-
Yakugaku Zasshi : Journal of the... Feb 2001Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with morphine therapy develops in more than 60% of patients after surgery, markedly reducing patient QOL. The prophylactic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with morphine therapy develops in more than 60% of patients after surgery, markedly reducing patient QOL. The prophylactic effect of several antiemetics has already been studied, but evaluations, and even those using the same drug, are not uniform. The present research involved a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on prophylactic drug therapy for PONV in patients receiving morphine for the treatment of postoperative pain. The efficacy of the prophylactic administration of the drugs was examined. As a result, meta-analysis of five drugs was possible and the evidence of efficacy was shown for three drugs ranked in order of an increasing odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI): dexamethasone (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.15-0.35, p < 0.00001), droperidol (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.21-0.34, p < 0.00001), and metoclopramide (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.75, p < 0.001). These results suggest that the three drugs are effective in prophylactic treatment for PONV. Of them, dexamethasone used as a prophylactic drug for PONV provided the best results. Dexamethasone was shown to reduce the incidence of PONV from 66-80% to 16-50% with a dose of 1.25 to 10 mg and to be suitable as a first drug of choice.
Topics: Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Droperidol; Humans; Metoclopramide; Morphine; Ondansetron; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 11218733
DOI: 10.1248/yakushi.121.179 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000There are two reasons to believe anxiolytics might help in smoking cessation. Anxiety may be a symptom of nicotine withdrawal. Second, smoking appears to be due, in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are two reasons to believe anxiolytics might help in smoking cessation. Anxiety may be a symptom of nicotine withdrawal. Second, smoking appears to be due, in part, to deficits in dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine, all of which are increased by anxiolytics and antidepressants.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of anxiolytic drugs in aiding long term smoking cessation. The drugs include buspirone; diazepam; doxepin; meprobamate; ondansetron; and the beta-blockers metoprolol, oxprenolol and propanolol.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register which includes trials indexed in Medline, Embase, SciSearch and PsycLit, and meetings abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomized trials comparing anxiolytic drugs to placebo or an alternative therapeutic control for smoking cessation. We excluded trials with less than 6 months follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data in duplicate on the type of study population, the nature of the drug therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
There was one trial each of the anxiolytics diazepam, meprobamate, metoprolol and oxprenolol. There were two trials of the anxiolytic buspirone. None of the trials showed strong evidence of an effect for any of these drugs in helping smokers to quit. However, confidence intervals were wide, and an effect of anxiolytics cannot be ruled out on current evidence.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
There is no consistent evidence that anxiolytics aid smoking cessation, but the available evidence does not rule out a possible effect.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Humans; Smoking; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 11034774
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002849 -
Health Technology Assessment... 1998Day-case surgery is of great value to patients and the health service. It enables many more patients to be treated properly, and faster than before. Newer, less... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Day-case surgery is of great value to patients and the health service. It enables many more patients to be treated properly, and faster than before. Newer, less invasive, operative techniques will allow many more procedures to be carried out. There are many elements to successful day-case surgery. Two key components are the effectiveness of the control of pain after the operation, and the effectiveness of measures to minimise postoperative nausea and vomiting.
OBJECTIVES
To enable those caring for patients undergoing day-case surgery to make the best choices for their patients and the health service, this review sought the highest quality evidence on: (1) the effectiveness of the control of pain after an operation; (2) the effectiveness of measures to minimise postoperative nausea and vomiting.
