-
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 -
World Journal of Urology Dec 2020Different enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols (EP) for radical cystectomy (RC) have been published. Protocols highly differ in number of included items and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Different enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols (EP) for radical cystectomy (RC) have been published. Protocols highly differ in number of included items and specific measures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis on EPs in RC were performed using the databases MedLine, Cochrane Library, Web of science, and Google Scholar. The specific ERAS measures of the protocols were extracted, analyzed, and compared. Pooling of available outcome data was performed for length of stay, complications, readmission rate, and time to defecation.
RESULTS
The search yielded a total of 860 studies of which 25 studies were included in qualitative and 22 in quantitative analysis. Oral bowel preparation (BP) was omitted in 24/25 (96%) EPs, optimized fluid management was administered in 22/25 (88%) EPs and early mobilization (postoperative day 1) in 21/25 (84%). Gum chewing (n = 12, 46%), metoclopramide (n = 11, 44%), and alvimopan (n = 6, 24%) were the most common measures to prevent postoperative ileus. Our meta-analysis revealed a significant benefit in favor of EPs for the outcome parameters length of stay [mean difference (MD) - 3.46 d, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 4.94 to - 1.98, p < 0.01], complications [Odds ratio (OR) = 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.94, p = 0.01] and time to defecation (MD - 1.37 d, 95% CI - 2.06 to - 0.69, p < 0.01). Readmission rate did not show a significant difference (OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.52-1.03, p = 0.07).
CONCLUSION
Current EPs focus on omitting oral BP, early mobilization, and optimized fluid management while they differ in methods preventing postoperative ileus. Our meta-analysis revealed a benefit in introducing these protocols into clinical practice.
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Cystectomy; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Humans; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
PubMed: 32124020
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03133-y -
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 -
Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal Nov 2019Pharmacological interventions of diabetic gastroparesis (DG) constitute an essential element of a patient's management. This article aimed to systematically review the...
Pharmacological interventions of diabetic gastroparesis (DG) constitute an essential element of a patient's management. This article aimed to systematically review the available pharmacological approaches of DG, including their efficacy and safety. A total of 24 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy and/or safety of medications targeting DG symptoms were identified using several online databases. Their results revealed that metoclopramide was the only approved drug for accelerating gastric emptying and improving disease symptoms. However, this medication may have several adverse effects on the cardiovascular and nervous systems, which might be resolved with a new intranasal preparation. Acceptable alternatives are oral domperidone for patients without cardiovascular risk factors or intravenous erythromycin for hospitalised patients. Preliminary data indicated that relamorelin and prucalopride are novel candidates that have proven to be effective and safe. Future RCTs should be conducted based on unified guidelines using universal diagnostic modalities to reveal reliable and comprehensive outcomes.
Topics: Antiemetics; Cisapride; Diabetes Complications; Domperidone; Gastric Emptying; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastroparesis; Humans; Metoclopramide; Piperidines; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31897312
DOI: 10.18295/SQUMJ.2019.19.04.004 -
Dysphagia Oct 2020Dysphagia is associated with increased risk of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP). However, it is unclear what other factors contribute to that risk or which measures may... (Review)
Review
Dysphagia is associated with increased risk of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP). However, it is unclear what other factors contribute to that risk or which measures may reduce it. This systematic review aimed to provide evidence on interventions and care processes associated with SAP in patients with dysphagia. Studies were screened for inclusion if they included dysphagia only patients, dysphagia and non-dysphagia patients or unselected patients that included dysphagic patients and evaluated factors associated with a recorded frequency of SAP. Electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2017. Eligible studies were critically appraised. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I. The primary outcome was SAP. Eleven studies were included. Sample sizes ranged from 60 to 1088 patients. There was heterogeneity in study design. Measures of immunodepression are associated with SAP in dysphagic patients. There is insufficient evidence to justify screening for aerobic Gram-negative bacteria. Prophylactic antibiotics did not prevent SAP and proton pump inhibitors may increase risk. Treatment with metoclopramide may reduce SAP risk. Evidence that nasogastric tube (NGT) placement increases risk of SAP is equivocal. A multidisciplinary team approach and instrumental assessment of swallowing may reduce risk of pneumonia. Patients with impaired mobility were associated with increased risk. Findings should be interpreted with caution given the number of studies, heterogeneity and descriptive analyses. Several medical interventions and care processes, which may reduce risk of SAP in patients with dysphagia, have been identified. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of these interventions and care processes in clinical practice.
