Amisulpride Prevents Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients at High Risk

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in the Ambulatory Surgery Center: A Narrative Review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of ambulatory surgery, leading to numerous deleterious effects such as decreased patient satisfaction, prolonged recovery unit stays, and rarely, more serious complications such as aspiration pneumonia or wound dehiscence. In this paper, we present a narrative review of the literature regarding common risk factors for PONV including patient factors, surgical factors, and anesthetic factors. We then will review anesthetic techniques and antiemetic drugs demonstrated to mitigate the risk of PONV. Finally, we discuss the potential economic benefits of PONV prophylaxis in the perioperative ambulatory setting.

Nonpharmacological Nursing Interventions in Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the impact of nonpharmacological nursing interventions on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

DESIGN

This is a systematic review.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Tübitak-ULAKBİM, and TRDizin databases were searched for the following search terms, including "Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting," "Nurse," "Nursing," and "Nonpharmacological Interventions" to identify nonpharmacological nursing interventions for PONV. A systematic review of English and Turkish articles published in the period between January 1, 2012 and June 1, 2023 was conducted. The PICOT-SD method was used to determine the compatibility of the pieces with the eligibility criteria.

FINDINGS

Fifty-eight of 3,874 articles obtained from databases fulfilled the eligibility criteria. This study demonstrated that acupuncture, aromatherapy, the oral intake of ginger, listening to music, education, and visits to patients decreased the incidence of nausea and vomiting and increased the quality of life. Additionally, it was found that patients' quality of life tended to improve along with reductions in postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support previous findings in the literature and demonstrate that nonpharmacological nursing interventions help reduce and prevent PONV. Based on our results, we suggest that nonpharmacological nursing interventions can be employed for the management of PONV in patients undergoing surgery.

Mismatch of populations between randomised controlled trials of perioperative interventions in major abdominal surgery and current clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Demographics of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are changing. External validity of relevant RCTs may be limited by participants not resembling patients encountered in clinical practice. We aimed to characterise differences in age, weight, BMI, and ASA grade between participants in perioperative trials in major abdominal surgery and patients in a reference real-world clinical practice sample. The secondary aim was to investigate whether time since trial publication was associated with increasing mismatch between these groups.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for multicentre RCTs from inception to September 2022. Studies of perioperative interventions in adults were included. Studies that limited enrolment based on age, weight, BMI, or ASA status were excluded. We compared trial cohort age, weight, BMI, and ASA distribution to those of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery at our tertiary referral hospital during September 2021 to September 2022. We used a local, single-institution reference sample to reflect the reality of clinical practice (i.e. patients treated by a clinician in their own hospital, rather than averaged nationally). Mismatch was defined using comparison of summary characteristics and ad hoc criteria based on differences relevant to predicted mortality risk after surgery.

RESULTS

One-hundred and six trials (44,499 participants) were compared to a reference cohort of 2792 clinical practice patients. Trials were published a median (IQR [range]) 13.4 (5-20 [0-35]) years ago. A total of 94.3% of trials were mismatched on at least one characteristic (age, weight, BMI, ASA). Recruitment of ASA 3 + participants in trials increased over time, and recruitment of ASA 1 participants decreased over time (Spearman's Rho 0.58 and - 0.44, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients encountered in our current local clinical practice are significantly different from those in our defined set of perioperative RCTs. Older trials recruit more low-risk than high-risk participants-trials may thus 'expire' over time. These trials may not be generalisable to current patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, and meta-analyses or guidelines incorporating these trials may therefore be similarly non-applicable. Comparison to local, rather than national cohorts, is important for meaningful on-the-ground evidence-based decision-making.

Perioperative utility of amisulpride and dopamine receptor antagonist antiemetics-a narrative review

Despite advances in antiemetics and protocolized postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) management, it remains one of the most common postoperative adverse events. In patients who developed PONV despite antiemetic prophylaxis, giving a rescue treatment from the same class of medication is known to be of limited efficacy. Given the widespread use of 5-HT3 antagonists as PONV prophylaxis, another class of effective intravenous rescue antiemetic is in dire need, especially when prophylaxis fails, and rescue medication is utilized. Dopamine antagonists were widely used for the treatment of PONV but have fallen out of favor due to some of their side effect profiles. Amisulpride was first designed as an antipsychotic medication but was found to have antiemetic properties. Here we will review the historical perspective on the use of dopamine receptor antagonist antiemetics, as well as the evidence on the efficacy and safety of amisulpride.

Fosaprepitant for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major problem after surgery. Even with double prophylactic therapy including dexamethasone and a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, the incidence is still high in many at-risk patients. Fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic, but its efficacy and safety in combination antiemetic therapy for preventing PONV remain unclear.

