Population pharmacokinetics and prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron in surgical patients

Dosing Strategy of Ramosetron to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting and Development of Prediction Models Using Data Obtained From Randomized Controlled Trials: A Comparative Study

PURPOSE

The study aimed to compare the postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) preventive effect of repeated administration of ramosetron with the standard treatment group and compare models to predict the incidence of PONV using machine-learning techniques.

METHODS

A total of 261 patients scheduled for breast surgery were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of repeated intravenous administration of ramosetron. All patients were administered 0.3 mg ramosetron just before the end of surgery. For the repeated dose of ramosetron group, an additional dose of 0.3 mg was administered at 4, 22, and 46 hours after the end of the surgery. Postoperative nausea, vomiting, and retching were evaluated using the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Previously published randomized controlled data were combined with the data of this study to create a new dataset of 1390 patients, and machine-learning-based PONV prediction models (classification tree, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and neural network) was constructed and compared with the Apfel model.

FINDINGS

Fifty patients (38.5%) and 60 patients (45.8%) reported nausea, vomiting, or retching 48 hours postoperatively in the standard and repeated-dose groups, respectively (P = 0.317, χ2 test). Median sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the Apfel model analyzed using the training set were 0.815, 0.344, and 0.495, respectively.

IMPLICATIONS

The repeated administration of ramosetron did not reduce the incidence of PONV. The Apfel model had high sensitivity, however, its specificity and accuracy were lower than that in machine-learning-based models.

Effect of dexamethasone and ramosetron on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in low-risk patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

Several studies have investigated the effect of antiemetics on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk groups. However, few studies have investigated the effect of antiemetics in patients at low risk of developing PONV.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 177 patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to three groups. Patients allocated to group C (control group) received 2 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline, those allocated to group R (ramosetron group) received 0.3 mg of intravenous ramosetron, and those allocated to group DR (ramosetron plus dexamethasone group) received 5 mg of intravenous dexamethasone and 0.3 mg of intravenous ramosetron.

RESULTS

Finally, 174 patients completed the study, and the types of surgeries were orthopedic (n = 80), rhinologic (n = 47), urologic (n = 29), and others (n = 18). The incidence of PONV up to 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in group DR than in group C. The incidence of PONV up to 0-1 h postoperatively was significantly lower in groups R and DR than in group C. The usage pattern of rescue antiemetics was consistent with the incidence of PONV. The percentage of patients requiring rescue analgesics 0-1 h postoperatively was significantly lower in groups R and DR than in group C.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of dexamethasone and ramosetron demonstrated a superior effect in preventing PONV for 48 h after surgery under general anesthesia than saline in patients at low risk of developing PONV. Compared with saline injections, ramosetron injections yielded better outcomes for the incidence of PONV and the use of rescue antiemetics and rescue analgesics 0-1 h postoperatively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration number: criskorea@korea.kr, KCT0006749.

Heart-Rate-Corrected QT Interval Response to Ramosetron during Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Trial

Ramosetron, often used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, might cause heart-rate-corrected (QTc) interval prolongation, as might robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), which requires a steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum. This study aimed to determine how ramosetron administration affects the QTc interval in patients treated with RALP. Fifty-six subjects were randomly assigned to ramosetron (n = 28) or control (n = 28) groups. The ramosetron group received 0.3 mg of ramosetron after anesthetic induction, whereas the control group received normal saline. The QTc interval was measured before and after induction; after 5, 30, and 60 min of being placed in the Trendelenburg position; immediately after being returned to a supine position; and at the end of surgery. Linear mixed models were used to compare QT intervals between groups. QTc intervals did not differ significantly between groups over time (Pgroup×time = 0.111). However, they increased significantly in both groups after placement in the Trendelenburg position compared with before induction (Ptime < 0.001). This increase in QTc continued until the end of surgery in both groups. Based on these findings, ramosetron can be safely administered for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting among patients undergoing RALP.

Interpretation of volume kinetics in terms of pharmacokinetic principles

Volume kinetics is the pharmacokinetics of infusion fluids and describes the distribution and elimination of infused volume. Generally, pharmacokinetic parameters can be estimated by measuring the concentration of a drug. However, it is almost impossible to directly measure the concentration of fluids. Therefore, in volume kinetics, the disposition of fluids is indirectly quantified by measuring the hemoglobin concentration under the premise of no hemoglobin loss. If the hemoglobin concentration is repeatedly measured while administering the fluids, the dilution (relative change of the plasma volume) for each corresponding hemoglobin concentration can be obtained. The dilution is based on the concept of plasma volume expansion. The method of quantifying the drugs disposition with compartmental analysis has been equally applied to volume kinetics. The transfer of fluids between compartments is explained by first-order kinetics, and it is assumed that fluid is only removed from the central compartment. Population analysis can be used to identify covariates that can account for inter-individual variability in volume kinetic parameters. Body weight and mean blood pressure are well-known representative covariates of kinetic volume parameters. Using volume kinetic parameters, the volume expansion effects of crystalloid and colloid solutions can be understood more effectively, thereby facilitating appropriate fluid therapy. Although limitations exist in volume kinetics, its implications are important for clinicians when administering fluids.

