-
Indian Pediatrics Nov 2018Infantile colic is self-limiting condition but it can be a cause of anxiety for parents and challenge for doctors. The challenge for the doctors lies in correct... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Infantile colic is self-limiting condition but it can be a cause of anxiety for parents and challenge for doctors. The challenge for the doctors lies in correct identification of the condition and appropriate management. The objective of this review article is to summarize the pathophysiology, treatment options and outcome in infantile colic so that clinicians can have a fair idea about the condition, recent updates and future prospects.
EVIDENCE
A search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar was made using the key words "Infant colic", Infantile colic", "excessive crying in infants". All the materials were analyzed and summarized.
RESULTS
At present, infantile colic is an area of clinical research both in terms of etiology and treatment. Various etiological theories have been proposed but none of them are strong enough to completely describe the condition. Various treatment agents are being tried for colic like counseling and behavioral modification, dietary modification, lactase and probiotic supplementation, pain relieving agents, and chiropathy. Proper counseling of the parents is the first line of management at present. Simethicone has no role in decreasing the symptoms of colic and Dicyclomine is not recommended in children younger than six months. No specific recommendations have been made on the use of pain relieving agents and manipulative therapies in colic. At present strong evidence is lacking regarding the use of probiotics, lactase supplementation and dietary modification.
CONCLUSIONS
Counseling of parents about the benign nature of the condition is considered first line for now until an effective treatment is established. Other treatment options are prescribed on a case-based manner, and based on the parental perception of the condition.
Topics: Behavior Therapy; Colic; Counseling; Crying; Diet Therapy; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Parasympatholytics
PubMed: 29941700
DOI: No ID Found -
American Family Physician Oct 2015Infantile colic is a benign process in which an infant has paroxysms of inconsolable crying for more than three hours per day, more than three days per week, for longer...
Infantile colic is a benign process in which an infant has paroxysms of inconsolable crying for more than three hours per day, more than three days per week, for longer than three weeks. It affects approximately 10% to 40% of infants worldwide and peaks at around six weeks of age, with symptoms resolving by three to six months of age. The incidence is equal between sexes, and there is no correlation with type of feeding (breast vs. bottle), gestational age, or socioeconomic status. The cause of infantile colic is not known; proposed causes include alterations in fecal microflora, intolerance to cow's milk protein or lactose, gastrointestinal immaturity or inflammation, increased serotonin secretion, poor feeding technique, and maternal smoking or nicotine replacement therapy. Colic is a diagnosis of exclusion after a detailed history and physical examination have ruled out concerning causes. Parental support and reassurance are key components of the management of colic. Simethicone and proton pump inhibitors are ineffective for the treatment of colic, and dicyclomine is contraindicated. Treatment options for breastfed infants include the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri (strain DSM 17938) and reducing maternal dietary allergen intake. Switching to a hydrolyzed formula is an option for formula-fed infants. Evidence does not support chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation, infant massage, swaddling, acupuncture, or herbal supplements.
Topics: Colic; Education, Medical, Continuing; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Pediatrics; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; United States
PubMed: 26447441
DOI: No ID Found -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Aug 2021Chronic abdominal pain is a common gastrointestinal (GI) symptom that characterizes many functional GI disorders/disorders of gut-brain interaction, including irritable... (Review)
Review
Chronic abdominal pain is a common gastrointestinal (GI) symptom that characterizes many functional GI disorders/disorders of gut-brain interaction, including irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome. The symptoms of abdominal pain in these highly prevalent disorders are often treated with antispasmodic agents. Antispasmodic treatment includes a broad range of therapeutic classes with different mechanisms of action, including anticholinergic/antimuscarinic agents (inhibition of GI smooth muscle contraction), calcium channel inhibitors (inhibition of calcium transport into GI smooth muscle), and direct smooth muscle relaxants (inhibition of sodium and calcium transport). The aim of this review article was to examine the efficacy and safety of antispasmodics available in North America (e.g., alverine, dicyclomine, hyoscine, hyoscyamine, mebeverine, otilonium, pinaverium, and trimebutine) for the treatment of chronic abdominal pain in patients with common disorders of gut-brain interaction. For the agents examined, comparisons of studies are limited by inconsistencies in treatment dosing and duration, patient profiles, and diagnostic criteria employed. Furthermore, variability in study end points limits comparisons. Risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias also differed among studies, and in many cases, risks were considered "unclear." The antispasmodics evaluated in this review, which differ in geographic availability, were found to vary dramatically in efficacy and safety. Given these caveats, each agent should be considered on an individual basis, rather than prescribed based on information across the broad class of agents.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Chronic Pain; Humans; North America; Parasympatholytics
PubMed: 33993133
DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001266 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. This condition... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. This condition appears to be more frequent in the first six weeks of life (prevalence range of 17% to 25%), depending on the specific location reported and definitions used, and it usually resolves by three months of age. The aetiopathogenesis of infantile colic is unclear but most likely multifactorial. A number of psychological, behavioural and biological components (food hypersensitivity, allergy or both; gut microflora and dysmotility) are thought to contribute to its manifestation. The role of diet as a component in infantile colic remains controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of dietary modifications for reducing colic in infants less than four months of age.
