A retrospective chart review of the antiemetic effectiveness of risperidone in refractory opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer patients

TMEM132C rs7296262 Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Is Significantly Associated with Nausea Induced by Opioids Administered for Cancer Pain and Postoperative Pain

Opioids are almost mandatorily used for analgesia for cancer pain and postoperative pain. Opioid analgesics commonly induce nausea as a side effect. However, the genetic factors involved are still mostly unknown. To clarify the genetic background of individual differences in the occurrence of nausea during opioid administration, the incidence of nausea was investigated in 331 patients (Higashi-Sapporo Hospital [HS] group) who received morphine chronically for cancer pain treatment and in 2021 patients (Cancer Institute Hospital [CIH] group) who underwent elective surgery under general anesthesia. We conducted a genome-wide association study of nausea in HS samples. Among the top 20 candidate single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we focused on the TMEM132C rs7296262 SNP, which has been reportedly associated with psychiatric disorders. The rs7296262 SNP was significantly associated with nausea in both the HS and CIH groups (TT+TC vs. CC; HS group, p = 0.0001; CIH group, p = 0.0064). The distribution of nausea-prone genotypes for the rs7296262 SNP was reversed between HS and CIH groups. These results suggest that the TMEM132C rs7296262 SNP is significantly associated with nausea during opioid use, and the effect of the SNP genotype on nausea is reversed between chronic and acute phases of opioid use.

An update on the use of pharmacotherapy for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

With the growing rate of aging and the incidence of chronic diseases, there has been an upsurge in opioid prescription and abuse worldwide. This has been associated with increased reports of opioid-related adverse events, particularly opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD), calling for a rational clinical management strategy.

AREAS COVERED

Through searching PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, English literature was gathered as of 1 January 2017. Furthermore, the USFDA, EMA, TGA, Clinicaltrials.Gov, WHO-ICTRP databases, and the latest guidelines were reviewed to extract ongoing clinical studies and provide an evidence-based expert opinion with detailed information on efficacy, safety, approval status, and pharmacokinetics of the currently used medications.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the significant burden of OIBD, the clinical development of agents lags behind disease progress. Although in most places, management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is initiated by lifestyle modifications followed by laxatives, opioid antagonists, and secretagogue agents, there are still major conflicts among global guidelines. The fundamental reason is the lack of head-to-head clinical trials providing inter- and intragroup comparisons between PAMORAs, laxatives, and secretagogue agents. These investigations must be accompanied by further valid biopharmaceutical and economic evaluations, paving the way for rational clinical judgment in each context.

Prophylactic antiemetics for adults receiving intravenous opioids in the acute care setting

BACKGROUND

Physicians often prescribe opioids for pain in the acute care setting. Nausea and vomiting are well-described adverse events, occurring in over one-third of patients. Prophylactic antiemetics may be one option to reduce opioid-associated nausea and vomiting. However, these medications also have their own adverse effects, so it is important to understand their efficacy and safety prior to routine use. This is a review of randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care for preventing opioid-associated nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in adults (aged 16 years or older) receiving intravenous opioids in the acute care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) from inception to January 2022, and Google Scholar (17 January 2022). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care in adults prior to receiving an intravenous opioid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (MG, JNC) independently determined the eligibility of each study according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors (MG, GDP) then independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included nausea severity, number of vomiting episodes, and number of participants requiring antiemetic rescue therapy. We presented outcomes as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (e.g. presence of vomiting, presence of nausea, number of participants requiring rescue medication, adverse events) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference for continuous data (e.g. number of vomiting episodes, nausea severity) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies involving 527 participants (187 women and 340 men) with a mean age of 42 years.  All studies used intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg) as the intervention and a placebo for the comparator. No studies assessed any other antiemetic or compared the intervention to standard care. Compared to placebo, metoclopramide did not reduce vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.32; low-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; low-certainty evidence) and there was no difference in adverse events (RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.47 to 11.61; low-certainty evidence).  No data were available regarding the number of vomiting episodes. Metoclopramide did reduce the severity of nausea compared with placebo (MD -0.49, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.23; low-certainty evidence) but did not reduce the need for rescue medication (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.16; low-certainty evidence).  Two studies were at unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, one for blinding of outcome assessors, one for incomplete outcome data, and two for selective reporting. The studies were at low risk of bias for all remaining components.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that prophylactic metoclopramide affected the risk of vomiting, nausea, or the need for rescue medication when provided prior to intravenous opioids in the acute care setting. There was a clinically insignificant difference in nausea severity when comparing prophylactic metoclopramide with placebo. Overall, the evidence was of low certainty. Future research could better delineate the effects of prophylactic antiemetics on specific populations, and new studies are needed to evaluate the use of other prophylactic antiemetic agents, for which there were no data.

