-
Minerva Anestesiologica Dec 2018Perioperative shivering during cesarean sections (CSs) under neuraxial anesthesia (NA) is clinically common but often under-treated. It may prominently increase oxygen...
INTRODUCTION
Perioperative shivering during cesarean sections (CSs) under neuraxial anesthesia (NA) is clinically common but often under-treated. It may prominently increase oxygen consumption, which can be catastrophic for parturients with ischemic cardiovascular disease. Thus, the prevention and treatment of shivering may be of great significance in parturients. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the effectiveness of several drugs on shivering prevention and treatment during CSs under NA.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A literature search was carried out using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. After literature screening and information extraction, a systematic review was performed.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eighteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Intrathecal dexmedetomidine effectively reduced shivering, but effectiveness depended on the dose administered. Intrathecal fentanyl, intrathecal sufentanil, intrathecal meperidine, intravenous ketamine and intravenous tramadol were beneficial for reducing shivering during CSs under NA. MgSO4 administered intrathecally resulted in transient alleviation of shivering, and the effect did not persist. Two trials investigated the antishivering effect of intravenous ondansetron. The medication appeared to be effective in one trial, but ineffective in the other.
CONCLUSIONS
Appropriate use of dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, sufentanil, ketamine, meperidine, tramadol and MgSO4 may effectively reduce the incidence and severity of shivering during CSs under NA, while trials on the effect of intravenous ondansetron reached inconclusive results.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shivering
PubMed: 29945433
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12478-3 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology... Jul 2018Ondansetron, not approved for use in pregnancy, is increasingly being prescribed for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum. A number of recent...
OBJECTIVE
Ondansetron, not approved for use in pregnancy, is increasingly being prescribed for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum. A number of recent lawsuits have highlighted the possibility that ondansetron may cause congenital malformations. The aim of this study was to systematically review epidemiological evidence on the potential association of prenatal exposure to ondansetron and congenital malformations.
METHODS
Systematic searches in Medline and Embase were performed in June 2017 using controlled vocabulary and key words, and references of search results were reviewed. Full papers (RCTs, cohort, and case-control studies) were eligible for inclusion if they reported fetal outcomes of prenatal ondansetron exposure in humans. Excluded were: case reports, studies involving pre-medication with ondansetron prior to CS, animal studies, and foreign languages studies.
RESULTS
Ten epidemiologic studies were included: five large retrospective cohort studies, two prospective observational studies, two population-based case-controls. and a retrospective case series. Sample sizes ranged from 17 to 1 501 434 infants exposed to ondansetron. A case-control study identified an association between prenatal exposure to ondansetron and cleft palate, and one cohort study found an increased risk of cardiovascular defects. These findings were not reproduced in the other studies.
CONCLUSION
While further investigation of the literature is needed, our results highlight the paucity of evidence linking prenatal exposure to ondansetron to an increased risk of congenital malformations. There is a need for additional epidemiologic studies to confirm whether ondansetron represents a safe and effective alternative treatment for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum.
Topics: Antiemetics; Congenital Abnormalities; Female; Humans; Hyperemesis Gravidarum; Ondansetron; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29754832
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.10.024 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Sep 2018In previous studies, there seems to be a relationship between different genetic polymorphisms and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We perform a systematic...
BACKGROUND
In previous studies, there seems to be a relationship between different genetic polymorphisms and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We perform a systematic review of the current literature about the relationship between genetic polymorphisms and the presence of PONV.
METHODS
Two bibliographic searches were carried out in three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) of studies, preferably prospective, about PONV following abdominal surgery. It was completed with a backward citation searching. A total of 73 articles were found of which 6 were selected after their critical lecture using CASPe network criteria. Relative frequency and relative risk were taken in each study according to the polymorphism.
RESULTS
Studies about 5-HT3B gene receptor polymorphisms, ABCB1 transporter, and dopamine D2 receptor showed a significant association with the presence of PONV (p = 0.02, 0.01, and 0.034 respectively). In relation to cytochrome P-450 2D6 (CYP2D6) polymorphisms, two of the three analysed articles showed a significant association with postoperative vomiting (p = 0.007).
