Search

Background: Variable benefits have been reported from the adjunctive use of simvastatin and the 5HT3 receptor antagonist, ondansetron, in patients with schizophrenia. We investigated their independent efficacy and possible synergy to improve negative symptoms of schizophrenia within a single trial., Methods: A 6-month, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a 4-arm, 2 × 2 factorial design, in three centres in Pakistan. In total, 303 people with stable treated schizophrenia aged 18-65 were randomly allocated to add-on ondansetron, simvastatin, both or neither. The primary outcome was a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative score at 3 and 6 months., Results: Mixed model analysis and analysis of covariance revealed no main effects of simvastatin or ondansetron but a significant negative interaction between them ( p  = 0.03); when given alone, both drugs significantly reduced negative symptoms compared to placebo but they were ineffective in combination. Individual treatment effects versus placebo were -1.9 points (95%CIs -3.23, -0.49; p  = 0.01) for simvastatin and -1.6 points for ondansetron (95%CIs -3.00, -0.14; p  = 0.03). Combined treatment significantly increased depression and side effects. In those with less than the median 5 years of treatment, ondansetron improved all PANSS subscales, global functioning measures and verbal learning and fluency, whereas simvastatin did not., Conclusion: Small improvement in negative symptoms on simvastatin and ondansetron individually are not synergistic in combination in treating negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Ondansetron showed broad efficacy in patients on stable antipsychotic treatment within 5 years of illness. The findings suggest that ondansetron should be evaluated in patients at risk of psychosis or early in treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: I.B.C. and N.H. have given lectures and advice to Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lundbeck, Astra Zeneca and Janssen pharmaceuticals for which they or their employing institution have been reimbursed. M.I.H. has served as an advisor to MindSet Pharma, Psyched Therapeutics and Wake Network and reports grants from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CAMH Foundation, Physician’s Services Incorporated Foundation and University of Toronto. M.I.H., I.B.C. and N.H. were previously trustees of the Pakistan Institute of Learning and Living. B.D. has share options in P1vital.com and is a PI on MRC grant MRC grant MR/S037675/1.

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors are paid consultants of Adial Pharmaceuticals Inc. Vinzant Schuyler and Bankole Johnson are officers of Adial Pharmaceuticals Inc., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The increasing prevalence of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and the parallel surge in alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) emphasize the urgent need for comprehensive alcohol management strategies. Low-dose ondansetron (AD04, a 5-HT3 antagonist) was shown recently to be a promising treatment for AUD with a specific genotypic profile (5-marker). The liver safety of AD04 has never been evaluated in subjects with AUD. The aim of the present study was to assess the liver safety profile of AD04 compared with placebo in subjects with AUD., Methods: Liver biochemical parameters were assessed in subjects with AUD with a 5-marker genetic profile who participated in a Phase 3 randomized controlled trial and received either twice-daily, low-dose AD04 (ondansetron 0.33 mg twice daily) or matching placebo, combined with brief psychosocial counseling. ALT, AST, GGT, Serum Bilirubin, MCV, and Prothrombin were evaluated at weeks 0, 12, and 24. Adverse cardiac events, general well-being, and study completion were also assessed., Results: Low-dose AD04 did not significantly change biochemical markers of liver injury, such as ALT, AST, and Serum Bilirubin. While patients with AUD displayed elevated GGT levels, typically associated with increased alcohol consumption, this parameter remained unaffected by low-dose AD04. Notably, no significant adverse effects were observed due to oral low-dose AD04 treatment., Conclusions: Low-dose AD04 has the potential to be a safe treatment option for subjects with AUD and ALD, indicating the need for an RCT for this specific cohort. Such a trial would pave the way for the design of a precision treatment for combined AUD with ALD., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors are paid consultants of Adial Pharmaceuticals Inc. Bankole Johnson is an officer of Adial Pharmaceuticals Inc., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the adverse events that most affects oncologic patients' quality of life. Carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 belongs to agents with high emetic risk (moderate risk in ASCO guidelines). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of netupitant/palonosetron and dexamethasone triple combination (TC) therapy versus ondansetron and dexamethasone double combination (DC) therapy as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. As a secondary endpoint, in TC group we evaluated the effectiveness of changing NEPA administration timing from 1 h to 15 min before chemotherapy., Methods: Open-label prospective study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in patients receiving carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. CINV was evaluated using MASCC antiemetic tool, in acute (<24 h) and delayed phase (24-120 h). Results were analyzed using χ 2 test., Results: Two-hundred four completed questionnaires (CQ) were analyzed (76 in DC and 128 in TC). The proportion of patients who remained emesis-free was superior for TC-treated group compared to DC, either in acute (99.2% vs 92.1%, p  = 0.0115) and delayed phase (97.6% vs 90.7%, p  = 0.043). Likewise, a higher proportion of TC-treated patients compared to DC remained nausea-free for the first 24 h after treatment (90.6% vs 71%, p  = 0.0004) and between 24 and 120 h (82.3% vs 62.7%, p  = 0.0025). The change of NEPA administration time showed similar effectiveness in terms of CINV control (81.6% vs 74.5%, p  = 0.70)., Conclusions: TC showed superiority in early and delayed CINV control in carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 regimens, with no significant differences among cancer types. Change in NEPA administration timing has beneficial implications; it allows NEPA to be administered at hospitals before chemotherapy session., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Swift has received grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Background: A history of severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (SNVP) is a risk factor for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study aimed to explore potentially effective treatment strategies and potential genetic factors underlying SNVP risk-related PONV., Methods: A total of 140 female patients undergoing breast cancer surgery were assigned to either the study group (70 with SNVP) or the control group (70 with mild to moderate nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (MNVP)). Patients in each group were randomly assigned to two different treatment subgroups and received either ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OD) or OD + TEAS (ODT) (transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation, TEAS). Blood samples were collected from patients before induction (D0) and 24 h (D1) after surgery for growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) evaluation. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV within 36 h. The secondary outcome was the serum GDF-15 level., Results: The incidence of PONV in the SNVP group was significantly higher than that in the MNVP group within 24 h (P < 0.005). In the SNVP group, ODT-treated patients had less PONV than those in the OD-treated group during the 6-12 h (P = 0.033) and 12-24 h (P = 0.008) intervals, while within 6 h, there were fewer vomiting cases in the ODT-treated group (SNVP-ODT vs. SNVP-OD, 7/33 vs. 19/35, P = 0.005). The preoperative GDF-15 serum levels in patients with SNVP were significantly higher (P = 0.004). Moreover, higher preoperative GDF-15 serum levels correlated with a higher incidence of PONV (P = 0.043)., Conclusions: TEAS showed significant effect on PONV treatment in patients with SNVP. A higher serum GDF-15 level was associated with a history of SNVP, as well as a higher risk of PONV., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Japanese Breast Cancer Society.)

