-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Enteral nutrition by feeding tube is a common and efficient method of providing nutritional support to prevent malnutrition in hospitalised patients who have adequate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Enteral nutrition by feeding tube is a common and efficient method of providing nutritional support to prevent malnutrition in hospitalised patients who have adequate gastrointestinal function but who are unable to eat. Gastric feeding may be associated with higher rates of food aspiration and pneumonia than post-pyloric naso-enteral tubes. Thus, enteral feeding tubes are placed directly into the small intestine rather than the stomach, and the use of metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to achieve post-pyloric placement, but its efficacy is controversial. Moreover, metoclopramide may include adverse reactions, which with high doses or prolonged use may be serious and irreversible.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of intravenous metoclopramide on post-pyloric placement of the naso-enteral tube in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10) which includes the CUGPD group's specialised register of trials, MEDLINE (1996 to 21 October 2014), EMBASE (1988 to 21 October 2014), LILACS (2005 to 21 October 2014) We did not confine our search to English language publications. Searches in all databases were updated originally in January 2005, then in November 2008 and again in October 2014. No new studies were found in 2008 or in 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials of adults needing enteral nutrition, who received intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide to aid placement of transpyloric naso-enteral feeding tubes, compared to placebo or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies, with a total of 204 participants were included and analysed. The trials compared metoclopramide with placebo (two trials) or with no intervention (two trials). Metoclopramide was investigated at doses of 10 mg (two trials) and 20 mg (two trials). There was no statistically significant difference between metoclopramide versus placebo or no intervention administered to promote tube placement (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10). Metoclopramide at doses of 10 mg (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11) and 20 mg (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.62) were equally ineffective in facilitating post-pyloric intubation when compared with placebo or no intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this review, we found only four studies that fitted our inclusion criteria. These were small, underpowered studies, in which metoclopramide was given at doses of 10 mg and 20 mg. Our analysis showed that metoclopramide did not assist post-pyloric placement of naso-enteral feeding tubes.Ideally randomised clinical trials should be performed that have a significant sample size, administering metoclopramide against control, however, given the lack of efficacy revealed by this review it is unlikely that further studies will be performed.
Topics: Antiemetics; Duodenum; Enteral Nutrition; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Jejunum; Metoclopramide; Pylorus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25564770
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003353.pub2 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2014Pre-procedural cleansing of the bowel can maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of colonoscopy. Yet, efficacy of the current gold standard colonic preparation method... (Review)
Review
Pre-procedural cleansing of the bowel can maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of colonoscopy. Yet, efficacy of the current gold standard colonic preparation method - high-volume oral administration of purgative agents 12-24 h prior to the procedure - is limited by several factors, such as patient compliance (due to poor palatability and inconvenience of the dosing regimen) and risks of complications (due to drug interactions or intolerance). Attempts to resolve these limitations have included providing adjunctive agents and methods to promote the colonic cleansing ability of the principal purgative agent, with the aim of lessening unpleasant side effects (such as bloating) and reducing the large ingested volume requirement. Several promising adjunctive agents are bisacodyl, magnesium citrate, senna, simethicone, metoclopramide, and prokinetics, and each are being investigated for their potential. This review provides an up to date summary of the reported investigations into the potencies and weaknesses of the key adjuncts currently being applied in clinic as supplements to the traditional bowel preparation agents. While the comparative analysis of these adjuncts showed that no single agent or method has yet achieved the goal of completely overcoming the limitations of the current gold standard preparation method, they at least provide endoscopists with an array of alternatives to help improve the suboptimal efficacy of the main cleansing solutions when used alone. To aid in this clinical endeavor, a subjective grade was assigned to each adjunct to indicate its practical value. In addition, the systematic review of the currently available agents and methods provides insight into the features of each that may be overcome or exploited to create novel drugs and strategies that may become adopted as effective bowel cleansing adjuncts or alternatives.
