-
Der Anaesthesist Feb 2022The prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative pain to enhance patient comfort has been a primary goal of anesthesiologists for the last decades; however, avoiding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
[Update on PONV-What is new in prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting? : Summary of recent consensus recommendations and Cochrane reviews on prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting].
The prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative pain to enhance patient comfort has been a primary goal of anesthesiologists for the last decades; however, avoiding postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is, from a patient's perspective, a highly relevant and equally important goal of anesthesia. Recent consensus-based guidelines suggest the assessment of risk factors including female gender, postoperative opioid administration, non-smoking status, a history of PONV or motion sickness, young patient age, longer duration of anesthesia, volatile anesthetics and the type of surgery and reducing the patient's baseline risk (e.g. through the use of regional anesthesia and administration of non-opioid analgesics as part of a multimodal approach). In general, a liberal PONV prophylaxis is encouraged for adult patients and children, which should also be administered when no risk assessment is made. The basis for every adult patient should be a standard prophylaxis with two antiemetics, such as dexamethasone in combination with a 5-HT receptor antagonist. In patients at high risk, this should be supplemented by a third and potentially a fourth antiemetic prophylaxis with a different mechanism of action. A recently published comprehensive Cochrane meta-analysis comparing available antiemetic prophylaxes reported the highest effectiveness to prevent PONV for the NK receptor antagonist aprepitant (relative risk, RR 0.26), followed by ramosetron (RR 0.44), granisetron (RR 0.45), dexamethasone (RR 0.51) and ondansetron (RR 0.55), thereby revising the dogma that every antiemetic is equally effective. Adverse events of antiemetics were generally rare and reported in less than half of the included studies, yielding a low quality of evidence for these end points. In general, combinations of different antiemetics were more effective than single prophylaxes. In children above 3 years of age, the same principles should be applied as in adults. For these patients, there is a high degree of evidence for the combination of dexamethasone and 5‑HT receptor antagonists. When PONV occurs, the consensus guidelines suggest that antiemetics from a class different than given as prophylaxis should be administered. To decrease the incidence of PONV and increase the quality of care, the importance of the implementation of institutional-level guidelines and protocols as well as assessment of PONV prophylaxis and PONV incidence is highly recommended.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antiemetics; Child; Consensus; Female; Humans; Ondansetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 34596699
DOI: 10.1007/s00101-021-01045-z -
Pharmacotherapy Jun 2017Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) has become more prevalent with increasing cannabis use. CHS is often resistant to standard antiemetics. The objective of this... (Review)
Review
Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) has become more prevalent with increasing cannabis use. CHS is often resistant to standard antiemetics. The objective of this study is to review the current evidence for pharmacologic treatment of CHS. Medline, PsycINFO, DARE, OpenGrey, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. Articles were selected and reviewed independently. Evidence was graded using Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. The search resulted in 1262 articles with 63 of them eligible for inclusion (205 human subjects). There were 4 prospective level-2, 3 retrospective level-3 studies, 12 level-4 case series, and 44 level-5 case reports. Among level-2 studies (64 subjects), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and lorazepam were discussed as effective long- and short-term treatments, respectively, in two studies. Ondansetron, promethazine, diphenhydramine, and opioids were also mentioned, but the authors did not comment on their efficacy. Among level-3 studies (43 subjects), one reported effective treatment with antiepileptics zonisamide and levetiracetam, but not TCAs. Another reported favorable response to morphine, ondansetron, and lorazepam but did not specify the actual number of patients receiving specific treatment. Among the level-4 case series (54 subjects), benzodiazepines, haloperidol, and capsaicin were reported as helpful. For level-5 case reports (44 subjects), benzodiazepines, metoclopramide, haloperidol, ondansetron, morphine, and capsaicin were reported as effective. Effective treatments mentioned only once included fentanyl, diazepam, promethazine, methadone, nabilone, levomepromazine, piritramide, and pantoprazole. Hot showers and baths were cited in all level-4 and -5 articles as universally effective. High-quality evidence for pharmacologic treatment of CHS is limited. Benzodiazepines, followed by haloperidol and capsaicin, were most frequently reported as effective for acute treatment, and TCAs for long-term treatment. As the prevalence of CHS increases, future prospective trials are greatly needed to evaluate and further define optimal pharmacologic treatment of patients with CHS.
Topics: Antiemetics; Benzodiazepines; Cannabinoids; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Ondansetron; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 28370228
DOI: 10.1002/phar.1931 -
JAMA Jan 2020This pharmacoepidemiology study uses Medicaid data to estimate associations between first-trimester use of intravenous ondansetron and risk of cardiac malformations and...