Background: This study compared the effects of ondansetron and placebo in patients with diabetes mellitus and symptoms of dyspepsia (diabetic gastroenteropathy [DGE])., Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of ondansetron tablets (8 mg) three times daily for 4 weeks in DGE patients. Symptoms were assessed with the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index daily diaries. Gastric emptying (GE) of solids (scintigraphy) and duodenal lipid infusions (300 kcal over 2 h) were each assessed twice, with placebo and ondansetron. Drug effects on GE, symptoms during the GE study and during lipid infusion, and daily symptoms were analyzed., Key Results: Of 41 patients, 37 completed both GE studies and one completed 1; 31 completed both lipid infusions and four only placebo; and all 35 randomized patients completed 4 weeks of treatment. Compared to placebo, ondansetron reduced the severity of fullness (p = 0.02) and belching (p = 0.049) during lipid infusion but did not affect GE T 1/2 . Both ondansetron and placebo improved daily symptoms versus the baseline period (p < 0.05), but the differences were not significant. In the analysis of covariance of daily symptoms during the treatment period, the interaction term between treatment and the acute effect of ondansetron on symptoms during lipid challenge was significant (p = .024)., Conclusions & Inferences: Ondansetron significantly reduced fullness during enteral lipid infusion in patients with DGE. Overall, ondansetron did not improve daily symptoms versus placebo. But patients in whom ondansetron improved symptoms during enteral lipid challenge were perhaps more likely to experience symptom relief during daily treatment., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The safety of triple antiemetic therapy consisting of ondansetron, haloperidol, and a steroid, to surgical patients is unknown., Objective: To determine the incidence of torsade de pointes (TdP) or death following perioperative administration of triple antiemetic therapy., Methods: A retrospective cohort study identified 19,874 patients who received 22,202 doses of triple antiemetics during the 2.5-year time frame from March 4, 2020 to September 7, 2022 for surgical nausea prophylaxis or treatment of nausea. These patients above were cross-matched with an electrocardiogram and adverse outcome database; this identified 226 patients with documentation of a QTc > 450 ms, all ventricular tachycardias including TdP within 48 hours of receiving triple antiemetic therapy, or death within 7 days of receiving ondansetron., Results: There were 3 patients who had documented VT (n = 3), but there were no documented incidents of TdP (n = 0). There were 9 codes called on patients within 48 hours of medication administration, and none of them were due to ventricular arrythmias (n = 0). A total of 11 patients died within 7 days of triple antiemetic therapy. Ten of the 11 deaths were determined to not be from the triple antiemetic. One patient died at home within 24 hours of the procedure of an unknown cause (n = 1)., Conclusions and Relevance: No episodes of TdP were identified in patients receiving triple antiemetic therapy perioperatively, though the cause of death in 1 patient could not be determined. This suggest that low-dose triple antiemetic therapy is low risk for the development of TdP., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Medication use during pregnancy has increased in the United States despite the lack of safety data for many medications., Objective: This study aimed to inform research priorities by examining trends in medication use during pregnancy and identifying gaps in safety information on the most commonly prescribed medications., Study Design: We identified population-based cohorts of commercially (MarketScan 2011-2020) and publicly (Medicaid Analytic eXtract/Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files 2011-2018) insured pregnancies ending in live birth from 2 health care utilization databases. Medication use was based on filled prescriptions between the date of last menstrual period through delivery, as well as the period before the last menstrual period and during specific trimesters. We also included a cross-sectional representative sample of pregnancies ascertained by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011-2020), with information on prescription medication use during the preceding month obtained through maternal interviews. Teratogen Information System was used to classify the available evidence on teratogenic risk., Results: Among over 3 million pregnancies, the medications most commonly dispensed at any time during pregnancy were analgesics, antibiotics, and antiemetics. The top medications were ondansetron (16.8%), amoxicillin (13.5%), and azithromycin (12.4%) in MarketScan, nitrofurantoin (22.2%), acetaminophen (21.3%; mostly as part of acetaminophen-hydrocodone products), and ondansetron (19.5%) in Medicaid Analytic eXtract/Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files, and levothyroxine (5.0%), sertraline (2.9%), and insulin (2.9%) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey group. The most commonly dispensed suspected teratogens during the first trimester were antithyroid medications. The use of antidiabetic and psychotropic medications has continued to increase in the United States during the last decade, opioid dispensation has decreased by half, and antibiotics and antiemetics continue to be common. For one-quarter of medications, there is insufficient evidence available to characterize their safety profile in pregnancy., Conclusion: There is a need for more drug research in pregnant patients. Future research should focus on anti-infectives with high utilization and limited level of evidence on safety for use during pregnancy. Although lack of evidence is not evidence of safety concerns, it does not indicate risk either. In many instances, the benefits outweigh the risks when these medications are used clinically, and some of the medications with no proven safety may be necessary to treat patients., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Certain associations observed in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) contrasted with other research or were from areas with mixed findings, including no decrease in odds of spina bifida with periconceptional folic acid supplementation, moderately increased cleft palate odds with ondansetron use and reduced hypospadias odds with maternal smoking., Objectives: To investigate the plausibility and extent of differential participation to produce effect estimates observed in NBDPS., Methods: We searched the literature for factors related to these exposures and participation and conducted deterministic quantitative bias analyses. We estimated case-control participation and expected exposure prevalence based on internal and external reports, respectively. For the folic acid-spina bifida and ondansetron-cleft palate analyses, we hypothesized the true odds ratio (OR) based on prior studies and quantified the degree of exposure over- (or under-) representation to produce the crude OR (cOR) in NBDPS. For the smoking-hypospadias analysis, we estimated the extent of selection bias needed to nullify the association as well as the maximum potential harmful OR., Results: Under our assumptions (participation, exposure prevalence, true OR), there was overrepresentation of folic acid use and underrepresentation of ondansetron use and smoking among participants. Folic acid-exposed spina bifida cases would need to have been ≥1.2× more likely to participate than exposed controls to yield the observed null cOR. Ondansetron-exposed cleft palate cases would need to have been 1.6× more likely to participate than exposed controls if the true OR is null. Smoking-exposed hypospadias cases would need to have been ≥1.2 times less likely to participate than exposed controls for the association to falsely appear protective (upper bound of selection bias adjusted smoking-hypospadias OR = 2.02)., Conclusions: Differential participation could partly explain certain associations observed in NBDPS, but questions remain about why. Potential impacts of other systematic errors (e.g. exposure misclassification) could be informed by additional research., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Introduction: Selective 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor (5-HT3) antagonists are commonly used to prevent nausea and vomiting (NV) after cesarean section, but the comparative efficacy of different 5-HT3 antagonists remains unclear. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine which 5-HT3 antagonists might be the preferred choice for preventing NV in parturient scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia., Evidence Acquisition: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before August 24, 2023. Random network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 to estimate the efficacy of different 5-HT3 antagonists in preventing intra- and post-operative NV., Evidence Synthesis: Twenty-eight studies involving seven dosing regimens of three 5-HT3 antagonists were included. Pooled results showed that ondansetron 12 mg was superior to other six dosing regimens in the prevention of postoperative NV (PONV), PON, and POV, with the ranking probability of 80.2%, 95.8%, and 87.7%, respectively, followed by granisetron two mg. Ondansetron 4 mg might be the first choice for preventing intraoperative NV (IONV) (92.8%), with the least use of postoperative rescue antiemetics (90.6%). Granisetron 3 mg and tropisetron 2 mg might be the best options for preventing ION and IOV, respectively., Conclusions: Based on available data, ondansetron 12 mg may have the best efficacy in preventing PONV, PON, and POV. Additionally, more studies are warranted to compare the safety of ondansetron 12 mg versus granisetron two mg.

