Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
JAMA ; 316(13): 1392-1401, 2016 10 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27701665

RESUMEN

Importance: Nausea and vomiting affects approximately 85% of pregnant women. The most severe form, hyperemesis gravidarum, affects up to 3% of women and can have significant adverse physical and psychological sequelae. Objective: To summarize current evidence on effective treatments for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum. Evidence Review: Databases were searched to June 8, 2016. Relevant websites and bibliographies were also searched. Titles and abstracts were assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Results were narratively synthesized; planned meta-analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of findings. Findings: Seventy-eight studies (n = 8930 participants) were included: 67 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 11 nonrandomized studies. Evidence from 35 RCTs at low risk of bias indicated that ginger, vitamin B6, antihistamines, metoclopramide (for mild symptoms), pyridoxine-doxylamine, and ondansetron (for moderate symptoms) were associated with improved symptoms compared with placebo. One RCT (n = 86) reported greater improvements in moderate symptoms following psychotherapy (change in Rhodes score [range, 0 {no symptoms} to 40 {worst possible symptoms}], 18.76 [SD, 5.48] to 7.06 [SD, 5.79] for intervention vs 19.18 [SD, 5.63] to 12.81 [SD, 6.88] for comparator [P < .001]). For moderate-severe symptoms, 1 RCT (n = 60) suggested that pyridoxine-doxylamine combination taken preemptively reduced risk of recurrence of moderate-severe symptoms compared with treatment once symptoms begin (15.4% vs 39.1% [P < .04]). One RCT (n = 83) found that ondansetron was associated with lower nausea scores on day 4 than metoclopramide (mean visual analog scale [VAS] score, 4.1 [SD, 2.9] for ondansetron vs 5.7 [SD, 2.3] for metoclopramide [P = .023]) but not episodes of emesis (5.0 [SD, 3.1] vs 3.3 [SD, 3], respectively [P = .013]). Although there was no difference in trend in nausea scores over the 14-day study period, trend in vomiting scores was better in the ondansetron group (P = .042). One RCT (n = 159) found no difference between metoclopramide and promethazine after 24 hours (episodes of vomiting, 1 [IQR, 0-5] for metoclopramide vs 2 [IQR, 0-3] for promethazine [P = .81], VAS [0-10 scale] for nausea, 2 [IQR, 1-5] vs 2 [IQR, 1-4], respectively [P = .99]). Three RCTs compared corticosteroids with placebo or promethazine or metoclopramide in women with severe symptoms. Improvements were seen in all corticosteroid groups, but only a significant difference between corticosteroids vs metoclopramide was reported (emesis reduction, 40.9% vs 16.5% at day 2; 71.6% vs 51.2% at day 3; 95.8% vs 76.6% at day 7 [n = 40, P < .001]). For other interventions, evidence was limited. Conclusions and Relevance: For mild symptoms of nausea and emesis of pregnancy, ginger, pyridoxine, antihistamines, and metoclopramide were associated with greater benefit than placebo. For moderate symptoms, pyridoxine-doxylamine, promethazine, and metoclopramide were associated with greater benefit than placebo. Ondansetron was associated with improvement for a range of symptom severity. Corticosteroids may be associated with benefit in severe cases. Overall the quality of evidence was low.


Asunto(s)
Antieméticos/uso terapéutico , Hiperemesis Gravídica/terapia , Náusea/terapia , Complicaciones del Embarazo/terapia , Psicoterapia , Acupuntura , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Doxilamina/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Zingiber officinale , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Ondansetrón/uso terapéutico , Fitoterapia/métodos , Embarazo , Piridoxina/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Complejo Vitamínico B/uso terapéutico , Vómitos/terapia
2.
Health Technol Assess ; 20(74): 1-268, 2016 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27731292

