-
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2021Nausea and vomiting are a common clinical symptom in the advanced cancer patient. Pharmacologic management is important. Evidence for drug choices and guidelines are...
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting are a common clinical symptom in the advanced cancer patient. Pharmacologic management is important. Evidence for drug choices and guidelines are needed to help clinicians manage nausea and vomiting in this population METHODS: Evidence from a systematic review published in 2010, initial MASCC guidelines developed from a systematic review of literature to 2015, and a new systematic review of randomized trials published between 2015 and February 2, 2021, was combined to establish a new guideline.
RESULTS
A search of the literature between 2015 and February 2, 2021, revealed 257 abstracts of which there was one systematic review and 4 randomized trials which were used to modify the guideline. The new guideline is as follows: First Line: Metoclopramide (II) multiple small RCTs including a placebo-controlled trial, haloperidol (II) multiple non-placebo-controlled RCTs, high consensus. Second line: Methotrimeprazine (II) 1 well-powered non-placebo-controlled RCT, olanzapine (II) 1 placebo-controlled pilot RCT, high consensus. Third line: Tropisetron (II) large unblinded lower quality non-placebo-controlled RCT, levosulpiride (II) 1 blinded non-placebo-controlled pilot RCT, high consensus.
DISCUSSION
Haloperidol, metoclopramide, methotrimeprazine, olanzapine tropisetron, and levosulpiride have been antiemetics used in randomized trials with antiemetic activity demonstrated. There are only three placebo-controlled randomized trials we could find in our literature review. Placebo responses varied significantly between two randomized trials. More randomized placebo-controlled trials with either metoclopramide or haloperidol rescue are needed to clarify antiemetic choices in advanced cancer.
CONCLUSION
First-line antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer are metoclopramide and haloperidol, and second-line medications are methotrimeprazine and olanzapine.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Neoplasms; Vomiting
PubMed: 34398289
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06437-w -
Neurogastroenterology and Motility Mar 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of pharmacological agents for neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia based on evidence from randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of pharmacological agents for neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Electronic databases were systematically searched between January 1970 and March 2021. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized the data. The outcome measure was changed in (any) relevant clinical swallowing-related characteristics.
KEY RESULTS
Data from 2186 dysphagic patients were collected from 14 RCT studies across a range of pharmacotherapies. The pooled effect size of transient receptor potential (TRP) channel agonists was large compared to placebo interventions (SMD[95%CI] =1.27[0.74,1.80], p < 0.001; I = 79%). Data were limited for other pharmacological agents and the overall pooled effect size of these agents was non-significant (SMD [95% CI] =0.25 [-0.24, 0.73]; p = 0.31; I = 85%). When analyzed separately, large effect sizes were observed with Nifedipine (SMD[95%CI] =1.13[0.09,2.18]; p = 0.03) and Metoclopramide (SMD[95%CI] =1.68[1.08,2.27]; p < 0.001). By contrast, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (SMD[95%CI] = -0.67[-2.32,0.99]; p = 0.43; I = 61%), Physostigmine (SMD[95%CI] = -0.05[-1.03,0.93]; p = 0.92) and Glyceryl Trinitrate (GTN) (SMD [95% CI] = -0.01 [-0.11, 0.08]; p = 0.78) were non-significant. Within stroke patients, subgroup analysis showed that TRP channel agonists had a moderate pooled effect size (SMD[95%CI] =0.74[0.10,1.39]; p = 0.02; I = 82%) whereas the effects of other agents were non-significant (SMD[95%CI] =0.40[-0.04,0.84]; p = 0.07; I = 87%).
CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES
Our results showed that TRP channel agonists, Nifedipine and Metoclopromide may be beneficial for neurogenic dysphagic patients. Large scale, multicenter clinical trials are warranted to fully explore their therapeutic effects on swallowing.
Topics: Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Nifedipine; Stroke
PubMed: 34337829
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.14220 -
The Journal of Rheumatology Dec 2021The epidemiology and treatment of peripheral neuropathy in systemic sclerosis (SSc) is poorly understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the incidence,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The epidemiology and treatment of peripheral neuropathy in systemic sclerosis (SSc) is poorly understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the incidence, prevalence, risk factors, and treatments of peripheral neuropathy in SSc.
METHODS
A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases for literature reporting peripheral neuropathy in SSc was performed. Studies evaluating incidence, prevalence, risk factors, and treatments were synthesized. A metaanalysis using a random effects model was used to evaluate the prevalence of peripheral neuropathy.
