-
Journal of Neurogastroenterology and... Oct 2021Constipation is a common gastrointestinal problem in the elderly. Because of the limitations of life style modifications and the comorbidity, laxative use is also very... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Constipation is a common gastrointestinal problem in the elderly. Because of the limitations of life style modifications and the comorbidity, laxative use is also very common. Therefore, this study reviews the latest literature on the effect and safety of laxative in the elderly.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of laxatives for constipation in elderly patients over 65 years old were performed using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized controlled trials were included in this review. Among the selected studies, 9 studies compared laxative with placebo and 5 studies compared laxatives of the same type. Four studies compared different types of laxatives or compared combination agents. Five studies compared novel medications such as prucalopride, lubiprostone, and elobixibat with placebo. Psyllium, calcium polycarbophil, lactulose syrup, lactitol, polyethylene glycol, magnesium hydroxide, stimulant laxative with or without fiber, and other medications were more effective than placebo in elderly constipation patients in short-term. Generally, the frequency and severity of adverse effects of laxative were similar between the arms of studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Bulk laxative, osmotic laxative, stimulant laxative with or without fiber, and other medications can be used in elderly patients in short-term within 3 months with reasonable safety. However, the quality of included studies was not high and most of studies was conducted in a small number of patients. Among these laxatives, polyethylene glycol seems to be safe and effective in long-term use of about 6 months in elderly patients.
PubMed: 34642269
DOI: 10.5056/jnm20210 -
PloS One 2022Cerebral palsy is an extremely severe brain injury associated with multiple nutritional and clinical issues, such as underweight, gastroesophageal reflux, constipation,...
BACKGROUND
Cerebral palsy is an extremely severe brain injury associated with multiple nutritional and clinical issues, such as underweight, gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, and nutrient deficiency. Evidence-based dietary and nutritional interventions may improve the quality of life of children with cerebral palsy.
AIM
Systematically review randomized clinical trials evaluating nutritional and dietary interventions in the clinical, nutritional, and neurodevelopmental aspects of children with cerebral palsy.
METHODS
A search was performed in electronic databases (LILACS, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database, OpenGrey) using keywords. The search was firstly performed in May 2020 and updated on June 18th, 2021. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials, that included children between 2 and 12 years old, and evaluated the effect of nutritional or dietetic interventions on clinical, nutritional or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Risk of bias was investigated using the RoB-2 tool. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020181284).
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were selected. Positive results included the use of whey-based or pectin-enriched enteral formulas for gastroesophageal reflux (n = 6); 25-hydroxy-vitamin D supplementation for hypovitaminosis D (n = 2); supplementation with lipid mixture or diet with high-density energy for improvements in anthropometric measures (n = 2); supplementation with probiotics, prebiotics, symbiotics or magnesium for constipation (n = 2); nutritional support system for gross motor function (n = 1); lactoferrin and iron hydroxide polymaltose for iron deficiency anemia (n = 1); and educational intervention to improve feeding skills (n = 1). The overall risk of bias was high for 60% of the studies, and some concerns were raised for the remaining 40%.
CONCLUSION
Some promising dietary and nutritional interventions may promote important clinical improvements for patients with cerebral palsy. However, evidence is weak, as few clinical trials have been published with many methodological errors, leading to a high risk of bias.
Topics: Cerebral Palsy; Child; Child, Preschool; Constipation; Diet; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35867728
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271993 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016Constipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives by health professionals to manage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Constipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives by health professionals to manage constipation in children, there has been a long standing paucity of high quality evidence to support this practice.
