[Nutrition (therapy) in gastrointestinal failure]

BACKGROUND

The presence of gastrointestinal dysfunction is an outcome-relevant complication in critically ill ICU patients.

AIMS, MATERIALS AND METHODS

The following review aims to show the importance of gastrointestinal dysfunction. Multimodal therapy for gastroparesis and paralytic ileus is discussed.

CONCLUSION

Erythromycin and metoclopramide are options for gastroparesis, while neostigmine is commonly used for paralytic ileus.

Efficacy of acupoint injection of metoclopramide for post-chemotherapy vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vomiting is one of the most common adverse events of chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the clinical efficacy of acupoint injection of metoclopramide in the treatment of post-chemotherapy vomiting.

METHODS

We searched 4 general English databases and 4 conventional Chinese databases, all with a time frame from database creation to December 2022. The retrieved clinical trials of acupoint injection of metoclopramide for post-chemotherapy vomiting were then subjected to meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included, with a total sample size of 965 cases. Meta-analysis showed that acupoint injection of metoclopramide was effective in improving anti-vomiting effective rate [odds ratio = 5.67, 95% confidence interval = (3.80,8.47), P < .00001] compared with intramuscular/intravenous injection, and trial sequential analysis showed that this benefit was conclusive. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that acupoint injection significantly improved the anti-vomiting effective rate at doses of 10 mg qd, 20 mg qd, and 30 mg qd, as well as at durations of 1 day and 5 days. Subgroup analysis also indicated that injection at the Zusanli acupoint significantly increased the anti-vomiting effective rate, while injection at the Neiguan acupoint had an anti-vomiting effective rate comparable to that of the control group. Harbord regression showed no significant publication bias (P = .730).

CONCLUSION

Acupoint injection of metoclopramide for post-chemotherapy vomiting is more effective than intramuscular and intravenous injections and is not limited by dose or duration of treatment, which may be the preferred way of administration.

Intravenous metoclopramide for increasing endoscopic mucosal visualization in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) is the most common emergency condition that requires rapid endoscopic treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of pre-endoscopic intravenous metoclopramide on endoscopic mucosal visualization (EMV) in patients with acute UGIH. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind controlled trial of participants diagnosed with acute UGIH. All participants underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy within 24 h. Participants were assigned to either the metoclopramide or placebo group. Modified Avgerinos scores were evaluated during endoscopy. In total, 284 out of 300 patients completed the per-protocol procedure. The mean age was 62.8 ± 14.3 years, and 67.6% were men. Metoclopramide group achieved a higher total EMV and gastric body EMV score than the other group (7.34 ± 1.1 vs 6.94 ± 1.6; P = 0.017 and 1.80 ± 0.4 vs 1.64 ± 0.6; P = 0.006, respectively). Success in identifying lesions was not different between the groups (96.5% in metoclopramide and 93.6% in placebo group; P = 0.26). In the metoclopramide group, those with active variceal bleeding compared with the control group demonstrated substantial improvements in gastric EMV (1.83 ± 0.4 vs 1.28 ± 0.8, P = 0.004), antral EMV (1.96 ± 0.2 vs 1.56 ± 0.6, P = 0.003), and total EMV score (7.48 ± 1.1 vs 6.2 ± 2.3, P = 0.02). Pre-endoscopic intravenous metoclopramide improved the quality of EMV in variceal etiologies of UGIH, which was especially prominent in those who had signs of active bleeding based on nasogastric tube assessment.Trial Registration: Trial was registered in Clinical Trials: TCTR 20210708004 (08/07/2021).

Is enhanced recovery after surgery essential?

BACKGROUND

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) method is designed for the patient to recover quickly, have less pain and have a more comfortable period after the surgery; that includes preoperative, intra and postoperative processes. ERAS has been started to be applied in cesarean section surgeries as the patients need to recover quickly. In the literature, there is no study about the results of ERAS in cesarean section about pain scores and complications.

OBJECTIVES

It is aimed to compare the results of cesarean section patients using the ERAS method completely in patients who have had cesarean section without meeting some of the postoperative conditions of the ERAS criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

It is a prospective study designed as postoperative metoclopramide, enema and routine opioids in group 1, enema and metoclopramide in group 2, metoclopramide only in group 3 and nothing in group 4. Postoperative pain scoring was done by using visual analog scale (VAS). Analysis of variance tests and t tests were used for results.

RESULTS

There was no difference between groups according to age, parity, and birth weight. As a result, although there was no difference between the groups in terms of discharge time and complications, the VAS score used in pain scoring was found to be significantly lower in group 3 compared to the other groups (p: 0.000). Only metoclopramide group (group 3) had lowest VAS score.

CONCLUSION

It has been revealed that the ERAS procedure does not need to be so detailed in the postoperative period, and the addition of metoclopramide may be sufficient. Since pain can be a subjective factor, other randomized studies are needed in terms of other criteria.

Rare case report of moxifloxacin-induced persistent hiccups

Moxifloxacin is a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent that is commonly used in clinical practice. Here we report an unusual case of a patient with persistent hiccups caused by moxifloxacin. A man aged in his 40s was treated with moxifloxacin for tuberculous pleurisy. Hiccups occurred 2 hours after intravenous injection of moxifloxacin and lasted into evening. On the second day after injection, hiccups occurred again and made it difficult for him to fall asleep. The clinician ruled out gastrointestinal disease, nervous system disease, electrolyte disturbance and other factors. On assessing causality of the adverse drug reaction, the Naranjo scale for moxifloxacin was six, indicating a probable relationship of hiccups with moxifloxacin. Hiccups stopped 2 min after intramuscular injection of metoclopramide. To our knowledge, this is the first case report about moxifloxacin-induced persistent hiccups. Clinicians should be aware of the rare adverse reaction.

Palliative Management of Inoperable Malignant Bowel Obstruction: Prospective, Open Label, Phase 2 Study at an NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center

CONTEXT

Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common complication of intra-abdominal cancer, frequently seen in advanced gastrointestinal and gynecologic cancer. Management of MBO can be challenging, particularly if the patient is not a surgical candidate. No consensus exists on how best to manage these patients medically. Retrospective studies suggest that the combination of dexamethasone, octreotide and metoclopramide may lead to relief of obstruction and improvement in symptoms associated with the obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

This study seeks to prospectively evaluate the combination of drug "triple therapy" dexamethasone 4 mg BID, metoclopramide 10 mg Q6 and octreotide 300 mcg TID to assess tolerability, safety, and effect on symptoms and deobstruction.

METHODS

Adults admitted at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center with malignant bowel obstruction were eligible. Eligible patients who constented to the study were started on the triple therapy with close monitoring of symptoms and for adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of 15 patients enrolled in the study. Two patients experienced bradycardia as adverse effect and there was no incidence of bowel perforation. All patients who completed the study had complete resolution of their nausea, and improvement in other symptoms including pain, constipation, tolerance of oral intake and resumption of bowel movements. Only two of the 15 patients were alive to complete the six-month post study follow up.

CONCLUSION

"Triple therapy" with dexamethasone, metoclopramide, and octreotide for management of nonsurgical MBO in this small sample size appears safe and well tolerated however a diagnosis of inoperable MBO remains associated with poor prognosis and death within months.

