Using haloperidol as an anti-emetic in palliative care: informing practice through evidence from cancer treatment and post-operative contexts

YesNausea and vomiting are common symptoms in palliative care. Haloperidol is often used as an antiemetic in this context, although direct evidence supporting this practice is limited. To evaluate the efficacy and clinical use of haloperidol as an antiemetic in nonpalliative care contexts to inform practice, the authors conducted a rapid review of (i) published evidence to supplement existing systematic reviews, and (ii) practical aspects affecting the use of haloperidol including formulations and doses that are commonly available internationally. In nausea and vomiting related to cancer treatment, haloperidol was superior to control in two small studies. In postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), two randomized controlledtrials found treatment with haloperidol comparable to ondansetron. In palliative care, an observational study found a complete response rate of 24% with haloperidol (one in four patients) which would be consistent with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 3 to 5 derived from PONV. There remains insufficient direct evidence to definitively support the use of haloperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in palliative care. However, generalizing evidence from other clinical contexts may have some validity

Use of neuroleptics in a general hospital

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the clinical use of neuroleptics within a general hospital in acutely ill medical or surgical patients and its relation with dementia three months after admission compared with control subjects. METHODS: Cases were defined as every adult patient to whom a neuroleptic medication was prescribed during their hospitalization in our Hospital from February 1(st), to June 30(th), 1998. A control matched by age and sex was randomly selected among patients who had been admitted in the same period, in the same department, and had not received neuroleptics drugs (205 cases and 200 controls). Demographic, clinical and complementary data were compared between cases and controls. Crude odds ratios estimating the risk of dementia in non previously demented subjects compared with the risk in non-demented control subjects were calculated. RESULTS: 205 of 2665 patients (7.7%) received a neuroleptic drug. The mean age was 80.0 ± 13.6 years and 52% were females. They were older and stayed longer than the rest of the population. Only 11% received a psychological evaluation before the prescription. Fifty two percent were agitated while 40% had no reason justifying the use of neuroleptic drug. Three months after neuroleptic use 27% of the surviving cases and 2.6% of the surviving controls who were judged non-demented at admission were identified as demented. CONCLUSIONS: The most common reason for neuroleptic treatment was to manage agitation symptomatically in hospitalised patients. Organic mental syndromes were rarely investigated, and mental status exams were generally absent. Most of neuroleptic recipients had either recognised or unrecognised dementia

The Relationship between Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Human Papillomavirus: A Meta-Analysis of a Chinese Population (1994–2011)

Background: Previous studies indicated that oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) might be related to human papilloma virus (HPV) infection. However, up to now, there still lacks a large sample study to analyze the relationship between OSCC in a Chinese population and oral HPV infection. In the present study, we used a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship of OSCC with HPV infection in a Chinese population. Methods: The reports on HPV and OSCC in a Chinese population published between January, 1994, and September, 2011 were retrieved via CNKI/WANFANG/OVID/MEDLINE databases. According to the inclusion criteria, we selected 18 eligible case-control studies. After testing the heterogeneity of the studies by the Cochran Q test, the meta-analyses for HPV and HPV16 were performed using the fixed effects model. Results: The overall positive rates of HPV and HPV16 in OSCC were 58.0 % (354/610; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 54.1–61.9) and 47.47 % (169/356; 95 % CI: 42.3–52.7), respectively; which were significantly higher than those in normal controls 10.44% (26/249; 95 % CI: 7.2–14.7) and 7.1 % (13/182; 95 % CI: 4.2–11.8). Quantitative meta-analysis revealed that, compared with normal controls, the combined odds ratios of OSCC with HPV or HPV16 infection were 12.7 (95 % CI: 8.0–20.0) and 9.0 (95% CI: 5.1–15.6), respectively. Both Begg’s test and funnel plots revealed that no publication bias was found in this present study (P.0.05)