-
American Journal of Men's Health 2022Premature ejaculation (PE) is one of the major causes of sexual dysfunction. Levosulpiride is an off-label medicine used to treat PE, but no review on its efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Premature ejaculation (PE) is one of the major causes of sexual dysfunction. Levosulpiride is an off-label medicine used to treat PE, but no review on its efficacy exists. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of levosulpiride in treating PE. Databases PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were searched. Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing levosulpiride with placebo or other medicine were selected. Odds ratio (OR) of improved intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT) was calculated. A total of 97 articles were retrieved from database search, of which only four RCTs containing 203 men met the selection criteria. All four RCTs were included in systematic review while only two were included in meta-analysis. A high selection and detection bias was found in both of these studies. Meta-analysis also showed the odds of improving IELT in PE patients using levosulpiride to be significantly higher ( < .05) compared with those who used placebo, OR: 100.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) [13.12-774.90], = 0%. Odds of improving IELT for > 5 min (500% improvement) were also significantly higher ( < .05) compared with the placebo groups (OR: 38.88, 95% CI [5.12-295.29], = 0%). The odds of improving IELT for > 1 min, but < 5 min were also significantly higher ( < .05) than placebo groups (OR: 32.84, 95% CI [4.15-259.75], = 0%). Levosulpiride improved IELT, but even so, limited studies are available on this topic. Additional research is thus required to support the present review's findings.
Topics: Ejaculation; Humans; Male; Premature Ejaculation; Sulpiride; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36154321
DOI: 10.1177/15579883221124832 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2010Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 10 March 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using aspirin to treat a discrete migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced with aspirin compared with placebo, with additional metoclopramide significantly reducing nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.Fewer participants needed rescue medication with aspirin than with placebo. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antiemetics; Aspirin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Photophobia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sumatriptan; Vomiting
PubMed: 20393963
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008041.pub2 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Apr 2017The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV).
METHODS
A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of prophylaxis for RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, including total body irradiation (TBI). Primary endpoints were complete control of nausea and complete control of vomiting during acute and delayed phases. Secondary endpoints included use of rescue medication, quality of life (QoL) and incidence of adverse events.
RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs were identified. Among patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, our meta-analysis showed that prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3 RA) was significantly more efficacious than placebo and dopamine receptor antagonists in both complete control of vomiting [OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.72 and OR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.05-0.58 respectively] and complete control of nausea (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26-0.70 and OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.88 respectively). 5HT3 RAs were also more efficacious than rescue therapy and dopamine receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone. The addition of dexamethasone to 5HT3 RA compared to 5HT3 RA alone provides a modest improvement in prophylaxis of RINV. Among patients receiving TBI, 5HT3 RA was more effective than other agents (placebo, combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and lorazepam).
CONCLUSIONS
5HT3 RAs are more effective than other antiemetics for prophylaxis of RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis and TBI. Future RCTs should investigate the efficacy of newer agents such as substance P neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in addition to 5HT3 RAs in prophylaxis of RINV during both acute and delayed phases.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Nausea; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 28249542
DOI: 10.21037/apm.2016.12.01 -
Psychological Medicine Jul 2023Antipsychotics are widely used in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), but there has been no comprehensive meta-analytic assessment that examined their use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antipsychotics are widely used in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), but there has been no comprehensive meta-analytic assessment that examined their use as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy.
METHODS
A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) that reported on the efficacy and safety/tolerability of antipsychotics for the treatment of adults with MDD. Data of both monotherapy and adjunctive antipsychotic use were extracted, but analyzed separately using a random-effects model. Co-primary outcomes were study-defined-treatment response and intolerability-related discontinuation. We also illustrated the risk/benefit balance of antipsychotics for MDD, using two-dimensional graphs representing the primary efficacy and safety/tolerability outcome. Secondary outcomes included psychopathology, remission, all-cause-discontinuation, inefficacy-related discontinuation, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Forty-five RCTs with 12 724 patients were included in the analysis. In monotherapy (studies = 13, = 4375), amisulpride [1.99 (1.55-2.55)], sulpiride [1.50 (1.03-2.17)], and quetiapine [1.48 (1.23-1.78)] were significantly superior to placebo regarding treatment response. However, intolerability-related discontinuations were significantly higher compared to placebo with amisulpride and quetiapine. In adjunctive therapy (studies = 32, = 8349), ziprasidone [1.80 (1.07-3.04)], risperidone [1.59 (1.19-2.14)], aripiprazole [1.54 (1.35-1.76)], brexpiprazole [1.41 (1.21-1.66)], cariprazine [1.27 (1.07-1.52)], and quetiapine [1.23 (1.08-1.41)] were significantly superior to placebo regarding treatment response. However, of these antipsychotics that were superior to placebo, only risperidone was equivalent to placebo regarding discontinuation due to intolerability, while the other antipsychotics were inferior.
