Comparative safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

A case-control study on the clinical characteristics of granisetron-related arrhythmias and the development of a predictive nomogram

BACKGROUND

Automatic monitoring and assessment are increasingly employed in drug safety evaluations using hospital information system data. The increasing concern about granisetron-related arrhythmias requires real-world studies to improve our understanding of its safety.

AIM

This study aimed to analyze the incidence, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of granisetron-related arrhythmias in hospitalized patients using real-world data obtained from the Adverse Drug Event Active Surveillance and Assessment System-II (ADE-ASAS-II) and concurrently aimed to develop and validate a nomogram to predict the occurrence of arrhythmias.

METHOD

Retrospective automatic monitoring of inpatients using granisetron was conducted in a Chinese hospital from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021, to determine the incidence of arrhythmias using ADE-ASAS- II. Propensity score matching was used to balance confounders and analyze clinical characteristics. Based on risk factors identified through logistic regression analysis, a prediction nomogram was established and internally validated using the Bootstrap method.

RESULTS

Arrhythmias occurred in 178 of 72,508 cases taking granisetron with an incidence of 0.3%. Independent risk factors for granisetron-related arrhythmias included medication duration, comorbid cardiovascular disease, concomitant use of other 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists, alanine aminotransferase > 40 U/L, and blood urea nitrogen > 7.5 mmol/L. The nomogram demonstrated good differentiation and calibration, with enhanced clinical benefit observed when the risk threshold ranged from 0.10 to 0.82.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram, based on the five identified independent risk factors, may be valuable in predicting the risk of granisetron-related arrhythmias in the administered population, offering significant clinical applications.

A Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Update: Current information on New Drugs, Old Drugs, Rescue/Treatment, Combination Therapies and Nontraditional Modalities

This article's objective is to present the latest evidence and information on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV continues to affect 30% of the surgical population causing patient dissatisfaction, extending length of stay, and increasing overall costs. This review includes the introduction of 2 new intravenous formulations of antiemetics (amisulpride, aprepitant), updates on nontraditional therapies, suggestions for combination prophylaxis, emerging data on rescue treatment, and considerations for special populations and settings. Both of the new antiemetics provide promising options for pharmacologic interventions for PONV with favorable safety profiles.

Comparative Efficacy of Granisetron and Droperidol After Orthognathic Surgery for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

In the fall of 2021, granisetron was approved for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management in Japan. However, the comparative efficacy of droperidol and granisetron in the field of orthognathic surgery has not been determined.

PURPOSE

We compare the efficacy of droperidol and granisetron for PONV prophylaxis following orthognathic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at a single institution from September 2020 to December 2022. Patients who had undergone Le Fort I osteotomy with sagittal split ramus osteotomy or isolated sagittal split ramus osteotomy were included. Patients were divided into three groups; the isolated droperidol (D), isolated granisetron (G), and droperidol with granisetron (DG) groups. General anesthesia was performed using total intravenous anesthesia for all patients; however, droperidol and granisetron were administered at the anesthesiologist's discretion.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

PONV prophylactic therapy included isolated droperidol, isolated granisetron, and droperidol with granisetron administration.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

Postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) were determined through medical examination within 48 hours following surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications due to droperidol and/or granisetron administration.

COVARIATES

Age, sex, body mass index, Apfel's score, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative blood loss, and type of surgery.

ANALYSES

Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction for univariate comparison, and modified Poisson regression for comparison of PON and POV prophylactic efficacy for multivariate analyses. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Our study included 218 participants. There were no significant differences in covariates between groups D (n = 111), G (n = 52), and DG (n = 55). No significant difference in PON incidence was observed between groups. However, POV incidence was significantly lower in group DG than group D (relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.86; P = .03). No significant difference in complication incidence was observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Granisetron was as effective as droperidol for PONV management, while droperidol combined with granisetron was more effective than isolated droperidol for POV management. As compared to the use of each drug separately, their combination was considered safe, with no increase in complication rates.

Ondansetron-induced QT prolongation among various age groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ondansetron is a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 serotonin-receptor antagonist with antiemetic properties used inadvertently in the emergency department for controlling nausea. However, ondansetron is linked with a number of adverse effects, including prolongation of the QT interval. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the occurrence of QT prolongation in pediatric, adult, and elderly patients receiving oral or intravenously administered ondansetron.

