| Literature DB >> 32210637 |
Yang Yang1, Isabelle Boucoiran2, Karen J Tulloch3, Vanessa Poliquin4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its benefits, there are some situations where breastfeeding is impossible or not recommended. Breast milk secretion and engorgement can be distressing to these non-breastfeeding women. There is currently no universal guideline on the most appropriate management for these women. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cabergoline, a dopamine agonist, in lactation inhibition in postpartum women.Entities:
Keywords: cabergoline; dostinex; lactation inhibition; lactation suppression; postpartum
Year: 2020 PMID: 32210637 PMCID: PMC7069562 DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S232693
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Womens Health ISSN: 1179-1411
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram.
Study Demographics and Methodologies
| Study | Study Design | Participants | Comparator Groups | Cabergoline Given | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caballero-Gordo et al, 1991 | Prospective, | 140 healthy postpartum women | Interventions: | Control: | <24 hrs after delivery |
| European Multicentre Study Group for Cabergoline in Lactation Inhibition, 1991 | Prospective, | 272 healthy postpartum women | Interventions: | Control: | <27 hrs after delivery |
| Giorda et al, 1991 | Prospective, randomized | 36 healthy postpartum women | Interventions: | Control: | 50 hrs after delivery |
| Melis et al, 1987 | Prospective, randomized | 17 healthy postpartum women | Interventions: | Control: | 24-48 hrs after delivery |
| Melis et al, 1988 | Prospective, | 32 healthy postpartum women | Interventions: | Control: | <24 hrs after delivery |
| Nisha et al, 2009 | Prospective, randomized controlled trial | 196 healthy postpartum women | Interventions: | Control: | <24 hrs after delivery or neonatal death |
Study Outcomes
| Study | Outcome Assessment Method | Efficacy Outcome | Cessation (Days) | Safety Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caballero-Gordo et al, 1991 | Interview and physical examination daily for 5 days; subsequent self-administered questionnaire after discharge; return on day 14 for final examination | 90%, 70%, 45%, 20% of participants received 1mg, 0.75mg, 0.5mg and placebo respectively had no breast symptoms during hospitalization or up to day 14. Statistically significant between all four groups (p<0.01) | Not reported | Dizziness (n=2), 0.75 mg and 1 mg |
| European Multicentre Study Group for Cabergoline in Lactation Inhibition, 1991 | Self-administered questionnaire daily during hospital stay (at least 3days); subsequent questionnaire on return visit or home visit on day 15; subsequent visit or telephone call on day 21. Treatment success evaluated on day 3 and day 15. | 78% and 69% of cabergoline and bromocriptine group respectively had no breast symptoms on day 14. Not statistically significant. | Not reported | Cabergoline group had 25 adverse events in n=22 (Dizziness and H/A most common) |
| Giorda et al, 1991 | Interviews and physical examination every other day for first week and on day 14 from start of treatment | 94% and 89% of cabergoline and bromocriptine group respectively had no breast symptoms at day 14 | Not reported | Cabergoline: Dizziness (n=3), headache (n=1), vomit (n=1) |
| Melis et al, 1987 | Self-administered questionnaire daily for 4 days | 0%, 43% and 100% of placebo, 400mcg and 600mcg cabergoline respectively had no breast symptoms on day 4 | Not reported | Asymptomatic orthostatic hypotension (n=1), cabergoline with no specified dosage |
| Melis et al, 1988 | Interviews and physical examination daily for 4 days and on day 14 post treatment | 13%, 50%, 100% and 100% of placebo, 400mcg, 600mcg and 800mcg cabergoline respectively no breast symptoms on day 14 | 0–1 | No side effects were observed in this study (No nausea, vomiting, hypotension, nasal stuffiness) |
| Nisha et al, 2009 | Interviews and physical examination daily until no milk expression even on pressing the breasts | 100% and 98% success inhibition with cabergoline and estrogen–androgen combination. (p=0.286) | Cabergoline: 0.73 day for inhibition and 3.29 days for suppression | Not reported |
Figure 2“Risk of bias” summary.
