Long-Term Use of Rimegepant 75 mg for the Acute Treatment of Migraine is Associated with a Reduction in the Utilization of Select Analgesics and Antiemetics.

Purpose: To examine use of concomitant analgesics and antiemetics during treatment with rimegepant in adults with migraine. Patients and Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a long-term, open-label, safety study in adults with a history of 2-14 moderate or severe migraine attacks per month. Participants self-administered rimegepant 75 mg (1) up to once daily as needed (PRN) for 52 weeks or (2) every other day plus PRN (EOD+PRN) for 12 weeks. The PRN cohort was further divided based on baseline attack frequency, with PRN (2-8) and PRN (9-14) cohorts having a history of 2-8 or 9-14 attacks per month, respectively. Use of select analgesics and antiemetics was analyzed during a 30-day pre-treatment observation period (OP) and during rimegepant treatment. Results: Overall, 1800 rimegepant-treated participants (PRN n = 1514, EOD+PRN n = 286) were included in the analysis. Select analgesics or antiemetics were used by 80.1% of participants during the OP. Among 1441 participants using analgesics or antiemetics during the OP, the proportion who did not use any analgesics or antiemetics following initiation of rimegepant treatment increased during weeks 1-4 (36.9%), 5-8 (52.6%), and 9-12 (56.5%). The mean number of days per month using analgesics or antiemetics was also significantly reduced over time in all cohorts beginning at weeks 1-4 (P < 0.001 vs OP). This pattern of reduced analgesic or antiemetic use was consistent for all rimegepant cohorts, but was most pronounced in the EOD+PRN cohort in which 74.8% of participants reported ≥50% reduction in analgesic/antiemetic days at weeks 9-12. Reduction in use was maintained over time, with 61.3% of participants not using any analgesics or antiemetics during weeks 49-52 of PRN treatment. Conclusion: Long-term treatment with oral rimegepant was associated with reduced analgesic and antiemetic use. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03266588.

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab(R-CHOP) is one of the standard regimens. Given that R-CHOP is highly emetogenic, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention is clinically important. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on these patients. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in preventing CINV in patients with DLBCL undergoing first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy. Seventy patients were enrolled in this single-center prospective non-comparative study conducted between November 2020 and May 2023 in South Korea. NEPA was administered 1 h prior to chemotherapy initiation on day 1. The primary endpoint of the study was the complete response rate (no emesis, and no rescue medication) during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, which were assessed over a period of 120 h post-chemotherapy. The complete response rates for NEPA were 90.0% [95% CI 80.5, 95.9] for the acute phase, 85.7% [95% CI 75.3, 92.9] for the delayed phase, and 84.3% [95% CI 73.6, 91.9] for the overall phase, with no-emesis rates (acute: 97.1% [95% CI 97.1, 99.7], delayed: 95.7% [95% CI 88.0, 99.1], overall: 92.9% [95% CI 84.1, 97.6]). NEPA was well tolerated with no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. NEPA exhibited substantial efficacy in mitigating CINV in DLBCL patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy, demonstrating high CR and no-emesis rates, and favorable safety profiles.

Evaluation of Antiemetic Consistency in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among NHL Patients in Sana'a, Yemen.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a prevalent and distressing adverse effect that can negatively affect a patient's quality of life and treatment adherence. Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the consistency of antiemetic use with standard guidelines and to examine the factors influencing it. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the National Oncology Center (NOC) of Al-Jomhouri Teaching Hospital, Sana'a, Yemen, from November 2022 to September 2023. Demographic data, chemotherapy and antiemetic regimens, dosages, and patient-related risk factors were collected via direct interviews, medical records, and treatment charts. This study evaluated the consistency of antiemetic practices among non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) patients using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. The chi-squared test and regression were used to determine the factors associated with guideline consistency. Results: A total of 251 patients with NHL were recruited for the study; 57.4% were male and 60.6% were aged between 18-49. Most of the patients received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (81.3%). The overall consistency with the NCCN guidelines was only 23.9%, with antiemetic drug selection and dosage reported inconsistently in 62.9% and 16.7% of patients, respectively. Furthermore, 62.5% of the patients received an under-prescribed antiemetic prophylactic regimen. Treatment duration, number of chemotherapy cycles, emetogenic risk potential, and overall patient risk, as well as age, sex, and marital status, were significantly associated with guideline inconsistency (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study revealed a notable gap in the consistency of antiemetic prescriptions among patients with NHL. Inappropriate drug selection, dosing, and under-prescription are common problems. Patient regimen risk factors significantly influenced the consistency of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Personalized approaches are essential to enhance adherence to guidelines and improve antiemetic strategies.