CONCLUSION
Results suggest that there are significant differences regarding the risk/benefit ratio among antipsychotics for MDD, which should inform clinical care.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Quetiapine Fumarate; Risperidone; Depressive Disorder, Major; Amisulpride; Olanzapine; Benzodiazepines; Dibenzothiazepines
PubMed: 35510505
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291722000745 -
Behavioural Neurology 2013The pharmacotherapy of Parkinson's disease (PD) is often challenging as clinicians have to find a favourable balance between the efficacy on motor symptoms and side... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The pharmacotherapy of Parkinson's disease (PD) is often challenging as clinicians have to find a favourable balance between the efficacy on motor symptoms and side effect profiles of different dopaminergic medications. We aimed to assess the available evidence on the role of dopamine agonist monotherapy as an alternative to Levodopa in the treatment of motor symptoms of PD, along with the role of dopamine antagonists in the treatment of PD-related psychosis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review using the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library Central register of controlled trials. Two searches were performed, 'Search 1' extracting trials on dopamine agonists, and 'Search 2' on atypical antipsychotics. Eligible studies were Double-blind Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) as outcome measures for Search 1 and 2, respectively.
RESULTS
16 relevant RCTs were extracted from the search results. Overall, dopamine agonists were shown to significantly improve UPDRS scores, with a mean percentage improvement of 14.4% compared to -1.9% in the control arm (P value < 0.05). However, their side effect profile illustrated they were associated with twice the incidence of psychotic symptoms in comparison to the controls. The results on the efficacy of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of PD-related psychosis were not significant.
CONCLUSIONS
This evidence-based review confirmed that dopamine agonists can be an effective and safe treatment as monotherapy in PD, however psychotic symptoms remain a significant side effect. Atypical antipsychotics may not be relied upon for the correction of these symptoms due to inconsistent results about their efficacy.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Dopamine; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Parkinson Disease; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 22713412
DOI: 10.3233/BEN-2012-120265 -
CNS Drugs Aug 2023Considering the improvement in adherence and convenience, once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) has been increasingly used in the treatment of schizophrenia.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness and Safety of Switching from Oral Antipsychotics to Once-Monthly Paliperidone Palmitate (PP1M) in the Management of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Considering the improvement in adherence and convenience, once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) has been increasingly used in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the outcomes for patients who switch from oral antipsychotics (OAPs) to PP1M have not been reliably assessed. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of PP1M in the management of patients with schizophrenia with a prior history of OAP use.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library on 19 July 2022 to identify eligible studies. All studies that examined the effectiveness and safety of switching from OAPs to PP1M in patients with schizophrenia were included. The primary outcomes were relapse rate, hospitalisation rate, and the change from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. The secondary outcomes included the changed number of inpatient visits, changed length of stay hospitalisation, change from baseline in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score and the personal and social performance (PSP) total score, response rate, proportion of treatment discontinuation, and adverse events. We included randomised-controlled trials (RCTs), single-arm studies, and observational studies. Case reports, case series, and reviews were excluded. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2), the 9-point Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) instrument for non-randomised studies and cohort studies, and the 12-item National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for before-after (Pre-Post) study without control group. Follow-up times were reported as short- (≤ 13 weeks), medium- (14-26 weeks), and long term (≥ 27 weeks). Data were pooled using meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with a total of 4740 patients were included. The long-term relapse rates and hospitalisation rates were 12% (95% CI 0.07-0.18) and 18% (95% CI 0.15-0.20), respectively. The short-, medium-, and long-term change in PANSS total score was - 21.69 (95% CI - 30.02 to -13.36), - 14.98 (95% CI - 21.45 to - 8.51) and - 17.88 (95% CI - 31.94 to -3.82), respectively. Approximately 50% of patients reported at least a 30% reduction in the PANSS score at the short-term follow-up. Improvements in CGI-S and PSP score were observed during various periods. There was a reduction in the length of stay hospitalisation and the number of inpatient visits at the medium- and long-term follow-ups. Low discontinuation and adverse event rates were reported.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings, this study may support the efficacy and safety of switching from OAPs to PP1M for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Future large-scale studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Paliperidone Palmitate; Schizophrenia; Administration, Oral; Recurrence; Chronic Disease
PubMed: 37490267
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-023-01028-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2007Some authors have suggested that loxapine is more effective than typical antipsychotics in reducing the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, that extrapyramidal adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Some authors have suggested that loxapine is more effective than typical antipsychotics in reducing the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, that extrapyramidal adverse effects are not usually seen at clinically effective antipsychotic doses and that it should therefore be classed as atypical.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of loxapine compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.
