-
Pediatrics Apr 2020Several antiemetics have been used in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, there is still controversy over their use. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Several antiemetics have been used in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, there is still controversy over their use.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness and safety of antiemetics for controlling vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, and gray literature, until December 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
We selected randomized clinical trials comparing metoclopramide, ondansetron, domperidone, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, and granisetron.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included (3482 children). Ondansetron revealed the largest effect in comparison to placebo for cessation of vomiting (odds ratio = 0.28 [95% credible interval = 0.16 to 0.46]; quality of evidence: high) and for hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.93 [95% credible interval = 1.69 to 6.18]; quality of evidence: moderate). Ondansetron was the only intervention that reduced the need for intravenous rehydration and the number of vomiting episodes. When considering side effects, dimenhydrinate was the only intervention that was worse than placebo.
LIMITATIONS
Most treatment comparisons had low- or very low-quality evidence, because of risk of biases and imprecise estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
Ondansetron is the only intervention that revealed an effect on the cessation of vomiting, on preventing hospitalizations, and in reducing the need for intravenous rehydration. Ondansetron was also considered a safe intervention.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexamethasone; Diarrhea; Dimenhydrinate; Domperidone; Fluid Therapy; Gastroenteritis; Granisetron; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Metoclopramide; Network Meta-Analysis; Ondansetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Vomiting
PubMed: 32132152
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2019-3260 -
American Journal of Perinatology Aug 2021Headaches affect 88% of reproductive-aged women. Yet data are limited addressing treatment of headache in pregnancy. While many women experience improvement in...
OBJECTIVE
Headaches affect 88% of reproductive-aged women. Yet data are limited addressing treatment of headache in pregnancy. While many women experience improvement in pregnancy, primary and secondary headaches can develop. Consequently, pregnancy is a time when headache diagnosis can influence maternal and fetal interventions. This study was aimed to summarize existing randomized control trials (RCTs) addressing headache treatment in pregnancy.
STUDY DESIGN
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and SCOPUS from January 1, 1970 through June 31, 2019. Studies were eligible if they were English-language RCTs addressing treatment of headache in pregnancy. Conference abstracts and studies investigating postpartum headache were excluded. Three authors reviewed English-language RCTs addressing treatment of antepartum headache. To be included, all authors agreed each article to meet the following criteria: predefined control group, participants underwent randomization, and treatment of headache occurred in the antepartum period. If inclusion criteria were met no exclusions were made. Our systematic review registration number was CRD42019135874.
RESULTS
A total of 193 studies were reviewed. Of the three that met inclusion criteria all were small, with follow-up designed to measure pain reduction and showed statistical significance.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review of RCTs evaluating treatment of headache in pregnancy revealed only three studies. This paucity of data limits treatment, puts women at risk for worsening headache disorders, and delays diagnosis placing both the mother and fetus at risk for complications.
Topics: Acupuncture Analgesia; Analgesics; Biofeedback, Psychology; Codeine; Complementary Therapies; Diphenhydramine; Female; Headache; Humans; Metoclopramide; Pain Measurement; Physical Therapy Modalities; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32120417
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1705180 -
European Journal of Clinical... Mar 2020Insomnia is highly prevalent in older persons and significantly impacts quality of life, functional abilities, and health status. It is frequently treated with...
PURPOSE
Insomnia is highly prevalent in older persons and significantly impacts quality of life, functional abilities, and health status. It is frequently treated with benzodiazepines or Z-drugs. Due to adverse events, an increased use of alternative sedative medications has been observed in older adults. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of alternative sedative medications for treating insomnia in older people, excluding benzodiazepines and Z-drugs.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials databases. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective quasi-experimental studies, conducted in patients older than 65 years, without psychiatric or neurological comorbidities.
RESULTS
The systematic search yielded 9483 articles, of which 24 were included in this review, describing nine different sleep medications in total. No clear beneficial impact on sleep could be demonstrated in studies investigating the impact of melatonin (n = 10), paroxetine (n = 1), diphenhydramine (n = 1), tiagabine (n = 2), and valerian (n = 1). Ramelteon slightly improved sleep latency (n = 4), while doxepin was found to provide a sustained sleep improvement with a safety profile that was comparable to placebo (n = 3). Suvorexant showed an improved sleep maintenance with only mild side effects (n = 1). One study detected increased adverse effects of trazodone after 3 months but did not evaluate the effect on sleep.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall level of evidence was limited, making it difficult to draw robust conclusions. Preliminary evidence points towards suvorexant, doxepin, and possibly ramelteon as effective and safe pharmacological alternatives for treating insomnia in older adults.
