Intravenous ondansetron for the control of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. International S3AA3013 Study Group

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.

Medical and Nursing Staff Education Reduces Use of Prophylactic Ondansetron With Opioids in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate the effect of a pharmacist-led educational intervention on administration of ondansetron in patients receiving IV opioid analgesia in the emergency department.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective chart review undertaken in a single-community emergency department. During October and November 2015, emergency medicine pharmacists completed an educational initiative targeting medical and nursing staff designed to reduce prophylactic administration of ondansetron. The multifaceted educational initiative comprised of a link to an animated video, posters at strategic locations in the department, e-mail reminders, brief presentations during shift change, and 1-on-1 discussion (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvx8zKJBCCI). All patients who received IV morphine or hydromorphone during September and December 2015 were identified using pharmacy dispensing records, and 150 patients from each period were randomly selected for retrospective chart review. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of prophylactic administration of ondansetron with IV opioids for acute pain in the emergency department.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients administered prophylactic ondansetron decreased from 41% in the preintervention period to 26% in the postintervention period (difference 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8 to 25.9, P = 0.005). Therapeutic use for documented nausea or vomiting upon presentation decreased marginally from 44% to 35% (difference 95% CI -2.3 to 19.7, P = 0.1). An overall decrease in the incidence of administration of ondansetron from 85% to 61% was observed (difference 95% CI 14.4 to 33.6, P < 0.001). No patient required rescue antiemetic administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical and nursing staff education yielded a significant reduction in the administration of prophylactic ondansetron for patients receiving IV opioids in the emergency department.

Use of Prophylactic Ondansetron with Intravenous Opioids in Emergency Department Patients: A Prospective Observational Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The current literature suggests that the prophylactic use of antiemetics is ineffective at preventing nausea or vomiting caused by opioids in the emergency department (ED). While there is no data evaluating ondansetron's efficacy for preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting, this practice remains common despite a lack of supporting evidence.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify if prophylactic ondansetron administered with intravenous (IV) opioids prevents opioid-induced nausea or vomiting.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was conducted in the ED at two academic medical institutions. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were prescribed an IV opioid with or without IV ondansetron and absence of baseline nausea. Patients' level of nausea was evaluated at baseline, 5 min, and 30 min after an IV opioid was administered and then observed for 2 hours.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-three patients were enrolled, with 90% of patients presenting with a chief complaint of pain. Sixty-four (48.1%) patients received an IV opioid alone and 69 (51.9%) patients received both IV ondansetron and an IV opioid. Twenty-three (17.3%) patients developed nausea caused by opioid administration. One (0.75%) patient had an emetic event and 3 (2.3%) patients required rescue antiemetics during their observation period. Rate of nausea was similar between treatment groups 5 min after the opioid was administered (p = 0.153). There was no statistical difference in emesis, rescue medication requirements, or nausea severity between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Our trial found that ondansetron did not appear to be effective at preventing opioid-induced nausea or vomiting. These findings and previous literature suggest prophylactic ondansetron should not be given to ED patients who are receiving IV opioids.

Opioids in Gastroenterology: Treating Adverse Effects and Creating Therapeutic Benefits

The use of opioid medications on both an acute and chronic basis is ubiquitous in the United States. As opioid receptors densely populate the gastrointestinal tract, symptoms and side effects can be expected in these patients. In the esophagus, dysmotility may result, manifesting with dysphagia and a syndrome indistinguishable from primary achalasia. In the stomach, a marked delay in gastric emptying may occur with postprandial nausea and early satiety. Postoperatively, particularly with abdominal surgery, opioid-induced ileus may ensue. In the colon, opioid-induced constipation is common. A unique syndrome termed narcotic bowel syndrome is characterized by chronic abdominal pain often accompanied by nausea and vomiting in the absence of other identifiable causes. With the recognition of the important role of opioids on gastrointestinal function, novel drugs have been developed that use this physiology. These medications include peripheral acting opioid agonists to treat opioid-induced constipation and combination agonist and antagonists used for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. This review summarizes the most recent data in these areas.