OBJECTIVES
We set out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic and stimulant laxatives used to treat functional childhood constipation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 10 March 2016. There were no language restrictions. We also searched the references of all included studies, personal contacts and drug companies to identify studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared osmotic or stimulant laxatives to placebo or another intervention, with participants aged 0 to 18 years old were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Relevant papers were identified and two authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI using a fixed-effect model. The Chi(2) and I(2) statistics were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used in situations of unexplained heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five RCTs (2310 participants) were included in the review. Fourteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Meta-analysis of two studies (101 patients) comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with placebo showed a significantly increased number of stools per week with PEG (MD 2.61 stools per week, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.08). Common adverse events in the placebo-controlled studies included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. Participants receiving high dose PEG (0.7 g/kg) had significantly more stools per week than low dose PEG (0.3 g/kg) participants (1 study, 90 participants, MD 1.30, 95% 0.76 to 1.84). Meta-analysis of 6 studies with 465 participants comparing PEG with lactulose showed a significantly greater number of stools per week with PEG (MD 0.70 , 95% CI 0.10 to 1.31), although follow-up was short. Patients who received PEG were significantly less likely to require additional laxative therapies. Eighteen per cent (27/154) of PEG patients required additional therapies compared to 31% (47/150) of lactulose patients (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83). No serious adverse events were reported with either agent. Common adverse events in these studies included diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and pruritis ani. Meta-analysis of 3 studies with 211 participants comparing PEG with milk of magnesia showed that the stools per week were significantly greater with PEG (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89). However, the magnitude of this difference was quite small and may not be clinically significant. One child was noted to be allergic to PEG, but there were no other serious adverse events reported. One study found a significant difference in stools per week favouring milk of magnesia over lactulose (MD -1.51, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.39, 50 patients), Meta-analysis of 2 studies with 287 patients comparing liquid paraffin (mineral oil) with lactulose revealed a relatively large statistically significant difference in the number of stools per week favouring liquid paraffin (MD 4.94 , 95% CI 4.28 to 5.61). No serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. No statistically significant differences in the number of stools per week were found between PEG and enemas (1 study, 90 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.58 to 3.58), dietary fibre mix and lactulose (1 study, 125 patients, P = 0.481), senna and lactulose (1 study, 21 patients, P > 0.05), lactitol and lactulose (1 study, 51 patients, MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.03), hydrolyzed guar gum and lactulose (1 study, 61 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.80 to 3.80), PEG and flixweed (1 study, 109 patients, MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.33), PEG and dietary fibre (1 study, 83 patients, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.04), and PEG and liquid paraffin (2 studies, 261 patients, MD 0.35, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.95).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The pooled analyses suggest that PEG preparations may be superior to placebo, lactulose and milk of magnesia for childhood constipation. GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome (number of stools per week) was low or very low due to sparse data, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and high risk of bias in the studies in the pooled analyses. Thus, the results of the pooled analyses should be interpreted with caution because of quality and methodological concerns, as well as clinical heterogeneity, and short follow-up. There is also evidence suggesting the efficacy of liquid paraffin (mineral oil). There is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of lactulose when compared to the other agents studied, although there is a lack of placebo controlled studies. Further research is needed to investigate the long term use of PEG for childhood constipation, as well as the role of liquid paraffin. The optimal dose of PEG also warrants further investigation.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Constipation; Defecation; Dietary Fiber; Enema; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lactulose; Laxatives; Magnesium Hydroxide; Male; Mineral Oil; Osmosis; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Senna Extract; Sennosides; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27531591
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009118.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Phosphate binders are used to reduce positive phosphate balance and to lower serum phosphate levels for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with the aim to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Phosphate binders are used to reduce positive phosphate balance and to lower serum phosphate levels for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with the aim to prevent progression of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). This is an update of a review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of phosphate binders for people with CKD with particular reference to relevant biochemical end-points, musculoskeletal and cardiovascular morbidity, hospitalisation, and death.