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Kim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

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; p =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%; p =0.03) and 6 (7.5% vs. 27.5%; p =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., Competing Interests: The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Moein Khoori et al.)

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]., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: To investigate the association between adherence to guideline-recommended risk-based postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis, the antiemetics used for PONV prophylaxis, and the incidence of PONV in patients who were underwent general anesthesia before and after 5-HT3 receptor antagonists became available., Methods: Patients (≥ 20 years old) who were extubated after scheduled surgery and returned to general wards between January 2021 and February 2022 and between June 2022 and July 2023 were included. Risk factors included age < 50, female, motion sickness, nonsmoker, surgical factors, and postoperative opioid use. Two and three or more prophylaxis were recommended for patients with one or two and three or more risk factors, respectively. The primary outcome was the number of patients who received adequate prophylaxis, and the secondary outcomes were antiemetic agents used during anesthesia and the incidence of PONV on postoperative days 0 and 1. PONV was defined as documented PONV or rescue antiemetic administration., Results: From January 2021 to February 2022 and from June 2022 to July 2023, 2342 and 2682 patients were included, respectively. Before ondansetron became available, more D2 receptor antagonists were used (p < 0.001), and after ondansetron became available, both ondansetron (p < 0.001) and propofol (p < 0.001) were given more frequently. Before and after ondansetron became available, the number of patients with adequate prophylaxis was 3.7% and 9.2%, respectively (p < 0.001), and the incidence of PONV on postoperative days 0 and 1 was 44.6% and 44.0%, respectively (p = 0.67)., Conclusion: The availability of ondansetron increased the number of patients with adequate PONV prophylaxis, but did not decrease the incidence of PONV., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists.)

Introduction: Postoperative nausea and vomiting is still a common complication. Serotonin receptor antagonists are commonly used in clinical practice for antiemetic prophylaxis. Interindividual variations in drug response, including single nucleotide polymorphisms, are related to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes in these drugs and may lead to a poor therapeutic response. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of CYP2D6 isoenzyme and ABCB1 gene polymorphisms on the frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting with the use of ondansetron or palonosetron., Methods: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial including 82 women aged 60 years or over undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy was conducted. Patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron or palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. DNA was extracted from saliva. Genetic polymorphisms were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. The following polymorphisms were analyzed: rs3892097 C/T, rs1128503 A/G, rs16947 A/G, rs1065852 A/G, rs1045642 A/G, rs2032582 C/A, and rs20325821 C/A., Results: Overall, vomiting, and severe nausea occurred in 22.5% and 57.5% of patients, respectively. In the palonosetron group, patients with the GG genotype (rs16947 A/G) experienced more severe nausea (p = 0.043). In the ondansetron group, patients with the AA genotype (rs16947 A/G) presented mild nausea (p = 0.034), and those with the AA genotype (rs1065852 A/G) experienced more vomiting (p = 0.034)., Conclusion: A low antiemetic response was observed with ondansetron in the presence of the AA genotype (rs16947 A/G) and the AA genotype (rs1065852 A/G), and a low therapeutic response was found with palonosetron in the presence of the GG genotype (rs16947 A/G) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy., Register: ClinicalTrials.gov., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier España S.L.U.)

Lung cancer, a global mortality leader, often necessitates Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic (VATS) surgery. However, post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common, highlighting a need for effective management and prevention strategies in this context. A retrospective case-control study at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital evaluated patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer between May and September 2022. Patients were categorized based on PONV prevention methods, and data encompassing demographics, surgical history, and postoperative adverse events s were analyzed to assess the association between prophylactic protocols and PONV incidence. The Netupitant and Palonosetron Hydrochloride (NEPA) group showed a significant reduction in PONV occurrences post-surgery compared to Ondansetron (ONDA) and Control groups, emphasizing NEPA's efficacy in alleviating PONV symptoms (P < 0.05). Furthermore, following VATS radical resection of lung cancer, NEPA markedly reduced the intensity of PONV symptoms in patients. Both univariate and multivariate logistic analyses corroborated that NEPA independently reduces PONV risk, with its protective effect also apparent in susceptible populations like females and non-smokers. NEPA utilization markedly reduced both the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer, serving as an independent protective factor in mitigating PONV risk post-surgery., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: The present study was to investigate three different single-drug regimens to show which was more effective to reduce radioactive iodine therapy (RAI) associated nausea and vomiting, and to compare the occurrence of long-term gastrointestinal diseases after RAI therapy., Method: We performed a single-center, non-randomized clinical trial among patients who underwent RAI therapy from March 2016 to July 2022. Enrolled patients were divided into four cohorts based on the date of the treatment. cohort 1, with no preventive antiemetics; cohort 2, received 20 mg of pantoprazole per day for 3 days; cohort 3, received a 10 mg metoclopramide tablet two times daily for 3 days; cohort 4, oral ondansetron, 8 mg, twice daily for 3 days. The primary endpoints were proportion of patients who experience vomiting episodes and nausea during the 7-day hospital period. Secondary end points included Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) quality-of life questionnaires and the occurrence of gastrointestinal diseases., Results: A total of 1755 patients were analyzed, comprised of 1299 (74.0%) women and 456 (26.0%) men, with a median age of 44 years (range 18-78 years). The characteristics of patient were similar within the four groups. 465 (26.4%) patients developed RAI-associated nausea, and 186 (14.4%) patients developed RAI-associated vomiting. The rate of nausea was significantly decreased in the patients who were taking ondansetron when compared with the other cohorts ( P <0.05), while the rate of vomiting (≥6 episodes) was slightly lower. As secondary endpoint, FLIE measures ondansetron scored highly compared to other cohorts, from baseline (mean score of 110.53 ± 17.54) to day 7 (mean score of 105.56 ± 12.48). In addition, 48 (2.7%) patients were found to be with gastrointestinal diseases at the end of one year follow up. Multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight revealed a significantly independent risk factors of developing gastrointestinal disorders., Conclusions: In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that short-term ondansetron could be an effective prophylactic agent in controlling RAI-associated nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the risk of developing gastrointestinal disorders was significantly higher for patients with multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Li, Cao, Wang, Zhu, Sun, Song, Zhang and Han.)