METHODS

In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, 1154 participants at high risk of PONV and undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery were randomly assigned to either a fosaprepitant group (n=577) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg i.v. dissolved in 0.9% saline 150 ml, or a placebo group (n=577) receiving 0.9% saline 150 ml before anaesthesia induction. Dexamethasone 5 mg i.v. and palonosetron 0.075 i.v. mg were each administered in both groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV (defined as nausea, retching, or vomiting) during the first 24 postoperative hours.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during the first 24 postoperative hours was lower in the fosaprepitant group (32.4% vs 48.7%; adjusted risk difference -16.9% [95% confidence interval: -22.4 to -11.4%]; adjusted risk ratio 0.65 [95% CI: 0.57 to 0.76]; P<0.001). There were no differences in severe adverse events between groups, but the incidence of intraoperative hypotension was higher (38.0% vs 31.7%, P=0.026) and intraoperative hypertension (40.6% vs 49.2%, P=0.003) was lower in the fosaprepitant group.

CONCLUSIONS

Fosaprepitant added to dexamethasone and palonosetron reduced the incidence of PONV in patients at high risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. Notably, it increased the incidence of intraoperative hypotension.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04853147.

Comparative Efficacy of Granisetron and Droperidol After Orthognathic Surgery for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

In the fall of 2021, granisetron was approved for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management in Japan. However, the comparative efficacy of droperidol and granisetron in the field of orthognathic surgery has not been determined.

PURPOSE

We compare the efficacy of droperidol and granisetron for PONV prophylaxis following orthognathic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at a single institution from September 2020 to December 2022. Patients who had undergone Le Fort I osteotomy with sagittal split ramus osteotomy or isolated sagittal split ramus osteotomy were included. Patients were divided into three groups; the isolated droperidol (D), isolated granisetron (G), and droperidol with granisetron (DG) groups. General anesthesia was performed using total intravenous anesthesia for all patients; however, droperidol and granisetron were administered at the anesthesiologist's discretion.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

PONV prophylactic therapy included isolated droperidol, isolated granisetron, and droperidol with granisetron administration.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

Postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) were determined through medical examination within 48 hours following surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications due to droperidol and/or granisetron administration.

COVARIATES

Age, sex, body mass index, Apfel's score, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative blood loss, and type of surgery.

ANALYSES

Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction for univariate comparison, and modified Poisson regression for comparison of PON and POV prophylactic efficacy for multivariate analyses. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Our study included 218 participants. There were no significant differences in covariates between groups D (n = 111), G (n = 52), and DG (n = 55). No significant difference in PON incidence was observed between groups. However, POV incidence was significantly lower in group DG than group D (relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.86; P = .03). No significant difference in complication incidence was observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Granisetron was as effective as droperidol for PONV management, while droperidol combined with granisetron was more effective than isolated droperidol for POV management. As compared to the use of each drug separately, their combination was considered safe, with no increase in complication rates.

Evaluation of the Role of Preoperative Oral Amisulpride as Part of a Multimodal Antiemetic Prophylaxis Regime on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing craniotomy are at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) despite the use of prophylactic antiemetics. We hypothesized that a single preoperative oral dose of amisulpride as part of a multimodal antiemetic regimen would decrease the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy for intracranial tumor surgery.

METHODS

Adult patients scheduled for elective craniotomy requiring general anesthesia were enrolled and randomized to receive either oral amisulpride 25 mg or placebo 2 hours before surgery in addition to our institution's usual antiemetic regimen. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting during the first 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included severity of nausea, use of rescue antiemetic medications, and treatment-related adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were included in the analysis. More patients in the amisulpride group had no episodes of nausea (90% vs. 40%; P<0.001) and no episodes of vomiting (94% vs. 46%; P<0.001) compared with the placebo group. The severity of nausea was lower in the amisulpride group than in the control group in the first 4 hours after surgery (P<0.05), and fewer patients receiving amisulpride required rescue antiemetics (P<0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A single preoperative oral dose of amisulpride 25 mg as a component of a multimodal antiemetic regimen decreased the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy for intracranial tumor surgery, with no adverse effects.

