Cochrane Db Syst Rev
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2001
ReviewPhenobarbitone versus phenytoin monotherapy for partial onset seizures and generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures.
Worldwide, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. They are more likely to be used in the developing world than the developed world, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone. ⋯ The results of this review favour phenytoin over phenobarbitone, as phenobarbitone was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than phenytoin. Given that no significant differences for seizure outcomes were found, the higher withdrawal rate with phenobarbitone may be due to side effects.
-
Menière's disease is characterised by attacks of hearing loss, tinnitus and disabling vertigo. Betahistine is used by many people to reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks but there is conflicting evidence relating to its effects. ⋯ There is insufficient evidence to say whether betahistine has any effect on Menière's disease.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2001
ReviewIntravenous beta2-agonists for acute asthma in the emergency department.
Inhaled beta-agonist therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. The use of intravenous beta-agonist agents may also be beneficial in this setting. ⋯ There is no evidence to support the use of IV beta2-agonists in patients with severe acute asthma. These drugs should be given by inhalation. No subgroups were identified in which the IV route should be considered.
-
There are a number of different drug treatments for acute migraine, including currently four triptans, with several more likely to become available in the future. There is a need for evidence-based information to help determine the balance of benefit and harm for acute migraine treatment. ⋯ Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg are effective in treating acute migraine, with a dose-related increase in efficacy.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2001
ReviewComparison of cellulose, modified cellulose and synthetic membranes in the haemodialysis of patients with end-stage renal disease.
When the kidney fails the blood borne metabolites of protein breakdown and water cannot be excreted. The principle of haemodialysis is that such substances can be removed when blood is passed over a semipermeable membrane. Natural membrane materials can be used including cellulose or modified cellulose, more recently various synthetic membranes have been developed. Synthetic membranes are regarded as being more "biocompatible" in that they incite less of an immune response than cellulose-based membranes. ⋯ For clinical practice This systematic literature review has generated no evidence of benefit when synthetic membranes were used compared with cellulose/modified cellulose membranes in terms of reduced mortality nor reduction in dialysis related adverse symptoms. Despite the relatively large number of RCTs undertaken in this area none of the included studies reported any measures of quality of life. End-of-study beta2 microglobulin values, and possibly the development of amyloid disease, were less in patients treated with synthetic membranes compared with cellulose membranes. Plasma triglyceride values were also lower with synthetic membranes in the single study that measured this outcome. Differences in these outcomes may have reflected the high flux of the synthetic membrane. Serum albumin was higher when synthetic membranes of both high and low flux were used. Kt/V and urea reduction ratio were higher when cellulose or modified cellulose membranes were used in the few studies that measured these outcomes. We are hesitant to recommend the universal use of synthetic membranes for haemodialysis in patients with ESRD because of; the small number of trials (particularly for modified cellulose membranes, most with low patient numbers), the heterogeneity of many of the trials compared, the variations in membrane flux, the differences in exclusion criteria, particularly relating to comorbidity and the relative lack of patient-centred outcomes studied. Such evidence as we have favours synthetic membranes but even if we assume extra benefit it may be at considerable cost, particularly if high flux synthetic membranes were to be used. For further research A further systematic review of RCTs comparing high and low flux haemodialysis membranes, subgrouped according to membrane composition (cellulose, modified cellulose, synthetic) and reporting clinical outcomes of major importance to patients needs to be undertaken. Further pragmatic RCTs are required to compare the different dialysis membranes available. We recommend that they: - Take into account other properties including flux as well as the material from which the membrane is made and test modified cellulose membranes as well as standard ones. - Record an agreed minimum dataset on primary outcomes of major importance to patients. - Explicitly record whether symptoms are patient- or staff-reported recognising that generally patient reporting will be more appropriate for evaluating effectiveness but staff reported data may be necessary for calculating the cost of treating complications. - Be multi-centre (and possibly multinational) to have sufficient patients to complete the study to allow for a considerable number of withdrawals and dropouts. - Have sufficient length of follow up to draw conclusions for important clinical outcome measures and continue to follow patients who have renal transplants. - Include older patients and those with comorbid illnesses and take into account age and comorbidity when assessing outcomes (possibly by stratification at trial entry). - Carry out, in parallel, an economic evaluation of the different policies being compared in the trial.