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).

Comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a distressing complication of surgery, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are often prescribed to prevent it. Ondansetron is the agent typically administered to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although ramosetron has a longer duration of action than ondansetron, it remains unclear whether ramosetron is the more effective medication. We performed an updated meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

We searched six databases for all trials that randomly assigned patients to ramosetron or ondansetron groups. The primary outcome was postoperative nausea or vomiting in the early, late, and next-day periods. The secondary outcomes were side effects of the medications. We used the random-effects model to combine the results. Trial sequential analyses were performed to correct for repetitive testing in the updated meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials with 3,811 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results of ramosetron vs. ondansetron efficacy in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting were as follows: Risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.82 [0.69-0.98] for early postoperative nausea, 0.76 [0.65-0.89] for late postoperative nausea, 0.69 [0.57-0.84] for next-day postoperative nausea, 0.78 [0.63-0.98] for early postoperative vomiting, 0.57 [0.45-0.72] for late postoperative vomiting, and 0.61 [0.43-0.86] for next-day postoperative vomiting. Dizziness was significantly lower in ramosetron groups than in ondansetron groups (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.81 [0.66-0.98]). Trial sequential analysis revealed that the results for late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea were conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramosetron is more effective in preventing late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea than ondansetron. The incidence of dizziness may be lower in patients receiving ramosetron than in patients receiving ondansetron.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000022980.

Combination of gabapentin and ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized comparative study

Background

As a drug originally introduced for its anticonvulsant effects, gabapentin has been recently shown to be effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in various clinical settings. This study compared the antiemetic efficacy of oral gabapentin, intravenous ramosetron and gabapentin plus ramosetron in patients receiving fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Methods

One hundred and thirty two patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia were allocated randomly into three groups: group G received 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia, group R received 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery, and group GR received a combination of 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia and 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery. Postoperative nausea, retching, vomiting, rescue antiemetic drug use, pain, rescue analgesic requirements and adverse effects were assessed at 0–2, 2–24 and 24–48 h after surgery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was defined as the presence of nausea, retching or vomiting.

Results

The incidence of complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetics up to 48 h postoperatively) was significantly higher in group GR (26/40, 65%) than group G (16/40, 40%; P = 0.025) and group R (18/44, 41%; P = 0.027), whereas there was no significant difference between group G and group R (P = 0.932). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of emetic episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, severe emesis, use of rescue analgesics or any adverse effects. Postoperative pain scores were also similar among groups.

Conclusions

The combination with gabapentin and ramosetron is superior to either drug alone for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02617121, registered November 25, 2015.

Population pharmacokinetics and prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron in surgical patients

AIMS

This study characterized the pharmacokinetics of ramosetron and compared prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy with that of ondansetron in a large population.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients consented to the pharmacokinetic analysis and were assigned randomly to receive 0.3, 0.45 or 0.6 mg ramosetron after induction of anaesthesia. Blood samples were acquired at preset intervals. Non-compartmental and population pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. In total, 1102 patients consented to the evaluation of prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy and were allocated randomly to receive 0.3 mg ramosetron or 4 mg ondansetron at the end of surgery. An additional 16 mg ondansetron were mixed in the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia pump of the ondansetron group. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were evaluated 6, 24 and 48 h post-operatively using the Rhodes index of nausea, vomiting and retching (RINVR). Administration of rescue anti-emetics and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

The pharmacokinetic parameter estimates were V1 (l) = 5.12, V2 (l) = 108, CL (l⋅min(-1) ) = 0.08 + (59⋅age(-1) ) × 0.09, Q (l⋅min(-1) ) = 1.42. The incidences of PONV in the ramosetron and ondansetron groups were 77 (13.9%) and 113 (20.6%) and 44 (7.9%) and 66 (12.0%) at 24 and 48 h post-operatively, respectively (P = 0.004, 0.030). RINVR was significantly lower in the ramosetron than the ondansetron group 24 and 48 h post-operatively (P = 0.003, 0.025). Use of rescue anti-emetics and incidence of adverse events were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

A two compartment mammillary model was used to describe ramosetron pharmacokinetics. Prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron was significantly better 24 and 48 h post-operatively than that of ondansetron, particularly when the Apfel score was ≥ 3.