Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Enhanced efficacy of aprepitant-based triple prophylaxis in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting following metabolic bariatric surgery: a single-center, retrospective cohort study

Background

Metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) is associated with high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We aimed to investigate the impact of aprepitant-based triple prophylaxis on PONV after MBS.

Methods

We reviewed a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent primary MBS between December 28, 2023 and May 31, 2024. The eligible patients were divided into two groups based on whether receiving additional oral single 125 mg dose of aprepitant preoperatively to the dual prophylaxis (ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 10 mg). Multivariable and propensity score-adjusted analyses were performed to compare the composite PONV endpoints between the groups.

Results

A total of 207 patients were included in the study. Of these, 129 patients received dual prophylaxis, while the remaining 78 patients received additional single 125 mg dose of aprepitant. Similar to multivariable logistic regression analysis, propensity-adjusted logistic regression analysis revealed that the aprepitant-based triple prophylaxis group had a significantly higher complete response rate (82.1% vs. 24.0%, adjusted OR 10.312, 95% CI 4.186-25.399, p < 0.001), a lower incidence of PONV (59.0% vs. 85.3%, adjusted OR 0.287, 95% CI 0.125-0.663, p = 0.004), and required fewer rescue antiemetics (7.7% vs. 37.2%, adjusted OR 0.155, 95% CI 0.052-0.457, p < 0.001) compared to the dual prophylaxis group. Propensity score-adjusted analysis demonstrated that the addition of aprepitant to dual prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of PONV, vomiting frequency, and both the Nausea VAS and Nausea Subscale scores (all p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that the addition of a single preoperative dose of aprepitant to a dual antiemetic prophylaxis of dexamethasone and ondansetron might be associated with a further improve outcomes related to composite PONV endpoints in patients undergoing metabolic bariatric surgery.

Comprehensive anaesthesia management strategies for orthognathic surgical procedure

BACKGROUND

Orthognathic surgery is commonly performed to correct malocclusion and facial asymmetry, typically in young and healthy patients. However, it's crucial to recognize that facial deformities can also be features of various syndromes, complicating the surgical and anesthetic management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This review examines the key factors influencing anaesthesia management in orthognathic surgery patients. The perioperative care process was analyzed, focusing on the surgical procedure, airway management, and anaesthesia techniques. Additional factors considered include bleeding control, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), antibiotic prophylaxis, analgesia, and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prevention.

RESULTS

The review highlighted the critical role of comprehensive anaesthesia management in determining the outcomes of orthognathic surgery. Proper airway management, effective bleeding control, and the prevention of PONV and DVT were identified as significant factors in optimizing patient recovery. The use of protocols and a multidisciplinary approach were emphasized as essential in minimizing complications and improving postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive and carefully planned anesthesia management is vital for the success of orthognathic surgery. Employing a multidisciplinary approach and adhering to established protocols can enhance patient outcomes and expedite recovery, especially in cases involving complex syndromic patients.

Comparison of aprepitant versus ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background and Aims

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after surgery. Preventing PONV in high-risk patients often requires a multimodal approach combining antiemetic drugs with diverse mechanisms. While aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is recognised as highly effective for PONV prevention, uncertainties remain regarding its effectiveness.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The analysis assessed the effectiveness of aprepitant (A), aprepitant plus ondansetron (AO) and aprepitant plus dexamethasone and ondansetron (ADO) in preventing PONV compared to ondansetron alone (O) or in combination with dexamethasone (DO).

Results

In the analysis of 12 studies involving 2729 patients, aprepitant demonstrated significant efficacy in preventing PONV compared to ondansetron alone (A versus [vs.] O: PONV incidence 12.5% vs. 28.5%, relative risk [RR] = 0.45, P < 0.001; complete response rate 55.97% vs. 50.35%, RR = 1.13, P = 0.010). The combination of aprepitant with ondansetron (AO) also showed a significantly lower incidence of PONV compared to ondansetron alone (11.3% vs. 26.8%, RR = 0.43, P < 0.001) and a higher complete response rate (38.1% vs. 26.84%, RR = 1.41, P = 0.020). In addition, ADO significantly reduced PONV incidence compared to DO (ADO vs. DO: 13.63% vs. 35.38%, RR = 0.38, P = 0.006).

