Anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive effects of sitagliptin in animal models and possible mechanisms involved in the antinociceptive activity

Background

Sitagliptin is an antidiabetic drug that inhibits dipeptidyl peptidase-4 enzyme. This study aimed to investigate the antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects of sitagliptin in formalin and carrageenan tests and determine the possible mechanism(s) of its antinociceptive activity.

Methods

Male Swiss mice (25-30 g) and male Wistar rats (180-220 g) were used for formalin and carrageenan tests, respectively. In the formalin test, paw licking time and in the carrageenan test, paw thickness were considered as indexes of pain behavior and inflammation respectively. Three doses of sitagliptin (2.5, 5, and 10 mg/kg) were used in these tests. Also, several antagonists and enzyme inhibitors were used to evaluate the role of adrenergic, serotonergic, dopaminergic, and opioid receptors as well as the NO/cGMP/KATP pathway in the antinociceptive effect of sitagliptin (5 mg/kg).

Results

Sitagliptin showed significant antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects in the formalin and carrageenan tests respectively. In the carrageenan test, all three doses of sitagliptin significantly (P < 0.001) reduced paw thickness. Pretreatment with yohimbine, prazosin, propranolol, naloxone, and cyproheptadine could not reverse the antinociceptive effect of sitagliptin (5 mg/Kg), which indicates that adrenergic, opioid, and serotonin receptors (5HT2) are not involved in the antinociceptive effects. L-NAME, methylene blue, glibenclamide, ondansetron, and sulpiride were able to reverse this effect.

Conclusions

NO/cGMP/KATP, 5HT3 and D2 pathways play an important role in the antinociceptive effect of sitagliptin. Additionally significant anti-inflammatory effects observed in the carrageenan test might contribute in reduction of pain response in the second phase of the formalin test.

Effects of 1-methyl-1, 2, 3, 4-tetrahydroisoquinoline on a diabetic neuropathic pain model

Background: Neuropathy is a prevalent and debilitating complication of poorly managed diabetes, contributing towards poor quality of life, amputation risk, and increased mortality. The available therapies for diabetic neuropathic pain (DPN) have limitations in terms of efficacy, tolerability and patient compliance. Dysfunction in the peripheral and central monoaminergic system has been evidenced in various types of neuropathic and acute pain. The objective of the present study was to investigate 1-methyl 1, 2, 3, 4-tetrahydroisoquinoline (1MeTIQ), an endogenous amine found in human brain with a known neuroprotective profile, in a model of streptozotocin (STZ) induced neuropathic pain. Methods: Diabetic neuropathy in male BALB/c mice was induced by intraperitoneal injection of a single dose of STZ (200 mg/kg). Upon development of DPN after 4 weeks, mice were investigated for mechanical allodynia (von Frey filament pressure test) and thermal hyperalgesia (tail immersion test). Ondansetron (1.0 mg/kg i.p.), naloxone (3.0 mg/kg i.p.) and yohimbine (2.0 mg/kg i.p.) were used to elucidate the possible mechanism involved. Postmortem frontal cortical, striatal and hippocampal tissues were dissected and evaluated for changes in levels of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with UV detection. Results: Acute administration of 1MeTIQ (15-45 mg/kg i.p.) reversed streptozotocin-induced diabetic neuropathic static mechanical allodynia (von Frey filament pressure test) and thermal hyperalgesia (tail immersion test), these outcomes being comparable to standard gabapentin. Furthermore, HPLC analysis revealed that STZ-diabetic mice expressed lower concentrations of serotonin in all three brain regions examined, while dopamine was diminished in the striatum and 1MeTIQ reversed all these neurotransmitter modifications. These findings suggest that the antihyperalgesic/antiallodynic activity of 1MeTIQ may be mediated in part via supraspinal opioidergic and monoaminergic modulation since they were naloxone, yohimbine and ondansetron reversible. Conclusion: It was also concluded that acute treatment with 1MeTIQ ameliorated STZ-induced mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia and restored brain regionally altered serotonin and dopamine concentrations which signify a potential for 1MeTIQ in the management of DPN.

The Effect of Ondansetron on the Analgesic Efficacy of Tramadol in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Purpose

Investigating the effect of ondansetron on the efficacy of tramadol in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients over the age of 18 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in this study. All patients were given 1 mg/kg tramadol intravenously (iv) during the intraoperative period. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 4 mg ondansetron (Group O) or 2 mL saline (Group S). Postoperative tramadol consumption, pain score (NRS), intensity of nausea (NRS), presence of vomiting, consumption of rescue analgesics and antiemetics, and patient satisfaction were recorded.

Results

A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study; five patients were excluded due to deviation from the protocol. Data from 55 patients (Group O: 28 patients, Group S: 27 patients) were evaluated in the study. No differences between the two groups were detected for postoperative consumption of tramadol, pain score (NRS), intensity of nausea (NRS), presence of vomiting, consumption of rescue analgesics and antiemetics, and patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

The results showed that coadministration of tramadol and ondansetron did not change tramadol consumption during the postoperative 24 hours after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Clinical trial registration number is as follows: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04745273-01/31/2021.

