-
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed to relieve these symptoms. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2009, of Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with the use of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we performed updated searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE in November 2013 and in November 2014. We searched controlled trials registers in March 2015 to identify any ongoing or unpublished trials. We imposed no language restrictions. For the original review, we performed database searching in August 2007, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. Handsearching complemented the electronic searches (using reference lists of included studies, relevant chapters and review articles) for the original review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in any setting, for inclusion. The studies had to be conducted with adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. We excluded studies where nausea or vomiting, or both, were thought to be secondary to pregnancy or surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We imported records from each of the electronic databases into a bibliographic package and merged them into a core database where we inspected titles, keywords and abstracts for relevance. If it was not possible to accept or reject an abstract with certainty, we obtained the full text of the article for further evaluation. The two review authors independently assessed studies in accordance with the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in opinion between the authors with regard to the assessment of studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We considered 27 studies from the 2007 search. In this update we considered a further 38 studies from the 2013 search, and two in the 2014 search. We identified one RCT of moderate quality with low risk of bias overall which met the inclusion criteria for this update, comparing ABH (Ativan®, Benadryl®, Haldol®) gel, applied to the wrist, with placebo for the relief of nausea in 22 participants. ABH gel includes haloperidol as well as diphenhydramine and lorazepam. The gel was not significantly better than placebo in this small study; however haloperidol is reported not to be absorbed significantly when applied topically, therefore the trial does not address the issue of whether haloperidol is effective or well-tolerated when administered by other routes (e.g. by mouth, subcutaneously or intravenously). We identified one ongoing trial of haloperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer, with initial results published in a conference abstract suggesting that haloperidol is effective for 65% of patients. The trial had not been fully published at the time of our review. A further trial has opened, comparing oral haloperidol with oral methotrimeprazine (levomepromazine) for patients with cancer and nausea unrelated to their treatment, which we aim to include in the next review update.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion but the conclusion remains unchanged. There is incomplete evidence from published RCTs to determine the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Other than the trial of ABH gel vs placebo, we did not identify any fully published RCTs exploring the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients for this update, but two trials are underway.
Topics: Antiemetics; Diphenhydramine; Gels; Haloperidol; Humans; Lorazepam; Nausea; Palliative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 26524474
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006271.pub3 -
The Primary Care Companion For CNS... 2015To investigate the level of evidence supporting the use of common over-the-counter (OTC) agents (diphenhydramine, doxylamine, melatonin, and valerian) for occasional...
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the level of evidence supporting the use of common over-the-counter (OTC) agents (diphenhydramine, doxylamine, melatonin, and valerian) for occasional disturbed sleep or insomnia.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review of the literature was conducted on July 31, 2014, using MEDLINE (PubMed) and the search terms (insomnia OR sleep) AND (over*the*counter OR OTC OR non*prescription OR antihistamine OR doxylamine OR diphenhydramine OR melatonin OR valerian) with the filters English, human, and clinical trials.
STUDY SELECTION
Identified publications (from 2003 to July 31, 2014, following previous published literature reviews) that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The criteria included randomized placebo-controlled clinical studies that utilized overnight objective (polysomnography) or next-day participant-reported sleep-related endpoints and that were conducted in healthy participants with or without occasional disturbed sleep or diagnosed insomnia.
RESULTS
Measures of efficacy and tolerability were summarized for each study individually and grouped according to OTC agent: H1 antagonists or antihistamines (3 studies, diphenhydramine), melatonin (8), and valerian or valerian/hops (7). Of the 3 sleep agents, studies conducted with melatonin, especially prolonged-release formulations in older individuals with diagnosed insomnia, demonstrated the most consistent beneficial effects (vs placebo) on sleep measures, specifically sleep onset and sleep quality, with favorable tolerability. In contrast, the clinical trial data for diphenhydramine, immediate-release melatonin, and valerian suggested limited beneficial effects.
CONCLUSIONS
A review of randomized controlled studies over the past 12 years suggests commonly used OTC sleep-aid agents, especially diphenhydamine and valerian, lack robust clinical evidence supporting efficacy and safety.