Topics: Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Pneumonia; Risk Factors; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation
PubMed: 31493069
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-019-10061-6 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Oct 2019Ileus is a common challenge in adult surgical patients with estimated incidence to be 17% to 80%. The main mechanisms of the postoperative ileus pathophysiology are...
BACKGROUND
Ileus is a common challenge in adult surgical patients with estimated incidence to be 17% to 80%. The main mechanisms of the postoperative ileus pathophysiology are fluid overload, exogenous opioids, neurohormonal dysfunction, gastrointestinal stretch, and inflammation. Management includes addressing the underlying cause and supportive care. Multiple medical interventions have been proposed, but effectiveness is uncertain. A working group of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of metoclopramide, erythromycin, and early enteral nutrition (EEN) on ileus in adult surgical patients and to develop recommendations applicable in a daily clinical practice.
METHODS
Literature search identified 45 articles appropriate for inclusion. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was applied to evaluate the effect of metoclopramide, erythromycin, and EEN on the resolution of ileus in adult surgical patients based on selected outcomes: return of normal bowel function, attainment of enteral feeding goal, and hospital length of stay. The recommendations were made based on the results of a systematic review, a meta-analysis, and evaluation of levels of evidence.
RESULTS
The level of evidence for all PICOs was assessed as low. Neither metoclopramide nor erythromycin were effective in expediting the resolution of ileus. Analyses of 32 randomized controlled trials showed that EEN facilitates return of normal bowel function, achieving enteral nutrition goals, and reducing hospital length of stay.
CONCLUSION
In patients who have undergone abdominal surgery, we strongly recommend EEN to expedite resolution of Ileus, but we cannot recommend for or against the use of either metoclopramide or erythromycin to hasten the resolution of ileus in these patients.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Type of Study Therapeutic, level II.
Topics: Adult; Early Medical Intervention; Enteral Nutrition; Erythromycin; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Motility; Humans; Ileus; Metoclopramide; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31136527
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002381 -
Neurology May 2019To systematically evaluate the efficacy of treatments for tics and the risks associated with their use.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the efficacy of treatments for tics and the risks associated with their use.
METHODS
This project followed the methodologies outlined in the 2011 edition of the American Academy of Neurology's guideline development process manual. We included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials on the treatment of tics that included at least 20 participants (10 participants if a crossover trial), except for neurostimulation trials, for which no minimum sample size was required. To obtain additional information on drug safety, we included cohort studies or case series that specifically evaluated adverse drug effects in individuals with tics.
RESULTS
There was high confidence that the Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics was more likely than psychoeducation and supportive therapy to reduce tics. There was moderate confidence that haloperidol, risperidone, aripiprazole, tiapride, clonidine, onabotulinumtoxinA injections, 5-ling granule, Ningdong granule, and deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus were probably more likely than placebo to reduce tics. There was low confidence that pimozide, ziprasidone, metoclopramide, guanfacine, topiramate, and tetrahydrocannabinol were possibly more likely than placebo to reduce tics. Evidence of harm associated with various treatments was also demonstrated, including weight gain, drug-induced movement disorders, elevated prolactin levels, sedation, and effects on heart rate, blood pressure, and ECGs.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence to support the efficacy of various medical, behavioral, and neurostimulation interventions for the treatment of tics. Both the efficacy and harms associated with interventions must be considered in making treatment recommendations.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Behavior Therapy; Deep Brain Stimulation; Humans; Tic Disorders; Tics; Tourette Syndrome
PubMed: 31061209
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007467 -
Headache May 2019The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prochlorperazine (PCP) in patients with acute migraine headache in the emergency department (ED). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prochlorperazine (PCP) in patients with acute migraine headache in the emergency department (ED).
METHODS
Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) were searched for randomized clinical trials that investigated the effect of PCP on headache relief. The outcomes were the number of patients without headache or with reduced headache severity, the number of adverse events, and the need for rescue analgesia.