CONCLUSION
Genetic polymorphisms could play an important role in PONV. The AAG deletion in both alleles of the 5-HT3B receptor gene, the Taq IA polymorphism of the dopamine D2 receptor, and the presence of three or more functional alleles of CYP2D6 seem to be related with a higher incidence of PONV, especially in the first 24 h after surgery. The 2677TT and 3435TT genotypes of the ABCB1 transporter could reduce the PONV due to their association with a greater effectiveness of ondansetron. However, new quality studies are needed to consider this relationship.
Topics: ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Humans; Polymorphism, Genetic; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Receptors, Dopamine D2; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3
PubMed: 29725907
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-3788-8 -
CNS Drugs Jan 2018Previous reviews have examined the use of theoretically supported combinations of drugs for the treatment of alcohol use disorder. This review seeks to examine the...
BACKGROUND
Previous reviews have examined the use of theoretically supported combinations of drugs for the treatment of alcohol use disorder. This review seeks to examine the strengths and limitations of current clinical evidence for the use of combined pharmacological interventions intended to treat alcohol use disorder.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to identify combinations of pharmacological treatments for alcohol use disorder, and assess the strength of clinical evidence for these treatments.
METHODS
We conducted searches using PubMed, EMBASE through Ovid (1974 to present), MEDLINE through Ovid (1946 to present), and Psychinfo through Ovid (1806 to present). Our primary search included the terms "alcoholism" and "drug therapy, combination". Search results were restricted to human subjects and English language. Search criteria were not restricted based on study design or patient age. Studies were evaluated for randomization, blinding, group similarity, power determination, outcome reporting, and number of patients analyzed.
RESULTS
Nine hundred and eighty-four publications were initially screened for inclusion after duplicates were removed. The search identified 16 publications evaluating drug combinations for the treatment of alcohol use disorder. The majority of published trials included naltrexone combined with one of the following: gabapentin, ondansetron, acamprosate, gamma-hydroxybutyrate, sertraline, quetiapine, or escitalopram plus gamma-hydroxybutyrate. Other combinations included 5-hydroxytryptophan with carbidopa/levodopa, gamma-hydroxybutyrate with disulfiram, acamprosate with disulfiram, and mirtazapine with quetiapine. Interpretation of results across studies was limited by low statistical power, and heterogeneity of drug combinations and outcome measures. Drug combination effect sizes were comparable to those observed in single-agent trials.
CONCLUSIONS
No significant benefit for the use of combinations over single agents was observed. However, benefit may be observed when combined pharmacological interventions address specific symptoms of alcohol use disorder known to be influenced by combination components, or when combinations are used in specific subpopulations in which combination components demonstrate benefit.
Topics: Alcohol Deterrents; Alcoholism; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Naltrexone; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 29273901
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-017-0484-2 -
Paediatric Anaesthesia Dec 2017Postoperative nausea and postoperative vomiting are frequent but often missed complications after general anesthesia in pediatric patients. Because inhaled anesthetics... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and postoperative vomiting are frequent but often missed complications after general anesthesia in pediatric patients. Because inhaled anesthetics are known to trigger postoperative vomiting, total intravenous anesthesia is often administered in high-risk children to avoid the use of inhalational anesthesia. Since inhalational anesthesia might be advantageous in some situations, the question is raised whether administration of pharmacological prophylaxis offers equal protection from postoperative vomiting compared with total intravenous anesthesia alone.