METHODS

A thorough electronic search was conducted on PubMed (Medline) and Cochrane Library from the databases' inception to August 10, 2022. Only those studies were considered in which ondansetron was administered orally or intravenously to participants for the treatment of nausea and vomiting. The prevalence of QT prolongation in multiple predefined age groups was the outcome variable. Analyses were conducted using Review manager 5.4 (Cochrane collaboration, 2020).

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies involving 687 ondansetron group participants were statistically analyzed. The administration of ondansetron was associated with a statistically significant prevalence of QT prolongation in all age groups. An age-wise subgroup analysis was conducted which revealed that the prevalence of QT prolongation among participants younger than 18 years was not statistically significant, whereas it was statistically significant among participants aged 18-50 years and among patients older than 50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis provides further evidence that oral or intravenous administration of Ondansetron may lead to QT prolongation, particularly among patients older than 18 years of age.

Analysis of clinical characteristics and automatic monitoring of drug-induced arrhythmias in 167,546 inpatients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the occurrence characteristics, clinical manifestations, medication distribution, and incidence of drug-induced arrhythmias in a real-world inpatient population.

METHODS

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the ADR evaluation criteria, we retrospectively evaluated hospitalized patients in 2019 using the arrhythmia module of the Adverse Drug Event Active Surveillance and Assessment System-II (ADE-ASAS-II). A detailed analysis was performed on the demographic data, ADR manifestations, and medication distribution of 2097 patients with drug-induced arrhythmias and QT interval prolongation.

RESULTS

Of the 167,546 hospitalized patients, there were 1809 cases of drug-induced arrhythmias, with an incidence of 1.08%. The ADRs in 45.35% of positive patients occurred within 3 days after medication administration, and 46.73% of the patients were 65 years old or older. The predominant ADRs identified in this study were extrasystole, tachycardia, and QT interval prolongation, of which the incidence was 0.20%. Levofloxacin was the most involved drug, and levofloxacin-associated rates of incidence of arrhythmia and QT interval prolongation were 1.24% and 0.44%, respectively. The risk factors for drug-induced arrhythmias were male sex, advanced age, emaciation, obesity, and underlying illnesses such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular diseases, and hepatic and renal inadequacy (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of drug-induced arrhythmias was in the range of common, while QTc interval prolongation was occasional. It is necessary to pay attention to patients with risk factors.

Medication history-wide association studies for pharmacovigilance of pregnant patients

Background

Systematic exclusion of pregnant people from interventional clinical trials has created a public health emergency for millions of patients through a dearth of robust safety data for common drugs.

Methods

We harnessed an enterprise collection of 2.8 M electronic health records (EHRs) from routine care, leveraging data linkages between mothers and their babies to detect drug safety signals in this population at full scale. Our mixed-methods signal detection approach stimulates new hypotheses for post-marketing surveillance agnostically of both drugs and diseases—by identifying 1,054 drugs historically prescribed to pregnant patients; developing a quantitative, medication history-wide association study; and integrating a qualitative evidence synthesis platform using expert clinician review for integration of biomedical specificity—to test the effects of maternal exposure to diverse drugs on the incidence of neurodevelopmental defects in their children.

Results

We replicated known teratogenic risks and existing knowledge on drug structure-related teratogenicity; we also highlight 5 common drug classes for which we believe this work warrants updated assessment of their safety.

Conclusion

Here, we present roots of an agile framework to guide enhanced medication regulations, as well as the ontological and analytical limitations that currently restrict the integration of real-world data into drug safety management during pregnancy. This research is not a replacement for inclusion of pregnant people in prospective clinical studies, but it presents a tractable team science approach to evaluating the utility of EHRs for new regulatory review programs—towards improving the delicate equipoise of accuracy and ethics in assessing drug safety in pregnancy.

Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews attempt to gather all available evidence. Controversy exists regarding effort and benefit of including study results presented at conferences only. We recently published a Cochrane network meta-analysis (NMA) including 585 randomized controlled trials comparing drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Studies published as conference abstracts only were excluded. This study aimed to include all eligible studies published as abstracts only, assessing their added value regarding reporting quality and effect on the review's interpretation.

