Droperidol for treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of dopamine-receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Dopamine (D)2,3-receptor antagonists (RAs) were the first antiemetics used in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

AREAS COVERED

Eight D2,3-RAs, amisulpride, domperidone, droperidol, haloperidol, metoclopramide, metopimazine, olanzapine and prochlorperazine are reviewed focusing on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antiemetic effect and side effects.

EXPERT OPINION

Since the introduction of D2,3-RAs, antiemetics such as corticosteroids, 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3-RAs and neurokinin (NK)1-RAs have been developed. The classical D2,3-RAs are recommended in the prophylaxis of CINV from low emetic risk chemotherapy, but not as a fixed component of an antiemetic regimen for moderately or highly (HEC) emetic risk chemotherapy. D2,3-RAs are also used in patients with breakthrough nausea and vomiting. It should be emphasized, that most of these drugs are not selective for dopamine receptors.The multi-receptor targeting agent, olanzapine, is recommended in the prophylaxis of HEC-induced CINV as part of a four-drug antiemetic regimen, including a 5-HT3-RA, dexamethasone and a NK1-RA. Olanzapine is the most effective agent to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea.Side effects differ among various D2,3-RAs. Metopimazine and domperidone possess a low risk of extrapyramidal side effects. Domperidone and metoclopramide are prokinetics, whereas metopimazine delays gastric emptying and haloperidol does not influence gastric motility. Many D2,3-RAs increase the risk of prolonged QTc interval; other side effects include sedation and orthostatic hypotension.

Pharmacological interventions for pruritus in adult palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups. The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%). Using GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) -5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI -5.91 to -0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP. In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -42.00, 95% CI -87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). In palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine).

AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS

Different interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.

Antipsychotic Medication Use Among Older Adults Following Infection-Related Hospitalization

Importance

There are limited data on discontinuation rates of antipsychotic medications (APMs) used to treat delirium due to acute hospitalization in the routine care of older adults.

Objective

To investigate discontinuation rates and patient characteristics of APMs used to treat delirium following infection-related hospitalization among older US adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using US claims data (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart database) for January 1, 2004, to May 31, 2022. Patients were aged 65 years or older without prior psychiatric disorders and had newly initiated an APM prescription within 30 days of an infection-related hospitalization. Statistical analysis was performed on December 15, 2022.

Exposures

New use (no prior use any time before cohort entry) of oral haloperidol and atypical APMs (aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, etc).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was APM discontinuation, defined as a gap of more than 15 days following the end of an APM dispensing. Survival analyses and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used.

Results

Our study population included 5835 patients. Of these individuals, 790 (13.5%) were new haloperidol users (mean [SD] age, 81.5 [6.7] years; 422 women [53.4%]) and 5045 (86.5%) were new atypical APM users (mean [SD] age, 79.8 [7.0] years; 2636 women [52.2%]). The cumulative incidence of discontinuation by 30 days after initiation was 11.4% (95% CI, 10.4%-12.3%) among atypical APM users and 52.1% (95% CI, 48.2%-55.7%) among haloperidol users (P < .001 for difference between haloperidol vs atypical APMs). We observed an increasing trend in discontinuation rates from 2004 to 2022 (5% increase [95% CI, 3%-7%] per year) for haloperidol users (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05 [1.03-1.07]; P < .001) but not for atypical APM users (1.00 [0.99-1.01]; P = .67). Prolonged hospitalization and dementia were inversely associated with the discontinuation of haloperidol and atypical APMs.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study suggest that the discontinuation rate of newly initiated APMs for delirium following infection-related hospitalization was lower in atypical APM users than in haloperidol users, with prolonged hospitalization and dementia as major associated variables. The discontinuation rate was substantially higher in recent years for haloperidol but not for atypical APMs.

Indian Society for Study of Pain, Cancer Pain Special Interest Group Guidelines on Pharmacological Management of Cancer Pain (Part II)

The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group (SIG) guidelines on pharmacological management of cancer pain in adults provide a structured, stepwise approach, which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire, based on the key elements of each sub draft addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking, was made available on the ISSP website and circulated by e-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care members. We recommend that analgesics for cancer pain management should follow the World Health Organization 3-step analgesic ladder appropriate for the severity of pain. The use of paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with opioids for mild-to-moderate pain should be used. For mild-to-moderate pain, weak opioids such as tramadol, tapentadol, and codeine can be given in combination with nonopioid analgesics. We recommend morphine as the opioid of the first choice for moderate-to-severe cancer pain. Sustained-release formulations can be started 12 hourly, once the effective 24 h dose with immediate-release morphine is established. Opioid switch or rotation should be considered if there is inadequate analgesia or intolerable side effects. For opioid-induced respiratory depression, μ receptor antagonists (e.g. naloxone) must be used promptly. Antidepressants and/or anticonvulsants should be used to treat neuropathic cancer pain, and the dose should be titrated according to the clinical response and side effects. External beam radiotherapy should be offered to all patients with painful metastatic bone pain. There is evidence on use of ketamine in cancer neuropathic pain, but with no beneficial effect, thus, it is not recommended.

Antiemetic drugs: what to prescribe and when

Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms with many possible causes, including the adverse effects of drugs. If a drug is indicated, the cause guides the choice of antiemetic drug The main antiemetic classes include antagonists of the serotonin, dopamine, histamine, muscarinic and neurokinin systems, corticosteroids and benzodiazepines. Some antiemetics appear more effective for specific indications Serotonin and neurokinin antagonists, such as ondansetron and aprepitant, are highly effective in treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Metoclopramide and antihistamines are first-line options for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy Serotonin antagonists and some dopamine antagonists, such as metoclopramide, can prolong the QT interval on the ECG. Dopamine antagonists can cause extrapyramidal adverse effects, particularly in children

Extended release granisetron: Review of pharmacologic considerations and clinical role in the perioperative setting

In this review, we evaluate recent literature on use of ER granisetron in clinical practice as compared with current antiemetics and describe its potential uses for perioperative PONV prophylaxis and treatment. Recent literature was evaluated on ER granisetron use compared with currently used antiemetic agents ondansetron, droperidol, metoclopramide, promethazine, and dexamethasone with a focus on procedural anti-emesis. Though promising great effect, application of extended release granisetron to clinical use may be limited by it's increased relative cost.

Droperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.

Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2013, on Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care.Nausea and vomiting are common, distressing symptoms for patients receiving palliative care. There are several drugs which can be used to treat these symptoms, known as antiemetics. Levomepromazine is an antipsychotic drug is commonly used as an antiemetic to alleviate nausea and vomiting in palliative care settings.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of, and adverse events associated with, levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched electronic databases, including those of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, up to February 2015. We searched clinical trial registers on 7 October 2015 for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in adults receiving palliative care. We excluded studies in which symptoms were thought to be due to pregnancy or surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the potential relevance of studies based on titles and abstracts. We obtained copies of any study reports that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria for further assessment. At least two review authors read each paper to determine suitability for inclusion and discussed discrepancies in order to achieve a consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

In the original review, we identified 421 abstracts using the search strategy. We considered eight studies for inclusion but ultimately excluded them all from the review. We updated the search in February 2015 and identified 35 abstracts, but again none met the inclusion criteria. We identified two trials from clinical trial registers, one of which is ongoing and one of which was closed due to poor recruitment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As in the initial review, we identified no published randomised controlled trials examining the use of levomepromazine for the management of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving palliative care, and our conclusion (that further studies of levomepromazine and other antiemetic agents are needed to provide better evidence for their use in this setting) remains unchanged. We did, however, identify one ongoing study that we hope will contribute to the evidence base for this intervention in future updates of this review.