-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Itch in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common, often very distressing and associated with depression, reduced quality of life, and increased death. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Itch in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common, often very distressing and associated with depression, reduced quality of life, and increased death. The most common first-line treatment has been the use of antihistamines despite the lack of substantial evidence for its use for uraemic itch. Few recommendations and guidelines exist for treatment.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to determine: 1) the benefits and harms (both absolute and relative) of all topical and systemic interventions for the treatment of uraemic itch, either alone or in combination, when compared with placebo or standard care; and, 2) the dose strength or frequency, stage of kidney disease or method of dialysis used (where applicable) in cases where the effects of these interventions vary depending on co-interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 17 December 2019 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
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with CKD stages 4 or 5 comparing treatments (pharmacological, topical, exposure, dialysis modality) for CKD associated itch to either placebo or other established treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality. Data were analysed using a random effects meta-analysis design estimating the relative effects of treatment versus placebo. Estimates of the relative effects between treatments are included where possible. For continuous measures of severity of itch up to three months, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) were used. When reported, adverse effects were tabulated. The certainty of the evidence was estimated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Ninety-two RCTs, randomising 4466 participants were included. Fifty-eight studies (3285 participants) provided sufficient data to be meta-analysed. Of these, 30 compared an intervention to a placebo or control. The 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was the dominant instrument utilized for itch reporting and the Duo score was used in a minority of studies. GABA analogues including, gabapentin and pregabalin, reduce itch in patients with CKD (5 studies, 297 participants: 4.95 cm reduction, 95% CI 5.46 to 4.44 lower in VAS compared to placebo; high certainty evidence). Kappa opioid agonists, including nalfurafine also reduced itch in this population (6 studies, 661 participants: 1.05 cm reduction, 95% CI 1.40 to 0.71 lower in VAS compared to placebo; high certainty evidence). Ondansetron had little or no effect on itch scores (3 studies, 183 participants: 0.38 cm reduction, 95% CI 1.04 lower to 0.29 higher in VAS compared to placebo; high certainty evidence). Reduction in the severity of itch was reported with oral montelukast, turmeric, zinc sulfate and topical capsaicin. For all other interventions, the certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, and the interventions had uncertain effects on uraemic pruritus. Six studies have disclosed significant financial support from their respective manufacturers, six were affected by lack of blinding, and 11 studies have 15 participants or less. Older, smaller RCTs often failed to follow intention-to-treat protocols with unexplained dropouts after randomisation. Adverse effects were generally poorly and inconsistently reported across all RCTs. No severe adverse events were reported for any intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The RCTs of this meta-analysis contain a large array of interventions with a diverse set of comparators. For many interventions, trials are sparse. This served to make informative meta-analysis challenging. Of all treatments for uraemic pruritus, gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) were the most studied and show the greatest reduction in itch scores. Further RCTs, even of the scale of the largest trials included in this review, are unlikely to significantly change this finding. Kappa-opioid agonists (mainly nalfurafine) also may reduce itch, but indirect comparison suggests a much more modest effect in comparison to GABA analogues. Evidence for oral montelukast, turmeric, zinc sulfate, and topical capsaicin also showed an itch score reduction. However, these reductions were reported in small studies, and warrant further investigation. Ondansetron did not reduce itch. It is somewhat unlikely that a further study of ondansetron will change this result.
Topics: Analgesics; Antipruritics; Humans; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 33283264
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011393.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2011Acute gastroenteritis results from infection of the gastrointestinal tract, most commonly with a virus. It is characterised by rapid onset of diarrhoea with or without... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute gastroenteritis results from infection of the gastrointestinal tract, most commonly with a virus. It is characterised by rapid onset of diarrhoea with or without vomiting, nausea, fever, and abdominal pain. Diarrhoea is defined as the frequent passage of unformed, liquid stools. Regardless of the cause, the mainstay of management of acute gastroenteritis is provision of adequate fluids to prevent and treat dehydration.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent acute gastroenteritis in children? What are the effects of treatments for acute gastroenteritis in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 42 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of: rotavirus vaccines for the prevention of gastroenteritis; enteral rehydration solutions (oral or gastric), lactose-free feeds, loperamide, probiotics, and zinc for the treatment of gastroenteritis; and ondansetron for the treatment of vomiting.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Child; Dehydration; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Loperamide; Nausea; Probiotics; Time Factors
PubMed: 21791124
DOI: No ID Found -
Ondansetron-induced QT prolongation among various age groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Egyptian Heart Journal : (EHJ) :... Jul 2023Ondansetron is a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 serotonin-receptor antagonist with antiemetic properties used inadvertently in the emergency department for...
BACKGROUND
Ondansetron is a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 serotonin-receptor antagonist with antiemetic properties used inadvertently in the emergency department for controlling nausea. However, ondansetron is linked with a number of adverse effects, including prolongation of the QT interval. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the occurrence of QT prolongation in pediatric, adult, and elderly patients receiving oral or intravenously administered ondansetron.
