D2 dopamine receptor-mediated mechanisms of dopaminergic system modulation in in vivo and in vitro experimental models of migraine.

The dopaminergic system is implicated in the pathophysiology of migraine. However, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We explored the effects and mechanisms of dopaminergic system modulation in the in vivo and in vitro rat models of migraine. Dopaminergic agonist apomorphine, D2 receptor antagonists metoclopramide and haloperidol and 5-HT3 receptor antagonist ondansetron alone and together were tested in nitroglycerin-induced migraine model, in vivo. Likewise, the combinations of drugs were also tested on basal calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) release in vitro hemiskull preparations. Mechanical allodynia was tested by von Frey filaments. CGRP concentrations in trigeminovascular structures and in vitro superfusates and c-Fos levels in the brainstem were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Meningeal mast cells were evaluated with toluidine blue staining. Apomorphine further enhanced nitroglycerin-induced mechanical allodynia, brainstem c-fos expression, trigeminal ganglion and brainstem CGRP concentrations and meningeal mast cell degranulation, in vivo. Haloperidol completely antagonised all apomorphine-induced effects and also alleviated changes induced by nitroglycerin without apomorphine. Metoclopramide and ondansetron partially attenuated apomorphine- or nitroglycerin-induced effects. A combination of haloperidol and ondansetron decreased basal CGRP release, in vitro, whereas the other administrations were ineffective. Apomorphine-mediated dopaminergic activation exacerbated nitroglycerin-stimulated nociceptive reactions by further enhancing c-fos expression, CGRP release and mast cell degranulation in strategical structures associated with migraine pain. Metoclopramide partially attenuated the effects of apomorphine, most likely because it is also a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Haloperidol with pure D2 receptor antagonism feature appears to be more effective than metoclopramide in reducing migraine-related parameters in dopaminergic activation- and/or NTG-induced migraine-like conditions.

Evaluation of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as antiemetic prophylaxis for fludarabine and melphalan-based conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu-Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu-Mel compared to a historical control group. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu-Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: The median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31-3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61-4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3-122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7-48.1]; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu-Mel-based preparative regimen.

Associations between ondansetron and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and food intake in Japanese female undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is important to achieve DREAM (drinking, eating, mobilization). Ondansetron inhibits PONV, but its effects on postoperative food intake have not been investigated. This study aimed to examine associations between ondansetron and PONV incidence, and postoperative food intake. METHODS: This retrospective study included adult patients (n = 632) who underwent laparoscopic gynecological surgery at Kyushu University Hospital between January 2017 and June 2023. Outcomes were PONV on the day of surgery, PONV up to the day after surgery, and food intake, which was assessed for breakfast and lunch on the day after surgery. Odds ratios (ORs) for PONV incidence and postoperative no-food intake were calculated between those with and without ondansetron during surgery. Multivariable-adjusted analysis was performed using possible confounding factors for PONV. Synergistic effects of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) were assessed. RESULTS: Multivariable-adjusted ORs for PONV on the day of surgery and up to the day after surgery were 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.99, p = 0.04) and 0.52 (0.30-0.93, p = 0.03), respectively, in the ondansetron group (n = 84) compared with the non-ondansetron group (n = 548). In contrast, multivariable-adjusted ORs for no-food intake of breakfast and lunch the day after surgery in the ondansetron group compared with the non-ondansetron group were not significant. Analysis of synergistic effects on PONV showed no significant interaction between ondansetron and dexamethasone or ondansetron and TIVA combinations. CONCLUSION: Ondansetron administration during surgery was significantly associated with decreased PONV risk but was not associated with food intake the day after surgery.

Olanzapine as an add-on, pre-operative anti-emetic drug for postoperative nausea or vomiting: a randomised controlled trial.