Effects of combined dexamethasone and tranexamic acid in lower limb total arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of combined Tranexamic acid (TXA) and dexamethasone (DEX) in total hip and knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL database were systematically searched for randomized studies that utilized TXA and DEX administration of TXA in THA or TKA.

RESULTS

A total of three randomized studies enrolling 288 patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis. DEX + TXA group demonstrated statistical significantly lesser usage of oxycodone (OR: 0.34, p < 0.0001), metoclopramide (OR: 0.21, p < 0.00001), lesser incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR: 0.27, p < 0.0001), better postoperative range of motion (MD: 2.30, p < 0.00001) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD: 0.31, p = 0.03). Comparable results were seen in total blood loss, transfusion rate and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, the combination of TXA and DEX has positive impacts on the usage of oxycodone and metoclopramide, postoperative range of motion, postoperative nausea and vomiting and reduces the length of hospital stay.

Prokinetics for the treatment of functional dyspepsia: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the previous network meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of prokinetics for functional dyspepsia (FD), there have been a number of new studies and cinitapride is a new prokinetic agent for FD. This updated meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of prokinetics for FD.

METHODS

An updated study search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was conducted in literatures published from July 2015 to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials investigating the use of prokinetics in adult FD patients were included. The primary outcome was the total efficacy rate and the secondary outcome was adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using R software.

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies were included. Network meta-analysis showed that metoclopramide had a higher total efficacy rate than mosapride (OR: 3.53, 95%CI: 1.70-7.47), domperidone (OR: 2.29, 95%CI: 1.16-4.63), itopride(OR: 2.77, 95%CI: 1.41-5.59), acotiamide(OR: 2.63, OR: 1.33-5.36), and placebo(OR: 5.68, 95%CI: 2.98-11.10), however similar to cinitapride (OR: 1.62, 95%CI: 0.75-3.53). Cinitapride had a higher total efficacy rate than mosapride (OR: 2.18, 95%CI: 1.16-4.14) and placebo (OR: 3.52, 95%CI: 2.01-6.24). Cinitapride had lower risk of total adverse events than domperidone. There was no difference in the risk of drug-related adverse events between the prokinetics.

CONCLUSIONS

Metoclopramide and cinitapride may have a better efficacy than other prokinetics in the treatment of FD, and cinitapride may have a lower risk of total adverse events. Further studies using uniform definitions or validated tools to measure the total efficacy rate are needed.

Randomized Trial Comparing Low- vs High-Dose IV Dexamethasone for Patients With Moderate to Severe Migraine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Dexamethasone decreases the frequency of migraine recurrence after emergency department (ED) discharge. However, the optimal dose of dexamethasone is unknown. We hypothesized that dexamethasone 16 mg IV would allow greater rates of sustained headache relief than 4 mg when coadministered with metoclopramide 10 mg IV.

METHODS

This was a randomized double-blind study. Adults who presented with a headache meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, migraine criteria were eligible if they rated the headache as moderate or severe in intensity. Pain intensity was assessed for up to 2 hours in the ED and through telephone 48 hours and 7 days later. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief. Secondary outcomes included headache relief within 2 hours and the number of headache days during the subsequent week. Relying on a priori criteria, the data safety monitoring committee recommended halting the study early for futility.

RESULTS

A total of 1,823 patients were screened, and 209 patients were randomized. The mean age was 38 years (SD 11). One hundred seventy-nine of 209 (86%) identified as women. One hundred fifty-one of 209 (72%) of the population reported severe intensity; the rest reported moderate. Thirty-five of 102 (34%) participants in the metoclopramide +4 mg arm achieved sustained headache relief as did 42/102 (41%) participants in the metoclopramide +16 mg arm (absolute difference 7%, 95% CI -6% to 20%). Headache relief within 2 hours occurred in 77/104 (74%) low-dose and 82/105 (78%) high-dose participants (absolute difference 4%, 95% CI -8% to 16%). During the week after ED discharge, low-dose participants reported a median of 2 headache days (25th, 75th percentile 1, 5); in the high-dose arm, this was also 2 (25th, 75th percentile 0, 4) (mean difference 0.4, 95% CI -0.3 to 1.2).

DISCUSSION

When added to 10 mg IV metoclopramide, doses of dexamethasone greater than 4 mg are unlikely to benefit patients in the ED with migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on October 2, 2019 (NCT04112823). The first patient was enrolled on December 22, 2019.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class I evidence that 16 mg of IV dexamethasone is unlikely to provide greater rates of sustained headache relief than 4 mg of IV dexamethasone among patients in the ED with migraine treated concurrently with IV metoclopramide.

Pharmacologic treatment of gastroparesis: What is (still) on the horizon?

Gastroparesis is a neuromuscular disorder of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Patients typically complain about early satiety, postprandial fullness, nausea and vomiting. Etiology is multifactorial. Treatment strategies include nutritional support, pharmacologic agents or surgery for refractory cases. Metoclopramide is the first and only FDA approved pharmacologic agent for (diabetic) Gastroparesis. A couple of compounds are currently in clinical testing. Some beacons of hope have failed recently, however. Here we present an update on possible future treatment options.

Metoclopramide loaded buccal films for potential treatment of migraine symptoms: in vitro and in vivo study

OBJECTIVE

Developing mucoadhesive buccal films loaded with metoclopramide for the treatment of migraine-associated vomiting.

METHODS

Buccal films were prepared using the solvent casting method. Several tests were conducted, including measurement of film weight, thickness, drug content, moisture uptake, swelling index, and DSC analysis. The bioadhesion properties were also assessed. Furthermore, in vitro release profiles and in human bioavailability were studied.

RESULTS

The developed films were transparent, homogeneous, and easy to remove. Film weight and thickness increased with higher drug content. The drug entrapment exceeded 90%. Film weight increased with moisture uptake, and DSC analysis indicated the absence of drug crystallinity. Bioadhesion properties and swelling index decreased with increasing drug content. In vitro release demonstrated that drug release depended on the drug-polymer ratio. The in vivo study showed significant improvements in Tmax (from 1.21 ± 0.33 to 0.50 ± 0.0) and Cmax (from 45.29 ± 14.66 to 63.27 ± 24.85) compared to conventional tablets.

CONCLUSION

The prepared mucoadhesive buccal films exhibited the desired characteristics and demonstrated enhanced drug absorption, evidenced by the significantly reduced Tmax and increased Cmax compared to conventional tablets. The results indicate the successful achievement of the study objectives in selecting and designing an effective pharmaceutical dosage form. as cm2.

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.

The current practice of aspiration prophylaxis in obstetric anesthesia: a survey among non-physician anesthetic providers working in hospitals in Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary aspiration is one of the most important complications of obstetric anesthesia. Prevention of pulmonary aspiration is commonly performed by the application of different anesthetic maneuvers and administration of drugs. This study aimed to assess the non-physician anesthetic providers current practice of aspiration prophylaxis during anesthesia for cesarean section in Ethiopia.

METHODS

This survey study was conducted from October 01 to November 05, 2020, on a total of 490 anesthetic providers working in hospitals in Ethiopia. A structured checklist was used to collect data from non-physician anesthetic providers.