Chronic Atypical Antipsychotic Use Is Associated With Reduced Need for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Rescue in the Postanesthesia Care Unit: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Atypical antipsychotics are efficacious for chemoprophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, but perioperative investigations have been scant. We sought to examine the association between chronic atypical antipsychotic therapy and the likelihood of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

In this single-center, propensity-matched, retrospective, observational study, elective noncardiac surgical cases from January 2014 to December 2017 were examined with regard to the primary outcome of rescue antiemetic administration in the postanesthesia care unit as a measure of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Chronic administration of olanzapine, aripiprazole, and risperidone was the exposure of interest. Other independent variables included outpatient antiemetics, modified Apfel score, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, case length, and exposures to emetogenic and chemoprophylactic agents. Logistic regression was performed using case-level data. Conditional logistic regression was performed after 1:2 propensity matching, sampling without replacement. Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compute the mean patient-level treatment effect on the treated.

RESULTS

Of 13,660 cases, 154 cases with patients receiving atypical antipsychotics were matched against 308 cases without, representing 115 and 273 unique patients, respectively. In a well-balanced cohort, the mean patient-level odds of being administered rescue antiemetic was lower for patients chronically taking the 3 atypical antipsychotics under consideration as compared to those not on atypical antipsychotics, with an odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.75; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic atypical antipsychotic therapy is associated with reduced risk of postanesthesia care unit antiemetic administration. These findings support the need for prospective studies to establish the safety and efficacy of postoperative nausea and vomiting chemoprophylaxis with these agents.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics of a Lipid-Based Formulation of Risperidone, VAL401: Analysis of a Single Dose in an Open-Label Trial of Late-Stage Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A clinical trial was conducted to measure and analyse the pharmacokinetic parameters of a lipid formulation of risperidone, VAL401. The VAL401 formulation is designed to repurpose risperidone from an antipsychotic to an adenocarcinoma treatment, with the lipid formulation altering the cellular uptake of risperidone, thus enabling anticancer biology to be exhibited in preclinical testing.

METHODS

This first human trial of VAL401 measured the concentrations of risperidone and its primary metabolite, 9-hydroxyrisperidone, in the blood of patients after treatment with a single 2-mg dose of VAL401.

RESULTS

The trial provided information on differences in the pharmacokinetic profile of risperidone in VAL401 that may be caused by the formulation and/or the nature of the cancer patient population. VAL401 provided the following key pharmacokinetic parameters for the risperidone plasma concentration after a single 2-mg dose of VAL401, with results normalised to a dosage of 1 mg for comparison with literature values: Tmax, 2 h; Cmax, 8 ng/ml; half-life, 3.5 h; area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC0-∞), 58.2 ng h2/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Further comparisons of the pharmacokinetic parameters of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone in plasma of patients administered VAL401 and the corresponding parameters obtained from published data for conventionally formulated risperidone provide evidence for altered biological processing of VAL401 as compared to risperidone. The absolute values obtained provide support for future studies of VAL401 as a cancer treatment, as the Cmax demonstrates sufficient exposure to reach the concentrations seen during preclinical anticancer testing, yet the overall exposure to the active moiety supports the use of the safety and tolerability data from conventional risperidone during future clinical trials.

Opioid Use and Potency Are Associated With Clinical Features, Quality of Life, and Use of Resources in Patients With Gastroparesis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Many patients with gastroparesis are prescribed opioids for pain control, but indications for opioid prescriptions and the relationship of opioid use to gastroparesis manifestations are undefined. We characterized associations of use of potent vs weaker opioids and presentations of diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis.

