BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting remain a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting, and associated clinical problems. This is an update of the original systematic review.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged less than 18 years) about to receive or receiving chemotherapy.
SEARCH METHODS: Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society of Paediatric Oncology, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and ISI Science and Technology Proceedings Index from incept to December 16, 2014, and trial registries from their earliest records to December 2014. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies. We also screened the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened abstracts in order to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid, or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (less than 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies that examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (27 studies). Adverse events were reported in 29 studies and nausea outcomes in 16 studies.Two studies assessed the addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT3 antagonists for complete control of vomiting (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). Three studies compared granisetron with ondansetron for complete control of acute nausea (pooled RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; 2 studies), acute vomiting (pooled RR 2.26; 95% CI 2.04 to 2.51; 3 studies), delayed nausea (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; 2 studies), and delayed vomiting (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; 2 studies). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents, even when these agents are combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people, and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective in patients who are to receive emetogenic chemotherapy, with granisetron or palonosetron possibly better than ondansetron. Adding dexamethasone improves control of vomiting, although the risk-benefit profile of adjunctive steroid remains uncertain.
BACKGROUND: This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue affecting approximately 2% of the general population. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain and other somatic and psychological symptoms.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for fibromyalgia symptoms in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, three clinical trial registries, and contact with trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks' duration of any formulation of cannabis products used for the treatment of adults with fibromyalgia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that did not meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers (i.e. data from at least 200 participants) in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 72 participants. Overall, the two studies were at moderate risk of bias. The evidence was derived from group mean data and completer analysis (very low quality evidence overall). We rated the quality of all outcomes according to GRADE as very low due to indirectness, imprecision and potential reporting bias.The primary outcomes in our review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety). Nabilone was compared to placebo and to amitriptyline in one study each. Study sizes were 32 and 40 participants. One study used a cross-over design and one used a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Both studies used nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, with a bedtime dosage of 1 mg/day. No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 30% or 50% pain relief or who were very much improved. No study provided first or second tier (high to moderate quality) evidence for an outcome of efficacy, tolerability and safety. Third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated greater reduction of pain and limitations of HRQoL compared to placebo in one study. There were no significant differences to placebo noted for fatigue and depression (very low quality evidence). Third tier evidence indicated better effects of nabilone on sleep than amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the two drugs noted for pain, mood and HRQoL (very low quality evidence). More participants dropped out due to adverse events in the nabilone groups (4/52 participants) than in the control groups (1/20 in placebo and 0/32 in amitriptyline group). The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth and drowsiness (six participants with nabilone). Neither study reported serious adverse events during the period of both studies. We planned to create a GRADE 'Summary of findings' table, but due to the scarcity of data we were unable to do this. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoids other than nabilone in fibromyalgia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia. The tolerability of nabilone was low in people with fibromyalgia.
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.
BACKGROUND: Marijuana appears to have anti-epileptic effects in animals. It is not currently known if it is effective in patients with epilepsy. Some states in the United States of America have explicitly approved its use for epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids when used as monotherapy or add-on treatment for people with epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 September 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid) (9 September 2013), ISI Web of Knowledge (9 September 2013), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (9 September 2013), and ClinicalTrials.gov (9 September 2013). In addition, we included studies we personally knew about that were not found by the searches, as well as searched the references in the identified studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) whether blinded or not.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the data. The primary outcome investigated was seizure freedom at one year or more, or three times the longest interseizure interval. Secondary outcomes included responder rate at six months or more, objective quality of life data, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS: We found four randomized trial reports that included a total of 48 patients, each of which used cannabidiol as the treatment agent. One report was an abstract and another was a letter to the editor. Anti-epileptic drugs were continued in all studies. Details of randomisation were not included in any study report. There was no investigation of whether the control and treatment participant groups were the same or different. All the reports were low quality.
The four reports only answered the secondary outcome about adverse effects. None of the patients in the treatment groups suffered adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy. The dose of 200 to 300 mg daily of cannabidiol was safely administered to small numbers of patients generally for short periods of time, and so the safety of long term cannabidiol treatment cannot be reliably assessed.
BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a mental illness causing disordered beliefs, ideas and sensations. Many people with schizophrenia smoke cannabis, and it is unclear why a large proportion do so and if the effects are harmful or beneficial. It is also unclear what the best method is to allow people with schizophrenia to alter their cannabis intake.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of specific psychological treatments for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.
To assess the effects of antipsychotics for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.
To assess the effects of cannabinoids (cannabis related chemical compounds derived from cannabis or manufactured) for symptom reduction in people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, 12 August 2013, which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED and PsycINFO.
