Highly effective use of aprepitant in an adolescent girl with severe cyclic vomiting syndrome

Mitigating the Risk of QTc Prolongation When Using Haloperidol for Acute Treatment of Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome in Adolescents and Young Adults

Background/Objectives: Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS), associated with long-term cannabinoid use, has been increasingly observed in emergency room visits as more states in the U.S. have legislatively permitted medical and recreational marijuana use. The acute management of CHS primarily focuses on antiemetic treatment and supportive care. However, both the condition itself and the antiemetic drugs, such as haloperidol, may cause QTc prolongation. Methods: We reported two adolescent cases admitted to the emergency department for acute antiemesis management of CHS who received haloperidol treatment. A literature review was performed through October 2024 for previously published cases of QTc prolongation and/or Torsades de Pointes (TdP) in adolescents and young adults. Results: A 15-year-old female presented with hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia upon admission. She complained of chest pain and tachycardia, and the electrocardiogram (EKG) showed prolonged QTc (528 msec). The haloperidol infusion was discontinued. She recovered well post-discharge without complaints. A 17-year-old female had a borderline prolonged QT interval (476 msec). Her nausea and vomiting improved with a three-dose course of intravenous fosaprepitant before discharge. Our literature search identified five severe cases with life-threatening episodes of QTc prolongation and/or TdP in adolescents and young adults. Conclusions: Patients with CHS are at higher risk of QTc prolongation due to cannabis use, electrolyte imbalance, and antiemetic medications. We recommend vigilant EKG monitoring, particularly before initiating and throughout haloperidol treatment. If the patient presents with an increased risk of QTc prolongation, consider using topical capsaicin, lorazepam, aprepitant/fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as alternatives.

Utility of Aprepitant in the Management of Pediatric Patients with Cyclical Vomiting Syndrome

Introduction: Cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS) is a recurrent debilitating illness characterized by intense episodes of nausea and emesis with widely varied pharmacological management across the country. Aprepitant is now increasingly used in patients with CVS. The impact of aprepitant as an abortive therapy in the readmission of pediatric patients with CVS is currently unknown. Methodology: We analyzed all pediatric patients with a primary diagnosis of CVS using the ICD-10 code in the Pediatric Health Information System database of the Children's Hospital Association. We evaluated the demographic data, comorbid conditions, and management details during the inpatient stay. CVS patients who received aprepitant during their inpatient hospitalization were compared with patients without aprepitant use. Seven-day readmission rate for CVS was used as the outcome variable to assess the effectiveness of the aprepitant in aborting an episode. Propensity score matching was used to match the two cohorts. Results: We analyzed 1775 patients of which 96 received aprepitant during the inpatient hospitalization. The aprepitant group had a more severe hospitalization course as evidenced by an increased duration of hospital stay (5 vs. 3 days) and total hospitalization costs ($11,790 vs. $6380). There were no significant differences in the 7-day (17% vs. 16%, p = 0.91) readmission rate and results were not altered by propensity score matching. Conclusions: Aprepitant use as an abortive therapy did not affect the 7-day CVS-related readmission rate. Further prospective studies are needed to explore the role of aprepitant as an abortive agent in the management of CVS in the pediatric population.

Comparison of aprepitant versus ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background and Aims

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after surgery. Preventing PONV in high-risk patients often requires a multimodal approach combining antiemetic drugs with diverse mechanisms. While aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is recognised as highly effective for PONV prevention, uncertainties remain regarding its effectiveness.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The analysis assessed the effectiveness of aprepitant (A), aprepitant plus ondansetron (AO) and aprepitant plus dexamethasone and ondansetron (ADO) in preventing PONV compared to ondansetron alone (O) or in combination with dexamethasone (DO).

Results

In the analysis of 12 studies involving 2729 patients, aprepitant demonstrated significant efficacy in preventing PONV compared to ondansetron alone (A versus [vs.] O: PONV incidence 12.5% vs. 28.5%, relative risk [RR] = 0.45, P < 0.001; complete response rate 55.97% vs. 50.35%, RR = 1.13, P = 0.010). The combination of aprepitant with ondansetron (AO) also showed a significantly lower incidence of PONV compared to ondansetron alone (11.3% vs. 26.8%, RR = 0.43, P < 0.001) and a higher complete response rate (38.1% vs. 26.84%, RR = 1.41, P = 0.020). In addition, ADO significantly reduced PONV incidence compared to DO (ADO vs. DO: 13.63% vs. 35.38%, RR = 0.38, P = 0.006).

Conclusion

Aprepitant, whether used alone or in combination with ondansetron or both ondansetron and dexamethasone, consistently outperforms ondansetron in achieving a complete response as it lowers vomiting rates and reduces the need for rescue therapy during the crucial 24-48-h postoperative period.

The efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the common adverse reactions after surgery. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antiemetic drugs suggest that aprepitant has the strongest antiemetic effect of any single drug. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of aprepitant for preventing PONV based on the existing literature.

METHODS

To identify RCTs investigating the use of aprepitant for PONV prevention, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published prior to March 20, 2022. Seventeen RCTs were identified, with 3299 patients, meeting the inclusion criteria. PONV incidence, complete response, 80 mg aprepitant combined with dexamethasone and ondansetron, vomiting, nausea, and analgesic dose-response were the main outcomes measured.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, PONV incidence was significantly reduced among those receiving aprepitant (odds ratio [OR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26, 0.44; P < .0001), with a more complete response (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.59; P = .0004). Supplementation of 80 mg aprepitant in combination with dexamethasone and ondansetron substantially improved the effects of PONV (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.82; P = .01). Further, administration of 80 mg aprepitant was better at preventing vomiting than nausea (OR: 8.6; 95% CI: 3.84, 19. 29; P < .00001). No statistically significant difference between the dose-response of analgesics was identified (mean difference: -1.09; 95% CI: -6.48, 4.30; P = .69). The risk of bias was assessed independently by paired evaluators.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant effectively reduces the incidence of PONV; however, the effects of postoperative analgesia require further exploration.