George P Obita1, Elaine G Boland2, David C Currow3, Miriam J Johnson4, Jason W Boland4. 1. Dove House Hospice, Hull, United Kingdom. Electronic address: gpobita@yahoo.co.uk. 2. Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom; Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, United Kingdom. 3. Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom; Discipline, Palliative and Supportive Services, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia. 4. Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Somatostatin analogues are commonly used to relieve symptoms in malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) but are more expensive than other antisecretory agents. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence of effectiveness of somatostatin analogues compared with placebo and/or other pharmacologic agents in relieving vomiting in patients with inoperable MBO. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases were systematically searched; reference lists of relevant articles were hand searched. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used. RESULTS: The search identified 420 unique studies. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria (six octreotide studies and one lanreotide); 220 people administered somatostatin analogues and 207 placebo or hyoscine butylbromide. Three RCTs compared a somatostatin analogue with placebo and four with hyoscine butylbromide. Two adequately powered multicenter RCTs with a low Cochrane risk of bias reported no significant difference between somatostatin analogues and placebo in their primary end points. Four RCTs with a high/unclear Cochrane risk of bias reported that somatostatin analogues were more effective than hyoscine butylbromide in reducing vomiting. CONCLUSION: There is low-level evidence of benefit with somatostatin analogues in the symptomatic treatment of MBO. However, high-level evidence from trials with low risk of bias found no benefit of somatostatin analogues for their primary outcome. There is debate regarding the clinically relevant study end point for symptom control in MBO and when it should be measured. The role of somatostatin analogues in this clinical situation requires further adequately powered, well-designed trials with agreed clinically important end points and measures.
CONTEXT: Somatostatin analogues are commonly used to relieve symptoms in malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) but are more expensive than other antisecretory agents. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence of effectiveness of somatostatin analogues compared with placebo and/or other pharmacologic agents in relieving vomiting in patients with inoperable MBO. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases were systematically searched; reference lists of relevant articles were hand searched. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used. RESULTS: The search identified 420 unique studies. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria (six octreotide studies and one lanreotide); 220 people administered somatostatin analogues and 207 placebo or hyoscine butylbromide. Three RCTs compared a somatostatin analogue with placebo and four with hyoscine butylbromide. Two adequately powered multicenter RCTs with a low Cochrane risk of bias reported no significant difference between somatostatin analogues and placebo in their primary end points. Four RCTs with a high/unclear Cochrane risk of bias reported that somatostatin analogues were more effective than hyoscine butylbromide in reducing vomiting. CONCLUSION: There is low-level evidence of benefit with somatostatin analogues in the symptomatic treatment of MBO. However, high-level evidence from trials with low risk of bias found no benefit of somatostatin analogues for their primary outcome. There is debate regarding the clinically relevant study end point for symptom control in MBO and when it should be measured. The role of somatostatin analogues in this clinical situation requires further adequately powered, well-designed trials with agreed clinically important end points and measures.
Authors: Yeh Chen Lee; Nazlin Jivraj; Catherine O'Brien; Tanya Chawla; Eran Shlomovitz; Sarah Buchanan; Jenny Lau; Jennifer Croke; Johane P Allard; Preeti Dhar; Stephane Laframboise; Sarah E Ferguson; Neesha Dhani; Marcus Butler; Pamela Ng; Terri Stuart-McEwan; Pamela Savage; Lisa Tinker; Amit M Oza; Stephanie Lheureux Journal: Obstet Gynecol Int Date: 2018-05-17
Authors: Elin Baddeley; Alison Bravington; Miriam Johnson; David C Currow; Fliss Em Murtagh; Elaine Boland; George Obita; Annmarie Nelson; Kathy Seddon; Alfred Oliver; Simon Noble; Jason Boland Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Elin Baddeley; Mala Mann; Alison Bravington; Miriam J Johnson; David Currow; Fliss E M Murtagh; Elaine G Boland; George Obita; Alfred Oliver; Kathy Seddon; Annmarie Nelson; Jason W Boland; Simon I R Noble Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 5.713
Authors: Ainhoa Madariaga; Jenny Lau; Arunangshu Ghoshal; Tomasz Dzierżanowski; Philip Larkin; Jacek Sobocki; Andrew Dickman; Kate Furness; Rouhi Fazelzad; Gregory B Crawford; Stephanie Lheureux Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 3.359