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 July 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of adults with CKD of any GFR category comparing a phosphate binder to another phosphate binder, placebo or usual care to lower serum phosphate. Outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, adverse events, vascular calcification and bone fracture, and surrogates for such outcomes including serum phosphate, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and FGF23.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias' tool and used the GRADE process to assess evidence certainty. We estimated treatment effects using random-effects meta-analysis. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean differences (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 104 studies involving 13,744 adults. Sixty-nine new studies were added to this 2018 update.Most placebo or usual care controlled studies were among participants with CKD G2 to G5 not requiring dialysis (15/25 studies involving 1467 participants) while most head to head studies involved participants with CKD G5D treated with dialysis (74/81 studies involving 10,364 participants). Overall, seven studies compared sevelamer with placebo or usual care (667 participants), seven compared lanthanum to placebo or usual care (515 participants), three compared iron to placebo or usual care (422 participants), and four compared calcium to placebo or usual care (278 participants). Thirty studies compared sevelamer to calcium (5424 participants), and fourteen studies compared lanthanum to calcium (1690 participants). No study compared iron-based binders to calcium. The remaining studies evaluated comparisons between sevelamer (hydrochloride or carbonate), sevelamer plus calcium, lanthanum, iron (ferric citrate, sucroferric oxyhydroxide, stabilised polynuclear iron(III)-oxyhydroxide), calcium (acetate, ketoglutarate, carbonate), bixalomer, colestilan, magnesium (carbonate), magnesium plus calcium, aluminium hydroxide, sucralfate, the inhibitor of phosphate absorption nicotinamide, placebo, or usual care without binder. In 82 studies, treatment was evaluated among adults with CKD G5D treated with haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, while in 22 studies, treatment was evaluated among participants with CKD G2 to G5. The duration of study follow-up ranged from 8 weeks to 36 months (median 3.7 months). The sample size ranged from 8 to 2103 participants (median 69). The mean age ranged between 42.6 and 68.9 years.Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were low risk in 25 and 15 studies, respectively. Twenty-seven studies reported low risk methods for blinding of participants, investigators, and outcome assessors. Thirty-one studies were at low risk of attrition bias and 69 studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias.In CKD G2 to G5, compared with placebo or usual care, sevelamer, lanthanum, iron and calcium-based phosphate binders had uncertain or inestimable effects on death (all causes), cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, fracture, or coronary artery calcification. Sevelamer may lead to constipation (RR 6.92, CI 2.24 to 21.4; low certainty) and lanthanum (RR 2.98, CI 1.21 to 7.30, moderate certainty) and iron-based binders (RR 2.66, CI 1.15 to 6.12, moderate certainty) probably increased constipation compared with placebo or usual care. Lanthanum may result in vomiting (RR 3.72, CI 1.36 to 10.18, low certainty). Iron-based binders probably result in diarrhoea (RR 2.81, CI 1.18 to 6.68, high certainty), while the risks of other adverse events for all binders were uncertain.In CKD G5D sevelamer may lead to lower death (all causes) (RR 0.53, CI 0.30 to 0.91, low certainty) and induce less hypercalcaemia (RR 0.30, CI 0.20 to 0.43, low certainty) when compared with calcium-based binders, and has uncertain or inestimable effects on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, fracture, or coronary artery calcification. The finding of lower death with sevelamer compared with calcium was present when the analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias (RR 0.50, CI 0.32 to 0.77). In absolute terms, sevelamer may lower risk of death (all causes) from 210 per 1000 to 105 per 1000 over a follow-up of up to 36 months, compared to calcium-based binders. Compared with calcium-based binders, lanthanum had uncertain effects with respect to all-cause or cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, fracture, or coronary artery calcification and probably had reduced risks of treatment-related hypercalcaemia (RR 0.16, CI 0.06 to 0.43, low certainty). There were no head-to-head studies of iron-based binders compared with calcium. The paucity of placebo-controlled studies in CKD G5D has led to uncertainty about the effects of phosphate binders on patient-important outcomes compared with placebo.It is uncertain whether the effects of binders on clinically-relevant outcomes were different for patients who were and were not treated with dialysis in subgroup analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In studies of adults with CKD G5D treated with dialysis, sevelamer may lower death (all causes) compared to calcium-based binders and incur less treatment-related hypercalcaemia, while we found no clinically important benefits of any phosphate binder on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, fracture or coronary artery calcification. The effects of binders on patient-important outcomes compared to placebo are uncertain. In patients with CKD G2 to G5, the effects of sevelamer, lanthanum, and iron-based phosphate binders on cardiovascular, vascular calcification, and bone outcomes compared to placebo or usual care, are also uncertain and they may incur constipation, while iron-based binders may lead to diarrhoea.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Calcium; Calcium Compounds; Cause of Death; Chelating Agents; Chronic Disease; Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder; Disease Progression; Fibroblast Growth Factor-23; Humans; Hypercalcemia; Iron Compounds; Lanthanum; Middle Aged; Parathyroid Hormone; Phosphorus; Polyamines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Sevelamer
PubMed: 30132304