Postoperative nausea or vomiting occurs in up to 40% in patients with multiple risk factors, despite prophylaxis. Olanzapine is an antipsychotic drug that is used to prevent nausea and vomiting in palliative care and to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This study aimed to examine whether pre-operative olanzapine, as a prophylactic anti-emetic added to intra-operative dexamethasone, ondansetron and total intravenous anaesthesia, reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting. We performed a multiply-blinded randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18-60 years with cancer at high risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting (three or four risk factors according to the Apfel criteria) plus a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Patients were allocated at random to receive 10 mg olanzapine or placebo orally 1 h before surgery in addition to a two-drug regimen (dexamethasone and ondansetron) and propofol anaesthesia to prevent postoperative nausea or vomiting. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery. In total, 100 patients were enrolled; 47 in the olanzapine group and 49 in the control group completed the study. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. The incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery was lower in the olanzapine group (12/47, 26%) than in the control group (31/49, 63%) (p = 0.008, RR 0.40 (95%CI 0.21-0.79)). Adding pre-operative oral olanzapine to intra-operative dexamethasone and ondansetron was highly effective in reducing the risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery in patients with a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and at least three Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea or vomiting.

Acupuncture combined with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines recommend the use of multiple antiemetics as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but the evidence regarding combining acupuncture and antiemetics as a multimodal approach was of very low quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effect of combinations of acupuncture with ondansetron versus ondansetron alone for PONV prophylaxis in women at a high risk. METHODS: This parallel, randomised controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary hospital in China. Patients who had three or four PONV risk factors on the Apfel simplified risk score, undergoing elective laparoscopic gynaecological surgery for benign pathology, were recruited. Patients in the combination group received two sessions of acupuncture treatment and 8 mg intravenous ondansetron, whereas those in the ondansetron group received ondansetron alone. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV within 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, adverse events etc. RESULTS: Between January and July 2021, a total of 212 women were recruited, 91 patients in the combination group and 93 patients in the ondansetron group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. In the first 24 h postoperatively, 44.0% of the patients in the combination group and 60.2% of the patients in the ondansetron group experienced nausea, vomiting, or both (difference, -16.3% [95% CI, -30.5 to -2.0]; risk ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; p = 0.03). However, the results of the secondary outcomes showed that compared to ondansetron alone, acupuncture together with ondansetron was only effective in reducing nausea but did not have a significant impact on vomiting. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture combined with ondansetron as a multimodal prophylaxis approach is more effective than ondansetron alone in preventing postoperative nausea in high-risk patients.

Antiemetic Administration and Its Association with Race: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists' contribution to perioperative healthcare disparities remains unclear because patient and surgeon preferences can influence care choices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a patient- centered outcome measure and a main driver of unplanned admissions. Antiemetic administration is under the sole domain of anesthesiologists. In a U.S. sample, Medicaid insured versus commercially insured patients and those with lower versus higher median income had reduced antiemetic administration, but not all risk factors were controlled for. This study examined whether a patient's race is associated with perioperative antiemetic administration and hypothesized that Black versus White race is associated with reduced receipt of antiemetics. METHODS: An analysis was performed of 2004 to 2018 Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data. The primary outcome of interest was administration of either ondansetron or dexamethasone; secondary outcomes were administration of each drug individually or both drugs together. The confounder-adjusted analysis included relevant patient demographics (Apfel postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors: sex, smoking history, postoperative nausea and vomiting or motion sickness history, and postoperative opioid use; as well as age) and included institutions as random effects. RESULTS: The Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data contained 5.1 million anesthetic cases from 39 institutions located in the United States and The Netherlands. Multivariable regression demonstrates that Black patients were less likely to receive antiemetic administration with either ondansetron or dexamethasone than White patients (290,208 of 496,456 [58.5%] vs. 2.24 million of 3.49 million [64.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.82; P < 0.001). Black as compared to White patients were less likely to receive any dexamethasone (140,642 of 496,456 [28.3%] vs. 1.29 million of 3.49 million [37.0%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.78; P < 0.001), any ondansetron (262,086 of 496,456 [52.8%] vs. 1.96 million of 3.49 million [56.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.85; P < 0.001), and dexamethasone and ondansetron together (112,520 of 496,456 [22.7%] vs. 1.0 million of 3.49 million [28.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a perioperative registry data set, Black versus White patient race was associated with less antiemetic administration, after controlling for all accepted postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors.

Ondansetron Safety Regarding Prolong QTc for Children with Head Trauma.