Risk of Bias Assessments
| Bias | Author’s Judgement | Support for Judgement |
|---|---|---|
| Caballero-Gordo et al, 1991 | ||
| Random sequence generation | Unclear risk | Quote: “the study was prospective, randomized and double blind” |
| Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | Quote: “the study was prospective, randomized and double blind” |
| Blinding of participants and personnel | Unclear risk | Quote: “double blind” |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (lactation) | Unclear risk | Quote: “double blind” |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (side effects) | Unclear risk | Quote: “double blind” |
| Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | Quote: “9 patients were excluded because of protocol violations, 6 because they did not return for an examination at 14 days and 3 because they used bromoergocryptine after treatment” |
| Selective reporting | Low risk | Comment: No evidence of selective reporting |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Comment: Number of participants in placebo group were only half of other intervention groups |
| European Multicentre Study Group for Cabergoline in Lactation Inhibition, 1991 | ||
| Random sequence generation | Low risk | Quote: “subjects randomised”. Treatments given “according to a randomised sequence balanced within each centre” |
| Allocation concealment | Low risk | Quote: “treatments were given double blind, using the double dummy technique” “the drugs were provided … in individualized patient kits, which were assigned by the doctor according to the patient’s order of entry to the study” |
| Blinding of participants and personnel | Low risk | Quote: “treatments were given double blind, using the double dummy technique” “in one instance the code was broken before the end of the study for one woman taking cabergoline owing to an unexpected adverse event (hemianopia), the women remained blind to the treatment” |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (lactation) | Low risk | Comment: Placebo was used to make up for the difference in the duration of treatments between the 2 arms of the trial |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (side effects) | Low risk | Quote: “treatments were given double blind” |
| Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | 6/136 missing from cabergoline group (1 due to “intolerance”, 2 due to “lost to follow up”, 3 due to “other reasons”); 8/136 missing from bromocriptine group (3 due to “intolerance”, 3 due to “lost to follow up”, 2 due to “other reasons”) |
| Selective reporting | Low risk | Comment: No evidence of selective reporting |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | 18/136 taking cabergoline and 16/136 taking bromocriptine received concomitant treatment that may have interfered with lactation (ergot derivatives in 28 and oral contraceptives in 6, equally dispensed over the 2 groups) |
| Giorda et al, 1991 | ||
| Random sequence generation | Low risk | Quote: “the women were randomly allocated with random tables” |
| Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | Comment: Allocation concealment not described |
| Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Quote: “single-blind” |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (lactation) | Low risk | Quote: “breast engorgement, breast tenderness and milk secretion were assessed clinically by one of us unaware of the type of treatment who recorded the presence or absence of these variables” |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (side effects) | Unclear risk | Quote: “clinical side effects reported by the women either spontaneously or after specific questions were also recorded” |
| Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | Comment: No missing data |
| Selective reporting | Low risk | Comment: No evidence of selective reporting |
| Other bias | Low risk | Comment: No other sources of bias |
| Melis et al, 1987 | ||
| Random sequence generation | Unclear risk | Quote: subjects were “randomly divided into 3 treatment groups in a single blind fashion” |
| Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | Comment: No information about allocation concealment to permit judgement |
| Blinding of participants and personnel | Unclear risk | Comment: Insufficient information to permit judgement on blinding. Study was labeled as “single blind”, unclear who was blinded and the measure taken to ensure blinding |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (lactation) | Unclear risk | Comment: Insufficient information to permit judgement on blinding. Study was labeled as “single blind”, unclear who was blinded and the measure taken to ensure blinding |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (side effects) | Unclear risk | Comment: Insufficient information to permit judgement on blinding. Study was labeled as “single blind”, unclear who was blinded and the measure taken to ensure blinding |
| Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | Comment: No missing data |
| Selective reporting | Low risk | Comment: No evidence of selective reporting |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Comment: Insufficient information to assess |
| Melis et al, 1988 | ||
| Random sequence generation | Unclear risk | Quote: “subjects were randomly allocated to four treatment groups of eight subjects” |
| Allocation concealment | Low risk | Quote: “the three doses of Cabergoline and placebo were supplied in identical vials containing a lyophilized powder, which was restored to a liquid state with water immediately before use” |
| Blinding of participants and personnel | Low risk | Quote: “double blind trial” “neither the patients nor the staff administering the solutions were aware of which treatment was being given” |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (lactation) | Unclear risk | Comment: Unclear whether outcome assessors were blinded |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (side effects) | Unclear risk | Comment: Unclear whether outcome assessors were blinded |
| Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | Comment: No missing data |
| Selective reporting | High risk | Quote: “No nausea, vomiting, hypotension, or nasal stuffiness were reported by the subjects who received Cabergoline” |
| Other bias | Low risk | Comment: No other sources of bias |
| Nisha et al, 2009 | ||
| Random sequence generation | Unclear risk | Quote: “they were randomly divided into two groups” |
| Allocation concealment | Low risk | Quote: “a total of 200 opaque white envelopes were sealed, mixed and put in a box” “each woman was asked to open one envelope and recruited in one of the two groups as per instructions inside the envelope” |
| Blinding of participants and personnel | Unclear risk | Comment: No blinding, route of administration was different between the 2 comparison groups (oral form versus IM injection) |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (lactation) | Unclear risk | Comment: No blinding |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (side effects) | Unclear risk | Comment: The study did not address this outcome |
| Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | Comment: No missing data |
| Selective reporting | Low risk | Comment: No evidence of selective reporting |
| Other bias | Low risk | Comment: No other sources of bias |