Fosaprepitant versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who undergo gynecologic abdominal surgery with patient-controlled epidural analgesia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Despite the availability of several classes of antiemetics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a substantial burden for patients following surgery, resulting in patient dissatisfaction and prolonged stays in post-anesthesia care units and ultimately increasing the cost of care. Enhanced recovery protocols and PONV management guidelines are now centered on the assessment of the individual patient's risk for developing PONV, as well as multimodal prophylaxis using antiemetics targeting different mechanisms of action. Over the last two decades, the neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) has emerged as a therapeutic target for the management of PONV. This review of the literature explains the role of the NK1R and its ligand-substance P-in vomiting, describes the pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties of NK1R antagonists (NK1RAs) and summarizes the clinical evidence supporting NK1RAs for PONV prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery. In particular, we discuss the therapeutic application of NK1RA in PONV prophylaxis protocols owing to their advantages over other antiemetic classes in efficacy, duration of efficacy, safety, pharmacology, and ease of administration. Future studies will be aimed at further investigating the efficacy and safety of NK1RA-based multimodal combinations, particularly among vulnerable populations (e.g., children and elderly).

A pharmacological overview of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 30% of all patients undergoing surgery and up to 80% of high-risk patients. Antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis target a variety of receptor systems, with varying degrees of efficacy and side effect profile. Neurokinin -1 receptor antagonists are the most recent class of compounds investigated for PONV prophylaxis, with aprepitant being the only one currently approved for this indication.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pathophysiology of PONV, current recommendations for PONV prophylaxis, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of aprepitant, and the evidence for its efficacy in the management of PONV as a single agent and in combination therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Aprepitant is effective for PONV prophylaxis. It has superior antivomiting efficacy, long half-life, and favorable side effect profile. Data on antiemetic combinations involving aprepitant are limited, and it not clear if the addition of other antiemetics to aprepitant result in improved PONV prophylaxis. The oral route of administration of aprepitant is a potential limitation in a busy clinical practice. However, the recent approval of an intravenous formulation could provide a more convenient route of administration. Aprepitant remains more expensive than other antiemetics, and there are no studies assessing the cost effectiveness of its use.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Breast and Gynecological Surgery: A Narrative Review of Risk Factors and Prophylaxis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have been widely studied as a multifactorial entity, being of female gender the strongest risk factor. Reported PONV incidence in female surgical populations is extremely variable among randomized clinical trials. In this narrative review, we intend to summarize the incidence, independent predictors, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for PONV reported in recently published clinical trials carried out in female patients undergoing breast and gynecologic surgery, as well as the implications of the anesthetic agents on the incidence of PONV. A literature search of manuscripts describing PONV management in female surgical populations (breast surgery and gynecologic surgery) was carried out in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence were highly variable in patients receiving placebo or no prophylaxis among RCTs whereas consistent results were observed in patients receiving 1 or 2 prophylactic interventions for PONV. Despite efforts made, a considerable number of female patients still experienced significant PONV. It is critical for the anesthesia provider to be aware that the coexistence of independent risk factors such as the level of sex hormones (pre- and postmenopausal), preoperative anxiety or depression, pharmacogenomic pleomorphisms, and ethnicity further enhances the probability of experiencing PONV in female patients. Future RCTs should closely assess the overall risk of PONV in female patients considering patient- and surgery-related factors, and the level of compliance with current guidelines for prevention and management of PONV.

Comparative Study Between Fosaprepitant and Palonosetron in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Prospective, Randomized and Double-Blind Study

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the single use of fosaprepitant is not inferior to the use of palonosetron as antiemetic prophylaxis in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Method: Eighty-eight nonsmoking women (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II) aged between 18 and 60 years who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy received 150 mg of fosaprepitant or 75 μg of palonosetron, administered intravenously after the induction of general anesthesia. Results: In the fosaprepitant group and in the palonosetron group, 13.6 and 18.2% of the patients, respectively, vomited in the first 48 h after surgery (p = 0.560). There were no differences between groups in the total frequency and intensity of nausea, number of complete responders, need for rescue medication, time required for the first rescue medication dose or number of adverse events. Conclusion: The administration of a single dose of fosaprepitant after the induction of anesthesia was as effective as the administration of a single dose of palonosetron for the prophylaxis of vomiting in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Neurokinin-1 Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are the second most frequent adverse events after surgery second only to postoperative pain. Despite the advances in antiemetics and implementation of multimodal prophylactic interventions, the clinical management of PONV remains problematic. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor is a tachykinin receptor found throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems, with a particular affinity towards substance P. NK-1 receptors interact with several parts of the neuronal pathway for nausea and vomiting. This includes the chemoreceptor trigger zone, the gastrointestinal tract, and dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus. NK-1 antagonists are thought to prevent nausea and vomiting by downregulating the emetogenic signals at those points. As more head-to-head trials are conducted between the various anti-emetics, there is emerging evidence that NK-1 antagonists may be more effective in preventing PONV than several other antiemetics currently in use. In this review, we will discuss the pharmacology of NK-1 antagonists, their efficacy in clinical practice, and how they could fit into the framework of PONV management.

Blocking substance P signaling reduces musculotendinous and dermal fibrosis and sensorimotor declines in a rat model of overuse injury

Purpose/Aim: Substance P-NK-1R signaling has been implicated in fibrotic tendinopathies and myositis. Blocking this signaling with a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) has been proposed as a therapeutic target for their treatment.Materials and Methods: Using a rodent model of overuse injury, we pharmacologically blocked Substance P using a specific NK1RA with the hopes of reducing forelimb tendon, muscle and dermal fibrogenic changes and associated pain-related behaviors. Young adult rats learned to pull at high force levels across a 5-week period, before performing a high repetition high force (HRHF) task for 3 weeks (2 h/day, 3 days/week). HRHF rats were untreated or treated in task weeks 2 and 3 with the NK1RA, i.p. Control rats received vehicle or NK1RA treatments.Results: Grip strength declined in untreated HRHF rats, and mechanical sensitivity and temperature aversion increased compared to controls; these changes were improved by NK1RA treatment (L-732,138). NK1RA treatment also reduced HRHF-induced thickening in flexor digitorum epitendons, and HRHF-induced increases of TGFbeta1, CCN2/CTGF, and collagen type 1 in flexor digitorum muscles. In the forepaw upper dermis, task-induced increases in collagen deposition were reduced by NK1RA treatment.Conclusions: Our findings indicate that Substance P plays a role in the development of fibrogenic responses and subsequent discomfort in forelimb tissues involved in performing a high demand repetitive forceful task.

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

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

[Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

BACKGROUND

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of general anesthesia. Several kinds of antiemetics, including 5-Hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists and Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, have been used to treat PONV.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the antiemetic effect of NK-1 receptor antagonists, including fosaprepitant.

DATA SOURCES

Online databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library databases) were used.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) performed in patients over 18 years with ASA-PS of I-III, aimed to assess the efficacy of antiemetics including NK-1 receptor antagonists and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and compared the incidence of PONV were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

All statistical assessments were conducted by a random effect approach and odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Aprepitant 40mg and 80mg significantly reduced the incidence of vomiting 0-24hours postoperatively (Odds Ratio [OR = 0.40]; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI 0.30-0.54]; p < 0.001, and OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.56; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant could also reduce the incidence of vomiting significantly both 0-24h and 0-48hours postoperatively (OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; p < 0.001 and OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.23; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Risk factors for PONV are not considered, RCTs using multiple antiemetics are included, RCTs for fosaprepitant is small, and some bias may be present.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant can be effective prophylactic antiemetics for postoperative vomiting. However, more studies are required for higher-quality meta-analyses.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019120188.

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting following lower limb surgery :a comparison between single-injection intraarticular anesthesia and continuous epidural anesthesia

Study Objective : the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following single-injection intraarticular anesthesia was compared to that following continuous epidural anesthesia. Design : Prospective, double-blind, randomized study. Setting : University-affiliated teaching hospital. Patients : Forty-eight patients finally participated in this study, and each group contained twenty-four patients. Interventions : Patients scheduled to undergo lower limb surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups, to receive either single-injection intraarticular or continuous epidural anesthesia for postoperative analgesia. Measurements : The incidence and severity of PONV, complete response rates (i.e., no vomiting or rescue antiemetic use), and pain scores were recorded 2, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. Main results : No significant differences between groups were observed in the incidence and severity of PONV, rescue antiemetic use, or complete response rate at any of the time points, but only the use of rescue analgesics was significantly less in continuous epidural anesthesia group during the 2-24h postoperative period (P=0.04). Conclusion : While the use of single-injection intraarticular anesthesia following lower limb surgery did not prevent PONV more than continuous epidural anesthesia in this study, the intraarticular technique still provides greater simplicity, safety, and cost-effectiveness. J. Med. Invest. 66 : 303-307, August, 2019.

Neurokinin-1 receptor-based bivalent drugs in pain management: The journey to nowhere?

Hybrid compounds (also known as chimeras, designed multiple ligands, bivalent compounds) are chemical units where two active components, usually possessing affinity and selectivity for distinct molecular targets, are combined as a single chemical entity. The rationale for using a chimeric approach is well documented as such novel drugs are characterized by their enhanced enzymatic stability and biological activity. This allows their use at lower concentrations, increasing their safety profile, particularly when considering undesirable side effects. In the group of synthetic bivalent compounds, drugs combining pharmacophores having affinities toward opioid and neurokinin-1 receptors have been extensively studied as potential analgesic drugs. Indeed, substance P is known as a major endogenous modulator of nociception both in the peripheral and central nervous systems. Hence, synthetic peptide fragments showing either agonism or antagonism at neurokinin 1 receptor were both assigned with analgesic properties. However, even though preclinical studies designated neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists as promising analgesics, early clinical studies revealed a lack of efficacy in human. Nevertheless, their molecular combination with enkephalin/endomorphin fragments has been considered as a valuable approach to design putatively promising ligands for the treatment of pain. This paper is aimed at summarizing a 20-year journey to the development of potent analgesic hybrid compounds involving an opioid pharmacophore and devoid of unwanted side effects. Additionally, the legitimacy of considering neurokinin-1 receptor ligands in the design of chimeric drugs is discussed.

A Comparison of Fosaprepitant and Ondansetron for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Moderate to High Risk Patients: A Retrospective Database Analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occur in 30–50% of patients undergoing general anesthesia and in 70–80% of high PONV risk patients. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist, compared to ondansetron, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in moderate to high PONV risk patients from our previous randomized controlled trials. Patients (171 patients from 4 pooled studies) with the Apfel simplified score ≥ 2 and undergoing general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive intravenous fosaprepitant 150 mg (NK1 group, n = 82) and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (ONS group, n = 89) before induction of anesthesia. Incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the NK1 group compared to the ONS group 0–2, 0–24, and 0–48 hours after surgery (2 versus 17%, 2 versus 28%, and 2 versus 29%, resp.). However, no significant differences in PONV, complete response, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea score were observed between groups 0–48 hours after surgery. In moderate to high PONV risk patients, fosaprepitant decreased the incidence of vomiting and was superior to ondansetron in preventing postoperative vomiting 0–48 hours after surgery.

Fosaprepitant versus droperidol for prevention of PONV in craniotomy: a randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after craniotomy. Vomiting may be a potentially hazardous complication in neurosurgical patients. We compared the efficacy of fosaprepitant and droperidol for the prevention of PONV, vomiting in particular, after craniotomy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy were enrolled in the study and randomly divided in a double-blind manner into two groups to receive either 150 mg of fosaprepitant (group F) or 1.25 mg of droperidol (group D). Dexamethasone (9.9 mg) was given to all patients, except those with diabetes mellitus. The incidence of PONV, frequency of vomiting, nausea score, and use of rescue antiemetic during the first 72 h after surgery were assessed at five time intervals (0-2, 2-6, 6-24, 24-48, and 48-72 h).

RESULTS

Of the 200 randomized patients eligible for entry into the study, 186 were ultimately included for analysis. There were no significant differences in demographics or intraoperative variables between the two treatment groups. Over the entire 72-h post-craniotomy observation period the overall and cumulative incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in group F patients than in group D patients, while there were no between-group differences in the overall and cumulative incidence of PONV or in complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic). The incidence and frequency of vomiting during each of the five observational periods were significantly lower in group F patients than group D patients, although there were no differences in the nausea score and antiemetic use between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, fosaprepitant was more effective than droperidol in the prevention of vomiting after craniotomy over the entire 72-h study period. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea and antiemetic use.