-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Dysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life, and longer hospital stay. Treatments provided to improve dysphagia are aimed at accelerating recovery of swallowing function and reducing these risks. This is an update of the review first published in 1999 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of swallowing therapy on death or dependency among stroke survivors with dysphagia within six months of stroke onset.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (26 June 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 June 2018), MEDLINE (26 June 2018), Embase (26 June 2018), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (26 June 2018), Web of Science Core Collection (26 June 2018), SpeechBITE (28 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.Gov (26 June 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 June 2018). We also searched Google Scholar (7 June 2018) and the reference lists of relevant trials and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for people with dysphagia and recent stroke (within six months).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence, and resolved disagreements through discussion with the third review author (PB). We used random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs), and provided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each.The primary outcome was functional outcome, defined as death or dependency (or death or disability), at the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes were case fatality at the end of the trial, length of inpatient stay, proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial, swallowing ability, penetration aspiration score, or pneumonia, pharyngeal transit time, institutionalisation, and nutrition.
MAIN RESULTS
We added 27 new studies (1777 participants) to this update to include a total of 41 trials (2660 participants).We assessed the efficacy of swallowing therapy overall and in subgroups by type of intervention: acupuncture (11 studies), behavioural interventions (nine studies), drug therapy (three studies), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES; six studies), pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES; four studies), physical stimulation (three studies), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS; two studies), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; nine studies).Swallowing therapy had no effect on the primary outcome (death or dependency/disability at the end of the trial) based on data from one trial (two data sets) (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.75; 306 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.86; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy had no effect on case fatality at the end of the trial (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 766 participants; 14 studies; I² = 6%; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy probably reduced length of inpatient stay (MD -2.9, 95% CI -5.65 to -0.15; 577 participants; 8 studies; I² = 11%; P = 0.04; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.54). Swallowing therapy may have reduced the proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; 1487 participants; 23 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Trial results show no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.91). Swallowing therapy may improve swallowing ability (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.32; 1173 participants; 26 studies; I² = 86%; P = 0.0002; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.09). We noted moderate to substantial heterogeneity between trials for these interventions. Swallowing therapy did not reduce the penetration aspiration score (i.e. it did not reduce radiological aspiration) (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.00; 303 participants; 11 studies; I² = 46%; P = 0.05; low-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy may reduce the incidence of chest infection or pneumonia (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; 618 participants; 9 studies; I² = 59%; P = 0.009; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate- and low-quality evidence suggests that swallowing therapy did not have a significant effect on the outcomes of death or dependency/disability, case fatality at the end of the trial, or penetration aspiration score. However, swallowing therapy may have reduced length of hospital stay, dysphagia, and chest infections, and may have improved swallowing ability. However, these results are based on evidence of variable quality, involving a variety of interventions. Further high-quality trials are needed to test whether specific interventions are effective.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Acute Disease; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Length of Stay; Lisinopril; Metoclopramide; Nifedipine; Physical Stimulation; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Time Factors; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 30376602
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000323.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or whilst in the palliative phase of illness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine when used as an antiemetic in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting related to cancer in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase for published data on 20th September 2017, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. We checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field and study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of olanzapine versus any comparator with or without adjunct therapies for the prevention or treatment, or both, of nausea or vomiting in people with cancer aged 18 years or older, in any setting, of any duration, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for each main outcome. We extracted data for absence of nausea or vomiting and frequency of serious adverse events as primary outcomes. We extracted data for patient perception of treatment, other adverse events, somnolence and fatigue, attrition, nausea or vomiting severity, breakthrough nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea and vomiting as secondary outcomes at specified time points.