Comparative electrocardiographic effects of intravenous ondansetron and granisetron in patients undergoing surgery for carcinoma breast: A prospective single-blind randomised trial

Ondansetron-induced QT prolongation among various age groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ondansetron is a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 serotonin-receptor antagonist with antiemetic properties used inadvertently in the emergency department for controlling nausea. However, ondansetron is linked with a number of adverse effects, including prolongation of the QT interval. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the occurrence of QT prolongation in pediatric, adult, and elderly patients receiving oral or intravenously administered ondansetron.

METHODS

A thorough electronic search was conducted on PubMed (Medline) and Cochrane Library from the databases' inception to August 10, 2022. Only those studies were considered in which ondansetron was administered orally or intravenously to participants for the treatment of nausea and vomiting. The prevalence of QT prolongation in multiple predefined age groups was the outcome variable. Analyses were conducted using Review manager 5.4 (Cochrane collaboration, 2020).

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies involving 687 ondansetron group participants were statistically analyzed. The administration of ondansetron was associated with a statistically significant prevalence of QT prolongation in all age groups. An age-wise subgroup analysis was conducted which revealed that the prevalence of QT prolongation among participants younger than 18 years was not statistically significant, whereas it was statistically significant among participants aged 18-50 years and among patients older than 50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis provides further evidence that oral or intravenous administration of Ondansetron may lead to QT prolongation, particularly among patients older than 18 years of age.

Practical tips for managing FLT3 mutated acute myeloid leukemia with midostaurin

INTRODUCTION

FLT3 inhibitors have been recently introduced as novel treatment targets in patients with FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Midostaurin is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets multiple receptor tyrosine kinases including FLT3 and has been approved for the treatment of AML with FLT3 mutations in patients candidates for intensive chemotherapy. This article presents an updated overall overview of the use of midostaurin in clinical practice.

AREAS COVERED

Tests and examinations to be performed before the use of midostaurin, antifungal and antimicrobial treatment, as well as antifungal and antimicrobial prophylaxis are discussed. Practical tips for the treatment of QTc interval prolongation and heart failure are also presented.

EXPERT OPINION

Midostaurin is the first agent showing significant survival benefit when combined with chemotherapy in FLT3-mutated AML patients. Optimal use of midostaurin should be a priority, being essential to know the interactions with other drugs like strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers, which are particularly used in the concomitant treatment of AML patients and may increase toxicity or decrease therapeutic benefit. The active role of hematologists and nursing teams is crucial to ensure patient adherence to midostaurin treatment and to minimize adverse effects by administrating the optimal dose for each situation.

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).

Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Study of Romidepsin in Patients with Cancer and Hepatic Dysfunction: A National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group Study

PURPOSE

Romidepsin dosing recommendations for patients with malignancy and varying degrees of hepatic dysfunction was lacking at the time of regulatory approval for T-cell lymphoma. We conducted a multicenter phase I clinical trial (ETCTN-9008) via the NCI Organ Dysfunction Working Group to investigate safety, first cycle MTD, and pharmacokinetic profile of romidepsin in this setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with select advanced solid tumors or hematologic malignancies were stratified according to hepatic function. Romidepsin was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle and escalation followed a 3 + 3 design in moderate and severe impairment cohorts. Blood samples for detailed pharmacokinetic analyses were collected after the first dose.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients received one dose of romidepsin and were evaluable for pharmacokinetic analyses in normal (n = 12), mild (n = 8), moderate (n = 5), and severe (n = 6) cohorts. Adverse events across cohorts were similar, and dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two patients (mild and severe impairment cohorts). The MTD was not determined because the geometric mean AUC values of romidepsin in moderate (7 mg/m²) and severe (5 mg/m²) impairment cohort were 114% and 116% of the normal cohort (14 mg/m²).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the ETCTN-9008 trial led to changes in the romidepsin labeling to reflect starting dose adjustment for patients with cancer and moderate and severe hepatic impairment, with no adjustment for mild hepatic impairment.

