-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.
Topics: Adolescent; Albuterol; Antitussive Agents; Apitherapy; Bromelains; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cough; Dextromethorphan; Diphenhydramine; Honey; Humans; Infant; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29633783
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed to relieve these symptoms. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2009, of Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with the use of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we performed updated searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE in November 2013 and in November 2014. We searched controlled trials registers in March 2015 to identify any ongoing or unpublished trials. We imposed no language restrictions. For the original review, we performed database searching in August 2007, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. Handsearching complemented the electronic searches (using reference lists of included studies, relevant chapters and review articles) for the original review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in any setting, for inclusion. The studies had to be conducted with adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. We excluded studies where nausea or vomiting, or both, were thought to be secondary to pregnancy or surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We imported records from each of the electronic databases into a bibliographic package and merged them into a core database where we inspected titles, keywords and abstracts for relevance. If it was not possible to accept or reject an abstract with certainty, we obtained the full text of the article for further evaluation. The two review authors independently assessed studies in accordance with the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in opinion between the authors with regard to the assessment of studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We considered 27 studies from the 2007 search. In this update we considered a further 38 studies from the 2013 search, and two in the 2014 search. We identified one RCT of moderate quality with low risk of bias overall which met the inclusion criteria for this update, comparing ABH (Ativan®, Benadryl®, Haldol®) gel, applied to the wrist, with placebo for the relief of nausea in 22 participants. ABH gel includes haloperidol as well as diphenhydramine and lorazepam. The gel was not significantly better than placebo in this small study; however haloperidol is reported not to be absorbed significantly when applied topically, therefore the trial does not address the issue of whether haloperidol is effective or well-tolerated when administered by other routes (e.g. by mouth, subcutaneously or intravenously). We identified one ongoing trial of haloperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer, with initial results published in a conference abstract suggesting that haloperidol is effective for 65% of patients. The trial had not been fully published at the time of our review. A further trial has opened, comparing oral haloperidol with oral methotrimeprazine (levomepromazine) for patients with cancer and nausea unrelated to their treatment, which we aim to include in the next review update.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion but the conclusion remains unchanged. There is incomplete evidence from published RCTs to determine the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Other than the trial of ABH gel vs placebo, we did not identify any fully published RCTs exploring the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients for this update, but two trials are underway.
Topics: Antiemetics; Diphenhydramine; Gels; Haloperidol; Humans; Lorazepam; Nausea; Palliative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 26524474
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006271.pub3 -
The Primary Care Companion For CNS... 2015To investigate the level of evidence supporting the use of common over-the-counter (OTC) agents (diphenhydramine, doxylamine, melatonin, and valerian) for occasional...
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the level of evidence supporting the use of common over-the-counter (OTC) agents (diphenhydramine, doxylamine, melatonin, and valerian) for occasional disturbed sleep or insomnia.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review of the literature was conducted on July 31, 2014, using MEDLINE (PubMed) and the search terms (insomnia OR sleep) AND (over*the*counter OR OTC OR non*prescription OR antihistamine OR doxylamine OR diphenhydramine OR melatonin OR valerian) with the filters English, human, and clinical trials.
STUDY SELECTION
Identified publications (from 2003 to July 31, 2014, following previous published literature reviews) that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The criteria included randomized placebo-controlled clinical studies that utilized overnight objective (polysomnography) or next-day participant-reported sleep-related endpoints and that were conducted in healthy participants with or without occasional disturbed sleep or diagnosed insomnia.
RESULTS
Measures of efficacy and tolerability were summarized for each study individually and grouped according to OTC agent: H1 antagonists or antihistamines (3 studies, diphenhydramine), melatonin (8), and valerian or valerian/hops (7). Of the 3 sleep agents, studies conducted with melatonin, especially prolonged-release formulations in older individuals with diagnosed insomnia, demonstrated the most consistent beneficial effects (vs placebo) on sleep measures, specifically sleep onset and sleep quality, with favorable tolerability. In contrast, the clinical trial data for diphenhydramine, immediate-release melatonin, and valerian suggested limited beneficial effects.
CONCLUSIONS
A review of randomized controlled studies over the past 12 years suggests commonly used OTC sleep-aid agents, especially diphenhydamine and valerian, lack robust clinical evidence supporting efficacy and safety.
