Comparison of erythromycin versus metoclopramide for gastric feeding intolerance in patients with traumatic brain injury: A randomized double-blind study

Use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised adult patients: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal motility is important for adequate uptake of fluids and nutrition but is often impaired in hospitalised patients. Prokinetic agents enhance gastrointestinal motility and are prescribed for many hospitalised patients. In this scoping review, we aimed to systematically describe the body of evidence on the use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised patients. We hypothesised, that the body of evidence would be limited and derive from heterogeneous populations.

METHODS

We conducted this scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement. We searched Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the use of prokinetic agents on any indication and outcome in adult hospitalised patients. We used a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 102 studies with a total of 8830 patients. Eighty-six studies were clinical trials (84%), and 52 (60%) of these were conducted in the intensive care unit, with feeding intolerance as the main indication. In the non-intensive care setting the indications were wider; most studies assessed use of prokinetic agents before gastroscopy to improve visualisation. The most studied prokinetic agent was metoclopramide (49% of studies) followed by erythromycin (31%). In total 147 outcomes were assessed with only 67% of the included studies assessing patient-centred outcomes, and with gastric emptying as the most frequently reported outcome. Overall, the data provided no firm evidence on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects of prokinetic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

In this scoping review, we found that the studies addressing prokinetic agents in hospitalised adults had considerable variations in indications, drugs and outcomes assessed, and that the certainty of evidence was judged to be low to very low.

Preventive strategies for feeding intolerance among patients with severe traumatic brain injury: A cross-sectional survey

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the application status of preventive measures for feeding intolerance in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (STBI) in China and analysis the differences and their causes.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted. From December 2019 to January 2020, ICU nurses and physicians of 89 hospitals in China were surveyed by using a questionnaire on preventive strategies for feeding intolerance in patients with STBI. The questionnaire included two parts: the general information of participants (10 items) and application of preventive measures for feeding intolerance in STBI patients (18 items).

Results

Totally 996 nurses and physicians completed the questionnaire. Among various methods, gastrointestinal symptoms(85.0%) and injury severity (71.4%) were mostly used to assess gastrointestinal functions and risk of feeding intolerance among STBI patients, respectively. Initiating enteral nutrition (EN) within 24–48 h (61.5%), nasogastric tubes (91.2%), 30°–45° of head-of-bed elevation (89.5%), continuous feeding by pump (72.9%), EN solution temperature of 38–40 °C (65.5%), <500 ml initial volume of EN solution (50.0%), monitoring gastric residual volume with a syringe (93.7%), and assessing gastric residual volume every 4 h (51.5%) were mostly applied for EN delivery among STBI patients. Prokinetic agents (73.3%), enema (73.6%), probiotics (79.0%), antacid agents (84.1%), and non-nutritional preparations as initial EN formula (65.6%) were commonly used for preventing feeding intolerance among STBI patients.

Conclusions

The survey showed that nurses and clinicians in China have a positive attitude towards preventive strategies for feeding intolerance. However, some effective new technologies and methods have not been timely applied in clinical practice. We suggest that managers, researchers, clinicians, nurses, and other health professionals should collaborate to explore effective and standard preventive strategies for feeding intolerance among patients with STBI.

Analgesia in the Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit

Acute pain in neurosurgical patients is an important issue. Opioids are the most used for pain treatment in the neurosurgical ICU. Potential side effects of opioid use such as oversedation, respiratory depression, hypercapnia, worsening intracranial pressure, nausea, and vomiting may be problems and could interfere with neurologic assessment. Consequently, reducing opioids and use of non-opioid analgesics and adjuvants (N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists, α2 -adrenergic agonists, anticonvulsants, corticosteroids), as well as non-pharmacological therapies were introduced as a part of a multimodal regimen. Local and regional anesthesia is effective in opioid reduction during the early postoperative period. Among non-opioid agents, acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used frequently. Adverse events associated with opioid use in neurosurgical patients are discussed. Larger controlled studies are needed to find optimal pain management tailored to neurologically impaired neurosurgical patients.

The efficacy and safety of itopride in feeding intolerance of critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition: a randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the Intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with poor clinical outcomes leading to worse prognosis in terms of mortality and ICU stay. Nowadays, prokinetic drugs are the mainstay of therapy in EFI. However, available prokinetics have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. Itopride, is a prokinetic agent which is different and unique from the available prokinetics because of its dual mode of action as well as its tolerability and safety. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of Itopride against metoclopramide for EFI in critically ill patients. Moreover, it tested the utility and applicability of ultrasonography to measure gastric residual volume (GRV) in this population.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind study included 76 EFI patients who were randomly assigned to either Itopride or metoclopramide group. The primary outcome was to measure GRV by ultrasonography. Secondary outcomes included the percentage ratio of enteral feed volume, energy and protein received by patients over 7 days of treatment, ICU length of stay, safety parameters and occurrence of infectious complications or vomiting.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients of each group completed the study. At day 7, itopride significantly decreased GRV compared with metoclopramide group (p = 0.001). Moreover, there was a significant increase in the ratios of received enteral nutrition feed volume, calories, and protein after the one-week therapy in the itopride group more than the metoclopramide group (p = 0.001), (p = 0.002), (p = 0.01), respectively and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In critically ill patients with EFI, itopride was well tolerated with superior efficacy to metoclopramide. In addition, we demonstrated that ultrasonography is a simple, non-invasive, inexpensive, and undemanding method for GRV measurements and can offer reliable assessments in the gastric emptying modality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03698292). Date: October 5, 2018.

