Treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of antiemetics for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is poorly understood. METHODS: Systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, any language, to 8.2000) for randomised comparisons of antiemetics with any comparator for the treatment of established PONV. Dichotomous data on prevention of further nausea and vomiting, and on side effects were combined using a fixed effect model. RESULTS: In seven trials (1,267 patients), 11 different antiemetics were tested without placebos; these data were not further analysed. Eighteen trials (3,809) had placebo controls. Dolasetron 12.5–100 mg, granisetron 0.1–3 mg, tropisetron 0.5–5 mg, and ondansetron 1–8 mg prevented further vomiting with little evidence of dose-responsiveness; with all regimens, absolute risk reductions compared with placebo were 20%–30%. The anti-nausea effect was less pronounced. Headache was dose-dependent. Results on propofol were contradictory. The NK(1) antagonist GR205171, isopropyl alcohol vapor, metoclopramide, domperidone, and midazolam were tested in one trial each with a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Of 100 vomiting surgical patients receiving a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, 20 to 30 will stop vomiting who would not have done so had they received a placebo; less will profit from the anti-nausea effect. There is a lack of evidence for a clinically relevant dose-response; minimal effective doses may be used. There is a discrepancy between the plethora of trials on prevention of PONV and the paucity of trials on treatment of established symptoms. Valid data on the therapeutic efficacy of classic antiemetics, which have been used for decades, are needed

Using haloperidol as an anti-emetic in palliative care: informing practice through evidence from cancer treatment and post-operative contexts

YesNausea and vomiting are common symptoms in palliative care. Haloperidol is often used as an antiemetic in this context, although direct evidence supporting this practice is limited. To evaluate the efficacy and clinical use of haloperidol as an antiemetic in nonpalliative care contexts to inform practice, the authors conducted a rapid review of (i) published evidence to supplement existing systematic reviews, and (ii) practical aspects affecting the use of haloperidol including formulations and doses that are commonly available internationally. In nausea and vomiting related to cancer treatment, haloperidol was superior to control in two small studies. In postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), two randomized controlledtrials found treatment with haloperidol comparable to ondansetron. In palliative care, an observational study found a complete response rate of 24% with haloperidol (one in four patients) which would be consistent with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 3 to 5 derived from PONV. There remains insufficient direct evidence to definitively support the use of haloperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in palliative care. However, generalizing evidence from other clinical contexts may have some validity

Sildenafil (Viagra) for male erectile dysfunction: a meta-analysis of clinical trial reports

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of company clinical trial reports could provide information for meta-analysis at the commercial introduction of a new technology. METHODS: Clinical trial reports of sildenafil for erectile dysfunction from September 1997 were used for meta-analysis of randomised trials (at least four weeks duration) and using fixed or dose optimisation regimens. The main outcome sought was an erection, sufficiently rigid for penetration, followed by successful intercourse, and conducted at home. RESULTS: Ten randomised controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (2123 men given sildenafil and 1131 placebo). NNT or NNH were calculated for important efficacy, adverse event and discontinuation outcomes. Dose optimisation led to at least 60% of attempts at sexual intercourse being successful in 49% of men, compared with 11% with placebo; the NNT was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 2.3 to 3.3). For global improvement in erections the NNT was 1.7 (1.6 to 1.9). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30% of men on dose optimised sildenafil compared with 11% on placebo; the NNH was 5.4 (4.3 to 7.3). All cause discontinuations were less frequent with sildenafil (10%) than with placebo (20%). Sildenafil dose optimisation gave efficacy equivalent to the highest fixed doses, and adverse events equivalent to the lowest fixed doses. CONCLUSION: This review of clinical trial reports available at the time of licensing agreed with later reviews that had many more trials and patients. Making reports submitted for marketing approval available publicly would provide better information when it was most needed, and would improve evidence-based introduction of new technologies

