-
Exploratory Research in Clinical and... Jun 2024High-alert medication (HAM) is more predictable to cause significant harm to the patient, even when used as intended. The damage related to the HAM lead not only... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
High-alert medication (HAM) is more predictable to cause significant harm to the patient, even when used as intended. The damage related to the HAM lead not only suffering to the patient, but also raise the additional costs associated with care.
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the incidence of drug-related adverse events related to the use of high-alert medications.
METHODS
It was conducted an active search for information through COCHRANE databases, LILACS, SciELO, SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE and WEB OF SCIENCE. The search strategy included the following terms: "Patient safety", "Medication errors" and "Hospital" and "High Alert Medications" or "Dangerous Drugs" in different combinations. Then two reviewers independently conducted a preliminary evaluation of relevant titles, abstracts and finally full-text. Studies quality was evaluated according to PRISMA declaration.
RESULTS
The systematic review evaluated seven articles, which showed that only 11 HAM identified in the literature could have serious events. The most frequently cited were warfarin (22.2%) which progressed from deep vein thrombosis to gangrene, suggesting lower initial doses, followed by cyclophosphamide (22.2%) and cyclosporine (22.2%) which presented invasive fungal infection and death. In addition to these, morphine was compared with its active metabolite (M6G), with M6G causing fewer serious clinical events related to nausea and vomiting, reducing the need for concomitant use of antiemetics.
CONCLUSIONS
The most reported drug classes in the articles included that were related to incidence of drug-related adverse events in use of high-alert medications: morphine, M6G-glucuronide, haloperidol, promethazine, ivabradine, digoxin, warfarin, ximelagatran, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, and ATG. The formulate protocols for the use of these medications, with importance placed on evaluating, among the classes, the medication that causes the least harm.
PubMed: 38646469
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100435 -
Journal of the Academy of... 2024Acute disturbance is a broad term referring to escalating behaviors secondary to a change in mental state, such as agitation, aggression, and violence. Available... (Review)
Review
Effectiveness and Safety of Intravenous Medications for the Management of Acute Disturbance (Agitation and Other Escalating Behaviors): A Systematic Review of Prospective Interventional Studies.
Acute disturbance is a broad term referring to escalating behaviors secondary to a change in mental state, such as agitation, aggression, and violence. Available management options include de-escalation techniques and rapid tranquilization, mostly via parenteral formulations of medication. While the intramuscular route has been extensively studied in a range of clinical settings, the same cannot be said for intravenous (IV); this is despite potential benefits, including rapid absorption and complete bioavailability. This systematic review analyzed existing evidence for effectiveness and safety of IV medication for management of acute disturbances. It followed a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO identification CRD42020216456) and is reported following the guidelines set by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible interventional studies up until May 30th, 2023. Data analysis was limited to narrative synthesis since primary outcome measures varied significantly. Results showed mixed but positive results for the effectiveness of IV dexmedetomidine, lorazepam, droperidol, and olanzapine. Evidence was more limited for IV haloperidol, ketamine, midazolam, chlorpromazine, and valproate. There was no eligible data on the use of IV clonazepam, clonidine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, propranolol, ziprasidone, fluphenazine, carbamazepine, or promethazine. Most studies reported favorable adverse event profiles, though they are unlikely to have been sufficiently powered to pick up rare serious events. In most cases, evidence was of low or mixed quality, accentuating the need for further standardized, large-scale, multi-arm randomized controlled trials with homogeneous outcome measures. Overall, this review suggests that IV medications may offer an effective alternative parenteral route of administration in acute disturbance, particularly in general hospital settings.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Intravenous; Psychomotor Agitation; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 38309683
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2024.01.004 -
CJEM Jun 2023The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children.
STUDY DESIGN
We included trials of NO in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," or "unfavorable" (p < 0.05, supporting NO or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% NO (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I = 0%) and 50% NO plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% NO was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, NO was "favorable" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but "neutral" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), NO was "neutral" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), NO was "favorable" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), NO was "neutral" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), NO plus EMLA was "favorable" versus NO and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of NO included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with NO alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus NO plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and NO plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).