Organic Cation Transporter 1 an Intestinal Uptake Transporter: Fact or Fiction?

Intestinal transporter proteins are known to affect the pharmacokinetics and in turn the efficacy and safety of many orally administered drugs in a clinically relevant manner. This knowledge is especially well-established for intestinal ATP-binding cassette transporters such as P-gp and BCRP. In contrast to this, information about intestinal uptake carriers is much more limited although many hydrophilic or ionic drugs are not expected to undergo passive diffusion but probably require specific uptake transporters. A transporter which is controversially discussed with respect to its expression, localization and function in the human intestine is the organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1). This review article provides an up-to-date summary on the available data from expression analysis as well as functional studies in vitro, animal findings and clinical observations. The current evidence suggests that OCT1 is expressed in the human intestine in small amounts (on gene and protein levels), while its cellular localization in the apical or basolateral membrane of the enterocytes remains to be finally defined, but functional data point to a secretory function of the transporter at the basolateral membrane. Thus, OCT1 should not be considered as a classical uptake transporter in the intestine but rather as an intestinal elimination pathway for cationic compounds from the systemic circulation.

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).

Comparision of Analgesic Efficacy of Tramadol Infusion Versus Tramadol Plus Ondansetron Infusion In Medical Intensive Care Unit

Background:

Tramadol, a preferred analgesic due to its less respiratory depression. It also has a central action that blocks the reuptake and enhances the release of serotonin at spinal antinociceptive pathways. Ondansetron, an antiemetic is a serotonin receptor antagonist. Due to the contradictory actions of the two drugs, co-administration of these drugs resulted in higher usage of tramadol. All these studies were done in the postoperative period.

Aim:

The aim of this study is to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of tramadol infusion versus tramadol plus ondansetron infusion in Medical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.

Materials and Methods:

After Institutional Ethical Committee approval, 50 patients who experience pain other than postoperative pain were enrolled and randomized into two groups. Both the groups initially received 50 mg of tramadol intravenously over 10 min followed by Group T+O received 10 mg/h tramadol + 0.4 mg/h ondansetron as an infusion. Group T received 10 mg/h tramadol as infusion. Hemodynamic parameters along with pain assessment using Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) were analyzed at 0, 3, 6, 12, and 24 h. Rescue analgesia was administered if VRS >4. Side effects were noted by condition scoring criteria (CSC) scale.

Results:

Rescue analgesia was administered at 3 h, for three patients in T+O Group and 1 patient in T Group, but this is not statistically significant (P = 0.153). No rescue analgesia was required in both the groups at any other point of time. There was fall in heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, respiratory rate at 0, 3, 6, 12, and 24 h in both the groups but not statistically significant. Grade 1 sedation of CSC scale was observed in two patients of Group T+O and one patient in Group T but not statistically significant (P = 0.153). No nausea and vomiting were seen.

Conclusions:

We conclude that co-administration of tramadol and ondansetron can be practiced in medical ICU patients without any higher requirement in dosage of tramadol.

Comparative Pharmacology and Guide to the Use of the Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Since the introduction of the serotonin 5-hydroxy tryptamine 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists in the early 1990s, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) has decreased, yet continues to be a problem for the surgical patient. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists has helped define the approach and role of these antiemetics in the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. Pharmacological and clinical differences exist among these medications resulting in corresponding differences in effectiveness, safety, optimal dosage, time of administration, and use as combination and rescue antiemetic therapy. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist antiemetics has improved the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. The most recent consensus guidelines for PONV published in 2014 outline the use of these antiemetics. The 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists play an important role to help prevent PONV and PDNV in perioperative care pathways such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). Comparisons and guidelines for use of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists in relation to the risk for PONV and PDNV are reviewed.

The analgesic agent tapentadol inhibits calcitonin gene-related peptide release from isolated rat brainstem via a serotonergic mechanism

AIMS

In this study we tested the hypothesis that tapentadol inhibits GGRP release from the rat brainstem through a mechanism mediated by the inhibition of NA reuptake; as a second alternative hypothesis, we investigated whether tapentadol inhibits GGRP release via the inhibition of 5-HT reuptake.

METHODS

Rat brainstems were explanted and incubated in short-term experiments. CGRP released in the incubation medium was taken as a marker of CGRP release from the central terminals of trigeminal neurons within the brainstem. CGRP levels were measured by radioimmunoassay under basal conditions or in the presence of tapentadol; NA, 5-HT, clonidine, yohimbine and ondansetron were used as pharmacological tools to investigate the action mechanism of tapentadol.