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., (Published under Open Access CC-BY-NC-BD 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Objective: Nausea and vomiting after surgery are the most common complications. Therefore, we performed this study to compare the effect of ondansetron and haloperidol on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy., Patients and Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 60 patients candidates for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were allocated to haloperidol (0.05 mg/kg, n = 30) and ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg, n = 30) groups. An Ocular Analog Scale was used to assess postoperative nausea and vomiting. Every 15 minutes in the recovery room, heart rate and blood pressure were measured up to 6 hours after surgery. In addition, patient satisfaction was assessed postoperatively., Results: Haloperidol and ondansetron have the same effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward. It was found that the trend of Visual Analog Scale variable changes in the recovery room was similar in the haloperidol and ondansetron group ( P = 0.58); it was also true for the ward ( P = 0.79). Comparing the length of stay in a recovery room in the 2 groups was not statistically significant ( P = 0.19). In addition, the 2 groups did not differ in satisfaction postoperatively ( P = 0.82)., Conclusion: Haloperidol and ondansetron had an equal effect on reducing nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patient satisfaction and length of stay in the recovery room did not differ between groups., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Postoperative sore throat is one well-recognized complication, occurring most frequently following tracheal intubation. Effective prevention of postoperative sore throat has been recognized as a top priority, bringing pleasant feelings and satisfaction to patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of magnesium sulfate, dexmedetomidine and ondansetron gargle with lidocaine administrated prior to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation for postoperative sore throat prevention alongside hemodynamic management. This double-blind randomized clinical trial enrolled 105 general anesthesia-administered patients who had undergone laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, and they were equally randomized into three groups: magnesium sulfate, dexmedetomidine, and ondansetron groups. No significant intergroup difference was seen in oxygen saturation, non-invasive blood pressure, heart rate, duration of surgery, postoperative complications, analgesic consumption, and incidence of cough and hoarseness. The results showed statistically significant intergroup differences in pain scores and average pain intensity in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than the other groups. Results suggest that dexmedetomidine gargle with lidocaine before general anesthesia induction could be recommended as an option depending on the patient's general condition and the anesthesiologist's discretion.

Background: Lactulose is a laxative which accelerates transit and softens stool. Our aim was to investigate its mechanism of action and use this model of diarrhea to investigate the anti-diarrheal actions of ondansetron., Methods: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study of the effect of ondansetron 8 mg in 16 healthy volunteers. Serial MRI scans were performed fasted and 6 h after a meal. Participants then received lactulose 13.6 g twice daily and study drug for a further 36 h. On Day 3, they had further serial MRI scans for 4 h. Measurements included small bowel water content (SBWC), colonic volume, colonic gas, small bowel motility, whole gut transit, and ascending colon relaxation time (T1AC), a measure of colonic water content., Key Results: Lactulose increased area under the curve (AUC) of SBWC from 0 to 240 min, mean difference 14.2 L · min (95% CI 4.1, 24.3), p = 0.009, and substantially increased small bowel motility after 4 h (mean (95% CI) 523 (457-646) a.u. to 852 (771-1178) a.u., p = 0.007). There were no changes in T1AC after 36 h treatment. Ondansetron did not significantly alter SBWC, small bowel motility, transit, colonic volumes, colonic gas nor T1AC, with or without lactulose., Conclusion & Inferences: Lactulose increases SBWC and stimulates small bowel motility; however, unexpectedly it did not significantly alter colonic water content, suggesting its laxative effect is not osmotic but due to stimulation of motility. Ondansetron's lack of effect on intestinal water suggests its anti-diarrheal effect is not due to inhibition of secretion but more likely altered colonic motility., (© 2024 The Authors. Neurogastroenterology & Motility published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Ketamine is commonly used for procedural sedation anaesthesia in paediatric patients undergoing painful procedures in the ED. Ketamine's safety profile is excellent, but ketamine-associated vomiting (KAV) is common. Routine ondansetron prophylaxis could reduce KAV incidence. This literature review evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in reducing KAV incidence. A systematic literature review was performed on databases and trial registries on 14 January 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials. The primary outcome was reduction in KAV incidence, for any route of prophylactic ondansetron, in ED and up to 24 h post-discharge. ED length of stay, parental satisfaction and time to resumption of normal diet were secondary outcomes. Data analysis was performed using Revman 5.3. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modelling. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. Evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment Development and Evaluation methodology. Five trials with 920 participants met the eligibility criteria. Prophylactic ondansetron resulted in a reduction in KAV incidence overall odds ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.73). Intravenous and intramuscular prophylactic ondansetron showed benefit whereas the effect of oral administration was unclear. There was no difference between groups for secondary outcomes overall. The quality of evidence was deemed to be low overall because of high risk of bias and imprecision in outcome measures. This review found low to moderate certainty evidence that prophylactic ondansetron reduces KAV incidence. Methodologically rigorous research, with appropriately timed prophylactic ondansetron based on the route of administration, would further elucidate prophylactic oral ondansetron's efficacy., (© 2024 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.)

Introduction: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common adverse events following orthognathic surgery. It's a distressing feeling for patients and continues to be the cause of postoperative complications such as bleeding, delayed healing, and wound infection. This scoping review aims to identify effective PONV prophylaxis strategies during orthognathic surgery that have emerged in the past 15 years., Methods: We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Embase from 2008 to May 2023. Studies meeting the following criteria were eligible for inclusion: (1) recruited patients undergo any orthognathic surgery; (2) evaluated any pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic method to prevent PONV. Studies meeting the following criteria were excluded: (1) case series, review papers, or retrospective studies; (2) did not report our prespecified outcomes., Results: Twenty-one studies were included in this review. Pharmacological methods for PONV prevention include ondansetron and dexamethasone (3 studies), peripheral nerve block technique (4 studies), dexmedetomidine (1 study), pregabalin (2 studies), nefopam (2 studies), remifentanil (1 study), propofol (2 studies), and penehyclidine (1 study). Non-pharmacologic methods include capsicum plaster (1 study), throat packs (2 studies) and gastric aspiration (2 studies)., Conclusions: Based on current evidence, we conclude that prophylactic antiemetics like dexamethasone, ondansetron, and penehyclidine are the first defense against PONV. Multimodal analgesia with nerve block techniques and non-opioid analgesics should be considered due to their notable opioid-sparing and PONV preventive effect. For the non-pharmacological methods, throat packs are not recommended for routine use because of their poor effect and serious complications. More prospective RCTs are required to confirm whether gastric aspiration can prevent PONV effectively for patients undergoing orthognathic surgery., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Recently, use of HT35 receptor antagonists to prevent postoperative shivering has attracted a great deal of attention. This study was conducted with the aim of investigating the effectiveness of granisetron as an HT35 antagonist when compared with ondansetron and meperidine in preventing postoperative shivering., Material and Methods: In this triple blind random clinical trial study, 90 patients 18-50 years of age with ASA Class I and II undergoing general anesthesia were randomly assigned into one of the three drug groups: O (4-mg ondansetron), G (40 μg/kg of granisetron), and P (25 mg meperidine), immediately before induction of anesthesia. After anesthesia induction, at the end of the surgery, after the entrance and after leaving the recovery state, central temperature, peripheral temperature, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and shivering were measured and documented. Two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered significant., Results: In the meperidine, ondansetron, and granisetron groups, 4 (13.3%), 3 (10%), and 10 (33.3%) of patients experienced shivering during recovery, where the difference between the ondansetron and granisetron groups was significant (p-value=0.02). The variations in the mean arterial pressure during the investigation stages only in the ondansetron group were not significant (p>0.05). At the beginning of recovery, the reduction of peripheral temperature significantly was lower in the ondansetron group (p<0.05), while reduction of the central temperature was significantly (p<0.05) higher in the granisetron group. By the end of the recovery, the variations in the peripheral temperature across the three groups were consistent with the changes at the beginning of recovery, but variations of the central temperature across the three groups was not significantly diverse., Conclusion: Granisetron was not found to be much effective in preventing postoperative shivering. Ondansetron and meperidine were equally effective in preventing postoperative shivering. Ondansetron also causes less hemodynamic changes compared to other drugs, while granisetron is more effective in terms of preventing nausea and vomiting.

