Patients' self-reported functional status after granisetron or ondansetron therapy to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting at six cancer centers

Patient functional status after administration of either granisetron or ondansetron to prevent acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was studied. Pharmacists and nurses from six cancer centers distributed Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaires to 115 outpatients receiving either granisetron or ondansetron for prevention of CINV. The emetogenic potential of each patient's chemotherapy regimen was high, moderately high, or moderate. Immediately before and 72 hours after chemotherapy, each patient rated his or her reaction to each of 18 items on the questionnaire on a 7-point scale. Possible scores ranged from 18 to 126, with higher scores indicating higher levels of functioning. The occurrence of nausea in the granisetron group was 40.0% compared with 43.2% in the ondansetron group; the occurrence of vomiting was 18.8% in the granisetron group and 11.1% in the ondansetron group. Patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy had significantly lower scores on the FLIE after chemotherapy than before. Patients with both nausea and vomiting reported a much higher negative impact on functional status after chemotherapy than those with nausea only. The mean prechemotherapy and postchemotherapy FLIE scores were 124.2 and 110.4 for granisetron and 124.9 and 111.9 for ondansetron. Granisetron and ondansetron did not differ significantly in their effect on functional status reported by patients before and 72 hours after receiving cancer chemotherapy.     

Computer simulation of changes in nursing productivity from early tracheal extubation of coronary artery bypass graft patients

A total of 530 patients were treated in this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of a once daily ondansetron oral regimen with a once daily i.v. dosing regimen over a 24 h period, administered to patients prior to receiving cisplatin (50 mg/m2 or greater) chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of ondansetron plus dexamethasone given either orally (ondansetron 24 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, n=262) or i.v. (ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg, n=268). Complete control of emesis (i.e. no emetic episodes, no rescue and no premature withdrawal) was achieved for 85% of patients (224 of 262) in the oral group and 83% (223 of 268) in the i.v. group. No nausea was reported in 70% of patients in the oral group and 68% in the i.v. group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for any of the assessments of efficacy, which included time to first emetic episode, number of emetic episodes and the worst grade of nausea occurring over the 24 h study period. Once daily ondansetron oral and i.v., in combination with dexamethasone, was well tolerated in this study. In conclusion, once daily oral ondansetron 24 mg plus dexamethasone is equally effective in the control of emesis and nausea induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy as once daily ondansetron 8 mg i.v. plus dexamethasone.     

Dolasetron. A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic potential in the management of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery

Dolasetron (dolasetron mesilate) is a pseudopelletierine-derived 5-HT3 antagonist which has recently become available for clinical use. It is rapidly converted in vivo to its active major metabolite, hydrodolasetron, which appears to be largely responsible for its pharmacological activity. In clinical trials, single intravenous or oral doses of dolasetron were effective in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Intravenous doses of 1.8 mg/kg achieved complete suppression of vomiting in approximately 50% of patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and in approximately 60 to 80% of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In the latter setting, oral doses of 200 mg achieved similar response rates. In comparative studies, intravenous dolasetron 1.8 mg/kg was as effective as intravenous granisetron 3 mg or ondansetron 32 mg after highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and oral dolasetron 200 mg was equivalent to multiple oral doses of ondansetron (3 or 4 doses of 8 mg) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Dolasetron 1.8 mg/kg was superior to metoclopramide in preventing emesis induced by high dose cisplatin or by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in high risk subgroups. Dolasetron has also shown efficacy in preventing radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) in preliminary studies. Single intravenous or oral dolasetron doses ranging from 12.5 to 100 mg and 25 to 200 mg, respectively, were significantly more effective than placebo in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in female surgical patients. A 50 mg intravenous dose was as effective in preventing PONV as ondansetron 4 mg in a mixed-gender group. Intravenously administered dolasetron was also effective in treating established PONV, although complete suppression of vomiting was achieved in < 40% of patients. Dolasetron has a tolerability profile characteristic of this class of compounds, with headache, dizziness and diarrhoea being the most commonly occurring adverse events in clinical trials. Diarrhoea is not thought to be related to dolasetron administration, being experienced mostly by patients receiving chemotherapy. Dolasetron and other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have been associated with minor changes in ECG intervals, but these generally do not appear to be clinically important. Thus, available evidence suggests that dolasetron will provide an alternative to other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the management of CINV and PONV. Further studies are required to determine whether it offers any advantages over other agents in these settings and to determine the optimum dosage for preventing RINV.     

