Ondansetron does not affect alfentanil-induced ventilatory depression or sedation

The side effects of morphine and hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia

BACKGROUND

Despite "clinical lore" among health care providers that treatment with hydromorphone results in improved pain control and fewer adverse side effects, morphine continues to be the first-line medication for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). In this study, we compared the efficacy and side-effect profiles of morphine and hydromorphone at concentrations producing equivalent drug effect measured by pain score and miosis.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of 50 general and gynecological surgery patients. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either morphine (1 mg/mL) or hydromorphone (0.2 mg/mL) via PCA after surgery and were followed for a period of 8 h. The primary outcome was nausea. Secondary outcome variables were pruritus, vomiting, sedation, pain report, pupillary miosis, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The side effect profile was not different between drugs. The incidence of nausea did not differ between morphine and hydromorphone-treated patients (1 h: 44% vs 52%, 8 h: 68% vs 64%), vomiting (1 h: 4% vs 0%, 8 h: 0% vs 4%), or pruritus (1 h: 4% vs 16%, 8 h: 40% vs 40%). There was no difference in the amount of medication required to treat side effects or patient satisfaction. The average ratio of morphine to hydromorphone use was about 7:1. The patients used 10.9+/-6.0 mg morphine versus 1.57+/-1.0 mg hydromorphone after 1 h and 29.0+/-18.0 mg morphine versus 3.9+/-2.5 mg hydromorphone after 8 h. There was no difference between the morphine and hydromorphone groups with respect to postoperative pain scores with movement at 1 h (7.9+/-2.3 vs 7.1+/-2.4) or 8 h (5.7+/-2.8 vs 5.9+/-2.7). There was also no difference in pain at rest or miosis between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no systematic difference between morphine and hydromorphone in opioid-related side effects. Neither was there any difference in efficacy of pain control or patient satisfaction when patients self-titrated to equal drug effect as measured by equianalgesia and pupillary miosis. The choice between morphine and hydromorphone for use in PCA should be guided by patient history, as there may be idiosyncratic reactions to either drug.

Influence of CYP3A5 genotype on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the cytochrome P4503A probes alfentanil and midazolam

The hepatic and first-pass cytochrome P4503A (CYP3A) probe alfentanil (ALF) is also metabolized in vitro by CYP3A5. Human hepatic microsomal ALF metabolism is higher in livers with at least one CYP3A5*1 allele and higher CYP3A5 protein content, compared with CYP3A5*3 homozygotes with little CYP3A5. The influence of CYP3A5 genotype on ALF pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics was studied, and compared to midazolam (MDZ), another CYP3A probe. Healthy volunteers (58 men, 41 women) were genotyped for CYP3A5 *1, *3, *6, and *7 alleles. They received intravenous MDZ then ALF, and oral MDZ and ALF the next day. Plasma MDZ and ALF concentrations were determined by mass spectrometry. Dark-adapted pupil diameters were determined coincident with blood sampling. In CYP3A5(*)3/(*)3 (n=62), (*)1/(*)3 (n=28), and (*)1/(*)1 (n=8) genotypes, systemic clearances of ALF were 4.6+/-1.8, 4.8+/-1.7, and 3.9+/-1.7 ml/kg/min and those of MDZ were 7.8+/-2.3, 7.7+/-2.3, and 6.0+/-1.4 ml/kg/min, respectively (not significant), and apparent oral clearances were 11.8+/-7.2, 13.3+/-6.1, and 12.6+/-8.2 ml/kg/min for ALF and 35.2+/-19.0, 36.4+/-15.7, and 29.4+/-9.3 ml/kg/min for MDZ (not significant). Clearances were not different between African Americans (n=25) and Whites (n=68), or between CYP3A5 genotypes within African Americans. ALF pharmacodynamics was not different between CYP3A5 genotypes. There was consistent concordance between ALF and MDZ, in clearances and extraction ratios. Thus, in a relatively large cohort of healthy subjects with constitutive CYP3A activity, CYP3A5 genotype had no effect on the systemic or apparent oral clearances, or pharmacodynamics, of the CYP3A probes ALF and MDZ, despite affecting their hepatic microsomal metabolism.