Rofecoxib for dysmenorrhoea: meta-analysis using individual patient data

BACKGROUND: Individual patient meta-analysis to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose rofecoxib in primary dysmenorrhoea. METHODS: Individual patient information was available from three randomised, double blind, placebo and active controlled trials of rofecoxib. Data were combined through meta-analysis. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for at least 50% pain relief and the proportion of patients who had taken rescue medication over 12 hours were calculated. Information was collected on adverse effects. RESULTS: For single-dose rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo, the NNTs (with 95% CI) for at least 50% pain relief were 3.2 (2.4 to 4.5) at six, 3.1 (2.4 to 9.0) at eight, and 3.7 (2.8 to 5.6) at 12 hours. For naproxen sodium 550 mg they were 3.1 (2.4 to 4.4) at six, 3.0 (2.3 to 4.2) at eight, and 3.8 (2.7 to 6.1) at 12 hours. The proportion of patients who needed rescue medication within 12 hours was 27% with rofecoxib 50 mg, 29% with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 50% with placebo. In the single-dose trial, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 8% (4/49) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 12% (6/49) with ibuprofen 400 mg, and 6% (3/49) with placebo. In the other two multiple dose trials, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 23% (42/179) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 24% (45/181) with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 18% (33/178) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Single dose rofecoxib 50 mg provided similar pain relief to naproxen sodium 550 mg over 12 hours. The duration of analgesia with rofecoxib 50 mg was similar to that of naproxen sodium 550 mg. Adverse effects were uncommon suggesting safety in short-term use of rofecoxib and naproxen sodium. Future research should include restriction on daily life and absence from work or school as outcomes

Scottish and Newcastle antiemetic pre-treatment for paracetamol poisoning study (SNAP)

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning remains the commonest cause of acute liver injury in Europe and North America. The intravenous (IV) N-acetylcysteine (NAC) regimen introduced in the 1970s has continued effectively unchanged. This involves 3 different infusion regimens (dose and time) lasting over 20 hours. The same weight-related dose of NAC is used irrespective of paracetamol dose. Complications include frequent nausea and vomiting, anaphylactoid reactions and dosing errors. We designed a randomised controlled study investigating the efficacy of antiemetic pre-treatment (ondansetron) using standard NAC and a modified, shorter, regimen. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed a double-blind trial using a 2 × 2 factorial design involving four parallel groups. Pre-treatment with ondansetron 4 mg IV was compared against placebo on nausea and vomiting following the standard (20.25 h) regimen, or a novel 12 h NAC regimen in paracetamol poisoning. Each delivered 300 mg/kg bodyweight NAC. Randomisation was stratified on: paracetamol dose, perceived risk factors, and time to presentation. The primary outcome was the incidence of nausea and vomiting following NAC. In addition the frequency of anaphylactoid reactions and end of treatment liver function documented. Where clinically necessary further doses of NAC were administered as per standard UK protocols at the end of the first antidote course. DISCUSSION: This study is primarily designed to test the efficacy of prophylactic anti-emetic therapy with ondansetron, but is the first attempt to formally examine new methods of administering IV NAC in paracetamol overdose. We anticipate, from volunteer studies, that nausea and vomiting will be less frequent with the new NAC regimen. In addition as anaphylactoid response appears related to plasma concentrations of both NAC and paracetamol anaphylactoid reactions should be less likely. This study is not powered to assess the relative efficacy of the two NAC regimens, however it will give useful information to power future studies. As the first formal randomised clinical trial in this patient group in over 30 years this study will also provide information to support further studies in patients in paracetamol overdose, particularly, when linked with modern novel biomarkers of liver damage, patients at different toxicity risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2009-017800-10, ClinicalTrials.gov IdentifierNCT0105027