Economic impact with home delivery of chemotherapy to pediatric oncology patients

OBJECTIVE: To examine the economic impact of a home chemotherapy program (HCP) for pediatric oncology patients. RATIONALE: Factors that led to initiation of an HCP included availability of specially trained nurses and programmable ambulatory infusion devices at local home care agencies, routine central venous catheter placement, inpatient bed space shortages, and the availability of ondansetron. SETTING: Chemotherapy delivery in the home setting from June 1991 through June 1994. DESIGN: Charge data and nausea and vomiting severity data were collected for patients treated through the HCP. METHODS: Economic impact was calculated by incorporating and summing all charge categories associated with hospital admission for chemotherapy (HAC) versus delivery by the HCP. All data were adjusted for 1993 dollars, and reflect changes for the average patient size (1 m2). Charge data for each chemotherapy protocol delivered in the home were analyzed by calculating the differences between HAC and HCP charges using the following formula: charge difference (HAC - HCP) per protocol times the number of courses. Total economic impact was calculated by summing the differences in charges for each protocol. RESULTS: A total of 262 chemotherapy courses were given to 44 patients (mean age 9.5 +/- 5.1 y) through the HCP, which represented 1012 patient care days and 24 different chemotherapy protocols. Monetary savings from the HCP ranged from $5180 per course of ifosfamide plus etoposide to $367 per course for high-dose methotrexate. Total monetary savings from the HCP during the 3-year period was $640,793. Successful control of nausea and vomiting with a combination of ondansetron plus methylprednisolone was achieved in approximately 80% of the patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy protocols. CONCLUSIONS: HCP for pediatric oncology patients results in substantial monetary savings to payors. Effective control of nausea and vomiting can be accomplished at home in the majority of patients with an ondansetron-based antiemetic regimen.     

Antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in laparoscopic surgery: randomized, double-blind comparison with metoclopramide

In a randomized, double-blind study, we have compared the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron with that of metoclopramide in 123 patients undergoing general anaesthesia for day-case gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. The patients received either i.v. ondansetron 4 mg or metoclopramide 10 mg immediately before a standard anaesthetic. The number of patients with no nausea or vomiting in the ondansteron group was 50 (82%) compared with 29 (47%) in the metoclopramide group (P < 0.001). In those patients with a previous history of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nausea was less severe in those receiving ondansetron compared with those receiving metoclopramide (P < 0.05). We conclude that preoperative prophylactic administration of i.v. ondansetron was superior to metoclopramide in preventing nausea and vomiting after general anaesthesia for day-case gynaecological laparoscopic surgery.     

Review of the preclinical pharmacology and comparative efficacy of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced emesis

PURPOSE: This analysis was undertaken to review published reports of the comparative efficacy and safety of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in the prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced emesis. METHODS: Comparison data used are the preclinical pharmacology as well as the design and results of clinical trials. Seven comparative studies that used granisetron, ondansetron, or tropisetron in patients who received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy are reviewed. As the study designs, patient population, chemotherapy, antiemetic doses and schedule, and methods of assessment were slightly different, the results of each study are analyzed independently. Effectiveness is assessed by emetic episodes, nausea, and patient preference. RESULTS: The preclinical pharmacologic profile is different among the 5-HT3 antagonists in terms of potency, selectivity, dose response, and duration of action. The comparative clinical trials show that a single intravenous (i.v.) dose of granisetron 3 mg is as effective as multiple (8 mg x 3) or single (32 mg) i.v. doses of ondansetron for the prevention of acute nausea and emesis due to cisplatin. In the two moderately emetogenic clinical trials, granisetron 3 mg i.v. was at least as effective as ondansetron 8 mg i.v. +/- 24 mg orally and tropisetron 5 mg i.v. Patient preference was evaluated in three of the four crossover trials: granisetron was preferred in three of four, and no preference was reported in the fourth. The one trial to compare ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg x 3 versus granisetron 10 micrograms/kg x 1 or granisetron 40 micrograms/kg i.v. demonstrated equivalent control of nausea and vomiting in patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The 5-HT3 receptor antagonists compared are highly effective antiemetic agents that have now become the standard of care for preventing chemotherapy-induced emesis. Whether the described preclinical differences among these agents are also clinically significant remains to be seen. In the comparative trials analyzed, the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists demonstrated relatively equivalent clinical efficacy. Cost analysis may favor the use of one agent over another depending on the emetogenic challenge, dose of the 5-HT3 antagonists, and number of doses recommended. Patient preference may be an important factor to be considered in future antiemetic trials.     

