Preet Mohinder Singh1, Anuradha Borle2, Divakara Gouda3, Jeetinder Kaur Makkar4, Mahesh K Arora5, Anjan Trikha6, Ashish Sinha7, Basavana Goudra8. 1. Department of Anesthesia, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India. Electronic address: Preetrajpal@gmail.com. 2. Department of Anesthesia, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India. Electronic address: Andromeda85@gmail.com. 3. New York University, New York, NY 110003. Electronic address: Dg2488@nyu.edu. 4. Department of Anesthesia, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India. Electronic address: jeet1516@gmail.com. 5. Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, 245 N. 15th Street, MS, 310, Philadelphia, PA 19102. Electronic address: Mkarora442@gmail.com. 6. Department of Anesthesia, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India. Electronic address: anjantrikha@gmail.com. 7. Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, 245 N. 15th Street, MS, 310, Philadelphia, PA 19102. Electronic address: drashish.sinha@gmail.com. 8. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Perleman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: Goudrab@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with proposed higher efficacy and sustained action for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials involving adult population undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia comparing palonosetron to placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron were included. Data were extracted for vomiting incidence (VI), complete response (no nausea/vomiting; Complete Response [CR]), and rescue antiemetic need. This was categorized as early phase (24 hours postoperative for ramosetron and 6 hours for rest) and delayed phase (48 hours for ramosetron and 24 hours for rest). VI and CR were used as markers of drug efficacy. Any adverse effects were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials (4 with 3 groups) were included (comparing palonosetron to placebo in 5, ramosetron in 5, granisetron in 4, and ondansetron in 12 subgroups). Palonosetron demonstrated statistical superiority over placebo for VI and CR, both early/delayed PONV prevention. For delayed phase, palonosetron surpassed ramosetron in all 3 variables; however, none of the variables attained statistical significance during early phase. In early phase, palonosetron had better VI and CR than did granisetron; however, variables other than CR (better for palonosetron) failed to achieve statistical significance for delayed phase. All 3 outcomes were significantly better for palonosetron compared with ondansetron in delayed phase, but statistical superiority could only be demonstrated for VI in early phase. Being inconsistently documented across trials, nausea scores could not be evaluated. CONCLUSION: Palonosetron is as safe as and more effective than placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron in preventing delayed PONV. For early PONV, it has higher efficacy over placebo, granisetron, and ondansetron.
INTRODUCTION:Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with proposed higher efficacy and sustained action for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials involving adult population undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia comparing palonosetron to placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron were included. Data were extracted for vomiting incidence (VI), complete response (no nausea/vomiting; Complete Response [CR]), and rescue antiemetic need. This was categorized as early phase (24 hours postoperative for ramosetron and 6 hours for rest) and delayed phase (48 hours for ramosetron and 24 hours for rest). VI and CR were used as markers of drug efficacy. Any adverse effects were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials (4 with 3 groups) were included (comparing palonosetron to placebo in 5, ramosetron in 5, granisetron in 4, and ondansetron in 12 subgroups). Palonosetron demonstrated statistical superiority over placebo for VI and CR, both early/delayed PONV prevention. For delayed phase, palonosetron surpassed ramosetron in all 3 variables; however, none of the variables attained statistical significance during early phase. In early phase, palonosetron had better VI and CR than did granisetron; however, variables other than CR (better for palonosetron) failed to achieve statistical significance for delayed phase. All 3 outcomes were significantly better for palonosetron compared with ondansetron in delayed phase, but statistical superiority could only be demonstrated for VI in early phase. Being inconsistently documented across trials, nausea scores could not be evaluated. CONCLUSION:Palonosetron is as safe as and more effective than placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron in preventing delayed PONV. For early PONV, it has higher efficacy over placebo, granisetron, and ondansetron.
Keywords:
Palonosetron for PONV; Palonosetron for delayed PONV; Palonosetron meta-analysis for PONV; Palonosetron vs placebo or ramosetron or granisetron or ondansetron