Conclusion

Aprepitant, whether used alone or in combination with ondansetron or both ondansetron and dexamethasone, consistently outperforms ondansetron in achieving a complete response as it lowers vomiting rates and reduces the need for rescue therapy during the crucial 24-48-h postoperative period.

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.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in the Ambulatory Surgery Center: A Narrative Review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of ambulatory surgery, leading to numerous deleterious effects such as decreased patient satisfaction, prolonged recovery unit stays, and rarely, more serious complications such as aspiration pneumonia or wound dehiscence. In this paper, we present a narrative review of the literature regarding common risk factors for PONV including patient factors, surgical factors, and anesthetic factors. We then will review anesthetic techniques and antiemetic drugs demonstrated to mitigate the risk of PONV. Finally, we discuss the potential economic benefits of PONV prophylaxis in the perioperative ambulatory setting.

Assessing the impact of aprepitant and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting in orthognathic surgeries: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common side effect associated with general anesthesia. Both ondansetron and aprepitant been effectively used to prevent PONV. However, there is a disagreement of opinions regarding the superiority of these two drugs. This study aims to compare the efficacy of aprepitant with ondansetron in preventing PONV following orthognathic surgeries.

METHODS

In this double-blinded clinical trial, 80 patients scheduled for orthognathic surgery at Imam Hossein Hospital, Tehran, Iran, were randomly assigned to two groups. A standardized anesthesia protocol was used for all patients. The first group received a placebo capsule administered one hour before the surgical procedure along with 4 mg (2 ml) of ondansetron intravenously after anesthesia induction. The second group was given 80 mg aprepitant capsules one hour before the surgery, followed by an injection of 2 ml intravenous distilled water after anesthesia induction. The occurrence and severity of PONV, the amount of rescue medication required, and the complete response of patients assessed within 24 h after the surgery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. Patients in the aprepitant group had a significantly lower incidence and severity of nausea (2.5% versus 27.5%), vomiting (5% versus 25%), and required fewer rescue medications (7.5% versus 62.5%) compared to the ondansetron group. Additionally, the aprepitant group showed a higher complete response rate (90% versus 67.5%) in the 0-2 and 12-24 postoperative hours.

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of this study, aprepitant has demonstrated a greater efficacy in preventing PONV following orthognathic surgery, when compared to ondansetron.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT code: IRCT20211205053279N3), date of registration: 16/12/2022.

The use of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are adverse effects after surgery, which may increase the risk of complications. Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor blocker and has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and PONV. However, its role in endoscopic skull base surgery remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of aprepitant in reducing PONV in endoscopic transsphenoidal (TSA) pituitary surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review between July 2021 and January 2023 of 127 consecutive patients who underwent TSA was performed at a tertiary academic institution. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on preoperative aprepitant use. Two groups were matched based on known risk factors of PONV (age, sex, nonsmoking, and history of PONV). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcome measures included the number of anti-emetic use, length of stay, and postoperative cererebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak.

RESULTS

After matching, 48 patients were included in each group. The aprepitant group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of vomiting than the non-aprepitant group (2.1% vs 22.9%, p = 0.002). The number of nausea episodes and anti-emetic use decreased with aprepitant use (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of nausea, length of stay, or postoperative CSF leak. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that aprepitant decreased the incidence of postoperative vomiting with odds ratio of 0.107.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant may serve as a useful preoperative treatment to reduce PONV in patients undergoing TSA. Further studies are needed to evaluate its impact in other arenas of endoscopic skull base surgery.

The efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the common adverse reactions after surgery. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antiemetic drugs suggest that aprepitant has the strongest antiemetic effect of any single drug. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of aprepitant for preventing PONV based on the existing literature.

METHODS

To identify RCTs investigating the use of aprepitant for PONV prevention, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published prior to March 20, 2022. Seventeen RCTs were identified, with 3299 patients, meeting the inclusion criteria. PONV incidence, complete response, 80 mg aprepitant combined with dexamethasone and ondansetron, vomiting, nausea, and analgesic dose-response were the main outcomes measured.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, PONV incidence was significantly reduced among those receiving aprepitant (odds ratio [OR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26, 0.44; P < .0001), with a more complete response (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.59; P = .0004). Supplementation of 80 mg aprepitant in combination with dexamethasone and ondansetron substantially improved the effects of PONV (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.82; P = .01). Further, administration of 80 mg aprepitant was better at preventing vomiting than nausea (OR: 8.6; 95% CI: 3.84, 19. 29; P < .00001). No statistically significant difference between the dose-response of analgesics was identified (mean difference: -1.09; 95% CI: -6.48, 4.30; P = .69). The risk of bias was assessed independently by paired evaluators.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant effectively reduces the incidence of PONV; however, the effects of postoperative analgesia require further exploration.

A pharmacological overview of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 30% of all patients undergoing surgery and up to 80% of high-risk patients. Antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis target a variety of receptor systems, with varying degrees of efficacy and side effect profile. Neurokinin -1 receptor antagonists are the most recent class of compounds investigated for PONV prophylaxis, with aprepitant being the only one currently approved for this indication.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pathophysiology of PONV, current recommendations for PONV prophylaxis, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of aprepitant, and the evidence for its efficacy in the management of PONV as a single agent and in combination therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Aprepitant is effective for PONV prophylaxis. It has superior antivomiting efficacy, long half-life, and favorable side effect profile. Data on antiemetic combinations involving aprepitant are limited, and it not clear if the addition of other antiemetics to aprepitant result in improved PONV prophylaxis. The oral route of administration of aprepitant is a potential limitation in a busy clinical practice. However, the recent approval of an intravenous formulation could provide a more convenient route of administration. Aprepitant remains more expensive than other antiemetics, and there are no studies assessing the cost effectiveness of its use.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Breast and Gynecological Surgery: A Narrative Review of Risk Factors and Prophylaxis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have been widely studied as a multifactorial entity, being of female gender the strongest risk factor. Reported PONV incidence in female surgical populations is extremely variable among randomized clinical trials. In this narrative review, we intend to summarize the incidence, independent predictors, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for PONV reported in recently published clinical trials carried out in female patients undergoing breast and gynecologic surgery, as well as the implications of the anesthetic agents on the incidence of PONV. A literature search of manuscripts describing PONV management in female surgical populations (breast surgery and gynecologic surgery) was carried out in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence were highly variable in patients receiving placebo or no prophylaxis among RCTs whereas consistent results were observed in patients receiving 1 or 2 prophylactic interventions for PONV. Despite efforts made, a considerable number of female patients still experienced significant PONV. It is critical for the anesthesia provider to be aware that the coexistence of independent risk factors such as the level of sex hormones (pre- and postmenopausal), preoperative anxiety or depression, pharmacogenomic pleomorphisms, and ethnicity further enhances the probability of experiencing PONV in female patients. Future RCTs should closely assess the overall risk of PONV in female patients considering patient- and surgery-related factors, and the level of compliance with current guidelines for prevention and management of PONV.

