-
PloS One 2024The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravenous palonosetron compared to ondansetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravenous palonosetron compared to ondansetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing cesarean section.
METHODS
Fifty-four women scheduled for elective cesarean section were, randomly allocated to ondansetron group (n = 27) or palonosetron group (n = 27). Ten minutes prior to the administration of spinal anesthesia, participants received an intravenous injection of either ondansetron or palonosetron. A prophylactic phenylephrine infusion was initiated immediately following the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was titrated to maintain adequate blood pressure until the time of fetal delivery. The primary outcome was total dose of phenylephrine administered. The secondary outcomes were nausea or vomiting, the need for rescue antiemetics, hypotension, bradycardia, and shivering. Complete response rate, defined as the absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and no need for additional antiemetics, were assessed for up to 24 hours post-surgery.
RESULTS
No significant differences were observed in the total dose of phenylephrine used between the ondansetron and palonosetron groups (387.5 μg [interquartile range, 291.3-507.8 μg versus 428.0 μg [interquartile range, 305.0-507.0 μg], P = 0.42). Complete response rates also showed no significant differences between the groups both within two hours post-spinal anesthesia (88.9% in the ondansetron group versus 100% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.24) and at 24 hours post-surgery (81.5% in the ondansetron group versus 88.8% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.7). In addition, there was no difference in other secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic administration of palonosetron did not demonstrate a superior effect over ondansetron in mitigating hemodynamic changes or reducing phenylephrine requirements in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl for cesarean section.
Topics: Humans; Female; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Palonosetron; Adult; Hypotension; Pregnancy; Ondansetron; Antiemetics; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Phenylephrine; Anesthesia, Obstetrical
PubMed: 38917195
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305913 -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2024Post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) is a pertinent problem in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of the...
Olanzapine versus standard antiemetic prophylaxis for the prevention of post-discharge nausea and vomiting after propofol-based general anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) is a pertinent problem in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of the novel drug olanzapine, which has proved its efficiency in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy for PDNV prevention.
METHODS
This randomised controlled trial recruited 106 adult patients (18-65 years) undergoing highly emetogenic daycare surgeries with propofol-based general anaesthesia (GA). Group O received preoperative oral olanzapine 10 mg, and Group C, acting as a control, received 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone and 4 mg of ondansetron intraoperatively. The primary outcome was nausea (numeric rating scale >3) and/or vomiting 24 h after discharge. Secondary outcomes included nausea and vomiting in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU), severe nausea, vomiting and side effects. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the independent samples -test or the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables. Fisher's exact test was used to assess any non-random associations between the categorical variables.
RESULTS
The incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting were similar in both groups within PACU (four patients experienced nausea and vomiting, three had severe symptoms in Group O, = 0.057) and in the post-discharge period (three patients in Group O had nausea and vomiting compared to five patients in Group C, of which four were severe, = 0.484). The side effects (sedation, dizziness, and light-headedness) were comparable between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
A single preoperative oral olanzapine can be an effective alternative to standard antiemetic prophylaxis involving dexamethasone and ondansetron for preventing PDNV in highly emetogenic daycare surgeries with propofol-based GA.
PubMed: 38903258
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_1162_23 -
Pain Research & Management 2024Common postoperative complications following surgery, particularly acute appendicitis surgery, include postoperative pain and vomiting, which can cause discomfort and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Common postoperative complications following surgery, particularly acute appendicitis surgery, include postoperative pain and vomiting, which can cause discomfort and delay recovery time.
METHODS
A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with 80 cases of acute appendicitis of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II and aged 18-60 y/o scheduled for appendectomy under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups: group A received 4 mg of ondansetron IV (2 ml) and group B received 2 ml of normal slain IV (placebo). Pain according to VAS, nausea and vomiting according to clinical symptoms, shivering and sedation according to the Bedside Shivering Assessment Scale (BSAS), and the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) at 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery were evaluated and compared between the groups.
RESULTS
There was a significant decline in the severity of pain only at 2 hours after surgery between the ondansetron and control groups (5.3 ± 1.0 vs. 6.0 ± 1.0; =0.01), not showing a difference between the groups at 6, 12, and 24 hours after appendectomy. Postoperative nausea and vomiting at 2 (5% vs. 25%; =0.03) and 6 (7.5% vs. 27.5%; =0.04) hours after appendectomy in the ondansetron group. At different times, the ondansetron and control groups did not differ in terms of pethidine consumption or sedation.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, our study found that ondansetron was effective in reducing postoperative vomiting after acute appendicitis surgery. However, it did not show a clinically significant effect on postoperative pain. This trial is registered with IRCT20230722058883N1.
