The clinical effect of an electric massage chair on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: randomized phase II cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse events in cancer patients and can negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an electric massage chair (EMC) for the treatment of CINV. METHODS: A randomized phase II cross-over trial was conducted on solid cancer patients who received moderate (MEC) to high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The participants were randomly assigned to receive their first chemotherapy either on a standard bed (Group A) or in an EMC (Group B) during the infusion. The patients were then crossed over to the next cycle. CINV and QoL questionnaires were collected from the participants. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients completed the trial protocol and were included in the analysis, with 29 and 30 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean INVR (Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching) score in the 2nd day of the first cycle was higher in Group B (3.63 ± 5.35) than Group A (2.76 ± 4.78), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5367). The complete response rate showed little difference between the groups. Among the high-emetic risk subgroups, patients who received HEC (p = 0.04595), younger patients (p = 0.0108), and non-colorectal cancer patients (p = 0.0495) presented significantly lower CINV scores when EMC was applied. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no significant difference in INVR scores between standard care and EMC. Applying EMC at the first chemotherapy infusion may help preserve QoL and reduce CINV in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: KCT0008200, 17/02/2023, Retrospectively registered.

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.

SummaryCannabis use is legalised in many countries. We present a patient in their 40s who complained of recurrent abdominal pain and associated nausea and vomiting. The patient was previously seen in various hospitals, treated symptomatically, and discharged with a diagnosis of non-specific abdominal pain. The patient had a chronic history of smoking cannabis and nicotine and drinking alcohol. Abdominal examination revealed no masses, and abdominal X-ray was normal. Blood tests and gastroduodenoscopy revealed no obvious aetiology. Intravenous fluids, together with antiemetics and proton pump inhibitors, were administered. The patient also received counselling and was advised to stop cannabis use. At discharge, the patient was well and asked to come back for review in 2 weeks, and, thereafter monthly for a period of 6 months after stopping cannabis use. The patient reported no recurrent symptoms despite continued cigarette and alcohol use. A suspected cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) became a consideration. Awareness of cannabis-related disorders such as CHS may assist in avoiding costly hospital workups.

The antiemetic actions of GIP receptor agonism.

Nausea and vomiting are primitive aspects of mammalian physiology and behavior that ensure survival. Unfortunately, both are ubiquitously present side effects of drug treatments for many chronic diseases with negative consequences on pharmacotherapy tolerance, quality of life, and prognosis. One of the most critical clinical examples is the profound emesis and nausea that occur in patients undergoing chemotherapy, which continue to be among the most distressing side effects, even with the use of modern antiemetic medications. Similarly, antiobesity/diabetes medications that target the glucagon-like peptide-1 system, despite their remarkable metabolic success, also cause nausea and vomiting in a significant number of patients. These side effects hinder the ability to administer higher dosages for optimal glycemic and weight management and represent the major reasons for treatment discontinuation. Our inability to effectively control these side effects highlights the need to anatomically, molecularly, and functionally characterize novel neural substrates that drive and inhibit nausea and emesis. Here, we discuss clinical and preclinical evidence that highlights the glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor system as a novel therapeutic central target for the management of nausea and emesis.

The Effectiveness of P6 and Auricular Acupressure as a Complimentary Therapy in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most prevalent and distressing side effects of chemotherapy among patients with cancer worldwide. Despite continuing advances in antiemetic medicines, nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy remain a substantial therapeutic concern for many patients. However, P6 and Auricular acupressure (AA) have been recognized as potential therapy for managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of P6 and Auricular acupressure (AA) in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with cancer. And to explore a prominent and effective evidence-based protocol for implementing acupressure to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHOD: This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Several databases were used to search for eligible studies using specific keywords. Only systematic reviews and clinical trials on acupressure for managing CINV among adults with cancer were included. This review covered articles published in English from 2015 to 2022. RESULTS: A total of 14 published studies were included in this review study; 10 articles were trial studies, and the other 4 were systematic review and meta-analysis studies. The quality of 10 included clinical trials were assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for quantitative studies, the overall result showed that 40% of study rated with moderate quality, no study was rated with low quality, and (60%) studies rated as high-quality study. As well as the quality assessment of all review studies showed that the majority of included systematic reviews and meta-analysis with a low risk of bias and high to moderate power of evidence. In all included studies the acupressure was utilized as a primary complementary intervention for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The result of this extensive and comprehensive review the P6 and auricular acupressure is an effective complementary therapy in reducing and controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among participants with various types of cancer and receiving various types of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The successful and effective application of acupressure in managing CINV for certain types of cancer had been supported in previous literature as a safe, affordable, and non-invasive alternative to pharmaceutical medications. However, standardization guidelines regarding the use of acupressure independently or in combination with other pharmacological therapies to address CINV in various cancers require immediate attention.

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.

Investigating the efficacy and safety of olanzapine prophylaxis for opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (JORTC-PAL20): a study protocol for an open-label, single-arm exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: In opioid therapy for cancer pain, opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) occur in 20%-40% of patients during initial opioid treatment or increasing opioid doses. OINV result in failure to achieve pain relief due to poor opioid adherence. Therefore, antiemetics are used to prevent OINV, but their efficacy and safety in this context have not yet been fully elucidated. Olanzapine is a promising antiemetic for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-arm, single-centre exploratory study will evaluate the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine in patients with cancer pain who are withholding initial regular opioid therapy. Thirty-five patients will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients achieving complete control (CC) of OINV during 5 days of opioid treatment. CC was defined as the absence of emetic episodes, no need for rescue medication to treat nausea, and minimal or no nausea (3 or less on an 11-point categorical scale). Secondary endpoints include the complete response, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication during the overall assessment period, the time from opioid initiation to first emetic episode, the time from opioid initiation to first rescue antiemetic administration, and adverse events graded by Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 1.0 and CTCAE version 5.0. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by National Cancer Center Hospital Certified Review Board. The results will be used as preliminary data to conduct a validation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) jRCTs031220008.

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.

Asenapine versus olanzapine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer: A retrospective study.

AIM: Patients with cancer often experience nausea and vomiting (N/V), but may have difficulty using olanzapine (OLZ), a common antiemetic. Asenapine (ASE) is a multi-acting receptor-targeted antipsychotic like OLZ, although there is little evidence that ASE serves as an antiemetic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ASE compared to those of OLZ for the treatment of N/V in patients with cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study involved patients who received 5 mg ASE, 5 mg OLZ, or 2.5 mg OLZ for 2 days. Daily worst N/V was rated on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (very much). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a response, defined as any reduction in N/V score. A complete response (CR) was defined as a score reduction to 0. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with CR and adverse events. RESULTS: Between April 2017 and March 2023, 212 patients were enrolled to receive treatment: 5 mg ASE (n = 34), 5 mg OLZ (n = 102), or 2.5 mg OLZ (n = 76). No significant differences in response rates (52.9% vs. 58.8% vs. 52.6%, p = 0.671) or secondary endpoints were observed between the groups. Patients receiving ASE were more likely to experience oral hypoesthesia (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that ASE may be effective for N/V. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine with triple antiemetic therapy for prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with solid tumours: a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is an effective antiemetic agent but it results in substantial daytime somnolence when administered at the standard dose. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine after highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with solid tumours. METHODS: This was a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in a tertiary care referral centre in India (Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai). Patients aged 13-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who were receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or high-dose cisplatin for a solid tumour were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with block randomisation (block sizes of 2 or 4) and stratified by sex, age (≥55 or <55 years), and chemotherapy regimen, to receive low-dose (2·5 mg) oral olanzapine or standard-dose (10·0 mg) oral olanzapine daily for 4 days, in combination with a triple antiemetic regimen. Study staff were masked to treatment allocation but patients were aware of their group assignment. The primary endpoint was complete control, defined as no emetic episodes, no rescue medications, and no or mild nausea in the overall phase (0-120 hours), assessed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (ie, all eligible patients who received protocol-specified treatment, excluding those who had eligibility violations and who withdrew consent after randomisation). Daytime somnolence was the safety endpoint of interest. Non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in the complete control proportions between the treatment groups excluded the non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry India, CTRI/2021/01/030233, is closed to accrual, and this is the final data analysis. RESULTS: Between Feb 9, 2021, and May 30, 2023, 356 patients were pre-screened for eligibility, of whom 275 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (134 to the 2·5 mg olanzapine group and 141 to the 10·0 mg olanzapine group). 267 patients (132 in the 2·5 mg group and 135 in the 10·0 mg group) were included in the mITT population, of whom 252 (94%) were female, 15 (6%) were male, and 242 (91%) had breast cancer. 59 (45%) of 132 patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group had complete control in the overall phase versus 59 (44%) of 135 in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group (difference -1·0% [one-sided 95% CI -100·0 to 9·0]; p=0·87). In the overall phase, there were significantly fewer patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group than in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group with daytime somnolence of any grade (86 [65%] of 132 vs 121 [90%] of 135; p<0·0001) and of severe grade on day 1 (six]5%] vs 54 [40%]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that olanzapine 2·5 mg is non-inferior to 10·0 mg in antiemetic efficacy and results in reduced occurrence of daytime somnolence among patients receiving highly emetic chemotherapy and should be considered as a new standard of care. FUNDING: Progressive Ladies Welfare Association.

Impact of body weight-based dosing of palonosetron and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse effect following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Palonosetron with a standard dosing (75 µg) schedule has been questioned due to its low efficiency in obese patients. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the body weight-based dosing of palonosetron in managing PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized study was conducted between August 2021 and December 2021. Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were prospectively recruited in the study. One hundred patients were randomly divided into palonosetron (Group P) and ondansetron (Group O). The demographic and clinical variables were recorded. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of PONV between the two groups during the hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were the number of rescue anti-emetic and analgesic medications and the Functional Living Index-Emesis scores. RESULTS: There were 50 patients in each group (Group P and Group O). There were significant differences in the scores of POVN, nausea, and vomiting favoring Group P. In Group P, the rate of patients using rescue anti-emetics was significantly lower. The incidence of complete response and proportion of patients with higher Functional Living Index-Emesis scores were significantly higher in patients using palonosetron. CONCLUSIONS: The use of palonosetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. There was a significant improvement in the scores of Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients using palonosetron.

Ginger for treating nausea and vomiting: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Ginger may be a potential remedy for nausea and vomiting. This review aimed to assess the reporting and methodological quality, and integrate the evidence in this field. A total of fifteen meta-analyses were analysed and met the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 guidelines, providing a relatively complete statement. However, methodological quality, assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 checklist, was deemed critically low to low. Our review's findings support ginger's effectiveness in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. It also reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting severity, decreasing the need for rescue antiemetics. Furthermore, ginger shows promise in alleviating pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting symptoms. The pooled evidence suggests ginger as a safe botanical option for managing nausea and vomiting, but it is important to improve the scientific quality of published meta-analyses in the future.

A multicenter phase II trial of the triplet antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine for a cisplatin-containing regimen. - PATROL-I.

Dexamethasone is one of the key antiemetic agents and is widely used even now. However, dexamethasone has been associated with several adverse reactions even after short-term administration. Therefore, developing a steroid-free antiemetic regimen is an important issue to consider. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine in a multi-institutional phase II study. Chemotherapy-naive patients scheduled to receive cisplatin were enrolled and evaluated for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was total control (TC) in the overall phase. The key secondary endpoint was complete response (CR), which was assessed in the acute, delayed, and overall phase, respectively. Adverse events were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Eighty-five patients were enrolled from 8 centers in Japan, of which 83 were evaluable for analyses. The percentage of patients who achieved TC during the overall phase was 31.3%. CR was achieved in 61.4%, 84.3%, and 65.1% of patients during the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse event was anorexia. The primary endpoint was below the threshold and we could not find benefit in the dexamethasone-free regimen, but CR during the overall phase was similar to that of the conventional three-drug regimen. This antiemetic regimen without dexamethasone might be an option for patients for whom corticosteroids should not be an active application.

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.

Analysis of Nausea and Vomiting Frequency Following Opioid Dose Escalation and Its Risk Factors: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study.

Background and Objective: Opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) is known to develop not only upon opioid introduction but also during opioid dose escalation, but the actual details are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of OINV in opioid dose escalation at a single center and to identify risk factors. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the medical records of hospitalized patients with cancer who underwent increased intake of oral oxycodone extended-release tablets at Komaki City Hospital between January 2016 and December 2019 was performed. Associations between the incidence of OINV and multiple factors were analyzed, including patient demographics, opioid daily dose, comorbidities, history of nausea after opioid introduction, and prophylactic antiemetic drugs. Results: Of the 132 patients analyzed, 56 (42.4%; grades 1 and 2, 36 and 20, respectively) developed opioid-induced nausea after opioid dose escalation, 26 (19.7%; grades 1 and 2, 19 and 7, respectively) developed opioid-induced vomiting, 58 (43.9%) had either opioid-induced nausea or vomiting. Thirty-five of 60 patients (55.0%) developed OINV among those who received prophylactic antiemetic drugs at opioid dose escalation. Performance status (≥2) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.36, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.15-4.84, p = 0.02) and history of nausea for opioid introduction (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.20-7.10, p = 0.02) were detected as risk factors for the development of OINV. Conclusion: This study revealed a high incidence of OINV during opioid dose escalation, indicating that careful monitoring is required as at the time of opioid introduction. Further validation by a prospective study is required.

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.

Comparison of the incidence of nausea and vomiting between linezolid and vancomycin using claims database: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting during linezolid therapy have been reported as part of safety analyses in clinical trials. We have previously examined the incidence of vomiting during linezolid therapy (18.1%). A previous study conducted at a single hospital showed low external validity. It is necessary to verify whether these results can be reproduced using generalizable data sources. AIM: To evaluate the incidence of nausea and vomiting during linezolid therapy compared with vancomycin using a Japanese claims database. METHOD: Patients administered linezolid or vancomycin were selected from the database between January 2005 and June 2017. The primary endpoint was the comparison of nausea and vomiting between the linezolid and vancomycin groups. We conducted propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for patient characteristics. To assess risk factors for nausea and vomiting, logistic regression was conducted as the secondary endpoint. We defined nausea and vomiting as the first prescription of antiemetics during linezolid or vancomycin therapy as a surrogate endpoint. RESULTS: In total, 1215 patients were enrolled. After PSM, the number of patients in the linezolid and vancomycin groups was 241. Nausea and vomiting were observed in 11.2% and 5.0% of patients in the linezolid and vancomycin groups, respectively (p < 0.05). Linezolid administration was extracted as a risk factor for nausea and vomiting (odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-4.30). CONCLUSION: This study clarified the relationship between linezolid and nausea and vomiting using a Japanese claims database. Further studies are required to elucidate the unknown mechanisms of linezolid-induced nausea and vomiting.

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.