METHODS

Conference abstracts were searched in the review's excluded studies and conference proceedings of anaesthesiologic societies. We assessed their reporting quality regarding review's eligibility criteria, Cochrane 'risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0, and adherence to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for abstracts. Abstracts were included in sensitivity NMA, and impact on the NMA structure was investigated.

RESULTS

We identified 90 abstracts. A total of 14% (13/90) were eligible. A total of 86% (77/90) are awaiting classification due to insufficient reporting of review's eligibility criteria. In abstracts awaiting classification, sufficient information was missing on standardization of anaesthesia in 71% (55/77), age of participants in 56% (43/77), and outcome details in 46% (36/77). A total of 73% (66/90) of abstracts lacked sufficient information on 15/25 data extraction items. Reported study characteristics of abstracts were comparable to included studies of the review. A total of 62% (56/90) of abstract trials were assessed as overall high risk of bias due to poor reporting. Median adherence to CONSORT for abstracts was 24% (IQR, 18 to 29%). Six of the 13 eligible abstracts reported relevant outcome data in sufficient detail for NMA on seven outcomes of the Cochrane review. Inclusion of abstracts did not substantially change the network structure, network effect estimates, ranking of treatments, or the conclusion. Certainty of evidence for headache on palonosetron use was upgraded from very low to low.

CONCLUSIONS

Most conference abstracts on PONV were insufficiently reported regarding review's narrow inclusion criteria and could not be included in NMA. The resource-intensive search and evaluation of abstracts did not substantially extent the full-text evidence base of the review, given the few adequately reported abstracts. Conferences should oblige authors to adhere to CONSORT for abstracts.

Effects of Ramosetron on Nausea and Vomiting Following Spinal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal surgery is associated with severe pain within the first few days after surgery. Opioids are commonly used to control postoperative pain, but these can lead to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, use of more effective and better-tolerated agents would be beneficial for these patients. Serotonin receptor antagonists, such as ramosetron, have been used to reduce PONV in patients receiving anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and tolerance of ramosetron to prevent PONV after spinal surgery.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index databases were systematically searched for relevant RCT articles published between January 1979 and November 2020. Full text articles restricted to English language that described RCTs comparing the use of ramosetron with other serotonin antagonists to treat PONV following spinal surgery in adult patients were considered for meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction of all articles. Differences were resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

The search identified 88 potentially relevant articles, of which only 3 met our selection criteria. Study drugs were administered at the end of spinal surgery in all 3 included articles. The meta-analysis revealed that ramosetron (0.3 mg) reduced the pain score (mean difference = -0.66; 95% CI -1.02 to -0.30), lowered the risk of PONV (risk ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97), and postoperative vomiting (risk ratio = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.60), and limited the use of rescue antiemetics (risk ratio = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.96) after spinal surgery. However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea, the use of rescue pain medications, the number of rescue analgesics required, and the risk of discontinuation of patient-controlled analgesia between ramosetron and palonosetron (0.075 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg). There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of adverse events among the 3 medications.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of 3 RCTs showed that ramosetron reduced the risk of PONV and POV, limited the use of rescue antiemetics, reduced the postoperative pain score, and did not increase the risk of discontinuing patient-controlled analgesia compared with palonosetron or ondansetron after spinal surgery in 3 RCTs. Therefore, this meta-analysis indicates that ramosetron is an effective and well tolerated antiemetic that can be used to prevent PONV following spinal surgery in adult patients. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42020223596 (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2022; 83:XXX-XXX)© 2022 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia: An abridged Cochrane network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time needed to prepare what is now the largest Cochrane review with network meta-analysis in terms of the number of included studies and pages in its full printed form.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank single antiemetic drugs and their combinations belonging to 5HT₃-, D₂-, NK₁-receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia.

