-
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology &... Nov 2014Constipation is an uncomfortable and common condition that affects many, irrespective of age. Since 1500 BC and before, health care practitioners have provided... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Constipation is an uncomfortable and common condition that affects many, irrespective of age. Since 1500 BC and before, health care practitioners have provided treatments and prevention strategies to patients for chronic constipation despite the significant variation in both medical and personal perceptions of the condition.
OBJECTIVE
To review relevant research evidence from clinical studies investigating the efficacy and safety of commercially available pharmacological laxatives in Canada, with emphasis on studies adopting the Rome criteria for defining functional constipation.
SEARCH METHODS
PubMed, Medline, Embase and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases were searched for blinded or randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of nonstimulant and stimulant laxatives for the treatment of functional constipation.
RESULTS
A total of 19 clinical studies and four meta-analyses were retrieved and abstracted regarding study design, participants, interventions and outcomes. The majority of studies focused on polyethylene glycol compared with placebo. Both nonstimulant and stimulant laxatives provided better relief of constipation symptoms than placebo according to both objective and subjective measures. Only one study compared the efficacy of a nonstimulant versus a stimulant laxative, while only two reported changes in quality of life. All studies reported minor side effects due to laxative use, regardless of treatment duration, which ranged from one week to one year. Laxatives were well tolerated by both adults and children.
Topics: Bisacodyl; Canada; Citrates; Constipation; Dioctyl Sulfosuccinic Acid; Humans; Lactulose; Laxatives; Magnesium Oxide; Organometallic Compounds; Paraffin; Picolines; Polyethylene Glycols; Psyllium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25390617
DOI: 10.1155/2014/631740 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2012Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment. Amongst antidepressants many different agents are available. Duloxetine hydrochloride is a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine and has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in the US for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of duloxetine in comparison with all other antidepressant agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.
SEARCH METHODS
MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 2012), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2012. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical company marketing duloxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to duloxetine versus any other antidepressive agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (overall 5735 participants) were included in this systematic review. Of these, three trials were unpublished. We found 11 studies (overall 3304 participants) comparing duloxetine with one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (six studies versus paroxetine, three studies versus escitalopram and two versus fluoxetine), four studies (overall 1978 participants) comparing duloxetine with a newer antidepressants (three with venlafaxine and one with desvenlafaxine, respectively) and one study (overall 453 participants) comparing duloxetine with an antipsychotic drug which is also used as an antidepressive agent, quetiapine. No studies were found comparing duloxetine with tricyclic antidepressants. The pooled confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy when comparing duloxetine with other antidepressants. However, when compared with escitalopram or venlafaxine, there was a higher rate of drop out due to any cause in the patients randomised to duloxetine (odds ratio (OR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.62 and OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15, respectively). There was also some weak evidence suggesting that patients taking duloxetine experienced more adverse events than paroxetine (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.55).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Duloxetine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. No differences in terms of efficacy were found, even though duloxetine was worse than some SSRIs (most of all, escitalopram) and newer antidepressants (like venlafaxine) in terms of acceptability and tolerability. Unfortunately, we only found evidence comparing duloxetine with a handful of other active antidepressive agents and only a few trials per comparison were found (in some cases we retrieved just one trial). This limited the power of the review to detect moderate, but clinically meaningful differences between the drugs. As many statistical tests have been used in the review, the findings from this review are better thought of as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be very comforting to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Most of included studies were sponsored by the drug industry manufacturing duloxetine. As for all other new investigational compounds, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind. In the present review no trials reported economic outcomes. Given that several SSRIs and the great majority of antidepressants are now available as generic formulation (only escitalopram, desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are still on patent), more comprehensive economic estimates of antidepressant treatment effect should be considered to better inform healthcare policy.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Citalopram; Cyclohexanols; Depression; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Dibenzothiazepines; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fluoxetine; Humans; Paroxetine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiophenes; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 23076926
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006533.pub2 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Jun 2012Urinary incontinence (UI) in women adversely affects quality of life. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Urinary incontinence (UI) in women adversely affects quality of life.
PURPOSE
To conduct a systematic literature review of drugs for urgency UI in women.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCIRUS, and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from 1966 to November 2011.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English.
DATA EXTRACTION
Rates of outcomes and risk of bias were extracted by using a standardized form to pool absolute risk differences and calculate the number of attributable events per 1000 patients treated, with 95% CIs.