The pronociceptive effect of ondansetron in the setting of P-glycoprotein inhibition

Ondansetron is a potent antiemetic drug that acts through inhibition of the 5HT3 receptors for serotonin. Minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) for isoflurane is not affected by systemic ondansetron; however ondansetron is a substrate of P-glycoprotein, a transport pump expressed in the blood-brain barrier. Thus, we hypothesized that central nervous system concentrations of ondansetron might be reduced by the P-gp protein. As potent inhibitors of P-gp are in clinical trials to improve access of desirable chemotherapeutic and antibiotic drugs to the central nervous system, we studied the effect of ondansetron in the absence of extrusion by P-gp. Normal rats were given lumbar intrathecal ondansetron or vehicle. P-gp knockout mice and wild-type controls were treated with systemic ondansetron in the presence and absence of clinically used P-gp inhibitors. Nociception was assessed as thermal hindpaw withdrawal latency and immobility was assessed as isoflurane MAC. In rats, intrathecal ondansetron (20 g) increased thermal pain sensitivity by 20.0% +/- 5.8% (P < 0.01). Systemic ondansetron (2 mg/kg) increased pain sensitivity in P-gp knockout mice but had no effect in wild-type mice (P < 0.01). Systemic ondansetron had a small but statistically significant pronociceptive effect after treatment of wild-type mice with the P-gp inhibitor quinidine but not with cyclosporine or verapamil. Isoflurane MAC was not changed by intrathecal ondansetron in rats or systemically administered ondansetron in P-gp knockout mice. Intrathecal ondansetron can enhance thermal pain sensitivity. In the absence of P-gp protein, ondansetron can reach concentrations sufficient to increase pain sensitivity. Even with direct spinal application, ondansetron does not alter isoflurane MAC, supporting the idea that 5HT3 modulation does not play a role in general anesthetic immobility.

Paradoxical Role of Cytochrome P450 3A in the Bioactivation and Clinical Effects of Levo-??-Acetylmethadol

OBJECTIVE

Levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM, levacetylmethadol) is a long-acting opioid agonist used for the prevention of opioid withdrawal. LAAM undergoes sequential N-demethylation to norLAAM and dinorLAAM, which are more potent and longer-acting than LAAM. Hepatic and intestinal microsomal N-demethylation in vitro is catalysed mainly by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4; however, the role of CYP3A in LAAM disposition in humans in vivo is unknown. This investigation tested the hypothesis that CYP3A induction (or inhibition) would increase (or decrease) LAAM metabolism and bioactivation and, thus, clinical effects. It also related changes in LAAM disposition during enzyme inhibition or induction to any changes in pharmacological effect.

METHODS

Healthy volunteers (n = 13) completed the three-way, randomised, balanced crossover study. Subjects received oral LAAM (0.25 mg/kg) after CYP3A induction (rifampicin [rifampin]), inhibition (troleandomycin) or nothing (controls). Plasma and urine LAAM, norLAAM and dinorLAAM were determined by electrospray high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS). Dark-adapted pupil diameter change from baseline (miosis) was the LAAM effect measure. Results were analysed by noncompartmental methods and by a combined pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model.

RESULTS

Compared with controls, CYP3A induction (or inhibition) decreased (or increased) plasma LAAM concentrations and mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(infinity) 199 +/- 91 [control] versus 11.3 +/- 4.0 [rifampicin] and 731 +/- 229 ng . h/mL [troleandomycin]; p < 0.05), and increased (or decreased) median formation clearances of norLAAM (1740 versus 14 100 and 302 mL/h/kg; p < 0.05) and dinorLAAM (636 versus 7840 and 173 mL/h/kg; p < 0.05). Surprisingly, however, CYP3A induction (or inhibition) decreased (or increased) mean plasma metabolite AUC from 0 to 96 hours (AUC(96)) [norLAAM + dinorLAAM] (859 +/- 241 versus 107 +/- 48 and 1185 +/- 179 ng . h/mL; p < 0.05) and clinical effects (mean miosis AUC(96) 128 +/- 40 versus 22.5 +/- 14.9 and 178 +/- 81 mm . h; p < 0.05). Clinical effects were best correlated with plasma norLAAM concentrations.