Background and Purpose: A recent paradigm shift in proarrhythmic risk assessment suggests that the integration of clinical, non-clinical, and computational evidence can be used to reach a comprehensive understanding of the proarrhythmic potential of drug candidates. While current computational methodologies focus on predicting the incidence of proarrhythmic events after drug administration, the objective of this study is to predict concentration-response relationships of QTc as a clinical endpoint., Experimental Approach: Full heart computational models reproducing human cardiac populations were created to predict the concentration-response relationship of changes in the QT interval as recommended for clinical trials. The concentration-response relationship of the QT-interval prolongation obtained from the computational cardiac population was compared against the relationship from clinical trial data for a set of well-characterized compounds: moxifloxacin, dofetilide, verapamil, and ondansetron., Key Results: Computationally derived concentration-response relationships of QT interval changes for three of the four drugs had slopes within the confidence interval of clinical trials (dofetilide, moxifloxacin and verapamil) when compared to placebo-corrected concentration-ΔQT and concentration-ΔQT regressions. Moxifloxacin showed a higher intercept, outside the confidence interval of the clinical data, demonstrating that in this example, the standard linear regression does not appropriately capture the concentration-response results at very low concentrations. The concentrations corresponding to a mean QTc prolongation of 10 ms were consistently lower in the computational model than in clinical data. The critical concentration varied within an approximate ratio of 0.5 (moxifloxacin and ondansetron) and 1 times (dofetilide, verapamil) the critical concentration observed in human clinical trials. Notably, no other in silico methodology can approximate the human critical concentration values for a QT interval prolongation of 10 ms., Conclusion and Implications: Computational concentration-response modelling of a virtual population of high-resolution, 3-dimensional cardiac models can provide comparable information to clinical data and could be used to complement pre-clinical and clinical safety packages. It provides access to an unlimited exposure range to support trial design and can improve the understanding of pre-clinical-clinical translation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Elem Biotech owns the commercial rights to Alya, the computational finite element solver employed in this study. However, any other commercial or academic finite element solver could be employed to reproduce this work. Elem Biotech owns the commercial rights to Alya, the solver employed in this study., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ondansetron has been reported to attenuate the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension (SAIH) and norepinephrine requirement during caesarean section. However, no quantitative study has evaluated the extent of this effect. This study aimed to determine the dose-response of prophylactic infusion of norepinephrine to prevent SAIH in parturients who received intravenous ondansetron or placebo before spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. The median effective dose (ED 50 ) and 90% effective dose (ED 90 ) were compared to evaluate the effect of ondansetron versus placebo on the norepinephrine requirement., Materials and Methods: One hundred fifty parturients undergoing caesarean section were randomized to receive either 0.1 mg/kg ondansetron (group O) or saline control (group C) 10 min before spinal anaesthesia. The parturients were randomly assigned to one of five different norepinephrine infusion groups: 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08 or 0.10 µg/kg/min. An effective infusion dose of norepinephrine was defined as non-occurrence of hypotension during the study period. The values for ED 50 and ED 90 of norepinephrine infusion were determined using probit regression. Differences between the two groups were evaluated by comparing the relative median potency with 95% CIs., Results: The ED 50 values were 0.033 (95% CIs, 0.024-0.043) µg/kg/min in group C and 0.021 (95% CIs, 0.013-0.029) µg/kg/min in group O. The ED 90 values were 0.091 (95% CIs 0.068-0.147) µg/kg/min in group C and 0.059 (95% CIs 0.044-0.089) µg/kg/min in group O, respectively. The estimate of the relative median potency for norepinephrine in group C versus group O was 0.643 (95% CIs, 0.363-0.956). The incidence of side effects was comparable between groups. No significant difference in neonatal outcomes., Conclusion: Intravenous ondansetron 0.1 mg/kg before spinal anaesthesia significantly reduced the dose requirement of prophylactic norepinephrine infusion in parturients undergoing elective caesarean section. This finding is potentially useful for clinical practice and further research., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse effect following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Palonosetron with a standard dosing (75 μg) schedule has been questioned due to its low efficiency in obese patients. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the body weight-based dosing of palonosetron in managing PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy., Methods: A single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized study was conducted between August 2021 and December 2021. Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were prospectively recruited in the study. One hundred patients were randomly divided into palonosetron (Group P) and ondansetron (Group O). The demographic and clinical variables were recorded. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of PONV between the two groups during the hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were the number of rescue anti-emetic and analgesic medications and the Functional Living Index-Emesis scores., Results: There were 50 patients in each group (Group P and Group O). There were significant differences in the scores of POVN, nausea, and vomiting favoring Group P. In Group P, the rate of patients using rescue anti-emetics was significantly lower. The incidence of complete response and proportion of patients with higher Functional Living Index-Emesis scores were significantly higher in patients using palonosetron., Conclusions: The use of palonosetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. There was a significant improvement in the scores of Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients using palonosetron.

