-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.
Topics: Adolescent; Albuterol; Antitussive Agents; Apitherapy; Bromelains; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cough; Dextromethorphan; Diphenhydramine; Honey; Humans; Infant; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29633783
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub5 -
JAMA Psychiatry Oct 2022Although classic psychedelic medications have shown promise in the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD), the efficacy of psilocybin remains unknown.
Percentage of Heavy Drinking Days Following Psilocybin-Assisted Psychotherapy vs Placebo in the Treatment of Adult Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Although classic psychedelic medications have shown promise in the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD), the efficacy of psilocybin remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate whether 2 administrations of high-dose psilocybin improve the percentage of heavy drinking days in patients with AUD undergoing psychotherapy relative to outcomes observed with active placebo medication and psychotherapy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, participants were offered 12 weeks of manualized psychotherapy and were randomly assigned to receive psilocybin vs diphenhydramine during 2 day-long medication sessions at weeks 4 and 8. Outcomes were assessed over the 32-week double-blind period following the first dose of study medication. The study was conducted at 2 academic centers in the US. Participants were recruited from the community between March 12, 2014, and March 19, 2020. Adults aged 25 to 65 years with a DSM-IV diagnosis of alcohol dependence and at least 4 heavy drinking days during the 30 days prior to screening were included. Exclusion criteria included major psychiatric and drug use disorders, hallucinogen use, medical conditions that contraindicated the study medications, use of exclusionary medications, and current treatment for AUD.
INTERVENTIONS
Study medications were psilocybin, 25 mg/70 kg, vs diphenhydramine, 50 mg (first session), and psilocybin, 25-40 mg/70 kg, vs diphenhydramine, 50-100 mg (second session). Psychotherapy included motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was percentage of heavy drinking days, assessed using a timeline followback interview, contrasted between groups over the 32-week period following the first administration of study medication using multivariate repeated-measures analysis of variance.
RESULTS
A total of 95 participants (mean [SD] age, 46 [12] years; 42 [44.2%] female) were randomized (49 to psilocybin and 46 to diphenhydramine). One participant (1.1%) was American Indian/Alaska Native, 3 (3.2%) were Asian, 4 (4.2%) were Black, 14 (14.7%) were Hispanic, and 75 (78.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Of the 95 randomized participants, 93 received at least 1 dose of study medication and were included in the primary outcome analysis. Percentage of heavy drinking days during the 32-week double-blind period was 9.7% for the psilocybin group and 23.6% for the diphenhydramine group, a mean difference of 13.9%; (95% CI, 3.0-24.7; F1,86 = 6.43; P = .01). Mean daily alcohol consumption (number of standard drinks per day) was also lower in the psilocybin group. There were no serious adverse events among participants who received psilocybin.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Psilocybin administered in combination with psychotherapy produced robust decreases in percentage of heavy drinking days over and above those produced by active placebo and psychotherapy. These results provide support for further study of psilocybin-assisted treatment for AUD.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061293.
Topics: Adult; Alcohol Drinking; Alcoholism; Diphenhydramine; Double-Blind Method; Female; Hallucinogens; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Psilocybin; Psychotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36001306
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.2096 -
Anesthesia Progress 2018Adverse reactions to local anesthetics are usually a reaction to epinephrine, vasovagal syncope, or overdose toxicity. Allergic reactions to local anesthetics are often... (Review)
Review
Adverse reactions to local anesthetics are usually a reaction to epinephrine, vasovagal syncope, or overdose toxicity. Allergic reactions to local anesthetics are often attributed to additives such as metabisulfite or methylparaben. True allergic reactions to amide local anesthetics are extremely rare but have been documented. Patients with true allergy to amide local anesthetics present a challenge to the dental practitioner in providing adequate care with appropriate intraoperative pain management. Often, these patients may be treated under general anesthesia. We report a case of a 43-year-old female patient that presented to NYU Lutheran Medical Center Dental Clinic with a documented history of allergy to amide local anesthetics. This case report reviews the use of 1% diphenhydramine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as an alternative local anesthetic and reviews the relevant literature.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Contraindications, Drug; Diphenhydramine; Drug Hypersensitivity; Facial Pain; Female; Humans; Lidocaine; Oral Surgical Procedures; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29952645
DOI: 10.2344/anpr-65-03-06 -
JAMA Apr 2019Oral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and neck radiotherapy. In a randomized study, doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Effect of Doxepin Mouthwash or Diphenhydramine-Lidocaine-Antacid Mouthwash vs Placebo on Radiotherapy-Related Oral Mucositis Pain: The Alliance A221304 Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Oral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and neck radiotherapy. In a randomized study, doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain. A common mouthwash comprising diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid is also widely used.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash for the treatment of oral mucositis-related pain.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A phase 3 randomized trial was conducted from November 1, 2014, to May 16, 2016, at 30 US institutions and included 275 patients who underwent definitive head and neck radiotherapy, had an oral mucositis pain score of 4 points or greater (scale, 0-10), and were followed up for a maximum of 28 days.
