Comparison of the antiemetic effect of ramosetron with the combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron in middle ear surgery: A double-blind, randomized clinical study

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Drug reprofiling history and potential therapies against Parkinson’s disease

Given the high whittling down rates, high costs, and moderate pace of new medication, revelation, and improvement, repurposing “old” drugs to treat typical and uncommon illnesses is progressively becoming an appealing proposition. Drug repurposing is the way toward utilizing existing medications in treating diseases other than the purposes they were initially designed for. Faced with scientific and economic challenges, the prospect of discovering new medication indications is enticing to the pharmaceutical sector. Medication repurposing can be used at various stages of drug development, although it has shown to be most promising when the drug has previously been tested for safety. We describe strategies of drug repurposing for Parkinson’s disease, which is a neurodegenerative condition that primarily affects dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. We also discuss the obstacles faced by the repurposing community and suggest new approaches to solve these challenges so that medicine repurposing can reach its full potential.

A comparative clinical study of methylprednisolone with ondansetron versus ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing middle-ear surgeries

Background:

One of the most troublesome complications after middle-ear surgeries has been postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A notable decrease in PONV has been observed with the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists and glucocorticoids.

Aim:

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of intravenous methylprednisolone and ondansetron with ramosetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing middle-ear surgeries.

Settings and Design:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study that comprised sixty patients in the age group of 18–60 years belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification I or II and undergoing middle-ear surgery.

Materials and Methods:

With the help of computer-generated randomization table, sixty patients in the age group of 18–60 years belonging to ASA physical status classification I or II and undergoing middle-ear surgery were randomly allotted to receive a combination of methylprednisolone 40 mg (given at the beginning of surgery) and ondansetron 4 mg (given near the end of surgery) (Group MO, n = 30) or ramosetron 0.3 mg (near the end of surgery) (Group R, n = 30). In both the groups, the incidence of PONV was studied.

Statistical Analysis:

Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was utilized to analogize the categorical variables. Independent t-test was utilized to analogize the continuous variables.

Results:

In the first 2 h after the surgery, the difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of PONV was insignificant. Between 2 h and 24 h, the incidence of nausea was lowered significantly in the group MO compared to the group R (P = 0.01). Between 24 h and 48 h, the incidence of nausea was more in group R compared to the combination therapy group, which was statistically significant.

Conclusion:

The combination therapy is better than ramosetron alone for the prevention of PONV after middle-ear surgery. Therefore, we advocate a combination of methylprednisolone and ondansetron for prophylaxis for PONV in middle-ear surgeries.

Prophylactic antiemetic effects of dexamethasone versus 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in ear surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The optimal strategy for reducing the high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after otologic surgical procedures remains inconclusive. Aim of the review This study compared the prophylactic antiemetic effects of dexamethasone with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3-RAs) in ear surgery. Method PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched up to October 31, 2020 for randomized controlled trials that used dexamethasone either singly or in combination with 5-HT3-RAs for PONV prophylaxis in adults undergoing ear surgery. Studies in languages other than English and those without a control group of 5-HT3-RAs were excluded. Random effects meta-analyses were performed, and risk of bias was assessed using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Main outcome measures include incidences of early (< 6 h) and overall (0-48 h) PONV, the overall requirement for rescue antiemetics, and the occurrence of adverse events. Results Eight trials of 733 adults were included, and the overall risks of bias were generally low. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) of early and overall PONV of dexamethasone versus 5-HT3-RAs were 2.0 (95% CI 0.8-5.1, I² = 82%), and 1.3 (95% CI 0.6-2.6, I² = 86%). In studies comparing dexamethasone plus 5-HT3-RAs with 5-HT3-RAs alone, pooled RRs of early and overall PONV were 0.8 (95% CI 0.4-1.4, I² = 30%), and 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.6, I² = 0%), respectively. Pooled RRs of the overall need for rescue antiemetics comparing 5-HT3-RAs with dexamethasone alone and in combination with 5-HT3-RAs were 1.2 (95% CI 0.4-3.9, I² = 73%) and 0.4 (95% CI 0.1-1.4, I² = 61%), respectively. Common adverse events reported were headache and dizziness, and the incidences range from 0 to 10% without significant differences between the groups. Conclusion The prophylactic antiemetic effects of dexamethasone versus 5-HT3-RAs in ear surgery did not significantly differ in the early and overall postoperative phases. The combination of dexamethasone with 5-HT3-RAs showed superior overall PONV prophylactic effects to 5-HT3-RAs alone in ear surgery, but their differences in the need for rescue antiemetics remained non-significant.

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).

[Comparison of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in middle ear surgery: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60-80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.

RESULTS

Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2-6hours only (p=0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0-24hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (p=0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron-dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number-needed-to-treat was 4. The patient's satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (p=0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (p=0.026).

CONCLUSION

The combination of palonosetron-dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron-dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.

Comparison of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in middle ear surgery: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60–80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.

Methods

Sixty-four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.

Results

Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2–6 hours only (p = 0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0–24 hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (p = 0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron–dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number-needed-to-treat was 4. The patient’s satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (p = 0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (p = 0.026).

Conclusion

The combination of palonosetron-dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron-dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.