CONCLUSION

CYP3A mediates human LAAM N-demethylation and bioactivation to norLAAM and dinorLAAM in vivo. Paradoxically, however, CYP3A induction decreased and inhibition increased LAAM active metabolite concentrations and clinical effects. This suggests a CYP3A-mediated metabolic pathway leading to inactive metabolites, which predominates over CYP3A-dependent bioactivation. These results highlight the need for clinical investigations to validate in vitro drug metabolism studies.

Anaesthetic implications of anticancer chemotherapy

In anaesthetic practice we deal with cancer patients who are scheduled for operations on tumours or other manifestations of malignant disease. Those patients are often debilitated and have significant weight loss accompanied with hypoproteinaemia, anaemia and coagulation disorders. Oncological patients usually present to the anaesthetist before tumour disease surgery, but they are also candidates for elective operations (e.g. hernia repair) and urgent/emergency surgery (e.g. trauma, fractures and ileus). Chemotherapeutic agents given to these patients are potentially noxious, can affect the conduct of anaesthesia and, furthermore, may aggravate the patient's condition. In this review the most commonly used cytostatic drug regimens and their common side-effects are listed. Some preclinical studies on anaesthetic and cytostatic drug metabolism and interactions are emphasized, as well as clinically relevant perioperative alterations that may affect anaesthetic management in cancer patients. An anaesthetist may have to modify a routine anaesthetic regimen in cancer patients especially if anticancer chemotherapeutics were given. Clinically silent toxic drug effects may become apparent during operation, trauma or in the early postoperative course in such patients. Altered reactions to commonly used anaesthetics in patients receiving chemotherapeutics and an impaired stress reaction may occur in such patients. Special attention must be drawn to protection against opportunistic infections.

Benefits and risks of newer treatments for chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are common adverse effects of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, anaesthesia and surgery. The incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is estimated to vary from 30 to 90%, depending on the type of chemotherapeutic agent used. Radiation-induced emesis varies with anatomical site radiated but is estimated to have an overall incidence of approximately 40%. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) depends on the type of anaesthesia and surgery, but overall is estimated to be 20-30%. Evidence-based medicine and meta-analysis have been used to direct medical therapy to help determine equivalence, optimal dose, timing, safety and efficacy of antiemetic medications. Concepts such as the number needed to treat and number needed to harm are helpful to guide the clinician regarding the benefits and risks of a particular treatment. The serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron and dolasetron have been important additions to the antiemetic armamentarium. The 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists are similar in chemical structure, efficacy and adverse effect profile. They appear to have no important differences among themselves in clinical outcomes for CINV and PONV. Headache, dizziness, constipation and diarrhoea are their most common adverse effects, and when they occur they are usually mild and easily managed. Haemodynamic changes and extrapyramidal adverse effects are uncommon. ECG changes such as prolonged corrected QT (QTc) interval are infrequent, dose-related and overall judged to be clinically insignificant. As most studies with the 5-HT(3) antagonists have been conducted on relatively healthy patients, caution should be exercised when these drugs are used in susceptible patients with co-morbidities. The clinician must weigh the benefit of administering an antiemetic for CINV or PONV against the risk of occurrence of an adverse event.

Effects of low-dose alfentanil administration on central respiratory drive and respiratory pattern in spontaneously breathing ASA 1 patients

The aim of this study was to assess the short-term effects of the administration of low doses of alfentanil on respiratory drive and respiratory pattern. We studied 17 ASA I patients scheduled for minor surgery or endoscopic procedures. During spontaneous ventilation, Respiratory Rate, Tidal Volume, Total Respiratory Cycle, Inspiratory and Expiratory Time, Mean Inspiratory Flow, P0.1, S(a)O(2) and EtCO(2) were all measured. The inspired oxygen concentration was 21% and measurements were made at baseline, 5 min (T1), 10 min (T2) and 15 min (T3) following an intravenous bolus injection 10 microg.kg(-1) alfentanil. The administration of alfentanil produced a significant (p < 0.05) reduction in S(a)O(2), minute volume and P0.1. In ASA I spontaneously breathing patients, the pre-operative administration of low doses of alfentanil can initially reduce the respiratory centre activity leading to a reduction in minute volume and S(a)O(2). We therefore recommend careful monitoring of cardio-respiratory function in ASA I patients, following the administration of alfentanil.

Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Pain, nausea and vomiting are frequently listed by patients as their most important perioperative concerns. With the change in emphasis from an inpatient to outpatient hospital and office-based medical/surgical environment, there has been increased interest in the 'big little problem' of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Currently, the overall incidence of PONV is estimated to be 25 to 30%, with severe, intractable PONV estimated to occur in approximately 0.18% of all patients undergoing surgery. PONV can lead to delayed postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) recovery room discharge and unanticipated hospital admission, thereby increasing medical costs. The aetiology and consequences of PONV are complex and multifactorial, with patient-, medical- and surgery-related factors. A thorough understanding of these factors, as well as the neuropharmacology of multiple emetic receptors [dopaminergic, muscarinic, cholinergic, opioid, histamine, serotonin (5-hydroxy-tryptamine; 5-HT)] and physiology [cranial nerves VIII (acoustic-vestibular), IX (glossopharyngeal) and X (vagus), gastrointestinal reflex] relating to PONV are necessary to most effectively manage PONV. Commonly used older, traditional antiemetics for PONV include the anticholinergics (scopolamine), phenothiazines (promethazine), antihistamines (diphenhydramine), butyrophenones (droperidol) and benzamides (metoclopramide). These antiemetics have adverse effects such as dry mouth, sedation, hypotension, extrapyramidal symptoms, dystonic effects and restlessness. The newest class of antiemetics used for the prevention and treatment of PONV are the serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron). These antiemetics do not have the adverse effects of the older, traditional antiemetics. Headache and dizziness are the main adverse effects of the serotonin receptor antagonists in the dosages used for PONV. The serotonin receptor antagonists have improved antiemetic effectiveness but are not as completely efficacious for PONV as they are for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Older, traditional antiemetics (such as droperidol) compare favourably with the serotonin receptor antagonists regarding efficacy for PONV prevention. Combination antiemetic therapy improves efficacy for PONV prevention and treatment. In the difficult-to-treat PONV patient (as in the chemotherapy patient), suppression of numerous emetogenic peripheral stimuli and central neuroemetic receptors may be necessary. This multimodal PONV management approach includes use of: (i) multiple different antiemetic medications (double or triple combination antiemetic therapy acting at different neuroreceptor sites); (ii) less emetogenic anaesthesia techniques; (iii) adequate intravenous hydration; and (iv) adequate pain control.

Single-dose prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting after major abdominal surgery: ondansetron versus droperidol

The new antiemetic ondansetron is effective for the prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but has been subject to limited comparative evaluation in surgical inpatients. Two hundred and seventy women having abdominal gynaecological surgery were investigated for 24 hours postoperatively in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of intraoperative intravenous ondansetron 8 mg (n = 83), droperidol 2.5 mg (n = 89) or saline placebo (n = 87). Patients receiving either ondansetron or droperidol remained likely to vomit, although the incidence was significantly reduced compared with placebo (72% and 83% versus 91%, P < 0.01). Both drugs also resulted in significantly fewer vomiting episodes (P < 0.001), lower nausea scores (P < 0.05) and a lower incidence of patients requiring treatment for PONV (P < 0.01). Compared with droperidol, the risk of vomiting after ondansetron was less (odds ratio 0.5, CI 0.3-1.0). Ondansetron resulted in fewer vomiting episodes (P < 0.05) and a higher percentage of patients free of nausea after six hours postoperatively (P < 0.05). In patients with a past history of PONV, both drugs had a similar short-lived antiemetic effect, reducing the incidence of vomiting and the need for treatment while in the recovery room, but not thereafter. Droperidol was associated with significantly less headache (P < 0.05), but higher early sedation scores (P < 0.05). Although, compared to placebo, both droperidol and ondansetron administered intraoperatively reduced vomiting after major abdominal gynaecological surgery, the incidence during the first 24 postoperative hours was very high in all groups. Ondansetron reduced the risk of experiencing nausea after six hours postoperatively and the risk of vomiting, with respect to the total number of episodes, in the first 24 hours. It was no better than droperidol, however, in reducing the incidence of vomiting or the need for antiemetic treatment during the first postoperative day, whether or not patients had a past history of PONV. It was no better than droperidol, however, in reducing the incidence of vomiting or the need for antiemetic treatment during the first postoperative day, whether or not patients had a past history of PONV.