Effect of a single dose of i.v. ondansetron on QTc interval in emergency department patients

PURPOSE

Results of a study to determine whether i.v. administration of a single dose of 4 mg of ondansetron was associated with QT interval prolongation in emergency department (ED) patients are reported.

METHODS

In a prospective observational study conducted at an urban academic medical center ED, a convenience sample of adult ED patients treated with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. were enrolled. A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was obtained immediately before and 5 minutes after ondansetron administration. Measurements of heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc measurements) provided by ECG machines were evaluated. An electrophysiologist analyzed all ECGs for adverse electrical events and verified the accuracy of QTc values. The primary objective was to measure the QTc change from baseline after ondansetron administration. The secondary objective was to describe adverse electrical cardiac events. Interactions between ondansetron and patients' home medications or ED-provided medications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among patients included in the data analysis (n = 20), ondansetron administration was associated with a mean QTc increase of 16.2 msec (95% confidence interval, 4.2-28.2 msec; p = 0.01) and a median increase of 12 msec (interquartile range, 5.5-18.0 msec; p < 0.01). One patient had a significant cardiac event (pulseless electrical activity) that was likely unrelated to ondansetron use. The home medications of 9 patients (42.9%) were deemed to pose a risk of torsades de pointes, and 17 major QT-prolonging drug-drug interactions were identified.

CONCLUSION

Significant QTc prolongation occurred in ED patients receiving a single 4-mg i.v. dose of ondansetron. None of the patients had an ondansetron-related cardiac adverse event.

Torsades de Pointes after Ondansetron Infusion in 2 Patients

Drugs that prolong the electrocardiographic QT interval increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmias, particularly torsades de pointes. Ondansetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist antiemetic, is one such drug. We present the cases of 2 patients who were given intravenous ondansetron and subsequently developed torsades de pointes. Both had normal QT intervals at baseline but were discovered to have risk factors that predisposed them to drug-induced QT prolongation and ventricular arrhythmias. We briefly review the mechanisms for torsades de pointes caused by QT-prolonging medications, describe characteristics that increase patients' susceptibility to drug-induced QT prolongation, and call attention to the risk of ventricular arrhythmias in patients who are given ondansetron.

Emergency department approach to QTc prolongation

QTc prolongation has been associated with increased risk of developing ventricular tachydysrhythmias, particularly Torsades de Pointes (TdP). QTc prolongation is influenced by many factors including congenital causes, heart rate, metabolic imbalances, and pharmacotherapy. Several commonly used medications in the emergency department (ED), such as antipsychotics and antiemetics, are known to prolong the QT interval. In addition, ED patients may present with conditions that may predispose them to QTc prolongation, such as drug overdose or hypokalemia, which can further complicate management. ED providers should not only be aware of which medications have these effects, but must also thoroughly investigate any pertinent patient history that may contribute to QTc prolongation. This review discusses commonly encountered medications that are associated with QTc prolongation, the mechanisms by which they prolong the QTc interval, and other factors that may influence ED medication administration and management.

Geranisetron versus gabapentin in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery in adults: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial study

Background:

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after middle ear surgery is high. In this study we want to compare the effects of intravenous granisetron and oral gabapentin as a premedication before surgery on the incidence and severity of PONV after middle ear surgery in adult patents.

Materials and Methods:

We enrolled 90 patients that were randomly divided into the three groups of 30 in each. Group I received granisetron 3 mg iv 2 minutes before induction of anesthesia; Group II received oral gabapentin 300 mg 1 hour before anesthesia and Group III received placebo. The incidence and severity of PONV were recorded each 15 minutes in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and each 8 hours until 24 hours after discharge from the PACU.

Result:

The incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting at different time intervals in Groups I and Group II was significantly lower compared with Group III (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects of study drug administration including respiratory depression, apnea, extra pyramidal disorders, drowsiness, dizziness, vertigo and headache in three groups.

Conclusion:

The study was shown that using gabapentin and granisetron have equal anti-emetic effects, but significant differences were seen between these two groups compared to the control group. These submit the efficiency of these drugs in preventing PONV.