Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Keywords
- postoperative nausea and vomiting (3) (remove)
Institute
Objective
In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time needed to prepare what is now the largest Cochrane review with network meta-analysis in terms of the number of included studies and pages in its full printed form.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank single antiemetic drugs and their combinations belonging to 5HT₃-, D₂-, NK₁-receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia.
Results
585 studies (97 516 participants) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were included. The studies’ overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 studies, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared to placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single NK1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron, while moderate for fosaprepitant and droperidol. For serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse event (AE), and drug-class specific side effects evidence for intervention effects was mostly not convincing.
Conclusions
There is high or moderate evidence for at least seven single drugs preventing postoperative vomiting. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.
Background: Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004.
Methods: The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the ‘Cochrane Risk of bias’ assessment tool 1.0.
Results: In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36% (27/75) were pro- and 64% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32%), a new primary outcome (26%), and different outcome assessment times (26%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as ‘overall low risk of bias’ compared to non-registered trials (64% vs 28%).
Conclusions: In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.
Postoperative Übelkeit und postoperatives Erbrechen (PONV) sind eine der häufigsten und für Patient*innen unangenehmsten Nebenwirkungen einer Allgemeinanästhesie. Trotz jahrzehntelanger Forschung und der Vielfalt an mittlerweile bekannten Maßnahmen und Substanzen zur PONV-Prophylaxe und -Therapie gibt es noch keine Strategie, die eine sichere Vermeidung oder stets wirksame Therapie von PONV garantieren kann. In vorangegangenen Studien zeigte Amisulprid als Dopaminantagonist an den Rezeptortypen D2 und D3 vielversprechende Ergebnisse zur PONV-Prophylaxe und -Therapie.
Die dieser Arbeit zugrunde liegende prospektive, randomisierte, Placebo-kontrollierte Doppelblindstudie untersuchte die Wirksamkeit einer Einzeldosis APD421 5 mg bzw. 10 mg zur Therapie von manifestem PONV nach fehlgeschlagener PONV-Prophylaxe. „Complete Response“ (CR) wurde definiert als das Ausbleiben jeglicher weiterer emetischer Episoden im Zeitraum von 30 Minuten bis 24 Stunden nach Applikation des Studienmedikaments sowie keine Gabe von antiemetischer Rescue-Medikation im gesamten Zeitraum bis 24 Stunden nach Applikation des Studienmedikaments. Die CR-Raten lagen bei 41,7% für APD421 10 mg, 33,8% für APD421 5 mg und 28,5% für Placebo, wobei die Studienarme jeweils 230, 237 bzw. 235 Patient*innen umfassten. Eine Dosis APD421 10 mg zeigte somit statistisch signifikante Überlegenheit in der PONV-Therapie gegenüber Placebo. Auch hinsichtlich sekundärer Studienendpunkte wie Auftreten bzw. Stärke von Übelkeit, Würgen oder Erbrechen und Bedarf an Rescue-Medikation war APD421 10 mg gegenüber Placebo überlegen. Eine Dosis von 5 mg APD421 zeigte für die meisten Endpunkte hingegen keine statistisch signifikante Überlegenheit gegenüber Placebo.
Limitationen der Studie liegen im Ausschluss von Patientengruppen wie beispielsweise Kindern oder bestimmten Vorerkrankungen und dem mit über 90% sehr hohen Anteil weiblicher Patient*innen. Es bleiben weitere Studien abzuwarten, die APD421 einem direkten Vergleich mit bislang etablierten Substanzen zur PONV-Therapie unterziehen, um den künftigen Stellenwert der Substanz im klinischen Alltag einschätzen zu können.