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to compare total intravenous anesthesia with single-drug pharmacological prophylaxis for the protection of postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL) with meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials including patients <18 years of age undergoing general anesthesia, with one group receiving propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia and another group receiving inhalational anesthesia with single pharmacological prophylaxis. Primary outcome was the overall incidence for postoperative vomiting. Secondary outcomes included early and late postoperative vomiting, the need for postoperative antiemetic medication, time to first oral intake, duration of stay in the postanesthesia care unit, and any adverse events defined as such by the respective authors. Risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using a random effects model with inverse variance weighting.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials including 558 children were included in the final analysis. All patients underwent strabismus surgery. Total intravenous anesthesia and single pharmacological prophylaxis were equally effective in preventing overall postoperative vomiting (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.77; 1.27]; 4 trials), as well as vomiting in the early (1.48 [0.78; 2.83]; 4 trials) and late (0.89 [0.56;1.42]; 2 trials) postoperative period. There was no difference in the need for postoperative antiemetic medication. Although patients resumed drinking and eating significantly earlier following total intravenous anesthesia (MD -1.40 hours [-2.01; -0.80], P < .001), the duration of PACU stay did not differ between groups. The incidence of intraoperative oculocardiac reflex was the only reported adverse event, which was more likely to occur after total intravenous anesthesia (1.86 [1.01; 3.41]).
CONCLUSION
Single pharmacological prophylaxis appears equally effective compared with total intravenous anesthesia in preventing postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients. However, during strabismus surgery, total intravenous anesthesia increases the risk for bradycardia due to oculocardiac reflex. Thus, when anesthesia is maintained with inhalational anesthetics, its emetogenic effects can sufficiently be compensated by the addition of a single prophylactic antiemetic medication.
Topics: Adolescent; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29094418
DOI: 10.1111/pan.13268 -
PloS One 2017Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a distressing complication of surgery, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are often prescribed to prevent it. Ondansetron is the agent... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a distressing complication of surgery, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are often prescribed to prevent it. Ondansetron is the agent typically administered to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although ramosetron has a longer duration of action than ondansetron, it remains unclear whether ramosetron is the more effective medication. We performed an updated meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.
METHODS
We searched six databases for all trials that randomly assigned patients to ramosetron or ondansetron groups. The primary outcome was postoperative nausea or vomiting in the early, late, and next-day periods. The secondary outcomes were side effects of the medications. We used the random-effects model to combine the results. Trial sequential analyses were performed to correct for repetitive testing in the updated meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials with 3,811 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results of ramosetron vs. ondansetron efficacy in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting were as follows: Risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.82 [0.69-0.98] for early postoperative nausea, 0.76 [0.65-0.89] for late postoperative nausea, 0.69 [0.57-0.84] for next-day postoperative nausea, 0.78 [0.63-0.98] for early postoperative vomiting, 0.57 [0.45-0.72] for late postoperative vomiting, and 0.61 [0.43-0.86] for next-day postoperative vomiting. Dizziness was significantly lower in ramosetron groups than in ondansetron groups (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.81 [0.66-0.98]). Trial sequential analysis revealed that the results for late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea were conclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
Ramosetron is more effective in preventing late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea than ondansetron. The incidence of dizziness may be lower in patients receiving ramosetron than in patients receiving ondansetron.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000022980.
Topics: Antiemetics; Benzimidazoles; Humans; Ondansetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 28977021
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 126 studies involving 9565 participants. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids)Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloidFewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.80; 2105 women; 28 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women;very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.79, 6 studies, 509 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13, 15 studies, 1154 women, I² = 37%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 11 studies, 826 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrineThere were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus controlOndansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus controlLower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42 , 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lyingThere was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence).Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections.External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.
PubMed: 28976555
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002251.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28715610
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004125.pub3 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Sep 2018While nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy are very common, affecting approximately 80% of the pregnancies, hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form affecting 0.3-1.0%... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
While nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy are very common, affecting approximately 80% of the pregnancies, hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form affecting 0.3-1.0% of the pregnancies. Although hyperemesis gravidarum is rarely a source of mortality, it is a significant source of morbidity. It is one of the most common indications for hospitalization in pregnancy. Beyond the maternal and fetal consequences of malnutrition, the severity of hyperemesis symptoms causes a major psychosocial burden leading to depression, anxiety, and even pregnancy termination. The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine all randomized controlled trials of interventions specifically for hyperemesis gravidarum and evaluate them based on both subjective and objective measures of efficacy, maternal and fetal/neonatal safety, and economic costs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Randomized controlled trials were identified by searching electronic databases. We included all randomized controlled trials for the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. The primary outcome was intervention efficacy as defined by severity, reduction, or cessation in nausea/vomiting; number of episodes of emesis; and days of hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included other measures of intervention efficacy, adverse maternal/fetal/neonatal outcomes, quality of life measures, and economic costs.