RESULTS
This systematic review identified 113 studies that reported 949 of 2143 subjects with at least 1 type of peripheral neuropathy. The mean age was 48.5 years. The mean time between SSc onset and detection of peripheral neuropathy was 8.85 years. The pooled prevalence of neuropathy was 27.37% (95% CI 22.35-32.70). Risk factors for peripheral neuropathy in SSc included advanced diffuse disease, anticentromere antibodies, calcinosis cutis, ischemia of the vasa nervorum, iron deficiency anemia, metoclopramide, pembrolizumab, silicosis, and uremia. There were 73 subjects with successful treatments (n = 36 restoring sensation, n = 37 restoring motor or sensorimotor function). Treatments included decompression surgery, prednisone, cyclophosphamide, carbamazepine, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, tricyclic antidepressants, and intravenous Ig.
CONCLUSION
All-cause peripheral neuropathy is not uncommon in SSc. Compression neuropathies can be treated with decompression surgery. Observational data reporting immunosuppressives and anticonvulsants to treat peripheral neuropathy in SSc are limited and conflicting. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of these interventions.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Iron Deficiencies; Middle Aged; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Risk Factors; Scleroderma, Systemic
PubMed: 34210833
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.201299 -
Nutrition in Clinical Practice :... Apr 2022Metoclopramide is frequently prescribed as an adjuvant for the postpyloric placement of nasoenteric tubes (NETs). However, a recent meta-analysis showed that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Metoclopramide is frequently prescribed as an adjuvant for the postpyloric placement of nasoenteric tubes (NETs). However, a recent meta-analysis showed that metoclopramide was not beneficial in adults. Thus, this study aimed to reevaluate the effect of metoclopramide on the postpyloric placement of NETs.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang data was conducted up to August 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metoclopramide with placebo or no intervention. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used for the primary outcomes (the success rate of the postpyloric placement of NETs).
RESULTS
Seven eligible RCTs that included 520 participants were identified. The results of the pooled effect sizes showed that metoclopramide significantly facilitated the postpyloric placement of NETs (relative risk [RR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11-1.97; P = .007; I = 37%). However, the risk-of-bias assessment and the TSA results indicated that the qualities of the RCTs and the sample sizes were insufficient to confirm the efficacy of metoclopramide. Further subgroup analysis revealed that successful postpyloric placement was more pronounced in studies in which spiral NETs were employed (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.41-2.43; P < .001; I = 0%). Additionally, overall adverse events were minimal.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence accumulated so far was not strong enough to demonstrate metoclopramide's beneficial effects on the postpyloric placement of NETs. Further high-quality, large-sample RCTs are required to elucidate the effects of metoclopramide.
Topics: Adult; Critical Care; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Metoclopramide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34155678
DOI: 10.1002/ncp.10725 -
Breastfeeding Medicine : the Official... Jul 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of domperidone and metoclopramide used by breastfeeding women. A systematic literature search retrieved citations from PubMed,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of domperidone and metoclopramide used by breastfeeding women. A systematic literature search retrieved citations from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Medline, EBSCO, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov (from inception to January, 2021) and bibliographies of known articles. Randomized controlled trials exploring the effects of domperidone and metoclopramide in breastfeeding women with term and preterm infants experiencing adequate or low milk supply were identified. Human milk volume and maternal side effects were presented as mean difference (MD) or relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Sixteen trials involving 729 women were included in the qualitative analysis and 14 trials involving 607 women were included in the meta-analysis. In mothers of preterm infants with low milk supply, domperidone demonstrated a significant increase in daily human milk volume (MD = 90.53 mL/day, 95% CI [65.42 to 115.64], = 9%). However, metoclopramide did not show significant difference in daily human milk volume in women with preterm infants (MD = -1.14 mL/day, 95% CI [-31.42 to 29.14], = 0%). No differences in maternal side effects were noted with domperidone (RR = 1.20, 95% CI [0.74 to 1.97], = 0%) or metoclopramide (RR = 1.05, 95% CI [0.52 to 2.11], = 27%) in women with preterm infants. Regarding the women with term infants, there were insufficient data in the current review. Domperidone can be used to treat low milk supply in women with preterm infants without significant side effects based on the current review. More evidence exploring the efficacy and safety of domperidone and metoclopramide are still needed for breastfeeding women in the future.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Domperidone; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Metoclopramide; Milk, Human
PubMed: 33769844
DOI: 10.1089/bfm.2020.0360 -
Headache Jan 2021Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to...
BACKGROUND
Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to best and most safely manage them.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review (SR) of interventions to prevent or treat primary headaches in women who are pregnant, attempting to become pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of SRs, and Epistemonikos for primary studies of pregnant women with primary headache and existing SRs of harms in pregnant women regardless of indication. No date or language restrictions were applied. We assessed strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods.