DATA SYNTHESIS
94 RCTs were eligible. Pooled analyses showed that among drugs for urgency UI, per 1000 treated women, continence was restored in 130 with fesoterodine (CI, 58 to 202), 85 with tolterodine (CI, 40 to 129), 114 with oxybutynin (CI, 64 to 163), 107 with solifenacin (CI, 58 to 156), and 114 with trospium (CI, 83 to 144). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects were 31 per 1000 treated with fesoterodine (CI, 10 to 56), 63 with oxybutynin (CI, 12 to 127), 18 with trospium (CI, 4 to 33), and 13 with solifenacin (CI, 1 to 26). The studies' inconsistent definitions of reduction in UI and quality of life hampered synthesis of evidence.
LIMITATION
Evidence for quality-of-life improvements and comparative effectiveness with drugs was limited, and evidence for the effects of race, baseline severity of UI, and comorbid conditions on treatment success was insufficient.
CONCLUSION
Overall, drugs for urgency UI showed similar small benefit. Therapeutic choices should consider the harms profile. Evidence for long-term adherence and safety of treatments is lacking.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Benzilates; Benzofurans; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Cresols; Female; Humans; Mandelic Acids; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nortropanes; Phenylpropanolamine; Pyrrolidines; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Solifenacin Succinate; Tetrahydroisoquinolines; Tolterodine Tartrate; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 22711079
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00436 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2012Acute spinal cord injury is a devastating condition typically affecting young people, mostly males. Steroid treatment in the early hours after the injury is aimed at... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute spinal cord injury is a devastating condition typically affecting young people, mostly males. Steroid treatment in the early hours after the injury is aimed at reducing the extent of permanent paralysis during the rest of the patient's life.
OBJECTIVES
To review randomized trials of steroids for human acute spinal cord injury.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (searched 02 Aug 2011), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2011, issue 3 (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid) 1948 to July Week 3 2011, EMBASE (Ovid) 1974 to 2011 week 17, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) 1970 to Aug 2011, ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) 1990 to Aug 2011 and PubMed [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/] (searched 04 Aug 2011) for records added to PubMed in the last 90 days). Files of the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (NASCIS) were reviewed (NASCIS was founded in 1977 and has tracked trials in this area since that date). We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and previously published reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized controlled trials of steroid treatment for acute spinal cord injury in any language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One review author extracted data from trial reports. Japanese and French studies were found through NASCIS and additional data (e.g. SDs) were obtained from the original study authors.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight trials are included in this review, seven used methylprednisolone. Methylprednisolone sodium succinate has been shown to improve neurologic outcome up to one year post-injury if administered within eight hours of injury and in a dose regimen of: bolus 30mg/kg over 15 minutes, with maintenance infusion of 5.4 mg/kg per hour infused for 23 hours. The initial North American trial results were replicated in a Japanese trial but not in the one from France. Data was obtained from the latter studies to permit appropriate meta-analysis of all three trials. This indicated significant recovery in motor function after methylprednisolone therapy, when administration commenced within eight hours of injury. A more recent trial indicates that, if methylprednisolone therapy is given for an additional 24 hours (a total of 48 hours), additional improvement in motor neurologic function and functional status are observed. This is particularly observed if treatment cannot be started until between three to eight hours after injury. The same methylprednisolone therapy has been found effective in whiplash injuries. A modified regimen was found to improve recovery after surgery for lumbar disc disease. The risk of bias was low in the largest methyprednisolne trials. Overall, there was no evidence of significantly increased complications or mortality from the 23 or 48 hour therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-dose methylprednisolone steroid therapy is the only pharmacologic therapy shown to have efficacy in a phase three randomized trial when administered within eight hours of injury. One trial indicates additional benefit by extending the maintenance dose from 24 to 48 hours, if start of treatment must be delayed to between three and eight hours after injury. There is an urgent need for more randomized trials of pharmacologic therapy for acute spinal cord injury.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Neuroprotective Agents; Nimodipine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Cord Injuries
PubMed: 22258943
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001046.pub2 -
Primary Care Companion To the Journal... 2010Desvenlafaxine is the third serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for major depressive disorder (MDD). This...
OBJECTIVE
Desvenlafaxine is the third serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for major depressive disorder (MDD). This article summarizes data on the clinical pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and tolerability of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for MDD with a focus on the 50-mg/d therapeutic dose. Additionally, the article discusses clinical practice considerations and future directions in desvenlafaxine research.
DATA SOURCES
Data relating to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d were identified through searches of MEDLINE and publication databases of Pfizer for articles in English published before January 2009. Keywords were desvenlafaxine, O-desmethylvenlafaxine, ODV, and 50 mg.