RESULTS

Four hundred and ninety (490) anesthetic providers participated in our study. The majority of the respondents (84%) were working in the public sector. Most of the cesarean delivery was done under regional anesthesia and more than half of anesthetic providers in Ethiopia administered aspiration prophylaxis routinely. Metoclopramide was the most frequently given as a prophylaxis for pulmonary aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the anesthetic providers administered aspiration prophylaxis routinely. Metoclopramide was the commonest administered aspiration prophylaxis for parturients who underwent cesarean delivery to prevent aspiration.

Use of metoclopramide in the first trimester and risk of major congenital malformations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy affects up to 80% of pregnant women, it typically occurs during the first trimester which is the most sensitive time for environmental exposures given organogenesis. Metoclopramide is an antiemetic drug used widely during NVP, but the findings of studies evaluating its safety of use in pregnancy is inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether metoclopramide use during first trimester of pregnancy is associated with the risk of major congenital malformations.

Methods

The systematic search using database included Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane library. Studies written in English, comprising with an exposed group and a control group, reporting major congenital malformation as an outcome were included.

Results

Six studies assessing a total number of 33374 metoclopramide-exposed and 373498 controls infants were included in this meta-analysis. No significant increase in the rate of major congenital malformation was detected following metoclopramide use during first trimester (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.93–1.38).

Conclusions

Metoclopramide use during first trimester of pregnancy was not associated with the risk of major congenital malformations.

Could prokinetic agents protect long-term nasogastric tube-dependent patients from being hospitalized for pneumonia? A nationwide population-based case-crossover study

Background

Some studies have indicated that the use of prokinetic agents may reduce pneumonia risk in some populations. Nasogastric tube insertion is known to increase the risk of pneumonia because it disrupts lower esophageal sphincter function. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether prokinetic agents could protect long-term nasogastric tube-dependent patients in Taiwan from being hospitalized for pneumonia.

Methods

A case-crossover study design was applied in this study. Long-term nasogastric tube-dependent patients who had a first-time admission to a hospital due to pneumonia from 1996 to 2013 that was recorded in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database were included. The case period was set to be 30 days before admission, and two control periods were selected for analysis. Prokinetic agent use during those three periods was then assessed for the included patients. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) for pneumonia admission with the use of prokinetic agents.

Results

A total of 639 first-time hospitalizations for pneumonia among patients with long-term nasogastric tube dependence were included. After adjusting the confounding factors for pneumonia, no negative association between prokinetic agent use and pneumonia hospitalization was found, and the adjusted OR was 1.342 (95% CI 0.967–1.86). In subgroup analysis, the adjusted ORs were 1.401 (0.982–1.997), 1.256 (0.87–1.814), 0.937 (0.607–1.447) and 2.222 (1.196–4.129) for elderly, stroke, diabetic and parkinsonism patients, respectively.

Conclusion

Prokinetic agent use had no negative association with pneumonia admission among long-term nasogastric tube-dependent patients in Taiwan.

Metoclopramide nasal spray for management of symptoms of acute and recurrent diabetic gastroparesis in adults

Introduction: Gastroparesis (GP) is characterized by delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction. About 75% of GP patients are females. Diabetes and idiopathic are the two commonest etiologies of GP. Up to two-thirds of the GP patients do not have significant symptom responses to medical therapies, and there is a paucity of available oral prokinetic agents with only one medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this indication. The oral and parenteral formulations of metoclopramide were FDA approved in 1979 to treat symptoms of acute and recurrent diabetic GP. Now, more than 40 years later, a nasal preparation of metoclopramide (Gimoti^TM) was approved in June 2020 for the same indication.Areas covered: PubMed search using the keywords 'nasal metoclopramide' and 'diabetic gastroparesis.' This article aims to provide a concise review of the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of nasal metoclopramide.Expert opinion: The nasal formulation can be systemically absorbed without relying on the passage through a poorly emptying stomach, thus assuring the delivery of a therapeutic dose of metoclopramide, even during episodes of vomiting. Hence, metoclopramide nasal spray has the potential to be used during an acute flare, potentially avoiding hospitalizations.

Diabetic gastroparesis: An overview of pathogenesis, clinical presentation and novel therapies, with a focus on ghrelin receptor agonists

Diabetic gastroparesis is defined as delayed gastric emptying without mechanical obstruction in the setting of diabetes. Symptoms range from mild bloating to severe vomiting episodes and can result in frequent hospitalizations and poor quality of life. It is suspected that diabetic gastroparesis is underdiagnosed due to its similar presentation to other conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease. The pathogenesis of diabetic gastroparesis remains unclear, but proposed mechanisms include vagal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, interstitial cells of Cajal network disturbances, loss of neural nitric oxide synthase expression in the myenteric plexus, and oxidative stress. Current management for diabetic gastroparesis focuses on dietary and lifestyle changes as well as improved glycemic control. Limited options for medical therapies are available that include prokinetic and antiemetic medications. Metoclopramide is the only FDA-approved medication for the treatment of gastroparesis. Metoclopramide improves symptoms of gastroparesis although extended treatment presents challenges such as decreased efficacy over time and increased risks for adverse events. We summarize the current knowledge of the pathophysiology of diabetic gastroparesis and review current and investigational treatments for diabetes gastroparesis.

Metoclopramide treatment blocks CD93-signaling-mediated self-renewal of chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells

Self-renewal is a key characteristic of leukemia stem cells (LSCs) responsible for the development and maintenance of leukemia. In this study, we identify CD93 as an important regulator of self-renewal and proliferation of murine and human LSCs, but not hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). The intracellular domain of CD93 promotes gene transcription via the transcriptional regulator SCY1-like pseudokinase 1 independently of ligation of the extracellular domain. In a drug library screen, we identify the anti-emetic agent metoclopramide as an efficient blocker of CD93 signaling. Metoclopramide treatment reduces murine and human LSCs in vitro and prolongs survival of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) mice through downregulation of pathways related to stemness and proliferation in LSCs. Overall, these results identify CD93 signaling as an LSC-specific regulator of self-renewal and proliferation and a targetable pathway to eliminate LSCs in CML.

Comparison of efficacy dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide in the treatment of nausea due to vertigo; a randomized study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide in patients with nausea and vertigo.

METHODS

A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was performed on patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with nausea and vertigo in the six month period between Nov 1st 2012 and May 1st 2013. Adult patients who were 18 to 65 years old presenting to the ED with nausea and vertigo or motion sickness were included in the study. A total of 200 patients were divided into 2 groups who were admitted to ED with complaints of vertigo accompanied by nausea. In the first group, 50 mg dimenhydrinate and 10 mg metoclopramide infusions were given intravenously for 15 min. The efficacy of treatment was measured by using a 10 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) performed at 0, 15 and the 30th minute. The primary outcome variable was a reduction in vertigo intensity documented on the VAS at the 30th minute after medication administration.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were included in the randomization (n=100 in both groups). The baseline vertigo VAS scores were 7.57±1.42 in the dimenhydrinate (DMT) group and 7.27±1.40 in the metoclopramide (MTP) group (p=0.09). In the 30th minute of treatment, the average vertigo VAS score was 2.46 ± 2.39 in the DMT group and 2.31±1.96 in the MTP group; no significant differences were detected between groups. The baseline nausea VAS scores were 7.62±1.48 in the DMT group and 7.45±1.27 in the MTP group (p=0.36). In the 30th minute of treatment the average vertigo VAS score decreased to 2.27±2.24 in the DMT group and 2.70±2.48 in the MTP group, no significant differences were detected between groups. No significant differences were detected between nausea VAS changes and vertigo VAS changes at 30th minutes of the treatment (p=0.06, p=0.85 respectively). Rescue medication need was similar in both treatment groups (p=0.94). No significant differences were detected about the side effects which are sedation (p=0.56) and hypotension (p=0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this prospective, double-blind, randomized study showed that both DMT and MTP have similar efficacy in reducing nausea and vertigo symptoms in the ED.