INTERVENTIONS
Ninety-two patients were randomized to doxepin mouthwash (25 mg/5 mL water); 91 patients to diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid; and 92 patients to placebo.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES
The primary end point was total oral mucositis pain reduction (defined by the area under the curve and adjusted for baseline pain score) during the 4 hours after a single dose of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash compared with a single dose of placebo. The minimal clinically important difference was a 3.5-point change. The secondary end points included drowsiness, unpleasant taste, and stinging or burning. All scales ranged from 0 (best) to 10 (worst).
RESULTS
Among the 275 patients randomized (median age, 61 years; 58 [21%] women), 227 (83%) completed treatment per protocol. Mucositis pain during the first 4 hours decreased by 11.6 points in the doxepin mouthwash group, by 11.7 points in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group, and by 8.7 points in the placebo group. The between-group difference was 2.9 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.0; P = .02) for doxepin mouthwash vs placebo and 3.0 points (95% CI, 0.1-5.9; P = .004) for diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo. More drowsiness was reported with doxepin mouthwash vs placebo (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-4.0]; P = .03), unpleasant taste (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-3.0]; P = .002), and stinging or burning (by 4.0 points [95% CI, 2.5-5.0]; P < .001). Maximum grade 3 adverse events for the doxepin mouthwash occurred in 3 patients (4%); diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash, 3 (4%); and placebo, 2 (2%). Fatigue was reported by 5 patients (6%) in the doxepin mouthwash group and no patients in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy, the use of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo significantly reduced oral mucositis pain during the first 4 hours after administration; however, the effect size was less than the minimal clinically important difference. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02229539.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antacids; Diphenhydramine; Double-Blind Method; Doxepin; Fatigue; Female; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Lidocaine; Linear Models; Male; Middle Aged; Mouthwashes; Pain; Radiation Injuries; Stomatitis
PubMed: 30990550
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.3504 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving visual environments. The most common symptoms are nausea and vomiting. Antihistamines have been used in the management of motion sickness for decades, however studies have shown conflicting results regarding their efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamines in the prevention and treatment of motion sickness in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 December 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in susceptible adults and children in whom motion sickness was induced under natural conditions such as air, sea and land transportation. We also included studies in which motion sickness was induced under experimental conditions (analysed separately). Antihistamines were included regardless of class, route or dosage and compared to no treatment, placebo or any other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any motion sickness symptoms; 2) the proportion of susceptible participants who experienced a reduction or resolution of existing symptoms. Secondary outcomes were 1) physiological measures (heart rate, core temperature and gastric tachyarrhythmia (electrogastrography)) and 2) adverse effects (sedation, impaired cognition, blurred vision). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (658 participants). Studies were conducted across seven countries, with an overall age range of 16 to 55 years. Motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four studies (rotating chair). All the naturally induced studies only evaluated first-generation antihistamines (cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate). Risk of bias across the studies varied, with mostly low risk for random sequence generation and allocation concealment, and mostly high risk for selective reporting. Only the experimentally induced studies measured physiological parameters and only the naturally induced studies evaluated adverse effects. There were no studies that clearly assessed the paediatric population. Antihistamines versus placebo or no treatment Antihistamines are probably more effective than placebo at preventing motion sickness symptoms under natural conditions (symptoms prevented: 25% placebo; 40% antihistamines) (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.66; 3 studies; 240 participants) (moderate-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under experimental conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.83; 2 studies; 62 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia under experimental conditions (mean difference (MD) -2.2, 95% CI -11.71 to 7.31; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to placebo, antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation (sedation: 44% placebo; 66% antihistamines) (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); they may result in little or no difference in blurred vision (blurred vision: 12.5% placebo; 14% antihistamines) (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.48; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); and they may result in little or no difference in terms of impaired cognition (impaired cognition: 33% placebo; 29% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty). Antihistamines