Systematic review on the recurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after a first episode in the recovery room – implications for the treatment of PONV and related clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Despite the presence of a plethora of publications on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) only little is known how to treat established symptoms. Besides the high effort of performing these efficacy trials (much more patients must give their consent than are actually included in a study) and ethical concerns, little is known about the rate of re-occurring PONV/vomiting after placebo. As a consequence investigators will have difficulties defining a clinically relevant effect for the new treatment which is crucial for any planning. A quantitative systematic review was performed in order to provide more reliable estimates of the incidence of re-occurring PONV/vomiting after placebo and to help investigators defining a clinically relevant treatment effect. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed using an extended search strategy of a previous review. Data on the recurrence of PONV (any nausea or emetic symptom) and vomiting (retching or vomiting) was extracted from published reports treating PONV with placebo and unpublished results from two observational trials where no treatment was given. A nonlinear random effects model was used to calculate estimates of the recurrence of symptoms and their 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI). RESULTS: A total of 29 trials (including the unpublished data) were eligible for the calculations. Depending on the length of observation after administering placebo or no treatment the recurrence rate of PONV was between 65% (95%-CI: 53%...75%) and 84% (95%-CI: 73%...91%) and that of vomiting was between 65% (95%-CI: 44%...81%) and 78% (95%-CI: 59%...90%). CONCLUSION: Almost all trials showed a considerable and consistently high rate of recurrence of emetic symptoms after placebo highlighting the need for a consequent antiemetic treatment. Future (placebo) controlled efficacy trials may use the presented empirical estimates for defining clinically relevant effects and for statistical power considerations

Atypical antipsychotics in bipolar disorder: systematic review of randomised trials

Background: Atypical antipsychotics are increasingly used for treatment of mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and considered to have fewer extrapyramidal effects than older antipsychotics. Methods: We examined efficacy in randomised trials of bipolar disorder where the presenting episode was either depression, or manic/mixed, comparing atypical antipsychotic with placebo or active comparator, examined withdrawals for any cause, or due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, and combined all phases for adverse event analysis. Studies were found through systematic search (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), and data combined for analysis where there was clinical homogeneity, with especial reference to trial duration. Results: In five trials (2,206 patients) participants presented with a depressive episode, and in 25 trials (6,174 patients) the presenting episode was manic or mixed. In 8-week studies presenting with depression, quetiapine and olanzapine produced significantly better rates of response and symptomatic remission than placebo, with NNTs of 5-6, but more adverse event withdrawals (NNH 12). With mania or mixed presentation atypical antipsychotics produced significantly better rates of response and symptomatic remission than placebo, with NNTs of about 5 up to six weeks, and 4 at 6-12 weeks, but more adverse event withdrawals (NNH of about 22) in studies of 6-12 weeks. In comparisons with established treatments, atypical antipsychotics had similar efficacy, but significantly fewer adverse event withdrawals (NNT to prevent one withdrawal about 10). In maintenance trials atypical antipsychotics had significantly fewer relapses to depression or mania than placebo or active comparator. In placebo-controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics were associated with higher rates of weight gain of ≥7% (mainly olanzapine trials), somnolence, and extrapyramidal symptoms. In active controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics were associated with lower rates of extrapyramidal symptoms, but had higher rates of weight gain and somnolence. Conclusion: Atypical antipsychotics are effective in treating both phases of bipolar disorder compared with placebo, and as effective as established drug therapies. Atypical antipsychotics produce fewer extrapyramidal symptoms, but weight gain is more common (with olanzapine). There is insufficient data confidently to distinguish between different atypical antipsychotics.© 2007 Derry and Moore; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Derry, S. & Moore, R. A. (2007). 'Atypical antipsychotics in bipolar disorder: systematic review of randomised trials', BMC Psychiatry, 7:40. [Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/7/40]

Randomised trials in context: practical problems and social aspects of evidence-based medicine and policy

Randomised trials can provide excellent evidence of treatment benefit in medicine. Over the last 50 years, they have been cemented in the regulatory requirements for the approval of new treatments. Randomised trials make up a large and seemingly high-quality proportion of the medical evidence-base. However, it has also been acknowledged that a distorted evidence-base places a severe limitation on the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). We describe four important ways in which the evidence from randomised trials is limited or partial: the problem of applying results, the problem of bias in the conduct of randomised trials, the problem of conducting the wrong trials and the problem of conducting the right trials the wrong way. These problems are not intrinsic to the method of randomised trials or the EBM philosophy of evidence; nevertheless, they are genuine problems that undermine the evidence that randomised trials provide for decision-making and therefore undermine EBM in practice. Finally, we discuss the social dimensions of these problems and how they highlight the indispensable role of judgement when generating and using evidence for medicine. This is the paradox of randomised trial evidence: the trials open up expert judgment to scrutiny, but this scrutiny in turn requires further expertise