Patient-reported nausea after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for gynae-oncology patients

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze the adherence to strategies to prevent post-operative nausea and vomiting after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for gynae-oncology patients. Patient-reported nausea before and after ERAS was also studied.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included all patients undergoing laparotomy for a suspicious pelvic mass or confirmed advanced ovarian cancer before (pre-ERAS) and after the implementation of ERAS (post-ERAS) at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. Patients were a priori stratified according to the planned extent of surgery into two cohorts (Cohort 1: Surgery of advanced disease; Cohort 2: Surgery for a suspicious pelvic tumor). Clinical data including baseline characteristics and outcome data were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

A total of 439 patients were included, 243 pre-ERAS and 196 post-ERAS. At baseline, 27% of the patients reported any grade of nausea. In the post-ERAS cohort, statistically significantly more patients received double post-operative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (64% pre-ERAS vs 84% post-ERAS, p<0.0001). There was no difference in the need for rescue medication (82% pre-ERAS vs 79% post-ERAS; p=0.17) and no statistically significant difference between pre- and post-ERAS or between the surgical cohorts in patient-reported nausea of any grade on day 2. Patients who reported none/mild nausea on day 2 had significantly less peri-operative fluid administered during surgery than those who reported moderate or severe nausea (median 12.5 mL/kg/hour vs 16.5 mL/kg/hour, p=0.045) but, in multivariable analysis, fluid management did not remain significantly associated with nausea.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an ERAS protocol increased the adherence to post-operative nausea and vomiting prevention guidelines. Nausea, both before and after laparotomy, remains an unmet clinical need of gynae-oncology patients also in an ERAS program. Patient-reported outcome measures warrant further investigation in the evaluation of ERAS.

Acupuncture combined with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Consensus guidelines recommend the use of multiple antiemetics as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but the evidence regarding combining acupuncture and antiemetics as a multimodal approach was of very low quality.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effect of combinations of acupuncture with ondansetron versus ondansetron alone for PONV prophylaxis in women at a high risk.

METHODS

This parallel, randomised controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary hospital in China. Patients who had three or four PONV risk factors on the Apfel simplified risk score, undergoing elective laparoscopic gynaecological surgery for benign pathology, were recruited. Patients in the combination group received two sessions of acupuncture treatment and 8 mg intravenous ondansetron, whereas those in the ondansetron group received ondansetron alone. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV within 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, adverse events etc. RESULTS: Between January and July 2021, a total of 212 women were recruited, 91 patients in the combination group and 93 patients in the ondansetron group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. In the first 24 h postoperatively, 44.0% of the patients in the combination group and 60.2% of the patients in the ondansetron group experienced nausea, vomiting, or both (difference, -16.3% [95% CI, -30.5 to -2.0]; risk ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; p = 0.03). However, the results of the secondary outcomes showed that compared to ondansetron alone, acupuncture together with ondansetron was only effective in reducing nausea but did not have a significant impact on vomiting. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Acupuncture combined with ondansetron as a multimodal prophylaxis approach is more effective than ondansetron alone in preventing postoperative nausea in high-risk patients.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

ECG Evaluation as Part of the Clinical Pharmacology Strategy in the Development of New Drugs: A Review of Current Practices and Opportunities Based on Five Case Studies

The International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E14 document was revised in 2015 to allow concentration-corrected QT interval (C-QTc) analysis to be applied to data from early clinical pharmacology studies to exclude a small drug-induced effect on QTc. Provided sufficiently high concentrations of the drug are obtained in the first-in-human (FIH) study, this approach can be used to obviate the need for a designated thorough QT (TQT) study. The E14 revision has resulted in a steady reduction in the number of TQT studies and an increased use of FIH studies to evaluate electrocardiogram (ECG) effects of drugs in development. In this review, five examples from different sponsors are shared in which C-QTc analysis was performed on data from FIH studies. Case 1 illustrates a clearly negative C-QTc evaluation, despite observations of QTc prolongation at high concentrations in nonclinical studies. In case 2 C-QTc analysis of FIH data was performed prior to full pharmacokinetic characterization in patients, and the role of nonclinical assays in an integrated risk assessment is discussed. Case 3 illustrates a positive clinical C-QTc relationship, despite negative nonclinical assays. Case 4 demonstrates a strategy for characterizing the C-QTc relationship for a nonracemic therapy and formulation optimization, and case 5 highlights an approach to perform a preliminary C-QTc analysis early in development and postpone the definitive analysis until proof of efficacy is demonstrated. The strategy of collecting and storing ECG data from FIH studies to enable an informed decision on whether and when to apply C-QTc analysis to obviate the need for a TQT study is described.

Amisulpride steady-state plasma concentration and adverse reactions in patients with schizophrenia: a study based on therapeutic drug monitoring data

The aim of the study was to evaluate the reference range of amisulpride for Chinese patients with schizophrenia and to assess its possible influencing factors based on therapeutic drug monitoring information. The relative adverse reactions of patients induced by amisulpride were also systematically investigated. A total of 425 patients with schizophrenia were assessed, including Positive and Negative Syndrome Scales, Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale, blood routine examination, hepatorenal function, lipids, hormones, as well as myocardial enzymes at baseline, and following treatment with amisulpride for 8 weeks. The steady-state plasma concentration of amisulpride was assayed using two-dimensional liquid chromatography. At the same dose, the amisulpride plasma concentration of patients combined with clozapine was higher than that without clozapine. The therapeutic reference range of amisulpride can be defined as 230.3-527.1 ng/ml for Chinese patients with schizophrenia. The potential side effects appear to be associated with significantly increased levels of LDH, CK, creatine kinase isoenzyme (CK-MB), TC and decreased level of E 2 , relative to the amisulpride plasma concentration. These findings could provide individualized medication and reduce the adverse effects of amisulpride for Chinese patients with schizophrenia.