RESULTS

585 studies (97 516 participants) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were included. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 studies, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared to placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single NK₁ receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron, while moderate for fosaprepitant and droperidol. For serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse event (AE), and drug-class specific side effects evidence for intervention effects was mostly not convincing.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high or moderate evidence for at least seven single drugs preventing postoperative vomiting. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

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

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia. Although dozens of different anti-emetics are available for clinical practice, there is currently no comparative ranking of efficacy and safety of these drugs to inform clinical practice. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare, and rank in terms of efficacy and safety, single anti-emetic drugs and their combinations, including 5-hydroxytryptamine₃ , dopamine-2 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists; corticosteroids; antihistamines; and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia. We systematically searched for placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials up to November 2017 (updated in April 2020). We assessed how trustworthy the evidence was using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches for vomiting within 24 h postoperatively, serious adverse events, any adverse event and drug class-specific side-effects. We included 585 trials (97,516 participants, 83% women) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 trials, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared with placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Out of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, with risk ratio (95%CI) 0.26 (0.18-0.38); ramosetron, 0.44 (0.32-0.59); granisetron, 0.45 (0.38-0.54); dexamethasone, 0.51 (0.44-0.57); and ondansetron, 0.55 (0.51-0.60). It was moderate for fosaprepitant, 0.06 (0.02-0.21) and droperidol, 0.61 (0.54-0.69). Granisetron and amisulpride are likely to have little or no increase in any adverse event compared with placebo, while dimenhydrinate and scopolamine may increase the number of patients with any adverse event compared with placebo. So far, there is no convincing evidence that other single drugs effect the incidence of serious, or any, adverse events when compared with placebo. Among drug class specific side-effects, evidence for single drugs is mostly not convincing. There is convincing evidence regarding the prophylactic effect of at least seven single drugs for postoperative vomiting such that future studies investigating these drugs will probably not change the estimated beneficial effect. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

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).

Effect of Tropisetron on Prevention of Emergence Delirium in Patients After Noncardiac Surgery: A Trial Protocol

IMPORTANCE

Postoperative delirium is a frequent disorder for patients undergoing surgery and is associated with poor outcomes. Delirium may occur in the immediate period after anesthesia administration and surgery. Tropisetron, which is frequently administrated for postoperative nausea and vomiting, is also a partial agonist of α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors associated with neuroprotective effects. Tropisetron may be the potential pharmacological treatment to decrease delirium after noncardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a randomized clinical trial to determine the efficacy and safety of tropisetron for prevention of emergence delirium in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This single-center, 2-arm randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial will include 1508 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The intervention group will receive 5 mg of intravenous tropisetron before anesthesia induction, and patients in the control group will receive a placebo. The primary end point is the incidence of emergence delirium within 1 hour after tracheal tube removal, measured by the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit score. The main secondary outcome is the incidence of postoperative delirium measured at 3 days of follow-up. An intention-to-treat principle will be used for all analyses.

DISCUSSION

Delirium remains the most common neuropsychiatric complication for patients after surgery. This will be the first randomized clinical study to evaluate whether tropisetron is effective in preventing emergence delirium. Results from this study will provide evidence for alteration of daily practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04027751.

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.

A comparison of noninvasive and invasive acupuncture in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A protocol for systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a main complication of surgery, and by now, drugs cannot prevent it completely. Some meta-analyses have proved acupuncture therapy can prevent PONV. However, it is still controversial whether noninvasive acupuncture therapies are comparable with invasive ones. This study uses Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of different forms of acupuncture in preventing PONV.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Ebsco, Ovid/Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc will be searched from inception to May 2020. All randomized control trails meet the criterion will be included. Quality evaluation of included studies will be implemented with Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. STATA 14.0 will be used to perform pairwise meta-analysis. Addis 1.16.8, R 3.6.3, OpenBUGS 3.2.3, and STATA 14.0 will be used to conduct network meta-analysis. The evidence will be assessed by the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach using GRADE Profiler 3.6.

RESULTS

The results of this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and generate a comprehensive review of current evidence.

CONCLUSION

Our results will help to improve the clinical decision-making ability and policy-making in PONV domain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol has been registered on INPLASY 202060108.

Effects of intravenous dextrose on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

It is reported that postoperative nausea and vomiting, common general anesthesia complications, may be prevented by perioperative intravenous dextrose administration, but with controversial clinical effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate perioperative intravenous dextrose for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception until 22 June 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Trials investigating intravenous dextrose effects vs. placebos on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent general anesthesia.