RESULTS
We screened 8549 citations for studies and 2788 citations for SRs. Sixteen studies (mostly high risk of bias) comprising 14,185 patients (total) and 26 SRs met the criteria. For prevention, we found no evidence addressing effectiveness. Antiepileptics, venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, prednisolone, and oral magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be (1 single-group study and 11 SRs; low-to-moderate SoE). For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine for migraine or tension headache (1 randomized controlled trial; low SoE). Triptans may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects (8 nonrandomized comparative studies; low SoE). Acetaminophen, prednisolone, indomethacin, ondansetron, antipsychotics, and intravenous magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but low-dose aspirin may not be (indirect evidence; low-to-moderate SoE). We found insufficient evidence regarding non-pharmacologic treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
For prevention of primary headache, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine. Triptans and low-dose aspirin may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. Future research should identify effective and safe interventions in pregnancy and postpartum.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Female; Headache Disorders, Primary; Humans; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 33433020
DOI: 10.1111/head.14041 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.
OBJECTIVES
• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33075160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Many women express concern about their ability to produce enough milk, and insufficient milk is frequently cited as the reason for supplementation and early termination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many women express concern about their ability to produce enough milk, and insufficient milk is frequently cited as the reason for supplementation and early termination of breastfeeding. When addressing this concern, it is important first to consider the influence of maternal and neonatal health, infant suck, proper latch, and feeding frequency on milk production, and that steps be taken to correct or compensate for any contributing issues. Oral galactagogues are substances that stimulate milk production. They may be pharmacological or non-pharmacological (natural). Natural galactagogues are usually botanical or other food agents. The choice between pharmacological or natural galactagogues is often influenced by familiarity and local customs. Evidence for the possible benefits and harms of galactagogues is important for making an informed decision on their use.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of oral galactagogues for increasing milk production in non-hospitalised breastfeeding mother-term infant pairs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Health Research and Development Network - Phillippines (HERDIN), Natural Products Alert (Napralert), the personal reference collection of author LM, and reference lists of retrieved studies (4 November 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including published abstracts) comparing oral galactagogues with placebo, no treatment, or another oral galactagogue in mothers breastfeeding healthy term infants. We also included cluster-randomised trials but excluded cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two to four review authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data for analysis and checked accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted the study authors for clarification.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-one RCTs involving 3005 mothers and 3006 infants from at least 17 countries met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted either in hospitals immediately postpartum or in the community. There was considerable variation in mothers, particularly in parity and whether or not they had lactation insufficiency. Infants' ages at commencement of the studies ranged from newborn to 6 months. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low because of high risk of biases (mainly due to lack of blinding), substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity, and imprecision of measurements. Pharmacological galactagogues Nine studies compared a pharmacological galactagogue (domperidone, metoclopramide, sulpiride, thyrotropin-releasing hormone) with placebo or no treatment. The primary outcome of proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months was not reported. Only one study (metoclopramide) reported on the outcome of infant weight, finding little or no difference (mean difference (MD) 23.0 grams, 95% confidence interval (CI) -47.71 to 93.71; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies (metoclopramide, domperidone, sulpiride) reported on milk volume, finding pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume (MD 63.82 mL, 95% CI 25.91 to 101.72; I² = 34%; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicates there may be increased milk volume with each drug, but with varying CIs. There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints, such as tiredness, nausea, headache and dry mouth (very low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported for infants. Natural galactagogues Twenty-seven studies compared natural oral galactagogues (banana flower, fennel, fenugreek, ginger, ixbut, levant cotton, moringa, palm dates, pork knuckle, shatavari, silymarin, torbangun leaves or other natural mixtures) with placebo or no treatment. One study (Mother's Milk Tea) reported breastfeeding rates at six months with a concluding statement of "no significant difference" (no data and no measure of significance provided, 60 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (fennel, fenugreek, moringa, mixed botanical tea) reported infant weight but could not be meta-analysed due to substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I = 60%, 275 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis shows we are very uncertain whether fennel or fenugreek improves infant weight, whereas moringa and mixed botanical tea may increase infant weight compared to placebo. Thirteen studies (Bu Xue Sheng Ru, Chanbao, Cui Ru, banana flower, fenugreek, ginger, moringa, fenugreek, ginger and turmeric mix, ixbut, mixed botanical tea, Sheng Ru He Ji, silymarin, Xian Tong Ru, palm dates; 962 participants) reported on milk volume, but meta-analysis was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity (I = 99%). The subgroup analysis for each intervention suggested either benefit or little or no