-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2014More than half of pregnant women suffer from nausea and vomiting, which typically begins by the fourth week and disappears by the 16th week of pregnancy. The cause of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
More than half of pregnant women suffer from nausea and vomiting, which typically begins by the fourth week and disappears by the 16th week of pregnancy. The cause of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy is unknown, but may be due to the rise in human chorionic gonadotrophin concentration. In 1 in 200 women, the condition progresses to hyperemesis gravidarum, which is characterised by prolonged and severe nausea and vomiting, dehydration, and weight loss.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatment for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy? What are the effects of treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2013 (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 32 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupressure; acupuncture; corticosteroids; ginger; metoclopramide; ondansetron; prochlorperazine; promethazine; and pyridoxine (vitamin B6).
Topics: Acupressure; Acupuncture Therapy; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antiemetics; Female; Zingiber officinale; Humans; Nausea; Pregnancy; Pyridoxine; Vomiting
PubMed: 24646807
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Neurology Jun 2023Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs.
METHODS
We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia.
CONCLUSION
A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.
Topics: Humans; Metoclopramide; Sumatriptan; Network Meta-Analysis; Prochlorperazine; Chlorpromazine; Granisetron; Valproic Acid; Ketorolac; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Headache
PubMed: 37291500
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-023-03259-7 -
Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain... Oct 2021Migraine headaches are the second leading cause of disability worldwide and are responsible for significant morbidity, reduction in the quality of life, and loss of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine headaches are the second leading cause of disability worldwide and are responsible for significant morbidity, reduction in the quality of life, and loss of productivity on a global scale. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of ketamine on migraines and other primary headache disorders compared to placebo and other active interventions, such as midazolam, metoclopramide/diphenhydramine, and prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine.
METHODS
An electronic search of databases published up to February 2021, including Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, a hand search of the bibliographies of the included studies, as well as literature and systematic reviews found through the search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating ketamine in the treatment of migraine/headache disorders compared to the placebo. The authors assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines.
RESULTS
The initial search strategy yielded 398 unduplicated references, which were independently assessed by three review authors. After evaluation, this number was reduced to five RCTs (two unclear risk of bias and three high risk of bias). The total number of patients in all the studies was 193. Due to the high risk of bias, small sample size, heterogeneity of the outcomes reported, and heterogeneity of the comparison groups, the quality of the evidence was very low. One RCT reported that intranasal ketamine was superior to intranasal midazolam in improving the aura attack severity, but not duration, while another reported that intranasal ketamine was not superior to metoclopramide and diphenhydramine in reducing the headache severity. In one trial, subcutaneous ketamine was superior to saline in migraine severity reduction; however, intravenous (I.V.) ketamine was inferior to I.V. prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine in another study.
CONCLUSION
Further double-blind controlled studies are needed to assess the efficacy of ketamine in treating acute and chronic refractory migraines and other primary headaches using intranasal and subcutaneous routes. These studies should include a long-term follow-up and different ketamine dosages in diagnosed patients following international standards for diagnosing headache/migraine.
PubMed: 34703891
DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.5.413 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are commonly prescribed. There is currently no consensus as to the optimum drug treatment of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
OBJECTIVES
To provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of antiemetic medications in the management of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1980 to August 2014) and ISI Web of Science (January 1955 to August 2014). We also searched relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any drug in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the treatment of adults in the ED. Study eligibility was not restricted by language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted authors of studies to obtain missing information if required.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight trials, involving 952 participants, of which 64% were women. Included trials were generally of adequate quality, with six trials at low risk of bias, and two trials at high risk of bias. Three trials with 518 participants compared five different drugs with placebo; all reported the primary outcome as mean change in visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 to 100) for nausea severity from baseline to 30 minutes. Trials did not routinely report other primary outcomes of the change in nausea VAS at 60 minutes or number of vomiting episodes. Differences in mean VAS change from baseline to 30 minutes between placebo and the drugs evaluated were: metoclopramide (three trials, 301 participants; mean difference (MD) -5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.33 to 0.80), ondansetron (two trials, 250 participants; MD -4.32, 95% CI -11.20 to 2.56), prochlorperazine (one trial, 50 participants; MD -1.80, 95% CI -14.40 to 10.80), promethazine (one trial, 82 participants; MD -8.47, 95% CI -19.79 to 2.85) and droperidol (one trial, 48 participants; MD -15.8, 95% CI -26.98 to -4.62). The only statistically significant change in baseline VAS to 30 minutes was for droperidol, in a single trial of 48 participants. No other drug was statistically significantly superior to placebo. Other included trials evaluated a drug compared to "active controls" (alternative antiemetic). There was no convincing evidence of superiority of any particular drug compared to active control. All trials included in this review reported adverse events, but they were variably reported precluding meaningful pooling of results. Adverse events were generally mild, there were no reported serious adverse events. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low, mainly because there were not enough data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In an ED population, there is no definite evidence to support the superiority of any one drug over any other drug, or the superiority of any drug over placebo. Participants receiving placebo often reported clinically significant improvement in nausea, implying general supportive treatment such as intravenous fluids may be sufficient for the majority of people. If a drug is considered necessary, choice of drug may be dictated by other considerations such as a person's preference, adverse-effect profile and cost. The review was limited by the paucity of clinical trials in this setting. Future research should include the use of placebo and consider focusing on specific diagnostic groups and controlling for factors such as intravenous fluid administered.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Ondansetron; Prochlorperazine; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Analog Scale; Vomiting
PubMed: 26411330
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010106.pub2 -
Therapeutic Advances in... 2021Antipsychotic agents (APS) are widely used drugs to treat psychotic symptoms and can effectively reduce both positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. For...
