-
Obstetrics and Gynecology International 2012Background. There is a controversy within the medical community regarding the role of domperidone as a galactagogue and the drug has been removed from the US market...
Background. There is a controversy within the medical community regarding the role of domperidone as a galactagogue and the drug has been removed from the US market owing to safety concerns. Objective. To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data assessing the effect of domperidone on breast milk production in women experiencing insufficient lactation. Study Selection. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of domperidone on breast milk production of puerperal women were eligible for inclusion. Data Analysis. Absolute and relative changes from baseline were calculated for individual studies and pooled using a random effects model. Results. Three RCTs including 78 participants met the inclusion criteria. All showed a statistically significant increase in breast milk production following treatment with domperidone. The analysis of pooled data demonstrated a statistically significant relative increase of 74.72% (95% CI = 54.57; 94.86, P < 0.00001) in daily milk production with domperidone treatment compared to placebo. No maternal or neonatal adverse events were observed in any of the trials. Conclusions. Evidence from a few small RCTs of moderate to high quality suggests that domperidone produces a greater increase in breast milk supply than placebo.
PubMed: 22461793
DOI: 10.1155/2012/642893 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jun 2005To determine whether there is robust evidence of efficacy for domperidone in reducing the symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) and gastro-oesophageal reflux... (Review)
Review
Should domperidone be used for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux in children? Systematic review of randomized controlled trials in children aged 1 month to 11 years old.
AIM
To determine whether there is robust evidence of efficacy for domperidone in reducing the symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) in children.
METHODS
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A search was made of the Cochrane Library Issue 2004 (Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews), Medline (Pub-med) 1966 to present and Embase from 1974 to 2004, and reference citations of the RCTs that had been found electronically.
RESULTS
Four RCTs were identified. Only the two older trials showed any benefits of domperidone on clinical symptoms of GORD in older children, which were the primary outcome measures. In the trial undertaken by Clara, a good or excellent result was obtained in 93% of the domperidone group compared with 33% of the controls (P < 0.05). In the trial undertaken by de Loore, after 2 weeks of treatment 75% of patients treated with domperidone were found not to be vomiting, compared with 43% in the metoclopramide group and 7% in the placebo group. The trial by Corraccio gave no detailed results regarding the primary outcomes of effect of domperidone on symptoms but simply reported 'cured', 'improved' or 'unchanged'. The secondary pH-metric outcome of the number of reflux episodes, was reduced with domperidone.
CONCLUSION
From the limited evidence available, there was no robust evidence of efficacy for the treatment of GOR with domperidone in young children. Given the usually benign nature of the condition, the widespread use of unlicensed medicines for GOR is not warranted.
Topics: Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Domperidone; Dopamine Antagonists; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Infant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15948939
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02422.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cannabinoids; Chlorpromazine; Dizziness; Domperidone; Euphoria; Humans; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Neoplasms; Prochlorperazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 26561338
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009464.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2001To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, bibliographies), any language, to August 2000.
STUDIES
30 randomised comparisons of cannabis with placebo or antiemetics from which dichotomous data on efficacy and harm were available (1366 patients). Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol), and intramuscular levonantradol were tested. No cannabis was smoked. Follow up lasted 24 hours.
RESULTS
Cannabinoids were more effective antiemetics than prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, or alizapride: relative risk 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.62), number needed to treat 6 for complete control of nausea; 1.28 (1.08 to 1.51), NNT 8 for complete control of vomiting. Cannabinoids were not more effective in patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. In crossover trials, patients preferred cannabinoids for future chemotherapy cycles: 2.39 (2.05 to 2.78), NNT 3. Some potentially beneficial side effects occurred more often with cannabinoids: "high" 10.6 (6.86 to 16.5), NNT 3; sedation or drowsiness 1.66 (1.46 to 1.89), NNT 5; euphoria 12.5 (3.00 to 52.1), NNT 7. Harmful side effects also occurred more often with cannabinoids: dizziness 2.97 (2.31 to 3.83), NNT 3; dysphoria or depression 8.06 (3.38 to 19.2), NNT 8; hallucinations 6.10 (2.41 to 15.4), NNT 17; paranoia 8.58 (6.38 to 11.5), NNT 20; and arterial hypotension 2.23 (1.75 to 2.83), NNT 7. Patients given cannabinoids were more likely to withdraw due to side effects 4.67 (3.07 to 7.09), NNT 11.
CONCLUSIONS
In selected patients, the cannabinoids tested in these trials may be useful as mood enhancing adjuvants for controlling chemotherapy related sickness. Potentially serious adverse effects, even when taken short term orally or intramuscularly, are likely to limit their widespread use.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cannabinoids; Humans; Nausea; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 11440936
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.16 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jun 2017Controversies persist regarding the effect of prokinetics for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD). This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Controversies persist regarding the effect of prokinetics for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD). This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of prokinetic agents for the treatment of FD.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prokinetics for the treatment of FD were identified from core databases. Symptom response rates were extracted and analyzed using odds ratios (ORs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method in WinBUGS and NetMetaXL.