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs (1917 participants) from high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing over 24 different cancers. Thirteen studies were in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Oral olanzapine was administered during highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy (12 studies); chemoradiotherapy (one study); or palliation (one study). Eight studies await classification and 13 are ongoing.The main comparison was olanzapine versus placebo/no treatment. Other comparisons were olanzapine versus NK1 antagonist, prokinetic, 5-HT3 antagonist or dexamethasone.We assessed all but one study as having one or more domains that were at high risk of bias. Eight RCTs with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, and 10 RCTs with issues related to blinding, were at high risk of bias. We downgraded GRADE assessments due to imprecision, inconsistency and study limitations.Olanzapine versus placebo/no treatmentPrimary outcomesOlanzapine probably doubles the likelihood of no nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.47; 561 participants; 3 studies; solid tumours; HEC or MEC therapy; moderate-quality evidence) when added to standard therapy. Number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5 (95% CI 3.3 - 6.6).It is uncertain if olanzapine increases the risk of serious adverse events (absolute risk difference 0.7% more, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.2) (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.48 to 12.55; 7 studies, 889 participants, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFour studies reported patient perception of treatment. One study (48 participants) reported no difference in patient preference. Four reported quality of life but data were insufficient for meta-analysis.Olanzapine may increase other adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.96; 332 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) and probably increases somnolence and fatigue compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.18; anticipated absolute risk 8.2% more, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.8; 464 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Olanzapine probably does not affect all-cause attrition (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.73; 943 participants; 8 studies; I² = 0%). We are uncertain if olanzapine increases attrition due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.16; 422 participants; 6 studies). No participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy.We are uncertain if olanzapine reduces breakthrough nausea and vomiting (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.47; 501 participants; 2 studies; I² = 54%) compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies reported 50% reduction in severity of nausea or vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or attrition.We are uncertain of olanzapine's efficacy in reducing acute nausea or vomiting. Olanzapine probably reduces delayed nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.09; 585 participants; 3 studies) and vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42; 702 participants; 5 studies).Subgroup analysis: 5 mg versus 10 mgPlanned subgroup analyses found that it is unclear if 5 mg is as effective an antiemetic as 10 mg. There is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that 5 mg may confer a lower risk of somnolence and fatigue than 10 mg.Other comparisonsOne study (20 participants) compared olanzapine versus NK1 antagonists. We observed no difference in any reported outcomes.One study (112 participants) compared olanzapine versus a prokinetic (metoclopramide), reporting that olanzapine may increase freedom from overall nausea (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.02) and overall vomiting (RR 3.03, 95% CI 1.78 to 5.14).One study (62 participants) examined olanzapine versus 5-HT3 antagonists, reporting olanzapine may increase the likelihood of 50% or greater reduction in nausea or vomiting at 48 hours (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.97) and 24 hours (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.34).One study (229 participants) compared olanzapine versus dexamethasone, reporting that olanzapine may reduce overall nausea (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18), overall vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48), delayed nausea (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.08) and delayed vomiting (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-quality evidence that oral olanzapine probably increases the likelihood of not being nauseous or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% in adults with solid tumours, in addition to standard therapy, compared to placebo or no treatment. There is uncertainty whether it increases serious adverse events. It may increase the likelihood of other adverse events, probably increasing somnolence and fatigue. There is uncertainty about relative benefits and harms of 5 mg versus 10 mg.We identified only RCTs describing oral administration. The findings of this review cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of any injectable form (intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous) of olanzapine.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Chemoradiotherapy; Dexamethasone; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Fatigue; Humans; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Neoplasms; Olanzapine; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 30246876
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012555.pub2 -
BMJ Paediatrics Open 2018Gastro-oesophageal reflux is prevalent in preterm infants. Despite widespread use in clinical practice, there is still much controversy over the efficacy and safety of...
BACKGROUND
Gastro-oesophageal reflux is prevalent in preterm infants. Despite widespread use in clinical practice, there is still much controversy over the efficacy and safety of drug interventions, particularly antacid therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the effects of antacid therapy on preterm infants with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux, and to assess the safety of these interventions.
METHODS
We carried out an electronic search of the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (1966-present), EMBASE (1980-present) and CINAHL (1982-present) as well as other online sources. Participants were preterm infants (<37 weeks gestation) with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease who were receiving care on a neonatal unit. We assessed the effects of histamine-2 receptor antagonists, proton pump inhibitors and alginates against placebo, primarily to see if they reduced the symptoms of reflux.