Topics: Aged; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
PubMed: 31838549
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-019-02812-z -
CNS Drugs Mar 2019Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia. However, it has a high burden of adverse events, including common adverse events such... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia. However, it has a high burden of adverse events, including common adverse events such as sialorrhea. Sialorrhea can lead to severe physical complications such as aspiration pneumonia, as well as psychological complications including embarrassment and low self-esteem. Compromised adherence and treatment discontinuation can occur due to intolerability. There have been no meta-analyses examining strategies to mitigate clozapine-induced sialorrhea.
METHODS
We systematically searched Chinese and Western research databases for randomised controlled trials examining agents for clozapine-induced sialorrhea. No limit to language or date were applied to the search. Where sufficient data for individual agents was available, pairwise meta-analyses were conducted. Results were provided as risk ratios and number needed to treat. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by study quality. Adverse events were provided as number needed to harm.
RESULTS
19 studies provided data for use in the meta-analysis. Improvement in clozapine-induced sialorrhea was seen in meta-analyses of propantheline (studies = 6, risk ratio [RR] 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-3.73; number needed to treat [NNT] 3, 95% CI 1.9-2.7), diphenhydramine (studies = 5, RR 3.09, 95% CI 2.36-4.03; NNT 2, 95% CI 1.5-2.0), chlorpheniramine (studies = 2, RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.59-3.55; NNT 3, 95% CI 1.6-3.5), and benzamide derivatives (odds ratio [OR] 6.93, 95% CI 3.03-15.86). When meta-analyses were limited to high-quality studies, all these results remained significant. Single studies of benzhexol, cyproheptadine, doxepin and Kongyan Tang showed promise. Propantheline increased rates of constipation with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 9 (95% CI 4.2-204.1).
CONCLUSION
Clozapine-induced sialorrhea is a potentially serious adverse event. Included studies in this meta-analysis were limited by poor study quality. Diphenhydramine, chlorpheniramine and benzamide derivatives appear to have the best supporting evidence and lowest reported adverse events. Caution should be exercised when using propantheline given its increased risk of constipation.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Muscarinic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salivation; Schizophrenia; Sialorrhea
PubMed: 30758782
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-019-00612-8 -
Journal of Child Neurology Apr 2019Sleep problems are common in children, especially those with neurodevelopmental disorders, and can lead to consequences in behavior, functioning, and quality of life. We...
Sleep problems are common in children, especially those with neurodevelopmental disorders, and can lead to consequences in behavior, functioning, and quality of life. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and harms of pharmacologic treatments for sleep disorders in children and adolescents. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane library databases, and PsycINFO through June 2018. We included 22 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (1-13 weeks' duration), involving 1758 children (mean age 8.2 years). Single randomized controlled trials of zolpidem and eszopiclone in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) showed no improvement in sleep or ADHD ratings. Clinical Global Impression Improvement/Severity scores significantly improved with zolpidem ( P = .03 and P = .006, respectively). A single, small randomized controlled trial of diphenhydramine reported small improvements in sleep outcomes (8-10 minutes' better sleep latency and duration) after 1 week. In 19 randomized controlled trials, melatonin significantly improved sleep latency (median 28 minutes; range 11-51 minutes), sleep duration (median 33 minutes; range 14-68 minutes), and wake time after sleep onset (range 12-43 minutes), but not number of awakenings per night (range 0-2.7). Function and behavior improvement varied. Improvement in sleep was greatest in children with autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders, and smaller in adolescents and children with chronic delayed sleep onset. Adverse events were infrequent with melatonin, but more frequent than placebo in children taking eszopiclone or zolpidem. These findings show that melatonin was useful in improving some sleep outcomes in the short term, particularly those with comorbid ASD and neurodevelopmental disorders. Other drugs and outcomes are inadequately studied.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Wake Disorders
PubMed: 30674203
DOI: 10.1177/0883073818821030 -
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 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ May 2018To determine the effectiveness of prophylactic anticholinergic medications in reducing extrapyramidal symptoms in patients taking acute antiemetics with a dopamine D2... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effects of prophylactic anticholinergic medications to decrease extrapyramidal side effects in patients taking acute antiemetic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of prophylactic anticholinergic medications in reducing extrapyramidal symptoms in patients taking acute antiemetics with a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist effect.