PubMed: 27057416
DOI: 10.4088/PCC.15r01798 -
American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease... Nov 2014The objective of this review is to summarize the available data on the use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review is to summarize the available data on the use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic search of 5 major databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane Collaboration, yielded a total of 5 RCTs. One study compared diazepam to thioridazine, 1 trial compared oxazepam to haloperidol and diphenhydramine, 1 trial compared alprazolam to lorazepam, 1 trial compared lorazepam to haloperidol, and 1 trial compared intramuscular (IM) lorazepam to IM olanzapine and placebo. The data indicates that in 4 of the 5 studies, there was no significant difference in efficacy between the active drugs to treat the symptoms of BPSD. One study indicated that thioridazine may have better efficacy than diazepam for treating symptoms of BPSD. In 1 study, the active drugs had greater efficacy in treating BPSD when compared to placebo. There was no significant difference between the active drugs in terms of tolerability. However, in 2 of the 5 studies, about a third of the patients were noted to have dropped out of the studies. Available data, although limited, do not support the routine use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of BPSD. But these drugs may be used in certain circumstances where other psychotropic medications are unsafe for use in individuals with BPSD or when there are significant medication allergies or tolerability issues with certain classes of psychotropic medications.
Topics: Behavioral Symptoms; Benzodiazepines; Dementia; Humans; Neuropsychological Tests; Patient Dropouts; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25551131
DOI: 10.1177/1533317514524813 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Around 16 million cases of whooping cough (pertussis) occur worldwide each year, mostly in low-income countries. Much of the morbidity of whooping cough in children and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Around 16 million cases of whooping cough (pertussis) occur worldwide each year, mostly in low-income countries. Much of the morbidity of whooping cough in children and adults is due to the effects of the paroxysmal cough. Cough treatments proposed include corticosteroids, beta2-adrenergic agonists, pertussis-specific immunoglobulin, antihistamines and possibly leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions to reduce the severity of paroxysmal cough in whooping cough in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 1), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE 2014, Issue 2), accessed from The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1950 to 30 January 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 30 January 2014), AMED (1985 to 30 January 2014), CINAHL (1980 to 30 January 2014) and LILACS (30 January 2014). We searched Current Controlled Trials to identify trials in progress.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention (excluding antibiotics and vaccines) to suppress the cough in whooping cough.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (SB, MT) independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed the quality of each trial for this review in 2009. Two review authors (SB, KW) independently reviewed additional studies identified by the updated searches in 2012 and 2014. The primary outcome was frequency of paroxysms of coughing. Secondary outcomes were frequency of vomiting, frequency of whoop, frequency of cyanosis (turning blue), development of serious complications, mortality from any cause, side effects due to medication, admission to hospital and duration of hospital stay.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials of varying sample sizes (N = 9 to 135), mainly from high-income countries, including a total of 578 participants. Ten trials recruited children (N = 448 participants). Two trials recruited adolescents and adults (N = 130 participants). We considered only three trials to be of high methodological quality (one trial each of diphenhydramine, pertussis immunoglobulin and montelukast). Included studies did not show a statistically significant benefit for any of the interventions. Only six trials, including a total of 196 participants, reported data in sufficient detail for analysis. Diphenhydramine did not change coughing episodes; the mean difference (MD) of coughing spells per 24 hours was 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to 8.5 (N = 49 participants from one trial). One trial on pertussis immunoglobulin reported a possible mean reduction of -3.1 whoops per 24 hours (95% CI -6.2 to 0.02, N = 47 participants) but no change in hospital stay (MD -0.7 days; 95% CI -3.8 to 2.4, N = 46 participants). Dexamethasone did not show a clear decrease in length of hospital stay (MD -3.5 days; 95% CI -15.3 to 8.4, N = 11 participants from one trial) and salbutamol showed no change in coughing paroxysms per day (MD -0.2; 95% CI -4.1 to 3.7, N = 42 participants from two trials). Only one trial comparing pertussis immunoglobulin versus placebo (N = 47 participants) reported data on adverse events: 4.3% in the treatment group (rash) versus 5.3% in the placebo group (loose stools, pain and swelling at injection site).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions for the cough in whooping cough. More high-quality trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of potential antitussive treatments in patients with whooping cough.
Topics: Acetates; Adolescent; Adult; Albuterol; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bordetella pertussis; Child; Cough; Cyclopropanes; Dexamethasone; Diphenhydramine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Length of Stay; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfides; Whooping Cough
PubMed: 25243777
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003257.pub5