Gastroparesis: New insights into an old disease

Gastroparesis (Gp) is a chronic disease characterized by a delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction. Although this condition has been reported in the literature since the mid-1900s, only recently has there been renewed clinical and scientific interest in this disease, which has a potentially great impact on the quality of life. The aim of this review is to explore the pathophysiological, diagnostic and therapeutical aspects of Gp according to the most recent evidence. A comprehensive online search for Gp was carried out using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Gp is the result of neuromuscular abnormalities of the gastric motor function. There is evidence that patients with idiopathic and diabetic Gp may display a reduction in nitrergic inhibitory neurons and in interstitial cells of Cajal and/or telocytes. As regards diagnostic approach, 99-Technetium scintigraphy is currently considered to be the gold standard for Gp. Its limits are a lack of standardization and a mild risk of radiation exposure. The C13 breath testing is a valid and safe alternative method. ¹³C acid octanoic and the ¹³C Spirulina platensis recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration are the most commonly used diagnostic kits. The wireless motility capsule is a promising technique, but its use is limited by costs and scarce availability in many countries. Finally, therapeutic strategies are related to the clinical severity of Gp. In mild and moderate Gp, dietary modification and prokinetic agents are generally sufficient. Metoclopramide is the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for Gp. However, other older and new prokinetics and antiemetics can be considered. As a second-line therapy, tricyclic antidepressants and cannabinoids have been proposed. In severe cases the normal nutritional approach can be compromised and artificial nutrition may be needed. In drug-unresponsive Gp patients some alternative strategies (endoscopic, electric stimulation or surgery) are available.

Comparison of the Effects of Haloperidol, Metoclopramide, Dexmedetomidine and Ginger on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Nausea is a mental sensation of unease and discomfort before vomiting. Vomiting refers to the return of the contents of the upper gastrointestinal tract to the mouth caused by contractions of chest and abdomen muscles. Postoperative nausea and vomiting is an unpleasant experience with high treatment costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of haloperidol, metoclopramide, dexmedetomidine, and ginger on postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopy. This double-blind clinical trial was performed on all laparoscopy candidates at Valiasr hospital, Arak, Iran. The patients were randomly divided into four groups (haloperidol, metoclopramide, dexmedetomidine and ginger), and all patients underwent general anesthesia using fentanyl, midazolam, atracurium, and propofol. After intubation, tube fixation, and stable hemodynamic conditions, the patients received four ginger capsules with a hint of lemon. A group of patients received 25 μg of dexmedetomidine. In the Plasil group, 10 mg of metoclopramide was given 30 minutes before the completion of surgery. In addition, 0.5 cc of haloperidol (5 mg) was administered to a group of patients. Heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded from the beginning of surgery, every 15 minutes until the end of the surgery. Furthermore, the occurrence of nausea and vomiting was recorded during recovery, 2 and 4 hours after surgery. Data were then analyzed using the SPSS software v.23. Eighty-eight patients were enrolled in the study. The youngest and the oldest were 30 years and 70 years old, respectively, and the mean age was 48.02 ± 9.31 years. Moreover, the number of women in the four groups was higher than that of men. Blood pressure in the dexmedetomidine group was lower than the other four groups (P <0.05). The lowest heart rate was observed in the haloperidol group, while the highest heart rate was seen in the plasil group (P <0.05). The occurrence of vomiting and nausea was not significantly different between the four groups (P <0.05). Our results showed no significant difference in postoperative nausea and vomiting between the four drugs. Due to the hemodynamic changes induced by each drug, it is best to use these drugs based on the patient's condition. Ginger is also a herbal remedy that has fewer side effects, and this drug can be a good option for patients when there is no contraindication.

A Brief Look at Urgent Care Visits for Migraine: The Care Received and Ideas to Guide Migraine Care in this Proliferating Medical Setting

OBJECTIVE

There has been a rise in urgent care centers throughout the country over the past 10 years, leading to an increase in patients accessing medical care in these locations. These centers advertise an alternative to the Emergency Department (ED) for the evaluation and treatment of urgent medical conditions. The goal of this analysis was to examine the use of urgent care visits for migraine within 2 urgent care centers within a large academic medical system in New York City. We examined the trends in management and treatment of migraine in these urgent care settings, as well as prescriptions and instructions given to this patient population upon discharge. We paid particular attention to whether the medications administered and prescribed on discharge were those recommended by American Headache Society migraine management guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with migraine diagnoses at 2 different urgent care locations within 1 large urban medical center. We determined baseline patient demographics, previous migraine characteristics, frequencies of reasons for urgent care visits as well as various medications administered, medications prescribed on discharge, and characteristics of patient outcomes post-discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 78 patients who visited urgent care with a migraine diagnosis, 20 (25.6%) had a known primary care provider within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. More than three-fourths of all patients (78.2%) had a self-reported history of either recurrent headache or migraine prior to the urgent care visit. Of those with a documented frequency of prior headaches, 94.1% (32/34) had episodic migraine and 79.4% (27/34) experienced at most 1-2 headache days per month. Of those presenting to the urgent care during an episode of migraine, 12.3% (9/73) were given intravenous metoclopramide and none were given subcutaneous sumatriptan or intravenous prochlorperazine. Of those with reported nausea or vomiting with their migraine, 46.2% (18/39) received an anti-emetic at the visit and 33.3% (13/39) were given an anti-emetic prescription. Only 11.1% (6/54) of patients who did not have a record of previous triptan use were given a triptan prescription at the urgent care visit.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients in our study who sought medical treatment for migraine in these 2 urgent care centers were not established patients within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. While 93.6% (73/78) of patients were experiencing current pain upon presentation to the urgent care centers, only 12.3% (9/73) received administration of the medications with the highest level of evidence by the American Headache Society (Level B) for acute migraine treatment in an ED. In addition, the majority of patients with a migraine history presenting to the urgent care setting were not given triptans or anti-emetic prescriptions upon discharge from their urgent care visit. Having these migraine-specific prescriptions may improve self-treatment at home should a migraine attack recur.

Efficacy of metoclopramide for the treatment of acute migraine

BACKGROUND

In this study, we will assess the efficacy and safety of metoclopramide for the treatment of acute migraine (AM).

METHODS

We will comprehensively search Cochrane Library, PUMBED, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from the inception to July 1, 2019 to identify any eligible studies. Only randomized controlled trials will be considered for inclusion. The study selection, data collection, and management will be completed by two authors independently. The risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. RevMan 5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The primary outcome includes pain intensity, as measured by visual analogue scale or others. The secondary outcomes are success rate, requirement of rescue medicine, quality of life, relapse, and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will summarize the latest evidence for the clinical efficacy and safety of metoclopramide for the treatment of AM.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019142795.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of ulimorelin and metoclopramide in the treatment of critically ill patients with enteral feeding intolerance: PROMOTE trial

PURPOSE

Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the intensive care unit (ICU), but current prokinetic agents have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of ulimorelin, a ghrelin agonist, with metoclopramide in the treatment of EFI.