SEARCH METHODS
In July 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase , 17 other databases and 2 trials registers. We also searched Google, checked and handsearched references and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of dietary modifications, alone or in combination, for colicky infants younger than four months of age versus another intervention or placebo. We used specific definitions for colic, age of onset and the methods for performing the intervention. We defined 'modified diet' as any diet altered to include or exclude certain components.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was duration of crying, and secondary outcomes were response to intervention, frequency of crying episodes, parental/family quality of life, infant sleep duration, parental satisfaction and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs involving 1121 infants (balanced numbers of boys and girls) aged 2 to 16 weeks. All studies were small and at high risk of bias across multiple design factors (e.g. selection, attrition). The studies covered a wide range of dietary interventions, and there was limited scope for meta-analysis. Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.Low-allergen maternal diet versus a diet containing known potential allergens: one study (90 infants) found that 35/47 (74%) of infants responded to a low-allergen maternal diet, compared with 16/43 (37%) of infants on a diet containing known potential allergens.Low-allergen diet or soy milk formula versus dicyclomine hydrochloride: one study (120 infants) found that 10/15 (66.6%) breastfed babies responded to dicyclomine hydrochloride, compared with 24/45 (53.3%) formula-fed babies. There was little difference in response between breastfed babies whose mother changed their diet (10/16; 62.5%) and babies who received soy milk formula (29/44; 65.9%).Hydrolysed formula versus standard formula: two studies (64 infants) found no difference in duration of crying, reported as a dichotomous outcome: risk ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 5.10; very low-quality evidence. The author of one study confirmed there were no adverse effects. One study (43 infants) reported a greater reduction in crying time postintervention with hydrolysed formula (104 min/d, 95% CI 55 to 155) than with standard formula (3 min/d, 95% CI -63 to 67).Hydrolysed formula versus another hydrolysed formula: one study (22 infants) found that two types of hydrolysed formula were equally effective in resolving symptoms for babies who commenced with standard formula (Alimentum reduced crying to 2.21 h/d (standard deviation (SD) 0.40) and Nutramigen to 2.93 h/d (SD 0.70)).Hydrolysed formula or dairy- and soy-free maternal diet versus addition of parental education or counselling: one study (21 infants) found that crying time decreased to 2.03 h/d (SD 1.03) in the hydrolysed or dairy- and soy-free group compared with 1.08 h/d (SD 0.7) in the parent education or counselling group, nine days into the intervention.Partially hydrolysed, lower lactose, whey-based formulae containing oligosaccharide versus standard formula with simethicone: one study (267 infants) found that both groups experienced a decrease in colic episodes (secondary outcome) after seven days (partially hydrolysed formula: from 5.99 episodes (SD 1.84) to 2.47 episodes (SD 1.94); standard formula: from 5.41 episodes (SD 1.88) to 3.72 episodes (SD 1.98)). After two weeks the difference between the two groups was significant (partially hydrolysed: 1.76 episodes (SD 1.60); standard formula: 3.32 episodes (SD 2.06)). The study author confirmed there were no adverse effects.Lactase enzyme supplementation versus placebo: three studies (138 infants) assessed this comparison, but none reported data amenable to analysis for any outcome. There were no adverse effects in any of the studies.Extract of Foeniculum vulgare, Matricariae recutita, and Melissa officinalis versus placebo: one study (93 infants) found that average daily crying time was lower for infants given the extract (76.9 min/d (SD 23.5), than infants given placebo (169.9 min/d (SD 23.1), at the end of the one-week study. There were no adverse effects.Soy protein-based formula versus standard cows' milk protein-based formula: one study (19 infants) reported a mean crying time of 12.7 h/week (SD 16.4) in the soy formula group versus 17.3 h/week (SD 6.9) in the standard cows' milk group, and that 5/10 (50%) responded in the soy formula group versus 0/9 (0%) in the standard cows' milk group.Soy protein formula with polysaccharide versus standard soy protein formula: one study (27 infants) assessed this comparison but did not provide disaggregated data for the number of responders in each group after treatment.No study reported on our secondary outcomes of parental or family quality of life, infant sleep duration per 24 h, or parental satisfaction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, evidence of the effectiveness of dietary modifications for the treatment of infantile colic is sparse and at significant risk of bias. The few available studies had small sample sizes, and most had serious limitations. There were insufficient studies, thus limiting the use of meta-analysis. Benefits reported for hydrolysed formulas were inconsistent.Based on available evidence, we are unable to recommend any intervention. Future studies of single interventions, using clinically significant outcome measures, and appropriate design and power are needed.
