Background:Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains the most distressing event in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).Objective:Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine containing regimen in preventing acute, delayed and overall phases of CINV.Methods:PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials electronic databases were searched to identify RCTs that compared the effects of olanzapine with non-olanzapine regimen in preventing CINV. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared olanzapine containing regimen with non-olanzapine regimen were included. The primary outcomes were the percentage of patients achieving no vomiting or no nausea in acute, delayed and overall phases.Results:13 RCTs that enrolled 1686 participants were included in this meta-analysis. 852 patients were assigned to olanzapine and 834 patients were assigned to non-olanzapine regimen (other standard antiemetic regimen). The percentages of no emesis achieved were 87.5%, 76.2%, 73.6% in olanzapine versus 76.7%, 61.8%, and 56.4% in non-olanzapine regimen in acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. The percentages of no nausea were 82%, 64.3%, 61.6% in olanzapine group versus 71.3%, 41.8%, and 40.6% in non-olanzapine group in acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. In general, olanzapine containing regimen achieved statistical superiority to non-olanzapine regimen in no vomiting endpoint in acute phase (OR 2.16; 95%CI 1.60 to 2.91, p<0.00001; I-square=5%; p=0.40), delayed phase (OR 2.28; 95%CI 1.1.46 to 3.54, p=0.0003; I-square=65%; p=0.001) and overall phase (OR 2.48; 95%CI 1.59 to 3.86, p<0.0001; I-square=69%; p< 0.0001).Conclusion:The current meta-analysis showed that olanzapine was statistically and clinically superior to non-olanzapine regimen in preventing CINV in most domains of the parameters.
Background: Ethiopia is one of the countries where the healthcare system is not yet developed to the required level; hence, it is not uncommon that drugs, particularly antimicrobials, are inappropriately used for infections by any causative agents, with or without prescription, in combination or not, and, of more concern, without sensitivity tests. So, it was considered important to assess the magnitude of inappropriate antimicrobial use among inpatients attending Madda Walabu University Goba Referral Hospital, southeast Ethiopia. Methods: A health institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2018 to April 2019. Patient folders from collaborating wards were reviewed for antibiotic use. Inappropriateness of a drug or its dosage, or both, was considered in reference to the Ethiopian national treatment guideline. The information obtained was analyzed using SPSS version 20. Patterns of prescription of antimicrobials for the hospitalized patients were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 801 antibiotics were written as prescriptions to 471 clients, 228 (47.6%) of whom had received two or more antibiotics at the time of the study. Of the total prescribed antibiotics, 142 (30.1%) had an inappropriate prescription. Genitourinary tract infections accounted for 42 (30.4%) of the inappropriate prescriptions due to the wrong dose and drugs. Cephalosporins were the most extensively prescribed class of antibiotics, 24.4% of which were inappropriately prescribed. Intravenous formulations made up the largest proportion of prescriptions, at 335 (41.8%). The most commonly prescribed antimicrobials were cephalosporins, 178 (38%); nitroimidazoles, 115 (24.5%); and macrolides, 53 (11.3%), while ceftriaxone was prescribed in 249 (53%) and metronidazole in 123 (26.2%) cases. Conclusion: Low dose, inadequate duration and empiric use of antibiotics were major causes of inappropriate use in the study area. Therefore, local antimicrobial sensitivity tests, antibiotic stewardship and following the national treatment guideline are recommended to overcome inappropriate antimicrobial use.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.