Opioid-induced respiratory depression suspected of drug interaction in a prostate cancer patient: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Many of the drugs used for the treatment and alleviation of symptoms in cancer patients are known to inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 (CYP). Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the drug interactions of opioid analgesics that are metabolized by CYPs, because for example when using oxycodone metabolized by CYP3A4, it is possible that the effect will be attenuated or enhanced by the concomitant use of drugs that induce or inhibit CYP3A4. Aprepitant, an antiemetic drug used in many patients receiving anticancer drugs, is known as a moderate competitive inhibitor of CYP3A4. We experienced a case of respiratory depression caused by opioids, which was suspected to be caused by a drug interaction with antiemetics especially aprepitant. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient was a 72-year-old man. He had been treated with continuous oxycodone infusion for perianal pain associated with the rectal invasion of prostate cancer. No comorbidities other than renal dysfunction were observed. Oxycodone treatment was started at 48 mg/day, and was increased to 108 mg/day, and then the pain decreased. Once the pain was controlled, chemotherapy was planned. Antiemetics (dexamethasone, palonosetron, and aprepitant) were administered before anticancer drug administration. Approximately 3 hours after antiemetics administration and before the administration of the anticancer drugs, a ward nurse noticed that oversedation and respiratory depression had occurred. When the patient was called, he immediately woke up and was able to talk normally, so the anticancer drugs were administered as scheduled. About 2 hours after the nurse noticed oversedation, the attending physician reduced the dose of oxycodone infusion to 48 mg/day. After that, his drowsiness persisted, but his respiratory condition improved. Despite reducing the dose of oxycodone to less than half, the pain remained stable at numeric rating scale (NRS) 0-1, without the use of a rescue dose. The patient was discharged from the hospital 36 days after the administration of anticancer drugs, without any problems. CONCLUSIONS: The cause of respiratory depression in this case was thought to be a combination of factors, including drug interactions between oxycodone and antiemetics, and oxycodone accumulation due to renal dysfunction.

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.

Analysis of influencing factors and construction of prediction model for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing number of bariatric surgeries, the high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) associated with this surgery has also gradually attracted attention. Among the common bariatric surgery methods, patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) have the highest incidence of nausea and vomiting. The mechanism of occurrence of PONV is very complex. This study aims to explore the influencing factors of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and construct a nomogram prediction model based on these factors. METHODS: With the approval of the Ethics Committee, the electronic medical records of patients who underwent LSG from July 2022 to May 2023 were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients with complete medical records who underwent LSG from July 2022 to May 2023 were included in this study. Among them, 46 patients developed PONV, resulting in a PONV incidence rate of 40.4%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that female gender, the use of inhalation anesthesia, and operation time ≥ 120 min were risk factors for PONV in LSG. Additionally, the use of more than two kinds of antiemetic drugs was identified as a protective factor. Based on these factors, a nomogram model was constructed. CONCLUSION: PONV in patients undergoing LSG is related to gender, type of anesthesia, duration of surgery, and combination therapy with antiemetic drugs. The nomogram prediction model constructed in this study demonstrates high accuracy and discrimination in predicting the occurrence of PONV in patients undergoing LSG.

