-
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 We searched controlled trials registers in March 2015 to identify any ongoing or unpublished trials.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... Dec 2014Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1950 to October week 4, 2014), EMBASE (1990 to November 2014), CINAHL (1981 to November 2014), Web of Science (2000 to November 2014), AMED (1985 to November 2014), LILACS (1982 to November 2014) and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from one to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs, two at high risk of bias and one at low risk of bias, involving 568 children. The studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, 'no treatment' and placebo for the effect on symptomatic relief of cough using a seven-point Likert scale. The lower the score, the better the cough symptom being assessed.Moderate quality evidence showed that honey may be better than 'no treatment' in reducing the frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I(2) statistic 23%; two studies, 154 participants). High quality evidence also suggests that honey may be better than placebo for reduction of cough frequency (MD -1.85; 95% Cl -3.36 to -0.33; one study, 300 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests that honey does not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies, 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests that honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study, 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies, 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study, 80 participants). When honey was compared with placebo, four children (1.8%) in the honey group and one (1.3%) from the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.33; 95% Cl 0.15 to 11.74). However, there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan, honey versus diphenhydramine or honey versus placebo. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Honey may be better than 'no treatment', diphenhydramine and placebo for the symptomatic relief of cough, but it is not better than dextromethorphan. None of the included studies assessed the effect of honey on 'cough duration' because intervention and follow-up were for one night only. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.
Topics: Adolescent; Antitussive Agents; Apitherapy; Child; Child, Preschool; Cough; Dextromethorphan; Diphenhydramine; Honey; Humans; Infant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25536086
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub4 -
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 -
Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing :... Jul 2014Transfusion-related reactions cause unwanted interruptions in blood-product administration and potential complications for patients. The most common reactions are... (Review)
Review
Effects of Leukoreduction and Premedication With Acetaminophen and Diphenhydramine in Minimizing Febrile Nonhemolytic Transfusion Reactions and Allergic Transfusion Reactions During and After Blood Product Administration: A Literature Review With Recommendations for Practice.
Transfusion-related reactions cause unwanted interruptions in blood-product administration and potential complications for patients. The most common reactions are febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTRs) and allergic transfusion reactions (ATRs). The presence of leukocytes in blood products has been associated with these reactions, and efficacy of leukoreduction in minimizing FNHTRs and ATRs has recently been investigated. In addition, premedication with acetaminophen and diphenhydramine is the most widely used practice in minimizing FNHTRs and ATRs, yet the benefit of this is not supported by research. The aim of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the potential benefits of both of these interventions in minimizing FNHTRs and ATRs and provide recommendations for practice. We found moderate quality evidence with strong recommendations for the practice of leukoreduction in minimizing FNHTRs but not ATRs. We did not find evidence to support the use of premedications in minimizing transfusion-related reactions, and we question the need for this practice in settings where leukoreduction is used.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Diphenhydramine; Drug Administration Schedule; Erythrocyte Transfusion; Evidence-Based Nursing; Fever; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Nursing Process; Premedication; Transfusion Reaction
PubMed: 24794886
DOI: 10.1177/1043454214532029 -
Headache Feb 2014Tension-type headache is highly prevalent in the general population and is a consistent if not frequent cause of visits to acute care settings. Analgesics such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tension-type headache is highly prevalent in the general population and is a consistent if not frequent cause of visits to acute care settings. Analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and salicylates are considered first-line therapy for treatment of tension-type headache. For patients who present to an acute care setting with persistent tension-type headache despite analgesic therapy, it is not clear which parenteral agent should be administered. We performed a systematic review of the medical literature to determine whether parenteral therapies other than salicylates or nonsteroidals are efficacious for acute tension-type headache.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception through August, 2012 using the search terms "tension-type headache" and "parenteral or subcutaneous or intramuscular or intravenous." Our goal was to identify randomized trials in which one parenteral treatment was compared to another active comparator or to placebo for the acute relief of tension-type headache. Parenteral was defined as intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous administration. We only included studies that distinguished tension-type headache from other primary headache disorders, such as migraine. The primary outcome for this review was measures of efficacy one hour after medication administration. Data abstraction was performed by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. We assessed the internal validity of trials using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Because of the small number of trials identified, and the substantial heterogeneity among study design and medications, we decided that combining data and reporting summary statistics would serve no useful function. The results of individual studies are presented using Number Needed to Treat (NNT) with 95%CI when dichotomous outcomes were available and continuous outcomes otherwise.
RESULTS
Our search returned 640 results. One hundred eighty-seven abstracts were reviewed, and 8 studies involving 486 patients were included in our analysis. The most common reasons for exclusion of abstracts were no assessment of acute pain relief, use of nonparenteral medications only, and no differentiation of headache type. Risk of bias ranged from low to high. The following medications were more effective than placebo for acute pain (NNT, 95%CI): metamizole (4, 2-26), chlorpromazine (4, 2-26), and metoclopramide (2, 1-3). The combination of metoclopramide + diphenhydramine was superior to ketorolac (4, 2-8) The following medications were not more effective than placebo: mepivacaine, meperidine + promethazine, and sumatriptan.
