-
PloS One 2018Methylene blue dye is easy to obtain in developing countries and can be used in sentinel lymph node mapping for breast cancer. However, the accuracy of methylene blue... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Methylene blue dye is easy to obtain in developing countries and can be used in sentinel lymph node mapping for breast cancer. However, the accuracy of methylene blue alone for sentinel lymph node mapping in breast cancer has not been well defined. In this study, we collected data to assess the feasibility and accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy mapped with methylene blue alone in patients with breast cancer.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1, 1993, to March 31, 2018. Selected studies had to have a defined group of patients with breast cancer in which MBD alone was used as the mapping technique for SNB.
RESULTS
18 studies were included in this study. The combined identification rate was 91% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88%-94%, I2 = 68.3%], and the false negative rate was 13% (95% CI: 9%-18%, I2 = 36.7%). The pooled sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy rate were 87% (95% CI: 82%-91%, I2 = 37.5%), 91% (95% CI: 87%-93%, I2 = 32.4%) and 94% (95% CI: 92%-96%, I2 = 29%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis found that mapping sentinel lymph node locations with methylene blue dye alone results in an acceptable identification rate but an excessive false negative rate according to the American Society of Breast Surgeons' recommendations. Caution is warranted when using methylene blue dye alone as the mapping method for sentinel lymph node biopsy.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Coloring Agents; Humans; Methylene Blue; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
PubMed: 30235340
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204364 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of oral fluphenazine with placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia. To evaluate any available economic studies and value outcome data.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (23 July 2013, 23 December 2014, 9 November 2016 and 28 December 2017 ) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There is no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised controlled trials comparing oral fluphenazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were global state and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For the effects of interventions, a review team inspected citations and abstracts independently, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed trials. We extracted data independently. Dichotomous data were analysed using fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow-up, but, where possible, mean differences (MD) were calculated. Economic studies were searched and reliably selected by an economic review team to provide an economic summary of available data. Where no relevant economic studies were eligible for inclusion, the economic review team valued the already-included effectiveness outcome data to provide a rudimentary economic summary.
MAIN RESULTS
From over 1200 electronic records of 415 studies identified by our initial search and this updated search, we excluded 48 potentially relevant studies and included seven trials published between 1964 and 1999 that randomised 439 (mostly adult participants). No new included trials were identified for this review update. Compared with placebo, global state outcomes of 'not improved or worsened' were not significantly different in the medium term in one small study (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 1.12 CI 0.79 to 1.58, very low quality of evidence). The risk of relapse in the long term was greater in two small studies in people receiving placebo (n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.05 to 3.31, very low quality of evidence), however with high degree of heterogeneity in the results. Only one person allocated fluphenazine was reported in the same small study to have died on long-term follow-up (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 2.38 CI 0.10 to 55.72, low quality of evidence). Short-term extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly more frequent with fluphenazine compared to placebo in two other studies for the outcomes of akathisia (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.43 CI 1.23 to 9.56, moderate quality of evidence) and rigidity (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.54 CI 1.76 to 7.14, moderate quality of evidence). For economic outcomes, we valued outcomes for relapse and presented them in additional tables.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings in this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but they provide quantification to support clinical impression. Fluphenazine's global position as an effective treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the outcome of this review. However, fluphenazine is an imperfect treatment and if accessible, other inexpensive drugs less associated with adverse effects may be an equally effective choice for people with schizophrenia.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Fluphenazine; Humans; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 29893410
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006352.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Many people with schizophrenia do not respond to an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, one treatment strategy could be to increase the antipsychotic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with schizophrenia do not respond to an initially prescribed antipsychotic drug. In such cases, one treatment strategy could be to increase the antipsychotic dose; and another strategy could be to switch to a different antipsychotic drug.