We searched all references of articles selected for inclusion for further relevant trials. We contacted the first author of included studies for unpublished trials or data.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials involving cannabinoids and schizophrenia/schizophrenia-like illnesses, which assessed:
1) treatments to reduce cannabis use in people with schizophrenia;
2) the effects of cannabinoids on people with schizophrenia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations, selected papers and then re-inspected the studies if there were discrepancies, and extracted data. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight randomised trials, involving 530 participants, which met our selection criteria.
For the cannabis reduction studies no one treatment showed superiority for reduction in cannabis use. Overall, data were poorly reported for many outcomes of interest. Our main outcomes of interest were medium-term data for cannabis use, global state, mental state, global functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment.
Results from one small study showed people receiving adjunct psychological therapies specifically about cannabis and psychosis were no more likely to reduce their intake than those receiving treatment as usual (n = 54, 1 RCT, MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.24, moderate quality evidence). Results for other main outcomes at medium term were also equivocal. No difference in mental state measured on the PANSS positive were observed between groups (n = 62, 1 RCT, MD -0.30 95% CI -2.55 to 1.95, moderate quality evidence). Nor for the outcome of general functioning measured using the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (n = 49, 1 RCT, MD 0.90 95% CI -1.15 to 2.95, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest
One study compared specific psychological therapy aimed at cannabis reduction with general psychological therapy. At three-month follow-up, the use of cannabis in the previous four weeks was similar between treatment groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, RR 1.04 95% CI 0.62 to 1.74, moderate quality evidence). Again, at a medium-term follow-up, the average mental state scores from the Brief Pscychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded were similar between groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, MD 3.60 95% CI - 5.61 to 12.81, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest: global state, general functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment.
In a small trial comparing effectiveness of olanzapine versus risperidone for cannabis reduction, there was no difference between groups at medium-term follow-up (n = 16, 1 RCT, RR 1.80 95% CI 0.52 to 6.22, moderate quality evidence). The number of participants leaving the study early at medium term was also similar (n = 28, 1 RCT, RR 0.50 95% CI 0.19 to 1.29, moderate quality evidence). Mental state data were reported, however they were reported within the short term and no difference was observed. No data were reported for global state, general functioning, and satisfaction with treatment.
With regards to adverse effects data, no study reported medium-term data. Short-term data were presented but overall, no real differences between treatment groups were observed for adverse effects.
Again, no data were reported for any of the main outcomes of interest at medium term. There were short-term data reported for mental state using the BPRS and PANSS, no overall differences in mental state were observed between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results are limited and inconclusive due to the small number and size of randomised controlled trials available and quality of data reporting within these trials. More research is needed to a) explore the effects of adjunct psychological therapy that is specifically about cannabis and psychosis as currently there is no evidence for any novel intervention being better than standard treatment,for those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia b) decide the most effective drug treatment in treating those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia, and c) assess the effectiveness of cannabidiol in treating schizophrenia. Currently evidence is insufficient to show cannabidiol has an antipsychotic effect.
BACKGROUND: The use of cannabis (marijuana) or of its psychoactive ingredient delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a medicine has been highly contested in many settings.There have been claims that smoked or ingested cannabis, either in its natural form or artificial form (pharmaceutically manufactured drug such as dronabinol), improves the appetites of people with AIDS, results in weight gain and lifts mood, thus improving the quality of life.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess whether cannabis (in its natural or artificially produced form), either smoked or ingested, decreases the morbidity or mortality of patients infected with HIV.