The incidences of nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia with remimazolam versus sevoflurane: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) refers to nausea and vomiting that occurs within 24-h after surgery or in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Previous studies have reported that the use of remimazolam, a newer benzodiazepine (BDZ) hypnotic, for anesthesia results in less PONV. In this study, we compared the rate of PONV between sevoflurane and remimazolam after general anesthesia. Methods: In this prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT), participants aged 20-80 years who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy or hemicolectomy were randomized to either the remimazolam or sevoflurane group. The primary outcome was PONV incidence for 24-h after surgery. Secondary outcomes comprised of PONV at 30-min post-surgery, postoperative additional antiemetic use, and Quality of Recovery-15 (QOR-15) score at 24-h postoperatively. Results: Forty patients were enrolled in the study. The remimazolam group exhibited significantly lower rates of PONV for 24-h after surgery than did the sevoflurane group (remimazolam group vs. sevoflurane group; 5% vs. 45%, P = 0.003, respectively). The use of dexamethasone, a rescue antiemetic administered within 24 h of surgery, was substantially lower in the remimazolam group than in the sevoflurane group (0% in remimazolam vs. 30% in sevoflurane, P = 0.020). The QOR-15 score at 24-h after surgery showed no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions: Compared to sevoflurane, opting for remimazolam as an intraoperative hypnotic may decrease the incidence of PONV and reduce antiemetic use for 24 h after laparoscopic surgery.

Commonly used antiemetics for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after Caesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT3 antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority of any drug class is yet to be established. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis in women receiving neuraxial morphine for Caesarean delivery. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Wanfang Data for eligible randomised controlled trials. Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) within 24 h after surgery. We used a Bayesian random-effects model and calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous data. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses for primary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies with 4238 women were included. In the primary analyses of all women, 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone significantly reduced PON and POV compared with placebo, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone were more effective than monotherapy. In the subgroup analyses, similar results were seen in women receiving epidural morphine or intrathecal morphine alone but not in women receiving intrathecal morphine with fentanyl or sufentanil. However, most included studies had some concerns or a high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: Combined 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy in preventing PONV associated with neuraxial morphine after Caesarean delivery. Future studies are needed to determine the role of prophylactic antiemetics in women receiving intrathecal morphine and lipophilic opioids. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023454602.

Evaluation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine-a case series.

PURPOSE: Although lomustine has been used as a chemotherapeutic agent for decades, no recommendation on appropriate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is available. As CINV is considered one of the most bothersome side effects of chemotherapy, adequate prophylaxis is of relevance to improve quality of life during cancer treatment. The aim of this retrospective case series was to report the incidence and severity of CINV in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine and to formulate recommendations for appropriate CINV prophylaxis. METHODS: Pediatric patients treated with lomustine for high-grade glioma according to the ACNS 0423 protocol were identified retrospectively. Two researchers independently reviewed and classified complaints of CINV and administered CINV prophylaxis. Treatment details, tumor localization, and response to therapy were systematically extracted from the patients' files. RESULTS: Seventeen children aged 8-18 years received a median of four cycles of lomustine. CINV complaints and administered prophylaxis were evaluable in all patients. Moderate or severe CINV was observed in 13/17 (76%) patients. Administered prophylactic CINV regimens varied from no prophylaxis to triple-agent combinations. CONCLUSION: In this case series, we identified lomustine as a highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. According to the current guidelines, CINV prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in combination with dexamethasone and (fos)aprepitant is recommended.