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006023.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This article describes the second update of a Cochrane review on the effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This article describes the second update of a Cochrane review on the effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care. Previous versions were published in 2006 and 2010 where we also evaluated trials of methylnaltrexone; these trials have been removed as they are included in another review in press. In these earlier versions, we drew no conclusions on individual effectiveness of different laxatives because of the limited number of evaluations. This is despite constipation being common in palliative care, generating considerable suffering due to the unpleasant physical symptoms and the availability of a wide range of laxatives with known differences in effect in other populations.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and differential efficacy of laxatives used to manage constipation in people receiving palliative care.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science (SCI & CPCI-S) for trials to September 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating laxatives for constipation in people receiving palliative care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the studies depended upon clinical and outcome measure homogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies involving the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, docusate and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin. Overall, the study findings were at an unclear risk of bias. As all five studies compared different laxatives or combinations of laxatives, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. There was no evidence on whether individual laxatives were more effective than others or caused fewer adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This second update found that laxatives were of similar effectiveness but the evidence remains limited due to insufficient data from a few small RCTs. None of the studies evaluated polyethylene glycol or any intervention given rectally. There is a need for more trials to evaluate the effectiveness of laxatives in palliative care populations. Extrapolating findings on the effectiveness of laxatives evaluated in other populations should proceed with caution. This is because of the differences inherent in people receiving palliative care that may impact, in a likely negative way, on the effect of a laxative.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anthraquinones; Cathartics; Constipation; Humans; Lactulose; Magnesium Hydroxide; Naltrexone; Palliative Care; Paraffin; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Senna Extract
PubMed: 25967924
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003448.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Heartburn is one of the most common gastrointestinal symptoms in pregnant women. It can occur in all trimesters of pregnancy. The symptoms of heartburn in pregnancy may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heartburn is one of the most common gastrointestinal symptoms in pregnant women. It can occur in all trimesters of pregnancy. The symptoms of heartburn in pregnancy may be frequent, severe and distressing, but serious complications are rare. Many interventions have been used for the treatment of heartburn in pregnancy. These interventions include advice on diet, lifestyle modification and medications. However, there has been no evidence-based recommendation for the treatment of heartburn in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for relieving heartburn in pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (2 March 2015), Asian & Oceanic Congress of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (AOCOG) conference proceedings (20-23 October 2013, Centara Grand & Bangkok Convention Centre, Bangkok, Thailand), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS of interventions for heartburn in pregnancy compared with another intervention, or placebo, or no intervention. Cluster-RCTs would have been eligible for inclusion but none were identified. We excluded studies available as abstracts only and those using a cross-over design.Interventions could include advice on diet, lifestyle modification and medications (such as antacids, sucralfate, histamine 2-receptor antagonists, promotility drugs and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs involving 725 women. However, five trials did not contribute data. Four trials involving 358 women contributed data. Trials were generally at mixed risk of bias.We only identified data for three comparisons: pharmaceutical treatment versus placebo or no treatment; acupuncture versus no treatment and pharmacological intervention versus advice on dietary and lifestyle changes. Pharmaceutical treatment compared with placebo or no treatmentTwo trials evaluated any pharmaceutical treatment compared with placebo or no treatment. One trial examined a treatment rarely used nowadays (intramuscular prostigmine 0.5 mg versus placebo). One trial evaluated the effect of magnesium and aluminium hydroxide plus simethicone liquid and tablet compared with placebo. For the primary outcome of this review (relief of heartburn), women who received pharmaceutical treatment reported complete heartburn relief more often than women receiving no treatment or placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.50 in two RCTs of 256 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Data on partial relief of heartburn were heterogenous and showed no clear difference (average RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.76 in two RCTs of 256 women, very low-quality evidence). In terms of secondary outcomes, there was no clear difference in the rate of side effects between the pharmaceutical treatment group and the placebo/no treatment group (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.89 in two RCTs of 256 women, very low-quality evidence). Pharmacological intervention versus advice on dietary and lifestyle choicesOne study compared 1 g of sucralfate with advice on dietary and lifestyle choices in treating heartburn. More women in the sucralfate group experienced complete relief of heartburn compared to women who received advice on diet and lifestyle choices (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.07; participants = 65; studies = one). The only secondary outcome of interest addressed by this trial was side effects. The evidence was not clear on intervention side effects rate between the two groups (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.07 to 41.21; participants = 66; studies = one). There was only one instance of side effects in the pharmacological group. Acupuncture compared with no treatmentOne trial evaluated acupuncture compared with no treatment but did not report data relating to this review's primary outcome (relief of heartburn). In terms of secondary outcomes, there was no difference in the rate of side effects between women who had acupuncture and women who had no treatment (RR 2.43, 95% CI 0.11 to 55.89 in one RCT of 36 women). With regard to quality of life, women who had acupuncture reported improved ability to sleep (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.14 to 6.86) and eat (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.18 in one RCT of 36 women).The following secondary outcomes were not reported upon in any of the trials included in the review: miscarriage, preterm labour, maternal satisfaction, fetal anomalies, intrauterine growth restriction, low birthweight.