Objective: The aim of the study was to examine the efficacity and safety of ondansetron, a serotonin receptor antagonist, to treat patients with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS)., Background: LARS after rectal resection is common and debilitating. Current management strategies include behavioral and dietary modifications, physiotherapy, antidiarrheal drugs, enemas, and neuromodulation, but the results are not always satisfactory., Methods: This is a randomized, multicentric, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and cross-over study. Patients with LARS (LARS score >20) no longer than 2 years after rectal resection were randomized to receive either 4 weeks of ondansetron followed by 4 weeks of placebo (O-P group) or 4 weeks of placebo followed by 4 weeks of ondansetron (P-O group). The primary endpoint was LARS severity measured using the LARS score; secondary endpoints were incontinence (Vaizey score) and irritable bowel syndrome quality of life (IBS-QoL questionnaire). Patients' scores and questionnaires were completed at baseline and after each 4-week treatment period., Results: Of 46 randomized patients, 38 were included in the analysis. From baseline to the end of the first period, in the O-P group, the mean (SD) LARS score decreased by 25% [from 36.6 (5.6) to 27.3 (11.5)] and the proportion of patients with major LARS (score >30) went from 15/17 (88%) to 7/17 (41%), ( P =0.001). In the P-O group, the mean (SD) LARS score decreased by 12% [from 37 (4.8) to 32.6 (9.1)], and the proportion of major LARS went from 19/21 (90%) to 16/21 (76%). After crossover, LARS scores deteriorated again in the O-P group receiving placebo, but further improved in the P-O group receiving ondansetron. Mean Vaizey scores and IBS QoL scores followed a similar pattern., Conclusions: Ondansetron is a safe and simple treatment that appears to improve both symptoms and QoL in LARS patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after total joint arthroplasty is common and associated with delayed recovery. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of three different prophylactic regimens for PONV after total joint arthroplasty under general anesthesia., Methods: Patients undergoing primary total hip or knee arthroplasty were randomized to Group A (ondansetron), Group B (10 mg dexamethasone plus ondansetron and mosapride), or Group C (three doses of 10 mg dexamethasone plus ondansetron and mosapride). The primary outcome was the total incidence of PONV during postoperative 48 h. The secondary outcomes were complete response, rescue antiemetic treatment, opioid consumption, time until first defecation, postoperative appetite score, satisfaction score, length of hospital stay, blood glucose level, and complications., Results: Patients in Group C experienced a lower incidence of total PONV (29.3%, p = 0.001) and a higher incidence of complete response (70.7%, p = 0.001) than did patients in Group A (51.9%, 48.2%, respectively). Patients in Group C also experienced a lower incidence of severe PONV (4.3%) than patients in Group A (25.9%, p<0.001) and B (20.4%, p<0.001). Moreover, less rescue antiemetic treatment (1.4 ± 0.5 mg Metoclopramide) and postoperative opioid consumption (1.8 ± 0.3 mg Oxycodone, 6.0 ± 1.0 mg Pethidine) was needed in Group C. Additionally, a shorter time until first defecation, shorter length of stay, and better postoperative appetite scores and satisfaction scores were detected in patients in Group C. A slight increase in the fasting blood glucose level was observed in Group C, and the complications were comparable among the groups., Conclusion: Combined use of ondansetron, mosapride and three doses of dexamethasone can provide better antiemetic effectiveness, postoperative appetite, bowel function recovery, and pain relief than a single dose or ondansetron only., Trial Registration Information: The protocol was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800015896, April 27, 2018)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is one of the most common malignancies in women and imposes a significant health burden globally. According to data from the World Health Organization, the incidence of BC has been increasing steadily over the years. It has become one of the leading causes of cancer-related death among women worldwide., Objective: This work was to evaluate the combined intervention effect of psychological care along with the use of ondansetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine hydrochloride in breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing chemotherapy, including their impact on nausea and vomiting control, quality of life (QoL), and psychological status., Methods: 64 BC patients undergoing chemotherapy were collected and randomly rolled into a control group (Group C) and an intervention group (Group I). Group C received ondansetron combined with routine psychological support and counseling therapy, while Group I received a combination of ondansetron, dexamethasone, promethazine hydrochloride, and psychological care therapy. Self-assessment scores for anxiety, QoL ratings, white blood cell counts, and incidence of adverse reactions were assessed and compared between the two groups., Results: Group I showed better control of nausea and vomiting versus Group C (P< 0.05). Marked improvements were also observed in the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) scores, white blood cell counts, and nursing satisfaction in Group I versus Group C (P< 0.05). Nevertheless, the two groups had no significant difference regarding QoL scores (P> 0.05)., Conclusion: the combination of psychological care with ondansetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine hydrochloride effectively controls nausea and vomiting symptoms in BC patients undergoing chemotherapy and provides higher levels of clinical nursing satisfaction.

Introduction: While total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) protocols include Dexamethasone and Ondansetron prophylaxis, bariatric patients continue to be considered at particularly high risk for postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). A multimodal approach for prophylaxis is recommended by the Bariatric Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society however, there remains a lack of consensus on the optimal strategy to manage PONV in these patients. Haloperidol has been shown at low doses to have a therapeutic effect in treatment of refractory nausea and in PONV prophylaxis in other high risk surgical populations. We sought to investigate its efficacy as a prophylactic medication for PONV in the bariatric population and to identify which perioperative strategies were most effective at reducing episodes of PONV., Methods: An institutional bariatric database was created by retrospectively reviewing patients undergoing elective minimally invasive bariatric procedures from 2018 to 2022. Demographic data reviewed included age, gender, preoperative body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, and primary language. Primary endpoints included patient reported episodes of PONV, total doses of Ondansetron administered, need for a second antiemetic (rescue medication), complication rate (most commonly readmission within 30 days), and length of stay. Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney test, and ANOVA were used to evaluate the effect of perioperative management on various endpoints., Results: A total of 475 patients were analyzed with Haloperidol being utilized in 15.8% of all patients. Patients receiving Haloperidol were less likely to require Ondansetron outside of the immediate perioperative period (34.7% vs. 49.8%, p = 0.02), experienced less PONV (41.3% vs. 64.3%, p = 0.01) and also had a decreased median length of stay (27.3 vs. 35.8 h, p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Addition of low dose Haloperidol to Bariatric ERAS protocols decreases incidence of PONV and the need for additional antiemetic coverage resulting in a significantly shorter length of stay, increasing the likelihood of safe discharge on postoperative day 1., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: End-stage renal diseases patients have a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), which is multifactorial and need acute attention after renal transplantation for a successful outcome in term of an uneventful postoperative period. The study was done to compare the efficacy of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing early and late-onset PONV in live donor renal transplantation recipients (LDRT)., Methods: The prospective randomized double-blinded study was done on 112 consecutive patients planned for live donor renal transplantation. Patients of both sexes in the age group of 18...60 years were randomly divided into two groups: Group O (Ondansetron) and Group P (Palonosetron) with 56 patients in each group by computer-generated randomization. The study drug was administered intravenously (IV) slowly over 30.ßseconds, one hour before extubation. Postoperatively, the patients were accessed for PONV at 6, 24, and 72.ßhours using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) nausea score and PONV intensity scale., Results: The incidence of PONV in the study was found to be 30.35%. There was significant difference in incidence of PONV between Group P and Group O at 6.ßhours (12.5% vs. 32.1%, p.ß=.ß0.013) and 72.ßhours (1.8% vs. 33.9%, p.ß<.ß0.001), but insignificant difference at 24.ßhours (1.8% vs. 10.7%, p.ß=.ß0.113). VAS-nausea score was significantly lower in Group P as compared to Group O at a time point of 24.ßhours (45.54.ß...ß12.64 vs. 51.96.ß...ß14.70, p.ß=.ß0.015) and 72.ßhours (39.11.ß...ß10.32 vs. 45.7.ß...ß15.12, p.ß=.ß0.015)., Conclusion: Palonosetron is clinically superior to ondansetron in preventing early and delayed onset postoperative nausea and vomiting in live-related renal transplant recipients., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier España S.L.U.)