METHODS

We collected data on symptoms, gastric emptying, quality of life, and health care resource use from 583 patients with gastroparesis (>10% 4-h scintigraphic retention) from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Gastroparesis Consortium, from January 2007 through November 2016. Patients completed medical questionnaires that included questions about opioid use. The opioid(s) were categorized for potency relative to oral morphine. Symptom severities were quantified by Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders Symptoms questionnaires. Subgroup analyses compared patients on potent vs weaker opioids and opioid effects in diabetic vs idiopathic etiologies.

RESULTS

Forty-one percent of patients were taking opioids; 82% of these took potent agents (morphine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, methadone, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, or fentanyl). Abdominal pain was the reason for prescription for 61% of patients taking opioids. Mean scores for gastroparesis, nausea/vomiting, bloating/distention, abdominal pain, and constipation scores were higher in opioid users (P ≤ .05). Opioid use was associated with greater levels of gastric retention, worse quality of life, increased hospitalization, and increased use of antiemetic and pain modulator medications compared with nonusers (P ≤ .03). Use of potent opioids was associated with worse gastroparesis, nausea/vomiting, upper abdominal pain, and quality-of-life scores, and more hospitalizations compared with weaker opioids (tapentadol, tramadol, codeine, or propoxyphene) (P ≤ .05). Opioid use was associated with larger increases in gastric retention in patients with idiopathic vs diabetic gastroparesis (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid use is prevalent among patients with diabetic or idiopathic gastroparesis, and is associated with worse symptoms, delays in gastric emptying, and lower quality of life, as well as greater use of resources. Potent opioids are associated with larger effects than weaker agents. These findings form a basis for studies to characterize adverse outcomes of opioid use in patients with gastroparesis and to help identify those who might benefit from interventions to prevent opioid overuse.

Pimping up Drugs Recovered, Superannuated and Under Exploited Drugs - An Introduction to the Basics of Drug Reprofiling

Drug development has moved along way forward from the days of with doctors peddling cauldrons of herbs and spices, however, the process can still miss opportunities for full exploitation of a drug’s potential. Drug reprofiling provides a chance for an established or a forgotten drug to move into a new area of therapy, whether related to the known effects or in a completely new area. In an era of environmental awareness and spiraling costs for traditional drug development, a strategy to squeeze every benefit out of drugs with known safety, tolerability and pharmacological parameters must be a strategically sound desire. We explore examples of success in reprofiling, draw comparisons between techniques, and finally provide two examples from the Valirx plc development pipeline currently undergoing the process.

Management of Malignant Bowel Obstruction Associated With GI Cancers

For many patients with GI malignancies, the seeding of the abdominal cavity with tumor cells, called peritoneal carcinomatosis, is a common mode of metastases and disease progression. Prognosis for patients with this aspect of their disease remains poor, with high disease-related morbidity and complications. Uniform and proven practices that provide optimal palliative care and quality of life for these patients are needed. The objective of this review is to critically assess the current literature regarding palliative strategies in the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis and associated symptoms in patients with advanced GI cancers. Despite encouraging results in the select population where cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy are indicated, the majority of patients who develop peritoneal carcinomatosis in the setting of GI cancers have poor prognosis, with malignant bowel obstruction representing a common terminal phase of their disease process. For all patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, aggressive symptom control and early multimodality palliative care as further outlined should be sought.