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are no large-scale RCTs to assess heartburn relief in pregnancy. This review of nine small studies (which involved data from only four small studies) indicates that there are limited data suggesting that heartburn in pregnancy could be completely relieved by pharmaceutical treatment. Three outcomes were assessed and assigned a quality rating using the GRADE methods. Evidence from two trials for the outcome of complete relief of heartburn was assessed as of moderate quality. Evidence for the outcomes of partial heartburn relief and side effects was graded to be of very low quality. Downgrading decisions were based in part on the small size of the trials and on heterogenous and imprecise results.There are insufficient data to assess acupuncture versus no treatment and no data to assess other comparisons (miscarriage, preterm labour, maternal satisfaction, fetal anomalies, intrauterine growth restriction, low birthweight).Further RCTs are needed to fully evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for heartburn in pregnancy. Future research should also address other medications such as histamine 2-receptor antagonists, promotility drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and a raft-forming alginate reflux suppressant in treatment of heartburn in pregnancy. More research is needed on acupuncture and other complimentary therapies as treatments for heartburn in pregnancy. Future research should also evaluate any adverse outcomes, maternal satisfaction with treatment and measure pregnant women's quality of life in relation to the intervention.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Adult; Aluminum Hydroxide; Antacids; Female; Heartburn; Humans; Magnesium Hydroxide; Neostigmine; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucralfate
PubMed: 26384956
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011379.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2011Constipation is common in palliative care; it can generate considerable suffering due to the unpleasant physical symptoms. In the first Cochrane Review on effectiveness... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Constipation is common in palliative care; it can generate considerable suffering due to the unpleasant physical symptoms. In the first Cochrane Review on effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in palliative care patients, published in 2006, no conclusions could be drawn because of the limited number of evaluations. This article describes the first update of this review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of laxatives or methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in palliative care patients.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched databases including MEDLINE and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) in 2005 and in the update to August 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating laxatives for constipation in palliative care patients. In the update we also included RCTs on subcutaneous methylnaltrexone; an opioid-receptor antagonist that is now licensed for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in palliative care when response to usual laxative therapy is insufficient.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the studies depended upon clinical and outcome measure homogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies involving 616 participants; all under-reported methodological features. In four studies the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin were evaluated. In three methylnaltrexone.In studies comparing the different laxatives evidence was inconclusive. Evidence on subcutaneous methylnaltrexone was clearer; in combined analysis (287 participants) methylnaltrexone, in comparison with a placebo, significantly induced laxation at 4 hours (odds ratio 6.95; 95% confidence interval 3.83 to 12.61). In combined analyses there was no difference in the proportion experiencing side effects, although participants on methylnaltrexone suffered more flatulence and dizziness. No evidence of opioid withdrawal was found. In one study severe adverse events, commonly abdominal pain, were reported that were possibly related to methylnaltrexone. A serious adverse event considered to be related to the methylnaltrexone also occurred; this involved a participant having severe diarrhoea, subsequent dehydration and cardiovascular collapse.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The 2010 update found evidence on laxatives for management of constipation remains limited due to insufficient RCTs. However, the conclusions of this update have changed since the original review publication in that it now includes evidence on methylnaltrexone. Here it found that subcutaneous methylnaltrexone is effective in inducing laxation in palliative care patients with opioid-induced constipation and where conventional laxatives have failed. However, the safety of this product is not fully evaluated. Large, rigorous, independent trials are needed.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anthraquinones; Cathartics; Constipation; Humans; Lactulose; Magnesium Hydroxide; Naltrexone; Palliative Care; Paraffin; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Senna Extract
PubMed: 21249653