Drugs in anesthesia: preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a burden for patients, medical staff and healthcare facilities because of inadequate adherence to available recommendations. This review gives an overview on recent recommendations, new evidence and remaining issues in the field of PONV management.

RECENT FINDINGS

A wide range of drugs is available for the management of PONV including corticosteroids, 5-HT3-antagonists, dopamine-antagonists, neurokinin-receptor-1 (NK1)-antagonists, antihistamines and anticholinergics. The updated PONV guidelines from 2020 recommend a universal multimodal strategy for PONV prophylaxis, which is an important paradigm shift to improve implementation of the existing evidence. A recent Cochrane network meta-analysis ranked single drugs and drug combinations for PONV prophylaxis in terms of efficacy and safety. Notably, NK1-antagonists and new 5-HT3-antagonists ranged among the most effective drugs. However, safety data on antiemetics are generally scarce.

SUMMARY

Numerous drug (combinations) and strategies are available for PONV management. New and very effective (single) drugs could result in a simplification compared with a combination of several drugs, and thus lead to better implementation.

Amisulpride: A Review in Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting

Amisulpride intravenous (IV) injection (Barhemsys^®; hereafter referred to as IV amisulpride), a selective dopamine receptor antagonist, is approved in the USA as a single IV infusion for the prevention and treatment of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in adults. Results from placebo-controlled phase III trials showed that IV amisulpride is efficacious both in the prevention of PONV (used either alone or in combination with an antiemetic of a different class) and in the treatment of PONV (irrespective of prior antiemetic prophylaxis status). When administered as a single IV infusion, amisulpride had a tolerability profile that was generally similar to that of placebo, with no significant safety concerns identified. Thus, IV amisulpride is a useful additional option in the prevention and treatment of PONV in adults, particularly for patients who have failed previous antiemetic prophylaxis and for whom effective treatment options may be limited.

New drug approvals for 2020: Synthesis and clinical applications

53 New drugs including 38 chemical entities and 15 biologics were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during 2020. Among the marketed drugs, 34 new small molecule drugs and 4 new diagnostic agents with privileged structures and novel clinical applications represent as promising leads for the development of new drugs with the similar indications and improved therapeutic efficacy. This review is mainly focused on the clinical applications and synthetic methods of 34 small-molecule drugs newly approved by the FDA in 2020.

Intravenous Amisulpride Does Not Meaningfully Prolong the QTc Interval at Doses Effective for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are significant issues in surgical patients, and additional treatment options are needed. Dopaminergic antiemetics have been popular for their efficacy, but their use has been limited by safety concerns, especially the potential for torsade de pointes arising from QT interval prolongation. Intravenous (IV) amisulpride, a dopamine D2 and D3 antagonist shown to be effective at preventing and treating PONV at doses of 5 and 10 mg, respectively, has a dose-dependent effect on QT but at 5 mg is not associated with clinically meaningful prolongation of the heart rate-corrected QT (QTc) interval. This study was designed to evaluate the QT effect of a 10-mg dose of amisulpride, alone and when simultaneously coadministered with ondansetron, an antiemetic of a different class, also known to prolong the QT interval.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-period, crossover study, healthy male and female volunteers 18-65 years of age received IV, in a random sequence: (1) amisulpride 10 mg given twice, 2 hours apart; (2) amisulpride 10 mg and ondansetron 4 mg, given simultaneously; and (3) placebo.

RESULTS

Thirty subjects were enrolled, and 29 completed all 3 treatment periods. The largest mean placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QT interval corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) (ΔΔQTcF) after the first and second amisulpride dose was 5.2 milliseconds (90% confidence interval [CI], 3.53-6.96 milliseconds) and 8.0 milliseconds (90% CI, 5.49-10.58 milliseconds), respectively. After coadministration of amisulpride and ondansetron, the largest mean ΔΔQTcF was 7.3 milliseconds (90% CI, 5.48-9.16 milliseconds). The slope of the amisulpride concentration-change-from-baseline QTcF (ΔQTcF) relationship was 0.006 ms/ng/mL (90% CI, 0.0020-0.0098). No QTc outliers (absolute QTcF value >480 milliseconds or increase from baseline >30 milliseconds) were seen in any period.

