scholarly journals Treatment with intravenous pamidronate is a good alternative in case of gastrointestinal side effects or contraindications for oral bisphosphonates

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle A Eekman ◽  
Marijn Vis ◽  
Irene EM Bultink ◽  
Harm JGM Derikx ◽  
Ben AC Dijkmans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Oral Bisphosphonates ◽  
Intravenous Pamidronate ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects

scholarly journals Investigation of the Frequency of Adverse Effects in Patients Treated with Favipiravir as SARS-CoV-2 Treatment

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Ebru Dogan ◽  
Sevil Alkan-Çeviker ◽  
Servan Vurucu ◽  
Alper Sener ◽  
Buse Yüksel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Antiviral Agents ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Cardiac Side Effects ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects ◽  
Treatment Agent

Objective: For 2019 and 2020, SARS-CoV-2 has been a sensational virus. Unfortunately, a treatment agent specific for SARS-CoV-2 has not been developed yet. Favipiravir is one of the antiviral agents used experimentally in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. This study aimed to determine the frequency of side effects seen in patients hospitalized in our hospital and received favipiravir at any stage of their treatment. Methods: Our study is a retrospective observational study. Definite and probable COVID-19 cases hospitalized in our hospital between March 23, 2020, May 31, 2020, were determined, and those receiving favipiravir as initial or secondary therapy were included in the study. The demographic data, laboratory tests, observed side effects of the patients were recorded and analyzed statistically. Results: A total of 134 patients, 37.3% using favipiravir at the beginning and 62.7% as secondary, were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 66.8±15.7 years. 38.1% (n=51) of the group were female. Side effects were detected in 17 (13%) patients in the whole group. Hepatotoxicity (4.5%), increased serum uric acid (4.5%), nephrotoxicity (1.5%), gastrointestinal side effects (1.5%), cardiac side effects (0.7%) were detected. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of adverse events between the patients who received favipiravir initially or later on disease course. Conclusions: Although some results support the short-term safety of favipiravir, more studies are needed for its long-term effects. Studies on hyperuricemia, QTc prolongation, use in pregnancy, use during lactation and use in children are insufficient. Therefore, although Favipiravir appears to be a good alternative in the treatment of COVID-19, it should be used carefully because the data on its safety is still insufficient. Key Words: Favipiravir, adverse effects, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2

scholarly journals Investigation of the Frequency of Adverse Effects in Patients Treated with Favipiravir as SARS-CoV-2 Treatment

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Ebru Dogan ◽  
Sevil Alkan Çeviker ◽  
Servan Vurucu ◽  
Alper Sener ◽  
Buse Yuksel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Antiviral Agents ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Cardiac Side Effects ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects ◽  
Treatment Agent

Objective: For 2019 and 2020, SARS-CoV-2 has been a sensational virus. Unfortunately, a treatment agent specific for SARS-CoV-2 has not been developed yet. Favipiravir is one of the antiviral agents used experimentally in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. This study aimed to determine the frequency of side effects seen in patients hospitalized in our hospital and received favipiravir at any stage of their treatment. Methods: Our study is a retrospective observational study. Definite and probable COVID-19 cases hospitalized in our hospital between March 23, 2020, May 31, 2020, were determined, and those receiving favipiravir as initial or secondary therapy were included in the study. The demographic data, laboratory tests, observed side effects of the patients were recorded and analyzed statistically. Results: A total of 134 patients, 37.3% using favipiravir at the beginning and 62.7% as secondary, were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 66.8±15.7 years. 38.1% (n=51) of the group were female. Side effects were detected in 17 (13%) patients in the whole group. Hepatotoxicity (4.5%), increased serum uric acid (4.5%), nephrotoxicity (1.5%), gastrointestinal side effects (1.5%), cardiac side effects (0.7%) were detected. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of adverse events between the patients who received favipiravir initially or later on disease course. Conclusions: Although some results support the short-term safety of favipiravir, more studies are needed for its long-term effects. Studies on hyperuricemia, QTc prolongation, use in pregnancy, use during lactation and use in children are insufficient. Therefore, although Favipiravir appears to be a good alternative in the treatment of COVID-19, it should be used carefully because the data on its safety is still insufficient.

Sulfinpyrazone or Acetylsalicylic Acid to Prevent Postoperative Thrombus Formation in Arteriovenous Fistulas of Haemodialysis Patients

1979 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Albert ◽  
U Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Acetylsalicylic Acid ◽  
Thrombus Formation ◽  
Significant Inhibition ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistulas ◽  
Arteriovenous Shunts ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects ◽  
Antithrombotic Efficacy

The effect of sulfinpyrazone (200 mg three times a day) and acetylsalicylic acid (500 mg three times a day) on the incidence of thrombosis of arteriovenous shunts was investigated in a controlled clinical trial. In 36 patients with chronic renal failure scheduled to begin haemodialysis the same operating team constructed a subcutaneous fistula in the distal forearm. During the first six weeks after the operation the antithrombotic efficacy proved to be good for both substances. No differences of thrombotic events between the two treatment groups were statistically significant. But in contrast to acetylsalicylic acid sulfinpyrazone made no significant inhibition of platelet - aggregation; sulfinpyrazone probably will prevent the clot formation by prolonging the shortened platelet survival in uraemic patients. In a high rate of patients given acetylsalicylic acid (10 out of 17) there were local bleeding and gastrointestinal side effects. In consequence we should prefer sulfinpyrazone, because in the sulfinpyrazone group side effects were minimal and in none patient withdrawal from the study was necessitated.

scholarly journals Oral Iron Supplementation—Gastrointestinal Side Effects and the Impact on the Gut Microbiota