BACKGROUND
Antipsychotic agents (APS) are widely used drugs to treat psychotic symptoms and can effectively reduce both positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. For decades, some studies suggested that there is a relationship between using APS and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE). However, results remain inconclusive.
METHOD
This review has been registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, ID: CDR42020155620). Relevant studies were identified among observational studies published up to 1 October 2019 in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Random or fixed-effects models were used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR).
RESULTS
In total, 28 observational studies were included. The results showed that compared with non-users, current APS users have significantly increased risks of VTE [OR 1.55 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36, 1.76] and PE (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.23, 11.05). Subgroup analyses suggested that new users were associated with a higher risk of VTE (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81, 2.35). For individual drugs, increased risk of VTE and PE was observed in taking haloperidol, risperidone, olanzapine, prochlorperazine but not in chlorpromazine, quetiapine or aripiprazole. However, careful interpretation is needed because of high heterogeneity among studies and scarce data.
CONCLUSION
The present comprehensive meta-analysis further indicates a significantly increased risk of VTE and PE in current APS users compared with non-users. Subgroup analyses suggest that new users are more likely to develop VTE. However, due to significant heterogeneity among studies, conclusions should be considered with caution.
PubMed: 33505665
DOI: 10.1177/2045125320982720 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cannabinoids; Chlorpromazine; Dizziness; Domperidone; Euphoria; Humans; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Neoplasms; Prochlorperazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 26561338
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009464.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2001To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, bibliographies), any language, to August 2000.
STUDIES
30 randomised comparisons of cannabis with placebo or antiemetics from which dichotomous data on efficacy and harm were available (1366 patients). Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol), and intramuscular levonantradol were tested. No cannabis was smoked. Follow up lasted 24 hours.
RESULTS
Cannabinoids were more effective antiemetics than prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, or alizapride: relative risk 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.62), number needed to treat 6 for complete control of nausea; 1.28 (1.08 to 1.51), NNT 8 for complete control of vomiting. Cannabinoids were not more effective in patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. In crossover trials, patients preferred cannabinoids for future chemotherapy cycles: 2.39 (2.05 to 2.78), NNT 3. Some potentially beneficial side effects occurred more often with cannabinoids: "high" 10.6 (6.86 to 16.5), NNT 3; sedation or drowsiness 1.66 (1.46 to 1.89), NNT 5; euphoria 12.5 (3.00 to 52.1), NNT 7. Harmful side effects also occurred more often with cannabinoids: dizziness 2.97 (2.31 to 3.83), NNT 3; dysphoria or depression 8.06 (3.38 to 19.2), NNT 8; hallucinations 6.10 (2.41 to 15.4), NNT 17; paranoia 8.58 (6.38 to 11.5), NNT 20; and arterial hypotension 2.23 (1.75 to 2.83), NNT 7. Patients given cannabinoids were more likely to withdraw due to side effects 4.67 (3.07 to 7.09), NNT 11.
