evaluated for eligibility and dually abstracted. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad scale and the Linde Internal Validity Scale. Data from individual trials were combined for meta-analysis when the interventions were sufficiently similar. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I squared statistic.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials were included. The proportion of responders, as assessed by either the global symptom score or the patient-determined treatment success rate, did not show a significant difference between the acupuncture and the sham acupuncture group with a pooled relative risk of 1.28 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.98; n=109). Acupuncture treatment was also not significantly more effective than sham acupuncture for overall general well-being, individual symptoms (e.g., abdominal pain, defecation difficulties, diarrhea, and bloating), the number of improved patients assessed by blinded clinician, or the EuroQol score. For two of the studies without a sham control, acupuncture was more effective than control treatment for the improvement of symptoms: acupuncture versus herbal medication with a RR of 1.14(95% CI 1.00 to 1.31; n=132); acupuncture plus psychotherapy versus psychotherapy alone with a RR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.39; n=100). When the effect of ear acupuncture treatment was compared to an unclearly specified combination of one or more of the drugs diazepam, perphenazine or domperidone, the difference was not statistically significant with a RR of 1.49(95% CI 0.94 to 2.34; n=48).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most of the trials included in this review were of poor quality and were heterogeneous in terms of interventions, controls, and outcomes measured. With the exception of one outcome in common between two trials, data were not combined. Therefore, it is still inconclusive whether acupuncture is more effective than sham acupuncture or other interventions for treating IBS.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17054239
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005111.pub2 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Mar 2002Augmentation strategies in schizophrenia treatment remain an important issue because despite the introduction of several new antipsychotics, many patients remain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Augmentation strategies in schizophrenia treatment remain an important issue because despite the introduction of several new antipsychotics, many patients remain treatment resistant. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of one frequently used adjunctive compound: carbamazepine.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials comparing carbamazepine (as a sole or as an adjunctive compound) with placebo or no intervention in participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were searched for by accessing 7 electronic databases, cross-referencing publications cited in pertinent studies, and contacting drug companies that manufacture carbamazepine.
METHOD
The identified studies were independently inspected and their quality assessed by 2 reviewers. Because the study results were generally incompletely reported, original patient data were requested from the authors; data were received for 8 of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the present analysis, allowing for a reanalysis of the primary data. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio and continuous data were analyzed using standardized mean differences, both specified with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Ten studies (total N = 283 subjects) were included. Carbamazepine was not effective in preventing relapse in the only randomized controlled trial that compared carbamazepine monotherapy with placebo. Carbamazepine tended to be less effective than perphenazine in the only trial comparing carbamazepine with an antipsychotic. Although there was a trend indicating a benefit from carbamazepine as an adjunct to antipsychotics, this trend did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSION
At present, this augmentation strategy cannot be recommended for routine use. The most promising targets for future trials are patients with excitement, aggression, and schizoaffective disorder bipolar type.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Carbamazepine; Cross-Over Studies; Drug Therapy, Combination; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 11926721
DOI: 10.4088/jcp.v63n0308 -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Jul 2009We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating all clinically relevant pharmacological interventions... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating all clinically relevant pharmacological interventions for the prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder. Thirty-four trials were included in the review. Direct comparisons with placebo and with lithium were available for most drugs. In addition, there were direct comparisons of valproate vs. olanzapine, imipramine vs. lithium plus imipramine, olanzapine plus mood stabilisers vs. mood stabilisers and perphenazine plus mood stabilisers vs. mood stabilisers. Methodological quality varied across studies and the strength of evidence was not equal for all treatments or for all comparisons. There is evidence from placebo-controlled trials for the efficacy of lithium, valproate and lamotrigine as maintenance therapy for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder. Three drugs have a significant effect in the prevention of manic relapses (lithium, olanzapine and aripiprazole) and three in the prevention of depressive symptoms (valproate, lamotrigine and imipramine). Imipramine is little used in practice, because of concern about adverse effects. The significant effects of olanzapine and aripiprazole were demonstrated in selected responsive bipolar I patients only. Despite widespread use in clinical practice, there is little evidence to support the efficacy of combination therapy.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 18635701
DOI: 10.1177/0269881108093885 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Benperidol is a relatively old antipsychotic drug, marketed since 1966, used in Germany for 30 years, but also available in Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Benperidol is a relatively old antipsychotic drug, marketed since 1966, used in Germany for 30 years, but also available in Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK. Benperidol is a butyrophenone antipsychotic, with the highest neuroleptic potency in terms of D2 receptor blockade. Those taking it are, therefore, reputed to be at high risk of extrapyramidal side effects, but benperidol's unusual profile may render it of value to subgroups of people with schizophrenia.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the clinical effects and safety of benperidol for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The reviewers searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2001) which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, LILACS, PSYNDEX, Sociological Abstracts and Sociofile. We also searched the references of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies in order to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials that compared benperidol with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by two reviewers and papers were ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. We independently extracted data but excluded data if loss to follow up was greater than 50%. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H), on an intention-to-treat basis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified only one unpublished poorly randomised controlled trial (N=40, duration 30 days, comparison perphenazine). Although benperidol was inferior to perphenazine (1 RCT, N=40, global state no better or worse RR 8.0 CI 2.1 to 30, NNH 1.4 CI 1 to 2) poor reporting suggests that an overestimate of effect is likely. It was not possible to report other outcomes.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there are insufficient data from randomised trials to assess the clinical effects of benperidol. This interesting compound merits further research.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benperidol; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 11869652
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003083