Drugs for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in adults in the emergency department setting

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are commonly prescribed. There is currently no consensus as to the optimum drug treatment of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.

OBJECTIVES

To provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of antiemetic medications in the management of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1980 to August 2014) and ISI Web of Science (January 1955 to August 2014). We also searched relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any drug in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the treatment of adults in the ED. Study eligibility was not restricted by language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted authors of studies to obtain missing information if required.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight trials, involving 952 participants, of which 64% were women. Included trials were generally of adequate quality, with six trials at low risk of bias, and two trials at high risk of bias. Three trials with 518 participants compared five different drugs with placebo; all reported the primary outcome as mean change in visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 to 100) for nausea severity from baseline to 30 minutes. Trials did not routinely report other primary outcomes of the change in nausea VAS at 60 minutes or number of vomiting episodes. Differences in mean VAS change from baseline to 30 minutes between placebo and the drugs evaluated were: metoclopramide (three trials, 301 participants; mean difference (MD) -5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.33 to 0.80), ondansetron (two trials, 250 participants; MD -4.32, 95% CI -11.20 to 2.56), prochlorperazine (one trial, 50 participants; MD -1.80, 95% CI -14.40 to 10.80), promethazine (one trial, 82 participants; MD -8.47, 95% CI -19.79 to 2.85) and droperidol (one trial, 48 participants; MD -15.8, 95% CI -26.98 to -4.62). The only statistically significant change in baseline VAS to 30 minutes was for droperidol, in a single trial of 48 participants. No other drug was statistically significantly superior to placebo. Other included trials evaluated a drug compared to "active controls" (alternative antiemetic). There was no convincing evidence of superiority of any particular drug compared to active control. All trials included in this review reported adverse events, but they were variably reported precluding meaningful pooling of results. Adverse events were generally mild, there were no reported serious adverse events. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low, mainly because there were not enough data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In an ED population, there is no definite evidence to support the superiority of any one drug over any other drug, or the superiority of any drug over placebo. Participants receiving placebo often reported clinically significant improvement in nausea, implying general supportive treatment such as intravenous fluids may be sufficient for the majority of people. If a drug is considered necessary, choice of drug may be dictated by other considerations such as a person's preference, adverse-effect profile and cost. The review was limited by the paucity of clinical trials in this setting. Future research should include the use of placebo and consider focusing on specific diagnostic groups and controlling for factors such as intravenous fluid administered.

Safety and efficacy of fast-track surgery in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Fast-track surgery has been shown to enhance postoperative recovery in several surgical fields. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fast-track surgery in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

METHODS

The present study was designed as a single-center, randomized, unblinded, parallel-group trial. Patients were eligible if they had gastric cancer for which laparoscopic distal gastrectomy was indicated. The fast-track surgery protocol included intensive preoperative education, a short duration of fasting, a preoperative carbohydrate load, early postoperative ambulation, early feeding, and sufficient pain control using local anesthetics perfused via a local anesthesia pump device, with limited use of opioids. The primary endpoint was the duration of possible and actual postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

We randomized 47 patients into a fast-track group (n=22) and a conventional pathway group (n=22), with three patients withdrawn. The possible and actual postoperative hospital stays were shorter in the fast-track group than in the conventional group (4.68±0.65 vs. 7.05±0.65; P<0.001 and 5.36±1.46 vs. 7.95±1.98; P<0.001). The time to first flatus and pain intensity were not different between groups; however, a greater frequency of additional pain control was needed in the conventional group (3.64±3.66 vs. 1.64±1.33; P=0.023). The fast-track group was superior to the conventional group in several factors of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, including: fatigue, appetite loss, financial problems, and anxiety. The complication and readmission rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fast-track surgery could enhance postoperative recovery, improve immediate postoperative quality of life, and be safely applied in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

Polymorphism of μ-Opioid Receptor Gene (OPRM1:c.118A>G) Might Not Protect against or Enhance Morphine-Induced Nausea or Vomiting