This pharmacoepidemiology study uses Medicaid data to estimate associations between first-trimester use of intravenous ondansetron and risk of cardiac malformations and oral cleft in children of exposed mothers.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Administration, Oral; Adult; Antiemetics; Cleft Lip; Cleft Palate; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heart Defects, Congenital; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Nausea; Ondansetron; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Risk
PubMed: 31730152
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.18587 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Jul 2023The augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) can be achieved by add-on therapy with different pharmacological agents in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) can be achieved by add-on therapy with different pharmacological agents in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) for a better clinical outcome. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of available augmentation agents for SRIs in OCD.
METHOD
The data was extracted from 59 relevant clinical trials after a literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane databases and clinical trial registries. PRISMA guidelines were followed in data extraction, analysis and reporting. Random effects Bayesian NMA was done to pool the effects across the interventions for the change in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) scoring from baseline to the end of the study. Network graph was built, consistency model was run, node splitting analysis was performed, treatments were ranked as per SUCRA score and meta-regression was done for refractoriness to SRIs and duration of augmentation therapy as the predictor variables.
RESULTS
The drugs showing significant reduction in YBOCS scoring were pregabalin (MD:-8.1;95% CrI: -16, -0.43), memantine (MD:-6.2;95% CrI: -9.9, -2.3), lamotrigine (MD:-6;95% CrI: -12, -0.47), ondansetron (MD:-5.7;95% CrI: -11, -0.67), granisetron (MD:-5.6;95% CrI: -11, -0.44), aripiprazole (MD:-5.4;95% CrI:-9.1, -1.6), risperidone (MD:-3.3;95% CrI: -6.4, -0.20) and topiramate (MD:-5.3;95% CrI: -9.6, -0.97). The node-split analysis showed that direct and indirect pooled effect sizes for all comparisons were comparable. Meta-regression showed a statistically non-significant association between YBOCS score reduction with the duration of augmentation therapy, but significant with SRI-refractory status. Finally, the results were sorted based on certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION
Memantine was found to be most effective augmentation agent for SRIs in OCD, followed by lamotrigine, ondansetron and granisetron with moderate certainty of evidence. The augmentation agents showed better symptom reduction in patients with SRI-refractory OCD in comparison to non-refractory OCD.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42022360110.
Topics: Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Ondansetron; Drug Therapy, Combination; Lamotrigine; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Granisetron; Memantine; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37177823
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13568 -
The British Journal of General Practice... Oct 2021Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) affects almost all children aged ≤5 years. In secondary care, ondansetron was found to be effective at reducing vomiting. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) affects almost all children aged ≤5 years. In secondary care, ondansetron was found to be effective at reducing vomiting.
AIM
To determine the effectiveness of adding oral ondansetron to care as usual (CAU) to treat vomiting in children with AGE attending out-ofhours primary care (OOH-PC).
DESIGN AND SETTING
A pragmatic randomised controlled trial at three OOH-PC centres in the north of the Netherlands (Groningen, Zwolle, and Assen), with a follow-up of 7 days.
METHOD
Children were included if they were: aged 6 months-6 years; AGE diagnosed by a GP; ≥4 reported episodes of vomiting in the 24 hours before presentation; ≥1 reported episode of vomiting in the 4 hours before presentation; and written informed consent from both parents. Children were randomly allocated to either the control group or the intervention group. The control group received CAU, namely oral rehydration therapy. The intervention group received CAU plus one dose of oral ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg).
RESULTS
In total, 194 children were included for randomisation. One dose of oral ondansetron decreased the proportion of children who continued vomiting within 4 hours from 42.9% to 19.5%, with an odds ratio of 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.20 to 0.72, number needed to treat: four). Ondansetron also decreased the number of vomiting episodes within 4 hours (incidence rate ratio 0.51 [95% CI = 0.29 to 0.88]) and improved overall parental satisfaction with treatment ( = 0.027).
CONCLUSION
Children with AGE and increased risk of dehydration due to vomiting could be treated with ondansetron in primary care to stop vomiting more quickly and increase parental satisfaction with treatment. These results could be used to improve the quality and efficacy of general practice medicine.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Double-Blind Method; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Infant; Ondansetron; Primary Health Care; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 34426397
DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0211 -
Annals of Emergency Medicine Jun 2021Little is known about the cause or optimal treatment of hyperemesis in habitual cannabis users. Anecdotal evidence supports the use of haloperidol over traditional... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Little is known about the cause or optimal treatment of hyperemesis in habitual cannabis users. Anecdotal evidence supports the use of haloperidol over traditional antiemetics for this newly recognized disorder. We compare haloperidol with ondansetron for cannabis hyperemesis syndrome.
METHODS
We randomized cannabis users with active emesis to either haloperidol (with a nested randomization to either 0.05 or 0.1 mg/kg) or ondansetron 8 mg intravenously in a triple-blind fashion. The primary outcome was the reduction from baseline in abdominal pain and nausea (each measured on a 10-cm visual analog scale) at 2 hours after treatment. Although the trial allowed for crossover, the primary analysis used only the first treatment period because few subjects crossed over.