A Novel Mechanism of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress- and c-Myc-Degradation-Mediated Therapeutic Benefits of Antineurokinin-1 Receptor Drugs in Colorectal Cancer

The neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonists are approved as treatment for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. The emerging role of the substance P-NK-1R system in oncogenesis raises the possibility of repurposing well-tolerated NK-1R antagonists for cancer treatment. This study reports that human colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with high NK-1R expression have poor survival, and NK-1R antagonists SR140333 and aprepitant induce apoptotic cell death in CRC cells and inhibit CRC xenograft growth. This cytotoxicity induced by treatment with NK-1R antagonists is mediated by induction of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. ER stress triggers calcium release, resulting in the suppression of prosurvival extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)-c-Myc signaling. Along with ER calcium release, one ER stress pathway mediated by protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK) is specifically activated, leading to increased expression of proapoptotic C/EBP-homologous protein (CHOP). Moreover, NK-1R antagonists enhance the efficacy of chemotherapy by increasing the sensitivity and overcoming resistance to 5-fluorouracil in CRC cells through the induction of sustained ER stress and the consequent suppression of ERK-c-Myc signaling both in vitro and in vivo. Collectively, the findings provide novel mechanistic insights into the efficacy of NK-1R antagonists either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy for cancer treatment.

Neurokinin-1 Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are the second most frequent adverse events after surgery second only to postoperative pain. Despite the advances in antiemetics and implementation of multimodal prophylactic interventions, the clinical management of PONV remains problematic. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor is a tachykinin receptor found throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems, with a particular affinity towards substance P. NK-1 receptors interact with several parts of the neuronal pathway for nausea and vomiting. This includes the chemoreceptor trigger zone, the gastrointestinal tract, and dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus. NK-1 antagonists are thought to prevent nausea and vomiting by downregulating the emetogenic signals at those points. As more head-to-head trials are conducted between the various anti-emetics, there is emerging evidence that NK-1 antagonists may be more effective in preventing PONV than several other antiemetics currently in use. In this review, we will discuss the pharmacology of NK-1 antagonists, their efficacy in clinical practice, and how they could fit into the framework of PONV management.

Prevention and Treatment of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV): A Review of Current Recommendations and Emerging Therapies

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most frequent adverse events after surgery and anesthesia. It is distressing for the patient and can lead to other postoperative complications. Management of PONV involves a framework of risk assessment, multimodal risk reduction, and prophylactic measures, as well as prompt rescue treatment. There has been a significant paradigm shift in the approach towards PONV prevention. There have also been several emerging therapeutic options for PONV prophylaxis and treatment. In this review, we will discuss the up-to-date PONV management guidelines and highlight novel therapeutic options which have emerged in the last few years.

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).

[Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

BACKGROUND

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of general anesthesia. Several kinds of antiemetics, including 5-Hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists and Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, have been used to treat PONV.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the antiemetic effect of NK-1 receptor antagonists, including fosaprepitant.

DATA SOURCES

Online databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library databases) were used.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) performed in patients over 18 years with ASA-PS of I-III, aimed to assess the efficacy of antiemetics including NK-1 receptor antagonists and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and compared the incidence of PONV were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

All statistical assessments were conducted by a random effect approach and odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Aprepitant 40mg and 80mg significantly reduced the incidence of vomiting 0-24hours postoperatively (Odds Ratio [OR = 0.40]; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI 0.30-0.54]; p < 0.001, and OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.56; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant could also reduce the incidence of vomiting significantly both 0-24h and 0-48hours postoperatively (OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; p < 0.001 and OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.23; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Risk factors for PONV are not considered, RCTs using multiple antiemetics are included, RCTs for fosaprepitant is small, and some bias may be present.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant can be effective prophylactic antiemetics for postoperative vomiting. However, more studies are required for higher-quality meta-analyses.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019120188.