Introduction: Despite preventive strategies, vomiting is an adverse event affecting patients with cancer. However, literature on the incidence and risk factors for vomiting in pediatric patients with cancer are scarce., Aim: To assess the incidence and risk factors for vomiting within 24 h and goodness of fit for the Eberhart score in pediatric patients with hematologic cancers after receiving intrathecal chemotherapy under deep sedation., Methods: This prospective cohort study included patients under 20 years of age with hematologic cancers who were scheduled to undergo intrathecal chemotherapy under anesthesia. The primary outcome was the occurrence of vomiting within 24 h after the end of anesthesia. Sociodemographic and procedure data and underlying diseases were collected. Patients were monitored during the procedure, in the postanesthesia care unit, and the day after (by phone call)., Results: A total of 139 patients were included, and the incidence of vomiting was 30.9% within 24 h after intrathecal chemotherapy under anesthesia, with 90.7% of vomiting prior to 6 h. Prophylactic ondansetron was administered prior to the procedure to 45.3% of patients. Risk factors for vomiting were female gender (hazard ratio: 2.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-4.53, p: .003), consolidation phase of treatment (hazard ratio: 2.16, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-4.24, p: .025), and history of kinetosis (hazard ratio: 2.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-4.70, p: .005). Incidence of vomit was higher than estimated by the Eberhart score distribution (observed incidence in patients with a score of zero: 33.3%; with a score of one: 28.8%; with a score of two: 60%)., Conclusion: A high incidence of vomiting was observed within 24 h after intrathecal chemotherapy under propofol deep sedation. Risk factors for this outcome were established (being female, consolidation phase of treatment, and previous kinetosis), and evidence suggested that the Eberhart score was not suitable for the studied population., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: We tested the hypothesis that, within the margin of 15% of risk difference, palonosetron is not inferior to ondansetron in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy., Methods: We conducted a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomized, controlled trial of 212 patients aged 18 to 65 years undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia in two secondary care hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either palonosetron (0.075.ßmg) or ondansetron (8.ßmg) intravenously at induction of anesthesia. Ondansetron (8.ßmg) was also administered 8 and 16.ßhours postoperatively. All anesthetic and surgical procedures were standardized. Patients were evaluated for 24.ßhours postoperatively for the occurrence of PONV., Results: A high incidence of PONV was observed at 2...6.ßhours postoperatively, with a rate of 36.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28.2...46.3) in the palonosetron group, as compared to 43.4% (95% CI 34.4...52.9) in the ondansetron group. The risk difference (95% CI) between palonosetron and ondansetron for PONV was 0 (-10.9 to 10.9) at 0...2.ßhours, -6.6 (-19.4 to 6.5) at 2...6.ßhours, -0.9 (-11.0 to 9.2) at 6...12.ßhours, and -2.8 (-9.6 to 3.6) at 12...24.ßhours. There was no statistically significant difference between the palonosetron and ondansetron groups in the use of rescue medication (dimenhydrinate). There were no adverse events associated with the medications under study., Conclusion: Palonosetron is not inferior to ondansetron in patients at risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, providing a good option for PONV prophylaxis, as it can be administered in a single dose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier España S.L.U.)

Background: Sepsis is a life-threatening disease with high morbidity and mortality, characterized by an inadequate systemic immune response to an initial stimulus. Whether the use of ondansetron (OND) during intensive care unit (ICU) stay is associated with the prognosis of sepsis patients remains unclear., Methods: Critically ill patients with sepsis were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox regression analyses were used to explore the association between OND use and clinical outcomes after adjusting for confounders. Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used for survival analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) and subgroup analysis were performed to further confirm the results., Results: The OND-medication group showed reduced in-hospital mortality, 28-day and 90-day mortalities. The OR for in-hospital mortality was 0.80 (0.64-0.99) and HRs for 28-day mortality and 90-day mortality were 0.77 (0.64-0.92) and 0.83 (0.70-0.98), respectively. After PSM, the clinical outcomes remained consistent. In-hospital mortality was lower in the OND-medication group (28.1% vs . 35.8%, P= 0.044), as well as 28-day mortality (23.4% vs . 32.1%, P=0.022) and 90-day mortality (27.4% vs . 35.8%, P=0.035). The protective effect of OND in sepsis patients was relatively robust, independent of age, septic shock, vasopressin and mechanical ventilation. Additionally, the OND users had longer lengths of stay in ICU (6.9(3.1-13.2) vs . 5.1(2.5-11.0), P = 0.026) while no statistical differences were found in lengths of stay in hospital (P = 0.333)., Conclusion: OND exposure might be associated with lower in-hospital, 28-day, and 90-day mortality rates in critically ill patients with sepsis. This study indicated that OND might help improve the prognosis of patients with sepsis., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Yang, Niu, Zhu, Zheng, Li, Wang, Jin, Lu, Qiang and Shen.)

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common side effect associated with general anesthesia. Both ondansetron and aprepitant been effectively used to prevent PONV. However, there is a disagreement of opinions regarding the superiority of these two drugs. This study aims to compare the efficacy of aprepitant with ondansetron in preventing PONV following orthognathic surgeries., Methods: In this double-blinded clinical trial, 80 patients scheduled for orthognathic surgery at Imam Hossein Hospital, Tehran, Iran, were randomly assigned to two groups. A standardized anesthesia protocol was used for all patients. The first group received a placebo capsule administered one hour before the surgical procedure along with 4 mg (2 ml) of ondansetron intravenously after anesthesia induction. The second group was given 80 mg aprepitant capsules one hour before the surgery, followed by an injection of 2 ml intravenous distilled water after anesthesia induction. The occurrence and severity of PONV, the amount of rescue medication required, and the complete response of patients assessed within 24 h after the surgery., Results: There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. Patients in the aprepitant group had a significantly lower incidence and severity of nausea (2.5% versus 27.5%), vomiting (5% versus 25%), and required fewer rescue medications (7.5% versus 62.5%) compared to the ondansetron group. Additionally, the aprepitant group showed a higher complete response rate (90% versus 67.5%) in the 0-2 and 12-24 postoperative hours., Conclusion: According to the findings of this study, aprepitant has demonstrated a greater efficacy in preventing PONV following orthognathic surgery, when compared to ondansetron., Trial Registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT code: IRCT20211205053279N3), date of registration: 16/12/2022., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Previous studies have determined ondansetron's efficacy in preventing and treating postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, evidence regarding the timing of drug administration in relation to the surgical procedure remains vague., Objective: To compare the preoperative and intraoperative administration of ondansetron on the incidence of PONV., Design: Single-centred, randomised, double-blind trial. Patients were recruited between November 2018 and April 2021. Follow-up for PONV and retching was up to 24 h., Setting: Aretaieio University Hospital, Greece., Patients: A total of 121 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy gave written consent., Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated to the preoperative or the intraoperative group. The preoperative group received 4 mg of ondansetron dissolved in 100 ml of 0.9% saline 1 hour before induction of anaesthesia and 100 ml of 0.9% saline 30 min before end of surgery. The intraoperative group received 100 ml of 0.9% saline 1 h before induction of anaesthesia and 4 mg of ondansetron dissolved in 100 ml of 0.9% saline 30 min before end of surgery., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting combined at 24 h., Results: No difference was found between the two groups regarding either the incidence of nausea and vomiting at 24 h (1.7% for the preoperative group versus 5.3% for the intraoperative group, P  = 0.31) or the incidence of nausea, vomiting and retching combined (5.3% for the preoperative group versus 10.5% for the intraoperative group, P  = 0.30). There was no difference between the groups in the pain intensity at rest or with coughing in the post anaesthesia care unit, at 4, 8 and 24 h postoperatively ( P  = 0.961, 0.929, 0.748 and 0.883 at rest, and 0.974, 0.220, 0.235 and 0.317 with coughing, respectively)., Conclusion: Under the current study design, we found no difference in the incidence of PONV between the administration of ondansetron 1 h before induction of anaesthesia and the intraoperative administration of ondansetron 30 min before the end of surgery., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03023306., (Copyright © 2023 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)