versus scopolamine The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under natural conditions when compared to scopolamine (symptoms prevented: 81% scopolamine; 71% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16; 2 studies; 71 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies were performed under experimental conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on heart rate under natural conditions (narrative report, 1 study; 20 participants; "No difference in pulse frequency"; very low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to scopolamine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on sedation (sedation: 21% scopolamine; 30% antihistamines) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.07 to 9.25; 2 studies; 90 participants) (very low-certainty) and on blurred vision (narrative report: not a significant difference; 1 study; 51 participants; very low-certainty). No studies evaluated impaired cognition. Antihistamines versus antiemetics Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions (MD -0.20, 95% CI -10.91 to 10.51; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). The evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. No studies assessed the effects of antihistamines versus antiemetics under natural conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. No studies evaluated sedation, impaired cognition or blurred vision. One study reported physiological data for this outcome, evaluating gastric tachyarrhythmia specifically. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants; low-certainty evidence). This evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. Antihistamines versus acupuncture The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of antihistamines on the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions when compared to acupuncture (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.57; 1 study; 100 participants) (very low-certainty). This study did not assess the prevention of motion sickness under natural conditions, nor the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. There was no study performed under natural conditions. Physiological measures and adverse effects were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is probably a reduction in the risk of developing motion sickness symptoms under naturally occurring conditions of motion when using first-generation antihistamines, in motion sickness-susceptible adults, compared to placebo. Antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation when compared to placebo. No studies evaluated the treatment of existing motion sickness, and there are few data on the effect of antihistamines in children. The evidence for all other outcomes and comparisons (versus scopolamine, antiemetics and acupuncture) was of low or very low certainty and we are therefore uncertain about these effects of antihistamines.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiemetics; Child; Cinnarizine; Dimenhydrinate; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Middle Aged; Motion Sickness; Scopolamine Derivatives; Young Adult
PubMed: 36250781
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012715.pub2 -
Optics Express Aug 2021'Molecular fingerprinting' with Raman spectroscopy can address important problems-from ensuring our food safety, detecting dangerous substances, to supporting disease...
'Molecular fingerprinting' with Raman spectroscopy can address important problems-from ensuring our food safety, detecting dangerous substances, to supporting disease diagnosis and management. However, the broad adoption of Raman spectroscopy demands low-cost, portable instruments that are sensitive and use lasers that are safe for human eye and skin. This is currently not possible with existing Raman spectroscopy approaches. Portability has been achieved with dispersive Raman spectrometers, however, fundamental entropic limits to light collection both limits sensitivity and demands high-power lasers and cooled expensive detectors. Here, we demonstrate a swept-source Raman spectrometer that improves light collection efficiency by up to 1000× compared to portable dispersive spectrometers. We demonstrate high detection sensitivity with only 1.5 mW average excitation power and an uncooled amplified silicon photodiode. The low optical power requirement allowed us to utilize miniature chip-scale MEMS-tunable lasers with close to eye-safe optical powers for excitation. We characterize the dynamic range and spectral characteristics of this Raman spectrometer in detail, and use it for fingerprinting of different molecular species consumed everyday including analgesic tablets, nutrients in vegetables, and contaminated alcohol. By moving the complexity of Raman spectroscopy from bulky spectrometers to chip-scale light sources, and by replacing expensive cooled detectors with low-cost uncooled alternatives, this swept-source Raman spectroscopy technique could make molecular fingerprinting more accessible.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Alcoholic Beverages; Diphenhydramine; Equipment Design; Humans; Ibuprofen; Lasers; Lenses; Methanol; Nutrients; Optical Devices; Spectrum Analysis, Raman; Toluene; Vegetables
PubMed: 34614822
DOI: 10.1364/OE.427105 -
British Medical Journal Jun 1973
Topics: Amitriptyline; Dibenzazepines; Diphenhydramine; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Humans; Methaqualone; Sleep; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 4733259
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.2.5868.716-b -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2021Vertigo is not itself a disease, but rather a symptom of various syndromes and disorders that jeopardize balance function, which is essential for daily activities. It is...