METHODS
A thorough electronic search was conducted on PubMed (Medline) and Cochrane Library from the databases' inception to August 10, 2022. Only those studies were considered in which ondansetron was administered orally or intravenously to participants for the treatment of nausea and vomiting. The prevalence of QT prolongation in multiple predefined age groups was the outcome variable. Analyses were conducted using Review manager 5.4 (Cochrane collaboration, 2020).
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies involving 687 ondansetron group participants were statistically analyzed. The administration of ondansetron was associated with a statistically significant prevalence of QT prolongation in all age groups. An age-wise subgroup analysis was conducted which revealed that the prevalence of QT prolongation among participants younger than 18 years was not statistically significant, whereas it was statistically significant among participants aged 18-50 years and among patients older than 50 years.
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis provides further evidence that oral or intravenous administration of Ondansetron may lead to QT prolongation, particularly among patients older than 18 years of age.
PubMed: 37395900
DOI: 10.1186/s43044-023-00385-y -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2009Acute gastroenteritis results from infection of the gastrointestinal tract, most commonly with a virus. It is characterised by rapid onset of diarrhoea with or without... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute gastroenteritis results from infection of the gastrointestinal tract, most commonly with a virus. It is characterised by rapid onset of diarrhoea with or without vomiting, nausea, fever, and abdominal pain. Diarrhoea is defined as the frequent passage of unformed, liquid stools. Regardless of the cause, the mainstay of management of acute gastroenteritis is provision of adequate fluids to prevent and treat dehydration.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent acute gastroenteritis in children? What are the effects of treatments for acute gastroenteritis in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 20 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of: rotavirus vaccines for the prevention of gastroenteritis; enteral rehydration solutions (oral or gastric), lactose-free feeds, and loperamide for the treatment of gastroenteritis; and ondansetron for the treatment of vomiting.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Child; Diarrhea; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Rehydration Solutions; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines
PubMed: 21726481
DOI: No ID Found -
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 2023Pruritus is a symptom of several cholestatic liver diseases (CLDs) that can impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite evidence-based guideline therapy,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pruritus is a symptom of several cholestatic liver diseases (CLDs) that can impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite evidence-based guideline therapy, managing cholestatic pruritus (CP) remains challenging, thus making the need for newer, more effective therapeutic agents more evident.
OBJECTIVE
Our study evaluated the efficacy of existing CP therapies.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
From inception until March 2023, we conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, and other sources, including pharmaceutical webpages and conference proceedings published in English that reported on CP interventions.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently conducted screening and full-text review of articles with extraction conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The methodological quality of studies included in our qualitative synthesis was assessed by using the Cochrane ROBINS-I and ROBINS-II tools for interventional studies and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. The primary outcome assessed in our systematic review was the severity of CP after therapy.
RESULTS
Of 3293 screened articles, 92 studies were eligible for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis. Some patients' HRQoL improved with evidence-based standard therapy. Others, particularly those with severe and refractory CP, often required conversion to or addition of experimental noninvasive (e.g., ondansetron) or extracorporeal liver support to alleviate CP. In addition, studies investigating a newer class drug, the ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor (IBATi), demonstrate its effectiveness in reducing serum bile acid and alleviating CP with sustained improvement noted in patients with the inherited childhood cholestatic disorders - progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis and Alagille syndrome.
CONCLUSION
Our findings consolidate data on the efficacy of guideline-based approaches and newer therapies for CP. While the initial findings are promising, additional clinical trials will be needed to determine the full extent of IBATi's efficacy and potential use in treating other common CLDs. These results provide a foundation for future research and highlight the need for continued investigation into the management and treatment of CLDs.
PubMed: 37255856
DOI: 10.1177/17562848231172829 -
Medicine Sep 2023Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain.
CONCLUSION
Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Lidocaine; Ondansetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37746949
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035021 -
Cureus Jun 2023In a generation where advancements in research and understanding have led to remarkable achievements in medicine, it is still unfathomable that, after more than a... (Review)
Review
In a generation where advancements in research and understanding have led to remarkable achievements in medicine, it is still unfathomable that, after more than a century, the cause of schizophrenia is still a mystery. While antipsychotics, without a doubt, have brought on an exemplary revolution in the way psychiatric disorders are now treated, there are still imperative deficits that need to be addressed to ultimately enable individuals with schizophrenia to function normally in society. However, without a definite cause of schizophrenia, even though speculation has been made on its inflammatory and neurodegenerative nature, it has provided an unnecessary hindrance to finding further potential treatment modalities for these patients. Nevertheless, some trials are investigating potential adjunctive treatment regimens to antipsychotics, which can help achieve complete remission. Exploring these drugs will have significant implications for managing schizophrenia in future clinical practices. This systematic review was conducted between January 2012 to July 2022 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ondansetron and simvastatin as adjunctive treatment to antipsychotics in adult patients with schizophrenia. This review included nine randomized controlled trials. Overall, both simvastatin and ondansetron, when used as adjunctive treatment in schizophrenia, appear to be safe. Ondansetron showed promising results, with all studies on this drug showing positive overall results on schizophrenia symptoms. On the other hand, simvastatin demonstrated mixed results, which can be attributed to the limited participants in the studies and the shorter duration of the trials. However, more extensive trials with uniform assessment tools are needed to demonstrate concrete evidence of the effectiveness of these drugs, whether alone or in combination with each other or perhaps another drug such as aspirin in schizophrenia.