PubMed: 27057416
DOI: 10.4088/PCC.15r01798 -
American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease... Nov 2014The objective of this review is to summarize the available data on the use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review is to summarize the available data on the use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic search of 5 major databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane Collaboration, yielded a total of 5 RCTs. One study compared diazepam to thioridazine, 1 trial compared oxazepam to haloperidol and diphenhydramine, 1 trial compared alprazolam to lorazepam, 1 trial compared lorazepam to haloperidol, and 1 trial compared intramuscular (IM) lorazepam to IM olanzapine and placebo. The data indicates that in 4 of the 5 studies, there was no significant difference in efficacy between the active drugs to treat the symptoms of BPSD. One study indicated that thioridazine may have better efficacy than diazepam for treating symptoms of BPSD. In 1 study, the active drugs had greater efficacy in treating BPSD when compared to placebo. There was no significant difference between the active drugs in terms of tolerability. However, in 2 of the 5 studies, about a third of the patients were noted to have dropped out of the studies. Available data, although limited, do not support the routine use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of BPSD. But these drugs may be used in certain circumstances where other psychotropic medications are unsafe for use in individuals with BPSD or when there are significant medication allergies or tolerability issues with certain classes of psychotropic medications.
Topics: Behavioral Symptoms; Benzodiazepines; Dementia; Humans; Neuropsychological Tests; Patient Dropouts; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25551131
DOI: 10.1177/1533317514524813 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Around 16 million cases of whooping cough (pertussis) occur worldwide each year, mostly in low-income countries. Much of the morbidity of whooping cough in children and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Around 16 million cases of whooping cough (pertussis) occur worldwide each year, mostly in low-income countries. Much of the morbidity of whooping cough in children and adults is due to the effects of the paroxysmal cough. Cough treatments proposed include corticosteroids, beta2-adrenergic agonists, pertussis-specific immunoglobulin, antihistamines and possibly leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions to reduce the severity of paroxysmal cough in whooping cough in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 1), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE 2014, Issue 2), accessed from The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1950 to 30 January 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 30 January 2014), AMED (1985 to 30 January 2014), CINAHL (1980 to 30 January 2014) and LILACS (30 January 2014). We searched Current Controlled Trials to identify trials in progress.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention (excluding antibiotics and vaccines) to suppress the cough in whooping cough.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (SB, MT) independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed the quality of each trial for this review in 2009. Two review authors (SB, KW) independently reviewed additional studies identified by the updated searches in 2012 and 2014. The primary outcome was frequency of paroxysms of coughing. Secondary outcomes were frequency of vomiting, frequency of whoop, frequency of cyanosis (turning blue), development of serious complications, mortality from any cause, side effects due to medication, admission to hospital and duration of hospital stay.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials of varying sample sizes (N = 9 to 135), mainly from high-income countries, including a total of 578 participants. Ten trials recruited children (N = 448 participants). Two trials recruited adolescents and adults (N = 130 participants). We considered only three trials to be of high methodological quality (one trial each of diphenhydramine, pertussis immunoglobulin and montelukast). Included studies did not show a statistically significant benefit for any of the interventions. Only six trials, including a total of 196 participants, reported data in sufficient detail for analysis. Diphenhydramine did not change coughing episodes; the mean difference (MD) of coughing spells per 24 hours was 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to 8.5 (N = 49 participants from one trial). One trial on pertussis immunoglobulin reported a possible mean reduction of -3.1 whoops per 24 hours (95% CI -6.2 to 0.02, N = 47 participants) but no change in hospital stay (MD -0.7 days; 95% CI -3.8 to 2.4, N = 46 participants). Dexamethasone did not show a clear decrease in length of hospital stay (MD -3.5 days; 95% CI -15.3 to 8.4, N = 11 participants from one trial) and salbutamol showed no change in coughing paroxysms per day (MD -0.2; 95% CI -4.1 to 3.7, N = 42 participants from two trials). Only one trial comparing pertussis immunoglobulin versus placebo (N = 47 participants) reported data on adverse events: 4.3% in the treatment group (rash) versus 5.3% in the placebo group (loose stools, pain and swelling at injection site).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions for the cough in whooping cough. More high-quality trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of potential antitussive treatments in patients with whooping cough.
Topics: Acetates; Adolescent; Adult; Albuterol; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bordetella pertussis; Child; Cough; Cyclopropanes; Dexamethasone; Diphenhydramine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Length of Stay; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfides; Whooping Cough
PubMed: 25243777
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003257.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2013Topiramate is an antiepileptic drug with multiple possible mechanisms of action. Antiepileptic drugs are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Topiramate is an antiepileptic drug with multiple possible mechanisms of action. Antiepileptic drugs are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage) and fibromyalgia, and many guidelines recommend them.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topiramate for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults (aged 18 years and above).