The efficacy and safety of perioperative glucocorticoid for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of individuals undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which can result in pain, limited motor function and adverse complications such as infection, nausea and vomiting. Glucocorticoids have been shown anti-inflammatory and antiemetic effects, but can also elevate blood glucose levels and increase the risk of wound infection. Thus, it is essential to investigate the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoid usage in TKA. METHOD: A comprehensive systematic search of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of glucocorticoid application in TKA. The primary outcomes assessed were the postoperative pain assessment. Secondary outcomes included the range of motion in knee joint, levels of inflammatory cytokines, adverse complications, and the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized controlled trials were included in the final analysis. The glucocorticoid group exhibited significant reduction in the resting VAS scores on postoperative days 1, 2 (POD1, 2)and postoperative 3 months (POM3), as well as decreased morphine consumption on POD1 and increased range of motion (ROM) in knee joint on POD1, 3. Additionally, the glucocorticoid group exhibited decreased levels of postoperative inflammatory cytokines and the incidence of PONV along with a shorter length of hospital stay. The blood glucose concentration was significantly increased in the glucocorticoid group on POD1 compared with the control group. While the blood glucose on POD2 and occurrence of postoperative adverse complications were similar between two groups including wound infection and venous thrombosis. The periarticular injection analgesia (PIA) group demonstrated lower VAS scores on POD2 comparing to the systemic administration (SA) group according to two studies. However, there was no significant difference of the resting VAS on POD1 and POD2 between PIA and SA group across all studies. CONCLUSION: Perioperative glucocorticoids treatment in TKA significantly reduced short-term pain score and opioid-use which was probably not patient relevant. The application of glucocorticoids in TKA implied a beneficial trend in analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antiemetic effects, as well as improved range of motion and shortened hospital stay. While it will not increase the risk of continued high glucose, postoperative wound infection and venous thrombosis.

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.

Trends in low-value cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and change in low-value cancer services. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we used administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, a repository of medical and pharmacy data from US health plans representing more than 80 million members, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021. METHODS: We used linear probability models to investigate the relation between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and 4 guideline-based metrics of low-value cancer care: (1) conventional fractionation radiotherapy instead of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer; (2) non-guideline-based antiemetic use for minimal-, low-, or moderate- to high-risk chemotherapies; (3) off-pathway systemic therapy; and (4) aggressive end-of-life care. We identified patients with new diagnoses of breast, colorectal, and/or lung cancer. We excluded members who did not have at least 6 months of continuous insurance coverage and members with prevalent cancers. RESULTS: Among 117,116 members (median [IQR] age, 60 [53-69] years; 72.4% women), 59,729 (51.0%) had breast cancer, 25,751 (22.0%) had colorectal cancer, and 31,862 (27.2%) had lung cancer. The payer mix was 18.7% Medicare Advantage or Medicare supplemental and 81.2% commercial non-Medicare. Rates of low-value cancer services exhibited minimal changes during the pandemic, as adjusted percentage-point differences were 3.93 (95% CI, 1.50-6.36) for conventional radiotherapy, 0.82 (95% CI, -0.62 to 2.25) for off-pathway systemic therapy, -3.62 (95% CI, -4.97 to -2.27) for non-guideline-based antiemetics, and 2.71 (95% CI, -0.59 to 6.02) for aggressive end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Low-value cancer care remained prevalent throughout the pandemic. Policy makers should consider changes to payment and incentive design to turn the tide against low-value cancer care.

2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

The emerging emetogenicity of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS­102) from patient self-reporting: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0. RESULTS: Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-58.5, P = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50-5.21, P = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment.

Inconsistency in steroid use as antiemetics in clinical trial protocols involving immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the use of steroids as antiemetics in clinical trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy. METHODS: Focusing on phase III trials registered before August 2023, it evaluated the consistency of steroid use guidelines. RESULTS: Out of 3452 trials screened, 44 were selected for in-depth review. The findings indicate a considerable variation: 13 trials did not specify the use of antiemetics, while 31 provided criteria for antiemetics, with 13 conforming to local standards, six to international guidelines, and five allowing either. Seven trials recommended effective antiemetics without detailed criteria. This inconsistency led to a range of steroid dosages, with only 11 trials advocating for minimizing or avoiding steroids for antiemetic purposes. CONCLUSION: The research highlights the lack of uniformity in antiemetic steroid use in trials, reflecting diverse clinical practices and underscoring the need for further research to understand the implications on treatment outcomes.