METHODS
Systematic searches of all published studies through March 2017 were identified from PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus. Only randomised controlled trials of patients receiving dopamine D2 antagonist antiemetic therapy for acute migraine in which an anticholinergic or placebo was compared were included. Pooled ORs were calculated for incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms and sedation.
RESULTS
Four placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials consisting of 737 patients met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. The effect of diphenhydramine differed depending on the method of administration of the antiemetic. When the antiemetic was delivered as a 2 min antiemetic bolus, the odds of extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly reduced in the diphenhydramine group compared with placebo (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.81; P=0.01). However, when the antiemetic was given as a 15 min infusion, there was no significant difference in extrapyramidal symptoms with or without diphenhydramine (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.91; P=0.85). The lowest incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms was observed in patients receiving a 15 min antiemetic infusion without diphenhydramine prophylaxis (9.8%). In two trials including 351 patients that dichotomously reported sedation scales, diphenhydramine had significantly higher rates of sedation (31.6%vs19.2%, OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.33; P=0.007).
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic diphenhydramine reduces extrapyramidal symptoms in patients receiving bolus antiemetic therapy with a dopamine D2 antagonist effect, but not when it is given as an infusion. Because of significantly greater sedation with diphenhydramine, the most effective strategy is to administer the D2 antagonist antiemetic as a 15 min infusion without prophylaxis.
Topics: Antiemetics; Basal Ganglia Diseases; Cholinergic Antagonists; Diphenhydramine; Humans
PubMed: 29431143
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2017-206944 -
Pharmacotherapy Jun 2017Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) has become more prevalent with increasing cannabis use. CHS is often resistant to standard antiemetics. The objective of this... (Review)
Review
Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) has become more prevalent with increasing cannabis use. CHS is often resistant to standard antiemetics. The objective of this study is to review the current evidence for pharmacologic treatment of CHS. Medline, PsycINFO, DARE, OpenGrey, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. Articles were selected and reviewed independently. Evidence was graded using Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. The search resulted in 1262 articles with 63 of them eligible for inclusion (205 human subjects). There were 4 prospective level-2, 3 retrospective level-3 studies, 12 level-4 case series, and 44 level-5 case reports. Among level-2 studies (64 subjects), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and lorazepam were discussed as effective long- and short-term treatments, respectively, in two studies. Ondansetron, promethazine, diphenhydramine, and opioids were also mentioned, but the authors did not comment on their efficacy. Among level-3 studies (43 subjects), one reported effective treatment with antiepileptics zonisamide and levetiracetam, but not TCAs. Another reported favorable response to morphine, ondansetron, and lorazepam but did not specify the actual number of patients receiving specific treatment. Among the level-4 case series (54 subjects), benzodiazepines, haloperidol, and capsaicin were reported as helpful. For level-5 case reports (44 subjects), benzodiazepines, metoclopramide, haloperidol, ondansetron, morphine, and capsaicin were reported as effective. Effective treatments mentioned only once included fentanyl, diazepam, promethazine, methadone, nabilone, levomepromazine, piritramide, and pantoprazole. Hot showers and baths were cited in all level-4 and -5 articles as universally effective. High-quality evidence for pharmacologic treatment of CHS is limited. Benzodiazepines, followed by haloperidol and capsaicin, were most frequently reported as effective for acute treatment, and TCAs for long-term treatment. As the prevalence of CHS increases, future prospective trials are greatly needed to evaluate and further define optimal pharmacologic treatment of patients with CHS.