METHODS

One hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5 days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 500 ml. A volume-based feeding protocol was employed, and enteral formulas were standardized. The primary end point was the percentage daily protein prescription (%DPP) received by patients over 5 days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV ≥ 500 ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty patients were randomized and received the study drug (ulimorelin 62, metoclopramide 58). Mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21.6 and 8.6, and 63.3% of patients had medical reasons for ICU admission. Ulimorelin and metoclopramide resulted in comparable %DPPs over 5 days of treatment (median [Q1, Q3]: 82.9% [38.4%, 100.2%] and 82.3% [65.6%, 100.2%], respectively, p = 0.49). Five-day rates of feeding success were 67.7% and 70.6% when terminations unrelated to feeding were excluded, and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.

Comparison of acute vertigo diagnosis and treatment practices between otolaryngologists and non-otolaryngologists: A multicenter scenario-based survey

Acute vertigo is a common problem in emergency departments. However, clinical strategies of acute vertigo care vary among care providers. The aim of the study was to investigate differences in diagnosis [Dix-Hallpike test, the head impulse, nystagmus, and the test of skew (HINTS) procedure, and imaging modalities] and treatment (pharmacological treatments and the Epley maneuver) by otolaryngologists and non-otolaryngologists in emergency medicine settings. We used a multicenter case-based survey for the study. Four clinical vignettes of acute vertigo (posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, vestibular neuritis, Meniere disease, and nonspecific vertigo) were used. Total 151 physicians from all study sites participated in the study. There were 84 non-otolaryngologists (48 emergency physicians and 36 internists) and 67 otolaryngologists. The multivariate analysis indicated that otolaryngologists ordered fewer CT scans (odds ratio (OR), 0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.07-0.53) and performed fewer HINTS procedures (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.46), but used the Dix-Hallpike method more often (OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.01-5.52) for diagnosis compared to non-otolaryngologists. For treatment, otolaryngologists were less likely to use the Epley method (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.53) and metoclopramide (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.97) and more likely to use sodium bicarbonate (OR, 20.50; 95% CI, 6.85-61.40) compared to non-otolaryngologists. We found significant differences in the acute vertigo care provided by non-otolaryngologists and otolaryngologists from a vignette-based research. To improve acute vertigo care, educational systems focusing on acute vertigo are needed.

Women's perspectives on the management and consequences of hyperemesis gravidarum - a descriptive interview study

OBJECTIVE

Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) affects 0.3-3% of pregnant women and is a leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy. The aim of the study was to investigate women's treatment and management of HG, as well as the consequences of HG on women's daily life.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional study based on a structured telephone interview and an online questionnaire. Participants were recruited by social media and by the Norwegian patient's organization for HG.

SUBJECTS

Norwegian women that experienced HG.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Women's perspectives on management and consequences of HG.

RESULTS

The study included 107 women. Maternal morbidity was profound; about 3/4 of participants were hospitalized due to HG, and the majority showed clinical signs of dehydration (79%), ketonuria (75%), and >5% weight loss (84%). Antiemetics were used by >90% and frequently prescribed "as needed". Metoclopramide (71%) and meclozine (51%) were most commonly used. Participants described HG as having severe psychosocial consequences and profound impact on daily activities. Almost two out of five reported thoughts of elective abortion, and 8 women had at least one elective pregnancy termination due to HG. Overall, 20 women (19%) changed GPs due to dissatisfaction with HG management.

CONCLUSION

Despite the high psychosocial burden and major impact on daily activities, many women with HG reported a lack of support from healthcare professionals and suboptimal management. Greater awareness and knowledge among healthcare professionals is needed to improve care for women with HG. Key Points There is a paucity of studies on management and the consequences of HG on women's daily lives and psychosocial burden. We found that: • Many women described HG as one of their worst life experiences with profound morbidity. • Many women reported suboptimal management of HG and lack of support from healthcare professionals. • Greater understanding of patient perspectives among healthcare professionals is important to improve care and management for HG patients.

The nature of nausea: prevalence, etiology, and treatment in patients with advanced cancer not receiving antineoplastic treatment

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of nausea/vomiting in patients with advanced cancer has a wide range. Due to a very low level of evidence regarding antiemetic treatment, current guidelines recommend an etiology-based approach. The evidence for this approach is also slim and research is urgently needed.

OBJECTIVES

(Part One) to elucidate the prevalence of nausea and the possible associations with sociodemographic and clinical variables and (Part Two) to investigate possible etiologies of nausea and antiemetic treatments initiated in patients with nausea.

METHODS

Patients with advanced cancer and no recent antineoplastic treatment were included in a prospective two-part study. In Part One, patients completed an extended version of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL. Nauseated patients could then be included in Part Two in which possible etiologies and antiemetic treatment were recorded and a follow-up questionnaire was completed.

RESULTS

Eight hundred twenty-one patients were included and 46% reported any degree of nausea. Younger age and female sex were associated with a higher degree of nausea. Common etiologies included constipation, opioid use, and "other," and treatments associated with a statistically significant decrease in nausea/vomiting were olanzapine, laxatives, corticosteroids, domperidone, and metoclopramide.

CONCLUSION

Nausea was a common symptom in this patient population and many different etiologies were suggested. Most patients reported a lower degree of nausea at follow-up. More research in treatment approaches and specific antiemetics is strongly needed.

Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke

BACKGROUND

Dysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life, and longer hospital stay. Treatments provided to improve dysphagia are aimed at accelerating recovery of swallowing function and reducing these risks. This is an update of the review first published in 1999 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of swallowing therapy on death or dependency among stroke survivors with dysphagia within six months of stroke onset.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (26 June 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 June 2018), MEDLINE (26 June 2018), Embase (26 June 2018), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (26 June 2018), Web of Science Core Collection (26 June 2018), SpeechBITE (28 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.Gov (26 June 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 June 2018). We also searched Google Scholar (7 June 2018) and the reference lists of relevant trials and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for people with dysphagia and recent stroke (within six months).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence, and resolved disagreements through discussion with the third review author (PB). We used random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs), and provided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each.The primary outcome was functional outcome, defined as death or dependency (or death or disability), at the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes were case fatality at the end of the trial, length of inpatient stay, proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial, swallowing ability, penetration aspiration score, or pneumonia, pharyngeal transit time, institutionalisation, and nutrition.