Ontogenic development of the adenylyl cyclase enzyme and the alpha s, alpha i1 and alpha i2 G-protein regulatory subunits from rat prostate

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the prophylactic administration of ondansetron with droperidol or placebo to determine its effectiveness in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear procedures. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Inpatient otolaryngology service at a university medical center. PATIENTS: 120 ASA physical status I and II patients presenting for elective middle ear surgical procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (Group 1), ondansetron 4 mg intravenously (IV) (Group 2), or droperidol 25 mcg/kg i.v. (Group 3) 10 minutes before induction of general anesthesia using thiopental 5 mg/kg i.v. with fentanyl 2 mcg/kg i.v. and maintenance anesthesia with isoflurane 1% to 2% end-tidal in a 50% air/oxygen mixture. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Total surgical, anesthesia, extubation, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) occupancy times were recorded along with anesthesia recovery scores. The incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, and pain along with rescue antiemetic administration, also were recorded. Similar assessments were made over the next 24 hours. Intergroup demographic data were similar except that the male to female ratio was higher in the ondansetron group. Stewart scores, reflecting emergence from anesthesia, were higher with ondansetron compared with droperidol. The incidence of nausea was similar between the groups but the severity was less after ondansetron therapy. More patients vomited after placebo than when given either droperidol or ondansetron. No intergroup differences were noted in the use of rescue antiemetics. Twenty-four hours later, more patients who received the placebo drug had nausea or vomited compared with either ondansetron or droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron 4 mg i.v. is as effective as droperidol and better than placebo in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. No cost advantage as determined by lower use of rescue antiemetics or shorter PACU times was noted after the prophylactic administration of ondansetron.     

Conditioned side effects induced by cancer chemotherapy: Prevention through behavioral treatment.

Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy often experience nausea and vomiting that develop as a result of classical conditioning. In order to determine whether this nausea and vomiting could be delayed or prevented, 24 cancer patients were randomized either to a group that received progressive muscle relaxation training (PMRT) plus guided imagery (GI), or to a no-treatment control group. Relaxation training sessions were held before the initiation of chemotherapy and during the first three chemotherapy treatments. Results indicated that patients receiving PMRT and GI had significantly less nausea and vomiting and significantly lower blood pressures, pulse rates, and dysphoria, especially anxiety, than did control patients. Nurse observations corroborated patient reports. These data suggest that early training in PMRT and GI can reduce and perhaps prevent the development of conditioned nausea and vomiting, and can alleviate high anxiety levels in cancer patients who receive emetogenic chemotherapy. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ondansetron versus droperidol or placebo to prevent nausea and vomiting after otologic surgery

This study compares the preoperative administration of ondansetron with that of droperidol or saline solution for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in otologic surgery patients. A total of 120 otherwise healthy individuals were randomly assigned to receive either saline solution, ondansetron (4 mg intravenously), or droperidol (25 microg/kg intravenously) before anesthetic induction. Intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit times were recorded along with incidence of nausea, vomiting, pain, nausea and recovery scores, and the administration of rescue antiemetics. Similar assessments were made during the next 24 hours. Demographics were similar, but more males received ondansetron. Anesthetic recovery scores were lower after administration of droperidol than after ondansetron. Incidence of nausea was similar between groups, but severity was greater with placebo and droperidol than with ondansetron. More vomiting occurred with placebo than with ondansetron or droperidol. No intergroup differences in rescue antiemetic administration were noted, however. Twenty-four hours later, more patients receiving placebo had nausea or vomited than patients receiving droperidol or ondansetron. Fewer women in the ondansetron group vomited than in the other two groups. Ondansetron 4 mg intravenously is as effective as droperidol and better than saline solution in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing otologic surgery. No cost advantage as determined by lower use of rescue antiemetics or shorter postanesthesia care unit times was noted after ondansetron therapy.     