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the efficacy of increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching the antipsychotic drug in the treatment of non-responsive people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (10 June 2014, 6 October 2015, and 30 March 2017). We examined references of all included studies for further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing increasing the antipsychotic dose versus switching to a different antipsychotic drug for people with schizophrenia who have not responded to their initial antipsychotic treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We include one RCT with relevant data on 29 participants in this review. The trial had a parallel design and was double-blind, but blinding procedures were not described. The trial included people who were non-responsive to fluphenazine 20 mg/day administered for 4 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to continuing treatment with fluphenazine 20 mg/day, increasing the dose to fluphenazine 80 mg/day or switching to haloperidol 20 mg/day for four additional weeks. Data were reported only for 47 out of 58 initially randomised participants. The trial was published in 1993. The fact that only one RCT with a small sample size (N = 29) was included in the analysis limits the quality of the evidence. Overall, no clear difference was found between groups in terms of the three available outcomes: global state (number of participants with clinically relevant response (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 15.99, very low quality evidence); general mental state (endpoint score, BPRS total) (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.20 to 8.20, very low quality evidence); and negative symptoms (endpoint score, SANS) (MD 3.40, 95% CI -12.56 to 19.36). No data were reported for leaving the study early, adverse effects, time in hospital, quality of life, satisfaction with care and functioning.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is extremely limited evidence and no clear conclusions can be drawn. There is an urgent need for further trials in order to determine the optimal treatment strategy for people with schizophrenia who do not respond to their initial antipsychotic treatment.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Drug Substitution; Fluphenazine; Haloperidol; Humans; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29749607
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011884.pub2 -
BMC Medicine Apr 2018Methylene blue (MB) was the first synthetic antimalarial to be discovered and was used during the late 19th and early 20th centuries against all types of malaria. MB has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Methylene blue (MB) was the first synthetic antimalarial to be discovered and was used during the late 19th and early 20th centuries against all types of malaria. MB has been shown to be effective in inhibiting Plasmodium falciparum in culture, in the mouse model and in rhesus monkeys. MB was also shown to have a potent ex vivo activity against drug-resistant isolates of P. falciparum and P. vivax. In preclinical studies, MB acted synergistically with artemisinin derivates and demonstrated a strong effect on gametocyte reduction in P. falciparum. MB has, thus, been considered a potentially useful partner drug for artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT), particularly when elimination is the final goal. The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature published until early 2017 to summarise existing knowledge on the efficacy and safety of MB in the treatment of malaria.
METHODS
This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting on the efficacy and safety of MB were systematically searched for in relevant electronic databases according to a pre-designed search strategy. The search (without language restrictions) was limited to studies of humans published until February 2017.
RESULTS
Out of 474 studies retrieved, a total of 22 articles reporting on 21 studies were eligible for analysis. The 21 included studies that reported data on 1504 malaria patients (2/3 were children). Older studies were case series and reports on MB monotherapy while recent studies were mainly controlled trials of combination regimens. MB was consistently shown to be highly effective in all endemic areas and demonstrated a strong effect on P. falciparum gametocyte reduction and synergy with ACT. MB treatment was associated with mild urogenital and gastrointestinal symptoms as well as blue coloration of urine. In G6PD-deficient African individuals, MB caused a slight but clinically non-significant haemoglobin reduction.
CONCLUSIONS
More studies are needed to define the effects of MB in P. falciparum malaria in areas outside Africa and against P. vivax malaria. Adding MB to ACT could be a valuable approach for the prevention of resistance development and for transmission reduction in control and elimination programs.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This study is registered at PROSPERO (registration number CRD42017062349 ).
Topics: Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Male; Methylene Blue
PubMed: 29690878
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1045-3 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2018To examine how pharmaceutical products that were first marketed between 1950 and 1980 were promoted to physicians through advertisements and briefly review advertising...
AIMS
To examine how pharmaceutical products that were first marketed between 1950 and 1980 were promoted to physicians through advertisements and briefly review advertising regulations and accuracy of the advertisements in the light of modern knowledge.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed advertisements promoting drugs for specific therapeutic areas, namely central nervous system disorders (anxiety and sleep disorders, depression, psychoses, and Parkinson's disease), respiratory disorders, cardiovascular disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders. We examined about 800 issues of the British Medical Journal (1950-1980) and about 150 issues of World Medicine (1965-1984).
RESULTS
Advertising material was minimally regulated until the mid-1970s. Many drugs were marketed with little preclinical or clinical knowledge and some with the expectation that prescribers would obtain further data. The peak of advertising occurred in parallel with the surge in the release of novel drugs during the 1960s, but declined markedly after the mid-1970s. Advertisements generally contained little useful prescribing information. The period we investigated saw the release of many novel pharmaceuticals in the therapeutic areas we examined, and many (or their class successors) still play important therapeutic roles, including benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants, phenothiazines, levodopa, selective and non-selective β-adrenoceptor antagonists, thiazide diuretics, β-adrenoceptor agonists, and histamine H receptor antagonists.