MAIN RESULTS

We added 27 new studies (1777 participants) to this update to include a total of 41 trials (2660 participants).We assessed the efficacy of swallowing therapy overall and in subgroups by type of intervention: acupuncture (11 studies), behavioural interventions (nine studies), drug therapy (three studies), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES; six studies), pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES; four studies), physical stimulation (three studies), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS; two studies), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; nine studies).Swallowing therapy had no effect on the primary outcome (death or dependency/disability at the end of the trial) based on data from one trial (two data sets) (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.75; 306 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.86; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy had no effect on case fatality at the end of the trial (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 766 participants; 14 studies; I² = 6%; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy probably reduced length of inpatient stay (MD -2.9, 95% CI -5.65 to -0.15; 577 participants; 8 studies; I² = 11%; P = 0.04; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.54). Swallowing therapy may have reduced the proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; 1487 participants; 23 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Trial results show no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.91). Swallowing therapy may improve swallowing ability (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.32; 1173 participants; 26 studies; I² = 86%; P = 0.0002; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.09). We noted moderate to substantial heterogeneity between trials for these interventions. Swallowing therapy did not reduce the penetration aspiration score (i.e. it did not reduce radiological aspiration) (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.00; 303 participants; 11 studies; I² = 46%; P = 0.05; low-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy may reduce the incidence of chest infection or pneumonia (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; 618 participants; 9 studies; I² = 59%; P = 0.009; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- and low-quality evidence suggests that swallowing therapy did not have a significant effect on the outcomes of death or dependency/disability, case fatality at the end of the trial, or penetration aspiration score. However, swallowing therapy may have reduced length of hospital stay, dysphagia, and chest infections, and may have improved swallowing ability. However, these results are based on evidence of variable quality, involving a variety of interventions. Further high-quality trials are needed to test whether specific interventions are effective.

Olanzapine for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related nausea and vomiting in adults

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or whilst in the palliative phase of illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine when used as an antiemetic in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting related to cancer in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase for published data on 20th September 2017, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. We checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field and study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of olanzapine versus any comparator with or without adjunct therapies for the prevention or treatment, or both, of nausea or vomiting in people with cancer aged 18 years or older, in any setting, of any duration, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for each main outcome. We extracted data for absence of nausea or vomiting and frequency of serious adverse events as primary outcomes. We extracted data for patient perception of treatment, other adverse events, somnolence and fatigue, attrition, nausea or vomiting severity, breakthrough nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea and vomiting as secondary outcomes at specified time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (1917 participants) from high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing over 24 different cancers. Thirteen studies were in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Oral olanzapine was administered during highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy (12 studies); chemoradiotherapy (one study); or palliation (one study). Eight studies await classification and 13 are ongoing.The main comparison was olanzapine versus placebo/no treatment. Other comparisons were olanzapine versus NK1 antagonist, prokinetic, 5-HT3 antagonist or dexamethasone.We assessed all but one study as having one or more domains that were at high risk of bias. Eight RCTs with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, and 10 RCTs with issues related to blinding, were at high risk of bias. We downgraded GRADE assessments due to imprecision, inconsistency and study limitations.Olanzapine versus placebo/no treatmentPrimary outcomesOlanzapine probably doubles the likelihood of no nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.47; 561 participants; 3 studies; solid tumours; HEC or MEC therapy; moderate-quality evidence) when added to standard therapy. Number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5 (95% CI 3.3 - 6.6).It is uncertain if olanzapine increases the risk of serious adverse events (absolute risk difference 0.7% more, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.2) (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.48 to 12.55; 7 studies, 889 participants, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFour studies reported patient perception of treatment. One study (48 participants) reported no difference in patient preference. Four reported quality of life but data were insufficient for meta-analysis.Olanzapine may increase other adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.96; 332 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) and probably increases somnolence and fatigue compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.18; anticipated absolute risk 8.2% more, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.8; 464 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Olanzapine probably does not affect all-cause attrition (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.73; 943 participants; 8 studies; I² = 0%). We are uncertain if olanzapine increases attrition due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.16; 422 participants; 6 studies). No participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy.We are uncertain if olanzapine reduces breakthrough nausea and vomiting (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.47; 501 participants; 2 studies; I² = 54%) compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies reported 50% reduction in severity of nausea or vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or attrition.We are uncertain of olanzapine's efficacy in reducing acute nausea or vomiting. Olanzapine probably reduces delayed nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.09; 585 participants; 3 studies) and vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42; 702 participants; 5 studies).Subgroup analysis: 5 mg versus 10 mgPlanned subgroup analyses found that it is unclear if 5 mg is as effective an antiemetic as 10 mg. There is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that 5 mg may confer a lower risk of somnolence and fatigue than 10 mg.Other comparisonsOne study (20 participants) compared olanzapine versus NK1 antagonists. We observed no difference in any reported outcomes.One study (112 participants) compared olanzapine versus a prokinetic (metoclopramide), reporting that olanzapine may increase freedom from overall nausea (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.02) and overall vomiting (RR 3.03, 95% CI 1.78 to 5.14).One study (62 participants) examined olanzapine versus 5-HT3 antagonists, reporting olanzapine may increase the likelihood of 50% or greater reduction in nausea or vomiting at 48 hours (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.97) and 24 hours (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.34).One study (229 participants) compared olanzapine versus dexamethasone, reporting that olanzapine may reduce overall nausea (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18), overall vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48), delayed nausea (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.08) and delayed vomiting (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that oral olanzapine probably increases the likelihood of not being nauseous or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% in adults with solid tumours, in addition to standard therapy, compared to placebo or no treatment. There is uncertainty whether it increases serious adverse events. It may increase the likelihood of other adverse events, probably increasing somnolence and fatigue. There is uncertainty about relative benefits and harms of 5 mg versus 10 mg.We identified only RCTs describing oral administration. The findings of this review cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of any injectable form (intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous) of olanzapine.

Reexamining Metoclopramide's Role in the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Secondary Analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continue to be among the most undesirable and distressing complications following general anesthesia, affecting 20% to 30% of all surgical patients and up to 70% of patients with multiple known risk factors. The purpose of this study was to reexamine the effectiveness of metoclopramide in the prevention of PONV when stratified by PONV risk scores. Secondary data from 2,116 adult ambulatory surgical patients were analyzed. Participants were, on average (SD), 49.7 (15.4) years of age, with a mean body mass index of 28.3 (6.9) kg/m², and were primarily female (65%). Risk scores for PONV ranged from 0 to 4, with a mean of 2.6 (1.0). Metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously (IV) alone; metoclopramide, 10 mg IV, combined with ondansetron, 4 mg IV; and metoclopramide, 10 mg IV, combined with dexamethasone, 8 mg IV, and ondansetron, 4 mg IV, had a beneficial effect for adult ambulatory surgical patients with PONV risk scores of 1 to 4. Although this cohort study had limitations, future studies should investigate metoclopramide based on risk score recommendations, and guidelines should be reevaluated.

Comparison of Methylprednisolone and Metoclopramide in the Prophylactic Treatment of CIS-Platin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Sixty-one patients undergoing treatment with cis-platin-containing regimens were given prophylactically either metoclopramide or methylprednisolone, in order to reduce the gastro-intestinal side effects. Vomiting occurred in 79 % of the cycles (128/162), and had a distressing intensity in 39.5 % of cycles (64/162). No significant differences were observed between metoclopramide and methylprednisolone with respect to number and duration of vomiting episodes and duration of nausea and anorexia. Two of 6 patients benefited from substitution of metoclopramide for methylprednisolone; only 1/11 benefited from the substitution of methylprednisolone for metoclopramide. Metoclopramide and methylprednisolone, at the dosage and schedule used, were well tolerated and moderately active in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by cis-platin; their use in combination could further improve these results.

Endocrinological Study of the Dopaminergic Regulation of Prolactin Release in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Aims and Background

Prolactin (PRL) may be a growth factor for breast cancer. Abnormally high levels of PRL have been proven to be associated with a poor prognosis in metastatic breast cancer. However, most studies have been limited to the evaluation of basal levels of PRL rather than its response to the classical endocrine dynamic tests. This study was performed to analyse the dynamic secretion of PRL under stimulatory and inhibitory tests in metastatic breast cancer.