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after orthognathic surgery: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common adverse events following orthognathic surgery. It's a distressing feeling for patients and continues to be the cause of postoperative complications such as bleeding, delayed healing, and wound infection. This scoping review aims to identify effective PONV prophylaxis strategies during orthognathic surgery that have emerged in the past 15 years. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Embase from 2008 to May 2023. Studies meeting the following criteria were eligible for inclusion: (1) recruited patients undergo any orthognathic surgery; (2) evaluated any pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic method to prevent PONV. Studies meeting the following criteria were excluded: (1) case series, review papers, or retrospective studies; (2) did not report our prespecified outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in this review. Pharmacological methods for PONV prevention include ondansetron and dexamethasone (3 studies), peripheral nerve block technique (4 studies), dexmedetomidine (1 study), pregabalin (2 studies), nefopam (2 studies), remifentanil (1 study), propofol (2 studies), and penehyclidine (1 study). Non-pharmacologic methods include capsicum plaster (1 study), throat packs (2 studies) and gastric aspiration (2 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, we conclude that prophylactic antiemetics like dexamethasone, ondansetron, and penehyclidine are the first defense against PONV. Multimodal analgesia with nerve block techniques and non-opioid analgesics should be considered due to their notable opioid-sparing and PONV preventive effect. For the non-pharmacological methods, throat packs are not recommended for routine use because of their poor effect and serious complications. More prospective RCTs are required to confirm whether gastric aspiration can prevent PONV effectively for patients undergoing orthognathic surgery.

Nonspecific analgesics, combination analgesics, and antiemetics.

The acute treatment of migraine attacks should provide rapid, effective, and long-lasting symptom relief, causing minimal adverse effects. For this purpose, there are several specific and nonspecific acute treatments. In this chapter, we focus on molecules not specifically designed for migraines, including anti-inflammatory not specific analgesics, such as acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid, and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (or COX-2 inhibitors); antinausea medications like metoclopramide or prochlorperazine, which can alleviate sickness and vomiting associated with migraines, and may also have a direct painkiller effect; combinations of simple analgesics or association of a painkiller with caffeine. This stimulant can help enhance the pain-relieving effects of some headache medications and provide its own analgesic effect; physical approaches: applying cold packs or heating pads on the forehead or neck, can help relieve migraine pain; other classes with limited to no evidence to support their use, such as intravenous corticosteroids or antiepileptic drugs as sodium valproate. Finally, we will briefly mention opioids, barbiturates, or medical cannabis, bearing in mind that their use is not recommended by current guidelines.

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in solid cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is known to induce nausea and vomiting (CINV) in approximately 90% of cancer patients undergoing this regimen unless proper prophylactic antiemetics are administered. This study aimed to analyze the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen during the first cycle of chemotherapy and assess the compliance rate with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2020 provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The claims data encompassed 10 to 13% of inpatients admitted at least once each year. Patients with solid cancers treated with two HEC regimens, namely anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) and cisplatin-based regimens, were selected as the study population. We evaluated the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone and compliance with the NCCN guidelines. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to estimate the influence of variables on guideline adherence. RESULTS: A total of 3119 patients were included in the analysis. The overall compliance rate with the NCCN guidelines for prophylactic antiemetics was 74.3%, with higher rates observed in the AC group (87.9%) and lower rates in the cisplatin group (60.4%). The AC group had a 6.37 times higher likelihood of receiving guideline-adherent antiemetics than the cisplatin group. Further analysis revealed that, compared to 2016, the probability of complying with the guidelines in 2019 and 2020 was 0.72 times and 0.76 times lower, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that a considerable proportion of HEC-treated patients received guideline-adherent antiemetic therapies. However, given the variations in adherence rates between different chemotherapy regimens (AC vs. cisplatin), efforts to improve adherence and optimize antiemetic treatment remain essential for providing the best possible care for patients experiencing CINV.