BACKGROUND: There have been recent reports of increased QT interval after head trauma in concussed athletes and adult patients. Ondansetron, which is widely used in treatment of nausea and vomiting symptoms in head injuries, was issued a safety warning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding QT prolongation and risk of fatal dysrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of ondansetron regarding QT prolongation for patients experiencing nausea or vomiting after head trauma. METHODS: Patients aged 1-20 years presenting to a pediatric emergency department with head trauma and who required a dose of ondansetron for nausea or vomiting were enrolled in the study. Patients received a baseline 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) prior to administration of either oral or IV ondansetron. A second post-ondansetron 12-lead ECG was performed after administration of ondansetron. All ECGs were reviewed and the QTc calculated manually by a board-certified pediatric cardiologist. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met enrollment criteria. Five patients received IV ondansetron and 37 received oral ondansetron. Mean QTc pre ondansetron was 387.5 ms and mean QTc post ondansetron was 400.9 ms (p = 0.120). We found no statistically significant difference in other ECG parameters pre and post ondansetron. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron is safe in regard to QTc prolongation in patients with head trauma. Based on this research, ondansetron should continue to be used for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in emergency department patients who present with head injury.

QT prolongation, torsades des pointes, and cardiac arrest after 4 mg of IV ondansetron.

Ondansetron is a commonly used antiemetic in the emergency department despite a 2011 FDA warning regarding dose-related QTc prolongation and torsades des pointes (TdP). Cases of TdP from small ondansetron doses administered in the emergency department are lacking. A 41-year-old-woman with alcohol use disorder on no medications or supplements presented to an emergency department with one day of nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain. Examination revealed a pulse of 77 beats/min and epigastric tenderness. The patient received 4 mg IV ondansetron, 30 mg IV ketorolac, and was placed on cardiac monitoring. ECG obtained one minute after ondansetron demonstrated premature ventricular contractions with QTc = 653 ms. Thirteen minutes after receiving ondansetron she suffered TdP and cardiac arrest. She received immediate CPR and IV epinephrine with successful defibrillation at one minute. She then received IV magnesium. Post-arrest ECGs demonstrated persistent QTc prolongation immediately and at three hours post-arrest. Laboratory studies, drawn prior to arrest, demonstrated hypokalemia (3.2 mEq/L), hypomagnesemia (1.3 mg/dL), and elevated lipase (4918 IU/L). She received no additional QT-prolonging agents. Transthoracic echocardiogram and troponins were normal; ECG intervals completely normalized within 12 h and she was discharged neurologically intact. The patient returned 18 months later with recurrent pancreatitis and similar electrolyte abnormalities; QT-prolonging drugs were avoided at that time and her course was uncomplicated. QT prolongation with subsequent torsades des pointes and cardiac arrest may occur in high-risk patients receiving small doses of ondansetron. Further studies are warranted to determine the safest antiemetic for use in the emergency department.

Ondansetron Use During Pregnancy: Birth Defects and Obstetric Outcomes.

Ondansetron is a widely administered medication for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Further examination of its teratogenic capacity is necessary. This study examines the association between ondansetron treatment during pregnancy and birth defects and adverse obstetric outcomes. Patient data were extracted from Clalit Health Services, Israel. A propensity-score analysis was performed matching those exposed to ondansetron with those who were not. Findings identified 774 women exposed to ondansetron, matched 1:1 with unexposed control patients. No significant differences were found between the groups for: cleft palate, cardiovascular congenital abnormalities, spina bifida occulta, preterm delivery, or small for gestational age. Ondansetron may be a useful and safe alternative as treatment for women who suffer from hyperemesis gravidarum and do not respond to other antiemetic drugs. Notwithstanding, additional prospectively designed research is needed to establish the safety of ondansetron treatment during pregnancy.