CONCLUSIONS
In selected patients, the cannabinoids tested in these trials may be useful as mood enhancing adjuvants for controlling chemotherapy related sickness. Potentially serious adverse effects, even when taken short term orally or intramuscularly, are likely to limit their widespread use.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cannabinoids; Humans; Nausea; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 11440936
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.16 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Antiemetic drugs are only partially effective in preventing PONV. An... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Antiemetic drugs are only partially effective in preventing PONV. An alternative approach is to stimulate the PC6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, updated in 2009 and now in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of PC6 acupoint stimulation with or without antiemetic drug versus sham or antiemetic drug for the prevention of PONV in people undergoing surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2014), MEDLINE (January 2008 to December 2014), EMBASE (January 2008 to December 2014), ISI Web of Science (January 2008 to December 2014), World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the PC6 acupoint compared with sham treatment or drug therapy, or combined PC6 acupoint and drug therapy compared to drug therapy, for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, capsicum plaster, acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in people undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the incidences of nausea and vomiting after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias domains for each trial. We used a random-effects model and reported risk ratio (RR) with associated 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We used trial sequential analyses to help provide information on when we had reached firm evidence in cumulative meta-analyses of the primary outcomes, based on a 30% risk ratio reduction in PONV.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 59 trials involving 7667 participants. We rated two trials at low risk of bias in all domains (selection, attrition, reporting, blinding and other). We rated 25 trials at high risk in one or more risk-of-bias domains. Compared with sham treatment, PC6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced the incidence of nausea (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77; 40 trials, 4742 participants), vomiting (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.71; 45 trials, 5147 participants) and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; 39 trials, 4622 participants). As heterogeneity among trials was substantial and there were study limitations, we rated the quality of evidence as low. Using trial sequential analysis, the required information size and boundary for benefit were reached for both primary outcomes.PC6 acupoint stimulation was compared with six different types of antiemetic drugs (metoclopramide, cyclizine, prochlorperazine, droperidol. ondansetron and dexamethasone). There was no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the incidence of nausea (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 14 trials, 1332 participants), vomiting (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 19 trials, 1708 participants), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.16; 9 trials, 895 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, due to the study limitations. Using trial sequential analyses, the futility boundary was crossed before the required information size was surpassed for both primary outcomes.Compared to antiemetic drugs, the combination of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic therapy reduced the incidence of vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.91; 9 trials, 687 participants) but not nausea (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; 8 trials, 642 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as very low, due to substantial heterogeneity among trials, study limitations and imprecision. Using trial sequential analysis, none of the boundaries for benefit, harm or futility were crossed for PONV. The need for rescue antiemetic was lower in the combination PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic group than the antiemetic group (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; 5 trials, 419 participants).The side effects associated with PC6 acupoint stimulation were minor, transient and self-limiting (e.g. skin irritation, blistering, redness and pain) in 14 trials. Publication bias was not apparent in the contour-enhanced funnel plots.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-quality evidence supporting the use of PC6 acupoint stimulation over sham. Compared to the last update in 2009, no further sham comparison trials are needed. We found that there is moderate-quality evidence showing no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs to prevent PONV. Further PC6 acupoint stimulation versus antiemetic trials are futile in showing a significant difference, which is a new finding in this update. There is inconclusive evidence supporting the use of a combined strategy of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drug over drug prophylaxis, and further high-quality trials are needed.
Topics: Acupuncture Points; Antiemetics; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wrist
PubMed: 26522652
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub4 -
Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista... 2018The therapeutic effects of cannabinoid compounds have been the center of many investigations. This study provides a synthesis on all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs)...
BACKGROUND
The therapeutic effects of cannabinoid compounds have been the center of many investigations. This study provides a synthesis on all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) that assessed the use of cannabinoids as a therapeutic approach.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Review of SRs, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP).
METHODS
A broad search was conducted in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to retrieve any Cochrane SRs that assessed the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids as a therapeutic approach. The results and key characteristics of all reviews included were summarized and discussed.
RESULTS
Eight SRs were included. They assessed the use of cannabinoids for the following types of conditions: neurological (two SRs), psychiatric (two SRs), rheumatological (one SR), infectious (one SR) and oncological (two SRs). There was moderate-quality evidence showing that the use of cannabinoids reduced nausea and vomiting among adults, compared with placebo. Additionally, there was moderate-quality evidence showing that there was no difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine regarding the number of participants who reported vomiting, in this same population.
CONCLUSIONS
This review identified eight Cochrane systematic reviews that provided evidence of unknown to moderate quality regarding the use of cannabinoids as a therapeutic intervention. Further studies are still imperative for solid conclusions to be reached regarding practical recommendations.
Topics: Cannabinoids; Dementia; Epilepsy; Evidence-Based Medicine; Fibromyalgia; HIV Infections; Humans; Nausea; Schizophrenia; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tourette Syndrome; Vomiting
PubMed: 30365598
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2018.0313210818