CONCLUSIONS
Advertising pharmaceuticals in the BMJ and World Medicine in 1950-1980 was poorly regulated and often lacked rigour. However, advertisements were gradually modified in the light of increasing clinical pharmacological knowledge, and they reflect an exciting period for the introduction of many drugs that continue to be of benefit today.
Topics: Advertising; Drug Development; Drug Discovery; Drug Industry; History, 20th Century; Humans; Marketing of Health Services; Periodicals as Topic; Pharmacology, Clinical; United Kingdom
PubMed: 29442380
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13549 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual diagnosis can have an adverse effect on treatment and prognosis of SMI.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of risperidone compared to treatment with other antipsychotics (first-generation and other second-generation antipsychotics) used in people with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance misuse.
SEARCH METHODS
On 6 January 2016 and 9 October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised trials of risperidone versus any other antipsychotic in people with SMI and substance abuse (dual diagnosis). We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. We excluded trials that either did not meet our inclusion criteria or met our inclusion criteria but did not report any useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations and selected studies. For included studies, we independently extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of evidence, creating a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight randomised trials containing a total of 1073 participants with SMI and co-occurring substance misuse. Seven of these contributed useable data to the review. There was heterogeneity in trial design and measurement. Risperidone was compared to clozapine, olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine and ziprasidone. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents. Few trials examined participants with a dual diagnosis from the outset and most trials only contained separate analyses of subgroups with a dual diagnosis or were secondary data analyses of subgroups of people with a dual diagnosis from existing larger trials.For risperidone versus clozapine we found no clear differences between these two antipsychotics in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 36, mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% CI -2.21 to 4.01, very low quality evidence), or reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 14, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.35, very low quality evidence), improvement in subjective well-being (1 RCT, n = 36, MD -6.00, 95% CI -14.82 to 2.82, very low quality evidence), numbers discontinuing medication (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 4.05, 95% CI 0.21 to 78.76, very low quality evidence), extrapyramidal side-effects (2 RCTs, n = 50, RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.30 to 24.08; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 45, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.51; I² = 34%, very low quality evidence). Clozapine was associated with lower levels of craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 28, MD 7.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 11.63, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus olanzapine we found no clear differences in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 RCT, n = 37, MD -1.50, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.82, very low quality evidence), reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 0.40, 95% CI -4.72 to 5.52, very low quality evidence), craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 5.00, 95% CI -4.86 to 14.86, very low quality evidence), parkinsonism (1 RCT, n = 16, MD -0.08, 95% CI -1.21 to 1.05, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCT, n = 77, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus perphenazine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 281, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus quetiapine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 294, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus ziprasidone, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 240, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, low-quality evidence).For many comparisons, important outcomes were missing; and no data were reported in any study for metabolic disturbances, global impression of illness severity, quality of life or mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not sufficient good-quality evidence available to determine the effects of risperidone compared with other antipsychotics in people with a dual diagnosis. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents, leading to limited applicability to settings where access to second-generation agents is limited, such as in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, heterogeneity in trial design and measurement of outcomes precluded the use of many trials in our analyses. Future trials in this area need to be sufficiently powered but also need to conform to consistent methods in study population selection, use of measurement scales, definition of outcomes, and measures to counter risk of bias. Investigators should adhere to CONSORT guidelines in the reporting of results.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clozapine; Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry); Humans; Mental Disorders; Olanzapine; Patient Dropouts; Perphenazine; Piperazines; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Substance-Related Disorders; Thiazoles
PubMed: 29355909
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011057.pub2 -
European Review For Medical and... Nov 2017Dry mouth (xerostomia), is a fairly common, well-researched condition, which is an indirect cause of oral malodour. This systematic literature review looked into another... (Review)
Review
Dry mouth (xerostomia), is a fairly common, well-researched condition, which is an indirect cause of oral malodour. This systematic literature review looked into another cause of bad breath: adverse drug reactions in the orofacial region causing halitosis. The study focused on extraoral halitosis, and its subdivisions, particularly blood borne halitosis in which malodourous compounds in the blood stream are carried to the lungs, passively diffused across the pulmonary alveolar membrane to enter the breath. An electronic search was conducted in various databases. Inclusion criteria were: editorials, case control studies, retrospective studies and randomized double-blind studies published in English between 1983 and March 2017. The search identified a total of 23 articles. According to these, drug-related halitosis may be caused by nine medications. Dimethyl sulfoxide, cysteamine and suplatast tosilate are metabolised to dimethyl sulfide, a malodourous compound that is stable in blood and is transported into the breath. Disulfiram is reduced to carbon disulfide, also a stable compound in blood. Nitric oxide reacts with foul-smelling volatile organosulfur compounds. The degradation of penicillamine raises the pH level, favouring the growth of gram-negative bacteria in the oral cavity producing halitosis. Chloral hydrate, phenothiazine, and paraldehyde could not be related to halitosis. The analysis showed that halitosis can be caused by medication but does not correlate to any specific disease or specific form of drug therapy. The pharmacological compounds identified as causes of halitosis are administered to treat a broad spectrum of diseases, or in therapeutic regimes.