Olanzapine as a prophylactic antiemetic for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The antiemetic effectiveness of olanzapine, as a prophylactic off-label antiemetic drug, for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors evaluate the efficacy and side effects of olanzapine as a prophylactic antiemetic in adult patients who undergo general anesthesia and assess adverse effects. METHODS: A systematic search was done on electronic bibliographic databases in July 2023. Randomized controlled trials of olanzapine as a prophylactic antiemetic for PONV in adults who underwent general anesthesia were included. The authors excluded non-RCTs and retracted studies. The authors set no date of publication or language limits. The outcomes were the incidence of PONV within 24 h postoperatively and the safety of olanzapine. The risk of bias was assessed according to the tool suggested by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. RESULTS: Meta-analysis included 446 adult patients. Olanzapine reduced on average 38 % the incidence of PONV. The estimated risk ratio (95 % CI) of olanzapine versus control was 0.62 (0.42-0.90), p = 0.010, I2 = 67 %. In the subgroup meta-analysis, doses of olanzapine (10 mg) reduced on average 49 % of the incidence of PONV (RR = 0.51 [0.34-0.77], p = 0.001, I2 = 31 %). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review with meta-analysis indicated that olanzapine as a prophylactic antiemetic alone or combined with other antiemetic agents reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, this conclusion must be presented with some degree of uncertainty due to the small number of studies included. There was a lack of any evidence to draw conclusions on side effects.

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.

Intraoperative Prophylaxis with Palonosetron for Postoperative Nausea and/or Vomiting in Adults Undergoing Cardiothoracic Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of palonosetron, alone or with dexamethasone, in reducing postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) and its impact on hospitalization duration in patients who undergo adult cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) under general anesthesia. DESIGN: This retrospective analysis involved 540 adult patients who underwent CTS from a single-center cohort, spanning surgeries between September 2021 and March 2023. Sensitivity, logistic, and Cox regression analyses evaluated antiemetic effects, PONV risk factors, and outcomes. SETTING: At the Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC), Seattle, WA. PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing cardiothoracic surgery at VMMC during the specified period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were categorized into the following 4 groups based on antiemetic treatment: dexamethasone, palonosetron, dexamethasone with palonosetron, and no antiemetic. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes encompassed PONV incidence within 96 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit stay duration and postoperative opioid use. Palonosetron recipients showed a significantly lower PONV rate of 42% (v controls at 63%). The dexamethasone and palonosetron combined group also demonstrated a lower rate of 40%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a notably lower 0- to 12-hour PONV rate for palonosetron recipients (9% v control at 28%). Logistic regression found decreased PONV risk (palonosetron odds ratio [OR]: 0.24; dexamethasone and palonosetron OR: 0.26). Cox regression identified varying PONV hazard ratios related to female sex, PONV history, and lower body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: This single-center retrospective study underscored palonosetron's efficacy, alone or combined with dexamethasone, in managing PONV among adult patients who undergo CTS. These findings contribute to evolving antiemetic strategies in cardiothoracic surgery, potentially impacting patient outcomes and satisfaction positively.

Exploring the role of ghrelin and des-acyl ghrelin in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Ghrelin and its mimetics have been shown to reduce cisplatin-induced emesis in preclinical studies using ferrets and shrews. This study investigated the effectiveness of ghrelin and des-acyl ghrelin (DAG) in antagonizing cisplatin-induced emesis and physiological changes indicative of nausea in Suncus murinus. Animals implanted with radiotelemetry devices were administered ghrelin (0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 µg/day), DAG (0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 µg/day), or saline (14 µL/day) intracerebroventricularly 4 days before and 3 days after treatment with cisplatin (30 mg/kg). At the end, the anti-apoptotic potentials of ghrelin and DAG were assessed by measuring Bax expression and cytochrome C activity. Neurotransmitter changes in the brain were evaluated using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. Ghrelin and DAG reduced cisplatin-induced emesis in the delayed (24-72 h) but not the acute phase (0-24 h) of emesis. Ghrelin also partially reversed the inhibitory effects of cisplatin on food intake without affecting gastrointestinal myoelectrical activity or causing hypothermia; however, ghrelin or DAG did not prevent these effects. Ghrelin and DAG could attenuate the cisplatin-induced upregulation of Bax and cytochrome C in the ileum. Cisplatin dysregulated neurotransmitter levels in the frontal cortex, amygdala, thalamus, hypothalamus, and brainstem, and this was partially restored by low doses of ghrelin and DAG. Our findings suggest that ghrelin and DAG exhibit protective effects against cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. The underlying antiemetic mechanism may involve GHSR and/or unspecified pathways that modulate the neurotransmitters involved in emesis control in the brain and an action to attenuate apoptosis in the gastrointestinal tract.

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

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We aimed to compare the effects of aprepitant on the incidence of PONV after LSG. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, the case group received the standard care regimen for PONV (dexamethasone 10 mg, ondansetron 4 mg, and metoclopramide 10 mg) plus prophylactic oral aprepitant 80 mg 1 h preoperatively. The control group received standard care plus a placebo. Comparative analyses using the Rhodes index were performed at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients (201 in the aprepitant group and 199 in the placebo group) underwent LSG. The groups were homogeneous. The aprepitant group experienced less PONV: early, 69 (34.3%) vs. 103 (51.7%), p ≤ 0.001; 6 h, 67 (33.3%) vs. 131 (65.8%), p ≤ 0.001; 12 h, 41 (20.4%) vs. 115 (57.8%), p ≤ 0.001; and 24 h, 22 (10.9%) vs. 67 (33.7%), p ≤ 0.001. Fewer patients in the aprepitant group vomited: early, 3 (1.5%) vs. 5 (2.5%), p = 0.020; 6 h, 6 (3%) vs. 18 (9%), p = 0.020; 12 h, 2 (1%) vs. 17 (8.5%), p = 0.006; and 24 h, 1 (0.5%) vs. 6 (3%), p = 0.040. Patients in the aprepitant group required less additional PONV medication: early, 61 (30.3%) vs. 86 (43.2), p = 0.008; 6 h, 7 (3.5%) vs. 34 (17%), p = 0.001; 12 h, 6 (3%) vs. 31 (15.6%), p ≤ 0.001; and 24 h, 5 (2.5%) vs. 11 (5.5%), p ≤ 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic aprepitant improved PONV between 0 h (early) and 24 h postoperatively in patients undergoing LSG.

The Impact of Preoperative Dexamethasone Administration on Quality of Recovery Following Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Recovery from anesthesia is complex and affected by multiple factors. In patient with obesity, the increased prevalence of anxiety and depressive disorders poses a challenge in achieving optimal patient satisfaction. Therefore, strategies to enhance the quality of recovery are crucial for this population. This study aimed to investigate whether administration of dexamethasone to patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) could improve recovery outcomes. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary university hospital in Samsun, Turkey. Thirty patients who received dexamethasone prior to LSG (group D) and 30 patients who did not (group C) were included with convenience sampling method. The quality of recovery was assessed using the Quality of Recovery 40 questionnaire (QoR-40). The primary outcome measure was the QoR-40 score at 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: The dexamethasone group showed a significant improvement in QoR-40 scores (185.4 ± 6.0 vs. 172.0 ± 8.4, p < 0.001), exhibited reduced morphine consumption (11.8 ± 7.8 vs. 21.8 ± 10.9 mg, p < 0.001), opioid demand count (21.50 [9.50-49.00], p = 0.001), the number of patient used antiemetic drug (1 vs. 22, p < 0.001), and achieved earlier mobilization (3 [3-4] vs. 3 [3-4] h, p < 0.0001). However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups concerning intraoperative complications, postoperative wound infections, or time to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, preoperative dexamethasone administration was associated with improved the recovery quality after discharge and reduced early postoperative need for antiemetic medications.

Nausea and Vomiting as Initial Manifestations of Pediatric NMOSD.

Intractable nausea and vomiting are commonly attributed to gastrointestinal (GI) conditions but can sometimes be a symptom of an underlying central nervous system disease. One potentially overlooked neurologic cause of intractable nausea and vomiting that is refractory to antiemetics is area postrema syndrome (APS). APS is a condition characterized by lesions of the dorsal caudal medulla and is considered a core clinical feature of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). APS is present in up to 30% of patients ultimately diagnosed with NMOSD and can be the first presenting symptom of NMOSD in 12% of patients, as our case illustrates. Importantly, APS is highly responsive to immunotherapy. We present the case of a 14-year-old female with a history of migraines who presented to the emergency department multiple times for persistent nausea, vomiting, and hiccups. Multiple GI diagnoses were considered until she developed additional neurologic symptoms that prompted further workup and revealed the final diagnosis of NMOSD-APS. We posit that NMOSD-APS should be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients with intractable nausea and vomiting, especially in patients with a negative GI workup result and poor response to antiemetics.

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.

Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting Incidence After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With Pretreatment With Haloperidol and Ondansetron: A Randomization Clinical Trial Study.

OBJECTIVE: Nausea and vomiting after surgery are the most common complications. Therefore, we performed this study to compare the effect of ondansetron and haloperidol on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 60 patients candidates for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were allocated to haloperidol (0.05 mg/kg, n = 30) and ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg, n = 30) groups. An Ocular Analog Scale was used to assess postoperative nausea and vomiting. Every 15 minutes in the recovery room, heart rate and blood pressure were measured up to 6 hours after surgery. In addition, patient satisfaction was assessed postoperatively. RESULTS: Haloperidol and ondansetron have the same effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward. It was found that the trend of Visual Analog Scale variable changes in the recovery room was similar in the haloperidol and ondansetron group ( P = 0.58); it was also true for the ward ( P = 0.79). Comparing the length of stay in a recovery room in the 2 groups was not statistically significant ( P = 0.19). In addition, the 2 groups did not differ in satisfaction postoperatively ( P = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Haloperidol and ondansetron had an equal effect on reducing nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patient satisfaction and length of stay in the recovery room did not differ between groups.

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.

Retrospective analysis of real-world prescribing data for managing cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in China.

BACKGROUND: The current utilization of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) and the impact of updated guidelines on prescription patterns of antiemetic drugs among Chinese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remain undetermined. This study aims to analyze the present situation of Chinese cancer patients using antiemetic drugs and assess the appropriateness of antiemetic regimens. METHODS: Prescription data were collected between January 2015 and December 2020 from cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy at 76 hospitals in six major cities in China. Trends in the use of antiemetic drugs, prescribing patterns and adherence to antiemetic guidelines were assessed. RESULTS: Among the 108,611 patients included in this study, 6 classes and 17 antiemetic drugs were identified as monotherapy or combination therapy in 93,872 patients (86.4%), whereas 14,739 patients (13.6%) were administered no antiemetic treatment. 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) and glucocorticoids were the two most frequently used classes of antiemetics, followed by metoclopramide. NK1RAs were underused across the six cities, only 9332 (8.6%) and 1655 (1.5%) cisplatin-based treatments were prescribed aprepitant and fosaprepitant, respectively. Prescriptions of olanzapine and lorazepam were very low throughout the study period. In prescribing patterns of antiemetic drugs, dual combination regimens were the most common (40.0%), followed by triple combination therapy and monotherapy (25.8% and 15.1%, respectively). Overall, the adherence to antiemetic guidelines for patients undergoing cisplatin-based regimens was only 8.1% due to inadequate prescription of antiemetic drugs. Finally, our study also revealed that 5-HT3RAs and glucocorticoids were overprescribed in 8.8% and 1.6% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The current study reveals suboptimal utilization of recommended antiemetic drugs for managing cisplatin-based HEC-induced nausea and vomiting in China. Improving the management of CINV is crucial, and these findings provide valuable insights into optimizing antiemetic drug practices.