Desmopressin Acetate and Nocturnal Enuresis: How Much Do We Know?

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 420-425
Author(s):  
M. E.K. Moffatt ◽  
S. Harlos ◽  
A. J. Kirshen ◽  
L. Burd

Objectives. Desmopress in acetate (DDAVP) is promoted to treat nocturnal enuresis but indications for its use are unclear. We reviewed all randomized controlled trials to determine (1) short- and long-term efficacy, (2) responders, (3) dose-response curve, (4) side effects, and (5) comparative efficacy with other treatments. Methods. A Medline search of the English language literature from January 1966 to August 1992, supplemented by contact with the drug companies, yielded 18 articles which were true randomized controlled trials (11 cross-over and 7 parallel studies). Results. The 18 randomized controlled trials included 689 subjects for most of whom some other type of treatment had failed. All studies found decreased mean frequency of wetting ranging from 10% to 91%, but only 24.5% of subjects achieved short-term dryness. One study of DDAVP responders directly tested long-term dryness and 21% stayed dry. In three studies that incidentally reported on long-term effects 5.7% stayed dry after stopping DDAVP. There was wide variation in the type of patient included. Seven studies addressed prognostic factors. Children more than 9 years old and with fewer initial wet nights do better. Four studies seem to include almost exclusively monosymptomatic children with nocturnal enuresis (ie, primary nocturnal enuresis, positive family history, and no urinary symptoms). Results were no better than those which included mixed symptoms. Five studies attempted to address the dose-response issue. Despite some methodological issues, there is probably some dose-response effect. Side effects were infrequent in the 589 subjects who received DDAVP as opposed to placebo. No cases of water intoxication and no significant shifts in electrolytes were reported in the four studies which measured them. Nasal stuffiness, headache, epistaxis, and mild abdominal pain seem to be the only side effects noted, and these were uncommon. Only one study compared DDAVP with conditioning alarms. Alarm patients had 10% fewer wet nights and a better long-term result. Conclusions. DDAVP reduces wet nights in children for whom other treatments have failed but it produces complete dryness in a minority, and this is often a temporary effect. The literature focuses on short-term efficacy. The true role of DDAVP will be known when samples are carefully selected, prognostic factors are examined, and more comparisons with other treatments are conducted focusing on long-term outcomes. On the basis of current knowledge, DDAVP is inferior to conditioning alarms as a primary therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 471-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Blaiss ◽  
William Berger ◽  
Bradley Chipps ◽  
Vivian Hernandez-Trujillo ◽  
Wanda Phipatanakul ◽  
...  

Background: Parental concerns about the adverse effects of asthma medications can lead to nonadherence and uncontrolled asthma in children. Ciclesonide (CIC) is a prodrug, with low oropharyngeal deposition and bioavailability that may minimize the risk of local and systemic adverse effects. CIC is U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for asthma in children ages ≥ 12 years. Objective: To summarize safety results from the 13 phase II or III randomized controlled trials conducted in children with asthma during CIC clinical development. Methods: Four 12- to 24-week trials compared the safety of once-daily CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo; four 12-week trials compared the safety of CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with either fluticasone or budesonide; one 12-month trial compared the long-term safety of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with fluticasone; one 12-month trial compared growth velocity of CIC 40 or 160 µg/day with placebo; and three cross-over trials compared short-term growth velocity and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis effects of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo or fluticasone. Results: In all, 4399 children were treated with CIC. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) was similar among the CIC doses and between CIC and placebo in short-term studies and between CIC and fluticasone in the long-term safety study. No CIC-related serious AEs were reported in any study. The incidence of treatment-related oral candidiasis was low and similar between CIC (≤0.5%) and placebo (≤0.7%) or active controls (≤0.5%) in the short-term studies. There was no clinically relevant HPA axis suppression or reduction in growth velocity associated with CIC. Conclusion: Data from 13 studies demonstrate that CIC is associated with low rates of oropharyngeal AEs, with no indication of clinically relevant systemic effects in children with asthma. The favorable safety profile and demonstrated improvements in asthma control make CIC an ideal inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma in children.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu Gao ◽  
Xu Zhao ◽  
Lei Jiao ◽  
Luosheng Tang

Abstract Background To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different intravitreal corticosteroids for treating diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods Four databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing different intravitreal corticosteroids for treating DME. The primary outcome was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) within 6 months after the first injection (short-term BCVA). Secondary outcomes were the change in BCVA over 1 year (long-term BCVA) and changes in central macular thickness (CMT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) within 6 months after the first injection. Network meta-analysis was performed to aggregate the results from the individual studies. Results Nineteen trials involving 2839 eyes were included. Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injections (≥ 8 mg and 4–8 mg), fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implants (0.5 µg/day) and dexamethasone (DEX) implants (700 µg) improved short-term BCVA (mean changes in logMAR [95% confidence interval] − 0.27 [− 0.40, − 0.15]; − 0.12 [− 0.18, − 0.06]; − 0.10 [− 0.21, − 0.01]; and − 0.06 [− 0.11, − 0.01]). Intravitreal TA injections (4 mg, multiple times), FA implants (0.5 µg/day and 0.2 µg/day), and DEX implants (350 µg) improved long-term BCVA (mean changes in logMAR [95% confidence interval] − 0.11 [− 0.21, − 0.02]; − 0.09 [− 0.15, − 0.03]; − 0.09 [− 0.14, − 0.02]; and − 0.04 [− 0.07, − 0.01]). All intravitreal corticosteroids reduced CMT, and different dosages of TA did not show significant differences in increasing IOP. Conclusions Intravitreal corticosteroids effectively improved BCVA in DME patients, with higher dosages showing greater efficacies. TA was not inferior to FA or DEX and may be considered a low-cost alternative choice for DME patients. The long-term efficacy and safety of different corticosteroids deserve further investigation. Trial registration Prospectively registered: PROSPERO, CRD42020219870


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document