Immunoglobulin production by human peripheral B cells against Staphylococcus aureus

Patterns of antiemetic therapy and its outcomes in patients undergoing high-dose antineoplastic therapy were studied. The study, conducted at a cancer center, included both a retrospective evaluation of patients undergoing highly emetogenic high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral blood stem-cell rescue between November 1994 and December 1995 and a concurrent evaluation of patients treated between January and May 1996. During the study period the recommended antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy was a single dose of granisetron 1 mg i.v. daily 30 minutes before treatment on days of chemotherapy. Severity of nausea and vomiting during both the acute phase (from day 1 of chemotherapy to 24 hours after its completion) and delayed phase (from 24 hours to five days after the end of chemotherapy) was graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria Grading Scale. A total of 59 patients were evaluable; 41 were reviewed retrospectively, and 18 were reviewed concurrently. On day 1 of the acute phase, 53 patients (90%) had no vomiting and 51 patients (86%) had no nausea. The frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting increased on successive acute-phase days, and it was necessary to add other antiemetics. Nausea and vomiting continued to be significant problems throughout the delayed phase; 32 (54%) of the patients had a maximum of grade 3 nausea, and 29 patients (49%) had a maximum of grade 2 vomiting. Substantial numbers of patients who received selective serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists before high-dose antineoplastic agents had significant nausea and vomiting that required the addition of other antiemetics.     

Effectiveness and tolerance of Navoban (5HT3-receptor antagonist tropisetron) in prevention of cytostatic drug-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast carcinomas and gynecological malignancies

Efficacy and safety of the antiemetic agent Navoban (5HT3-receptor-antagonist Tropisetron) on cytostatic-induced emesis of breast cancers and gynecological cancers was tested in 28 female patients receiving a total of 127 chemotherapy courses containing high (cisplatin), moderate high (cyclophosphamid) or moderate (for example 5 FU) emetogenic cytostatic drugs. We studied antiemetic response rates of Navoban (5 mg/d) during the first 24 hours after administration of the chemotherapy as well as response rates of the "delayed nausea and emesis" (days 2-9 after chemotherapy). A complete response was observed in 103 chemotherapy courses (= 81.1%) during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and in 93 courses (= 73.2%) for the "delayed emesis". Treatment failures (more than 5 vomiting episodes) during the first 24 hours were present in four courses and for the "delayed emesis" in 11 courses. The side effects of Navoban such as constipation, headache or tiredness were minimum. Therefore no patient refused to receive the necessary chemotherapy. Navoban is, with its single dose application, an effective therapeutic drug for the prevention of nausea and emesis in patients receiving a chemotherapy.     

Comparison of single-dose oral granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized parallel study

PURPOSE: The antiemetic effectiveness and safety of single-dose oral granisetron were compared with intravenous (I.V.) ondansetron in chemotherapy-naive patients who received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, parallel-group study, patients naive to emetogenic chemotherapy (N = 1,085) who were scheduled to receive cyclophosphamide- (500 to 1,200 mg/m2) or carboplatin (> or = 300 mg/m2) based chemotherapy, were randomized to receive either oral granisetron (n = 542) or I.V. ondansetron (n = 543). Efficacy assessments included the proportion of patients in each treatment group with total control over the 24 and 48 hours following chemotherapy initiation, as well as incidence and severity of nausea and emesis and use of antiemetic rescue medication. Prophylactic corticosteroids were allowed. Safety assessment was based on patients' reports of adverse experiences. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of patients received prophylactic corticosteroids. Single-dose oral granisetron (2 mg) and I.V. ondansetron (32 mg) resulted in equivalent levels of total emetic control during the first 48 hours after chemotherapy. The proportion of nausea- and emesis-free patients at 24 and 48 hours were also approximately equivalent. The most commonly reported adverse experiences were headache, asthenia, and constipation. More patients who received ondonsetron than granisetron reported dizziness (9.6% v 5.4%, respectively; P = .011) and abnormal vision (4.2% v 0.6%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: A single oral dose of granisetron (2 mg) resulted in equivalent levels of antiemetic protection as I.V. ondansetron (32 mg). Both agents were well tolerated, although more dizziness and abnormal vision were reported with ondansetron. Because the two antiemetic regimens exhibited equivalent efficacies, additional factors such as convenience and cost of therapy should be considered.     