Methods

The study included 10 untreated metastatic breast cancer women, who were evaluated after the classical stimulatory and inhibitory tests for PRL secretion with the antidopaminergic agent Metoclopramide (10 mg iv as a bolus) and with L-dopa, respectively. Serum levels of PRL were measured by RIA before and at subsequent intervals after drug administration. PRL levels were considered to be elevated when they were higher than 25 ng/ml.

Results

Abnormally high basal levels of PRL were seen in 6/10 patients. L-dopa was unable to inhibit PRL secretion, whose mean concentrations paradoxically significantly increased in response to L-dopa, with values comparable to those observed after the classical stimulatory test with metoclopramide.

Conclusions

This study confirm the existence of hyperprolactinemia associated with metastatic breast cancer. In addition, by showing a paradoxical rise of PRL in response to L-dopa, which inhibits PRL secretion in physiological conditions, this study would suggest that breast cancer-related hyperprolactinemia may depend at least in part on endogenous disease-related neuroendocrine alterations.

Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Vomiting in Patients with Cancer. A Pilot Study with a Multiagent Protocol

Forty patients receiving a total of 102 courses of cisplatin (CDDP)-based treatment were observed in the present study. The patients received an antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide (6 mg/kg), dexamethasone (12 mg/m2), lorazepam (2.5 mg), promethazine (50 mg), and diazepam (10 mg). Complete protection from acute vomiting was obtained in 77.5% of patients during the first course, and partial protection (1 to 3 episodes of vomiting) was observed in 10.1% additional cases. Complete protection was achieved in 84.6% of males vs 57.1% of females. Patients at their first course of chemotherapy had 80% complete protection compared to 66.7% In those who received prior chemotherapy. No differences in the response rate between patients treated with high versus patients receiving low doses of CDDP were noted. The same pattern of response was observed in subsequent courses of therapy. Side effects were minimal (mild sedation in almost all the cases and hiccups in a few cases). No major extrapyramidal reaction was observed. The regimen used in the study showed good efficacy in preventing acute CDDP-induced nausea and vomiting. Moreover, the very low incidence of major side effects makes this protocol safe and recommendable in patients undergoing CDDP chemotherapy.

Evaluation of the Antiemetic Activity of Bromopride in Cancer Patients Treated with I.V. CMF

In more than 70 % of patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer with histologically positive lymph nodes, precautional therapy with CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) causes nausea and vomiting. At the present time, the optimal antiemetic therapy has not been found. From May 1983 to March 1984, 35 patients, of whom 34 were evaluable, were entered in a randomized double blind antiemetic treatment with either bromopride (16 patients), a procainamide derivative structurally similar to metoclopramide, or placebo (18 patients). Bromopride (20 mg) and the placebo were administered in a 3-min i.v. injection half an hour before chemotherapy and at 3 ½ and 7 ½ following chemotherapy. A complete antiemetic protection was obtained in 9 patients (56.3 %) treated with bromopride compared to 5 patients (27.8 %) treated with the placebo. A major antiemetic (≤ 2 vomiting episodes) was obtained in 3 patients (18.7 %) treated with bromopride compared to 5 patients (27.8 %) treated with the placebo. Statistical analysis showed a trend in favor of bromopride (P = 0.058). The most frequent side effect was sedation reported in 6 patients (37.5 %) treated with bromopride and 2 patients (11.1 %) treated with the placebo (P = 0.06). The study was interrupted when several patients presented vomiting episodes more than 12 h after CMF administration, and thus beyond the foreseeable protective effect of the antiemetic treatment. It is our opinion that the search for an optimal antiemetic regimen in the course of i.v. CMF therapy should consider the administration of antiemetic drugs at least until 12 h after chemotherapy.

Antiemetic Activity of Metoclopramide versus Alizapride during Cancer Chemotherapy

A prospective randomized study was conducted to compare the antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide (MCP) versus its recent derivative alizapride (ALZ) in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy. Both drugs were given at a dose of 2 mg/kg i.v. push for 5 doses. A positive response was defined as absence of nausea or emesis, or moderate nausea with one or two emeses per day. Eighty-two patients were evaluable. Forty-two received MCP and 40 received ALZ. A positive response was observed in 54% MCP-treated and 41% ALZ-treated patients. Neurologic toxicity, mainly extrapyramidal disturbances, was the most remarkable adverse side effect; it occurred more frequently in the MCP-treated group (31%) than in the ALZ-treated group (17%). Both drugs were found to be more effective in previously untreated patients and when employed together with steroids. MCP was more effective (52% positive response) than ALZ (41% positive response) in cisplatin-treated patients. To better control drug-induced vomiting, we believe that future trials should evaluate slow i.v. infusion of antiemetic agents and their combination with dexamethasone.

The Antiemetic Efficacy of Methylprednisolone Compared with Metoclopramide in Outpatients Receiving Adjuvant CMF Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: A Randomized Trial

A randomized trial was performed comparing the antiemetic efficacy of methylprednisolone (MPN) and metoclopramide (MCP) in 60 breast cancer patients eligible for outpatient adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-FU (CMF). At the time of their first chemotherapy course patients were randomized to receive either MPN 375 mg or MCP 1 mg/kg both administered in 3 equal doses, IV just prior to chemotherapy and then IM 6 and 12 hours after treatment. Patients receiving MPN experienced significantly less nausea (p < 0.0005) and vomiting (p < 0.0005) and antiemetic protection was maintained in patients receiving multiple chemotherapy courses. Complete protection (0 emesis) was observed in 58 % of patients receiving MPN as compared with 20 % of patients treated with MCP (p < 0.005). The most frequent side effects were facial flush in 38 % of patients and somnolence in 15 % of patients receiving MPN and MCP, respectively. Complete protection from CMF-induced gastrointestinal side effects was observed in two-thirds of our patients receiving antiemetic MPN treatment. In these patients administration of the maximum cumulative CMF dose was possible without impairing their quality of life. MPN, at the dose and schedule reported, is an affective antiemetic drug suitable for use in breast cancer outpatients receiving adjuvant CMF therapy.

Corticosteroids for adult patients with advanced cancer who have nausea and vomiting (not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery)

BACKGROUND

Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

Modulation of gastrointestinal motility beyond metoclopramide and domperidone : Pharmacological and clinical evidence for phytotherapy in functional gastrointestinal disorders

The prokinetic cisapride, an important therapeutic option in functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, was withdrawn from the market 15 years ago due to rare severe side effects. Likewise in 2014, the use of metoclopramide (MCP) and domperidone in functional GI disorders (FGID) was restricted, consequently leaving a therapeutic gap in clinical practice. A systematic review revealed that the herbal medicinal product (HMP) STW 5 presents a therapeutic option equivalent to MCP and cisapride. STW 5 is the only HMP for which efficacy has been shown in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome, based on its multitarget effect on numerous etiological factors. Due to an outstanding favorable safety profile, STW 5 allows an effective and safe use in FGID without a limitation of the duration of the treatment.