Topics: Humans; Double-Blind Method; Ondansetron; Adult; Male; Female; Pain, Postoperative; Appendicitis; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Adolescent; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Appendectomy; Pain Measurement; Antiemetics; Treatment Outcome; Time Factors
PubMed: 38899063
DOI: 10.1155/2024/6429874 -
ACG Case Reports Journal Jun 2024The etiology for concurrent attacks of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea can be obscure. Mast cell activation syndrome is not usually considered in this...
The etiology for concurrent attacks of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea can be obscure. Mast cell activation syndrome is not usually considered in this differential diagnosis. A 53-year-old paint salesman suffered severe attacks of these symptoms for the 3 decades of his career. Nortriptyline, loperamide, hyoscyamine, and ondansetron failed to address his symptoms. Mast cell activation syndrome was ultimately diagnosed. Intravenous mast cell-targeted therapy reduced severity of attacks. Multiple oral mast cell-targeted treatments were ineffective, but addition of low-dose imatinib resulted in dramatic improvement. Recognition that paint-fume exposure-triggered attacks led to behavioral modifications which further reduced symptoms.
PubMed: 38883580
DOI: 10.14309/crj.0000000000001383 -
Cureus May 2024Introduction Cancer chemotherapy regimens include multiple classes of adjuvant drugs as supportive therapy. Because of the concurrent intake of other drugs (like...
Prevalence, Attributes, and Risk Factors of QT-Interval-Prolonging Drugs and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital.
Introduction Cancer chemotherapy regimens include multiple classes of adjuvant drugs as supportive therapy. Because of the concurrent intake of other drugs (like antiemetics, antidepressants, analgesics, and antimicrobials), there is a heightened risk for possible QT interval prolongation. There is a dearth of evidence in the literature regarding the usage of QT-prolonging anticancer drugs and associated risk factors that have the propensity to prolong QT interval. The purpose was to explore the extent of the use of QT-interval-prolonging drugs and potential QT-prolonging drug-drug interactions (QT-DDIs) in cancer patients attending OPD in a tertiary-care hospital. Methods This was a hospital-based, cross-sectional, observational study. Risk stratification of QT-prolonging drugs for torsades de pointes (TdP) was done by the Arizona Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (AzCERT)/CredibleMeds-lists, and potential QT-DDIs were determined with four online DDI-checker-software. Results In 1331 cancer patients, the overall prevalence of potential QT-prolonging drug utilization was 97.3%. Ondansetron, pantoprazole, domperidone, and olanzapine were the most frequent QT-prolonging drugs in cancer patients. The top six antineoplastics with potential QT-prolonging and torsadogenic actions were capecitabine, oxaliplatin, imatinib, bortezomib, 5-fluorouracil, and bendamustine. Evidence-based pragmatic QTc interval prolongation risk assessment tools are imperative for cancer patients. Conclusion This study revealed a high prevalence of QT-prolonging drugs and QT-DDIs among cancer patients who are treated with anticancer and non-anticancer drugs. As a result, it's critical to take precautions, stay vigilant, and avoid QT-prolonging in clinical situations. Evidence-based pragmatic QTc interval prolongation risk assessment tools are needed for cancer patients.
PubMed: 38882995
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.60492 -
Journal of Medical Imaging and... Jun 2024The purpose of this study was to determine patient perceptions of an advanced practice radiation therapist (APRT) prescribing medication for radiation therapy...
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to determine patient perceptions of an advanced practice radiation therapist (APRT) prescribing medication for radiation therapy treatment-related side effects. By comprehending patient perceptions, it is important to implement change in order to improve patients' quality of life.
METHODS
A literature review was conducted on advanced practice (AP) roles in Canada and world-wide; the roles searched were: APRT, nurse practitioner and pharmacist. The search focused on evidence demonstrating improvements made to patient care due to the implementation of these roles. Based on this review and input from a team of experts a qualitative semi-structured interview survey was designed, and pilot tested. The survey consisted of five open-ended questions, which were designed to determine patient satisfaction of an APRT prescribing medication over the course of their radiation therapy treatments. Patients undergoing head and neck radiation therapy treatments at a large, academic cancer centre were invited to participate. Six patients who had a head and neck APRT involved in their treatment were interviewed. A comprehensive thematic analysis was then conducted using the transcripts created from these interviews, which was followed by two independent blinded analyses to ensure validity of the results.
DISCUSSION
The thematic analysis produced four salient themes which were: side effect management, care provided by the APRT in comparison to other healthcare workers, patients' access to care, and overall patient satisfaction. Common medications for head and neck radiation therapy treatment related side effects were discussed and these were: Magic Mouthwash, Xylocaine, Nystatin, Benadryl, Advil, Tylenol, Dexamethasone, Tantum, Biotene, Mucaine, Flamazine, Hydrocortisone, Ondansetron, Senokot, and narcotics.