SEARCH METHODS
On 8 May 2013, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We reviewed the bibliographies of all randomised trials identified and review articles, and also searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with double-blind assessment of participant outcomes following two weeks of treatment or longer (though the emphasis of the review was on studies of eight weeks or longer) that used a placebo or active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using two tiers of evidence. The first tier used data where studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain reduction from baseline, lasted at least eight weeks, had a parallel group design, included 200 or more participants in the comparison, and reported an intention-to-treat analysis. First tier studies did not use last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) or other imputation methods for dropouts. The second tier used data that failed to meet this standard; second tier results were therefore subject to potential bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies with 1684 participants. Three parallel-group placebo comparisons were in painful diabetic neuropathy (1643 participants), and one cross-over study with diphenhydramine as an active placebo (41 participants) was in lumbar radiculopathy. Doses of topiramate were titrated up to 200 mg/day or 400 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias, as they either used LOCF imputation or were of small size.No study provided first tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. There was no convincing evidence for efficacy of topiramate at 200 to 400 mg/day over placebo.Eighty-two per cent of participants taking topiramate 200 to 400 mg/day experienced at least one adverse event, as did 71% with placebo, and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful effect (NNTH) was 8.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.9 to 35). There was no difference in serious adverse events recorded (6.6% versus 7.5%). Adverse event withdrawals with 400 mg daily were much more common with topiramate (27%) than with placebo (8%), with an NNTH of 5.4 (95% CI 4.3 to 7.1). Lack of efficacy withdrawal was less frequent with topiramate (12%) than placebo (18%). Weight loss was a common event in most studies. No deaths attributable to treatment were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topiramate is without evidence of efficacy in diabetic neuropathic pain, the only neuropathic condition in which it has been adequately tested. The data we have includes the likelihood of major bias due to LOCF imputation, where adverse event withdrawals are much higher with active treatment than placebo control. Despite the strong potential for bias, no difference in efficacy between topiramate and placebo was apparent.
Topics: Adult; Diabetic Neuropathies; Fibromyalgia; Fructose; Humans; Neuralgia; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topiramate
PubMed: 23996081
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008314.pub3 -
PloS One 2012Inappropriate medication prescription is a common cause of preventable adverse drug events among elderly persons in the primary care setting. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Inappropriate medication prescription is a common cause of preventable adverse drug events among elderly persons in the primary care setting.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review is to quantify the extent of inappropriate prescription to elderly persons in the primary care setting.
METHODS
We systematically searched Ovid-Medline and Ovid-EMBASE from 1950 and 1980 respectively to March 2012. Two independent reviewers screened and selected primary studies published in English that measured (in)appropriate medication prescription among elderly persons (>65 years) in the primary care setting. We extracted data sources, instruments for assessing medication prescription appropriateness, and the rate of inappropriate medication prescriptions. We grouped the reported individual medications according to the Anatomical Therapeutic and Chemical (ATC) classification and compared the median rate of inappropriate medication prescription and its range within each therapeutic class.
RESULTS
We included 19 studies, 14 of which used the Beers criteria as the instrument for assessing appropriateness of prescriptions. The median rate of inappropriate medication prescriptions (IMP) was 20.5% [IQR 18.1 to 25.6%.]. Medications with largest median rate of inappropriate medication prescriptions were propoxyphene 4.52 (0.10-23.30)%, doxazosin 3.96 (0.32 15.70)%, diphenhydramine 3.30 (0.02-4.40)% and amitriptiline 3.20 (0.05-20.5)% in a decreasing order of IMP rate. Available studies described unequal sets of medications and different measurement tools to estimate the overall prevalence of inappropriate prescription.