STUDY SELECTION
Three randomized, placebo- and/or active comparator-controlled, 8-week clinical trials reported the efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for the treatment of MDD. The third of these studies included a post hoc pooled analysis of data from all 3 of these trials. In addition, the search retrieved an article examining pooled data from 9 trials, including 50-mg data from 2 of the 3 retrieved trials.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Desvenlafaxine is the major active metabolite of the SNRI venlafaxine. Significant improvements compared with placebo were observed on the primary efficacy measure (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score) and most secondary measures in 2 of 3 clinical trials. An integrated analysis of registration data from 9 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week studies of desvenlafaxine (50 to 400 mg/d) for MDD demonstrated no evidence of greater efficacy with doses higher than 50 mg/d. Safety results indicate that desvenlafaxine treatment is generally safe and well tolerated; findings were consistent with those for the SNRI class. The 50-mg/d dose of desvenlafaxine was associated with low rates of discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events, which were similar to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d has demonstrated efficacy, safety, and tolerability for the treatment of MDD in placebo-controlled trials. A long-term study is underway to further explore desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for MDD.
PubMed: 20944767
DOI: 10.4088/PCC.09r00845blu -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2010Constipation is reported in 52% of people with advanced malignancy. This figure rises to 87% in people who are terminally ill and taking opioids. Constipation may be the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Constipation is reported in 52% of people with advanced malignancy. This figure rises to 87% in people who are terminally ill and taking opioids. Constipation may be the most common adverse effect of opioids. There is no reason to believe that people with chronic non-malignant disease who take opioids will be any less troubled by this adverse effect.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of: oral laxatives, rectally applied medications, and opioid antagonists for constipation in people prescribed opioids? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2009 (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 23 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: arachis oil enemas, bisacodyl, co-danthrusate/co-danthramer, docusate, glycerol suppositories, ispaghula husk, lactulose, liquid paraffin, macrogols plus electrolyte solutions, magnesium salts, methylcellulose, opioid antagonists, phosphate enemas, senna, sodium citrate micro-enema, and sodium picosulfate.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Dioctyl Sulfosuccinic Acid; Humans; Lactulose; Laxatives
PubMed: 21718572
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2010Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 10% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation by still... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 10% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation by still poorly defined mechanisms. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and body in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 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 12 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: bifonazole, emollients, ketoconazole, lithium succinate, selenium sulphide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical corticosteroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furoate).
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Betamethasone Valerate; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Emollients; Hair Preparations; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Severity of Illness Index; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 21418692
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2007Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 1-3% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 1-3% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation involving T cells and complement. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and body in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to February 2006 (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 nine 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: bifonazole, emollients, ketoconazole, lithium succinate, selenium sulphide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical steroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furate).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Face; Humans; Ketoconazole; Lithium; Malassezia; Remission Induction; Scalp Dermatoses
PubMed: 19454093
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Feb 2000The effectiveness of docusate for constipation has not been studied in the terminally ill. Controversy also exists concerning its effectiveness in the chronically ill.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effectiveness of docusate for constipation has not been studied in the terminally ill. Controversy also exists concerning its effectiveness in the chronically ill. Because chronically ill patients and terminally ill patients have several risk factors for constipation in common, we undertook a systematic review of prospective controlled trials of oral docusate in the chronically ill to clarify the utility of this drug in populations with advanced disease. The data sources were Medline 1966-April 1997, CINAHL 1982-April 1997, Current Contents August 1996-April 1997, Cochrane Library, a hand search of Index Medicus 1940-1966, three palliative care journals, references in relevant articles and texts, and direct contact with experts. Prospective controlled trials evaluating oral docusate in humans with chronic illness and identifiable risk factors for, or preexisting, constipation were selected. Only materials abstracted in English or French were considered. Information was collected by two independent reviewers and included patient demographic data, study design, dose of docusate, outcomes of stool consistency, stool frequency, need for other laxatives, and assessment of methodologic and reporting quality. Of nine identified studies, four were eligible. These incorporated three different designs and sample sizes that ranged from 15 to 74. Quality assessment scores were low (range 0.46-0.52 with a perfect score being 1.0). Three studies were flawed in blinding of treatment allocation and the use of co-interventions. All studies showed a small trend toward increased stool frequency on docusate. Because of significant clinical heterogeneity in the identified studies, pooled data analysis was not feasible. At present, the use of docusate for constipation in palliative care is based on inadequate experimental evidence. Randomized controlled trials with chronically ill patients and patients with advanced disease are needed to determine its role in prevention and treatment of constipation.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Chronic Disease; Constipation; Dioctyl Sulfosuccinic Acid; Humans; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Surface-Active Agents
PubMed: 10699540
DOI: 10.1016/s0885-3924(99)00157-8