Topics: Allergens; Colic; Crying; Diet Therapy; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Formula; Lactase; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Soybean Proteins; Time Factors
PubMed: 30306546
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011029.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Infantile colic is a common disorder in the first months of life, affecting somewhere between 4% and 28% of infants worldwide, depending on geography and definitions... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Infantile colic is a common disorder in the first months of life, affecting somewhere between 4% and 28% of infants worldwide, depending on geography and definitions used. Although it is self limiting and resolves by four months of age, colic is perceived by parents as a problem that requires action. Pain-relieving agents, such as drugs, sugars and herbal remedies, have been suggested as interventions to reduce crying episodes and severity of symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of pain-relieving agents for reducing colic in infants younger than four months of age.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases in March 2015 and again in May 2016: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO, along with 11 other databases. We also searched two trial registers, four thesis repositories and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of pain-relieving agents given to infants with colic.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs involving 1014 infants. All studies were small and at high risk of bias, often presenting major shortcomings across multiple design factors (e.g. selection, performance, attrition, lack of washout period).Three studies compared simethicone with placebo, and one with Mentha piperita; four studies compared herbal agents with placebo; two compared sucrose or glucose with placebo; five compared dicyclomine with placebo; and two compared cimetropium - one against placebo and the other at two different dosages. One multiple-arm study compared sucrose and herbal tea versus no treatment. Simethicone. Comparison with placebo revealed no difference in daily hours of crying reported for simethicone at the end of treatment in one small, low-quality study involving 27 infants. A meta-analysis of data from two cross-over studies comparing simethicone with placebo showed no difference in the number of of infants who responded positively to treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.23; 110 infants, low-quality evidence).One small study (30 participants) compared simethicone with Mentha piperita and found no difference in crying duration, number of crying episodes or number of responders. Herbal agents. We found low-quality evidence suggesting that herbal agents reduce the duration of crying compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.96; three studies, 279 infants), with different magnitude of benefit noted across studies (I² = 96%). We found moderate-quality evidence indicating that herbal agents increase response over placebo (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.70; three studies, 277 infants). Sucrose. One very low-quality study involving 35 infants reported that sucrose reduced hours spent crying compared with placebo (MD 1.72, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.06). Dicyclomine. We could consider only one of the five studies of dicyclomine (48 infants) for the primary comparison. In this study, more of the infants given dicyclomine responded than than those given placebo (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.34). Cimetropium bromide. Data from one very low-quality study comparing cimetropium bromide with placebo showed reduced crying duration among infants treated with cimetropium bromide (MD -30.20 minutes per crisis, 95% CI -39.51 to -20.89; 86 infants). The same study reported that cimetropium increased the number of responders (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.64).No serious adverse events were reported for all of the agents considered, with the exception of dicyclomine, for which two of five studies reported relevant adverse effects (longer sleep 4%, wide-eyed state 4%, drowsiness 13%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At the present time, evidence of the effectiveness of pain-relieving agents for the treatment of infantile colic is sparse and prone to bias. The few available studies included small sample sizes, and most had serious limitations. Benefits, when reported, were inconsistent.We found no evidence to support the use of simethicone as a pain-relieving agent for infantile colic.Available evidence shows that herbal agents, sugar, dicyclomine and cimetropium bromide cannot be recommended for infants with colic.Investigators must conduct RCTs using standardised measures that allow comparisons among pain-relieving agents and pooling of results across studies. Parents, who most often provide the intervention and assess the outcome, should always be blinded.
PubMed: 27631535
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009999.pub2 -
PloS One 2017We report information about an unpublished 1970s study ("8-way" Bendectin Study) that aimed to evaluate the relative therapeutic efficacy of doxylamine, pyridoxine, and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
We report information about an unpublished 1970s study ("8-way" Bendectin Study) that aimed to evaluate the relative therapeutic efficacy of doxylamine, pyridoxine, and dicyclomine in the management of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. We are publishing the trial's findings according to the restoring invisible and abandoned trials (RIAT) initiative because the trial was never published.
DESIGN
Double blinded, multi-centred, randomized placebo-controlled study.
SETTING
14 clinics in the United States.
PARTICIPANTS
2308 patients in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy with complaints of nausea or vomiting were enrolled.