Newest Drugs for Chronic Unexplained Nausea and Vomiting

OPINION STATEMENT

Chronic unexplained nausea and vomiting (CUNV) refers to a symptom complex defined by nausea and/or vomiting with normal diagnostic testing, including anatomic assessments (including upper endoscopy) and measures of upper gut function (e.g., gastric emptying testing). Nausea and vomiting in this condition are postulated to result from aberrant peripheral or central neurohumoral activity. A substantial subset of patients satisfies this diagnosis as more than half of individuals referred for scintigraphic testing exhibit normal gastric emptying rates. No randomized, placebo-controlled trials of any medication treatment have been performed in CUNV. However, agents with potential therapeutic benefits in CUNV include antiemetic drugs, neuromodulatory treatments which are proposed to act by reducing gastric sensitivity, and medications with prokinetic action to stimulate upper gut propulsion. Recently approved drugs with antiemetic capability include serotonin antagonists with novel modes of delivery and neurokinin antagonists with or without additional serotonergic blocking capabilities. Existing neuroleptics and pain-modifying neuromodulatory therapies with fortuitous antiemetic benefits are being considered for their benefits in this disorder. Furthermore, current investigations will define potential therapeutic actions of agents that stimulate gastric emptying via action on gastroduodenal serotonin, motilin, and ghrelin receptors. This current research may broaden the treatment options for refractory cases of unexplained nausea and vomiting.

Opioids and GI Motility-Friend or Foe?

OPINION STATEMENT

The use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain is growing at an alarming rate. Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) is a common adverse effect of long-term opioid treatment manifesting as constipation, nausea, and vomiting. These effects are primarily mediated by peripheral μ-opioid receptors with resultant altered GI motility and function. As a result, patients may present with opioid-induced constipation (OIC), opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV), and/or narcotic bowel syndrome (NBS). This often leads to decreased quality of life and in many cases, discontinuation of opioid therapy. There is limited evidence to support the use of traditional anti-emetics and laxatives in the treatment of OBD. Tapering the dose of opioids, switching to transdermal application, opioid rotation, or dual-action opioids, such as tapentadol, may be helpful in the treatment of OBD. Novel agents, such as peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists which target the cause of OIC, show promise in the treatment of OBD and should be considered when conventional laxatives fail. This chapter will review the pathophysiology of OBD, including OINV and OIC, and treatment options available.

[Treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients : a review]

BACKGROUND

Many recommendations concerning the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients exist but what is the evidence for this? Most studies dealing with this topic have focused on cancer patients under chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy or on patients with postoperative nausea. Cancer patients without chemotherapy or radiation therapy, patients without postoperative nausea, and patients having other diseases with palliative care aspects, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), progressive heart failure, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and multiple sclerosis (MS) have been underrepresented in studies on nausea and vomiting so far.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine the level of evidence for the treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients suffering from far advanced cancer and no longer being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, AIDS, COPD, progressive heart failure, ALS or MS.

METHODS

Two different electronic databases (PubMed und Embase) were used to identify studies. Furthermore, a hand search for related articles was performed. No restriction was made concerning study types. Studies with patients undergoing chemotherapy radiation therapy or suffering from postoperative nausea, pediatric studies and studies published neither in English nor in German were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were found. All studies focused on cancer patients. Despite intensive research studies in patients with AIDS, COPD, heart failure, ALS or MS were not detected. Metoclopramide is seen as an effective drug in many studies whereas the evidence for it is moderate at best. Within the group of neuroleptics, levosupiride and levomepromazine seem to have good antiemetic potential but the evidence level is low.

CONCLUSION

In patients with advanced cancer not being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, metoclopramide can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting. Neuroleptics, such as levosulpiride or levomepromazine are alternatives but their adverse effects have to be considered carefully. The evidence level for prokinetics and neuroleptics is moderate to low. Concerning palliative care of patients with diseases other than cancer no studies exist. More well designed studies in palliative care patients are needed in order to facilitate evidence based antiemetic therapy. The English full text version of this article will be available in SpringerLink as of November 2012 (under "Supplemental").

Opioid induced nausea and vomiting

Opioids are broad spectrum analgesics that are an integral part of the therapeutic armamentarium to combat pain in the palliative care population. Unfortunately, among the adverse effects of opioids that may be experienced along with analgesia is nausea, vomiting, and/or retching. Although it is conceivable that in the future, using combination agents (opioids combined with agents which may nullify emetic effects), currently nausea/vomiting remains a significant issue for certain patients. However, there exists potential current strategies that may be useful in efforts to diminish the frequency and/or intensity of opioid-induced nausea/vomiting (OINV).