CONCLUSIONS
Approximately one in five prescriptions to elderly persons in primary care is inappropropriate despite the attention that has been directed to quality of prescription. Diphenhydramine and amitriptiline are the most common inappropriately prescribed medications with high risk adverse events while propoxyphene and doxazoxin are the most commonly prescribed medications with low risk adverse events. These medications are good candidates for being targeted for improvement e.g. by computerized clinical decision support.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Inappropriate Prescribing; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 22928004
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043617 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012Urticaria is a common skin disease characterised by itching weals or hives, which can occur almost anywhere on the body. There are a number of different subtypes and a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Urticaria is a common skin disease characterised by itching weals or hives, which can occur almost anywhere on the body. There are a number of different subtypes and a range of available treatment options. There is lack of agreement on the efficacy of H2-receptor antagonists used in the treatment of urticaria.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and effectiveness of H2-receptor antagonists in the treatment of urticaria.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 7 October 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of H2-receptor antagonists in people with a clinical diagnosis of urticaria of any duration or of any subtype. Studies including H1-antihistamines for chronic urticaria are the topic of a separate Cochrane review; thus, they were not included in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted and analysed data.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies of a relatively small size, involving 144 participants, were included in this review. A combination of ranitidine with diphenhydramine was more effective at improving the resolution of urticaria than diphenhydramine administered alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 2.36). Although there was a similar improvement in itching, weal size, and intensity, cimetidine provided no statistically significant greater overall improvement in symptoms of urticaria when compared to diphenhydramine. However, a combination of these medications was more effective than diphenhydramine alone (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.94). Adverse events were reported with several of the interventions, i.e. ranitidine and diphenhydramine, causing drowsiness and sedation, but there was no significant difference in the level of sedation from baseline with either famotidine or diphenhydramine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The very limited evidence provided by this review was based on a few old studies of a relatively small size, which we categorised as having high to unclear risk of bias. Thus, at present, the review does not allow confident decision-making about the use of H2-receptor antagonists for urticaria. Although some of these studies have reported a measure of relief of symptoms of urticaria and rather minimal clinical improvement in some of the participants, the evidence was weak and unreliable. We have emphasised the lack of precision and limitations in the reported data where appropriate in this review.
Topics: Cimetidine; Diphenhydramine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Famotidine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranitidine; Urticaria
PubMed: 22419335
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008596.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2011Up to 40% of older adults have insomnia, with difficulty getting to sleep, early waking, or feeling unrefreshed on waking. The prevalence of insomnia increases with age.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to 40% of older adults have insomnia, with difficulty getting to sleep, early waking, or feeling unrefreshed on waking. The prevalence of insomnia increases with age. Other risk factors include psychological factors, stress, daytime napping, and hyperarousal.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug treatments for insomnia in older people? What are the effects of drug treatments for insomnia in older people? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to December 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 34 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antidepressants, benzodiazepines, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), diphenhydramine, exercise programmes, timed exposure to bright light, zaleplon, zolpidem, and zopiclone.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Diphenhydramine; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Prevalence; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
PubMed: 22030082
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2010Allergic and febrile non-haemolytic transfusion reactions (NHTRs) are the two most common forms of transfusion reaction. Pretransfusion medication with anti-inflammatory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Allergic and febrile non-haemolytic transfusion reactions (NHTRs) are the two most common forms of transfusion reaction. Pretransfusion medication with anti-inflammatory drugs is used in NHTR prevention, however its efficacy and safety remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing NHTR in patients with and without a history of transfusion reactions.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The search strategy included The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2008), Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register (December 17, 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to November (week 3) 2008), EMBASE (1988 to November (week 3) 2008), LILACS (1982 to January 12, 2009), CINAHL (1982 to December 2008), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED): 1970 to December 2008). There was no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of NHTR.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently selected studies, assessed the risks of bias and extracted data. Relative risks (RR) were estimated in RCTs with parallel design (PD). Odds ratio (OR) was estimated for one RCT with crossover design (CD). No meta-analysis was attempted due to differences in the pharmacotherapy of pre-transfusion medication and methodology between the studies; a per-protocol analysis was used.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes three RCTs (two PD and one CD). The PD-RCTs employed disparate units of randomisation (UofR); patient or transfusion, while the CD-RCT applied the patient as the UofR. The PD-RCTs administered leukodepleted blood products. Both PD-RCTs compared acetaminophen plus diphenhydramine (ApD) at different regimens with placebo, while the CD-RCT contrasted hydrocortisone pharmacotherapy with diphenhydramine. Both PD-RCTs found no statistically significant difference in allergic reactions (RR 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.39, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.73) and febrile reactions (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.26). The CD-RCT found a statistically significant difference in the odds of febrile reactions (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.27). The trials did not report anaphylactic reactions, deaths related to transfusion reactions or other adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
None of the three studies found that medication prior to transfusion reduces NHTR. This applied regardless of the patient's history of NHTR and the use of leukodepleted blood products in the transfusion. However, this conclusion is based on three trials of moderate to low quality. A better-powered RCT is necessary to evaluate the role of pretransfusion medication in the prevention of NHTR. Inclusion criteria should be restricted to patients at high risk of developing NHTR, with no restriction by age, history of transfusion reactions and type of blood products (leukodepleted or not).
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diphenhydramine; Fever; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Hypersensitivity; Premedication; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transfusion Reaction
PubMed: 20556779
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007539.pub2