SEARCH STRATEGY
For this 2007 update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 2007).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to the care of schizophrenia that compared loxapine to other treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected abstracts ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We were able to include 41 studies in this review. Compared with placebo, loxapine has an antipsychotic effect (Global effect - not improved at six weeks: n=78, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30 CI 0.1 to 0.6 NNT 3 CI 3 to 5). It is as effective as typical drugs in the short term (4 -12 weeks) (Global effect: n=580, 13 RCTs, RR 0.86 CI 0.7 to 1.1; mental state: n=915, 6 RCTs, RR 0.89 CI 0.8 to 1.1). Very limited heterogeneous data suggest that, given intramuscularly (IM), loxapine may be at least as sedating as IM haloperidol and thiothixene. Loxapine is also as effective as atypicals (risperidone, quetiapine) (n=468, 6 RCTs, RR mental state not improved 1.07 CI 0.8 to 1.5). Adverse effect profile is similar to typicals but loxapine may cause more extrapyramidal adverse effects when compared with atypicals (n=340, 4 RCTs, RR 2.18 CI 1.6 to 3.1).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Loxapine is an antipsychotic which is not clearly distinct from typical or atypical drugs in terms of its effects on global or mental state. Loxapines profile of adverse effects is similar to that of the older generation of antipsychotic drugs.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Dopamine Antagonists; Humans; Loxapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 17943763
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001943.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder with a prevalence of about 1% among the general population. It is listed among the top 10 causes of disability-adjusted life... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder with a prevalence of about 1% among the general population. It is listed among the top 10 causes of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide. Antipsychotics are the mainstay treatment. Piperacetazine has been reported to be as clinically effective as chlorpromazine, a well established 'benchmark' antipsychotic, for people with schizophrenia. However, the side effect profiles of these antipsychotics differ and it is important that an evidence base is available comparing the benefits, and potential harms of these two antipsychotics.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical and side effects of chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses in comparison with piperacetazine.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (6 June 2015 and 8 October 2018) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, CENTRAL, 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 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for people with schizophrenia, 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 estimated 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 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 12 records referring to six trials. We included five trials, all from the 1970s, randomising 343 participants. We excluded one trial. The overall methodology and data reporting by the trials was poor. Only short-term data were available.Results from the included trials found that, in terms of global state improvement, when rated by a psychiatrist, there was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and piperacetazine (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; participants = 208; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence). One trial reported change scores on the mental state scale Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS); no clear difference was observed (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.41 to 0.61; participants = 182; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Chlorpromazine appears no worse or better than piperacetazine regarding adverse effects. In both treatment groups, around 60% of participants experienced some sort of adverse effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33; participants = 74; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence), with approximately 40% of these participants experiencing some parkinsonism-type movement disorder (RR 0.95, CI 0.61 to 1.49; participants = 106; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). No clear difference in numbers of participants leaving the study early for any reason was observed (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.56; participants = 256; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). No trial reported data for change in negative symptoms or economic costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review show chlorpromazine and piperacetazine may have similar clinical efficacy, but data are based on very small numbers of participants and the evidence is very low quality. We can not make firm conclusions based on such data. Currently, should clinicians and people with schizophrenia need to choose between chlorpromazine and piperacetazine they should be aware there is no good quality evidence to base decisions. More high quality research is needed.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Female; Humans; Male; Phenothiazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30378678
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011709.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Placebos; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 27977041
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006918.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Orthostatic hypotension is an excessive fall in blood pressure (BP) while standing and is the result of a decrease in cardiac output or defective or inadequate...