The efficacy and safety of prokinetics in critically ill adults receiving gastric feeding tubes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Intolerance to gastric feeding tubes is common among critically ill adults and may increase morbidity. Administration of prokinetics in the ICU is common. However, the efficacy and safety of prokinetics are unclear in critically ill adults with gastric feeding tubes. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetics for improving gastric feeding tube tolerance in critically ill adults.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by systematically searching the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases. Two independent reviewers extracted the relevant data and assessed the quality of the studies. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of the evidence.

Results

Fifteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. A total of 10 RCTs involving 846 participants were eligible for the quantitative analysis. Most studies (10 of 13, 76.92%) showed that prokinetics had beneficial effects on feeding intolerance in critically ill adults. In critically ill adults receiving gastric feeding, prokinetic agents may reduce the ICU length of stay (MD -2.03, 95% CI -3.96, -0.10; P = 0.04; low certainty) and the hospital length of stay (MD -3.21, 95% CI -5.35, -1.06; P = 0.003; low certainty). However, prokinetics failed to improve the outcomes of reported adverse events and all-cause mortality.

Conclusion

As a class of drugs, prokinetics may improve tolerance to gastric feeding to some extent in critically ill adults. However, the certainty of the evidence suggesting that prokinetics reduce the ICU or hospital length of stay is low. Prokinetics did not significantly decrease the risks of reported adverse events or all-cause mortality among critically ill adults.

Efficacy and Safety of Enteral Erythromycin Estolate in Combination With Intravenous Metoclopramide vs Intravenous Metoclopramide Monotherapy in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Enteral Feeding Intolerance: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

In this pilot study, we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of enteral erythromycin estolate in combination with intravenous metoclopramide compared to intravenous metoclopramide monotherapy in mechanically ventilated patients with enteral feeding intolerance.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, controlled pilot study included 35 mechanically ventilated patients with feeding intolerance who were randomly assigned to receive 10-mg metoclopramide intravenously every 6-8 hours in combination with 250-mg enteral erythromycin estolate (study group) or placebo every 6 hours for 7 days. The primary outcome was an administered-to-target energy ratio of ≥80% at 48 hours, indicating a successful feeding. Secondary, prespecified outcomes were daily average gastric residual volume (GRV), total energy intake, administered-to-target energy ratio, hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and 28-day mortality.

RESULTS

The rate of successful feeding was not significantly different between the study and placebo groups (47.1% and 61.1%, respectively; P = .51). The average daily GRV was significantly lower in the study group than in the placebo group (β = 91.58 [95% Wald CI, -164.35 to -18.8]), determined by generalized estimating equation. Other secondary outcomes were comparable, and the incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the 2 groups. One common complication was cardiac arrhythmia, which was mostly self-terminated.

CONCLUSION

Although the combination therapy of enteral erythromycin estolate and intravenous metoclopramide reduced GRV, the successful feeding rate and other patient-specific outcomes did not improve in mechanically ventilated patients with feeding intolerance.

Safety of Metoclopramide in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Patients

Introduction Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) occur due to severe head assault to a hard object, with headache and vomiting being amongst the most common presenting symptoms. Metoclopramide is an old antiemetic agent that has been used widely for nausea and vomiting in TBI patients.

Aim A systematic review of the literature to investigate the safety of metoclopramide in treating TBI patients.

Methods A literature review was conducted in six databases, where we determined the pertinence of a study to the inclusion criteria by assessing the title, keywords, and abstracts. Five studies were found to be relevant. Data were extracted using multiple variables that were formulated incongruent with the study aim and then further analyzed.

Results The collective sample size was 93 patients with an average of age 38.5 years. As much as 51.6% were male and 48.6% were females. Most patients received 10 mg metoclopramide IV with a percentage of 77.4%, while only 22.5% received 20 mg IV metoclopramide. Seventy-one patients received metoclopramide alone and 22 received combination therapy. Headache was the most common reported side effect (46.2%), followed by anxiety and drowsiness with (39.7%) and (27.9%), respectively. Fatigue was reported in 24.7%, while dystonia was the least common and developed in only 5.3% of patients.

Conclusion Metoclopramide is a common medication used to treat TBI patients in the emergency department. However, the review demonstrated that the central nervous system (CNS) side effect is excepted. Treatments with lower CNS side effects may be better options.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Erythromycin versus metoclopramide for post-pyloric spiral nasoenteric tube placement: a randomized non-inferiority trial

Purpose

To determine whether erythromycin is non-inferior to metoclopramide in facilitating post-pyloric placement of self-propelled spiral nasoenteric tubes (NETs) in critically ill patients.

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, open-label, parallel, and non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing erythromycin with metoclopramide in facilitating post-pyloric placement of spiral NETs in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) of eight tertiary hospitals in China. The primary outcome was procedure success defined as post-pyloric placement (spiral NETs reached the first portion of the duodenum or beyond confirmed by abdominal radiography 24 h after tube insertion).

Results

A total of 5688 patients were admitted to the ICUs. Of these, in 355 patients there was a plan to insert a nasoenteric feeding tube, of whom 332 were randomized, with 167 patients assigned to the erythromycin group and 165 patients assigned to the metoclopramide group. The success rate of post-pyloric placement was 57.5% (96/167) in the erythromycin group, as compared with 50.3% (83/165) in the metoclopramide group (a difference of 7.2%, 95% CI − 3.5% to 17.9%), in the intention-to-treat analysis, not including the prespecified margin of − 10% for non-inferiority. The success rates of post-D1 (reaching the second portion of the duodenum or beyond), post-D2 (reaching the third portion of the duodenum or beyond), post-D3 (reaching the fourth portion of the duodenum or beyond), and proximal jejunum placement and the incidence of any adverse events were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

Erythromycin is non-inferior to metoclopramide in facilitating post-pyloric placement of spiral NETs in critically ill patients. The success rates of post-D1, post-D2, post-D3, and proximal jejunum placement were not significantly different.