SEARCH METHODS: The search strategy was conducted to July 2012 and was based on that of the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group. We searched the following databases: CENTRAL/CCTR, MEDLINE and EMBASE. In addition, searching was performed where necessary of journals, reference lists of articles, and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA: The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any cannabis intervention, in any form, and administered by any route, in adults with HIV or AIDS, compared with placebo or with a known effective treatment, and conducted in a hospital, outpatient clinic, or home care setting. Quasi-randomised studies using any form of cannabis as an intervention in patients with HIV or AIDS were also included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from the eligible studies were extracted and coded independently by two researchers, using a standardised data extraction form. Data were then analysed using RevMan 5.0. No meta-analyses were performed.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of seven relevant studies were included in the review, reported in eight publications. All were randomised controlled studies, with four utilising a parallel group design, two a within-subject randomisation and two a cross-over design. All of the studies were of a fairly short duration, ranging from 21 days to 84 days. In only four papers (in effect, three studies) were sequence generation and allocation concealment judged to be adequate. The use of cannabis and rapidly acting cannabinoids posed considerable challenges for blinding, as the psychoactive effects are expected to be quickly discernible to study participants, particularly those who have been previous users of such products. Dronabinol was expected to be more easily blinded. The outcomes measured were variable, including change in weight, change in body fat (measured as a percentage of total body weight), change in appetite (measured on a visual analogue scale), change in caloric intake (measured in kcals/kg/24hr), change in nausea and vomiting (measured on a visual analogue scale), change in performance (measured by Karnofsky performance score or specific tests for memory and dexterity) and change in mood (measured on a visual analogue scale).The evidence for substantial effects on morbidity and mortality is currently limited. Data from only one relatively small study (n=139, of which only 88 were evaluable), conducted in the period before access to highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), showed that patients administered dronabinol were twice as likely to gain 2kg or more in body weight (RR 2.09), but the confidence interval for this measure (95% CI 0.72 - 6.06) included unity. The mean weight gain in the dronabinol group was only 0.1kg, compared with a loss of 0.4kg in the placebo group. However, the quality of sequence generation and allocation concealment in this study, in which participants were randomised by centre, could not be assessed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite dronabinol being registered by at least some medicines regulatory authorities for the treatment of AIDS-associated anorexia, and some jurisdictions making allowances for the "medical" use of marijuana by patients with HIV/AIDS, evidence for the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids in this setting is lacking. Such studies as have been performed have been of short duration, in small numbers of patients, and have focused on short-term measures of efficacy. Long-term data, showing a sustained effect on AIDS-related morbidity and mortality and safety in patients on effective antiretroviral therapy, has yet to be presented. Whether the available evidence is sufficient to justify a wide-ranging revisiting of medicines regulatory practice remains unclear.
BACKGROUND: Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome (GTS) is a developmental neuropsychiatric disorder characterised by the presence of chronic motor and phonic tics. Drugs currently used in the treatment of GTS either lack efficacy or are associated with intolerable side effects. There is some anecdotal and experimental evidence that cannabinoids may be effective in treating tics and compulsive behaviour in patients with GTS. There are currently no systematic Cochrane reviews of treatments used in GTS. There is one other Cochrane review being undertaken at present, on the use of fluoxetine for tics in GTS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids as compared to placebo or other drugs in treating tics, premonitory urges and obsessive compulsive symptoms (OCS), in patients with GTS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in The Cochrane Library Issue 4 2008) , MEDLINE (January 1996 to date), EMBASE (January 1974 to date), PsycINFO (January 1887 to date), CINAHL (January 1982 to date), AMED (January 1985 to date), British Nursing Index (January 1994 to date) and DH DATA (January 1994 to date). We also searched the reference lists of located trials and review articles for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any cannabinoid preparation with placebo or other drugs used in the treatment of tics and OCS in patients with GTS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors abstracted data independently and settled any differences by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials were found that met the inclusion criteria. Both compared a cannabinoid, delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)THC), either as monotherapy or as adjuvant therapy, with placebo. One was a double blind, single dose crossover trial and the other was a double blind, parallel group study. A total of 28 different patients were studied. Although both trials reported a positive effect from Delta(9)THC, the improvements in tic frequency and severity were small and were only detected by some of the outcome measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Not enough evidence to support the use of cannabinoids in treating tics and obsessive compulsive behaviour in people with Tourette's syndrome.
Nausea and vomiting remain a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting, and associated clinical problems. This is an update of the original systematic review.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged less than 18 years) about to receive or receiving chemotherapy.
SEARCH METHODS:
Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society of Paediatric Oncology, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and ISI Science and Technology Proceedings Index from incept to December 16, 2014, and trial registries from their earliest records to December 2014. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies. We also screened the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Two review authors independently screened abstracts in order to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid, or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (less than 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 34 studies that examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (27 studies). Adverse events were reported in 29 studies and nausea outcomes in 16 studies.Two studies assessed the addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT3 antagonists for complete control of vomiting (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). Three studies compared granisetron with ondansetron for complete control of acute nausea (pooled RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; 2 studies), acute vomiting (pooled RR 2.26; 95% CI 2.04 to 2.51; 3 studies), delayed nausea (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; 2 studies), and delayed vomiting (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; 2 studies). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents, even when these agents are combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people, and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective in patients who are to receive emetogenic chemotherapy, with granisetron or palonosetron possibly better than ondansetron. Adding dexamethasone improves control of vomiting, although the risk-benefit profile of adjunctive steroid remains uncertain.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