RESULTS
Twenty-five trials (2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. Selected comparisons reported below: No primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo. There was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 0.79-2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92-2.48, respectively). Midwife-led outpatient care was associated with fewer hours of hospital admission than routine inpatient admission (mean difference (MD) - 33.20, 95% CI -46.91 to -19.49) with no difference in pregnancy-unique quantification of emesis and nausea (PUQE) score, decision to terminate the pregnancy, miscarriage, small-for-gestational age infants, or time off work when compared with routine care. Women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (MD 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08-1.52). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40-1.40) or side effects. A comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15-3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63-1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23-4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10-5.11, respectively). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects. In a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.90, respectively). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects. In a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -1.39-1.39), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00-0.94). Regarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70-0.10), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.94; 4 studies, 269 women). For hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00-1.28; one study, 40 women). In a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 h (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08-3.72), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58-1.15). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting.
CONCLUSIONS
While there were a wide range of interventions studied, both pharmaceutical and otherwise, there were a limited number of placebo controlled trials. In comparing the efficacy of the commonly used antiemetics, metoclopramide, ondansetron, and promethazine, the results of this review do not support the clear superiority of one over the other in symptomatic relief. Other factors such as side effect profile medication safety and healthcare costs should also be considered when selecting an intervention.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Antiemetics; Female; Humans; Hyperemesis Gravidarum; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Quality of Life
PubMed: 28614956
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1342805 -
Pharmacotherapy Jun 2017Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) has become more prevalent with increasing cannabis use. CHS is often resistant to standard antiemetics. The objective of this... (Review)
Review
Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) has become more prevalent with increasing cannabis use. CHS is often resistant to standard antiemetics. The objective of this study is to review the current evidence for pharmacologic treatment of CHS. Medline, PsycINFO, DARE, OpenGrey, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. Articles were selected and reviewed independently. Evidence was graded using Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. The search resulted in 1262 articles with 63 of them eligible for inclusion (205 human subjects). There were 4 prospective level-2, 3 retrospective level-3 studies, 12 level-4 case series, and 44 level-5 case reports. Among level-2 studies (64 subjects), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and lorazepam were discussed as effective long- and short-term treatments, respectively, in two studies. Ondansetron, promethazine, diphenhydramine, and opioids were also mentioned, but the authors did not comment on their efficacy. Among level-3 studies (43 subjects), one reported effective treatment with antiepileptics zonisamide and levetiracetam, but not TCAs. Another reported favorable response to morphine, ondansetron, and lorazepam but did not specify the actual number of patients receiving specific treatment. Among the level-4 case series (54 subjects), benzodiazepines, haloperidol, and capsaicin were reported as helpful. For level-5 case reports (44 subjects), benzodiazepines, metoclopramide, haloperidol, ondansetron, morphine, and capsaicin were reported as effective. Effective treatments mentioned only once included fentanyl, diazepam, promethazine, methadone, nabilone, levomepromazine, piritramide, and pantoprazole. Hot showers and baths were cited in all level-4 and -5 articles as universally effective. High-quality evidence for pharmacologic treatment of CHS is limited. Benzodiazepines, followed by haloperidol and capsaicin, were most frequently reported as effective for acute treatment, and TCAs for long-term treatment. As the prevalence of CHS increases, future prospective trials are greatly needed to evaluate and further define optimal pharmacologic treatment of patients with CHS.
Topics: Antiemetics; Benzodiazepines; Cannabinoids; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Ondansetron; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 28370228
DOI: 10.1002/phar.1931