Purpose: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent unappealing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) sequel. The study's purpose was to determine the prevalence, risk factors of PONV, and management of PONV after LSG., Patients and Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with morbid obesity who had LSG between January 2022 and April 2023. The age range for LSG was 16 to 65 years, and the eligibility requirements included morbid obesity according to international guidelines., Results: PONV was experienced by 74.6% of patients who underwent LSG at 6 h postoperative. Multivariate analysis revealed that female gender, smokers, preoperative GERD, gastropexy, and severity of pain were found to be independent risk variables of the development of PONV, while antral preservation, opioid-free analgesia, and intraoperative combined analgesia were found to be independent protective variables against the development of PONV. Combined intravenous ondansetron and metoclopramide improved 92.6% of patients who developed PONV. Dexamethasone and antihistamines drugs are given for 42 cases with persistent PONV after using intravenous ondansetron and metoclopramide. Pain management postoperatively by opioid-free analgesia managed PONV. Helicobacter pylori status has no role in the development of PONV after LSG., Conclusion: Female gender, smoking, presence of preoperative GERD, gastropexy, and severity of pain were found to be independent risk variables of the development of PONV, while antral preservation, opioid-free analgesia, and intraoperative combined analgesia were observed to be independent protective factors against the occurrence of PONV. Combined intravenous ondansetron and metoclopramide improved PONV. Dexamethasone and antihistamines drugs are given for persistent PONV., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection., Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool., Results: In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain., Conclusion: Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Nausea and vomiting is a common ED chief complaint. However, randomised trials comparing antiemetic agents to placebo have not demonstrated superiority. This systematic review investigates the efficacy of inhaled isopropyl alcohol (IPA) compared with usual care or placebo in adults presenting to the ED with nausea and vomiting., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, other relevant trial registries, journals, and conference proceedings up to September 2022. Randomised controlled trials using IPA to treat adult ED patients with nausea and vomiting were included. The primary outcome was change in severity of nausea, measured by a validated scale. A secondary outcome was vomiting during the ED stay. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system., Results: Two trials comparing inhaled IPA to saline placebo and including a total of 195 patients were pooled for meta-analysis of the primary outcome. A third study comparing a group receiving inhaled IPA and oral ondansetron to another group receiving inhaled saline placebo and oral ondansetron did not qualify for the original registered protocol, but was included in a secondary analysis. All studies were judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. The pooled mean difference for the primary analysis was a reduction in reported nausea of 2.18 on a 0-10 scale (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 2.76), favouring IPA over placebo, where the minimum clinically significant difference was defined as 1.5. The evidence level was graded as moderate, due to imprecision from low patient numbers. Only the study included in the secondary analysis assessed the secondary outcome of vomiting, and did not find a difference between intervention and control., Conclusion: This review suggests that IPA likely has a modest effect in reducing nausea in adult ED patients, compared with placebo. Larger multicentre trials are needed, as the evidence is limited by few trials and patients., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022299815., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: A randomised single-blind trial was undertaken in an adult ED population, comparing the effectiveness of droperidol 2.5 mg IV with ondansetron 8 mg IV for the treatment of nausea and vomiting., Methods: Patients were randomly allocated to receive droperidol (n = 60) or ondansetron (n = 60). Patients rated their nausea severity on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) immediately before and 30 min after drug administration. The primary outcome was of symptom improvement, defined by a VAS change ≥-8 mm 30 min post-treatment. Mean VAS change and percentage experiencing desired effect were secondary outcomes compared., Results: Of 120 study patients, 60 (50%) received droperidol or ondansetron. Symptom improvement occurred in 93% (56 of 60) and 87% (52 of 60), respectively (P = 0.362). Mean VAS change was -38 mm and -29 mm, respectively (P = 0.031). Percentage of patients indicating desired effect was 85% and 63%, respectively (P = 0.006). Additional antiemetics were required for 16% and 37% of subjects, respectively (P = 0.006)., Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of symptom improvement between droperidol and ondansetron. Secondary outcomes which favour droperidol warrant further exploration., (© 2023 The Authors. Emergency Medicine Australasia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the common adverse reactions after surgery. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antiemetic drugs suggest that aprepitant has the strongest antiemetic effect of any single drug. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of aprepitant for preventing PONV based on the existing literature., Methods: To identify RCTs investigating the use of aprepitant for PONV prevention, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published prior to March 20, 2022. Seventeen RCTs were identified, with 3299 patients, meeting the inclusion criteria. PONV incidence, complete response, 80 mg aprepitant combined with dexamethasone and ondansetron, vomiting, nausea, and analgesic dose-response were the main outcomes measured., Results: Compared with the control group, PONV incidence was significantly reduced among those receiving aprepitant (odds ratio [OR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26, 0.44; P < .0001), with a more complete response (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.59; P = .0004). Supplementation of 80 mg aprepitant in combination with dexamethasone and ondansetron substantially improved the effects of PONV (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.82; P = .01). Further, administration of 80 mg aprepitant was better at preventing vomiting than nausea (OR: 8.6; 95% CI: 3.84, 19. 29; P < .00001). No statistically significant difference between the dose-response of analgesics was identified (mean difference: -1.09; 95% CI: -6.48, 4.30; P = .69). The risk of bias was assessed independently by paired evaluators., Conclusion: Aprepitant effectively reduces the incidence of PONV; however, the effects of postoperative analgesia require further exploration., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Consensus guidelines recommend the use of multiple antiemetics as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but the evidence regarding combining acupuncture and antiemetics as a multimodal approach was of very low quality., Objective: This study aimed to assess the effect of combinations of acupuncture with ondansetron versus ondansetron alone for PONV prophylaxis in women at a high risk., Methods: This parallel, randomised controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary hospital in China. Patients who had three or four PONV risk factors on the Apfel simplified risk score, undergoing elective laparoscopic gynaecological surgery for benign pathology, were recruited. Patients in the combination group received two sessions of acupuncture treatment and 8 mg intravenous ondansetron, whereas those in the ondansetron group received ondansetron alone. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV within 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, adverse events etc. RESULTS: Between January and July 2021, a total of 212 women were recruited, 91 patients in the combination group and 93 patients in the ondansetron group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. In the first 24 h postoperatively, 44.0% of the patients in the combination group and 60.2% of the patients in the ondansetron group experienced nausea, vomiting, or both (difference, -16.3% [95% CI, -30.5 to -2.0]; risk ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; p = 0.03). However, the results of the secondary outcomes showed that compared to ondansetron alone, acupuncture together with ondansetron was only effective in reducing nausea but did not have a significant impact on vomiting. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups., Conclusion: Acupuncture combined with ondansetron as a multimodal prophylaxis approach is more effective than ondansetron alone in preventing postoperative nausea in high-risk patients., (© 2023 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)