RESULTS
From 450 citations, 11 studies (n = 771) with 15 comparison arms met the inclusion criteria. Overall, PCP was more effective than placebo (OR = 7.23; 95% CI = 3.82-3.68), metoclopramide (OR = 2.89; 95% CI = 1.42-5.86), and other active comparators (OR = 3.70; 95% CI = 2.41-5.67) for headache relief. The odds ratio of experiencing adverse events with PCP compared with placebo was 5.79 (95% CI = 2.43-13.79). When PCP compared with other active comparators, no statistical difference was found regarding the overall number of adverse events (OR = 1.88; 95% CI = 0.99-3.59). However, PCP significantly increased the odds of akathisia/dystonia (OR = 2.55; 95% CI = 1.03-6.31). The request for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the PCP group compared with other groups (16% vs 84%; OR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.09-27).
CONCLUSIONS
For adult patients with acute migraine, PCP could effectively abort the acute attack and reduce the request for rescue analgesia in the ED. However, compared with placebo, PCP could increase the risk of adverse events.
Topics: Acute Disease; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Dopamine Antagonists; Drug Therapy, Combination; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Hypotension, Orthostatic; Migraine Disorders; Prochlorperazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30990883
DOI: 10.1111/head.13527 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Dysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life, and longer hospital stay. Treatments provided to improve dysphagia are aimed at accelerating recovery of swallowing function and reducing these risks. This is an update of the review first published in 1999 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of swallowing therapy on death or dependency among stroke survivors with dysphagia within six months of stroke onset.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (26 June 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 June 2018), MEDLINE (26 June 2018), Embase (26 June 2018), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (26 June 2018), Web of Science Core Collection (26 June 2018), SpeechBITE (28 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.Gov (26 June 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 June 2018). We also searched Google Scholar (7 June 2018) and the reference lists of relevant trials and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for people with dysphagia and recent stroke (within six months).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence, and resolved disagreements through discussion with the third review author (PB). We used random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs), and provided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each.The primary outcome was functional outcome, defined as death or dependency (or death or disability), at the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes were case fatality at the end of the trial, length of inpatient stay, proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial, swallowing ability, penetration aspiration score, or pneumonia, pharyngeal transit time, institutionalisation, and nutrition.
MAIN RESULTS
We added 27 new studies (1777 participants) to this update to include a total of 41 trials (2660 participants).We assessed the efficacy of swallowing therapy overall and in subgroups by type of intervention: acupuncture (11 studies), behavioural interventions (nine studies), drug therapy (three studies), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES; six studies), pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES; four studies), physical stimulation (three studies), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS; two studies), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; nine studies).Swallowing therapy had no effect on the primary outcome (death or dependency/disability at the end of the trial) based on data from one trial (two data sets) (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.75; 306 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.86; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy had no effect on case fatality at the end of the trial (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 766 participants; 14 studies; I² = 6%; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy probably reduced length of inpatient stay (MD -2.9, 95% CI -5.65 to -0.15; 577 participants; 8 studies; I² = 11%; P = 0.04; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.54). Swallowing therapy may have reduced the proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; 1487 participants; 23 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Trial results show no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.91). Swallowing therapy may improve swallowing ability (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.32; 1173 participants; 26 studies; I² = 86%; P = 0.0002; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.09). We noted moderate to substantial heterogeneity between trials for these interventions. Swallowing therapy did not reduce the penetration aspiration score (i.e. it did not reduce radiological aspiration) (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.00; 303 participants; 11 studies; I² = 46%; P = 0.05; low-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy may reduce the incidence of chest infection or pneumonia (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; 618 participants; 9 studies; I² = 59%; P = 0.009; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate- and low-quality evidence suggests that swallowing therapy did not have a significant effect on the outcomes of death or dependency/disability, case fatality at the end of the trial, or penetration aspiration score. However, swallowing therapy may have reduced length of hospital stay, dysphagia, and chest infections, and may have improved swallowing ability. However, these results are based on evidence of variable quality, involving a variety of interventions. Further high-quality trials are needed to test whether specific interventions are effective.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Acute Disease; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Length of Stay; Lisinopril; Metoclopramide; Nifedipine; Physical Stimulation; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Time Factors; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 30376602