CONCLUSION
This study was valuable to understand patient experiences and provide evidence to change processes in order to improve quality of patient centered care. The study revealed that although patients were happy with the process of prescribing medication, they all agreed that having an advanced practice radiation therapist prescribe would improve care. Patient responses further demonstrated the need for future research in regards to side effect management as a whole by APRTs as well as how role clarification can impact patient perceptions of APRTs.
PubMed: 38878617
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101443 -
European Journal of Internal Medicine Jun 2024Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and over 95 million people live with alcohol dependence globally. The...
BACKGROUND
Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and over 95 million people live with alcohol dependence globally. The estimated heritability of AUD is 50-60 %, and multiple genes are thought to contribute to various endophenotypes of the disease. Previous clinical trials support a precision medicine approach using ondansetron (AD04, a 5-HT3 antagonist) by segregating AUD populations by the bio-genetic endophenotype of specific serotonergic genotypes and the bio-psychosocial endophenotype of the severity of drinking or both. By targeting the modulation of biogenetic signaling within the biopsychosocial context of AUD, low-dose AD04 holds promise in reducing alcohol consumption among affected individuals while minimizing adverse effects.
METHODS
This was a phase III, 6-month, 25-site, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial using AD04 to treat DSM-V-categorized AUD individuals who were pre-stratified into the endophenotypes of heavy or very heavy drinking individuals and possessed a pre-defined profile of genetic variants related to the serotonin transporter and serotonin-3AB receptor. Participants (N = 303) presented moderate to severe AUD, >80 % were men, mostly in their fifties, and >95 % were of European descent. Low-dose AD04 (approx. 033 mg twice daily) or a matching placebo was administered twice daily for 6 months. Brief Behavioral Compliance Enhancement Treatment (BBCET [53]) was administered every two weeks to enhance medication compliance and clinic attendance.
RESULTS
There was a significant reduction in the monthly percentage of heavy drinking days, PHDD (-46·7 % (2·7 %), 95 %CI: -52·1 % to -41·2 % vs. -38·1 % (2·9 %), 95 %CI: -43·8 % to -32·5 %, respectively; LS mean difference=-8·5 %; p = 0.03) among AD04-treated vs. placebo-receiving heavy drinking individuals at month 6. Heavy drinking individuals were also less likely to be diagnosed with AUD [Month 1: -32·0 % (2·8 %), 95 %CI: -37·5 % to -26·5 % vs. -23·2 % (2·9 %), 95 %CI: -28·9 to -17·5 %; LS mean difference= -8·8 %; p = 0·026)], and improved on the WHO quality of life BREF scale with a significant effect for at least a 1-level downward shift (OR = 3.4; 95 % CI: 1·03-11·45, p = 0·044). Importantly, heavy drinking individuals, as distinct from very heavy drinking individuals, were the bio-psychosocial endophenotype more predictive of therapeutic response to AD04. AD04 had an exceptional safety and tolerability profile, like the placebo's.
CONCLUSIONS
In this Phase 3 clinical trial, AD04 was shown to be a promising treatment for currently drinking heavy drinking individuals with AUD who also possess a specific genotypic profile in the serotonin transporter and serotonin-3AB receptor complex. Using AD04 to reduce the harm of AUD in heavy drinking individuals who are currently drinking, without the necessity of abstinence or detoxification from alcohol use, is an important advance in the field of precision medicine. AD04's adverse events profile, which was like placebo, should enhance accessibility and acceptance of modern medical treatment for AUD by lowering the incorrect but commonly perceived stigma of personal failure.
PubMed: 38876929
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2024.06.001 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Jun 2024Spinal anesthesia is commonly performed for cesarean section, however, postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of its most common adverse effects. Ondansetron is an...
BACKGROUND
Spinal anesthesia is commonly performed for cesarean section, however, postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of its most common adverse effects. Ondansetron is an antiemetic for cancer treatment and analgesia-induced nausea and vomiting. In this study, the authors aim to evaluate the effect of postoperative ondansetron on PDPH.
METHODS
In this randomized controlled clinical trial study, 120 pregnant patients are ASA ll, undergoing elective cesarean section, were randomized into two groups (placebo or study). The patients in the study group, immediately after the birth of a baby and 24 h after the operation, received ondansetron 4 mg IV while the placebo group received a placebo. The severity and incidence of headache, postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness, neck and lower back pain, and the use of analgesia was assessed in the two groups.