CONCLUSIONS
There is sufficient evidence to recommend NO plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Nitrous Oxide; Midazolam; Ketamine; Lacerations; Pain; Anesthetics, Local; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Oxygen
PubMed: 37171705
DOI: 10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0 -
Journal of Applied Toxicology : JAT Apr 2023In this review, we summarized the current literature on the impact of phenothiazine derivatives on autophagy in vitro. Phenothiazines are antipsychotic drugs used in the... (Review)
Review
In this review, we summarized the current literature on the impact of phenothiazine derivatives on autophagy in vitro. Phenothiazines are antipsychotic drugs used in the treatment of schizophrenia, which is related to altered neurotransmission and dysregulation of neuronal autophagy. Thus, phenothiazine derivatives can impact autophagy. We identified 35 papers, where the use of the phenothiazines in the in vitro autophagy assays on normal and cancer cell lines, Caenorhabditis elegans, and zebrafish were discussed. Chlorpromazine, fluphenazine, mepazine, methotrimeprazine, perphenazine, prochlorperazine, promethazine, thioridazine, trifluoperazine, and novel derivatives can modulate autophagy. Stimulation of autophagy by phenothiazines may be either mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)-dependent or mTOR-independent. The final effect depends on the used concentration as well as the cell line. A further investigation of the mechanisms of autophagy regulation by phenothiazine derivatives is required to understand the biological actions and to increase the therapeutic potential of this class of drugs.
Topics: Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Zebrafish; Promazine; Phenothiazines; Chlorpromazine; Mammals
PubMed: 36165981
DOI: 10.1002/jat.4397 -
CNS Drugs Apr 2022Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic relapsing-remitting psychiatric disorder. Sleep and circadian rhythm disturbances persist during acute mood episodes of the disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic relapsing-remitting psychiatric disorder. Sleep and circadian rhythm disturbances persist during acute mood episodes of the disorder and during euthymia. However, the treatment potential of hypnotic agents that might be used to manage sleep disturbance in BD is not well understood. Similarly, melatonin and medications with a melatonin-receptor agonist mechanism of action may have chronotherapeutic potential for treating people with the disorder, but the impact of these substances on sleep and circadian rhythms and core symptoms in BD is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the current evidence for hypnotic and melatonin/melatonin-receptor agonist pharmacotherapy for symptoms of sleep disturbance, mania, and depression in patients with BD.
METHODS
AMED, Embase, MEDLINE and PsychINFO databases were searched for studies published in English from the date of inception to 31 October 2021. Studies included in this review were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-controlled/non-randomised studies for BD that examined hypnotic medications selected based on a common pattern of usage for treating insomnia (i.e. chloral, clomethiazole, diphenhydramine, doxepin, doxylamine, promethazine, suvorexant, zaleplon, zolpidem, zopiclone, and eszopiclone) and melatonin and the melatonin-receptor agonist drugs ramelteon and agomelatine. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 and AXIS tools. Pooled effect sizes for RCT outcomes were estimated using random-effects models.
RESULTS
A total of eleven studies (six RCTs and five experimental feasibility studies) involving 1279 participants were included. Each study examined melatonin or melatonin-receptor agonists. No studies of hypnotics were found that fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. Pilot feasibility studies suggested beneficial treatment effects for symptoms of sleep disturbance, depression, and mania. However, the pooled effect of the two available RCT studies assessing sleep quality via Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores was not statistically significant (g = - 0.04 [95% CI - 0.81 to 0.73]) and neither was the pooled effect for depressive symptoms (four studies; g = - 0.10 [95% CI - 0.27 to 0.08]). Some RCT evidence suggests ramelteon might prevent relapse into depression in BD. The largest efficacy signal detected was for manic symptoms (four studies; g = - 0.44 [95% CI - 1.03 to 0.14]) but there was substantial heterogeneity between studies and patient characteristics. In the two RCTs assessing manic symptoms during acute mania, adjunctive melatonin demonstrated superior treatment effects versus placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of studies examining pharmacological interventions for sleep and circadian rhythm disturbance in BD. Few studies assessed sleep-related symptoms, and none quantitatively examined endogenous melatonin patterns or other circadian rhythms. Melatonin may be a promising candidate for the adjunctive treatment of bipolar mania. However, dose-finding studies and studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm its efficacy. We recommend parallel monitoring of sleep and circadian rhythms in future trials. Chronobiology-informed trial designs are needed to improve the quality of future studies.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42020167528).
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Mania; Melatonin; Sleep; Sleep Wake Disorders
PubMed: 35305257
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-022-00911-7 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Jan 2022Current data on use of antihistamines during breastfeeding and risks to the breastfed infant are insufficient. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an...