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000323.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or whilst in the palliative phase of illness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine when used as an antiemetic in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting related to cancer in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase for published data on 20th September 2017, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. We checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field and study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of olanzapine versus any comparator with or without adjunct therapies for the prevention or treatment, or both, of nausea or vomiting in people with cancer aged 18 years or older, in any setting, of any duration, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for each main outcome. We extracted data for absence of nausea or vomiting and frequency of serious adverse events as primary outcomes. We extracted data for patient perception of treatment, other adverse events, somnolence and fatigue, attrition, nausea or vomiting severity, breakthrough nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea and vomiting as secondary outcomes at specified time points.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs (1917 participants) from high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing over 24 different cancers. Thirteen studies were in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Oral olanzapine was administered during highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy (12 studies); chemoradiotherapy (one study); or palliation (one study). Eight studies await classification and 13 are ongoing.The main comparison was olanzapine versus placebo/no treatment. Other comparisons were olanzapine versus NK1 antagonist, prokinetic, 5-HT3 antagonist or dexamethasone.We assessed all but one study as having one or more domains that were at high risk of bias. Eight RCTs with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, and 10 RCTs with issues related to blinding, were at high risk of bias. We downgraded GRADE assessments due to imprecision, inconsistency and study limitations.Olanzapine versus placebo/no treatmentPrimary outcomesOlanzapine probably doubles the likelihood of no nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.47; 561 participants; 3 studies; solid tumours; HEC or MEC therapy; moderate-quality evidence) when added to standard therapy. Number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5 (95% CI 3.3 - 6.6).It is uncertain if olanzapine increases the risk of serious adverse events (absolute risk difference 0.7% more, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.2) (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.48 to 12.55; 7 studies, 889 participants, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFour studies reported patient perception of treatment. One study (48 participants) reported no difference in patient preference. Four reported quality of life but data were insufficient for meta-analysis.Olanzapine may increase other adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.96; 332 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) and probably increases somnolence and fatigue compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.18; anticipated absolute risk 8.2% more, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.8; 464 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Olanzapine probably does not affect all-cause attrition (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.73; 943 participants; 8 studies; I² = 0%). We are uncertain if olanzapine increases attrition due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.16; 422 participants; 6 studies). No participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy.We are uncertain if olanzapine reduces breakthrough nausea and vomiting (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.47; 501 participants; 2 studies; I² = 54%) compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies reported 50% reduction in severity of nausea or vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or attrition.We are uncertain of olanzapine's efficacy in reducing acute nausea or vomiting. Olanzapine probably reduces delayed nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.09; 585 participants; 3 studies) and vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42; 702 participants; 5 studies).Subgroup analysis: 5 mg versus 10 mgPlanned subgroup analyses found that it is unclear if 5 mg is as effective an antiemetic as 10 mg. There is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that 5 mg may confer a lower risk of somnolence and fatigue than 10 mg.Other comparisonsOne study (20 participants) compared olanzapine versus NK1 antagonists. We observed no difference in any reported outcomes.One study (112 participants) compared olanzapine versus a prokinetic (metoclopramide), reporting that olanzapine may increase freedom from overall nausea (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.02) and overall vomiting (RR 3.03, 95% CI 1.78 to 5.14).One study (62 participants) examined olanzapine versus 5-HT3 antagonists, reporting olanzapine may increase the likelihood of 50% or greater reduction in nausea or vomiting at 48 hours (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.97) and 24 hours (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.34).One study (229 participants) compared olanzapine versus dexamethasone, reporting that olanzapine may reduce overall nausea (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18), overall vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48), delayed nausea (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.08) and delayed vomiting (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-quality evidence that oral olanzapine probably increases the likelihood of not being nauseous or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% in adults with solid tumours, in addition to standard therapy, compared to placebo or no treatment. There is uncertainty whether it increases serious adverse events. It may increase the likelihood of other adverse events, probably increasing somnolence and fatigue. There is uncertainty about relative benefits and harms of 5 mg versus 10 mg.We identified only RCTs describing oral administration. The findings of this review cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of any injectable form (intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous) of olanzapine.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Chemoradiotherapy; Dexamethasone; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Fatigue; Humans; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Neoplasms; Olanzapine; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 30246876
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012555.pub2