CONCLUSIONS

A 10-mg dose of IV amisulpride, given alone or in combination with ondansetron, does not have a clinically significant effect on the QT interval.

Amisulpride: A New Drug for Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of amisulpride and determine its role in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search (1946 to November 2020) using the terms amisulpride and APD421 was conducted.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant reports on intravenous amisulpride were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Six clinical trials were evaluated. In 4 trials on the prevention of PONV, a greater percentage of patients who received amisulpride 5 mg compared with placebo experienced a complete response (44%-60% vs 31%-33%, respectively, when used as monotherapy; 58% vs 47%, respectively, when used in combination with another antiemetic). In 2 trials on the treatment of PONV, a significantly greater percentage of patients who received amisulpride 10 mg compared with placebo experienced a complete response (31.4% vs 21.5%, respectively, in patients who had not received prophylaxis; 41.7% vs 28.5%, respectively, in patients who had received prophylaxis). Adverse effects included infusion site pain, chills, hypokalemia, procedural hypotension, and abdominal distension.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Amisulpride is effective for the management of PONV and may be less likely to cause QT prolongation and extrapyramidal symptoms than other dopamine antagonists. Additional information is needed on its use for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and in children.

CONCLUSIONS

Amisulpride is an important new option for the multimodal management of PONV in adults, and it may be the preferred dopamine antagonist because of the more favorable safety profile that results from its unique pharmacological properties.

Is there a place for genetics in the management of PONV?

Antiemetic prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) - a frequent complication in the postoperative period - is routinely given to high-risk patients. However, standard PONV risk models do not account for genetic factors, which have been shown to have a significant influence on PONV incidence and drug response. In this review, we describe the polymorphisms of various genes (serotonin, dopamine, cholinergic, etc.) and how pharmacogenomics is involved in the pathophysiology of PONV. This review also addresses how genetics is involved in today's clinical practice related to PONV and how it will change in the upcoming years as personalized medicine advances.

The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) afflict approximately 30% of patients overall and up to 80% of high-risk patients after surgery. Optimal pharmacological prophylaxis of PONV is challenging as it necessitates the consideration of PONV risk, drug efficacy, and potential adverse effects. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors of PONV, its incidence has remained largely unchanged. Newer antiemetics have been introduced that may have improved safety profiles, longer duration of action, and better efficacy. This review aims to summarize the recent developments pertaining to these new agents and their potential application toward the management of PONV.

What is the ideal combination antiemetic regimen?

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) are frequent unpleasant complaints that patients and clinicians report after surgery. PONV and PDNV have been associated with postoperative complications and hospital discharge delays. Despite the extensive evidence describing the use of several regimens in different surgical populations, the ideal regimen has not been established. Several antiemetic drugs have been evaluated in more than 1000 clinical controlled trials for management of this complex emetogenic pathway, including the 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, neurokinin-type receptor antagonists, antihistaminics, anticholinergics, and corticosteroids, with the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists being the most commonly used for PONV prophylaxis. Because of the complex emetogenic pathway and multifactorial etiology of PONV, a multimodal approach using two or more drugs that act at different neuro-receptor sites is suggested in patients with one or more risk factors to successfully address PONV and reduce its incidence. Nevertheless, the most studied regimens in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the combination of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with dexamethasone or dopamine receptor antagonists (droperidol). Therefore, the safest and more effective combination regimen appears to be the use of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist antiemetic drugs with dexamethasone.

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).

Olanzapine for the Prevention of Postdischarge Nausea and Vomiting after Ambulatory Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Postdischarge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery is a common problem that is not adequately addressed in current practice. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was designed to test the hypothesis that oral olanzapine is superior to placebo at preventing postdischarge nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, the authors compared a single preoperative dose of olanzapine 10 mg to placebo, in adult female patients 50 years old or less, undergoing ambulatory gynecologic or plastic surgery with general anesthesia. All patients received standard antiemetic prophylaxis with dexamethasone and ondansetron. The primary composite outcome was nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 h after discharge. Secondary outcomes included severe nausea, vomiting, and side effects.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were randomized and evaluable. The primary outcome occurred in 26 of 69 patients (38%) in the placebo group and in 10 of 71 patients (14%) in the olanzapine group (relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.72; P = 0.003). Severe nausea occurred in 14 patients (20%) in the placebo group and 4 patients (6%) in the olanzapine group (relative risk, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.80). Vomiting occurred in eight patients (12%) in the placebo group and two patients (3%) in the olanzapine group (relative risk, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.10). The median score for sedation (scale 0 to 10, with 10 being highest) in the 24 h after discharge was 4 (interquartile range, 2 to 7) in the placebo group and 6 (interquartile range, 3 to 8) in the olanzapine group (P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with ondansetron and dexamethasone, the addition of olanzapine relative to placebo decreased the risk of nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 hafter discharge from ambulatory surgery by about 60% with a slight increase in reported sedation.