BACKGROUND
Orthostatic hypotension is an excessive fall in blood pressure (BP) while standing and is the result of a decrease in cardiac output or defective or inadequate vasoconstrictor mechanisms. Fludrocortisone is a mineralocorticoid that increases blood volume and blood pressure. Fludrocortisone is considered the first- or second-line pharmacological therapy for orthostatic hypotension alongside mechanical and positional measures such as increasing fluid and salt intake and venous compression methods. However, there has been no Cochrane Review of the benefits and harms of this drug for this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and evaluate the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 11 November 2019: Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We also searched trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all studies evaluating the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone compared to placebo, another drug for orthostatic hypotension, or studies without comparators, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and observational studies. We included studies in people with orthostatic hypotension due to a chronic peripheral neuropathy, a central autonomic neuropathy, or autonomic failure from other causes, but not medication-induced orthostatic hypotension or orthostatic hypotension from acute volume depletion or blood loss.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane methodological procedures for most of the review. We developed and used a tool to prioritize observational studies that offered the best available evidence where there are gaps in the evidence from RCTs. We assessed the certainty of evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies of 513 participants, including three cross-over RCTs and 10 observational studies (three cohort studies, six case series and one case-control study). The included RCTs were small (total of 28 participants in RCTs), short term (two to three weeks), only examined fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension in people with two conditions (diabetes and Parkinson disease), and had variable risk of bias (two had unclear risk of bias and one had low risk of bias). Heterogeneity in participant populations, comparators and outcome assessment methods prevented meta-analyses of the RCTs. We found very low-certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone versus placebo on drop in BP in people with diabetes (-26 mmHg versus -39 mmHg systolic; -7 mmHg versus -11 mmHg diastolic; 1 cross-over study, 6 participants). For people with Parkinson disease, we found very-low certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone on drop in BP compared to pyridostigmine (-14 mmHg versus -22.1 mmHg diastolic; P = 0.036; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) and domperidone (no change after treatment in either group; 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). For orthostatic symptoms, we found very low-certainty evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo in people with diabetes (4 out of 5 analyzed participants had improvements in orthostatic symptoms, 1 cross-over study, 6 participants), for fludrocortisone versus pyridostigmine in people with Parkinson disease (orthostatic symptoms unchanged; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) or fludrocortisone versus domperidone (improvement to 6 for both interventions on the Composite Autonomic Symptom Scale-Orthostatic Domain (COMPASS-OD); 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). Evidence on adverse events was also very low-certainty in both populations, but indicated side effects were minimal. Observational studies filled some gaps in evidence by examining the effects in larger groups of participants, with more diverse conditions, over longer periods of time. One cohort study (341 people studied retrospectively) found fludrocortisone may not be harmful in the long term for familial dysautonomia. However, it is unclear if this translates to long-term improvements in BP drop or a meaningful improvement in orthostatic symptoms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of fludrocortisone on blood pressure, orthostatic symptoms or adverse events in people with orthostatic hypotension and diabetes or Parkinson disease. There is a lack of information on long-term treatment and treatment of orthostatic hypotension in other disease states. There is a need for standardized reporting of outcomes and for standardization of measurements of blood pressure in orthostatic hypotension.
Topics: Bias; Diabetes Mellitus; Domperidone; Dysautonomia, Familial; Fludrocortisone; Humans; Hypotension, Orthostatic; Observational Studies as Topic; Parkinson Disease; Pyridostigmine Bromide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34000076
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012868.pub2