Safety and tolerability of intravenous aprepitant and fosaprepitant in children with cancer: A retrospective, single-center review.

NK-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) are key agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Current pediatric practice guidelines recommend the use of intravenous fosaprepitant or oral aprepitant. However, there are reports of hypersensitivity reactions with fosaprepitant due to polysorbate 80. Intravenous aprepitant does not contain polysorbate 80, but its use in pediatric patients has not been described. In this retrospective, single-center study, 106 pediatric patients received either fosaprepitant or intravenous aprepitant as part of their antiemetic regimen. Intravenous aprepitant was well tolerated and did not lead to any instances of hypersensitivity reactions requiring discontinuation.

Antiemetic Effect of Rikkunshito, a Japanese Kampo Herbal Medicine, on Cisplatin-induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Nationwide Database Study in Japan.

Objective The effect of Rikkunshito, a Japanese herbal Kampo medicine, on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been evaluated in several small prospective studies, with mixed results. We retrospectively evaluated the antiemetic effects of Rikkunshito in patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy using a large-scale database in Japan. Methods The Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database from July 2010 to March 2019 was used to compare adult patients with malignant tumors who had received Rikkunshito on or before the day of cisplatin administration (Rikkunshito group) and those who had not (control group). Antiemetics on days 2 and 3 and days 4 and beyond following cisplatin administration were used as surrogate outcomes for CINV. Patient backgrounds were adjusted using the stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, and outcomes were compared using univariable regression models. Results We identified 669 and 123,378 patients in the Rikkunshito and control groups, respectively. There were significantly fewer patients using intravenous 5-HT3-receptor antagonists in the Rikkunshito group (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.87; p=0.023) on days 2 and 3 of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Conclusion The reduced use of antiemetics on day 2 and beyond of cisplatin administration suggested a beneficial effect of Rikkunshito in palliating the symptoms of CINV.

Estudo de fase II de pregabalina para prevenção de náuseas e vômitos induzidos por quimioterapia / Phase II study of pregabalin for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting

Para avaliar o papel da pregabalina na proteção das náuseas e vômitos induzidos pela quimioterapia, foi realizado um ensaio clínico de fase II, aleatorizado, duplamente cego, controlado por placebo, para investigar se a pregabalina poderia melhorar o controle completo das náuseas e vômitos (desfecho primário). Inscrevemos 82 pacientes virgens de quimioterapia, programados para receber quimioterapia moderadamente e altamente emetogênica. Todos os doentes receberam ondansetron 8mg por via intravenosa, dexametasona 10mg antes da quimioterapia no primeiro dia e, dexametasona 4 mg por via oral, b.d., nos dias dois e três. Os doentes foram distribuídos aleatoriamente para tomar pregabalina 75 mg ou placebo, bd, desde a noite anterior à quimioterapia até ao quinto dia. A resposta completa global não foi estatisticamente significativa entre os grupos (53,7 versus 48,8%, respetivamente, no grupo da pregabalina e no grupo de controlo (P=0,65)). Também não houve diferença estatística significativa durante a fase aguda (primeiras 24 horas) e a fase tardia (24-120h): 80,5% versus 82,9% (P=0,77), 53,7 versus 51,2% (P=0,82), respectivamente. Neste estudo não foi identificada ação da pregabalina na prevenção de náuseas e vômitos induzidos por quimioterapia. Número de registo no Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT04181346.

To evaluate the role of pregabalin in the protection of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, we performed a phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate whether pregabalin could improve the complete control of nausea and vomiting (primary end point). We enrolled 82 chemotherapy-naive patients, scheduled to receive moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received IV ondansetron 8mg, dexamethasone 10mg before chemotherapy on day one and oral dexamethasone 4mg, b.d., on days two and three. Patients were randomly assigned to take pregabalin 75mg or placebo, bd, from the night before chemotherapy to day five. The overall complete response was not statistically significant between the groups (53.7 versus 48.8%, respectively, in the pregabalin group and the control group (P=0.65)). There was also no significant difference during the acute phase (first 24 hours) and delayed phase (24-120h): 80.5% versus 82.9% (P=0.77), 53.7 versus 51.2% (P=0.82), respectively. There is no role for pregabalin preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Clinicaltrial.gov registration number: NCT04181346.