Dopamine receptors in emesis: Molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic function

Dopamine is a member of the catecholamine family and is associated with multiple physiological functions. Together with its five receptor subtypes, dopamine is closely linked to neurological disorders such as schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, depression, attention deficit-hyperactivity, and restless leg syndrome. Unfortunately, several dopamine receptor-based agonists used to treat some of these diseases cause nausea and vomiting as impending side-effects. The high degree of cross interactions of dopamine receptor ligands with many other targets including G-protein coupled receptors, transporters, enzymes, and ion-channels, add to the complexity of discovering new targets for the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Using activation status of signaling cascades as mechanism-based biomarkers to foresee drug sensitivity combined with the development of dopamine receptor-based biased agonists may hold great promise and seems as the next step in drug development for the treatment of such multifactorial diseases. In this review, we update the present knowledge on dopamine and dopamine receptors and their potential roles in nausea and vomiting. The pre- and clinical evidence provided in this review supports the implication of both dopamine and dopamine receptor agonists in the incidence of emesis. Besides the conventional dopaminergic antiemetic drugs, potential novel antiemetic targeting emetic protein signaling cascades may offer superior selectivity profile and potency.

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.

Muscular Tissue Oxygen Saturation and Posthysterectomy Nausea and Vomiting

Background

Suboptimal tissue perfusion and oxygenation during surgery may be responsible for postoperative nausea and vomiting in some patients. This trial tested the hypothesis that muscular tissue oxygen saturation–guided intraoperative care reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Methods

This multicenter, pragmatic, patient- and assessor-blinded randomized controlled (1:1 ratio) trial was conducted from September 2018 to June 2019 at six teaching hospitals in four different cities in China. Nonsmoking women, 18 to 65 yr old, and having elective laparoscopic surgery involving hysterectomy (n = 800) were randomly assigned to receive either intraoperative muscular tissue oxygen saturation–guided care or usual care. The goal was to maintain muscular tissue oxygen saturation, measured at flank and on forearm, greater than baseline or 70%, whichever was higher. The primary outcome was 24-h postoperative nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcomes included nausea severity, quality of recovery, and 30-day morbidity and mortality.

Results

Of the 800 randomized patients (median age, 50 yr [range, 27 to 65]), 799 were assessed for the primary outcome. The below-goal muscular tissue oxygen saturation area under the curve was significantly smaller in patients receiving muscular tissue oxygen saturation–guided care (n = 400) than in those receiving usual care (n = 399; flank, 50 vs. 140% · min, P &lt; 0.001; forearm, 53 vs. 245% · min, P &lt; 0.001). The incidences of 24-h postoperative nausea and vomiting were 32% (127 of 400) in the muscular tissue oxygen saturation–guided care group and 36% (142 of 399) in the usual care group, which were not significantly different (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.08; P = 0.251). There were no significant between-group differences for secondary outcomes. No harm was observed throughout the study.

Conclusions

In a relatively young and healthy female patient population, personalized, goal-directed, muscular tissue oxygen saturation–guided intraoperative care is effective in treating decreased muscular tissue oxygen saturation but does not reduce the incidence of 24-h posthysterectomy nausea and vomiting.

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Chronic Atypical Antipsychotic Use Is Associated With Reduced Need for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Rescue in the Postanesthesia Care Unit: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Atypical antipsychotics are efficacious for chemoprophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, but perioperative investigations have been scant. We sought to examine the association between chronic atypical antipsychotic therapy and the likelihood of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

In this single-center, propensity-matched, retrospective, observational study, elective noncardiac surgical cases from January 2014 to December 2017 were examined with regard to the primary outcome of rescue antiemetic administration in the postanesthesia care unit as a measure of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Chronic administration of olanzapine, aripiprazole, and risperidone was the exposure of interest. Other independent variables included outpatient antiemetics, modified Apfel score, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, case length, and exposures to emetogenic and chemoprophylactic agents. Logistic regression was performed using case-level data. Conditional logistic regression was performed after 1:2 propensity matching, sampling without replacement. Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compute the mean patient-level treatment effect on the treated.

RESULTS

Of 13,660 cases, 154 cases with patients receiving atypical antipsychotics were matched against 308 cases without, representing 115 and 273 unique patients, respectively. In a well-balanced cohort, the mean patient-level odds of being administered rescue antiemetic was lower for patients chronically taking the 3 atypical antipsychotics under consideration as compared to those not on atypical antipsychotics, with an odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.75; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic atypical antipsychotic therapy is associated with reduced risk of postanesthesia care unit antiemetic administration. These findings support the need for prospective studies to establish the safety and efficacy of postoperative nausea and vomiting chemoprophylaxis with these agents.