RESULTS
We enrolled 33 subjects, of whom 30 (16 men, aged 29 years [SD 11 years] using 1.5 g/day [SD 0.9 g/day] since age 19 years [SD 2 years]) received at least 1 treatment (haloperidol 13, ondansetron 17). Haloperidol at either dose was superior to ondansetron (difference 2.3 cm [95% confidence interval 0.6 to 4.0 cm]; P=.01), with similar improvements in both pain and nausea, as well as less use of rescue antiemetics (31% versus 59%; difference -28% [95% confidence interval -61% to 13%]) and shorter time to emergency department (ED) departure (3.1 hours [SD 1.7] versus 5.6 hours [SD 4.5]; difference 2.5 hours [95% confidence interval 0.1 to 5.0 hours]; P=.03). There were 2 return visits for acute dystonia, both in the higher-dose haloperidol group.
CONCLUSION
In this clinical trial, haloperidol was superior to ondansetron for the acute treatment of cannabis-associated hyperemesis. The efficacy of haloperidol over ondansetron provides insight into the pathophysiology of this now common diagnosis in many EDs.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Antiemetics; Female; Haloperidol; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Ondansetron; Pain Measurement; Syndrome; Vomiting
PubMed: 33160719
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.08.021 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jun 2024An objective and validated index of nausea and vomiting such as the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) and HyperEmesis Level Prediction (HELP) tools can be...
An objective and validated index of nausea and vomiting such as the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) and HyperEmesis Level Prediction (HELP) tools can be used to classify the severity of NVP and HG. [Grade C] Ketonuria is not an indicator of dehydration and should not be used to assess severity. [Grade A] There are safety and efficacy data for first line antiemetics such as anti (H1) histamines, phenothiazines and doxylamine/pyridoxine (Xonvea®) and they should be prescribed initially when required for NVP and HG (Appendix III). [Grade A] There is evidence that ondansetron is safe and effective. Its use as a second line antiemetic should not be discouraged if first line antiemetics are ineffective. Women can be reassured regarding a very small increase in the absolute risk of orofacial clefting with ondansetron use in the first trimester, which should be balanced with the risks of poorly managed HG. [Grade B] Metoclopramide is safe and effective and can be used alone or in combination with other antiemetics. [Grade B] Because of the risk of extrapyramidal effects metoclopramide should be used as second-line therapy. Intravenous doses should be administered by slow bolus injection over at least 3 minutes to help minimise these. [Grade C] Women should be asked about previous adverse reactions to antiemetic therapies. If adverse reactions occur, there should be prompt cessation of the medications. [GPP] Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) with additional potassium chloride in each bag, with administration guided by daily monitoring of electrolytes, is the most appropriate intravenous hydration. [Grade C] Combinations of different drugs should be used in women who do not respond to a single antiemetic. Suggested antiemetics for UK use are given in Appendix III. [GPP] Thiamine supplementation (either oral 100 mg tds or intravenous as part of vitamin B complex (Pabrinex®)) should be given to all women admitted with vomiting, or severely reduced dietary intake, especially before administration of dextrose or parenteral nutrition. [Grade D] All therapeutic measures should have been tried before considering termination of pregnancy. [Grade C].
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Hyperemesis Gravidarum; Antiemetics; Ondansetron; Morning Sickness; Nausea; Pyridoxine; Metoclopramide; Severity of Illness Index; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 38311315
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17739 -
Ugeskrift For Laeger Apr 2024Evidence suggests that available antiemetics are equal to intravenous fluid treatment against acute nausea of other causes than motion sickness, pregnancy, anaesthesia,... (Review)
Review
Evidence suggests that available antiemetics are equal to intravenous fluid treatment against acute nausea of other causes than motion sickness, pregnancy, anaesthesia, chemo- or radiation therapy. Each antiemetic is associated with adverse effects, which include movement disorders, sedation, and QT prolongation. Intravenous fluid and treatment directed against underlying pathology is recommended as a first-line treatment against nausea in these patients. If an antiemetic is clinically warranted, ondansetron has the most favourable ratio between side effects and price, as argued in this review.
Topics: Humans; Antiemetics; Nausea; Acute Disease; Ondansetron; Fluid Therapy; Hospitalization; Female; Pregnancy
PubMed: 38704720
DOI: 10.61409/V11230735 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Aug 2017
Topics: Acetaminophen; Humans; Ondansetron
PubMed: 28625425
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.05.001 -
Praxis Jul 2018
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Topics: 2-Propanol; Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adult; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Nausea; Ondansetron; Vomiting
PubMed: 29969966
DOI: 10.1024/1661-8157/a002994