Diagnosis of Serious Conditions Delayed in Association with Ondansetron Treatment for Vomiting in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the characteristics and sought risk factors for hospitalization in children who return to the emergency department within 7 days of discharge after oral or intravenous ondansetron treatment for vomiting. The secondary aim was to determine whether the diagnosis of any serious condition had been delayed as the result of discharge after ondansetron treatment. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the medical records of children who had been treated for vomiting with ondansetron in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department and revisited the emergency department within 7 days was performed between 2017 and 2019. We compared demographic and clinical features as well as management between hospitalized and discharged patients, focusing upon potentially delayed diagnoses of serious conditions. RESULTS: Fifty of the 89 ondansetron-treated children (56.2%) who revisited the emergency department were discharged home after their second emergency department visit and the remaining 39 (43.8%) were hospitalized. No parameter of the management of the first visit was predictive of the outcome of the revisit. Five revisit patients (5.6%) were newly diagnosed with a serious condition, with intussusception and ovarian torsion being the most substantial time-sensitive delays (the other diagnoses were pneumonia and aseptic meningitis). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians assessing patients who had been treated with ondansetron as supportive care for vomiting at an earlier visit to the pediatric emergency department should consider alternative diagnoses despite initial clinical improvement. No definitive risk factor for readmission was identified, but a high level of alertness to a possible meningeal or acute abdominal source is imperative.

Efficacy of the granisetron transdermal system for the control of nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We compared the efficacy of the granisetron transdermal system (GTS) with that of ondansetron for controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: We randomized a total of 389 patients to groups treated by GTS and ondansetron before HEC. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving complete response (CR; no retching/vomiting/rescue medication) of CINV from the time of chemotherapy initiation to 24 hours after the last administration of chemotherapy (prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15%). Quality of life (QoL) was also assessed using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). RESULTS: The per protocol analysis included 152 (47.80%) and 166 patients (52.20%) in the GTS and ondansetron groups, respectively. In the full analysis set, the most common diagnosis, regimen, and period of chemotherapy were lung cancer (149 patients, 40.27%), cisplatin-based regimen (297 patients, 80.27%), and 1 day chemotherapy (221 patients, 59.73%). The CR rates were 86.84% and 90.36% in the GTS and ondansetron groups, respectively; the treatment difference was -3.52% (95% confidence interval, -10.52 to 3.48) and met the primary endpoint, indicating that GTS was not inferior to ondansetron. Patient satisfaction, assessed on the FLIE, showed significantly higher scores in the GTS group compared to the ondansetron group (mean ± standard deviation, 1,547.38 ± 306.00 and 1,494.07 ± 312.05 mm, respectively; p = 0.0449). CONCLUSION: GTS provided effective, safe, and well-tolerated control of CINV and improved the QoL in HEC.

Serotonin type-3 receptor antagonists selectively kill melanoma cells through classical apoptosis, microtubule depolymerisation, ERK activation, and NF-κB downregulation.

Malignant melanoma is a highly metastatic tumour, resistant to treatment. Serotonin type-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, such as tropisetron and ondansetron, are well-tolerated antiemetic drugs commonly used to prevent nausea caused by chemotherapy or radiotherapy. We investigated the anticancer effects of these drugs on melanoma cancer cell lines WM-266-4 and B16F10 with or without paclitaxel. We constructed IC50 curves and performed Chou-Talalay analysis, using data obtained with the MTT assay. Flow cytometry and fluorescent microscopy were used to examine characteristics of the cell cycle, cell death and cytoskeleton changes. Protein levels and activation were analysed by western blotting and molecular docking studies carried out. Data were analysed by one way ANOVA and post hoc testing. Ondansetron and tropisetron showed selective concentration-dependent cytotoxicity in melanoma cell lines WM-266-4 and B16F10. The effect in combination with paclitaxel was synergistic. The drugs did not cause cell cycle arrest but did promote characteristics of classical apoptosis, including accumulation of subG1 DNA, cleaved caspase-3, mitochondrial membrane permeability and phosphatidylserine exposure. As well, the cytosolic calcium level in the melanoma cells was enhanced, phosphorylated ERK1/2 induced and NF-κB inhibited. Finally, the formation of microtubules was shown to be impaired in melanoma cells treated with ondansetron or tropisetron. Docking studies were used to predict that these drugs could bind to the colchicine binding site on the tubulin molecule. Antiemetic drugs, already given in combination with chemotherapy, may enhance the cytotoxic effect of chemotherapy, following successful delivery to the tumour site.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: efficiency and safety of ondansetron in preventing post-anesthesia shivering during cesarean section.

