OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in children and adults with SCD and to compare different dose regimens. To determine the effects of vitamin D supplementation on general health (e.g. growth status and health-related quality of life), on musculoskeletal health (including bone mineral density, pain crises, bone fracture and muscle health), on respiratory health (including lung function, acute chest syndrome, acute exacerbation of asthma and respiratory infections) and the safety of vitamin D supplementation.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 19 March 2020. We also searched database such as PubMed, clinical trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 14 January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing oral administration of any form of vitamin D supplementation at any dose and for any duration to another type or dose of vitamin D or placebo or no supplementation in people with SCD, of all ages, gender, and phenotypes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. They used the GRADE guidelines to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS: Vitamin D versus placebo One double-blind RCT (n = 39) compared oral vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) supplementation (20 participants) to placebo (19 participants) for six weeks. Only 25 participants completed the full six months of follow-up. The study had a high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data, but a low risk of bias for randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding (of participants, personnel and outcome assessors) and selective outcome reporting; and an unclear risk of other biases. Vitamin D supplementation probably led to higher serum 25(OH)D levels at eight weeks, mean difference (MD) 29.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.63 to 32.95); at 16 weeks, MD 12.67 (95% CI 10.43 to 14.90); and at 24 weeks, MD 15.52 (95% CI 13.50 to 17.54) (moderate-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in adverse events (tingling of lips or hands) between the vitamin D and placebo groups, risk ratio 3.16 (95% CI 0.14 to 72.84) (low-quality evidence). Vitamin D supplementation probably caused fewer pain days compared to the placebo group at eight weeks, MD -10.00 (95% CI -16.47 to -3.53) (low-quality evidence), but probably led to a lower (worse) health-related quality of life score (change from baseline in physical functioning PedsQL scores); at both 16 weeks, MD -12.56 (95% CI -16.44 to -8.69) and 24 weeks, MD -12.59 (95% CI -17.43 to -7.76), although this may not be the case at eight weeks (low-quality evidence). Vitamin D supplementation regimens compared Two double-blind RCTs (83 participants) compared different regimens of vitamin D. One RCT (n = 62) compared oral vitamin D3 7000 IU/day to 4000 IU/day for 12 weeks, while the second RCT (n = 21) compared oral vitamin D3 100,000 IU/month to 12,000 IU/month for 24 months. Both RCTs had low risk of bias for blinding (of participants, personnel and outcome assessors) and incomplete outcome data, but the risk of selective outcome reporting bias was high. The bias from randomisation and allocation concealment was low in one study but not in the second. There was an unclear risk of other biases. When comparing oral vitamin D 100,000 IU/month to 12,000 IU/month, the higher dose may have resulted in higher serum 25(OH)D levels at one year, MD 16.40 (95% CI 12.59 to 20.21) and at two years, MD 18.96 (95% CI 15.20 to 22.72) (low-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in adverse events between doses (low-quality evidence). There were more episodes of acute chest syndrome in the high-dose group, at one year, MD 0.27 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.52) but there was little or no difference at two years, MD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22) (moderate-quality evidence). At one year and two years there was also little or no difference between the doses in the presence of pain (moderate-quality evidence) or forced expiratory volume in one second % predicted. However, the high-dose group had lower values for % predicted forced vital capacity at both one and two years, MD -7.20% predicted (95% CI -14.15 to -0.25) and MD -7.10% predicted (95% CI -14.03 to -0.17), respectively. There were little or no differences between dose regimens in the muscle health of either hand or the dominant hand. The study comparing oral vitamin D3 7000 IU/day to 4000 IU/day (21 participants) did not provide data for analysis, but median serum 25(OH)D levels were reported to be lower in the low-dose group at both six and 12 weeks. At 12 weeks the median serum parathyroid hormone level was lower in the high-dose group.

METHOD: Electronic literature search on PubMed was conducted using the following keywords: methylphenidate, cancer, carcinoma, oncology, oncological and tumour. We identified forty two relevant studies and publications on the use of methylphenidate in cancer patients to be included in this review.

RESULTS: Methylphenidate was found to have some evidence in reducing opioid-induced sedation, improving cognitive symptoms and reduction of fatigue in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the results were inconsistent due to variations in the study populations, study design and outcome measures, among others. There was minimal evidence on its use in treating depression. Otherwise, methylphenidate was generally well-tolerated by patients.

METHODS: In an international, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, symptomatic individuals classified CEAP C0s to C4s were randomized in either treatment arm and treated for 8 weeks. Lower limb symptoms (discomfort, pain and heaviness) were assessed using Visual Analog Scales (VAS), and quality of life (QoL) was measured with the CIVIQ-20 Questionnaire.

RESULTS: A total of 1139 patients were included in the study. Both MPFF treatment regimens were well tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in lower limb symptoms. A non-inferiority of MPFF 1000-mg oral suspension once daily compared to MPFF 500-mg tablet twice daily (P<0.0001) was found for lower limb discomfort (-3.33 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.37 cm for MPFF 500 mg), leg pain (-3.27 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.31 cm for MPFF 500 mg) and leg heaviness (-3.41 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.46 cm for MPFF 500 mg). The patients' QoL was improved by about 20 points on the CIVIQ scale in both groups (19.33 points for MPFF 1000 mg and 20.28 points for MPFF 500 mg).

AIMS: To investigate the effect of intraperitoneal administration of ondansetron for postoperative pain management as an adjuvant to intravenous acetaminophen in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (n = 25 each) to receive either intraperitoneal ondansetron or saline injected in the gall bladder bed at the end of the procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in pain from baseline to 24-h post-operative assessed by comparing the area under the curve of visual analog score between the two groups.

RESULTS: The derived area under response curve of visual analog scores in the ondansetron group (735.8 ± 418.3) was 33.97% lower than (p = 0.005) that calculated for the control group (1114.4 ± 423.9). The need for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the ondansetron (16%) versus in the control group (54.17%) (p = 0.005), indicating better pain control. The correlation between the time for unassisted mobilization and the area under response curve of visual analog scores signified the positive analgesic influence of ondansetron (rs =0.315, p = 0.028). The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in patients who received ondansetron than that reported in the control group (p = 0.023 (8 h), and 0.016 (24 h) respectively).