Topics: Gram-Negative Bacteria; Halitosis; Humans; Hydrogen Sulfide; Penicillamine; Smell; Sulfhydryl Compounds; Sulfides
PubMed: 29164566
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We searched MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to July 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2017), Embase (1980 to July 2017), and the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (via CENTRAL) using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo for children undergoing non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with a total of 2390 children. The studies were all conducted in hospitals that provided neurodiagnostic services. Most studies assessed the proportion of sedation failure during the neurodiagnostic procedure, time for adequate sedation, and potential adverse effects associated with the sedative agent.The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed, as reflected by a wide variation in their 'Risk of bias' profiles. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 13 studies had high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in single small studies.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had lower sedation failure when compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a higher risk of sedation failure after one dose compared to those who received intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study, low-quality evidence), but after two doses there was no evidence of a significant difference between the two groups (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study, very low-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared to have more sedation failure when compared with music therapy, but the quality of evidence was very low for this outcome (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study). Sedation failure rates were similar between oral chloral hydrate, oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to achieve adequate sedation when compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), and rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study, low-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence).No data were available to assess the proportion of children with successful completion of neurodiagnostic procedure without interruption by the child awakening. Most trials did not assess adequate sedation as measured by specific validated scales, except in the comparison of chloral hydrate versus intranasal midazolam and oral promethazine.Compared to dexmedetomidine, chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 12.04 95% CI 1.58 to 91.96). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate (including behavioural change, oxygen desaturation) although there was an increased risk of adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was very variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine for children undergoing paediatric neurodiagnostic procedures. The sedation failure was similar for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. When compared with intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy, oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate. However, it must be noted that the evidence for the outcomes for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy was of very low to low quality, therefore the corresponding findings should be interpreted with caution.Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially the risk of major adverse effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Chloral Hydrate; Dexmedetomidine; Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological; Electroencephalography; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Melatonin; Midazolam; Music Therapy; Neuroimaging; Pentobarbital; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29099542
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011786.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017The efficacy of chlorpromazine, a benchmark antipsychotic, has not been fully assessed in direct comparison with different individual antipsychotics. Penfluridol is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of chlorpromazine, a benchmark antipsychotic, has not been fully assessed in direct comparison with different individual antipsychotics. Penfluridol is another old antipsychotic with a long half-life so one oral dose may last up to one week. This could confer advantage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects of chlorpromazine compared with penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
On 31 March 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia or related disorders. Outcomes of interest were death, service utilisation, global state, mental state, adverse effects and leaving the study early. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we planned to estimate the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes three studies with a total of 130 participants. Short-term results for hospital admissions showed no clear difference between chlorpromazine and penfluridol (1 RCT, n = 29, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.60, low-quality evidence). No clear difference in the incidence of akathisia was found at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 85, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.06, low-quality evidence), and similar numbers of participants - nearly half - from each treatment group left the study early (3 RCTs, n = 130, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.77, low-quality evidence). The risk of needing additional antiparkinsonian medication was less in the chlorpromazine group (2 RCTs, n = 74, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). No useable data reported clinically important change in global or mental state. No data were reported for relapse. No deaths were reported by the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Only three small studies provided data and the quality of reporting and evidence is low. Limited data indicate the efficacy and adverse effects profiles of chlorpromazine and penfluridol are generally similar. Penfluridol, however, may confer advantage by needing to be given only once per week. Firm conclusions are not possible without good-quality trials, and where these treatments are used, such trials are justified.
Topics: Adult; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Humans; Length of Stay; Penfluridol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 28940256
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011831.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Chlorpromazine; Dexamethasone; Humans; Indoles; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Neoplasms; Time Factors; Tropisetron; Vomiting
PubMed: 28671265
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012002.pub2