Topics: Cathartics; Colonoscopy; Humans
PubMed: 24659864
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i11.2735 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2014More than half of pregnant women suffer from nausea and vomiting, which typically begins by the fourth week and disappears by the 16th week of pregnancy. The cause of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
More than half of pregnant women suffer from nausea and vomiting, which typically begins by the fourth week and disappears by the 16th week of pregnancy. The cause of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy is unknown, but may be due to the rise in human chorionic gonadotrophin concentration. In 1 in 200 women, the condition progresses to hyperemesis gravidarum, which is characterised by prolonged and severe nausea and vomiting, dehydration, and weight loss.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatment for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy? What are the effects of treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2013 (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 32 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: acupressure; acupuncture; corticosteroids; ginger; metoclopramide; ondansetron; prochlorperazine; promethazine; and pyridoxine (vitamin B6).
Topics: Acupressure; Acupuncture Therapy; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antiemetics; Female; Zingiber officinale; Humans; Nausea; Pregnancy; Pyridoxine; Vomiting
PubMed: 24646807
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2014Aspiration pneumonitis is a syndrome resulting from the inhalation of gastric contents. The incidence in obstetric anaesthesia has fallen, largely due to improved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Aspiration pneumonitis is a syndrome resulting from the inhalation of gastric contents. The incidence in obstetric anaesthesia has fallen, largely due to improved anaesthetic techniques and the increased use of regional anaesthesia at caesarean section. However, aspiration pneumonitis is still a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and it is important to use effective prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether interventions given prior to caesarean section reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonitis in women with an uncomplicated pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials were included. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect. If substantial clinical or statistical heterogeneity was detected, we used random-effects analysis to produce an overall summary.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were included in this review. However, only 22 studies, involving 2658 women, provided data for analysis. All the women in the included studies had a caesarean section under general anaesthesia. The studies covered a number of comparisons, but were mostly small and of unclear or poor quality.When compared with no treatment or placebo, there was a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 with antacids (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.32, two studies, 108 women), H2 antagonists (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, two studies, 170 women) and proton pump antagonists (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, one study 80 women). H2 antagonists were associated with a reduced the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with proton pump antagonists (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.97, one study, 120 women), but compared with antacids the findings were unclear. The combined use of 'antacids plus H2 antagonists' was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with placebo (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, one study, 89 women) or compared with antacids alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.92, one study, 119 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of the evidence was poor, but the findings suggest that the combination of antacids plus H2 antagonists was more effective than no intervention, and superior to antacids alone in preventing low gastric pH. However, none of the studies assessed potential adverse effects or substantive clinical outcomes. These findings are relevant for all women undergoing caesarean section under general anaesthesia.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Antacids; Antiemetics; Cesarean Section; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Metoclopramide; Pneumonia, Aspiration; Pregnancy; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24497372
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004943.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2013This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2010 (Kirthi 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2010 (Kirthi 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 10 March 2010 for the original review and to 31 January 2013 for the update.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-controlled studies, or both, using aspirin to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
No new studies were found for this update. Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.Additional metoclopramide significantly reduced nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antiemetics; Aspirin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Photophobia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sumatriptan; Vomiting
PubMed: 23633350
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008041.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2013This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 11, 2010 (Derry 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 11, 2010 (Derry 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting, which are commonly associated with migraine.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol (acetaminophen), alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 4 October 2010 for the original review, and to 13 February 2013 for the update. Two clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com) were also searched on both occasions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered paracetamol to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared with placebo or other active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Searches for the update identified one additional study for inclusion. Eleven studies (2942 participants, 5109 attacks) compared paracetamol 1000 mg, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes paracetamol was superior to placebo, with NNTs of 12 (19% response with paracetamol, 10% with placebo), 5.0 (56% response with paracetamol, 36% with placebo) and 5.2 (39% response with paracetamol, 20% with placebo) for 2-hour pain-free and 2- and 1-hour headache relief, respectively, when medication was taken for moderate to severe pain.Paracetamol 1000 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg was not significantly different from oral sumatriptan 100 mg for 2-hour headache relief; there were no 2-hour pain-free data.Adverse event rates were similar between paracetamol and placebo, and between paracetamol plus metoclopramide and sumatriptan. No serious adverse events occurred with paracetamol alone, but more serious and/or severe adverse events occurred with sumatriptan than with the combination therapy (NNH 32).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Paracetamol 1000 mg alone is statistically superior to placebo in the treatment of acute migraine, but the NNT of 12 for pain-free response at two hours is inferior to at of other commonly used analgesics. Given the low cost and wide availability of paracetamol, it may be a useful first choice drug for acute migraine in those with contraindications to, or who cannot tolerate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or aspirin. The addition of 10 mg metoclopramide gives short-term efficacy equivalent to oral sumatriptan 100 mg. Adverse events with paracetamol did not differ from placebo; serious and/or severe adverse events were slightly more common with sumatriptan than with paracetamol plus metoclopramide.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hyperacusis; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Photophobia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sumatriptan