Opioid side effects and their treatment in patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain

Opioids are the foundation of standard analgesic regimens for moderate to severe pain due to life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, and are increasingly employed in chronic noncancer pain of the same severity. Opioids are frequently used for long periods in these populations, sometimes for years. However, side effects are common and may reduce quality of life, or become life threatening, and frequently cause patients to discontinue opioid therapy. Successful opioid therapy dictates that benefits of analgesia outweigh safety concerns. The mechanisms, incidence, and treatment or prevention of commonly reported side effects in chronic pain populations are reviewed, employing best available evidence along with empiric practice. General management strategies include switching opioids ("opioid rotation"), discontinuation of concurrent medications that exacerbate side effects, and symptomatic treatment. In addition, recently recognized adverse events that occur after long-term opioid therapy are discussed. High-quality evidence is lacking for the treatment of most side effects, and the true incidence, underlying mechanisms, and clinical implications of long-term responses to opioid therapy are not yet fully understood.

Management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: systematic review and evidence-based recommendations

The objectives were to review the existing literature on management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients and summarize the findings into evidence-based recommendations. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed, using free text and MeSH/EMTREE search terms. The searches were limited to articles published in English from each database set-up date to 31 July 2009. Reference lists and relevant international conference proceedings were hand-searched. Fifty-five studies were identified, providing data on 5741 patients. The studies were classified into: (A) studies in which treatment of nausea/vomiting was the primary outcome (a total of 18 studies, of which eight studies specifically addressed opioid-induced emesis); and (B) studies in which nausea/vomiting were secondary or tertiary outcomes (37 studies). The existing evidence had several limitations, there was a lack of consistency and the overall quality was grade D. By applying the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system, three weak recommendations were formulated. The current evidence is too limited to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics for opioid-induced nausea or vomiting in cancer patients. The evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving an opioid might be reduced by changing the opioid or opioid administration route. The evidence was also too limited to prioritize between symptomatic treatment and adjustment of the opioid treatment.

A systematic review of the treatment of nausea and/or vomiting in cancer unrelated to chemotherapy or radiation

CONTEXT

A systematic review of antiemetics for emesis in cancer unrelated to chemotherapy and radiation is an important step in establishing treatment recommendations and guiding future research. Therefore, a systematic review based on the question "What is the evidence that supports antiemetic choices in advanced cancer?" guided this review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of evidence for antiemtrics in the management of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer unrelated to chemotherapy and radiation, and to discover gaps in the evidence, which would provide important areas for future research.

METHODS

Three databases and independent searches using different MeSH terms were performed. Related links were searched and hand searches of related articles were made. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective single-drug studies, studies that used guidelines based on the etiology of emesis, cohort studies, retrospective studies, and case series or single-patient reports. Studies that involved treatment of chemotherapy, radiation, or postoperation-related emesis were excluded. Studies that involved the treatment of emesis related to bowel obstruction were included. The strength of evidence was graded as follows: 1) RCTs, A; 2) single-drug prospective studies, B1; 3) studies based on multiple drug choices for etiology of emesis, B2; and 4) cohort, case series, retrospective, and single-patient reports, E. Level of evidence was determined by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001) (A, B, C, D).

RESULTS

Ninety-three articles were found. Fourteen were RCTs, most of them of low quality, based either on lack of blinding, lack of description of the method of randomization, concealment, and/or attrition. Metoclopramide had modest evidence (B) based on RCTs and prospective cohort studies. Octreotide, dexamethasone, and hyoscine butylbromide are effective in reducing symptoms of bowel obstruction, based on prospective studies and/or one RCT. There was no evidence that either multiple antiemetics or antiemetic choices based on the etiology of emesis were any better than a single antiemetic. There is poor evidence for dose response, intraclass or interclass drug switch, or antiemetic combinations in those individuals failing to respond to the initial antiemetic.

CONCLUSION

There are discrepancies between antiemetic studies and published antiemetic guidelines, which are largely based on expert opinion. Antiemetic recommendations have moderate to weak evidence at best. Prospective randomized trials of single antiemetics are needed to properly establish evidence-based guidelines.