A cohort, double blind, and randomized study was conducted to investigate the effect of a single nucleotide polymorphism of the μ-opioid receptor at nucleotide position 118 (OPRM1:c.118A>G) on the association with the most common side effects (nausea or vomiting) induced by intravenous patient control analgesia (IVPCA) with morphine, including incidence and severity analysis. A total of 129 Taiwanese women undergoing gynecology surgery received IVPCA with pure morphine for postoperative pain relief. Blood samples were collected and sequenced with high resolution melting analysis to detect three different genotypes of OPRM1 (AA, AG, and GG). All candidates 24 h postoperatively will be interviewed to record the clinical phenotype with subjective complaints and objective observations. The genotyping after laboratory analysis showed that 56 women (43.4%) were AA, 57 (44.2%) were AG, and 16 (12.4%) were GG. The distribution of genotype did not violate Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test. There was no significant difference neither between the severity and incidence of IVPCA morphine-induced side effects and genotype nor between the association between morphine consumption versus genotype. However, there was significant difference of the relation between morphine consumption and the severity and incidence of IVPCA morphine-induced nausea and vomiting. The genetic analysis for the severity and incidence of IVPCA morphine-induced nausea or vomiting showed no association between phenotype and genotype. It might imply that OPRM1:c.118A>G does not protect against IVPCA morphine-induced nausea or vomiting.

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.

An overview of the clinical use of ondansetron in preschool age children

The introduction of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist has revolutionized the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting in preschool aged children. These distressing symptoms, arising from multiple etiologies such as anesthesia, chemotherapy, and viral infection, are a major concern of patients and their families. Clinical research has demonstrated the antiemetic effectiveness of ondansetron in children. Although most of these studies focus primarily on preventing vomiting across the pediatric age group, they provide strong evidence for the use of ondansetron in preschool age children. For children at high risk, pediatric practice guidelines recommend ondansetron in conjunction with other antiemetics to achieve complete control of symptoms.

Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting: controversies in the use of serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3 receptor antagonists

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a "big little problem" despite recent advances in anesthesia. Because of an increased interest in, and the abundant publications on this topic, guidelines for the management of PONV were published in 2003. Several key but controversial issues regarding PONV prophylaxis were left unaddressed, however. These included whether clinical differences exist between the 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, concern over optimal dosage and timing of administration, optimal 5-HT3 receptor antagonist combination therapy, and whether rescue therapy is effective after prior administration of the same or a different 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. The application of these antiemetics in clinical practice has raised questions regarding the role of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the treatment of postdischarge nausea and vomiting and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. A brief overview of the incidence, risk factors and current management recommendations for PONV and current controversies with special emphasis on the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, is discussed.

Use of a prophylactic antiemetic with morphine in acute pain: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients with acute pain treated with morphine along with prophylactic metoclopramide or placebo.

METHOD

A randomised controlled trial was carried out on patients requiring morphine for acute pain in the emergency department (ED) setting. Children under the age of 12, patients who had been vomiting or had already received prehospital analgesia, and those unable to give consent were excluded. All patients were given either metoclopramide (10 mg) or placebo (normal saline) followed by intravenous morphine. Pain scores (measured on a visual analogue scale) before and after morphine administration, all incidents of nausea or vomiting, the dose of morphine, and the patients' demographic data were recorded. Fisher's exact test was used for comparing the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 259 patients were recruited. There were 123 patients in the metoclopramide group (age range 15-94 years; median age 53) and 136 patients in the placebo group (age range 17-93 years; median age 52.5). The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting in the whole study population was 2.7%, (1.6% in the metoclopramide group and 3.7% in the placebo group). The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test = 0.451; p = 0.3; z-test statistic = 1.02; 95% CI -6% to 2%).

CONCLUSION

When intravenous morphine is administered for acute pain, the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting is low, regardless of whether these patients are given prophylactic metoclopramide or not.