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

The effects of the genetic polymorphisms of antioxidant enzymes on susceptibility to papillary thyroid carcinoma

Several lines of evidences have indicated that inflammation play an important role in the carcinogenesis. During the inflammatory processes, free radical species are produced from oxidative stress. In normal conditions, enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants remove these products. Manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD), glutathione peroxidase-1 (GPx-1), and catalase (CAT) are three important enzymes. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of MnSOD (SOD2), GPX-1, and CAT genetic polymorphisms on papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) susceptibility. A total of 134 patients with PTC and 151 healthy controls were recruited to participate in this study. All samples were genotyped for SOD2 rs4880, GPX1 1050450, and CAT rs7943316 polymorphisms by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism method. The frequencies of the rs1050450, rs4880, and rs7943316 alleles and genotypes were not different between PTC patients and controls. However, the TC genotype of SOD2 rs4880 polymorphism was significantly higher in males compared to that in females in PTC patients (odds ratio [OR], 3.9 [95% CI, 1.5-11], p = .007). The rs4880 polymorphism was also associated with higher stages (III-IV) of PTC in dominant model. No significant correlation was found between GPX1-rs1050450 and CAT-rs7943316 polymorphisms and demographic, clinical, and pathological features of the disease. The SOD2 rs4880CT genotype was more frequent in males with PTC and patients with higher stages (III-IV) of disease (OR, 2.9 [95% CI, 1.1-7.7], p = .04). However, no significant association was found between GPX1-rs1050450 and CAT-rs7943316 variants and PTC or its demographic, clinical, and pathological features.

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

Anti-emetic Drugs for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Craniotomy: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: There is uncertainty about the effect of antiemetic drugs (AED) for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of AED for PONV.

Methods and Findings: We searched online databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wiley, Elsevier Science Direct, Ovid LWW, and Springer for publications from 1985 to June 2018. Adults undergoing craniotomy with the prophylactic use of at least one AED were included. The primary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the first and second day. A total of 1,433 participants from 17 clinical trials were enrolled in this Network Meta-Analysis (NMA). Compared to placebo, ramosetron was the most effective treatment for PON 24 h after surgery (OR = 0.063, 95% Crl: 0.006–0.45), with a 69.2% probability. On the other hand, for POV, droperidol was the best treatment during the first 2 h with a 71.1% probability (OR = 0.029, 95% Crl: 0.003–0.25); while fosaprepitant was the most effective treatment at 0–24 h (OR = 0.027, 95% Crl: 0.007–0.094; 66.9% probability) and 0–48 h (OR = 0.036, 95% Crl: 0.006–0.18; 56.6% probability). Besides, ramosetron showed a significantly higher incidence of complete response (OR = 29. 95% Crl: 1.4–6.5e + 02), as well as lower requirement for rescue AED (OR = 0.022, 95% Crl: 0.001–0.2). Granisetron was associated with the lowest incidence of headache and excessive sedation.

Conclusions: Compared with placebo, ramosetron appears to be the best prophylactic treatment for PON 24 h after craniotomy, with higher complete responses. Fosaprepitant appears to be the most effective prophylaxis option for POV on the first 0–24 and 0–48 h. Both may be better applied in combination with perioperative dexamethasone. These findings may guide clinicians to provide improved pharmacological prophylaxis for PONV after craniotomy with fewer adverse effects.

Prevalence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting and Pain in Patients Undergoing Elective Orthopaedic Surgery in Iran

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain and the severity of postoperative pain in adult patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery in Iran.

DESIGN

A descriptive, cross-sectional study design was used.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-eight patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery participated in the study. Demographic and surgical characteristics, severity of pain, frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting, amount of analgesics and antiemetics administered were measured.

FINDINGS

The mean time of surgery was 123.67 min. Of all patients, 59.3% experienced nausea and 39% had postoperative vomiting; 98.4% of participants experienced pain. The mean pain intensity in the first 24 hours after surgery was 6.3 based on the Visual Analogue Scale.

CONCLUSION

High prevalence rates of postoperative nausea (59.3%) and vomiting (39%) were recorded. Among 98.4% of participants, pain intensity was rated as moderate during the first 24 hours after consciousness.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol.