RESULTS

The α2-antagonist yohimbine failed to counteract the effects of tapentadol. Moreover, neither NA nor the α2-agonist clonidine per se inhibited K(+)-stimulated CGRP release, thereby indicating that the effects of tapentadol are nor mediated through the block of NA reuptake. Further experiments showed that 5-HT and tramadol, which inhibits both NA and 5-HT reuptake, significantly reduced K(+)-stimulated CGRP release. Moreover, the 5-HT3 antagonist ondansetron was able to counteract the effects of tapentadol in this system.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provided pharmacological evidence that tapentadol inhibits stimulated CGRP release from the rat brainstem in vitro through a mechanism involving an increase in 5-HT levels in the system and the subsequent activation of 5-HT3 receptors.

Intrathecal nefopam-induced antinociception through activation of descending serotonergic projections involving spinal 5-HT7 but not 5-HT3 receptors

We examined the involvement of spinal 5-HT(5-hydroxytryptamine) receptor 3(5-HT3R) and 7(5-HT7R) as well as the overall role of descending serotonergic projections in the analgesic effects of intrathecal(i.t.) nefopam for two rat models of formalin and paw incision test. I.t. nefopam produced an antinociceptive effect in a dose-dependent manner in both tests. Lesioning the spinal serotonergic projections using i.t. 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine(5,7-DHT) did not influence the intensity of allodynia in the paw incision test, but i.t. 5,7-DHT abolished the effect of nefopam. In the formain test, i.t. 5,7-DHT alone significantly diminished the flinches, but the effect of nefopam was not affected by i.t. 5,7-DHT. Antagonism study showed that i.t. 5-HT7R antagonist, SB269970 significantly blocked the antinociceptive effect of nefopam in both tests, but i.t. 5-HT3R antagonist, ondansetron has no influence on the effect of nefopam. The present study demonstrates that descending spinal serotonergic projections play a vital role in antinociceptive effect of i.t. nefopam in the paw incision test, but indeterminate in the formalin test. In both tests, the antinociceptive effect of i.t. nefopam involves the spinal 5-HT7R, but not 5-HT3R.

The effect of ondansetron on the efficacy of postoperative tramadol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a drug interaction

Several studies have investigated the presence of a drug interaction between tramadol and ondansetron that reduced the efficacy of tramadol postoperatively. Most of these studies were small and the results inconsistent, so we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the cumulative dose of tramadol administered by patient-controlled analgesia within the first 24 h after surgery between subjects receiving tramadol alone and those who received tramadol with ondansetron. Six studies, with a total of 340 participants, met the selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was an increased tramadol requirement in patients receiving ondansetron. The standardised mean difference in tramadol requirements, expressed in terms of standard deviations (95% CI), was 1.03 (0.54-1.53) (p < 0.001) at 4 h, 0.66 (0.06-1.25) (p = 0.03) at 8 h, 0.86 (0.41-1.31) (p < 0.001) at 12 h and 0.45 (0.01-0.90) (p = 0.046) at 24 h postoperatively, where the mean pooled standard deviations were 79.5, 157.7, 238.1 and 289.4 mg at 4, 8, 12 and 24 h, respectively. There was a significant linear time effect over the 24 h, indicating that the effect of ondansetron on tramadol consumption diminished with time. The results support the presence of a drug interaction between tramadol and ondansetron in the early postoperative period that potentially decreases the effectiveness of tramadol.

Ondansetron: a review of pharmacokinetics and clinical experience in postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is associated with poor patient satisfaction and delayed recovery after general anesthesia. Multiple neurotransmitters are involved in the mediation of PONV but despite the introduction of new antiemetics, no completely effective drug exists for its prevention or treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a detailed description of ondansetron's chemistry, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, toxicity and a brief review of clinical trials involving ondansetron and the management of PONV. We searched reviews, meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials (Medline, Embase and article reference lists).

EXPERT OPINION

According to current literature, administering ondansetron 4 mg i.v. near the end of surgery provides sufficient protection against PONV in low- and moderate-risk patients, comparable to traditional antiemetics such as antihistamines and droperidol. High-risk patients require a multimodal approach since one quarter of them will not respond to monotherapy. In the future, transdermal formulation or formulations for nasal or buccal delivery will be available. The development of non-racemic mixture consisting of R-ondansetron would enhance the safety profile and probably the efficacy too.

Tramadol Extended-Release for the Management of Pain due to Osteoarthritis

Current knowledge on pathogenesis of osteoarticular pain, as well as the consequent several, especially on the gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular systems, side effects of NSAIDs, makes it difficult to perform an optimal management of this mixed typology of pain. This is especially observable in elderly patients, the most frequently affected by osteoarthritis (OA). Tramadol is an analgesic drug, the action of which has a twofold action. It has a weak affinity to mu opioid receptors and, at the same time, can result in inhibition of the reuptake of noradrenaline and serotonin in nociceptorial descending inhibitory control system. These two mechanisms, "opioidergic" and "nonopioidergic," are the grounds for contrasting certain types of pain that are generally less responsive to opioids, such as neuropathic pain or mixed OA pain. The extended-release formulation of tramadol has good efficacy and tolerability and acts through a dosing schedule that allows a high level of patients compliance to therapies with a good recovery outcome for the patients' functional status.