RESULTS
Six studies were included in this review. Meta-analysis could not be carried out due to a lack of studies assessing the same intervention with the same outcomes. Omeprazole therapy significantly reduced the oesophageal acid exposure percentage time with pH<4 (p<0.01) and sodium alginate significantly decreased gastro-oesophageal reflux episodes (p=0.024). Metoclopramide and ranitidine showed a significant increase in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms versus placebo (p<0.04). No significant results were found for the use of esomeprazole or lansoprazole versus placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence available to conclude whether antacid therapy is effective or safe when treating gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in preterm infants. Further research is needed into this topic and caution should be taken when administering antacids to preterm infants.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017078778.
PubMed: 30019019
DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000287 -
Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical... 2017Metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to reduce incidence of pneumonia, but its efficacy is controversial. Thus, this systematic review aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to reduce incidence of pneumonia, but its efficacy is controversial. Thus, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of metoclopramide for pneumonia in patients fed via nasogastric tube.
METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID were searched from their inception to March 31th 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of metoclopramide against placebo in patients fed via nasogastric tube were identified. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used for quality assessment.
RESULTS
Four trials involving 694 patients fed via nasogastric tube were identified. Compared with placebo, metoclopramide showed no significant effects in reducing pneumonia (n=694; risk ratio [RR]: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.38, p=0.40) or mortality (n=694; RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.11, p=0.44). In two trials using continuous data, metoclopramide significantly delayed the development of nosocomial pneumonia (n=80; weighted mean difference [WMD]: 1.74 days; 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.46 days, p<0.00001). However, in two other trials using dichotomous data, metoclopramide increased the proportion of cases showing early-onset nosocomial pneumonia (n=103; RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.58, p=0.003). Adverse effects monitoring was reported in one included trial, No significant adverse reactions were noted in this study.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the poor methodological quality and high risk of bias in the included studies, this systematic review revealed no definite conclusion about the application of metoclopramide for the reduction of nosocomial pneumonia. Therefore, more high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are required.
Topics: Antiemetics; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Metoclopramide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28802291
DOI: 10.6133/apjcn.102016.01 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28715610
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004125.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Chlorpromazine; Dexamethasone; Humans; Indoles; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Neoplasms; Time Factors; Tropisetron; Vomiting
PubMed: 28671265
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012002.pub2 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jun 2017Controversies persist regarding the effect of prokinetics for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD). This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Controversies persist regarding the effect of prokinetics for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD). This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of prokinetic agents for the treatment of FD.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prokinetics for the treatment of FD were identified from core databases. Symptom response rates were extracted and analyzed using odds ratios (ORs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method in WinBUGS and NetMetaXL.
RESULTS
In total, 25 RCTs, which included 4473 patients with FD who were treated with 6 different prokinetics or placebo, were identified and analyzed. Metoclopramide showed the best surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability (92.5%), followed by trimebutine (74.5%) and mosapride (63.3%). However, the therapeutic efficacy of metoclopramide was not significantly different from that of trimebutine (OR:1.32, 95% credible interval: 0.27-6.06), mosapride (OR: 1.99, 95% credible interval: 0.87-4.72), or domperidone (OR: 2.04, 95% credible interval: 0.92-4.60). Metoclopramide showed better efficacy than itopride (OR: 2.79, 95% credible interval: 1.29-6.21) and acotiamide (OR: 3.07, 95% credible interval: 1.43-6.75). Domperidone (SUCRA probability 62.9%) showed better efficacy than itopride (OR: 1.37, 95% credible interval: 1.07-1.77) and acotiamide (OR: 1.51, 95% credible interval: 1.04-2.18).