Topics: Antiemetics; Benzodiazepines; Cannabinoids; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Ondansetron; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 28370228
DOI: 10.1002/phar.1931 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Dec 2016Although intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) was first used to treat life-threatening local anesthetic (LA) toxicity, its use has expanded to include both non-local... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) was first used to treat life-threatening local anesthetic (LA) toxicity, its use has expanded to include both non-local anesthetic (non-LA) poisoning and less severe manifestations of toxicity. A collaborative workgroup appraised the literature and provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of ILE in poisoning.
METHODS
Following a systematic review of the literature, data were summarized in four publications: LA and non-LA poisoning efficacy, adverse effects, and analytical interferences. Twenty-two toxins or toxin categories and three clinical situations were selected for voting. Voting statements were proposed using a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus on the voting statements. Disagreement was quantified using RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.
RESULTS
For the management of cardiac arrest, we recommend using ILE with bupivacaine toxicity, while our recommendations are neutral regarding its use for all other toxins. For the management of life-threatening toxicity, (1) as first line therapy, we suggest not to use ILE with toxicity from amitriptyline, non-lipid soluble beta receptor antagonists, bupropion, calcium channel blockers, cocaine, diphenhydramine, lamotrigine, malathion but are neutral for other toxins, (2) as part of treatment modalities, we suggest using ILE in bupivacaine toxicity if other therapies fail, but are neutral for other toxins, (3) if other therapies fail, we recommend ILE for bupivacaine toxicity and we suggest using ILE for toxicity due to other LAs, amitriptyline, and bupropion, but our recommendations are neutral for all other toxins. In the treatment of non-life-threatening toxicity, recommendations are variable according to the balance of expected risks and benefits for each toxin. For LA-toxicity we suggest the use of Intralipid 20% as it is the formulation the most often reported. There is no evidence to support a recommendation for the best formulation of ILE for non-LAs. The voting panel is neutral regarding ILE dosing and infusion duration due to insufficient data for non-LAs. All recommendations were based on very low quality of evidence.
CONCLUSION
Clinical recommendations regarding the use of ILE in poisoning were only possible in a small number of scenarios and were based mainly on very low quality of evidence, balance of expected risks and benefits, adverse effects, laboratory interferences as well as related costs and resources. The workgroup emphasizes that dose-finding and controlled studies reflecting human poisoning scenarios are required to advance knowledge of limitations, indications, adverse effects, effectiveness, and best regimen for ILE treatment.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anesthetics; Animals; Calcium Channel Blockers; Cocaine; Diphenhydramine; Disease Models, Animal; Evidence-Based Medicine; Fat Emulsions, Intravenous; Humans; Lamotrigine; Poisoning; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triazines
PubMed: 27608281
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2016.1214275 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain Jan 2016Opioid-induced pruritus is a common side effect of opioid treatment in patients with acute pain associated with surgery or childbirth. There are several options... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Opioid-induced pruritus is a common side effect of opioid treatment in patients with acute pain associated with surgery or childbirth. There are several options available to treat opioid-induced pruritus, including nalbuphine. However, it is not known whether nalbuphine offers greater efficacy in treating pruritus without attenuation of analgesia and an increase in the incidence of adverse outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic search of studies assessing treatment efficacy of nalbuphine was conducted through Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ProQuest databases. The primary outcome was reduction of pruritus, whereas the secondary outcomes included analgesia and adverse outcomes.
RESULTS
Ten studies that met all inclusion criteria were identified, 9 of which were randomized controlled trials and 1 case report. The incidence of pruritus was higher among patients receiving neuraxial opioids than those with the intravenous route. Nalbuphine provided greater efficacy in treating opioid-induced pruritus when compared with placebo, control, or other pharmacologic agents such as diphenhydramine, naloxone, and propofol. There was no attenuation of analgesia or increase in sedation with low-dose nalbuphine treatment—25% to 50% of the dose to treat pain, that is, 2.5 to 5 mg versus 10 mg intravenously. Further, nalbuphine was associated with reduction of nausea or vomiting, and reversal of respiratory depression.
CONCLUSIONS
Nalbuphine is superior in treating opioid-induced pruritus when compared with placebo, control, diphenhydramine, naloxone, or propofol in patients receiving neuraxial opioids for acute pain related to surgery or childbirth. Therefore, it is recommended that nalbuphine should be used as a first-line treatment of opioid-induced pruritus.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Nalbuphine; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26650717
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000211