The Comparative Study of Ondansetron and Metoclopramide Effects in Reducing Nausea and Vomiting After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are one of the most common complications of anesthesia and without prophylactic intervention occurs by about one-third of patients under general anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of ondansetron and metoclopramide in reducing PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In this study, 60 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated into two equal groups (n=30), and in the first group 10 mg metoclopramide and in the second group 4 mg ondansetron preoperatively were injected. Nausea and vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetic treatment in recovery and 6 hr. and 6-24 hrs. After surgery were evaluated. Data were analyzed by SPSS software with chi-square test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The incidence of nausea in metoclopramide was 43.3 % and in ondansetron was 33.3 %. The difference between two groups was not significant (P=0.6). The incidence of vomiting in metoclopramide was 20% and in ondansetron was 26.7%, and there was not any significant difference between intervention groups (P=0.12). For prevention of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, both metoclopramide and ondansetron are effective, and in preventing of nausea, ondansetron is more effective than metoclopramide, whereas there was not any significant difference between two drugs in preventing of vomiting.

A comparison between maropitant and metoclopramide for the prevention of morphine-induced nausea and vomiting in dogs

Morphine is widely used as a preanesthetic agent in dogs, but it often produces signs of nausea and vomiting. Maropitant (MRP) and metoclopramide (MCP) prevent emesis attributable to the opioid agent apomorphine in dogs. We evaluated the antiemetic efficacy and the discomfort in response to SQ injection of MRP [1 mg/kg body weight (BW)], MCP (0.5 mg/kg BW), and normal saline (SAL; 0.1 mL/kg BW) administered to 63 dogs, 45 minutes prior to morphine (0.5 mg/kg BW) and acepromazine (0.05 mg/kg BW). Dogs were observed for signs of nausea (ptyalism, lip licking, and increased swallowing) and vomiting for 30 minutes after morphine/acepromazine. The incidence of emesis was 0% for MRP, 38% for MCP, and 71% for SAL (P < 0.001). The incidence of signs of nausea was not different between groups. Discomfort due to injection was higher after MRP (48%), than after MCP (9.8%) and SAL (4.8%) (P < 0.001).

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum

BACKGROUND

Hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy affecting 0.3% to 1.0% of pregnancies, and is one of the most common indications for hospitalization during pregnancy. While a previous Cochrane review examined interventions for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, there has not yet been a review examining the interventions for the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety, of all interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum in pregnancy up to 20 weeks' gestation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register and the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (20 December 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of any intervention for hyperemesis gravidarum. Quasi-randomized trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion.We excluded trials on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy that were not specifically studying the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials (involving 2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. The comparisons covered a range of interventions including acupressure/acupuncture, outpatient care, intravenous fluids, and various pharmaceutical interventions. The methodological quality of included studies was mixed. For selected important comparisons and outcomes, we graded the quality of the evidence and created 'Summary of findings' tables. For most outcomes the evidence was graded as low or very low quality mainly due to the imprecision of effect estimates. Comparisons included in the 'Summary of findings' tables are described below, the remaining comparisons are described in detail in the main text.No primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo, There was no clear evidence of differences between groups for anxiodepressive symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.40; one study, 36 women, very low-quality evidence), spontaneous abortion (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; one study, 57 women, low-quality evidence), preterm birth (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.26; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence), or perinatal death (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.30; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.48, respectively; very low-quality evidence).In a study with 92 participants, women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.40, low-quality evidence) or side effects.A comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively, very low-quality evidence). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.11, respectively; moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects.In a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90, respectively, moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects.In a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.39 to 1.39, very low-quality evidence), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) .Regarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94; four studies, 269 women). For other important outcomes including pregnancy complications, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and congenital abnormalities, there was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups (very low-quality evidence for all outcomes). In other single studies there were no clear differences between groups for preterm birth or side effects (very low-quality evidence).For hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.28;one study, 40 women).In a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 hours (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.72; low-quality evidence), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.15, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting. There was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups for stillbirth and neonatal death and preterm birth.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this review, there is little high-quality and consistent evidence supporting any one intervention, which should be taken into account when making management decisions. There was also very limited reporting on the economic impact of hyperemesis gravidarum and the impact that interventions may have.The limitations in interpreting the results of the included studies highlights the importance of consistency in the definition of hyperemesis gravidarum, the use of validated outcome measures, and the need for larger placebo-controlled trials.

Sea State Green

The series objective is to review various clinical conditions/ presentations, including the latest evidence on management, and to dispel common myths. In the process, core knowledge and management principles are enhanced. A clinical case will be presented. Cases will be drawn from real life but phrased in a context that is applicable to the Special Operations Forces (SOF) or tactical emergency medical support (TEMS) environment. Details will be presented in such a way that the reader can follow along and identify how they would manage the case clinically depending on their experience and environment situation. Commentary will be provided by currently serving military medical technicians. The medics and author will draw on their SOF experience to communicate relevant clinical concepts pertinent to different operational environments including SOF and TEMS. Commentary and input from active special op.

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy

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.

Drugs for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in adults in the emergency department setting

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.

Use and Safety of Erythromycin and Metoclopramide in Hospitalized Infants

OBJECTIVE

Prokinetic medications are used in premature infants to promote motility and decrease time to full enteral feeding. Erythromycin and metoclopramide are the most commonly used prokinetic medications in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), but their safety profile is not well defined.

METHODS

We conducted a large retrospective cohort study using data from 348 NICUs managed by the Pediatrix Medical Group. All of the infants exposed to ≥1 dose of erythromycin, metoclopramide, or both, from a cohort of 8,87,910 infants discharged between 1997 and 2012 were included. We collected laboratory and clinical information while infants were exposed to erythromycin or metoclopramide and described the frequency of laboratory abnormalities and clinical adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Metoclopramide use increased from 1997 to 2005 and decreased from 2005 to 2012, whereas erythromycin use remained stable. Erythromycin use was most often associated with a diagnosis of feeding problem (40%), whereas metoclopramide was most often associated with a diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux (59%). The most common laboratory AE during exposure to erythromycin or metoclopramide was hyperkalemia (8.6/1000 infant days on erythromycin and 11.0/1000 infant days on metoclopramide). Incidence of pyloric stenosis was greater with erythromycin than with metoclopramide (10/1095, 0.9% vs 76/19,001, 0.4%; P = 0.01), but odds were not significantly increased after adjusting for covariates (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.02, P = 0.06). More infants experienced an AE while treated with metoclopramide than with erythromycin (odds ratio 1.21, 95% CI 1.03-1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Metoclopramide was associated with increased risk of AEs compared with erythromycin. Studies are needed to confirm safety and effectiveness of both the drugs in infants.

Opiate refractory pain from an intestinal obstruction responsive to an intravenous lidocaine infusion

A 24-year-old female patient presented to our community emergency department (ED) for abdominal pain that had progressively worsened over the last 28 hours. Of note, 1 month prior to her presentation, the patient had a colostomy due to a rectal abscess and required stoma revision 5 days prior to her visit to our ED. The patient's pain was refractory to opiate analgesia in our ED, but experienced significant relief after an intravenous lidocaine infusion. Computer tomography of the abdomen and pelvis ultimately revealed a large bowel obstruction just proximal to the colostomy site. Historically, options for ED management of severe pain have been limited beyond narcotic analgesia. For patients whom are refractory to opiates in the ED, or for whom opiates are contraindicated, lidocaine infusions have shown promise for a variety of both acute and chronic painful conditions.