As if the cancer wasn't enough! Understanding and treating the pain that comes with cancer

In people with cancer, pain often occurs from the malignancy, from procedures done to diagnose, stage, and treat the malignancy, and from the toxicities of therapy used in treating the cancer. Of people with cancer, 75% complain of some sort of pain. Determining whether the pain is from tissue damage or nerve structures will guide therapy. Assessment of the severity of the pain by location, oncological type, as well as psychosocial and environmental factors are necessary to understand and treat the pain that accompanies cancer. Medical interventions include non-opioid analgesics, opioids, and multiple different combinations of medications. Adjuvant medication like anticonvulsants and steroids are being used frequently to help people feel more comfortable.

Tolerability of the Compound ABHR in Hospice Patients

BACKGROUND

Compounded formulations comprised of multiple medications may be useful for some patients with refractory nausea and vomiting. The combination of lorazepam, diphenhydramine, haloperidol, and metoclopramide (ABHR) has been used for more than a decade in the management of nausea and vomiting, but the tolerability of this combination in hospice patients has not been examined.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the tolerability of the ABHR compound in both younger and elderly hospice patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

A total of 11,181 ABHR prescriptions dispensed to 8600 hospice patients in the home care setting were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 42 ABHR prescriptions were discontinued secondary to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in 39 patients. Older patients appear to be more sensitive to the effects of ABHR, however, this trend did not achieve statistical significance when looking at extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) specifically in these patients. The overall incidence of EPS was low, as only 0.1% of all prescriptions discontinued secondary to an ADR were consistent with EPS.

CONCLUSIONS

The compound ABHR is generally well tolerated in the majority of hospice patients. More investigation is warranted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of similar pharmaceutical compounds used commonly in the hospice patient population.

Opioids and the gut: pharmacology and current clinical experience

This article reviews the pharmacology and physiology of opiate receptors and the current and potential uses of opioid agonists and antagonists in clinical gastroenterology. Mu-receptors are involved in motor and sensory functions, and their modulation is established for treatment of diarrhea. Mu-antagonists have potential to reverse endogenous (e.g., postoperative ileus) or iatrogenic dysmotility (e.g., opioid bowel dysfunction). Modulation of the function of kappa-receptors may be a novel approach to control visceral pain in functional gut disorders. Results of formal testing of novel opioid modulators are keenly awaited.

Management of opioid side effects in cancer-related and chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review

Side effects can limit opioid dosage and reduce quality of life. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the management of opioid side effects in the context of cancer pain management or, in the event that no evidence was available for cancer pain, for chronic noncancer pain. The side effects studied were constipation, pruritus, nausea and vomiting, myoclonus, sedation, respiratory depression, and delirium. Opioid rotation to manage side effects was also studied. For each side effect, we searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and identified 657 possible titles for inclusion. Of these, 67 studies met inclusion criteria for analysis. The lack of well-designed, randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneity of populations and study designs made the drawing of firm conclusions difficult and precluded performance of meta-analysis. The type, strength, and consistency of evidence for available interventions to manage opioid side effects vary from strong (eg, on the use of naloxone to reverse respiratory depression or constipation) to weak (eg, changing from the oral to epidural route of morphine administration to manage sedation). Well-designed trials in the specified populations are required to furnish clinicians with secure evidence on managing opioid side effects successfully.