Current data on use of antihistamines during breastfeeding and risks to the breastfed infant are insufficient. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of studies measuring the levels of antihistamines in human breast milk, estimating the exposure for breastfed infants and/or reporting possible adverse effects on the breastfed infant. An additional aim was to review the antihistamine product labels available in the European Union (EU) and the United States. We searched seven online databases and identified seven human lactation studies that included 25 mother-infant pairs covering cetirizine, clemastine, ebastine, epinastine, loratadine, terfenadine and triprolidine. In addition, one study investigated the impact of chlorpheniramine or promethazine on prolactin levels among 17 women, and one study investigated possible adverse drug reactions in 85 breastfed infants exposed to various antihistamines. The relative infant dose was below 5% for all antihistamines, ranging from 0.3% for terfenadine to 4.5% for clemastine. Most product labels of the 10 antihistamines with available information in both the EU and the United States reported lack of evidence and recommended to avoid use during breastfeeding. The knowledge gap on antihistamines and lactation is extensive, and further human studies are warranted to ensure optimal treatment of breastfeeding women with allergy.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Drug Labeling; European Union; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Infant; Lactation; Milk, Human; United States
PubMed: 34587362
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.13663 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.
Topics: Child; Chloral Hydrate; Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Pentobarbital
PubMed: 34397100
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011786.pub3 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2021Over the past 20 years or so, the drug misuse scenario has seen the emergence of both prescription-only and over-the-counter (OTC) medications being reported as...
Over the past 20 years or so, the drug misuse scenario has seen the emergence of both prescription-only and over-the-counter (OTC) medications being reported as ingested for recreational purposes. OTC drugs such as antihistamines, cough/cold medications, and decongestants are reportedly the most popular in being diverted and misused. While the current related knowledge is limited, the aim here was to examine the published clinical data on OTC misuse, focusing on antihistamines (e.g., diphenhydramine, promethazine, chlorpheniramine, and dimenhydrinate), dextromethorphan (DXM)- and codeine-based cough medicines, and the nasal decongestant pseudoephedrine. A systematic literature review was carried out with the help of Scopus, Web of Science databases, and the related gray literature. For data gathering purposes, both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and PROSPERO guidelines were followed (PROSPERO identification code CRD42020209261). After completion of the selection, eligibility, and screening phases, some 92 articles were here taken into consideration; case reports, surveys, and retrospective case series analyses were included. Findings were organized according to the specific OTC recorded. Most articles focused here on DXM ( = 54) and diphenhydramine ( = 12). When specified, dosages, route(s) of administration, toxicity symptoms (including both physical and psychiatric ones), and outcomes were here reported. Results from the systematic review showed that the OTC misusing issues are both widespread worldwide and popular; vulnerable categories include adolescents and young adults, although real prevalence figures remain unknown, due to a lack of appropriate monitoring systems. Considering the potential, and at times serious, adverse effects associated with OTC misusing issues, healthcare professionals should be vigilant, and preventative actions should be designed and implemented.
PubMed: 34025478
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.657397 -
Transfusion and Apheresis Science :... Apr 2021Anti-allergic agents (e.g. dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine or promethazine) are commonly administered to patients prior to blood product transfusions. However, the use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anti-allergic agents (e.g. dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine or promethazine) are commonly administered to patients prior to blood product transfusions. However, the use of these agents is largely experience-based instead of evidence-based. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the evidence behind using anti-allergic agents to attenuate transfusion reactions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biomedical literature (CMB) databases were all queried for related articles. Data from groups treated with and without anti-allergic agents were collected for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. Baseline characteristics and univariate statistics between groups were compared using SPSS 19.0.
RESULTS
Eight eligible articles (six case control studies and two randomized controlled trials, all with high risks of bias) were identified (22060 total cases). Administered anti-allergic agents in these studies only included dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine or promethazine. Baseline characteristics showed no significant age or gender differences between treatment or control groups. There were no significant differences between the pooled experimental or control groups (for each of the three medications) in terms of fever, pruritis, rash, airway spasm or overall transfusion reaction rates.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence that dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine or promethazine can prevent transfusion reactions. Avoiding the arbitrary use of such anti-allergic agents before blood transfusions may potentially avoid needless adverse drug reactions.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Blood Transfusion; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Transfusion Reaction
PubMed: 33455877
DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2020.103041 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Postoperative 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... (Meta-Analysis)
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).
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33075160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2