OBJECTIVE: Although ondansetron was considered to prevent post-anesthesia shivering during cesarean section, its efficiency remained controversial. Our review was conducted to estimate the efficiency and safety of ondansetron in preventing post-anesthesia shivering during cesarean section. METHODS: The literature were searched from their inception to October 2020 without restriction of language. All randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of ondansetron versus placebo in preventing shivering during cesarean section under neuraxial anesthesia were included. The meta-analysis was conducted using Stata software. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled studies with a total of 748 individuals were finally included in our meta-analysis. Our results manifested that intravenous ondansetron compared with intravenous placebo significantly reduced the incidence of post-anesthesia shivering (PAS) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.14-0.68). Subgroup analysis according to doses of ondansetron indicated that the efficacy of 4 mg doses of ondansetron (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21-0.64) is equivalent to that of 8 mg doses of ondansetron (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.81) in preventing PAS. In addition, the intravenous ondansetron led to a lower incidence of hypotension than intravenous placebo (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32-0.70). We could not demonstrate differences in the incidence of bradycardia between intravenous ondansetron and intravenous placebo. CONCLUSION: Our results found that intravenous ondansetron was effective in preventing shivering during cesarean section under neuraxial anesthesia, and had an advantage in reducing the incidence of hypotension compared with intravenous placebo.

Combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron in prophylaxis nausea and vomiting in gynecological operation.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting occur in about 20-30% of women; however, some reports have estimated the rate at 70% in at-risk individuals. Gynecological and obstetrical operations are among the most frequent types of surgeries to be associated with nausea and vomiting postoperatively. Ondansetron and dexamethasone have been compared in a variety of studies for postoperative prophylaxis. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study was conducted in order to compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone and ondansetron, alone or in combination, for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a sample of Iraqi women undergoing gynecological surgeries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in Al-Diwaniyah Province, a region belonging to the Mid-Euphrates sector of Iraq, at the Child and Maternity Teaching Hospital. The study started in June 2021 and the work with the research was accomplished in September 2022. The study included a total of 100 women undergoing different gynecological surgeries such as ovarian cystectomy, oophorectomy, ectopic pregnancy, total abdominal hysterectomy, and myomectomy. All participants involved in the study were categorized randomly into four groups, namely, dexamethasone, ondansetron, combined, and placebo groups. RESULTS: The rates of nausea in the different groups were analyzed. The rates of nausea in dexamethasone, ondansetron, and combined groups revealed a significant decrease compared with that of placebo group (P < 0.05), and the rate was significantly lower in combined group when compared with dexamethasone and ondansetron groups (P < 0.05). The rate of nausea in combined group was significantly lower than that of dexamethasone and ondansetron groups. The rate of vomiting in combined group was significantly lower than that of placebo group and less than that of the dexamethasone group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Based on our study and previous reports, both dexamethasone and ondansetron are efficient and safe in preventing nausea and vomiting in gynecological operations; however, combination of both provides the best results.

[No place for ondansetron in young children with gastroenteritis and persistent vomiting]. / Geen plaats voor ondansetron bij kinderen met gastro-enteritis en braken.

At several out-of-hours services primary care, a single dose of ondansetron was compared with standard care (oral rehydration solution (ORS)) in young children with gastroenteritis and persistent vomiting. Although vomiting decreased more often in the ondansetron group compared to the control group in the first hours, ondansetron had no effect on ORS use and did not lead to fewer referrals to the hospital. Unfortunately, the outcome measure diarrhoea was missing as a possible adverse effect of ondansetron. Diarrhoea was reported around 2-3 times more often with ondansetron compared to placebo in four of five other studies in children with gastroenteritis and vomiting. It is therefore questionable whether the limited clinical benefit of ondansetron in children with vomiting due to gastroenteritis outweighs the possible (as yet insufficiently investigated) side effect diarrhoea.