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003448.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Background Tranexamic acid reduces haemorrhage through its antifibrinolytic effects. In a previous version of the present review, we found that tranexamic acid may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background Tranexamic acid reduces haemorrhage through its antifibrinolytic effects. In a previous version of the present review, we found that tranexamic acid may reduce mortality. This review includes updated searches and new trials.Objectives To assess the effects of tranexamic acid versus no intervention, placebo or other antiulcer drugs for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Search methods We updated the review by performing electronic database searches (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL),MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index) and manual searches in July 2014.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials, irrespective of language or publication status.Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures of the The Cochrane Collaboration. All-cause mortality, bleeding and adverse events were the primary outcome measures. We performed fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used I² as a measure of between-trial heterogeneity. We analysed tranexamic acid versus placebo or no intervention and tranexamic acid versus antiulcer drugs separately. To analyse sources of heterogeneity and robustness of the overall results, we performed subgroup, sensitivity and sequential analyses.Main results We included eight randomised controlled trials on tranexamic acid for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Additionally, we identified one large ongoing pragmatic randomised controlled trial from which data are not yet available. Control groups were randomly assigned to placebo (seven trials) or no intervention (one trial). Two trials also included a control group randomly assigned to antiulcer drugs(lansoprazole or cimetidine). The included studies were published from 1973 to 2011. The number of participants randomly assigned ranged from 47 to 216 (median 204). All trials reported mortality. In total, 42 of 851 participants randomly assigned to tranexamic acid and 71 of 850 in the control group died (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.87; P value 0.007; I² = 0%). The analysis was not confirmed when all participants in the intervention group with missing outcome data were included as treatment failures, or when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of attrition bias. Rebleeding was diagnosed for 117 of 826 participants in the tranexamic acid group and for 146 of 825 participants in the control group (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; P value 0.07; I² = 49%).We were able to evaluate the risk of serious adverse events on the basis of only four trials. Our analyses showed 'no evidence of a difference between tranexamic acid and control interventions regarding the risk of thromboembolic events.’ Tranexamic acid appeared to reduce the risk of surgery ina fixed-effect meta-analysis (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95), but this result was no longer statistically significant in a random-effects meta-analysis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.04; P value 0.07). No difference was apparent between tranexamic acid and placebo in the assessment of transfusion (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; I² = 0%), and meta-analyses that compared tranexamic acid versus antiulcer drugs did not identify beneficial or detrimental effects of tranexamic acid for any of the outcomes assessed.Authors' conclusions This review found that tranexamic acid appears to have a beneficial effect on mortality, but a high dropout rate in some trials means that we cannot be sure of this until the findings of additional research are published. At the time of this update in 2014, one large study(8000 participants) is in progress, so this review will be much more informative in a few years. Further examination of tranexamic acid would require inclusion of high-quality randomised controlled trials. Timing of randomisation is essential to avoid attrition bias and to limit the number of withdrawals. Future trials may use a pragmatic design and should include all participants with suspected bleeding or with endoscopically verified bleeding, as well as a tranexamic placebo arm and co-administration of pump inhibitors and endoscopic therapy. Assessment of outcome measures in such studies should be clearly defined. Endoscopic examination with appropriate control of severe bleeding should be performed, as should endoscopic verification of clinically significant rebleeding. In addition, clinical measures of rebleeding should be included. Other important outcome measures include mortality (30-day or in-hospital), need for emergency surgery or blood transfusion and adverse events (major or minor).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aluminum Hydroxide; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Cimetidine; Drug Combinations; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Lansoprazole; Magnesium; Magnesium Hydroxide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 25414987
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006640.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is a common disorder, characterised by regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a very common presentation in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is a common disorder, characterised by regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a very common presentation in infancy in both primary and secondary care settings. GOR can affect approximately 50% of infants younger than three months old (Nelson 1997). The natural history of GOR in infancy is generally that of a functional, self-limiting condition that improves with age; < 5% of children with vomiting or regurgitation continue to have symptoms after infancy (Martin 2002). Older children and children with co-existing medical conditions can have a more protracted course. The definition of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and its precise distinction from GOR are debated, but consensus guidelines from the North American Society of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN-ESPGHAN guidelines 2009) define GORD as 'troublesome symptoms or complications of GOR.'
OBJECTIVES
This Cochrane review aims to provide a robust analysis of currently available pharmacological interventions used to treat children with GOR by assessing all outcomes indicating benefit or harm.