METHODS
Full details of the search strategy are presented in the report. RESULTS - ANALGESIA: The systematic reviews of the literature explored whether different interventions work and, if they do work, how well they work. A number of conclusions can be drawn. RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INEFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS: There is good evidence that some interventions are ineffective. They include: (1) transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in acute postoperative pain; (2) the use of local injections of opioids at sites other than the knee joint; (3) the use of dihydrocodeine, 30 mg, in acute postoperative pain (it is no better than placebo). RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INTERVENTIONS OF DOUBTFUL VALUE: Some interventions may be effective but the size of the effect or the complication of undertaking them confers no measurable benefit over conventional methods. Such interventions include: (1) injecting morphine into the knee joint after surgery: there is a small analgesic benefit which may last for up to 24 hours but there is no clear evidence that the size of the benefit is of any clinical value; (2) manoeuvres to try and anticipate pain by using pre-emptive analgesia; these are no more effective than standard methods; (3) administering non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by injection or per rectum in patients who can swallow; this appears to be no more effective than giving NSAIDs by mouth and, indeed, may do more harm than good; (4) administering codeine in single doses; this has poor analgesic efficacy. RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INTERVENTIONS OF PROVEN VALUE: These include a number of oral analgesics including (at standard doses): (1) dextropropoxyphene; (2) tramadol; (3) paracetamol; (4) ibuprofen; (5) diclofenac. Diclofenac and ibuprofen at standard doses give analgesia equivalent to that obtained with 10 mg of intramuscular morphine. Each will provide at least 50% pain relief from a single oral dose in patients with moderate or severe postoperative pain. Paracetamol and codeine combinations also appear to be highly effective, although there is little information on the standard doses used in the UK. The relative effectiveness of these analgesics is compared in an effectiveness 'ladder' which can inform prescribers making choices for individual patients, or planning day-case surgery. Dose-response relationships show that higher doses of ibuprofen may be particularly effective. Topical NSAIDs (applied to the skin) are effective in minor injuries and chronic pain but there is no obvious role for them in day-case surgery. RESULTS-POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA AND VOMITING: The proportion of patients who may feel nauseated or vomit after surgery is very variable, despite similar operations and anaesthetic techniques. Systematic review can still lead to clear estimations of effectiveness of interventions. Whichever anti-emetic is used, the choice is often between prophylactic use (trying to prevent anyone vomiting) and treating those people who do feel nauseated or who may vomit. Systematic reviews of a number of different anti-emetics show clearly that none of the anti-emetics is sufficiently effective to be used for prophylaxis. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATE
Topics: Acetaminophen; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antiemetics; Codeine; Dextropropoxyphene; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Morphine; Ondansetron; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reproducibility of Results; Tramadol; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 10103349
DOI: No ID Found -
Anesthesiology Dec 1997The authors reviewed efficacy and safety data for ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy, dose-response, and safety of ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
The authors reviewed efficacy and safety data for ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).
METHODS
Systematically searched, randomized, controlled trials (obtained through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, manufacturer's database, manual searching of journals, and article reference lists) were analyzed. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (within 6 h after surgery) and late PONV (within 48 h) and adverse effects. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat were calculated. The number-needed-to-treat indicated how many patients had to be exposed to ondansetron to prevent PONV in one of them who would have vomited or been nauseated had he or she received placebo.
RESULTS
Fifty-three trials were found that had data from 7,177 patients receiving 24 different ondansetron regimens and from 5,712 controls receiving placebo or no treatment. Average early and late PONV incidences without ondansetron were 40% and 60%, respectively. There was a dose response for oral and intravenous ondansetron. Best number-needed-to-treat to prevent PONV with the best documented regimens was between 5 and 6. This was achieved with an intravenous dose of 8 mg and an oral dose of 16 mg. Antivomiting efficacy was consistently better than antinausea efficacy. Efficacy in children was poorly documented. Ondansetron significantly increased the risk for elevated liver enzymes (number-needed-to-harm was 31) and headache (number-needed-to-harm was 36).
CONCLUSIONS
If the risk of PONV is very high, for every 100 patients receiving an adequate dose of ondansetron 20 patients will not vomit who would have vomited had they received placebo. The antinausea effect is less pronounced. Of these 100, three will have elevated liver enzymes and three will have a headache who would not have had these adverse effects without the drug.
Topics: Antiemetics; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Headache; Humans; Liver; Nausea; Ondansetron; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 9416710
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199712000-00004 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 1997To test the evidence for a dose-response with ondansetron for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting and to establish whether differences in efficacy between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To test the evidence for a dose-response with ondansetron for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting and to establish whether differences in efficacy between doses are of clinical relevance.
DESIGN
Quantitative systematic review of published randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Seven trials from 1991 to January 1996 retrieved from a systematic literature search (Medline, reference lists, hand searching of anaesthetic journals, manufacturer's database); no restriction on language.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Estimation of efficacy (incidence of complete control of further nausea and vomiting) by using odds ratios and the "number needed to treat" method for early (within 6 hours of administration) and late (within 24 hours) periods.
RESULTS
Four placebo controlled trials with 1043 patients studied intravenous ondansetron 1 mg, 4 mg, or 8 mg. All doses were more efficacious than placebo in preventing further episodes of nausea or vomiting. For combined data, the point estimates for the number needed to treat were between 3.1 (8 mg) and 3.8 (1 mg) for early efficacy and between 4.1 (8 mg) and 4.8 (1 mg) for late efficacy, without significant differences between doses. No difference was found between ondansetron and droperidol in two trials with 129 patients or between ondansetron and metoclopramide in one trial with 80 patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Further nausea and vomiting could be prevented with ondansetron compared with placebo in 25% of patients who had nausea or vomiting (number needed to treat, about 4). There was no evidence of a clinically relevant dose-response between 1 mg and 8 mg or a difference between ondansetron and either droperidol or metoclopramide in a limited dataset. A false impression of ondansetron's efficacy may arise because a quarter of all relevant published reports are duplicates, and reporting of study results is uncritical.
Topics: Antiemetics; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Nausea; Ondansetron; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 9133892
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7087.1088