RESULTS

Eleven trials (1,250 patients) were included. All participants were ASA1-2. The nine trials included laparoscopic surgeries, and 92.2% of the participants were women. The timing of dextrose infusion was before, during, and after surgery in three, five, and three trials, respectively. Our results revealed intravenous dextrose administration significantly reduced postoperative nausea, but not vomiting, during early and late postoperative periods (risk ratio [95% confidence interval], early nausea: 0.76 [0.59-0.99], late nausea: 0.65 [0.48-0.89]; early vomiting: 1.00 [0.81-1.25], late vomiting: 0.96 [0.43-2.16]). Evidence quality was downgraded to low because the trial sequential analysis indicated more trials are needed for firm conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebos, perioperative intravenous dextrose administration may decrease postoperative nausea but not vomiting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: UMIN000030901).

Expert Consensus on Effective Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: An Indian Perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared side effects in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Scientific evidence proves its detrimental impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL), treatment compliance, and overall healthcare cost. Despite the CINV-management landscape witnessing a radical shift with the introduction of novel, receptor-targeting antiemetic agents, this side effect remains a chink in the armor of a treating oncologist. Though global guidelines acknowledge patient-specific risk factors and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenic potential in CINV control, a “one-fit-for-all” approach cannot be followed across all geographies. Hence, in a pioneering attempt, India-based oncologists conveyed easily implementable, region-specific, consensus-based statements on CINV prevention and management. These statements resulted from integrating the analysis of scientific evidence and guidelines on CINV by the experts, with their clinical experience. The statements will strengthen decision-making abilities of Indian oncologists/clinicians and help in achieving consistency in CINV prevention and management in the country. Furthermore, this document shall lay the foundation for developing robust Indian guidelines for CINV prevention and control.

Prophylactic granisetron for post-spinal anesthesia shivering in cesarean section: A randomized controlled clinical study

BACKGROUND

The serotonergic system is known to be involved in control of post-anesthetic shivering. Our hypothesis was that prophylactic granisetrone (serotonin antagonist) might reduce incidence of post-spinal anesthesia shivering in cesarean section.

METHODS

Parturient scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were allocated to receive 0.9% saline (Group I, n = 71), 1 mg granisetron (Group II, n = 69), or 0.7 mg granisetron (Group III, n = 72) before the spinal block. Assessment parameters included; hemodynamics, tympanic membrane temperature, neonatal Apgar score, shivering score, patient satisfaction scores about shivering prophylaxis and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Clinically significant shivering was recorded in 55/71 patients (77.5%) in group I, 11/69 (15.9%) in group II and 21/72 (29.2%) in group III (P = 0.000). The intensity of shivering was significantly lower in patients who received granisetron 1 mg compared with granisetron 0.7 mg or saline (P = 0.000). Patients who received prophylactic granisetron 1 mg reported lower mean intraoperative arterial pressure and heart rate values and consumed higher doses of iv ephedrine compared with 0.7 mg granisetron or saline placebo (P < 0.05). Pruritus significantly decreased from (22.5%) in control group to (0%) in granisetron groups (P = 0.000). Nausea was reported in 8 vs 10 and four in group I, II and III, respectively (P < 0.03). Sixteen vs eight and six patients vomited in group I, II, and III, respectively (P < 0.03). Higher patient satisfaction scores were recorded in group II (9.83 ± 0.29, P < 0.03) and III (9.14 ± 1.04, P < 0.04), compared with control group (8.23 ± 1.14).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic granisetron effectively reduced incidence and severity of perioperative shivering in a dose dependent manner, compared to placebo controls.