Vertigo is not itself a disease, but rather a symptom of various syndromes and disorders that jeopardize balance function, which is essential for daily activities. It is an abnormal sensation of motion that usually occurs in the absence of motion, or when a motion is sensed inaccurately. Due to the complexity of the etiopathogenesis of vertigo, many pharmacological treatments have been tested for efficacy on vertigo. Among these drugs, cinnarizine, usually given together with dimenhydrinate, appears to be the first-line pharmacotherapy for the management of vertigo and inner ear disorders. Based on these considerations, the present non-interventional study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of cinnarizine (20 mg) and dimenhydrinate (40 mg) in patients suffering from vertigo-related symptoms. To this end, we enrolled 120 adults-70 males, and 50 females-with an average age of 64 years. Before beginning pharmacological treatment, all patients were screened for the intensity of vertigo, dizziness, and concomitant symptoms through the Visual Scale of Dizziness Disorders and Dizziness Handicap Inventory scales. At the end of the anamnestic evaluation, patients received the fixed-dose combination of cinnarizine (20 mg) plus dimenhydrinate (40 mg) 3 times daily, for 60 days. The results of this study provide further insight regarding the efficacy of the fixed combination when used to reduce symptoms of vestibular vertigo of central and/or peripheral origin, after both the 15- and 60-day therapies. Independent of the type of vertigo, the fixed combination was able to reduce dizziness- and vertigo-associated symptoms in more than 75% of all patients treated, starting from 15 days of therapy, and improving 60 days after starting the therapy. Interestingly, we also found differences between male and female patients in the framework of the pharmacological effects of therapy. This study provides further details concerning the therapeutic efficacy of the fixed combination of cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate, and also focuses attention on the possibility that these drugs could act in a gender-specific manner, paving the way for further research.
Topics: Adult; Cinnarizine; Dimenhydrinate; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Vertigo
PubMed: 33946152
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094787 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2011Up to 40% of older adults have insomnia, with difficulty getting to sleep, early waking, or feeling unrefreshed on waking. The prevalence of insomnia increases with age.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to 40% of older adults have insomnia, with difficulty getting to sleep, early waking, or feeling unrefreshed on waking. The prevalence of insomnia increases with age. Other risk factors include psychological factors, stress, daytime napping, and hyperarousal.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug treatments for insomnia in older people? What are the effects of drug treatments for insomnia in older people? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to December 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 34 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 the following interventions: antidepressants, benzodiazepines, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), diphenhydramine, exercise programmes, timed exposure to bright light, zaleplon, zolpidem, and zopiclone.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Diphenhydramine; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Prevalence; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
PubMed: 22030082
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012Urticaria is a common skin disease characterised by itching weals or hives, which can occur almost anywhere on the body. There are a number of different subtypes and a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Urticaria is a common skin disease characterised by itching weals or hives, which can occur almost anywhere on the body. There are a number of different subtypes and a range of available treatment options. There is lack of agreement on the efficacy of H2-receptor antagonists used in the treatment of urticaria.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and effectiveness of H2-receptor antagonists in the treatment of urticaria.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 7 October 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of H2-receptor antagonists in people with a clinical diagnosis of urticaria of any duration or of any subtype. Studies including H1-antihistamines for chronic urticaria are the topic of a separate Cochrane review; thus, they were not included in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted and analysed data.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies of a relatively small size, involving 144 participants, were included in this review. A combination of ranitidine with diphenhydramine was more effective at improving the resolution of urticaria than diphenhydramine administered alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 2.36). Although there was a similar improvement in itching, weal size, and intensity, cimetidine provided no statistically significant greater overall improvement in symptoms of urticaria when compared to diphenhydramine. However, a combination of these medications was more effective than diphenhydramine alone (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.94). Adverse events were reported with several of the interventions, i.e. ranitidine and diphenhydramine, causing drowsiness and sedation, but there was no significant difference in the level of sedation from baseline with either famotidine or diphenhydramine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The very limited evidence provided by this review was based on a few old studies of a relatively small size, which we categorised as having high to unclear risk of bias. Thus, at present, the review does not allow confident decision-making about the use of H2-receptor antagonists for urticaria. Although some of these studies have reported a measure of relief of symptoms of urticaria and rather minimal clinical improvement in some of the participants, the evidence was weak and unreliable. We have emphasised the lack of precision and limitations in the reported data where appropriate in this review.
Topics: Cimetidine; Diphenhydramine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Famotidine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranitidine; Urticaria
PubMed: 22419335
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008596.pub2