PubMed: 23633349
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008040.pub3 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2012Previous evidence suggested that 10 mg systemic metoclopramide is not effective to prevent postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) in patients receiving general... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Previous evidence suggested that 10 mg systemic metoclopramide is not effective to prevent postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) in patients receiving general anaesthesia. However, the evidence included data with questioned validity by the author Yoshitaka Fujii. The objective of the current study was to examine the effect of a systemic dose of 10 mg metoclopramide to prevent PONV. This quantitative systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A wide search was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that evaluated systemic 10 mg metoclopramide as a prophylactic agent to reduce PONV. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Thirty trials evaluating the effect of 10 mg systemic metoclopramide in 3328 subjects on PONV outcomes were included. Metoclopramide reduced the incidence of 24 h PONV compared with control, odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 0.58 (0.43-0.78), number needed to treat (NNT)=7.8. When evaluated as separate outcomes, metoclopramide also decreased the incidence of nausea over 24 h, OR (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.38-0.68), NNT=7.1, and vomiting over 24 h, OR (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.40-0.66), NNT=8.3. A post hoc analysis examining three studies with questioned validity performed by the author Yoshitaka Fujii that would meet criteria for inclusion in the current study did not demonstrate a significant benefit of metoclopramide compared with control on the incidence of 24 h PONV. Our findings suggest that metoclopramide 10 mg i.v. is effective to prevent PONV in patients having surgical procedures under general anaesthesia. Metoclopramide seems to be a reasonable agent to prevent PONV.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Metoclopramide; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23015617
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aes325 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2012Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and can also occur in the period... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and can also occur in the period following the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 February 2012) and reference lists of identified studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria but only 41 studies, involving 5046 women, provided useable data for the review involving women having caesareans under regional anaesthesia. The majority of the studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Only two studies included emergency surgery, however, they did not stratify data according to type of surgery. The studies covered numerous comparisons, but the majority of studies involved 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, corticosteroids or acupressure. Studies were mainly small and of unclear quality.Three classes of intervention were found to be effective in at least three out of four of our primary outcomes (intraoperative nausea, intraoperative vomiting, postoperative nausea and postoperative vomiting). These interventions were 5-HT(3) antagonists, dopamine antagonists and sedatives. Other classes of intervention were effective for fewer than three of our primary outcomes.With 5-HT antagonists, we found a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.88, eight studies, 720 women). There were also reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, four studies, 405 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.77, five studies, 565 women). We did not detect a significant reduction in intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.00, seven studies, 668 women).Dopamine antagonists demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.57, nine studies, 636 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64, eight studies, 536 women), with similar reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91, five studies, 412 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.91, six studies, 472 women). These differences were observed with both metoclopramide and droperidol.Sedatives (most commonly propofol) demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, four studies, 285 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, four studies, 285 women), also with a reduction in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, two studies 145 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, two studies, 145 women).Acupressure was found to be effective for intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.90, six studies, 649 women) but not postoperative nausea (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00, three studies, 429 women). Acupressure was not effective at reducing vomiting either intraoperatively (average RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.18, six studies, 649 women) or postoperatively (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.06, three studies, 429 women).Other effective intervention classes included corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics.There were insufficient data to demonstrate any class of intervention was superior to another. There were no significant differences observed in the comparison of combined versus single interventions.Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes or the incidence of adverse effects. However, one study showed an increase in respiratory depression with sedation (midazolam) compared with dopamine antagonists.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review indicates that many different interventions have efficacy in preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. There is little evidence that combinations of treatment are better than single agents.
Topics: Acupressure; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anesthesia, Conduction; Cesarean Section; Dopamine Antagonists; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intraoperative Complications; Nausea; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting
PubMed: 22972112
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007579.pub2 -
BMJ Open 2012To assess the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of antiemetics on gastroenteritis-induced vomiting in children and adolescents.