METHODS

A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

The neuropeptide genes SST, TAC1, HCRT, NPY, and GAL are powerful epigenetic biomarkers in head and neck cancer: a site-specific analysis

Background

Staging and pathological grading systems are convenient but imperfect predictors of recurrence in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Identifying biomarkers for HNSCC that will progress and cause death is a critical research area, particularly if the biomarker can be linked to selection of patients. Therefore, to identify potential alternative prognostic markers, we investigated the methylation status of five neuropeptide gene promoters. The promoter methylation status was determined by quantitative methylation-specific PCR in 230 cases of HNSCC; 58 hypopharynx, 45 larynx, 56 oropharynx, and 71 oral cavity tumor samples were studied.

Results

The somatostatin (SST), tachykinin precursor 1 (TAC1), hypocretin neuropeptide precursor (HCRT), neuropeptide Y (NPY), and galanin (GAL) promoters were methylated in 84.3, 63.5, 32.6, 28.3, and 20.0%, respectively, of the samples. The mean number of methylated genes per sample was 2.29 (range, 0–5). Disease-free survival was lower in patients with 3–5 methylated genes than in those with 0–2 methylated genes (log-rank test, P = 0.007). In multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, TAC1 and GAL promoter methylation independently predicted recurrence (odds ratios 1.620, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.018–2.578, P = 0.042, and odds ratios 1.692, 95% CI 1.063–2.694, P = 0.027, respectively). In patients with oral cancer, TAC1 methylation showed the best correlation with poor survival (odds ratio 4.427, 95% CI 1.634–12.00, P = 0.003). Similar findings were observed for HCRT and GAL in patients with laryngeal cancer and oropharyngeal cancer, respectively.

Conclusion

In this study, we demonstrated the methylation status of the neuropeptide-encoding genes SST, TAC1, HCRT, NPY, and GAL and its relationship with recurrence and survival in HNSCC. These methylation changes may serve as potential molecular markers for defining the risk and prognosis of HNSCC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13148-018-0485-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aprepitant as a fourth antiemetic prophylactic strategy in high-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most important causes of patient discomfort after laparoscopic surgeries despite the use of a multimodal pharmacological approach. This study assessed whether the addition of aprepitant to a multimodal regimen would further decrease the incidence of PONV in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Apfel-score three or four patients, scheduled for laparoscopic procedures to treat abdominal or pelvic cancer, were randomized to receive oral starch (control group) or 80 mg of oral aprepitant (treatment group) before induction of anaesthesia in a double-blind study. All patients received 4-8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone (at induction) and 4-8 mg of ondansetron (at the end) and a standardized total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) technique combined with neuraxial blockade. PONV was defined as any episode of nausea, vomiting or retching in the first 24 h after anaesthesia.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients completed the study. Vomiting occurred in 13/32 (40.6%) patients in the control group and in 1/34 (2.9%) patients in the treatment group (P = 0.0002, 95%CI: 18-54%) in the first 24 h after anaesthesia. Severe nausea occurred in two (6.3%) patients, and severe vomiting occurred in four (12.5%) patients in the control group. One patient presented with severe vomiting in the treatment group in the first 24 post-operative hours.

CONCLUSION

Eighty milligrams of aprepitant added to a three-drug multimodal prophylaxis strategy can bring benefits to a high-risk population by reducing PONV episodes and rescue antiemetic requirements. This study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 02357693) database.

Perioperative Care of Elderly Surgical Outpatients

The ambulatory setting offers potential advantages for elderly patients undergoing elective surgery due to the advancement in both surgical and anesthetic techniques resulting in quicker recovery times, fewer complications, higher patient satisfaction, and reduced costs of care. This review article aims to provide a practical guide to anesthetic management of elderly outpatients. Important considerations in the preoperative evaluation of elderly outpatients with co-existing diseases, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different anesthetic techniques on a procedural-specific basis, and recommendations regarding the management of common postoperative complications (e.g., pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting [PONV], delirium and cognitive dysfunction, and gastrointestinal dysfunction) are discussed. The role of anesthesiologists as perioperative physicians is important for optimizing surgical outcomes for elderly patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. The implementation of high-quality, evidence-based perioperative care programs for the elderly on an ambulatory basis has assumed increased importance. Optimal management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques and preventing PONV using prophylactic antiemetics are key elements for achieving enhanced recovery after surgery.

An update on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge and recovery and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV has persisted in part because of the tremendous growth in ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major operations. Pharmacological management of PONV should be tailored to the patients' risk level using the PONV and PDNV scoring systems to minimize the potential for these adverse side effects in the postoperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs should be administered to patients with moderate-to-high risk of developing PONV in order to facilitate the recovery process. Optimal management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques and preventing PONV using prophylactic antiemetics are key elements for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. Strategies that include reductions of the baseline risk (e.g., adequate hydration, use of opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) as well as a multimodal antiemetic regimen will improve the likelihood of preventing both PONV and PDNV.

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Double-Dummy Pilot Study to Assess the Preemptive Effect of Triple Therapy with Aprepitant, Dexamethasone, and Promethazine versus Ondansetron, Dexamethasone and Promethazine on Reducing the Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Experienced by Patients Undergoing Craniotomy Under General Anesthesia

Introduction

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is among the most common distressing complications of surgery under anesthesia. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients who undergo craniotomy have incidences of nausea and vomiting as high as 50–70%. The main purpose of this pilot study is to assess the incidence of PONV by using two different prophylactic regimens in subjects undergoing a craniotomy. Thus, we designed this study to assess the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with the combination of dexamethasone, promethazine, and aprepitant versus ondansetron to reduce the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy.

Materials and methods

This is a prospective, single center, two-armed, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, pilot study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Subjects received 40 mg of aprepitant pill (or matching placebo pill) 30–60 min before induction of anesthesia and 4 mg of ondansetron IV (or 2 ml of placebo saline solution) at induction of anesthesia. In addition, all subjects received 25 mg of promethazine IV and 10 mg of dexamethasone IV at induction of anesthesia. Assessments of PONV commenced for the first 24 h after surgery and were subsequently assessed for up to 5 days.

Results

The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 31.0% (n = 15) in the aprepitant group and 36.2% (n = 17) for the ondansetron group. The median times to first emetic and significant nausea episodes were 7.6 (2.9, 48.7) and 14.3 (4.4, 30.7) hours, respectively, for the aprepitant group and 6.0 (2.2, 29.5) and 9.6 (0.7, 35.2) hours, respectively, for the ondansetron group. There were no statistically significant differences between these groups. No adverse events directly related to study medications were found.

Conclusion

This pilot study showed similar effectiveness when comparing the two PONV prophylaxis regimens. Our data showed that both treatments could be effective regimens to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy under general anesthesia. Future trials testing new PONV prophylaxis regimens in this surgical population should be performed to gain a better understanding of how to best provide prophylactic treatment.

A phase II trial of prophylactic olanzapine combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for patients receiving cisplatin (≥50 mg/m(2) ), because this antiemetic therapy has not been sufficiently examined in patients receiving cisplatin.

METHODS

We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy naïve patients receiving cisplatin (≥50 mg/m(2) ). Patients received prophylactic dexamethasone (20 mg IV, day 1), palonosetron (0.75 mg IV, day 1), and olanzapine (10 mg, days 1-4). The patients were monitored for emesis and nausea for 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate, which was defined as no vomiting episodes and no use of rescue medication for the overall period. CR rates of 65% and 45% would indicate the potential usefulness and the lower limit of interest, respectively.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients, including 37 esophageal cancer patients were enrolled, of whom 41 (80%) completed the treatment protocol as planned. The complete response rate for the overall period was 43% (95% confidence interval: 29-58); the primary endpoint was not met. Vomiting was frequently observed, with the overall rate of 51%. Most events occurred during 24-72 h after chemotherapy. Somnolence was observed in 73% of the patients, but it was well tolerated in most cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone did not prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin as expected. The safety of this antiemetic therapy was confirmed.