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-502
Author(s):  
Sarah R. Bloor ◽  
Rudolph Schutte ◽  
Anthony R. Hobson
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Gut Microbiota ◽  
Iron Supplementation ◽  
Methanogenic Archaea ◽  
Intravenous Iron ◽  
Oral Iron ◽  
Intestinal Lumen ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects ◽  
Potential Link ◽  
The Impact

Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is a worldwide healthcare problem affecting approximately 25% of the global population. The most common IDA treatment is oral iron supplementation, which has been associated with gastrointestinal (GI) side effects such as constipation and bloating. These can result in treatment non-adherence and the persistence of IDA. Intravenous iron does not cause GI side effects, which may be due to the lack of exposure to the intestinal lumen. Luminal iron can cause changes to the gut microbiota, aiding the promotion of pathogenic species and decreasing beneficial protective species. Iron is vital for methanogenic archaea, which rely on iron for growth and metabolism. Increased intestinal methane has been associated with slowing of intestinal transit, constipation, and bloating. Here we explore the literature to understand a potential link between iron and methanogenesis as a novel way to understand the mechanism of oral iron supplementation induced GI side effects.

scholarly journals Impact of metformin treatment during pregnancy on maternal outcomes: a systematic review/meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane L. Tarry-Adkins ◽  
Susan E. Ozanne ◽  
Catherine E. Aiken
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Gestational Hypertension ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Maternal Outcomes ◽  
Metformin Treatment ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects ◽  
The Impact

AbstractWe systematically assessed the impact of metformin treatment on maternal pregnancy outcomes. PubMed, Ovid Embase, Medline, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane databases were systematically searched (inception-1st February 2021). Randomised controlled trials reporting pregnancy outcomes in women randomised to metformin versus any other treatment for any indication were included. Outcomes included gestational weight gain (GWG), pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, preterm birth, gestational age at delivery, caesarean section, gestational diabetes, glycaemic control, and gastrointestinal side-effects. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, with a third available to evaluate disagreements. Risk-of-bias and GRADE assessments were conducted using Cochrane Risk-of-Bias and GRADE-pro software. Thirty-five studies (n = 8033 pregnancies) met eligibility criteria. GWG was lower in pregnancies randomised to metformin versus other treatments (1.57 kg ± 0.60 kg; I2 = 86%, p < 0.0001), as was likelihood of pre-eclampsia (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50–0.95; I2 = 55%, p = 0.02). The risk of gastrointestinal side-effects was greater in metformin-exposed versus other treatment groups (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.53–3.84; I2 = 76%, p = 0.0002). The risk of other maternal outcomes assessed was not significantly different between metformin-exposed versus other treatment groups. Metformin for any indication during pregnancy is associated with lower GWG and a modest reduced risk of pre-eclampsia, but increased gastrointestinal side-effects compared to other treatments.

Risks of Cardiovascular Disease and Beyond in Prescription of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manas A. Rane ◽  
Alexander Gitin ◽  
Benjamin Fiedler ◽  
Lawrence Fiedler ◽  
Charles H. Hennekens
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Relieve Pain ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory

Introduction: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) include aspirin, naproxen, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, as well as selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors such as celecoxib. Their use is common, as well as their side effects which cause 100 000 hospitalizations and 17 000 deaths annually. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration strengthened its warning about the risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD) attributed to nonaspirin NSAIDs. Methods: When the sample size is large, randomization provides control of confounding not possible to achieve with any observational study. Further, observational studies and, especially, claims data have inherent confounding by indication larger than the small to moderate effects being sought. Results: While trials are necessary, they must be of sufficient size and duration and achieve high compliance and follow-up. Until then, clinicians should remain uncertain about benefits and risks of these drugs. Conclusions: Since the totality of evidence remains incomplete, health-care providers should consider all these aforementioned benefits and risks, both CVD and beyond, in deciding whether and, if so, which, NSAID to prescribe. The factors in the decision of whether and, if so, which NSAID to prescribe for relief of pain from inflammatory arthritis should not be limited to risks of CVD or gastrointestinal side effects but should also include potential benefits including improvements in overall quality of life resulting from decreases in pain or impairment from musculoskeletal pain syndromes. The judicious individual clinical decision-making about the prescription of NSAIDs to relieve pain based on all these considerations has the potential to do much more good than harm.

Ampicillin-Associated Diarrhea: Effect of Dosage and Route of Administration

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 869-872
Author(s):  
John A. Phillips ◽  
Frederick H. Lovejoy ◽  
Yoichi Matsumiya
Keyword(s):  
Urinary Tract ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Total Dosage ◽  
Pediatric Practice ◽  
Severe Diarrhea ◽  
Bowel Movements ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects ◽  
Tract Infections ◽  
Mild Diarrhea

Ampicillin is one of the most frequently used antibiotics in pediatric practice.1 Its clinical efficacy has been widely studied, but its gastrointestinal side effects are poorly documented. In adults with urinary tract infections, 11% taking 1 gm/day of ampicillin orally had bowel movements which were at least twice as frequent as normal.2 Another series in adults receiving ampicillin reported an increase in stools with 16% having ≤5 and 5% having ≥5 stools per day. The change in stools increased with total dosage and was equal after oral or intravenous administration.3 In children, ampicillin ranging from 50 to the unusually high dose of 200 mg/kg/day resulted in mild diarrhea (≤5 stools per day) in 18% to 30%, moderate diarrhea (5 to 10 stools per day) in 2% to 11%, and severe diarrhea (≥10 stools per day) in 1% or less of cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document