A pharmacological profile of intravenous amisulpride for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

The issue of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains important in surgical practice, contributing to patient distress, slower recovery, and increased use of healthcare resources. Many surgical patients report it to be a worse problem than the pain. New antiemetics of different classes are still needed to help manage PONV effectively, especially the treatment of established PONV after the failure of common prophylactic antiemetics such as 5-HT₃-antagonists and corticosteroids. Intravenous amisulpride, a drug with a long history of safe use in oral form as an antipsychotic, has recently been approved in the US (trade name: Barhemsys) as an intravenous antiemetic for the prevention and treatment of PONV.

AREAS COVERED

This review article summarizes the published data on the clinical pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of intravenous amisulpride as an antiemetic, supplemented by published data on oral amisulpride, where relevant to the intravenous form. Literature was obtained via the PubMed search terms 'intravenous amisulpride' and 'amisulpride AND safety.' Both primary and secondary pharmacology are covered, along with clinical pharmacokinetics (distribution, metabolism, and excretion). The review of clinical safety and efficacy includes data from four studies in the prevention of PONV, two in the treatment of PONV and two investigating effects on the QT interval of the electrocardiogram in healthy volunteers.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the importance of sufficient PONV prevention for patients and the healthcare system, the availability of intravenous amisulpride is helpful, restoring the dopamine-antagonist class as a potential mainstay in both combination prophylaxis and treatment.

Efficacy of amisulpride on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM AND BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a significant clinical problem for surgical patients. Amisulpride is a well-studied D_2/D₃ antagonist that has the potential to be used for preventing and treating PONV. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of amisulpride for prevention and treatment of PONV through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to Feb 15th, 2019. The efficacy outcome was the incidence of complete response, defined as no emesis and no rescue antiemetic use in a 24-h period after study drug administration. The safety outcomes were the adverse effects associated with amisulpride.

RESULTS

Five studies comprising 3243 patients met inclusion critieria. Compared with placebo, amisulpride showed a significantly improved incidence of complete response [relative risk (RR): 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-1.41; P < 0.00001, I² = 0%] with firm evidence from the trial sequential analysis. Particularly, the amisulpride at 5 mg dose indicated a significant benefit than placebo [relative risk (RR): 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-1.39; P < 0.00001, I² = 4%]. The adverse event profile of amisulpride was generally similar to the placebo.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, low-dose, intravenous amisulpride is safe and efficacious for the prevention and treatment of PONV compared to placebo. Further studies are needed to explore the optimal dose and timing.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42019121483.

Metabolism and Excretion of Intravenous, Radio-Labeled Amisulpride in Healthy, Adult Volunteers

Purpose

Intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D₂/D₃ antagonist, has recently been shown in trials to be an effective antiemetic at low doses. This study was conducted to investigate the metabolism and elimination of a single dose of intravenous ¹⁴C-labeled amisulpride in healthy, adult volunteers.

Patients and methods

Six healthy male volunteers aged 18–65 years were given a single 10 mg dose of ¹⁴C-labeled amisulpride containing not more than 1.8 MBq of radioactivity, infused over 4 mins. Concentrations of amisulpride and total radioactivity were measured in plasma, whole blood, urine and feces at various time points up to 168 hrs after dosing. Metabolites detected in plasma, urine and feces were characterized using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) with in-line radiometric detection.

Results

The mean recovery of radioactivity in excreta was 96.4% (range 92.0–98.5%), of which 73.6% (range 70.6–79.2%) was recovered from urine and 22.8% (range 18.9–25.7%) from feces. Four metabolites of amisulpride were detected in urine, representing 15.0% of the excreted dose; three of these were also present in feces, representing 6.1% of the excreted dose. No metabolites were detected in plasma. Excretion was initially rapid, with about two-thirds of the drug-related material eliminated within 12 hrs, primarily in the urine. A second, slower phase of excretion was predominantly fecal and was essentially complete by 96 hrs after dosing. The terminal plasma elimination half-life of parent amisulpride was 3.7 hrs and that of total ¹⁴C-labeled drug material was 4.2 hrs.

Conclusion

Intravenous amisulpride undergoes limited metabolism and is excreted primarily via the renal route.

Clinical trial registry number

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02881840.

Clinical Use of the Pictorial Baxter Retching Faces Scale for the Measurement of Postoperative Nausea in Children

BACKGROUND

Because nausea is difficult to evaluate in children, vomiting is used as the objective clinical end point in managing pediatric postoperative nausea and vomiting and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). The recently developed pictorial Baxter Retching Faces (BARF) scale has content, construct, and convergent validity in quantifying pediatric nausea intensity. We determined its clinical usefulness in assessing pediatric postoperative nausea and vomiting and PDNV, establishing the lowest age associated with consistently reliable use, the score at which patients identify a need for therapy, and the minimum clinically relevant change in scores, and examined its test-retest reliability.