difference (very low-certainty evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints such as mothers with urine that smelled like maple syrup and urticaria in infants (very low-certainty evidence). Galactagogue versus galactagogue Eight studies (Chanbao; Bue Xue Sheng Ru, domperidone, moringa, fenugreek, palm dates, torbangun, moloco, Mu Er Wu You, Kun Yuan Tong Ru) compared one oral galactagogue with another. We were unable to perform meta-analysis because there was only one small study for each match-up, so we do not know if one galactagogue is better than another for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to extremely limited, very low certainty evidence, we do not know whether galactagogues have any effect on proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months. There is low-certainty evidence that pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume. There is some evidence from subgroup analyses that natural galactagogues may benefit infant weight and milk volume in mothers with healthy, term infants, but due to substantial heterogeneity of the studies, imprecision of measurements and incomplete reporting, we are very uncertain about the magnitude of the effect. We are also uncertain if one galactagogue performs better than another. With limited data on adverse effects, we are uncertain if there are any concerning adverse effects with any particular galactagogue; those reported were minor complaints. High-quality RCTs on the efficacy and safety of galactagogues are urgently needed. A set of core outcomes to standardise infant weight and milk volume measurement is also needed, as well as a strong basis for the dose and dosage form used.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Body Weight; Breast Feeding; Domperidone; Female; Galactogogues; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lactation; Metoclopramide; Milk, Human; Mothers; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulpiride; Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone
PubMed: 32421208
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011505.pub2 -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2020Renal colic affects 12% of the U.S. population, accounting for nearly 1% of emergency department (ED) visits. Current recommendations advocate narcotic-limiting... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Renal colic affects 12% of the U.S. population, accounting for nearly 1% of emergency department (ED) visits. Current recommendations advocate narcotic-limiting multimodal analgesia regimens. The objective of this review is to determine if in patients with renal colic (Population), intravenous (IV) amide anesthetics (Intervention) result in better pain control, lower requirements for rescue analgesia, or less adverse medication effects (outcome) compared to placebo, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or opiates (Comparisons).
METHODS
Scholarly databases and relevant bibliographies were searched using a pre-designed systematic review protocol and registered with PROSPERO. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized clinical trial (RCT), (2) age ≥ 18 years, (3) confirmed or presumed renal colic, (4) amide anesthetic administered IV. Eligible comparison groups included: placebo, conventional therapy, acetaminophen, NSAID, or opiate. The primary outcome was pain intensity at baseline, 30, 60, and 120 minutes. Trial quality was graded, and risk-of-bias was assessed.
RESULTS
Of the 3930 identified references, 4 RCTs (479 participants) were included. One trial (n=240) reported improved analgesia with IV lidocaine (Lido) plus metoclopramide, compared to morphine. All other trials reported unchanged or less analgesia compared to placebo, ketorolac, or fentanyl. Very severe heterogeneity (I= 88%) precluded pooling data.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence precludes drawing a firm conclusion on the efficacy or superiority of Lido over traditional therapies for ED patients with renal colic. Evidence suggests Lido may be an effective non-opiate analgesic alliterative; however, it's efficacy may not exceed that of NSAIDs or opiates. Further study is needed to validate the potential improved efficacy of Lido plus metoclopramide.
PubMed: 32259122
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Emergency Medicine Apr 2020It is common practice for emergency physicians to give parenteral opioids for acute pain, however, some treating physicians have concerns that using parenteral opioids...
Should Antiemetics be Given Prophylactically with Intravenous Opioids While Treating Acute Pain in the Emergency Department?: Clinical Practice Paper Approved by American Academy of Emergency Medicine Clinical Guidelines Committee.
BACKGROUND
It is common practice for emergency physicians to give parenteral opioids for acute pain, however, some treating physicians have concerns that using parenteral opioids can lead to nausea and vomiting when used alone. Therefore, antiemetics are often given prophylactically with opioids for nausea and vomiting in the emergency department (ED). This systematic review evaluates the use of prophylactic antiemetics with parenteral opioids for the treatment of acute pain in the ED.
METHODS
A 10-year literature search using keywords was performed in PubMed for English-language human studies. Abstracts were screened to identify high-quality studies, which then underwent a more rigorous structured review. The recommendations are made based on the literature review.
RESULTS
Eight articles met criteria for structured review and citation in this article. These include one review article, two randomized controlled trials, three prospective observational trials, one retrospective study, and one pre- and post-intervention trial.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the literature review, routine use of prophylactic antiemetics are not indicated with administration of parenteral opioids for treatment of acute pain in the ED, as nausea and vomiting are infrequent side effects. The recent literature clearly demonstrates that there are potential undesirable side effects from the use of antiemetics when using opioids. However, one subgroup of patients, those with a known history of nausea and vomiting after opioid use or a history of travel sickness, may benefit from the use of prophylactic antiemetic when being treated with parenteral opioids.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Antiemetics; Emergency Medicine; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Metoclopramide; Observational Studies as Topic; Ondansetron; Retrospective Studies; United States; Vomiting
PubMed: 32216978
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.12.024