INTERVENTIONS
Each patient was randomized to one of eight arms: placebo, doxylamine/pyridoxine/dicylcomine, doxylamine/pyridoxine, dicylomine/pyridoxine, doxylamine, dicyclomine/pyridoxine, pyridoxine and dicyclomine. Each patient was instructed to take 2 tablets at bedtime and 1 additional tablet in the afternoon or morning if needed, for 7 nights.
OUTCOMES
Reported outcomes included the number of hours of nausea reported by patients, the frequency of vomiting reported by patients and the overall efficacy of medication as judged by physicians.
RESULTS
Data from 1599 (69% of those randomized) participants were analyzed. Based on the available summary data of physician evaluation of symptoms and ignoring missing data and data integrity issues, the proportion of participants who were "evaluated moderate or excellent" was greater in each of the seven active treatment groups when compared with placebo (57%): doxylamine/pyridoxine/dicylcomine (14% absolute difference versus placebo; 95% CI: 4 to 24), doxylamine/pyridoxine (21; 95% CI 11 to 30), dicylomine/pyridoxine (21; 95% CI 11 to 30), doxylamine (20; 95% CI 10 to 29), dicyclomine/pyridoxine (4; 95% CI -6 to 14), pyridoxine (9; 95% CI -1 to 19) and dicyclomine (4; 95% CI -6 to 14). Based on incomplete information, the most common adverse events were apparently drowsiness and fatigue. There is a high risk of bias in these previously unpublished results given the high attrition rate in a 7 day trial, the lack of prespecified outcomes or analyses, and the exclusion of some data because of questionable data integrity.
CONCLUSION
The available information about this "8-way Bendectin" trial indicates it should not be used to support the efficacy of doxylamine, pyridoxine or dicyclomine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy because of a high risk of bias.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Not registered.
Topics: Cooperative Behavior; Dicyclomine; Doxylamine; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Nausea; Physicians; Placebos; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Publication Bias; Publications; Pyridoxine; Research Report; Risk; Vomiting
PubMed: 28052111
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167609 -
Pain Research and Treatment 2012Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination of dexketoprofen and dicyclomine (DXD) injection in patients with acute renal colic....
Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination of dexketoprofen and dicyclomine (DXD) injection in patients with acute renal colic. Patients and Methods. Two hundred and seventeen patients were randomized to receive either DXD (n = 109) or fixed-dose combination of diclofenac and dicyclomine injection (DLD; n = 108), intramuscularly. Pain intensity (PI) was self-evaluated by patients on visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline and at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 hours. Efficacy parameters were proportion of responders, difference in PI (PID) at 8 hours, and sum of analogue of pain intensity differences (SAPID). Tolerability was assessed by patients and physicians. Results. DXD showed superior efficacy in terms of proportion of responders (98.17% versus 81.48; P < 0.0001), PID at 8 hours (P = 0.002), and SAPID(0-8 hours) (P = 0.004). The clinical global impression for change in pain was significantly better for DXD than DLD. The incidence of adverse events was comparable in both groups. However, global assessment of tolerability was rated significantly better for DXD. Conclusion. DXD showed superior efficacy and tolerability than DLD in patients clinically diagnosed to be suffering from acute renal colic.
PubMed: 22577544
DOI: 10.1155/2012/295926 -
Digestion 2014Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a complex syndrome that is difficult to manage. Here we present the evidence supporting medication treatments for specific IBS... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a complex syndrome that is difficult to manage. Here we present the evidence supporting medication treatments for specific IBS symptoms, discuss evidence-based management of IBS with medications including dose regimens and adverse effects and review progress on research for new IBS treatments.
SUMMARY
Currently, there is evidence to support improvements in specific IBS symptoms following treatment with loperamide, psyllium, bran, lubiprostone, linaclotide, amitriptyline, trimipramine, desipramine, citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, dicyclomine, peppermint oil, rifaximin, ketotifen, pregabalin, gabapentin and octreotide and there are many new medications being investigated for the treatment of IBS. Key Message: Of the medications with demonstrated improvements for IBS symptoms, rifaximin, lubiprostone, linaclotide, fiber supplementation and peppermint oil have the most reliable evidence supporting their use for the treatment of IBS. Onset of efficacy for the various medications has been noted to be as early as 6 days after initiation; however, the efficacy of most medications was not assessed prospectively at predefined periods. Additional studies of currently available and new medications are ongoing and are needed to better define their place in therapy and expand therapeutic options for the treatment of IBS. The most promising new medications for IBS include a variety of novel pharmacologic approaches, most notably the dual μ-opioid receptor agonist and δ-opioid antagonist, JNJ-27018966.
Topics: Drugs, Investigational; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome
PubMed: 24992947
DOI: 10.1159/000362405