Antiemetic prophylaxis for chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: There is sparse research reporting effective interventions for preventing nausea and emesis caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC). METHODS: Treatment-naïve LA-HNSCC patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concomitant cisplatin 100 mg/m2 (33 mg/m2/days [d]1-3) every 3 weeks for two cycles. All patients were given oral aprepitant 125 mg once on d1, then 80 mg once on d2-5; ondansetron 8 mg once on d1; and dexamethasone 12 mg once on d1, then 8 mg on d2-5. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR). Pursuant to δ = 0.2 and α = 0.05, the expected CR rate was 80%. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients with LA-HNSCC were enrolled. The median age was 53 years, and 86.0% were male. All patients received radiotherapy and 86.0% of patients completed both cycles as planned. The overall CR rate was 86.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.1-94.7). The CR rates for cycles 1 and 2 were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9-96.1) and 89.2% (95% CI: 74.6-97.0). The complete protection rate in the overall phase was 72.1% (95% CI: 56.3-84.7). The emesis-free and nausea-free responses in the overall phase were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9-96.1) and 60.5% (95% CI: 44.4-75.0), respectively. The adverse events related to antiemetics were constipation (65.1%) and hiccups (16.3%), but both were grade 1-2. There was no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related toxicity with antiemetic usage. CONCLUSION: The addition of aprepitant into ondansetron and dexamethasone provided effective protection from nausea and emesis in patients with LA-HNSCC receiving radiotherapy and concomitant high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

The incidence of torsades de pointes with peri-operative low-dose ondansetron administration.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this retrospective safety study was to determine the incidence of torsades de pointes (TdP) or death following perioperative administration of low-dose, 4 mg, ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting. DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a single-center retrospective clinical trial. PATIENTS: The authors identified 32,737 patients who received 37,589 doses of ondansetron during a 2-year time frame between March 2009 and February 2011 for surgical nausea prophylaxis or treatment of nausea. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were cross-matched with an electrocardiogram and adverse outcome database; this identified 4759 patients with documentation of a QTc >450 milliseconds (ms), all ventricular tachycardias including TdP within 48 hours of receiving ondansetron, or death within 7 days of receiving ondansetron. No patients developed TdP or died as a direct result of ondansetron administration (n = 0; event rate = 0.0 per 10,000, 95% CI 0.0 to 1.1 per 10,000). Forty-six of 32,737 surgical patients had documented monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 14; event rate = 4.3 per 10,000, 95% CI 2.3 to 7.2 per 10,000) or died (n = 32; event rate = 9.8 per 10,000, 95% CI 6.7 to 13.8 per 10,000) within 48 h of ondansetron administration. All monomorphic VT episodes were precipitated by existing cardiovascular disease; and 7 of 14 patients had documented monomorphic VT prior to receiving ondansetron. Of the 32 surgical patients who died, all deaths were precipitated by pre-existing disease. CONCLUSION: No episodes of TdP were identified in patients receiving ondansetron perioperatively. This suggests that low-dose ondansetron does not contribute to the development of TdP.

A pharmacogenomic investigation of the cardiac safety profile of ondansetron in children and pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Ondansetron is a highly effective antiemetic for the treatment of nausea and vomiting. However, this medication has also been associated with QT prolongation. Pharmacogenomic information on therapeutic response to ondansetron exists, but no investigation has been performed on genetic factors that influence the cardiac safety of this medication. METHODS: Three patient groups receiving ondansetron were recruited and followed prospectively (pediatric post-surgical patients n = 101; pediatric oncology patients n = 98; pregnant women n = 62). Electrocardiograms were conducted at baseline, and 5- and 30-min post-ondansetron administration, to determine the effect of ondansetron treatment on QT interval. Pharmacogenomic associations were assessed via analyses of comprehensive CYP2D6 genotyping and genome-wide association study data. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, 62 patients (24.1%) met the criteria for prolonged QT, with 1.2% of the cohort exhibiting unsafe QT prolongation. The most significant shift from baseline occurred at five minutes post-ondansetron administration (P = 9.8 × 10-4). CYP2D6 activity score was not associated with prolonged QT. Genome-wide analyses identified novel associations with a missense variant in TLR3 (rs3775291; P = 2.00 × 10-7) and a variant linked to the expression of SLC36A1 (rs34124313; P = 1.97 × 10-7). CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided insight into the genomic basis of ondansetron-induced cardiac changes and has emphasized the importance of genes that have been implicated in serotonin-related traits. These biologically-relevant findings represent the first step towards understanding this adverse event with the overall goal to improve the safety of this commonly used antiemetic medication.