METHODS

We obtained subject ratings of the severity of their nausea using the BARF and visual analog scales in the preoperative, postanesthesia care unit and postdischarge phases. Changes in nausea were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, along with responses to queries of a need for rescue antiemetics at these time points.

RESULTS

Children ≥6 years of age had a consistently reliable ability to use the BARF scale (132/132 [100%] vs 59/76 [77.6%] for children ≥6 and <6 years of age, respectively, Fisher exact test, P < .001). The BARF scale had excellent performance in predicting patient-perceived need for antiemetics, with a score of 4 having 80.0% sensitivity and 85.6% specificity. The minimum clinically relevant difference in BARF scores was 1.47 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-2.1). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.73).The BARF scale identified 60 of 192 (31.3%) children as having postoperative nausea in the postanesthesia care unit, with severe nausea (score >6) in 13 (6.7%). Emesis occurred in 8 (4.1%). Rescue antiemetics were administered to 16 (8.3%), including 2 with severe emesis (≥3 episodes) but in only 2 of 11 (18.2%) with severe nausea without vomiting. PDNV was reported in 39 of the 99 who returned diaries (39.4%), with nausea in 34 (34.3%), severe nausea in 15 (15.2 %), and emesis in 16 (16.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The pictorial BARF scale is easy to use in the clinical setting by children ≥6 years of age, has a minimum clinically relevant difference of 1.47, with scores of 4 or higher associated with a patient-identified need for rescue antiemetics. Assessment of postoperative nausea by the BARF scale has shown that clinically significant nausea occurs frequently in children but is not always treated unless accompanied by vomiting.

The latest consensus on antiemetics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review summarizes and discuss the most recent updated antiemetic consensus.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two new neurokinin (NK)1-receptor antagonists, netupitant and rolapitant, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency and incorporated in the latest versions of the MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines. Guidelines all recommend a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a NK1-receptor antagonist in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) with the addition of the multireceptor targeting agent, olanzapine, as an option in cisplatin or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. A combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a NK1-receptor antagonist is also recommended in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy, although based on a lower level of evidence. In spite of the development of new antiemetics, nausea has remained a significant adverse effect. Olanzapine is an effective antinausea agent, but sedation can be a problem. Therefore, the effect and tolerability of multitargeting, nonsedative agents like amisulpride, should be explored.

SUMMARY

Guidelines recommend a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK1-receptor antagonist in HEC and carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The addition of olanzapine can be useful in cisplatin-based and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in particular if the main problem is nausea.

Effect of Intravenous Oxycodone Versus Sufentanil on the Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery

More than 30% of patients who undergo surgery will experience postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) if no prophylactic treatments are used. Although numerous studies have been performed to investigate the factors related to PONV, the effect of perioperative intravenous oxycodone on the incidence of PONV has not been well investigated. In this study, gynecological patients (grade I-II, aged 18-65 years, scheduled to undergo elective gynecological laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia) were randomized to the oxycodone group or the sufentanil group. In the oxycodone group, patients received intravenous oxycodone for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia, as well as postoperative analgesia, while sufentanil was used in the sufentanil group. The primary outcome variable was the incidence of PONV. As secondary outcomes, time to first PONV, the rating of the most severe PONV, postoperative pain scores at different time points, hemodynamics, and side effects were evaluated. We found that, compared with sufentanil, oxycodone decreased the incidence of PONV by 13.5% (P = .041). The time to first vomiting was longer in the oxycodone group than in the sufentanil group. Postoperative pain scores at different time points and hemodynamics were comparable between the oxycodone and sufentanil groups. We concluded that the incidence of PONV in gynecological patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was lower when using intravenous oxycodone for anesthesia induction, anesthesia maintenance, and postoperative analgesia than when using intravenous sufentanil. However, oxycodone and sufentanil provided the same stable hemodynamics during surgery and satisfactory postoperative analgesia.

What is new in the battle against postoperative nausea and vomiting?

The issue of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) still poses a significant burden on our patients. Although rarely associated with a life-threatening condition, it is consistently considered as one of the most undesirable side effects of surgery and anesthesia. There are well-established risk factors for the development of PONV that include patient-related factors, anesthetic technique, use of volatile anesthetics, use of nitrous oxide, duration of anesthesia, opioid administration, and type of surgery. Because pharmacologic interventions for PONV are not without risks, practitioners must assess patient's risk status from low to high and consider the benefits of treatment. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge related to PONV and provides a practical approach toward risk assessment, prevention, and numerous treatment strategies.