CONCLUSIONS
Metoclopramide, trimebutine, mosapride, and domperidone showed better efficacy for the treatment of FD than itopride or acotiamide. Considering the adverse events related to metoclopramide or domperidone, the short-term use of these agents or the alternative use of trimebutine or mosapride could be recommended for the symptomatic relief of FD.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Bayes Theorem; Benzamides; Benzyl Compounds; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Domperidone; Dyspepsia; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Network Meta-Analysis; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazoles; Treatment Outcome; Trimebutine; Young Adult
PubMed: 28651565
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0639-0 -
Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) May 2017The prokinetic cisapride, an important therapeutic option in functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, was withdrawn from the market 15 years ago due to rare severe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Modulation of gastrointestinal motility beyond metoclopramide and domperidone : Pharmacological and clinical evidence for phytotherapy in functional gastrointestinal disorders.
The prokinetic cisapride, an important therapeutic option in functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, was withdrawn from the market 15 years ago due to rare severe side effects. Likewise in 2014, the use of metoclopramide (MCP) and domperidone in functional GI disorders (FGID) was restricted, consequently leaving a therapeutic gap in clinical practice. A systematic review revealed that the herbal medicinal product (HMP) STW 5 presents a therapeutic option equivalent to MCP and cisapride. STW 5 is the only HMP for which efficacy has been shown in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome, based on its multitarget effect on numerous etiological factors. Due to an outstanding favorable safety profile, STW 5 allows an effective and safe use in FGID without a limitation of the duration of the treatment.
Topics: Domperidone; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Gastrointestinal Motility; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Metoclopramide; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28424994
DOI: 10.1007/s10354-017-0557-3 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Apr 2017The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV).
METHODS
A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of prophylaxis for RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, including total body irradiation (TBI). Primary endpoints were complete control of nausea and complete control of vomiting during acute and delayed phases. Secondary endpoints included use of rescue medication, quality of life (QoL) and incidence of adverse events.
RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs were identified. Among patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, our meta-analysis showed that prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3 RA) was significantly more efficacious than placebo and dopamine receptor antagonists in both complete control of vomiting [OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.72 and OR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.05-0.58 respectively] and complete control of nausea (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26-0.70 and OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.88 respectively). 5HT3 RAs were also more efficacious than rescue therapy and dopamine receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone. The addition of dexamethasone to 5HT3 RA compared to 5HT3 RA alone provides a modest improvement in prophylaxis of RINV. Among patients receiving TBI, 5HT3 RA was more effective than other agents (placebo, combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and lorazepam).
CONCLUSIONS
5HT3 RAs are more effective than other antiemetics for prophylaxis of RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis and TBI. Future RCTs should investigate the efficacy of newer agents such as substance P neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in addition to 5HT3 RAs in prophylaxis of RINV during both acute and delayed phases.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Nausea; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 28249542
DOI: 10.21037/apm.2016.12.01 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2016A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials was performed to update the present evidence about the safety and efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials was performed to update the present evidence about the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS
A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase was conducted to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials. In addition, a manual search of reference lists of the retrieved articles was conducted. Relevant outcomes were pooled as odds ratio (OR) by RevMan version 5.3 for windows.
RESULTS
Pooled data from 14 RCTs (1542 patients) favored dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics over single antiemetics as a prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.27 to 0.54], p < 0.00001), late postoperative period (OR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.56], p < 0.00001), and overall postoperative period (OR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.51], p < 0.00001). Subsequently, rescue antiemetic usage was significantly lower in the combination group (OR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.16 to 0.41], p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis showed that all combinations of dexamethasone and other antiemetics were superior to corresponding singel antiemetics except for the combination of dexamethasone and ramosetron which was not superior to ramosetron alone in all postoperative periods and the combination of dexamethasone and granisetron which was not superior to granisetron alone in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07 to 1.01], p = 0.05). For all adverse events, there was no significant difference between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics provided better prophylaxis than single antiemetics against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The underlying mechanism of dexamethasone action and its optimal dose should be further investigated.
Topics: Antiemetics; Benzimidazoles; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Metoclopramide; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27793640
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.10.034