RESULTS
The significant meaning of the time effect (<0.001) indicated that regardless of the group, for each unit increase in time, the chance of developing a headache increased by 23%, which was statistically significant. Also, the significant meaning of the group effect indicated that regardless of time, patients who did not take indomethacin had ~4.11 times higher chances of developing a headache compared to those who received the medication, which was statistically significant (=0.004).
CONCLUSION
The administration of ondansetron significantly reduces the occurrence of postspinal anesthesia headaches and neck pain. There was no significant difference in headache severity between the two study groups.
PubMed: 38846852
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000002081 -
International Journal of... 2024Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disorder mainly affecting joints, yet the systemic inflammation can influence other organs and tissues....
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disorder mainly affecting joints, yet the systemic inflammation can influence other organs and tissues. The objective of this study was to unravel the ameliorative capability of Ondansetron (O) or β-sitosterol (BS) against inflammatory reactions and oxidative stress that complicates Extra-articular manifestations (EAM) in liver, kidney, lung, and heart of arthritic and arthritic irradiated rats.
METHODS
This was accomplished by exposing adjuvant-induced arthritis (AIA) rats to successive weekly fractions of total body γ-irradiation (2 Gray (Gy)/fraction once per week for four weeks, up to a total dose of 8 Gy). Arthritic and/or arthritic irradiated rats were either treated with BS (40 mg/kg b.wt. /day, orally) or O (2 mg/kg) was given ip) or were kept untreated as model groups.
RESULTS
Body weight changes, paw circumference, oxidative stress indices, inflammatory response biomarkers, expression of Janus kinase-2 (JAK-2), Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3), high mobility group box1 (HMGB1), and nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB), as well as pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators in the target organs, besides histopathological examination of ankle joints and extra-articular tissues. Treatment of arthritic and/or arthritic irradiated rats with BS or O powerfully alleviated changes in body weight gain, paw swelling, oxidative stress, inflammatory reactions, and histopathological degenerative alterations in articular and non-articular tissues.
CONCLUSION
The obtained data imply that BS or O improved the articular and EAM by regulating oxidative and inflammatory indices in arthritic and arthritic irradiated rats.
Topics: Animals; Sitosterols; Lung; Arthritis, Experimental; Kidney; Oxidative Stress; Rats; Liver; Male; Ondansetron; HMGB1 Protein; Heart; Myocardium; Inflammation; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; STAT3 Transcription Factor; Rats, Wistar
PubMed: 38831558
DOI: 10.1177/03946320241260635 -
Kidney360 May 2024Cisplatin is an effective first line therapy for a variety of cancers. Cisplatin is highly emetogenic and resulting volume depletion can contribute to acute kidney...
BACKGROUND
Cisplatin is an effective first line therapy for a variety of cancers. Cisplatin is highly emetogenic and resulting volume depletion can contribute to acute kidney injury (AKI). Anti-emetic drugs such as 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) are commonly prescribed to prevent this complication. Preclinical studies suggest first generation 5-HT3RAs may alter the renal clearance and increase cisplatin toxicity. This retrospective study evaluated whether different 5-HT3RAs modify the risk of AKI in patients receiving cisplatin.
METHODS
Patients with cancer who received cisplatin between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016 were included. Patients over 18 years old with available data for baseline and post-treatment serum creatinine, cisplatin cumulative dose, and administration of 5-HT3RAs including first generation (ondansetron, granisetron, and ramosetron) and second generation (palonosetron) were analyzed. AKI defined as 1.5x increase in serum creatinine. Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess univariable associations between baseline covariates and AKI, and logistic regression for multivariable associations with AKI.
RESULTS
Of 8703 patients identified with cisplatin exposure, 6889 were included. A total of 3881 (56.3%) patients received at least one 5-HT3RA, including palonosetron (3750, 54.4%), ondansetron (1399, 20.3%) and granisetron (11, 0.2%). AKI developed in 1666 (24.2%) patients following cisplatin. Patients who received any 5-HT3RAs were less likely to experience AKI as compared to patients that did not (22.6% vs 26.2%, p=0.001). Older age, male gender, African ethnicity, and cumulative cisplatin dose were univariately associated with higher risk for AKI (P<0.001). After adjusting for these variables, use of any of these antiemetic drugs was protective for AKI (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.94; P= 0.003) with no difference detected between type of 5-HT3RA.
CONCLUSION
Nephrotoxicity continues to be a concern following cisplatin therapy. Given its emetogenic nature, use of antiemetic drugs such as 5-HT3RAs can lessen emesis and lower risk of kidney injury. This retrospective analysis supports use of any 5-HT3RAs to lower risk of AKI.
PubMed: 38814726
DOI: 10.34067/KID.0000000000000464