Dataset Information

Interventions That Affect Gastrointestinal Motility in Hospitalized Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials.

ABSTRACT: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility is a common complication in acute, critically ill, postoperative, and chronic patients that may lead to impaired nutrient delivery, poor clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions to treat GI dysmotility were investigated in dozens of clinical studies. However, they often yielded conflicting results, at least in part, because various (nonstandardized) definitions of GI dysmotility were used and methodological quality of studies was poor. While a universally accepted definition of GI dysmotility is yet to be developed, a systematic analysis of data derived from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials may provide robust data on absolute and relative effectiveness of various interventions as the study outcome (GI motility) was assessed in the least biased manner.To systematically review data from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials to determine and compare the effectiveness of interventions that affect GI motility.Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and EMBASE) were searched. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The summary estimates were reported as mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).A total of 38 double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 2371 patients were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. These studies investigated a total of 20 different interventions, of which 6 interventions were meta-analyzed. Of them, the use of dopamine receptor antagonists (MD, -8.99; 95% CI, -17.72 to -0.27; P = 0.04) and macrolides (MD, -26.04; 95% CI, -51.25 to -0.82; P = 0.04) significantly improved GI motility compared with the placebo group. The use of botulism toxin significantly impaired GI motility compared with the placebo group (MD, 5.31; 95% CI, -0.04 to 10.67; P = 0.05). Other interventions (dietary factors, probiotics, hormones) did not affect GI motility.Based on the best available data and taking into account the safety profile of each class of intervention, dopamine receptor antagonists and macrolides significantly improve GI motility and are medications of choice in treating GI dysmotility.

SUBMITTER: Asrani VM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4748872 | biostudies-other | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal (GI) discomfort, e.g. bloating or rumbling, is a common symptom in otherwise healthy adults. Approximately 20% of the population, particularly women suffer from gastrointestinal discomfort and this affects quality of life. Recent studies discovered a link between the body and mind, called the gut-brain axis. Psychosocial factors, such as e.g. daily stress may cause altered gut physiology leading to ileum contractions and consequently gastrointestinal symptoms. In vitro and ex vivo studies clearly showed that a Perilla frutescens extract combines prokinetic, antispasmodic and anti-inflammatory effects. The aim of the intervention was to investigate the effects of the proprietary Perilla extract on GI discomfort in healthy subjects with gastrointestinal discomfort and reduced bowel movements in comparison to a placebo product.MethodsThe pilot study was performed according to a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled parallel design. Fifty healthy subjects with gastrointestinal discomfort and reduced bowel movements, 30-70 years, documented their GI symptoms, stool frequency and consistency daily during a 2-week run-in phase and a 4-week intervention phase with Perilla frutescens extract or placebo. GI symptoms were assessed on a 5-point scale daily and average scores over 14 days intervals were calculated.ResultsAll GI symptoms were significantly improved over time by Perilla frutescens extract during the intervention phase (bloating: -0.44±0.56, p=0.0003; passage of gas: -0.30±0.66, p=0.0264; GI rumbling: -0.55±0.87, p=0.0014; feeling of fullness: -0.36±0.72, p=0.0152; abdominal discomfort: -0.54±0.75, p=0.004), whereas in the placebo group only abdominal discomfort was significantly improved (-0.31±0.55, p=0.0345). In the subgroup of women results were strengthened and a subscore out of bloating and abdominal discomfort was significantly improved against placebo (95%CI 0.003 to 0.77; p=0.048).ConclusionThe demonstrated effects of Perilla frutescens extract to improve GI complaints offer very promising results, taking into consideration the challenging set up of a nutritional human study with healthy subjects and in the area of digestive health, which is known for high placebo effects.Trial registration numberNCT01931930 at ClinicalTrials.gov, Registration date 23rd August 2013.

Project description:Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debitlitating, chronic, progressive neurodegenerative disorder without modifying therapy. Here, we aimed to evaluate the available evidence of herbal medicine (HM) formulas for patients with PD according to randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. Methods: HM formulas for PD were searched in eight main databases from their inception to February 2018. The methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Fourteen trials with Seventeen comparisons comprising 1,311 patients were identified. Compared with placebo groups, HM paratherapy (n = 16 comparisons) showed significant better effects in the assessments of total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (WMD: -5.43, 95% CI:-8.01 to -2.86; P < 0.0001), UPDRS I (WMD: -0.30, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.06; P = 0.02), UPDRS II (WMD: -2.21, 95% CI: -3.19 to -1.22; P < 0.0001), UPDRS III (WMD: -3.26, 95% CI:-4.36 to -2.16; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (WMD: -7.65, 95% CI: -11.46 to -3.83; p < 0.0001), Non-motor Symptoms Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (WMD: -9.19, 95% CI: -13.11 to -5.28; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (WMD: 10.69, 95% CI: 8.86 to 12.53; P < 0.00001), and Hamilton depression rating scale (WMD: -5.87, 95% CI: -7.06 to -4.68; P < 0.00001). The efficiency of HM monotherapy (n = 1 comparison) was not superior to the placebo according to UPDRS II, UPDRS III and total UPDRS score in PD patients who never received levodopa treatment, all P > 0.05. HM formulas paratherapy were generally safe and well tolerated for PD patients (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.009). Conclusion: The findings of present study supported the complementary use of HM paratherapy for PD patients, whereas the question on the efficacy of HM monotherapy in alleviating PD symptoms is still open.

Project description:IntroductionValbenazine is a novel vesicular monoamine transporter 2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia in adults.ObjectiveUsing data from double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, analyses were conducted to evaluate the cardiovascular effects of once-daily valbenazine in patients with a psychiatric disorder who developed tardive dyskinesia after exposure to a dopamine-blocking medication.MethodsData were pooled from three 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials: KINECT (NCT01688037), KINECT 2 (NCT01733121), and KINECT 3 (NCT02274558). Data from the 42-week valbenazine extension period of KINECT 3 were also analyzed. Outcomes of interest included cardiovascular-related treatment-emergent adverse events, vital sign measurements, and electrocardiogram parameters.ResultsThe pooled safety population included 400 participants (placebo, n = 178; valbenazine 40 mg/day, n = 110; valbenazine 80 mg/day, n = 112). A history of cardiac disorders was present in 11.8% of participants, and 74.3% were taking a concomitant medication with known potential for QT prolongation. Mean changes from baseline to week 6 in supine vital signs and QTcF (Fridericia correction) were as follows for placebo, valbenazine 40 mg/day, and valbenazine 80 mg/day, respectively: systolic blood pressure (0.2, - 2.1, - 1.8 mmHg), diastolic blood pressure (- 0.1, - 1.6, - 1.2 mmHg), heart rate (- 1.7, - 2.2, - 1.7 bpm), QTcF interval (1.2, 1.1, 2.1 ms); all p > 0.05 for valbenazine vs. placebo. No statistically significant differences were observed between placebo and valbenazine in cardiovascular-related, treatment-emergent adverse events. No notable additional effects on cardiovascular outcomes were found with up to 48 weeks of valbenazine treatment.ConclusionsResults from double-blind, placebo-controlled trials showed no apparent difference between valbenazine and placebo on cardiovascular outcomes. No additional cardiovascular risk was detected during a longer extension study with valbenazine.

Dataset Information

Interventions That Affect Gastrointestinal Motility in Hospitalized Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets