Economic and clinical burden of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting

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.

Case report: The lesson from opioid withdrawal symptoms mimicking paraganglioma recurrence during opioid deprescribing in cancer pain

Pain is one of the predominant and troublesome symptoms that burden cancer patients during their whole disease trajectory: adequate pain management is a fundamental component of cancer care. Opioid are the cornerstone of cancer pain relief therapy and their skillful management must be owned by physicians approaching cancer pain patients. In light of the increased survival of cancer patients due to advances in therapy, deprescription should be considered as a part of the opioid prescribing regime, from therapy initiation, dose titration, and changing or adding drugs, to switching or ceasing. In clinical practice, opioid tapering after pain remission could be challenging due to withdrawal symptoms' onset. Animal models and observations in patients with opioid addiction suggested that somatic and motivational symptoms accompanying opioid withdrawal are secondary to the activation of stress-related process (mainly cortisol and catecholamines mediated). In this narrative review, we highlight how the lack of validated guidelines and tools for cancer patients can lead to a lower diagnostic awareness of opioid-related disorders, increasing the risk of developing withdrawal symptoms. We also described an experience-based approach to opioid withdrawal, starting from a case-report of a symptomatic patient with a history of metastatic pheochromocytoma-paraganglioma.

Acupuncture combined with opioids for cancer pain: a pilot pragmatic randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Given the existing evidence for the analgesic effect of acupuncture, the current study aimed to assess whether acupuncture could be feasible and manageable as an adjunctive therapy for cancer pain in a real-world hospital setting.

METHODS

Thirty patients in an Oncology department with moderate or severe pain were recruited and randomized to an adjunctive acupuncture group or control group, who received pharmacotherapy for pain management without acupuncture. The duration of the treatment course was 1 week with a 2-week follow-up. In total, four acupuncture sessions were administered, on days 1/2/4/6 of the trial. Pain intensity was measured using a numerical rating scale (NRS) and the daily opioid dose was recorded.

RESULTS

The overall trends favored acupuncture for both pain intensity and daily opioid consumption. The proportion of participants experiencing at least a 2-point reduction in the NRS at the end of the treatment was 93% (n = 14/15) for the acupuncture group and 57% (n = 8/14) for the control group (risk difference (RD) 36.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [7.4%-65.0%]; relative risk (RR) 1.63, 95% CI [1.02-2.62]; p = 0.04). There were no serious adverse events and no dropouts during the treatment.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study showed that adding acupuncture to routine analgesia for patients with cancer pain was feasible and acceptable to patients. The clinical effects of adding acupuncture as an adjunctive therapy need to be further evaluated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1800017023 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry).

The impact of ultrasound-guided transmuscular quadratus lumborum block combined with local infiltration analgesia for arthroplasty on postoperative pain relief

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound-guided transmuscular quadratus lumborum block (QLB) combined with local infiltration analgesia (LIA) for pain management and recovery in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) via a posterolateral approach.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

We collected data in the preoperative area, operating room, and bed ward.

PATIENTS

A total of 80 patients with American Society of Anesthesiology functional status scores of II-III were included and assigned to two groups, and all 80 patients were included in the final analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

All included patients were randomly assigned to the nerve block (group N) or the control group (group C). Patients in the group N received transmuscular QLB combined with LIA, while patients in the group C received only LIA.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was postoperative pain during the first active motion: it was measured at six hours after surgery and assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were the resting VAS scores in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and at 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery; VAS scores during motion at 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery; intraoperative consumption of opioids; postoperative consumption of morphine hydrochloride; frequency of sleep interruption due to pain on the night of surgery; time until the first "walk out of the bed" after surgery; muscle strength of the quadriceps femoris; and postoperative adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

Compared to the group C, patients in the group N had significantly lower VAS scores during motion at 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery, as well as lower resting VAS scores in the PACU and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Patients in the group N also consumed significantly smaller amounts of intraoperative opioids and morphine after surgery. Patients in the group N reported significantly fewer interruptions in sleep due to pain on the night of surgery and were able to "walk out of the bed" significantly earlier than those in the group C. There was no significant difference between the two groups in muscle strength of the quadriceps femoris or incidence of postoperative adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to treatment with LIA alone, ultrasound-guided transmuscular QLB combined with LIA can provide better postoperative pain relief and enhance the recovery of THA patients, since it does not cause quadriceps femoris muscle weakness and is associated with significantly lower need for intraoperative opioids.

Morphine in the Setting of Acute Heart Failure: Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits?

The use of opioids in acute pulmonary oedema is considered standard therapy by many physicians. The immediate relieving effect of morphine on the key symptomatic discomfort associated with acute heart failure, dyspnoea, facilitated the categorisation of morphine as a beneficial treatment in this setting. During the last decade, several retrospective studies raised concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of morphine in the setting of acute heart failure. In this article, the physiological effects of morphine on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems are summarised, as well as the potential clinical benefits and risks associated with morphine therapy. Finally, the reported clinical outcomes and adverse event profiles from recent observational studies are discussed, as well as future perspectives and potential alternatives to morphine in the setting of acute heart failure.

Should Antiemetics be Given Prophylactically with Intravenous Opioids While Treating Acute Pain in the Emergency Department?: Clinical Practice Paper Approved by American Academy of Emergency Medicine Clinical Guidelines Committee

BACKGROUND

It is common practice for emergency physicians to give parenteral opioids for acute pain, however, some treating physicians have concerns that using parenteral opioids can lead to nausea and vomiting when used alone. Therefore, antiemetics are often given prophylactically with opioids for nausea and vomiting in the emergency department (ED). This systematic review evaluates the use of prophylactic antiemetics with parenteral opioids for the treatment of acute pain in the ED.

METHODS

A 10-year literature search using keywords was performed in PubMed for English-language human studies. Abstracts were screened to identify high-quality studies, which then underwent a more rigorous structured review. The recommendations are made based on the literature review.

RESULTS

Eight articles met criteria for structured review and citation in this article. These include one review article, two randomized controlled trials, three prospective observational trials, one retrospective study, and one pre- and post-intervention trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the literature review, routine use of prophylactic antiemetics are not indicated with administration of parenteral opioids for treatment of acute pain in the ED, as nausea and vomiting are infrequent side effects. The recent literature clearly demonstrates that there are potential undesirable side effects from the use of antiemetics when using opioids. However, one subgroup of patients, those with a known history of nausea and vomiting after opioid use or a history of travel sickness, may benefit from the use of prophylactic antiemetic when being treated with parenteral opioids.

Risk factors for opioid use after total shoulder arthroplasty

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to assess opioid use before and after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and determine patient factors associated with prolonged postoperative opioid use.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary TSA (anatomic or reverse) were identified within the Humana database from 2007 to 2015. Patients were categorized as opioid-naive patients who did not fill a prescription prior to surgery or those who filled opioid prescriptions within 3 months preoperatively (OU); the OU cohort was subdivided into those filling opioid prescriptions within 1 month preoperatively and those filling opioid prescriptions between 1 and 3 months preoperatively. The incidence of opioid use was evaluated preoperatively and longitudinally tracked for each cohort. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with opioid use at 12 months after surgery, with statistical significance defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Overall, 12,038 patients (5180 in OU cohort, 43%) underwent primary TSA during the study period. Opioid use declined after the first postoperative month; however, the incidence of opioid use was significantly higher in the OU cohort than in the opioid-naive cohort at 1 year (31.4% vs. 3.1%, P < .0001). Subgroup analysis revealed a similar decline in postoperative opioid use for anatomic and reverse TSA (P < .0001 for both). Multivariate analysis identified chronic preoperative opioid use (ie, filling an opioid prescription between 1 and 3 months prior to surgery) as the strongest risk factor for opioid use at 12 months after anatomic and reverse TSA (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

More than 40% of patients undergoing TSA received opioid medications within 3 months before surgery. Preoperative opioid use, age younger than 65 years, and fibromyalgia were independent risk factors for opioid use 1 year following anatomic and reverse TSA. Chronic preoperative opioid use conferred the highest risk of prolonged postoperative opioid use.

Postoperative intravenous parecoxib sodium followed by oral celecoxib post total knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis patients (PIPFORCE): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the morphine-sparing effects of the sequential treatment versus placebo in subjects undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the effects on pain relief, inflammation control and functional rehabilitation after TKA and safety.

DESIGN

Double-blind, pragmatic, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Four tertiary hospitals in China.

PARTICIPANTS

246 consecutive patients who underwent elective unilateral TKA because of osteoarthritis (OA).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised 1:1 to the parecoxib/celecoxib group or the control group. The patients in the parecoxib/celecoxib group were supplied sequential treatment with intravenous parecoxib 40 mg (every 12 hours) for the first 3 days after surgery, followed by oral celecoxib 200 mg (every 12 hours) for up to 6 weeks. The patients in the control group were supplied with the corresponding placebo under the same instructions.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks post operation (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints included the Knee Society Score, patient-reported outcomes and the cumulative opioid consumption.

RESULTS

The cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks was significantly smaller in the parecoxib/celecoxib group than in the control group (median difference, 57.31 (95% CI 34.66 to 110.33)). The parecoxib/celecoxib group achieving superior Knee Society Scores and EQ-5D scores and greater Visual Analogue Scale score reduction during 6 weeks. Interleukin 6, erythrocyte sedation rate and C-reactive protein levels were reduced at 72 hours, 2 weeks and 4 weeks and prostaglandin E2 levels were reduced at 48 hours and 72 hours in the parecoxib/celecoxib group compared with the placebo group. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was significantly lower in the parecoxib/celecoxib group.

CONCLUSIONS

The sequential intravenous parecoxib followed by oral celecoxib regimen reduces morphine consumption, achieves better pain control and functional recovery and leads to less AEs than placebo after TKA for OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02198924).

Efficacy And Safety Of Controlled-Release Oxycodone For The Management Of Moderate-To-Severe Chronic Non-Cancer Pain In Japanese Patients: Results From An Open-Label Study

Purpose

To assess the efficacy and safety of S-8117, an oral, controlled-release formulation of oxycodone hydrochloride, in Japanese patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP).

Patients and methods

In this multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, 2-part (part 1, dose-titration followed by maintenance period; part 2, long-term administration period) study at 38 centers in Japan (2013-2015), adult patients with CNCP for ≥12 weeks were administered S-8117. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with successful maintenance of pain control in part 1 and long-term safety in part 2. Secondary endpoints included time to inadequate analgesia, rate of transition to the maintenance period, and discontinuation due to inadequate analgesia/adverse events (AEs), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity, BPI pain interference, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index, Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale (SOWS), Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS), Dependency-2-A (D-2-A), and Dependency-2-B (D-2-B) questionnaires.

Results

Of 130 patients (mean age, 63.6 years; women, 62.3%) in the dose-titration period, 95 entered the maintenance period; 60 of 83 who entered the long-term administration period completed it. The proportion of patients (95% confidence interval) with successful maintenance of pain control, transition to maintenance period, and discontinuation due to inadequate analgesia/AEs was 78.9% (69.4-86.6), 73.1% (64.6-80.5), and 21.1% (13.4-30.6), respectively. Time to inadequate analgesia could not be estimated. Changes from baseline in BPI, SF-36, and WOMAC index scores suggested improvements in pain relief and quality of life. Based on the SOWS, COWS, D-2-A and D-2-B questionnaires, no patient developed clinically relevant withdrawal syndrome or was ascertained to have developed drug dependence. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was 93.8%; most common TEAEs were constipation (49.2%), nausea (42.3%), nasopharyngitis (34.6%), and somnolence (32.3%).

Conclusion

These results demonstrate the efficacy and safety of S-8117 in Japanese patients with CNCP.

Prevention of Opioid-Induced Nausea and Vomiting During Treatment of Moderate to Severe Acute Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing CL-108 (Hydrocodone 7.5 mg/Acetaminophen 325 mg/Rapid-Release, Low-Dose Promethazine 12.5 mg) with Conventional Hydrocodone 7.5 mg/Acetaminophen 325 mg

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the relief of moderate to severe acute pain by CL-108, a novel drug combining a low-dose antiemetic (rapid-release promethazine 12.5 mg) with hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (HC/APAP) was used.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled multidose study. After surgical extraction of two or more impacted third molar teeth (including at least one mandibular impaction), 466 patients with moderate to severe pain (measured on a categorical pain intensity scale [PI-CAT]) were randomized to CL-108, HC/APAP, or placebo. Over the next 24 hours, patients used the PI-CAT to assess pain at regular intervals whereas nausea, vomiting, and other opioid-related side effects were also assessed prospectively. Study medications were taken every four to six hours as needed; supplemental rescue analgesic and antiemetic medications were permitted. Co-primary end points were the incidence of OINV and the time-weighted sum of pain intensity differences over 24 hours (SPID24).

RESULTS

Relative to HC/APAP treatment alone, CL-108 treatment reduced OINV by 64% (P < 0.001). Treatment with CL-108 significantly reduced pain intensity compared with placebo (SPID24 = 16.2 vs 3.5, P < 0.001). There were no unexpected or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

CL-108 is a safe and effective combination analgesic/antiemetic for the prevention of OINV during treatment of moderate to severe acute pain.

Pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine in elderly patients receiving fascia iliaca compartment block

Local anesthetic of ropivacaine was demonstrated to reduce the postoperative pain in elderly patients. This study investigated the pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine at different concentrations in elderly patients subjected to fascia iliaca compartment block. Forty patients with femoral neck fracture at American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II status, undergoing fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) were randomized to two groups receiving 0.7 ml/kg of solution containing 0.375% ropivacaine (group L) or 0.5% ropivacaine (group H). Samples of venous blood were obtained immediately at different time points after FICB, and the total and free plasma concentrations of ropivacaine were measured by liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS). Statistical analysis was carried out using a pharmacokinetic calculation program (DAS 3.0). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were significantly decreased after FICB in both groups, and VAS score in group H was lower compared with group L. The total maximum plasma concentration (C_max) and the free C_max of ropivacaine in group H was higher than that in group L (P<0.05). The decrease of the total and free plasma concentration was operation time-dependent. Neither group showed signs of central nervous system and circulatory system toxicity. On the basis of these results, the concentrations of 0.375 and 0.5% ropivacaine held an efficiently analgesic effect for FICB, suggesting that ropivacaine can be employed in analgesic therapy. However, both concentrations have a potentially theoretical risk of local anesthetics poisoning, suggesting that a lower concentration may be a safer option for a single large volume of FICB.

Effects of naloxegol on whole gut transit in opioid-naïve healthy subjects receiving codeine: A randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Nausea, vomiting, and constipation (OIC) are common adverse effects of acute or chronic opioid use. Naloxegol (25 mg) is an approved peripherally active mu-opiate opioid receptor antagonist.

AIM

To compare the effects on pan-gut transit of treatment with codeine, naloxegol, or combination in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center, parallel-group study in 72 healthy opioid-naïve adults, randomized to: codeine (30 mg q.i.d.), naloxegol (25 mg daily), codeine and naloxegol, or matching placebo. During 3 days of treatment, we measured gastric emptying (GE) T1/2 , colonic filling at 6 hours (CF6), colonic geometric center at 24 and 48 hours, and ascending colon emptying (ACE) T1/2 .

KEY RESULTS

Participants were 59.7% women, median BMI 25.0 kg/m2 , and median age 33.8 years. Codeine significantly retarded GE T1/2, CF6, overall colonic transit, and ACE T1/2 . There was significant difference (P = .026) in GE T1/2 between codeine (144.0 min [IQR 110.5-238.6]) and naloxegol (95.5 min [89.1-135.4]). There was a significant overall group difference in CF6 (P = .023), with significant difference (P = .019) between codeine (11.0% [0.0-45.0]) and naloxegol (51% [18.8-76.2]). However, no significant differences were found between codeine-treated participants concomitantly receiving placebo or naloxegol.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Short-term administration of naloxegol (25 mg) in healthy, opioid-naïve volunteers does not reverse the retardation of gastric, small bowel, or colonic transit induced by acute administration of codeine. Further studies with naloxegol at higher dose are warranted to assess the ability to reverse the retardation of transit caused by acute administration of codeine in opioid-naïve subjects.

Chronic opioids in gastroparesis: Relationship with gastrointestinal symptoms, healthcare utilization and employment

AIM

To examine the relationship of chronic scheduled opioid use on symptoms, healthcare utilization and employment in gastroparesis (Gp) patients.

METHODS

Patients referred to our tertiary care academic center from May 2016 to July 2017, with established diagnosis or symptoms suggestive of Gp filled out the Patient Assessment of Upper GI Symptoms, abdominal pain and demographics questionnaires, and underwent gastric emptying and blood tests. They were asked about taking pain medicines and the types, doses, and duration. We used Mann Whitney U test, Analysis of Variance, Student's t test and χ2 tests where appropriate for data analyses.

RESULTS

Of 223 patients with delayed gastric emptying, 158 (70.9%) patients were not taking opioids (GpNO), 22 (9.9%) were taking opioids only as needed, while 43 (19.3%) were on chronic (> 1 mo) scheduled opioids (GpCO), of which 18 were taking opioids for reasons that included gastroparesis and/or stomach pain. Median morphine equivalent use was 60 mg per day. GpCO reported higher severities of many gastrointestinal symptoms compared to GpNO including nausea (mean ± SE of mean of 4.09 ± 0.12 vs 3.41 ± 0.12, P = 0.011), retching (2.86 ± 0.25 vs 1.98 ± 0.14, P = 0.003), vomiting (2.93 ± 0.24 vs 2.07 ± 0.15, P = 0.011), early satiety (4.17 ± 0.19 vs 3.57 ± 0.12, P = 0.004), post-prandial fullness (4.14 ± 0.18 vs 3.63 ± 0.11, P = 0.022), loss of appetite (3.64 ± 0.21 vs 3.04 ± 0.13, P = 0.039), upper abdominal pain (3.86 ± 0.20 vs 2.93 ± 0.13, P = 0.001), upper abdominal discomfort (3.74 ± 0.19 vs 3.09 ± 0.13, P = 0.031), heartburn during day (2.55 ± 0.27 vs 1.89 ± 0.13, P = 0.032), heartburn on lying down (2.76 ± 0.28 vs 1.94 ± 0.14, P = 0.008), chest discomfort during day (2.42 ± 0.20 vs 1.83 ± 0.12, P = 0.018), chest discomfort at night (2.40 ± 0.23 vs 1.61 ± 0.13, P = 0.003), regurgitation/reflux during day (2.77 ± 0.25 vs 2.18 ± 0.13, P = 0.040) and bitter/acid/sour taste in the mouth (2.79 ± 0.27 vs 2.11 ± 0.14, P = 0.028). GpCO had a longer duration of nausea per day (median of 7 h vs 4 h for GpNO, P = 0.037), and a higher number of vomiting episodes per day (median of 3 vs 2 for GpNO, P = 0.002). Their abdominal pain more frequently woke them up at night (78.1% vs 57.3%, P = 0.031). They had a lower employment rate (33.3% vs 54.2%, P = 0.016) and amongst those who were employed less number of working hours per week (median of 23 vs 40, P = 0.005). They reported higher number of hospitalizations in the last 1 year (mean ± SE of mean of 2.90 ± 0.77 vs 1.26 ± 0.23, P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

GpCO had a higher severity of many gastrointestinal symptoms, compared to GpNO. Hospitalization rates were more than 2-fold higher in GpCO than GpNO. GpCO also had lower employment rate and working hours, when compared to GpNO.