SEARCH METHODS
We sought to identify relevant published trials by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE and EMBASE (1966 to 2014), the Centralised Information Service for Complementary Medicine (CISCOM), the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Science Citation Index (on BIDS-UK General Science Index) and the ISI Web of Science. We also searched for ongoing trials in the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com).Reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching were handsearched for relevant paediatric studies on medical treatment of children with gastro-oesophageal reflux, as were published abstracts from conference proceedings (published in Gut and Gastroenterology) and reviews published over the past five years.No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Abstracts were reviewed by two review authors, and relevant RCTs on study participants (birth to 16 years) with GOR receiving a pharmacological treatment were selected. Subgroup analysis was considered for children up to 12 months of age, and for children 12 months to 16 years of age, and for those with neurological impairment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Trials were critically appraised and data collected by two review authors. Risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analysis data were independently extracted by two review authors, and suitable outcome data were analysed using RevMan.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 24 studies (1201 participants) contributed data to the review. The review authors had several concerns regarding the studies. Pharmaceutical company support for manuscript preparation was a common feature; also, because common endpoints were lacking, study populations were heterogenous and variations in study design were noted, individual drug meta-analysis was not possible.Moderate-quality evidence from individual studies suggests that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can reduce GOR symptoms in children with confirmed erosive oesophagitis. It was not possible to demonstrate statistical superiority of one PPI agent over another.Some evidence indicates that H₂antagonists are effective in treating children with GORD. Methodological differences precluded performance of meta-analysis on individual agents or on these agents as a class, in comparison with placebo or head-to-head versus PPIs, and additional studies are required.RCT evidence is insufficient to permit assessment of the efficacy of prokinetics. Given the diversity of study designs and the heterogeneity of outcomes, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of the efficacy of domperidone.In younger children, the largest RCT of 80 children (one to 18 months of age) with GOR showed no evidence of improvement in symptoms and 24-hour pH probe, but improvement in symptoms and reflux index was noted in a subgroup treated with domperidone and co-magaldrox(Maalox(®) ). In another RCT of 17 children, after eight weeks of therapy. 33% of participants treated with domperidone noted an improvement in symptoms (P value was not significant). In neonates, the evidence is even weaker; one RCT of 26 neonates treated with domperidone over 24 hours showed that although reflux frequency was significantly increased, reflux duration was significantly improved.Diversity of RCT evidence was found regarding efficacy of compound alginate preparations(Gaviscon Infant(®) ) in infants, although as a result of these studies, Gaviscon Infant(®) was changed to become aluminium-free and has been assessed in its current form in only two studies since 1999. Given the diversity of study designs and the heterogeneity of outcomes, as well as the evolution in formulation, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on the efficacy of Gaviscon Infant(®) . Moderate evidence indicates that Gaviscon Infant(®) improves symptoms in infants, including those with functional reflux; the largest study of the current formulation showed improvement in symptom control but was limited by length of follow-up.No serious side effects were reported.No RCTs on pharmacological treatments for children with neurodisability were identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate evidence was found to support the use of PPIs, along with some evidence to support the use of H₂ antagonists in older children with GORD, based on improvement in symptom scores, pH indices and endoscopic/histological appearances. However, lack of independent placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials makes conclusions as to relative efficacy difficult to determine. Further RCTs are recommended. No robust RCT evidence is available to support the use of domperidone, and further studies on prokinetics are recommended, including assessments of erythromycin.Pharmacological treatment of infants with reflux symptoms is problematic, as many infants have GOR, and little correlation has been noted between reported symptoms and endoscopic and pH findings. Better evidence has been found to support the use of PPIs in infants with GORD, but heterogeneity in outcomes and in study design impairs interpretation of placebo-controlled data regarding efficacy. Some evidence is available to support the use of Gaviscon Infant(®) , but further studies with longer follow-up times are recommended. Studies of omeprazole and lansoprazole in infants with functional GOR have demonstrated variable benefit, probably because of differences in inclusion criteria.No robust RCT evidence has been found regarding treatment of preterm babies with GOR/GORD or children with neurodisabilities. Initiation of RCTs with common endpoints is recommended, given the frequency of treatment and the use of multiple antireflux agents in these children.
Topics: Alginates; Aluminum Hydroxide; Child; Child, Preschool; Domperidone; Drug Combinations; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Gastrointestinal Agents; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Magnesium Hydroxide; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicic Acid; Sodium Bicarbonate
PubMed: 25419906
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008550.pub2