Antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide and diphenhydramine added to patient-controlled morphine analgesia: a randomised controlled trial:

Assessment of antiemetic activity of dihydrocoumarin: In vivo and in silico approaches on receptor binding affinity and modulatory effects

Dihydrocoumarin (DCN) is a natural compound widely used in the flavor industry and has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. However, its potential antiemetic effects on gastrointestinal disturbances remain untested. This study emphasizes assessing the antiemetic properties of the natural aromatic compound DCN using copper sulfate (CuSO4.5H2O)-induced emetic model on chicks, and an in silico approach was also adopted to estimate the possible underlying mechanisms. Two doses (25 and 50 mg/kg b.w.) of DCN and several referral drugs considered positive controls (PCs), including domperidone (6 mg/kg), hyoscine (21 mg/kg), aprepitant (16 mg/kg), diphenhydramine (10 mg/kg), and ondansetron (5 mg/kg), were orally administered to chicks. The vehicle was provided as the control group. Co-treatments of DCN with referral drugs were also provided to chicks to evaluate the modulatory action of the test compound. According to the results, DCN delayed the emetic onset and decreased the frequency of retches in a dose-dependent manner compared to the vehicle group. DCN (50 mg/kg) represented a notable delayed latency period (61.17 ± 4.12 s) and a diminished number of retchings (17.67 ± 1.82 times) compared to the control group. Further, in the co-treatments, DCN increased the latency period and reduced the number of retches, except for domperidone. In the in silico investigation, DCN showed notable binding affinity toward the D2 (-7 kcal/mol), H1 (-7.5 kcal/mol), and M5 (-7 kcal/mol) receptors in the same binding site as the referral ligand. Our research indicates that DCN has mild antiemetic properties by interacting with the D2, H1, and M5 receptors. Therefore, several pre-clinical and clinical studies are necessary to assess the effectiveness and safety profile of this food ingredient.

Antiemetic activity of abietic acid possibly through the 5HT3 and muscarinic receptors interaction pathways

The present study was designed to evaluate the antiemetic activity of abietic acid (AA) using in vivo and in silico studies. To assess the effect, doses of 50 mg/kg b.w. copper sulfate (CuSO4⋅5H2O) were given orally to 2-day-old chicks. The test compound (AA) was given orally at two doses of 20 and 40 mg/kg b.w. On the other hand, aprepitant (16 mg/kg), domperidone (6 mg/kg), diphenhydramine (10 mg/kg), hyoscine (21 mg/kg), and ondansetron (5 mg/kg) were administered orally as positive controls (PCs). The vehicle was used as a control group. Combination therapies with the referral drugs were also given to three separate groups of animals to see the synergistic and antagonizing activity of the test compound. Molecular docking and visualization of ligand-receptor interaction were performed using different computational tools against various emesis-inducing receptors (D2, D3, 5HT3, H1, and M1-M5). Furthermore, the pharmacokinetics and toxicity properties of the selected ligands were predicted by using the SwissADME and Protox-II online servers. Findings indicated that AA dose-dependently enhances the latency of emetic retching and reduces the number of retching compared to the vehicle group. Among the different treatments, animals treated with AA (40 mg/kg) exhibited the highest latency (98 ± 2.44 s) and reduced the number of retching (11.66 ± 2.52 times) compared to the control groups. Additionally, the molecular docking study indicated that AA exhibits the highest binding affinity (- 10.2 kcal/mol) toward the M4 receptors and an elevated binding affinity toward the receptors 5HT3 (- 8.1 kcal/mol), M1 (- 7.7 kcal/mol), M2 (- 8.7 kcal/mol), and H1 (- 8.5 kcal/mol) than the referral ligands. Taken together, our study suggests that AA has potent antiemetic effects by interacting with the 5TH3 and muscarinic receptor interaction pathways. However, additional extensive pre-clinical and clinical studies are required to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of AA.

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).

Predictive factors for nausea or vomiting in patients with cancer who receive oral oxycodone for the first time: is prophylactic medication for prevention of opioid-induced nausea or vomiting necessary?

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictive factors for nausea or vomiting in patients with cancer who receive oral opioid analgesics for the first time.

METHODS

The participants were 280 hospitalized patients with cancer who were given oral opioid analgesics for relief of cancer pain for the first time at our hospital between January 2008 and December 2011. According to previous studies, predictors evaluated were factors potentially affecting nausea or vomiting. For nausea, the following scoring for response was used: 0=absence of nausea; 1=presence of nausea for 3 days after the start of oral oxycodone but continued to take oxycodone; 2=presence of nausea for 3 days and discontinued oxycodone due to nausea. For vomiting, at least 1 vomiting episode during the 3 days was regarded as vomiting-positive. Multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictive factors for nausea or vomiting in cancer patients.

RESULTS

This analysis identified gender (male) (odds ratio [OR]=0.429), lung cancer (OR=2.049), and steroid use (OR=0.417) were significant factors for the occurrence of opioid-induced nausea. For vomiting, gender (male) (OR=0.4) and use of dopamine D2 blockers (OR=2.778) were significant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Female gender was found to be predictive factors for the occurrence of nausea. Lung cancer might be closely associated with opioid-induced nausea. The use of steroids might be effective as prophylaxis for nausea. Female gender was also a predictive factor for the occurrence of vomiting. Vomiting occurred even if dopamine D2 blockers (prophylactic medication) were given.

A multi-institutional study analyzing effect of prophylactic medication for prevention of opioid-induced gastrointestinal dysfunction

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic treatment with laxatives and antiemetics on the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse reactions such as constipation, nausea and vomiting in cancer patients who received oral opioid analgesics for the first time.

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective study was carried out, in which 619 eligible hospitalized patients receiving oral opioid analgesics for cancer pain were enrolled from 35 medical institutions. The primary endpoint was the incidence of opioid-induced side effects in patients receiving prophylactic medication. Odds ratios of the incidence of adverse reactions in the absence or presence of premedication obtained from several institutions were subjected to a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Among 619 patients, the incidence of constipation was significantly lower in patients receiving laxatives, including magnesium oxide, as premedication than in those without them (34% vs. 55%, odds ratio=0.432, 95% confidence interval=0.300-0.622, P<0.001). However, the incidence of nausea or vomiting was similar regardless of prophylactic medication with dopamine D2 blockers. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that prophylactic laxatives significantly reduced the incidence of constipation (overall odds ratio=0.469, 95% confidence interval=0.231-0.955, P=0.037), whereas dopamine D2 blockers were not effective in preventing opioid-induced nausea or vomiting.

DISCUSSION

We showed evidence for the effectiveness of premedication with laxatives for prevention of opioid-induced constipation. However, premedication with dopamine D2 blockers was not sufficient to prevent nausea or vomiting.