4.0 Article

CYP2D6 basic genotyping as a potential tool to improve the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron in prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting

期刊

ADVANCES IN CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1499-1503

出版社

WROCLAW MEDICAL UNIV
DOI: 10.17219/acem/69451

关键词

CYP2D6; ondansetron; postoperative nausea and vomiting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after anesthesia and surgery. Ondansetron is one of the most widely used drugs in the prophylaxis of PONV and is extensively metabolized in humans. In vitro metabolism studies have shown that ondansetron is a substrate for human hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes. The cytochrome P450 (human hepatic cytochrome [CYP]) 2D6 inhibitor quinidine reduced in vitro hydroxylation of ondansetron, which indicates the important role of CYP2D6 in ondansetron metabolism. Genotyping these alleles allows the prediction of the extensive metabolizer (EM) and poor metabolizer (PM) phenotypes with approx. 90-96% accuracy. Objectives. The aim of our study wasto evaluate whether the pharmacological prevention of PONV with ondansetron depends on the most common CYP2D6 alleles (CYP2D6*1, *3, *4, *5, and NxN [multiplication gene]). Material and methods. Genotyping for the defective CYP2D6*3, CYP2D6*4 and CYP2D6*5 alleles among 93 surgical female patients was performed by polymerase chain reaction amplification and restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). Results. The genetically defined EMs and ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs) of CYP2D6 had a statistically significant (p < 0.02) higher frequency of nausea and vomiting after strumectomy (33.3%) than intermediate metabolizers (IMs) (10.3%) and PMs (0%). The relative risk (odds ratio [OR]) of PONV occurrence was 5 times higher for EMs/UMs than IMs/PMs. Conclusions. Our results suggest that PONV treatment with ondansetron could be improved by basic, widely available and inexpensive PCR-RFLP genetic tests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据