CONCLUSIONS
Various parenteral medications other than salicylates or nonsteroidals provide acute relief of tension-type headache. Comparative efficacy studies are needed.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Chlorpromazine; Dipyrone; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Subcutaneous; Metoclopramide; Tension-Type Headache; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24433525
DOI: 10.1111/head.12287 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Jan 2014Adverse events including intracerebral hemorrhage and reperfusion arrhythmias are well known to occur with thrombolytic therapy. We report a case report of anaphylactic... (Review)
Review
Adverse events including intracerebral hemorrhage and reperfusion arrhythmias are well known to occur with thrombolytic therapy. We report a case report of anaphylactic reaction directly attributable to intravenous (IV) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and identify additional cases through review of the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. A systematic review of Adverse Event Reporting System was performed for allergic adverse events occurring in conjunction with IV thrombolytics. We reviewed 924 adverse events which occurred between 2004 and 2012 that were associated with thrombolytics. We subsequently acquired detailed individual safety reports of 33 cases in which allergic events were documented. Out of the 33 reports, there were 12 cases (age range, 57-93 years) of adverse allergic reaction directly attributable to IV thrombolytics. Allergic reactions included angioedema, facial swelling, urticaria, skin rash, cutaneous hypesthesia, hypotension, anaphylactic shock, and death. Of the patients who were reported to suffer from allergic adverse events, 11 received IV alteplase and 1 received IV reteplase. Most reactions associated with IV alteplase resolved with withdrawal of medication and treatment with diphenhydramine and steroids ± epinephrine. There was 1 death directly attributable to allergic reaction in a patient who received IV reteplase for MI.Although IV alteplase is identical to endogenous tissue plasminogen activator, it appears to be the most common cause of allergic reaction among currently used thrombolytics, with or without concomitant administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. A greater awareness among physicians may result in prompt recognition and treatment.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Female; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Middle Aged; Recombinant Proteins; Stroke; Tissue Plasminogen Activator
PubMed: 24091200
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.08.046 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2013Topiramate is an antiepileptic drug with multiple possible mechanisms of action. Antiepileptic drugs are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Topiramate is an antiepileptic drug with multiple possible mechanisms of action. Antiepileptic drugs are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage) and fibromyalgia, and many guidelines recommend them.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topiramate for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults (aged 18 years and above).
SEARCH METHODS
On 8 May 2013, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We reviewed the bibliographies of all randomised trials identified and review articles, and also searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with double-blind assessment of participant outcomes following two weeks of treatment or longer (though the emphasis of the review was on studies of eight weeks or longer) that used a placebo or active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using two tiers of evidence. The first tier used data where studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain reduction from baseline, lasted at least eight weeks, had a parallel group design, included 200 or more participants in the comparison, and reported an intention-to-treat analysis. First tier studies did not use last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) or other imputation methods for dropouts. The second tier used data that failed to meet this standard; second tier results were therefore subject to potential bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies with 1684 participants. Three parallel-group placebo comparisons were in painful diabetic neuropathy (1643 participants), and one cross-over study with diphenhydramine as an active placebo (41 participants) was in lumbar radiculopathy. Doses of topiramate were titrated up to 200 mg/day or 400 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias, as they either used LOCF imputation or were of small size.No study provided first tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. There was no convincing evidence for efficacy of topiramate at 200 to 400 mg/day over placebo.Eighty-two per cent of participants taking topiramate 200 to 400 mg/day experienced at least one adverse event, as did 71% with placebo, and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful effect (NNTH) was 8.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.9 to 35). There was no difference in serious adverse events recorded (6.6% versus 7.5%). Adverse event withdrawals with 400 mg daily were much more common with topiramate (27%) than with placebo (8%), with an NNTH of 5.4 (95% CI 4.3 to 7.1). Lack of efficacy withdrawal was less frequent with topiramate (12%) than placebo (18%). Weight loss was a common event in most studies. No deaths attributable to treatment were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topiramate is without evidence of efficacy in diabetic neuropathic pain, the only neuropathic condition in which it has been adequately tested. The data we have includes the likelihood of major bias due to LOCF imputation, where adverse event withdrawals are much higher with active treatment than placebo control. Despite the strong potential for bias, no difference in efficacy between topiramate and placebo was apparent.
Topics: Adult; Diabetic Neuropathies; Fibromyalgia; Fructose; Humans; Neuralgia; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topiramate
PubMed: 23996081
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008314.pub3 -
Psychiatrische Praxis Jul 2013In many countries diphenhydramine (DPH) is commonly available over the counter, frequently used, and generally regarded as a harmless drug. It is used as a sedative,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
In many countries diphenhydramine (DPH) is commonly available over the counter, frequently used, and generally regarded as a harmless drug. It is used as a sedative, antiallergic or antiemetic substance.
METHODS
We present a systematic review of literature search in Pubmed from 1972 to 2012 describing DPH addiction. The literature search in reveals that the addictive potential of DPH can be regarded as proved, based on cases series, eight case reports, a pharmacological overview, one uncontrolled, and one randomized, placebo controlled study. In addition we report a case of an abstinent alcoholic patient treated in our department for DPH-dependency.
CONCLUSION
Especially when treating patients with a history of addiction, physicians should consider and check the possibility of a DPH dependency.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Alcoholism; Comorbidity; Diphenhydramine; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Tolerance; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Middle Aged; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 23459952
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1332949