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 85% of all women during pregnancy, but for the majority self-management suffices. For the remainder, symptoms are more severe and the most severe form of NVP - hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) - affects 0.3-1.0% of pregnant women. There is no widely accepted point at which NVP becomes HG. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for NVP and HG. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, Conference Proceedings Index, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched from inception to September 2014. References from studies and literature reviews identified were also examined. Obstetric Medicine was hand-searched, as were websites of relevant organisations. Costs came from NHS sources. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for effectiveness, and population-based case series for adverse events and fetal outcomes. Treatments: vitamins B6 and B12, ginger, acupressure/acupuncture, hypnotherapy, antiemetics, dopamine antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists, intravenous (i.v.) fluids, corticosteroids, enteral and parenteral feeding or other novel treatment. Two reviewers extracted data and quality assessed studies. Results were narratively synthesised; planned meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity and incomplete reporting. A simple economic evaluation considered the implied values of treatments. RESULTS: Seventy-three studies (75 reports) met the inclusion criteria. For RCTs, 33 and 11 studies had a low and high risk of bias respectively. For the remainder (n = 20) it was unclear. The non-randomised studies (n = 9) were low quality. There were 33 separate comparators. The most common were acupressure versus placebo (n = 12); steroid versus usual treatment (n = 7); ginger versus placebo (n = 6); ginger versus vitamin B6 (n = 6); and vitamin B6 versus placebo (n = 4). There was evidence that ginger, antihistamines, metoclopramide (mild disease) and vitamin B6 (mild to severe disease) are better than placebo. Diclectin® [Duchesnay Inc.; doxylamine succinate (10 mg) plus pyridoxine hydrochloride (10 mg) slow release tablet] is more effective than placebo and ondansetron is more effective at reducing nausea than pyridoxine plus doxylamine. Diclectin before symptoms of NVP begin for women at high risk of severe NVP recurrence reduces risk of moderate/severe NVP compared with taking Diclectin once symptoms begin. Promethazine is as, and ondansetron is more, effective than metoclopramide for severe NVP/HG. I.v. fluids help correct dehydration and improve symptoms. Dextrose saline may be more effective at reducing nausea than normal saline. Transdermal clonidine patches may be effective for severe HG. Enteral feeding is effective but extreme method treatment for very severe symptoms. Day case management for moderate/severe symptoms is feasible, acceptable and as effective as inpatient care. For all other interventions and comparisons, evidence is unclear. The economic analysis was limited by lack of effectiveness data, but comparison of costs between treatments highlights the implications of different choices. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available. CONCLUSION: There was evidence of some improvement in symptoms for some treatments, but these data may not be transferable across disease severities. Methodologically sound and larger trials of the main therapies considered within the UK NHS are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006642. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.


Asunto(s)
Antieméticos/economía , Antieméticos/uso terapéutico , Hiperemesis Gravídica/tratamiento farmacológico , Náusea/tratamiento farmacológico , Antieméticos/administración & dosificación , Antieméticos/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Terapias Complementarias/economía , Terapias Complementarias/métodos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Fluidoterapia/economía , Fluidoterapia/métodos , Humanos , Hiperemesis Gravídica/terapia , Náusea/terapia , Embarazo
3.
Eur Psychiatry ; 19(2): 113-4, 2004 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15051110

RESUMEN

To test the relationship between schizotypal symptoms and cannabis use in a non-clinical population, cannabis users and non-users were asked to complete the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire. Significant differences in scores between the groups were observed. There may be a developmental process in the relationship between cannabis use and schizotypal symptoms.


Asunto(s)
Abuso de Marihuana/psicología , Trastorno de la Personalidad Esquizotípica/diagnóstico , Trastorno de la Personalidad Esquizotípica/psicología , Adolescente , Adulto , Comorbilidad , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Abuso de Marihuana/epidemiología , Inventario de Personalidad/estadística & datos numéricos , Psicometría/estadística & datos numéricos , Factores de Riesgo , Esquizofrenia/etiología , Psicología del Esquizofrénico , Trastorno de la Personalidad Esquizotípica/epidemiología
4.
BJOG ; 112(1): 57-62, 2005 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15663398

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that nausea and vomiting in pregnancy is an evolutionary adaptive mechanism to avoid the ingestion of potentially harmful foods. It has also been suggested that the mechanism that triggers nausea and vomiting in pregnancy may be olfaction and that olfactory senses are invoked to provide this protection. This study aimed to test this theory in a systematic design. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: The antenatal department of a maternity hospital in the north of England. SAMPLE: Three groups of participants: pregnant women (n= 55), non-pregnant women (n= 42) and men (n= 48). METHODS: Sensitivity was tested towards the odours of six standard stimuli (half safe and half associated with potentially harmful compounds). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Odour rating of likeness, strength and pleasantness. RESULTS: Pregnant women rated safe and odours with potentially harmful compounds differently but not more so than men or non-pregnant women. There was no evidence that pregnancy changed the olfactory processes from the non-pregnant state and only slight differences between pregnant women and men were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that olfactory processes had undergone any adaptation during pregnancy. The ability to differentiate safe from potentially harmful compounds was common to all three groups studied.


Asunto(s)
Embarazo/fisiología , Olfato/fisiología , Adaptación Fisiológica , Adulto , Actitud Frente a la Salud , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Alimentos , Sustancias Peligrosas , Humanos , Percepción , Embarazo/psicología , Primer Trimestre del Embarazo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA