Aprepitant for 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.

Utility of Aprepitant in the Management of Pediatric Patients with Cyclical Vomiting Syndrome

Introduction: Cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS) is a recurrent debilitating illness characterized by intense episodes of nausea and emesis with widely varied pharmacological management across the country. Aprepitant is now increasingly used in patients with CVS. The impact of aprepitant as an abortive therapy in the readmission of pediatric patients with CVS is currently unknown. Methodology: We analyzed all pediatric patients with a primary diagnosis of CVS using the ICD-10 code in the Pediatric Health Information System database of the Children's Hospital Association. We evaluated the demographic data, comorbid conditions, and management details during the inpatient stay. CVS patients who received aprepitant during their inpatient hospitalization were compared with patients without aprepitant use. Seven-day readmission rate for CVS was used as the outcome variable to assess the effectiveness of the aprepitant in aborting an episode. Propensity score matching was used to match the two cohorts. Results: We analyzed 1775 patients of which 96 received aprepitant during the inpatient hospitalization. The aprepitant group had a more severe hospitalization course as evidenced by an increased duration of hospital stay (5 vs. 3 days) and total hospitalization costs ($11,790 vs. $6380). There were no significant differences in the 7-day (17% vs. 16%, p = 0.91) readmission rate and results were not altered by propensity score matching. Conclusions: Aprepitant use as an abortive therapy did not affect the 7-day CVS-related readmission rate. Further prospective studies are needed to explore the role of aprepitant as an abortive agent in the management of CVS in the pediatric population.

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.

Association between intraoperative hypotension and postoperative nausea and vomiting: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs in up to 30% of patients and its pathophysiology and mechanisms have not been completely described. Hypotension and a decrease in cardiac output are suspected to induce nausea. The hypothesis that intraoperative hypotension might influence the incidence of PONV was investigated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was conducted as a retrospective large single center cohort study. The incidence of PONV was investigated until discharge from post anesthesia care unit (PACU). Surgical patients with general anesthesia during a 2-year period between 2018 and 2019 at a university hospital in Germany were included. Groups were defined based on the lowest documented mean arterial pressure (MAP) with group H50: MAP <50mmHg; group H60: MAP <60mmHg; group H70: MAP <70mmHg, and group H0: no MAP <70mmHg. Decreases of MAP in the different groups were related to PONV. Propensity-score matching was carried out to control for overlapping risk factors.

RESULTS

In the 2-year period 18.674 patients fit the inclusion criteria. The overall incidence of PONV was 11%. Patients with hypotension had a significantly increased incidence of PONV (H0 vs. H50: 11.0% vs.17.4%, Risk Ratio (RR): 1.285 (99%CI: 1.102-1.498), p < 0.001; H0 vs. H60: 10.4% vs. 13.5%, RR: 1.1852 (99%CI: 1.0665-1.3172), p < 0.001; H0 vs. H70: 9.4% vs. 11.2%, RR: 1.1236 (99%CI: 1.013 - 1.2454); p = 0.0027).

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates an association between intraoperative hypotension and early PONV. A more severe decrease of MAP had a pronounced effect.

The impact of Aprepitant on Nausea and Vomiting following Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We aimed to compare the effects of aprepitant on the incidence of PONV after LSG.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, the case group received the standard care regimen for PONV (dexamethasone 10 mg, ondansetron 4 mg, and metoclopramide 10 mg) plus prophylactic oral aprepitant 80 mg 1 h preoperatively. The control group received standard care plus a placebo. Comparative analyses using the Rhodes index were performed at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 400 patients (201 in the aprepitant group and 199 in the placebo group) underwent LSG. The groups were homogeneous. The aprepitant group experienced less PONV: early, 69 (34.3%) vs. 103 (51.7%), p ≤ 0.001; 6 h, 67 (33.3%) vs. 131 (65.8%), p ≤ 0.001; 12 h, 41 (20.4%) vs. 115 (57.8%), p ≤ 0.001; and 24 h, 22 (10.9%) vs. 67 (33.7%), p ≤ 0.001. Fewer patients in the aprepitant group vomited: early, 3 (1.5%) vs. 5 (2.5%), p = 0.020; 6 h, 6 (3%) vs. 18 (9%), p = 0.020; 12 h, 2 (1%) vs. 17 (8.5%), p = 0.006; and 24 h, 1 (0.5%) vs. 6 (3%), p = 0.040. Patients in the aprepitant group required less additional PONV medication: early, 61 (30.3%) vs. 86 (43.2), p = 0.008; 6 h, 7 (3.5%) vs. 34 (17%), p = 0.001; 12 h, 6 (3%) vs. 31 (15.6%), p ≤ 0.001; and 24 h, 5 (2.5%) vs. 11 (5.5%), p ≤ 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic aprepitant improved PONV between 0 h (early) and 24 h postoperatively in patients undergoing LSG.

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 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.

Neurokinin-1 receptor drives PKCɑ-AURKA/N-Myc signaling to facilitate the neuroendocrine progression of prostate cancer

The widespread application of antiandrogen therapies has aroused a significant increase in the incidence of NEPC, a lethal form of the disease lacking efficient clinical treatments. Here we identified a cell surface receptor neurokinin-1 (NK1R) as a clinically relevant driver of treatment-related NEPC (tNEPC). NK1R expression increased in prostate cancer patients, particularly higher in metastatic prostate cancer and treatment-related NEPC, implying a relation with the progression from primary luminal adenocarcinoma toward NEPC. High NK1R level was clinically correlated with accelerated tumor recurrence and poor survival. Mechanical studies identified a regulatory element in the NK1R gene transcription ending region that was recognized by AR. AR inhibition enhanced the expression of NK1R, which mediated the PKCα-AURKA/N-Myc pathway in prostate cancer cells. Functional assays demonstrated that activation of NK1R promoted the NE transdifferentiation, cell proliferation, invasion, and enzalutamide resistance in prostate cancer cells. Targeting NK1R abrogated the NE transdifferentiation process and tumorigenicity in vitro and in vivo. These findings collectively characterized the role of NK1R in tNEPC progression and suggested NK1R as a potential therapeutic target.

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.

Improving Nursing Knowledge and Patient Education about Aprepitant's Effects on Hormonal Contraception: A Performance Improvement Project

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project was to improve the consistency of verbal and written discharge instructions for women of childbearing age (13-55 years) taking hormonal contraceptives who receive aprepitant perioperatively, to address the need to use a secondary form of birth control for 28 days, as well as to increase the knowledge and confidence of Registered Nurses when providing discharge instructions.

DESIGN

This quality improvement project used a pre/post design to evaluate two separate groups of patients and registered nurses.

METHODS

The patient sample consisted of 30 total women of childbearing age who received aprepitant during the perioperative period (15 pre and 15 post). The PACU nurse sample included 15 ambulatory surgery center nurses and 58 main hospital nurses for a combined sample of 73 PACU nurses. The PACU nurses were provided with educational in-service regarding information about aprepitant and its drug interactions. PACU nurses were additionally instructed to provide patient discharge instructions using both a written and verbal format. Patients were called postoperatively before and after both the written after visit summary (AVS) changes and the PACU nurse in-services, PACU nurses were evaluated on their knowledge, confidence, and frequency of discharge teaching before and after their educational in-service. The PACU nurses were surveyed 90 days after the intervention to assess their long-term knowledge retention.

FINDINGS

There was a significant increase in nurse knowledge about aprepitant from preimplementation to postimplementation (61.39% vs 81.95%, P < .001). Nursing knowledge showed a non-significant decline at 90-days postimplementation (81.95% vs 73.68%, P = .096) although remained significantly higher than preimplementation scores (73.68% vs 61.39%, P = .003). There was an overall 33.3% increase in the percentage of patients who were able to recall receiving aprepitant and the need to use a secondary form of birth control when comparing the preintervention group to the postintervention group (26.7% vs 60%, P = .123).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that providing a standardized presentation about aprepitant may improve the PACU nurses' ability to verbalize key information about aprepitant, including the need for patients to use a secondary form of birth control. This increase in nursing knowledge and confidence, along with improved written discharge instructions, may have led to improved patient comprehension of aprepitant discharge education. Additionally, there was an increase in the percentage of patients who were able to recall the need to use a secondary form birth control for 28 days, to reduce the likelihood of an unintentional pregnancy.

GA&HA-Modified Liposomes for Co-Delivery of Aprepitant and Curcumin to Inhibit Drug-Resistance and Metastasis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

Tumor microenvironment (TME) plays a vital role in the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Mounting evidence indicates that peripheral nerves could induce a shift from quiescent hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) to cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) by secreting substance P (SP). The anti-tumor strategy by targeting “SP-HSCs-HCC” axis might be an effective therapy to inhibit tumor growth and metastasis.

Objective

In this study, we prepared novel liposomes (CUR-APR/HA&GA-LPs) modified with hyaluronic acid (HA) and glycyrrhetinic acid (GA) for co-delivery aprepitant (APR) and curcumin (CUR), in which APR was chosen to inhibit the activation of HSCs by blocking SP/neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R), and CUR was used to induce apoptosis of tumor cells.

Results

To mimic the TME, we established “SP+HSCs+HCC” co-cultured cell model in vitro. The results showed that CUR-APR/HA&GA-LPs could be taken up by CAFs and HCC simultaneously, and inhibit tumor cell migration. Meanwhile, the “SP+m-HSCs+HCC” co-implanted mice model was established to evaluate the anti-tumor effect in vivo. The results showed that CUR-APR/HA&GA-LPs could inhibit tumor proliferation and metastasis, and reduce extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition and tumor angiogenesis, indicating a superior anti-HCC effect.

Conclusion

Overall, the combination therapy based on HA&GA-LPs could be a potential nano-sized formulation for anti-HCC therapy.

A Randomized Controlled Trial for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Aprepitant/Dexamethasone vs. Mirtazapine/Dexamethasone

Background

Coadministration of different antiemetics proved to decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). This trial compared aprepitant/dexamethasone (A/D) combination vs mirtazapine/dexamethasone (M/D) combination vs dexamethasone (D) alone for prevention of PONV in morbidly obese patients undergoing LSG.

Methods

Ninety patients scheduled for LSG were randomly allocated to receive 8 mg dexamethasone intravenous infusion (IVI) only in the D group or in addition to 80 mg aprepitant capsule in the A/D group or in addition to 30 mg mirtazapine tablet in the M/D group. Assessment of PONV was carried out at 0-2 h (early) and 2-24 h (late). The primary outcome was the complete response 0-24 h after surgery. Collective PONV, postoperative pain, side effects and patient satisfaction score were considered as secondary outcomes.

Results

The A/D and M/D groups were superior to the D group for a complete response within 0-24 h after surgery (79.3% for the A/D group, 78.6% for the M/D group, and 20.7% for the D group). The D group was inferior to the A/D and M/D groups regarding collective PONV and use of rescue antiemetic 0-24 h after surgery (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). The peak nausea scores (2-24 h) were significantly reduced in the M/D group in comparison to the D group (P=0.005). Patients in the M/D group showed high sedation scores, while those in the A/D group showed low pain scores (2-24 h) and less analgesic requirements (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). The A/D and M/D groups were superior to the D group with regard to the patient satisfaction score (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Aprepitant/dexamethasone combination and mirtazapine/dexamethasone combination were superior to dexamethasone alone in alleviating postoperative nausea and vomiting in morbidly obese patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04013386.

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.

Effect of combinations of dexamethasone-ondansetron and dexamethasone-ondansetron-aprepitant versus aprepitant alone for early postoperative nausea and vomiting after day care gynaecological laparoscopy: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron with oral aprepitant alone and triple combination therapy with all three agents (dexamethasone-ondansetron and oral aprepitant) in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in day care gynaecologic laparoscopy.

METHODS

This was a randomised clinical trial conducted at a university teaching hospital. A total of 105 female patients were randomised into the aprepitant (A), dexamethasone-ondansetron (DO) and aprepitant-dexamethasone-ondansetron (ADO) groups. The patients in the A group received only 80 mg oral aprepitant 1 h before surgery. The patients in the DO group, received dexamethasone 8 mg at induction with ondansetron 4 mg before extubation. Patients in the ADO group received 80 mg oral aprepitant 1 h before surgery, dexamethasone 8 mg at induction and ondansetron 4 mg before extubation. Incidence of nausea and vomiting was compared between groups using the Chi-square test/Fisher's test. Bellville score for severity of PONV was analysed using the Kruskall-Wallis test. P value < 0.05 was regarded as significant.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV did not show a statistically significant difference between the three groups, with a P value of 0.13 (12.5%, 30.3% and 32.3% in groups ADO, DO and A, respectively). The severity of PONV measured using Bellville score was also not significantly different among the groups [median values (IQR) of 0 (0-0), 0 (0-1), and 0 (0-1)].

CONCLUSION

The combination of aprepitant, dexamethasone and ondansetron failed to demonstrate a statistically significant superiority over the other two antiemetic regimens.

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.

The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) afflict approximately 30% of patients overall and up to 80% of high-risk patients after surgery. Optimal pharmacological prophylaxis of PONV is challenging as it necessitates the consideration of PONV risk, drug efficacy, and potential adverse effects. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors of PONV, its incidence has remained largely unchanged. Newer antiemetics have been introduced that may have improved safety profiles, longer duration of action, and better efficacy. This review aims to summarize the recent developments pertaining to these new agents and their potential application toward the management of PONV.

[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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety considerations when using drugs to treat pruritus

Introduction: Treatment for chronic pruritus ranges from use of topical formulations to newer biologic agents. Targeting treatment to the underlying etiology is key in reducing the burden of disease while avoiding systemic or adverse effects.Areas covered: This review details the effective medical treatments used in various etiologies of chronic itch with a focus on the potential adverse effects and safety data available for each.Expert opinion: New drug developments in the areas of neural signaling and immune targeting show great promise for the future of chronic itch treatment. These new therapies broaden the available treatment options but also pose new considerations for safety and adverse effects.

Perioperative Administration of Emend® (Aprepitant) at a Tertiary Care Children's Hospital: A 12-Month Survey

Introduction

Aprepitant (Emend^®) is a novel antiemetic agent that works through antagonism of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptors. To date, there are limited data regarding its use to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in children. We retrospectively reviewed our initial 12-months experience with aprepitant after it was made available for perioperative use.

Methods

The anesthetic records of patients who received aprepitant were retrospectively reviewed and demographic, surgical, and medication data retrieved.

Results

The study cohort included 31 patients (15 male and 16 female) ranging in age from 4 to 27 years (15.7 ± 7.4 years) and in weight from 14.4 to 175.7 kilograms (59.3 ± 30.2 kgs). Most of the patients (30 of 31) received the capsule form and 1 received the liquid. The average dose of aprepitant administered was 0.9 ± 0.6 mg/kg; however, only one patient received dosing expressed as mg/kg, and the majority received a 40 mg capsule. All of the patients in the cohort had either a previous history of PONV or risk factors for PONV. PONV occurred in the PACU in 1 patient and during the first 24 postoperative hours in 3 additional patients. No adverse effects related to aprepitant use were noted.

Conclusion

Aprepitant was easily added to the preoperative regimen for pediatric patients who may require it. Our approach limited overuse and subsequent cost concerns. Future studies with a comparator group and a greater sample size are needed to demonstrate its efficacy, especially in comparison to time-honored agents such as ondansetron. No adverse effects were noted in our limited study cohort.

NK-1 Receptor Antagonists and Pruritus: Review of Current Literature

The discovery of the first neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist was a turning point in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The NK-1 antagonists are a novel class of drugs that possess antidepressant, anxiolytic, and antiemetic properties. Recently, clinicians have also described an anti-itch activity of NK-1 antagonists. We present herein results from currently available data on use of NK-1R antagonists in dermatology. For this purpose, a systemic electronic literature search of the PubMed and CINAHL databases, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov website was performed. Based on currently available data, it can be concluded that NK-1 inhibitors show significant antipruritic potential for treatment of chronic pruritus in different dermatological conditions, but further studies are needed to establish the best indications and dosage of these drugs.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: comparison of two prophylactic antiemetic regimens

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) provide optimal perioperative care for surgical patients. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common after colorectal surgery (CRS). We aim to compare the efficacy of aprepitant to a cost-effective alternative, perphenazine, as components of triple antiemetic prophylaxis in ERP patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ERP CRS at a single institution from July 2015 to July 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Only subjects who received aprepitant (Group 1) or perphenazine (Group 2) preoperatively for PONV prophylaxis were included. Patient characteristics, simplified Apfel PONV scores, perioperative medications, and PONV incidence were compared between the groups. PONV was defined as the need for rescue antiemetics on postoperative days (POD) 0-5.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-seven patients underwent CRS of which 498 met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred thirty-one (46.4%) received aprepitant and 267 (53.6%) received perphenazine. The incidence of early PONV (POD 0-1) was comparable between the two groups: 44.2% in Group 1 and 44.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.926). Late PONV (POD 2-5) occurred less often in Group 1 than Group 2, respectively (35.9% vs. 45.7%, P = 0.027). After matching the groups for preoperative, procedural, and anesthesia characteristics (164 pairs), no difference in early or late PONV could be demonstrated between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PONV remains high despite most patients receiving three prophylactic antiemetic medications. Perphenazine can be considered a cost-effective alternative to oral aprepitant for prophylaxis of PONV in patients undergoing CRS within an ERP.

Characterizing Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Relationships and Efficacy of PI3Kδ Inhibitors in Respiratory Models of TH2 and TH1 Inflammation

We leveraged a clinical pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD)/efficacy relationship established with an oral phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)δ inhibitor (Idelalisib) in a nasal allergen challenge study to determine whether a comparable PK/PD/efficacy relationship with PI3Kδ inhibitors was observed in preclinical respiratory models of type 2 T helper cell (TH2) and type 1 T helper cell (TH1) inflammation. Results from an in vitro rat blood basophil (CD63) activation assay were used as a PD biomarker. IC50 values for PI3Kδ inhibitors, MSD-496486311, MSD-126796721, Idelalisib, and Duvelisib, were 1.2, 4.8, 0.8, and 0.5 μM. In the ovalbumin Brown Norway TH2 pulmonary inflammation model, all PI3Kδ inhibitors produced a dose-dependent inhibition of bronchoalveolar lavage eosinophils (maximum effect between 80% and 99%). In a follow-up experiment designed to investigate PK attributes [maximum (or peak) plasma concentration (Cmax), area under the curve (AUC), time on target (ToT)] that govern PI3Kδ efficacy, MSD-496486311 [3 mg/kg every day (QD) and 100 mg/kg QD] produced 16% and 93% inhibition of eosinophils, whereas doses (20 mg/kg QD, 10 mg/kg twice per day, and 3 mg/kg three times per day) produced 54% to 66% inhibition. Our profiling suggests that impact of PI3Kδ inhibitors on eosinophils is supported by a PK target with a ToT over the course of treatment close to the PD IC50 rather than strictly driven by AUC, Cmax, or Cmin (minimum blood plasma concentration) coverage. Additional studies in an Altenaria alternata rat model, a sheep Ascaris-sensitive sheep model, and a TH1-driven rat ozone exposure model did not challenge our hypothesis, suggesting that an IC50 level of TE (target engagement) sustained for 24 hours is required to produce efficacy in these traditional models. We conclude that the PK/PD observations in our animal models appear to align with clinical results associated with a TH2 airway disease.

Comparing the efficacy of aprepitant and ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): A double blinded, randomised control trial in patients undergoing breast and thyroid surgeries

Background and Aims:

Aprepitant, a Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, has been evaluated in abdominal and neurosurgeries, but its effect is less clear in breast and thyroid surgeries, which are also known to be high risk for post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was done to compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and aprepitant in women undergoing mastectomy and thyroidectomy.

Methods:

One hundred and twenty-five ASA I and II, female patients, aged between 18 and 65 years were randomly assigned into Group I (ondansetron group, n = 62) or Group II (aprepitant group, n = 63), by computer-generated random sequencing. Per protocol analysis was done to assess the incidence and severity of PONV, use of rescue antiemetics, and patient satisfaction with PONV control between the two groups, till 24 h post-surgery.

Results:

In the immediate postoperative period, 79.7% of patients in Group I and 85.2% in Group II were free of emesis (P value: 0.49). In Group I, the first episode of vomiting occurred within a median duration 90 min (IQR 2575: 45-147) postoperatively, whereas the median duration in Group II was 160 min (IQR 25-75: 26-490), with request for rescue antiemetic at 60 min in Group I (IQR 25-75: 27-360) and 147 min in Group II (IQR 25-75: 11-457).

Conclusion:

A single dose of oral aprepitant has comparable effects to injection ondansetron administered eighth hourly in preventing PONV, the severity of nausea, number of rescue antiemetics, and the time to first emetic episode in the 24-h postoperative period.

CTRI Reg No:

REF/2017/06/014637.

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.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting with Plastic Surgery: A Practical Advisory to Etiology, Impact, and Treatment

Ambulatory surgery is common in plastic surgery, where many aesthetic and reconstructive procedures can be performed in hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, or office-based surgery facilities. Outpatient surgery offers advantages to both the patient and the surgeon by increasing accessibility, flexibility, and convenience; lowering cost; and maintaining high-quality care. To optimize a patient's experience and comfort, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) should be prevented. However, in those patients who develop PONV, it must be appropriately managed and treated. The incidence of PONV is variable. It is often difficult to accurately predict those patients who will develop PONV or how they will manifest symptoms. There are a variety of recommended "cocktails" for PONV prophylaxis and treatments that are potentially effective. The decision regarding the type of treatment given is often more related to provider preference and determination of side-effect profile, rather than targeted to specific patient characteristics, because of the absence of large volumes of reliable data to support specific practices over others. Fortunately, there are several tenets for the successful prevention and treatment of PONV we have extracted from the literature and summarize here. The following is a summary for the practicing plastic surgeon of the current state of the literature regarding PONV cause, risk factors, prophylaxis, and treatment that may serve as a guide for further study and practice management.

Progress in understanding mechanisms of opioid-induced gastrointestinal adverse effects and respiratory depression

Opioids evoke analgesia through activation of opioid receptors (predominantly the μ opioid receptor) in the central nervous system. Opioid receptors are abundant in multiple regions of the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system including enteric neurons. Opioid-related adverse effects such as constipation, nausea, and vomiting pose challenges for compliance and continuation of the therapy for chronic pain management. In the post-operative setting opioid-induced depression of respiration can be fatal. These critical limitations warrant a better understanding of their underpinning cellular and molecular mechanisms to inform the design of novel opioid analgesic molecules that are devoid of these unwanted side-effects. Research efforts on opioid receptor signalling in the past decade suggest that differential signalling pathways and downstream molecules preferentially mediate distinct pharmacological effects. Additionally, interaction among opioid receptors and, between opioid receptor and non-opioid receptors to form signalling complexes shows that opioid-induced receptor signalling is potentially more complicated than previously thought. This complexity provides an opportunity to identify and probe relationships between selective signalling pathway specificity and in vivo production of opioid-related adverse effects. In this review, we focus on current knowledge of the mechanisms thought to transduce opioid-induced gastrointestinal adverse effects (constipation, nausea, vomiting) and respiratory depression.

Effects of NK1 receptors on gastric motor functions and satiation in healthy humans: results from a controlled trial with the NK1 antagonist aprepitant

Aprepitant, an NK1 receptor antagonist, is approved for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced or postoperative emesis by blocking NK1 receptors in the brain stem vomiting center. The effects of NK1 receptors on gastric functions and postprandial symptoms in humans are unclear; a single, crossover study did not show a significant effect of aprepitant on gastrointestinal transit. Our aim was to compare, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (12 healthy volunteers per group), the effects of aprepitant vs. placebo on gastric emptying of solids (by scintigraphy) with a 320-kcal meal, gastric volumes (GVs; fasting and accommodation by single photon emission-computed tomography ), satiation [maximum tolerated volume (MTV)], and symptoms after a dyspeptogenic meal of Ensure. Aprepitant (125 mg on day 1, followed by 80 mg on days 2-5) or placebo, one tablet daily, was administered for 5 consecutive days. Statistical analysis was by unpaired rank sum test, adjusted for sex difference and body mass index. To assess treatment effects on symptoms, we incorporated MTV in the model. Aprepitant increased fasting, postprandial, and accommodation GV and tended to increase volume to fullness and MTV by ~200 kcal. However, aprepitant increased aggregate symptoms, nausea, and pain scores after ingestion the MTV of Ensure. There was no significant effect of aprepitant on gastric half-emptying time of solids. We conclude that NK1 receptors are involved in the control of GV and in determining postprandial satiation and symptoms. Further studies of the pharmacodynamics and therapeutic role of NK1 receptor antagonists in patients with gastroparesis and dyspepsia are warranted.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Aprepitant increases fasting, postprandial, and accommodation gastric volumes. Aprepitant increases volume to fullness and maximum tolerated volume during a nutrient drink test. NK1 receptors are involved in the control of gastric volume and in determining postprandial satiation and symptoms.

Fosaprepitant versus droperidol for prevention of PONV in craniotomy: a randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after craniotomy. Vomiting may be a potentially hazardous complication in neurosurgical patients. We compared the efficacy of fosaprepitant and droperidol for the prevention of PONV, vomiting in particular, after craniotomy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy were enrolled in the study and randomly divided in a double-blind manner into two groups to receive either 150 mg of fosaprepitant (group F) or 1.25 mg of droperidol (group D). Dexamethasone (9.9 mg) was given to all patients, except those with diabetes mellitus. The incidence of PONV, frequency of vomiting, nausea score, and use of rescue antiemetic during the first 72 h after surgery were assessed at five time intervals (0-2, 2-6, 6-24, 24-48, and 48-72 h).

RESULTS

Of the 200 randomized patients eligible for entry into the study, 186 were ultimately included for analysis. There were no significant differences in demographics or intraoperative variables between the two treatment groups. Over the entire 72-h post-craniotomy observation period the overall and cumulative incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in group F patients than in group D patients, while there were no between-group differences in the overall and cumulative incidence of PONV or in complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic). The incidence and frequency of vomiting during each of the five observational periods were significantly lower in group F patients than group D patients, although there were no differences in the nausea score and antiemetic use between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, fosaprepitant was more effective than droperidol in the prevention of vomiting after craniotomy over the entire 72-h study period. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea and antiemetic use.