PubMed: 37456496
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40474 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Hyperemesis gravidarum is a serious pregnancy complication that affects approximately 1% of pregnancies worldwide. To determine whether the use of ondansetron during...
Hyperemesis gravidarum is a serious pregnancy complication that affects approximately 1% of pregnancies worldwide. To determine whether the use of ondansetron during pregnancy is associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, CNKI, CBM, WANFANG, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for citations published in any language from inception to 15 December 2021. Eligible studies included any observational study. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as indicators to examine the association between ondansetron and abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Twenty articles from 1,558 citations were included. Our preliminary analysis showed that compared with the unexposed group, the use of ondansetron during pregnancy may be associated with an increased incidence of cardiac defects (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10), neural tube defects (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.18), and chest cleft (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.37). Further sensitivity analysis showed no significant association between ondansetron and cardiac defects (OR = 1.15,95% CI: 0.94-1.40) or neural tube defects (OR = 0.87,95% CI: 0.46-1.66). When controversial studies were eliminated, the results for the chest defects disappeared. Simultaneously, we found that the use of ondansetron was associated with a reduced incidence of miscarriage (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.89). Ondansetron was not associated with orofacial clefts (OR = 1.09,95% CI: 0.95-1.25), spinal limb defects (OR = 1.14,95% CI: 0.89-1.46), urinary tract deformities (OR = 1.06,95% CI: 0.97-1.15), any congenital malformations (OR = 1.03,95% CI: 0.98-1.09), stillbirth (OR = 0.97,95% CI: 0.83-1.15), preterm birth (OR = 1.22,95% CI: 0.80-1.85), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 1.05,95% CI: 0.72-1.54), or neonatal development (OR = 1.18,95% CI: 0.96-1.44) in our primary analysis. In our analysis, using ondansetron during pregnancy was not associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Although our study did not find sufficient evidence of ondansetron and adverse pregnancy outcomes, future studies including the exposure period and dose of ondansetron, as well as controlling for disease status, may be useful to truly elucidate the potential risks and benefits of ondansetron.
PubMed: 36120333
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.951072 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2022Hypotension induced by spinal anaesthesia is a common clinical complication associated with multiple perioperative adverse events. We conducted a systemic review and... (Review)
Review
Hypotension induced by spinal anaesthesia is a common clinical complication associated with multiple perioperative adverse events. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to confirm whether ondansetron could alleviate hypotension following spinal anaesthesia. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify eligible randomised controlled trials from their respective database inception dates to 30 September 2022. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was the incidence of hypotension after spinal anaesthesia. The risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to assess the level of certainty. A total of 25 studies were included in this research. The meta-analysis revealed that ondansetron significantly decreased the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.53−0.80, p < 0.01, I2 = 64%) and bradycardia. In addition, patients treated with ondansetron had a reduced need for vasopressors administration. This study suggests that ondansetron may be recommended as a prophylaxis for hypotension and bradycardia following spinal anaesthesia; the level of evidence was moderate with a high level of heterogeneity.
PubMed: 36559039
DOI: 10.3390/ph15121588 -
Anaesthesia Feb 2015Several studies have investigated the presence of a drug interaction between tramadol and ondansetron that reduced the efficacy of tramadol postoperatively. Most of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Several studies have investigated the presence of a drug interaction between tramadol and ondansetron that reduced the efficacy of tramadol postoperatively. Most of these studies were small and the results inconsistent, so we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the cumulative dose of tramadol administered by patient-controlled analgesia within the first 24 h after surgery between subjects receiving tramadol alone and those who received tramadol with ondansetron. Six studies, with a total of 340 participants, met the selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was an increased tramadol requirement in patients receiving ondansetron. The standardised mean difference in tramadol requirements, expressed in terms of standard deviations (95% CI), was 1.03 (0.54-1.53) (p < 0.001) at 4 h, 0.66 (0.06-1.25) (p = 0.03) at 8 h, 0.86 (0.41-1.31) (p < 0.001) at 12 h and 0.45 (0.01-0.90) (p = 0.046) at 24 h postoperatively, where the mean pooled standard deviations were 79.5, 157.7, 238.1 and 289.4 mg at 4, 8, 12 and 24 h, respectively. There was a significant linear time effect over the 24 h, indicating that the effect of ondansetron on tramadol consumption diminished with time. The results support the presence of a drug interaction between tramadol and ondansetron in the early postoperative period that potentially decreases the effectiveness of tramadol.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Antiemetics; Drug Interactions; Humans; Ondansetron; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Postoperative Period; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tramadol; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25490944
DOI: 10.1111/anae.12948