Gender differences in narcotic-induced emesis in the ED

Narcotic analgesia is commonly given in the emergency department. Narcotic-induced nausea and vomiting is thought to be a common occurrence, but the gender incidence and associations are not well defined. The aim of this study was to document the sex-related complication of nausea and vomiting after opiate administration for pain relief in the ED. The study hypothesis was that men and women have the same rate of narcotic-induced emesis in the ED. A prospective, convenience study of the use of narcotic analgesic on patients in an innercity Level I Trauma Center was undertaken. Information concerning the reason for narcotics, complications, number of doses, and route of administration were studied. The emergency physicians were allowed clinical judgment to treat the patients with any narcotic agent in any dose increment. The data were entered into an SPSS program (Chicago, IL). Analysis between groups (men v women) was then conducted by an independent t test. We compared the 2 groups across 6 categories: cause of injury, presenting pain scale, first drug given, first dose given, first route of drug, and requires an anti-emetic. A Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for the higher probability of significant findings when multiple tests were performed. All findings that are significant are after Bonferroni. The study was Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved. A total of 325 consenting patients were studied from October 1996 to April 1998. The patients consisted of 174 men and 151 women, with an average of 35.8 years of age. The race of the patients was 70% African American and 20% Hispanic. Of the total of 325 patients, 20.3% (74) required an anti-emetic because of nausea and/or vomiting. A significant difference occurred in causes of pain for women (t = 2.79, P <.007). The causes of pain for women were general pain, fracture, abdominal, back pain, and other as compared with men with gun shot wounds, general, fracture, low back, and flank. Women showed no significant difference with regard to presenting pain scale (t =.122, P <.903), first drug given (t = 1.643, P <.101), and first dose given (t =.708, P <.408). The majority of patients received morphine (55.4%), followed by meperidine (24.3%), and hydrocodone (13.5%). The most frequent route of administration was intravenous (IV, 45.2%), intramuscular (IM, 35.7%), with oral being the least frequent route (19.1%). There was a difference for women with first route given (t = 2.543, P <.01) and requires anti-emetic (t = 3.06, P <.002). The majority of women received IM (58.6%) versus IV (37.7%), whereas the majority of men (62.3%) received IV versus IM (41.4%). A significant number of patients became nauseated and/or vomited from Emergency Department-administered narcotics. The nausea and vomiting was associated with female sex and the cause of pain. A comparative study of other pain medications versus narcotics for incidence of induced nausea and emesis would be useful.

Management of opioid-induced gastrointestinal effects in patients receiving palliative care

Opioid-induced gastrointestinal side effects, namely, nausea and constipation, are bothersome yet often easy to manage. Due to their widespread frequency, it is imperative that prophylactic and treatment modalities be understood. Although many pharmacotherapeutic agents are available with which to prevent or treat these side effects, few randomized, placebo-controlled studies have been conducted in terminally ill patients, thus limiting most treatment decisions to empiric therapies based on extrapolated data. A strong understanding of the pathophysiology of the sequelae is therefore paramount. Common agents administered for nausea are butyrophenones, phenothiazines, metoclopramide, and serotonin-receptor antagonists. Those given to manage constipation are stimulant laxatives and stool softeners, individually or in combination.

Ondansetron: a selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and its applications in CNS-related disorders

Ondansetron is a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist that has been introduced to clinical practice as an antiemetic for cancer treatment-induced and anesthesia-related nausea and vomiting. Its use under these circumstances is both prophylactic and therapeutic. It has a superior efficacy, safety and pharmacoeconomic profile compared with other groups of antiemetics, namely antidopaminergics, antihistamines and anticholinergics. However, its place in the management of anticipatory and delayed vomiting in cancer treatment and as a rescue antiemetic in surgical patients needs to be further explored. Furthermore, recent animal and human research also reflects its possible novel application in the treatment of other disease states, such as alcoholism, cocaine addiction, opioid withdrawal syndrome, anxiety disorders, gastrointestinal motility disorders, Tourette's syndrome and pruritus. This review revisits the widespread physiological and pathological effects of 5-HT and discusses both the basic science literature and the clinical developments responsible for the conventional and novel uses of ondansetron. In addition, new discoveries relating to the effects of ondansetron on other receptors/channels and their possible therapeutic applications are presented.

Acute pain and pain control: state of the art

Recognition and treatment of pain in the emergency department has undergone an evolution in the past decade. Emergency clinicians, educators, and researchers have begun to address the undertreatment of pain as well as challenge the long-standing dogmas concerning pain treatment. Well-described barriers, both psychological and educational, contribute to our providing inadequate pain relief. This state-of-the-art update describes the current perception of our practice with regard to pain relief and how it can be modified. Pain and pain control is such a broad and complex topic that only new advances and important principles relevant to the practice of emergency medicine are presented. Headache, pediatric pain, and procedural sedation and analgesia are not covered in this article as they will be addressed in future state-of-the-art articles.