RESULTS
In total, 25 RCTs, which included 4473 patients with FD who were treated with 6 different prokinetics or placebo, were identified and analyzed. Metoclopramide showed the best surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability (92.5%), followed by trimebutine (74.5%) and mosapride (63.3%). However, the therapeutic efficacy of metoclopramide was not significantly different from that of trimebutine (OR:1.32, 95% credible interval: 0.27-6.06), mosapride (OR: 1.99, 95% credible interval: 0.87-4.72), or domperidone (OR: 2.04, 95% credible interval: 0.92-4.60). Metoclopramide showed better efficacy than itopride (OR: 2.79, 95% credible interval: 1.29-6.21) and acotiamide (OR: 3.07, 95% credible interval: 1.43-6.75). Domperidone (SUCRA probability 62.9%) showed better efficacy than itopride (OR: 1.37, 95% credible interval: 1.07-1.77) and acotiamide (OR: 1.51, 95% credible interval: 1.04-2.18).
CONCLUSIONS
Metoclopramide, trimebutine, mosapride, and domperidone showed better efficacy for the treatment of FD than itopride or acotiamide. Considering the adverse events related to metoclopramide or domperidone, the short-term use of these agents or the alternative use of trimebutine or mosapride could be recommended for the symptomatic relief of FD.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Bayes Theorem; Benzamides; Benzyl Compounds; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Domperidone; Dyspepsia; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Network Meta-Analysis; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazoles; Treatment Outcome; Trimebutine; Young Adult
PubMed: 28651565
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0639-0 -
Scientific Reports Sep 2017Prokinetics for functional dyspepsia (FD) have relatively higher number needed to treat values. Acupuncture and related therapies could be used as add-on or alternative.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prokinetics for functional dyspepsia (FD) have relatively higher number needed to treat values. Acupuncture and related therapies could be used as add-on or alternative. An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different acupuncture and related therapies. We conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in eight international and Chinese databases. Data from eligible RCTs were extracted for random effect pairwise meta-analyses. NMA was used to explore the most effective treatment among acupuncture and related therapies used alone or as add-on to prokinetics, compared to prokinetics alone. From five SRs, 22 RCTs assessing various acupuncture and related therapies were included. No serious adverse events were reported. Two pairwise meta-analyses showed manual acupuncture has marginally stronger effect in alleviating global FD symptoms, compared to domperidone or itopride. Results from NMA showed combination of manual acupuncture and clebopride has the highest probability in alleviating patient reported global FD symptom. Combination of manual acupuncture and clebopride has the highest probability of being the most effective treatment for FD symptoms. Patients who are contraindicated for prokinetics may use manual acupuncture or moxibustion as alternative. Future confirmatory comparative effectiveness trials should compare clebopride add-on manual acupuncture with domperidone add-on manual acupuncture and moxibustion.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Complementary Therapies; Dyspepsia; Humans; Odds Ratio; Research; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28871092
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09856-0 -
Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal Nov 2019Pharmacological interventions of diabetic gastroparesis (DG) constitute an essential element of a patient's management. This article aimed to systematically review the...
Pharmacological interventions of diabetic gastroparesis (DG) constitute an essential element of a patient's management. This article aimed to systematically review the available pharmacological approaches of DG, including their efficacy and safety. A total of 24 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy and/or safety of medications targeting DG symptoms were identified using several online databases. Their results revealed that metoclopramide was the only approved drug for accelerating gastric emptying and improving disease symptoms. However, this medication may have several adverse effects on the cardiovascular and nervous systems, which might be resolved with a new intranasal preparation. Acceptable alternatives are oral domperidone for patients without cardiovascular risk factors or intravenous erythromycin for hospitalised patients. Preliminary data indicated that relamorelin and prucalopride are novel candidates that have proven to be effective and safe. Future RCTs should be conducted based on unified guidelines using universal diagnostic modalities to reveal reliable and comprehensive outcomes.
Topics: Antiemetics; Cisapride; Diabetes Complications; Domperidone; Gastric Emptying; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastroparesis; Humans; Metoclopramide; Piperidines; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31897312
DOI: 10.18295/SQUMJ.2019.19.04.004 -
BMC Anesthesiology 2001BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of antiemetics for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is poorly understood. METHODS: Systematic search (MEDLINE,...
BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of antiemetics for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is poorly understood. METHODS: Systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, any language, to 8.2000) for randomised comparisons of antiemetics with any comparator for the treatment of established PONV. Dichotomous data on prevention of further nausea and vomiting, and on side effects were combined using a fixed effect model. RESULTS: In seven trials (1,267 patients), 11 different antiemetics were tested without placebos; these data were not further analysed. Eighteen trials (3,809) had placebo controls. Dolasetron 12.5-100 mg, granisetron 0.1-3 mg, tropisetron 0.5-5 mg, and ondansetron 1-8 mg prevented further vomiting with little evidence of dose-responsiveness; with all regimens, absolute risk reductions compared with placebo were 20%-30%. The anti-nausea effect was less pronounced. Headache was dose-dependent. Results on propofol were contradictory. The NK1 antagonist GR205171, isopropyl alcohol vapor, metoclopramide, domperidone, and midazolam were tested in one trial each with a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Of 100 vomiting surgical patients receiving a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, 20 to 30 will stop vomiting who would not have done so had they received a placebo; less will profit from the anti-nausea effect. There is a lack of evidence for a clinically relevant dose-response; minimal effective doses may be used. There is a discrepancy between the plethora of trials on prevention of PONV and the paucity of trials on treatment of established symptoms. Valid data on the therapeutic efficacy of classic antiemetics, which have been used for decades, are needed.
PubMed: 11734064
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2253-1-2