Granisetron Alleviates Alzheimer's Disease Pathology in TgSwDI Mice Through Calmodulin-Dependent Protein Kinase II/cAMP-Response Element Binding Protein Pathway

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by a compromised blood-brain barrier (BBB) and disrupted intracellular calcium homeostasis in the brain. Therefore, rectifying the BBB integrity and restoring calcium homeostasis could provide an effective strategy to treat AD. Recently, we developed a high throughput-screening assay to screen for compounds that enhance a cell-based BBB model integrity, which identified multiple hits among which is granisetron, a Food and Drug Administration approved drug. Here, we evaluated the therapeutic potential of granisetron against AD. Granisetron was tested in C57Bl/6J young and aged wild-type mice, and in a transgenic mouse model of AD namely TgSwDI for its effect on BBB intactness and amyloid-β (Aβ)-related pathology. Our study findings showed that granisetron enhanced BBB integrity in both aged and TgSwDI mice. This effect was associated with an overall reduction in Aβ load and neuroinflammation in TgSwDI mice brains. In addition, and supported by proteomics analysis, granisetron significantly reduced Aβ induced calcium influx in vitro, and rectified calcium dyshomeostasis in TgSwDI mice brains by restoring calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II/cAMP-response element binding protein pathway, which was associated with cognitive improvement. These results support granisetron repurposing as a potential drug to hold, slow, and/or treat AD.

Torsades de Pointes after Ondansetron Infusion in 2 Patients

Drugs that prolong the electrocardiographic QT interval increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmias, particularly torsades de pointes. Ondansetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist antiemetic, is one such drug. We present the cases of 2 patients who were given intravenous ondansetron and subsequently developed torsades de pointes. Both had normal QT intervals at baseline but were discovered to have risk factors that predisposed them to drug-induced QT prolongation and ventricular arrhythmias. We briefly review the mechanisms for torsades de pointes caused by QT-prolonging medications, describe characteristics that increase patients' susceptibility to drug-induced QT prolongation, and call attention to the risk of ventricular arrhythmias in patients who are given ondansetron.

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.

Comparative Pharmacology and Guide to the Use of the Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Since the introduction of the serotonin 5-hydroxy tryptamine 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists in the early 1990s, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) has decreased, yet continues to be a problem for the surgical patient. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists has helped define the approach and role of these antiemetics in the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. Pharmacological and clinical differences exist among these medications resulting in corresponding differences in effectiveness, safety, optimal dosage, time of administration, and use as combination and rescue antiemetic therapy. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist antiemetics has improved the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. The most recent consensus guidelines for PONV published in 2014 outline the use of these antiemetics. The 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists play an important role to help prevent PONV and PDNV in perioperative care pathways such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). Comparisons and guidelines for use of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists in relation to the risk for PONV and PDNV are reviewed.

Tropisetron inhibits high glucose-induced calcineurin/NFAT hypertrophic pathway in H9c2 myocardial cells

OBJECTIVES

Cardiomyocyte hypertrophy is an important structural feature of diabetic cardiomyopathy. Calcineurin/nuclear factor of activated T-cell (NFAT) pathway plays a central role in the pathogenesis of cardiac hypertrophy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of tropisetron, a novel calcineurin inhibitor, on high glucose (HG)-induced cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and its underlying mechanism.

METHODS

H9c2 myocardial cells were treated with tropisetron or cyclosporine A 1 h before exposure to HG for 48 h.

KEY FINDINGS

Exposure to HG resulted in enhanced cell size, protein content and atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) protein expression. HG significantly increased Ca(2+) level, calcineurin expression and nuclear translocation of NFATc4. Both tropisetron and cyclosporine A markedly prevented the hypertrophic characteristic features, calcineurin overexpression and nuclear localization of NFATc4 while intracellular Ca(2+) was not affected.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that tropisetron may have protective effects against HG-induced cardiomyocyte hypertrophy. The mechanism responsible for this beneficial effect seems to be, at least in part, blockade of calcineurin/NFAT signalling pathway.

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

We completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.

METHODS

We used the Arksey and O'Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.

RESULTS

We identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making.

Comparative efficacy of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

METHODS

Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or combined with other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564.

RESULTS

Overall, 450 studies and 80,410 patients were included after the screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly fewer patients experienced nausea with any drug relative to placebo, except for ondansetron plus metoclopramide in a NMA including 195 RCTs and 24,230 patients. Significantly fewer patients experienced vomiting with any drug relative to placebo except for palonosetron plus dexamethasone in NMA including 238 RCTs and 12,781 patients. All agents resulted in significantly fewer patients with postoperative nausea and vomiting versus placebo in a NMA including 125 RCTs and 16,667 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Granisetron plus dexamethasone was often the most effective antiemetic, with the number needed to treat ranging from two to nine.