An assessment of prochlorperazine buccal for the prevention of nausea and vomiting during intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine following abdominal hysterectomy

Convenient synthesis of benzothiazinoisoindol-11-ones and benzoindenothiazin-11-ones, and antimicrobial testing thereof

Benzo[5,6][1,4]thiazino[3,4-a]isoindol-11-ones 5a-t and benzo[b]indeno[1,2-e][1,4]thiazin-11(10aH)-ones 6a-e were synthesized conveniently via cyclocondensation of 2-bromo-2-(2/3-substitutedphenyl)-1H-indene-1,3(2H)-diones and 2-aminobenzenethiols in freshly dried ethanol with 70-85% yields. The synthesized derivatives were well characterized by employing different spectral techniques (FTIR, ¹H & ¹³C NMR and HRMS) and X-ray crystallographic analysis. Further, all the reported compounds were tested for their antibacterial and antifungal activities using Ciprofloxacin and Fluconazole as standard drugs, respectively. The results of antimicrobial evaluation revealed that compounds 5o and 5t displayed remarkable inhibitory activity against B. subtilis, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa and A. niger with MIC values in the range of 0.0141-0.0283 µmol/mL, whereas 5j was found active against E. coli and C. albicans with MIC values of 0.0286 µmol/mL and 0.0143 µmol/mL, respectively. Additionally, among all the benzo[b]indeno[1,2-e][1,4]thiazin-11(10aH)-ones, 6c exhibited excellent inhibition against all the tested bacterial and fungal strains with MIC values ranging from 0.0143 to 0.1145 µmol/mL. Structure activity relationships were also established for all the tested benzo[5,6][1,4]thiazino[3,4-a]isoindol-11-ones 5a-t.

Synthesis of 3-methyl-4H-benzo[b][1,4]thiazine-2-carboxylates using CAN as a catalyst and its conversion into guanidines

Background:

1,4-benzothiazine carboxylates show wide application in the field of medicinal chemistry. Therefore, we have designed convenient and efficient method for the synthesis of 1,4-benzothiazine carboxylates.

Objective:

Synthesis of 1,4-benzothiazine carboxylates and its guanidines by simple and facile method using efficient catalyst.

Method:

Derivatives of 1,4-benzothiazine carboxylates were synthesized by cyclocondensing β-keto esters with 2- aminobenzenethiols using CAN as a catalyst at room temperature. 1,4-benzothiazine caboxylate,condensed with guanidine hydrochloride in the presence of sodium methoxide in DMF to obtained new 3-substituted-l-4Hbenzo[b][1,4]thiazine-2-carboxyguanidines (88-91%).

Results:

All the products were obtained with good to excellent yields within 40 min. Here, CAN oxidizes aminothiophenol into disulfide and then nucleophilic attack of enolic form of β-ketoesters on the disulphide and 1, 4-benzothiazine acetates, were obtained with good yields.

Conclusion:

We have designed convenient and efficient method for the synthesis of 1,4-benzothiazine carboxylates. Most remarkable features of this cyclocondensation such as use of efficient catalyst and non-volatile solvent under mild reaction condition to obtained excellent yield.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

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.

Exploration of Antiemetics for Osteoporosis Therapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Using PET Molecular Imaging Analysis to Gastrointestinal Pharmacokinetics

PURPOSE

To select appropriate antiemetics relieving teriparatide-induced nausea and vomiting during osteoporosis treatment using PET molecular imaging and pharmacokinetic analysis.

METHODS

Rats were pretreated with subcutaneous teriparatide, followed by oral administration of antiemetics with different pharmacological effects. The pharmacokinetics of antiemetics were assessed by oral administration of 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ([(18)F]FDG) under free moving conditions in vivo. The effect of teriparatide on the permeability of Caco-2 cell membranes to [(18)F]FDG was assessed in vitro. The effects of antiemetics on teriparatide-induced suppression of gastrointestinal motility in vivo was assayed by positron emission tomography (PET) using orally administered [(18)F]FDG.

RESULTS

Teriparatide delayed the time-radioactivity profile of [(18)F]FDG in blood and significantly reduced its absorption rate constant (k a ), determined from non-compartmental analysis, to 60% of control. In contrast, co-administration of granisetron or mosapride restored the time-radioactivity profile and k a of [(18)F]FDG to control levels. Teriparatide had no effect on Caco-2 membrane permeability to [(18)F]FDG. Pharmacokinetic PET imaging data analysis quantitatively showed the pharmacological effects of teriparatide-induced suppression of upper gastrointestinal motility and its restoration by granisetron and mosapride.

CONCLUSIONS

Teriparatide-induced abdominal discomfort might be attributed to GI motility, and PET imaging analysis is a useful tool to for the selection of appropriate antiemetics.

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.

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.