Antiemetic treatment for acute gastroenteritis in children: an updated Cochrane systematic review with meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison in a Bayesian framework.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of antiemetics on gastroenteritis-induced vomiting in children and adolescents.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE searched from 1980 to March 2012.
METHODS
Methods included comprehensive searches, data synthesis, meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparisons (MTC).
REVIEW METHODS
Reference lists were checked, and missing or inconsistent data were sought from trial investigators. Randomised controlled trials comparing antiemetics in participants younger than 18 years and who were vomiting due to acute gastroenteritis. Four meta-analyses and three MTC were carried out.
RESULTS
10 trials (1479 participants) and five treatments were included: dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, granisetron, metoclopramide and ondansetron. There was clear evidence that ondansetron (oral or intravenous) compared with placebo increased the proportion of patients with cessation of vomiting (orally administered) (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.61), reduced the immediate hospital admission rate (orally administered) (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83) and the need for intravenous rehydration therapy (orally administered) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.59). No significant difference was noted in the revisit rates, but ondansetron was associated with an increase in episodes of diarrhoea. There was no evidence for the use of dexamethasone or metoclopramide and limited evidence that dimenhydrinate or granisetron increased the cessation of vomiting. The MTC analysis suggested that ondansetron was the most likely treatment to stop the child vomiting. Nine studies were carried out in secondary care and one in primary care.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review used a method novel to this clinical area and found clear evidence that ondansetron was the most likely treatment to allow oral rehydration therapy to commence. Given the significance of these results, the authors urge healthcare policy makers to consider the wider use of ondansetron in secondary care. Furthermore, randomised controlled trials are needed to investigate the effectiveness of antiemetic treatment in primary care (including ambulatory care interventions).
PubMed: 22815462
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000622 -
Anaesthesia Oct 2012The population sampling in randomised controlled trials by Fujii et al. have been shown to exhibit unusual distributions. This systematic review analysed the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The population sampling in randomised controlled trials by Fujii et al. have been shown to exhibit unusual distributions. This systematic review analysed the effectiveness of prophylactic antiemetics in trials by Fujii et al. compared with other authors. Granisetron was more effective in trials by Fujii et al., relative risk ratios (RRR (95% CI)): nausea 0.53 (0.42-0.67), p=0.00021; vomiting 0.60 (0.50-0.73), p=0.00094. Ramosetron was also more effective in studies by Fujii et al.: vomiting 0.60 (0.39-0.91), p=0.02; nausea or vomiting 0.71 (0.56-0.91); p=0.006. In comparison with granisetron, droperidol was less effective in trials by Fujii et al. than others: nausea 2.41 (1.72-3.36), p=2.5×10(-7); vomiting 1.73 (1.26-2.38), p=6.4×10(-4). Postoperative nausea and vomiting was less likely to trigger rescue antiemesis after granisetron and metoclopramide in studies by Fujii et al., 0.40 (0.27-0.60), p=9.7×10(-6). Triggered rates of rescue were not different in studies by others for droperidol, granisetron and metoclopramide, but were less common after granisetron than droperidol and metoclopramide in studies by Fujii et al., 0.50 (0.38-0.66), p=1.7×10(-6) and 0.47 (0.34-0.64), p=2.6×10(-6), respectively. There was no synergism between antiemetics in trials by other authors. In contrast, in studies by Fujii et al., postoperative nausea and vomiting was more likely if granisetron was administered alone: nausea 4.20 (1.94-9.08), p=2.6×10(-4) ; vomiting 4.50 (2.55-7.97), p=2.3×10(-7); nausea or vomiting 5.00 (2.84-8.81), p=2.5×10(-8). Similarly, droperidol was less effective in studies by Fujii et al. if administered alone: vomiting 2.76 (1.25-6.11), p=0.01; nausea or vomiting 2.96 (1.46-6.00), p=2.7×10(-3). The conclusion is that if, as recommended, data with unusual distributions are removed from meta-analysis and articles by Fujii et al. excluded, then the antiemetic effects of granisetron and ramosetron are greatly reduced; further, there is no evidence of synergism between antiemetics and indeed, some evidence of antagonism between antiemetic agents.
Topics: Antiemetics; Benzimidazoles; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Droperidol; Drug Interactions; Drug Therapy, Combination; Granisetron; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22734848
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07232.x