Profilaxis antiemética en pacientes con neoplasias hematológicas que reciben protocolos de acondicionamiento para el trasplante de células madre hematopoyéticas: protocolo de estudio para una revisión sistemática / Antiemetic prophylaxis in hematologic malignancies patients receiving conditioning protocols for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A study protocol for a systematic review

Objetivo las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por la quimioterapia siguen siendo un reto importante para los pacientes que recibieron un trasplante de células madre hematopoyéticas. Este estudio tiene como objetivo sintetizar la evidencia disponible sobre los regímenes de profilaxis antiemética en los pacientes con neoplasias hematológicas que recibieron un trasplante de células madre hematopoyéticas, con el fin de identificar el mejor estándar de cuidado. Métodos se llevará a cabo una revisión sistemática utilizando las bases de datos MEDLINE a través de PubMed, EMBASE, Clinical-Trials.gov y Cochrane. Se considerarán los estudios escritos en inglés, francés, italiano o español. Después de seleccionar los estudios de acuerdo con los criterios de inclusión y exclusión, 2 revisores independientes extraerán los datos y evaluarán el riesgo de sesgo en los artículos seleccionados. Este protocolo se ha elaborado de acuerdo con las recomendaciones de las guías PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols). Este protocolo está registrado en PROSPERO (Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews) CRD42023406380. Discusión las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por la quimioterapia son un efecto secundario incapacitante que supone un reto importante para los pacientes con neoplasias hematológicas. A pesar de la publicación de diversas guías sobre profilaxis antiemética, ninguna de ellas incluye recomendaciones específicas para cada régimen de quimioterapia. Por lo tanto, analizar los regímenes de profilaxis antiemética primaria en los pacientes con neoplasias hematológicas que recibieron un trasplante de progenitores hematopoyéticos sería valioso para mejorar la calidad de vida de estos pacientes. (AU)

Objective Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting continue to pose a significant challenge for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This study aims to synthesize available evidence on antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in order to identify the best standard of care. Methods A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov., and Cochrane databases. Studies written in English, French, Italian or Spanish will be considered. After screening the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers will extract data and assess the risk of bias in eligible articles. This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. This protocol is registered in the Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42023406380. Discussion Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a debilitating side effect that presents a significant challenge for patients with hematologic malignancies. Despite the publication of various guidelines, none of them includes specific recommendations for each chemotherapy regimen. Therefore, analyzing the primary antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation would be valuable in enhancing patients' quality of life. (AU)

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. RESULTS: Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented. CONCLUSION: There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

Post-operative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis: A meta-review on systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Introduction: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications in surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia, and multiple strategies have been suggested to prevent them. Objective: To describe the available evidence on the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for preventing PONV in adults undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, as reported in previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Methodology: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted. Searches were performed in PubMed, EBSCO, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, Science Direct, and Scopus, without restrictions as to gender, clinical condition, or date of publication, including articles in Spanish, French, and English only. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate did the screening, data extraction, quality evaluation, and risk of bias assessment according to AMSTAR-2. The PRISMA and PRIOR statements were followed for reporting. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021251999. Results: Out of 80 candidate articles, three were viable for meta-analysis. 1.5 mg to 18 mg doses of Dexamethasone showed a significant reduction in the risk of PONV, with a RR of 0.48 (95 % CI 0.41-0.57; p<0.001), I2=63 % (p=0.07), and a NNTc of 5 and 7. Other effective strategies included the use of acoustic stimulation/acupuncture/acupressure, 5HT3 antagonists, NK1 antagonists, gabapentinoids, haloperidol, droperidol, metoclopramide, midazolam, mirtazapine, among others. The risk of publication bias was low. Conclusion: Different strategies are effective for PONV prophylaxis in surgeries under general anesthesia. Dexamethasone shows the best available evidence at the moment. The documented methodological quality suggests the need for better studies to establish the effectiveness of the strategies.

Introducción: Las náuseas y el vómito posoperatorios (NVPO) son comunes en pacientes quirúrgicos bajo anestesia general y se han planteado múltiples estrategias para prevenirlos. Objetivo: Describir la evidencia disponible sobre la efectividad de las estrategias farmacológicas y no farmacológicas para prevenir las NVPO en adultos sometidos a cirugía bajo anestesia general, según lo descrito en metaanálisis y revisiones sistemáticas previas. Metodología: Se realizó una metarrevisión de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Se ejecutaron búsquedas en PubMed, EBSCO, Embase, Cochrane Database, ScienceDirect y Scopus, sin restricción por sexo, condición clínica ni fecha de publicación, solo de artículos en español, francés e inglés. Dos revisores llevaron a cabo tamizaje, extracción de datos, evaluación de calidad y riesgo de sesgo según AMSTAR-2, de manera independiente y en duplicado. Se siguieron las declaraciones PRISMA y PRIOR para el reporte, previo registro en Prospero CRD42021251999. Resultados: De 80 artículos candidatos, se seleccionaron tres viables para realización de metaanálisis. La dexametasona entre 1,5 mg y 18 mg mostró un RR=0,48 (IC95 % [0,41-0,57]; p<0,001), I2=63 % (p=0,07) y un NNTc 5 y 7. Otras estrategias efectivas incluyen el uso de acuestimulación/acupuntura/acupresión, antagonistas 5HT3, antagonistas NK1, gabapentinoides, haloperidol, droperidol, metoclopramida, midazolam, mirtazapina, entre otras. El riesgo de sesgo de las publicaciones fue bajo. Conclusión: Diferentes estrategias son efectivas para profilaxis NVPO en cirugías con anestesia general. Dexametasona presenta la mejor evidencia disponible al momento. La calidad metodológica documentada sugiere la necesidad de realizar mejores trabajos para determinar la efectividad de las estrategias.

What are the effects of drugs for nausea and vomiting prevention following general anesthesia? Summary and comments regarding a Cochrane Collaboration network meta-analysis

The aim of this special article is to summarize and discuss, from an anesthesia perspective, the network meta-analysis on drugs used for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia, in agreement with the Cochrane Colombia collaboration and within the framework of the Cochrane Corners strategy. Through the combination of indirect comparisons and based on the evidence, the use of aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone and ondansetron is recommended with a high degree of certainty for the reduction of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Este artículo especial tiene el objetivo de resumir y discutir desde la perspectiva de la anestesiología, el metaanálisis en red sobre fármacos para prevenir náuseas y vómito posoperatorio luego de anestesia general, en acuerdo con la colaboración Cochrane Colombia y en el marco de la estrategia Cochrane Corners. Mediante la combinación de la evidencia y el uso de comparaciones indirectas, se ha recomendado con alto grado de certeza el uso de aprepitant, ramosetrón, granisetrón, dexametasona y ondansetrón para la reducción de náuseas y vómito posoperatorio.

2023 MASCC/ESMO consensus antiemetic guidelines related to integrative and non-pharmacological therapies.

PURPOSE: Review the literature to propose suggestions or recommendations for controlling nausea and vomiting through integrative and non-pharmacological treatments for the MASCC/ESMO 2023 update of its antiemetic guidelines. METHODS: The authors identified available systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses for 12 integrative therapies, including acupressure, acupuncture, auricular therapy, electrical stimulation of point PC6, ginger use (i.e., Zingiber officinale), guided imagery, hypnosis, inhalation aromatherapy, music therapy, food-based interventions, progressive muscle relaxation, and reflexology. Reviews were assessed for quality through the AMSTAR2 tool. A consensus committee reviewed recommendations as per MASCC/ESMO established processes. RESULTS: Thirty-nine systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were used. There were major methodological flaws for many of the trials used as the bases for the reviews. No recommendation for ingested ginger could be made because of conflicting evidence. Recommendations were possible for acupuncture/electroacupuncture treatments, food-based interventions, and progressive muscle relaxation training alone or combined with guided imagery. No recommendations could be reached for a number of food-based approaches, inhalation aromatherapy, hypnosis in adults, music therapy, and reflexology. CONCLUSION: While a limited number of suggestions are provided, there is a need for significantly higher quality trials in many of the therapeutic approaches assessed, before stronger recommendations and a wider range of approaches are made.

Efficacy of 3-day versus 5-day aprepitant regimens for long-delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is an ongoing problem. While effectiveness of triplet antiemetic regimens in the delayed CINV phase (24-120 hours after administration of chemotherapy) has been studied, their effectiveness in the long-delayed phase (120-168 hours post-administration) is unknown. We compared the efficacy of 3- and 5-day courses of a triplet antiemetic prophylaxis containing aprepitant (APR) in controlling long-delayed CINV after cisplatin (CDDP)-based chemotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We obtained patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective observational study in Japan. The incidence and timing of CINV after 3- and 5-day APR-containing regimens were compared using inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: The analysis included 380 patients. The incidence rates of long-delayed nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced for the 5-day compared with the 3-day regimen (29.1% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.0042; 6.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Among those without CINV, vomiting was not reported after day 2 in the 5-day APR group but increased after day 4 in the 3-day APR group. CONCLUSION: A 5-day regimen triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with APR decreased long-delayed vomiting compared with a 3-day regimen in patients receiving CDDP-based chemotherapy. However, the 5-day regimen showed no advantage over the 3-day regimen against long-delayed nausea.

Perioperative utility of amisulpride and dopamine receptor antagonist antiemetics-a narrative review.

Despite advances in antiemetics and protocolized postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) management, it remains one of the most common postoperative adverse events. In patients who developed PONV despite antiemetic prophylaxis, giving a rescue treatment from the same class of medication is known to be of limited efficacy. Given the widespread use of 5-HT3 antagonists as PONV prophylaxis, another class of effective intravenous rescue antiemetic is in dire need, especially when prophylaxis fails, and rescue medication is utilized. Dopamine antagonists were widely used for the treatment of PONV but have fallen out of favor due to some of their side effect profiles. Amisulpride was first designed as an antipsychotic medication but was found to have antiemetic properties. Here we will review the historical perspective on the use of dopamine receptor antagonist antiemetics, as well as the evidence on the efficacy and safety of amisulpride.

Effect of dexamethasone and ramosetron on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in low-risk patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated the effect of antiemetics on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk groups. However, few studies have investigated the effect of antiemetics in patients at low risk of developing PONV. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 177 patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to three groups. Patients allocated to group C (control group) received 2 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline, those allocated to group R (ramosetron group) received 0.3 mg of intravenous ramosetron, and those allocated to group DR (ramosetron plus dexamethasone group) received 5 mg of intravenous dexamethasone and 0.3 mg of intravenous ramosetron. RESULTS: Finally, 174 patients completed the study, and the types of surgeries were orthopedic (n = 80), rhinologic (n = 47), urologic (n = 29), and others (n = 18). The incidence of PONV up to 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in group DR than in group C. The incidence of PONV up to 0-1 h postoperatively was significantly lower in groups R and DR than in group C. The usage pattern of rescue antiemetics was consistent with the incidence of PONV. The percentage of patients requiring rescue analgesics 0-1 h postoperatively was significantly lower in groups R and DR than in group C. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of dexamethasone and ramosetron demonstrated a superior effect in preventing PONV for 48 h after surgery under general anesthesia than saline in patients at low risk of developing PONV. Compared with saline injections, ramosetron injections yielded better outcomes for the incidence of PONV and the use of rescue antiemetics and rescue analgesics 0-1 h postoperatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration number: criskorea@korea.kr, KCT0006749.