Does oral ondansetron reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting after surgery for strabismus in children?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of oral ondansetron with oral metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative vomiting and nausea in children undergoing strabismus surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. PATIENTS: Thirty children of physical class 1, age 9 +/- 4 years, scheduled for strabismus surgery, were randomized into two groups (ondansetron and metoclopramide). METHODS: In the ondansetron group, the children received the first oral dose of ondansetron (4 mg) 1 hour before induction of anaesthesia and the other doses 8 and 16 hours later. In the metoclopramide group, children received metoclopramide (5 mg) in the same conditions. Anaesthesia was induced with thiopentone, vecuronium and fentanyl and maintained with halothane and N2O/O2. Patients were evaluated by an independent observer for nausea and emesis in recovery room (0-2 h) and on the ward. The adverse effects of oral ondansetron and metoclopramide were assessed. RESULTS: There were non-significant differences between the two groups for incidence of nausea and vomiting (40% and 53% in ondansetron group versus 33 and 60% in metoclopramide group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Unlike intravenous ondansetron, oral ondansetron is not superior to metoclopramide for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by strabismus surgery in children.     

What is core? Guidelines for the core curriculum in paediatrics

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study was investigated in order to compare on 3 days the efficacy and the safety of the 16 mg once a day (od) ondansetron suppository (suppository group) with the recommended ondansetron treatment, i.e. 8 mg intravenous (i.v.) ondansetron on day 1 followed by 8 mg tablet (p.o.) twice daily (i.v. + p.o. group) on days 2 and 3 in patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 50 mg/m2) containing chemotherapy. In the 420 patients included in the intent-to-treat population, 209 received the 16 mg suppository and 211 the i.v. + p.o. treatment. The number of emetic episodes and the nausea score were recorded each day. Concerning the primary criterion, both treatments provided good anti-emetic control with 87% of all patients having a complete or major response (0-2 emetic episodes) on day 1 in the suppository group and 92% in the i.v. + p.o. group (P = 0.058). The 90% confidence interval for the difference between the two treatments for complete or major control was included in the interval (-15%, 15%) and showed that the treatment groups could be regarded as equivalent. Small differences in favour of the i.v. + p.o. group were observed concerning the secondary parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated. The results of this study show that both treatments are equivalent in the prevention of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy induced emesis for the primary efficacy criteria and that the ondansetron suppository is efficient and well tolerated and is a suitable alternative to the anti-emetic treatment combining the intravenous and oral routes.     

Effect of concurrent use of ondansetron hydrochloride and dexamethasone against nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving cisplatin

We examined the efficacy of concurrent use of ondansetron hydrochloride and dexamethasone, and the effective dose of dexamethasone against nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy including single high dose cisplatin. The study was carried out on total of 44 courses of chemotherapy in either initial onset or recurrence of lung cancer. The patients were given 4 mg of ondansetron injection on the day of cisplatin injection (Day 1), and 4 mg/day of ondansetron tablet for Days 2 to 4. These patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups, i.e., those who, on Day 2, concomitantly received 10 mg of dexamethasone (D10 Group, 22 courses) or 20 mg (D20 Group, 22 courses), for comparing the antiemetic effects in a different concomitant dose of dexamethasone. An efficacy rate of 70% or more was achieved in each group for acute emesis on Day 1. The efficacy rate was 80% or above for emesis on Day 2 when dexamethasone was concurrently administered, and Days 3 and 4 in both groups. No significant difference was observed between the groups. A higher complete suppression rate against nausea was seen in D20 Group even though the difference from D10 Group was not significant. Furthermore, food intake rate on Day 2 was significantly better in D20 Group. However, in the cases that were graded effective or markedly effective for acute emesis on Day 1, the efficacy rate was also high in both groups through Days 2-4. It was notable that the efficacy rate of Days 2-4 was 100% in D2 Group. The high efficacy rate was shown in male patients regardless of which dose of dexamethasone was used. However, control of emesis was unfavorable in female patients on Day 1 and was still unfavorable even though dexamethasone was combined from Day 2. We considered from the above results that 10 mg/day of concurrent dexamethasone is sufficient in suppression of delayed emesis on Day 2. However, in order to improve nausea or food intake, or to suppress emesis in patients who are highly likely to show unfavorable control for Day 2 and onward, 20 mg/day should also be effective.     

Use of oral and intravenous ondansetron in patients treated with cisplatin

Ondansetron, a selective 5-HT3 antagonist, has been shown to be effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. From July and August 1991, 25 patients were accrued in a phase II study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron in patients receiving cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Patients received intravenous cisplatin 100 mg/m2, given either as a 24-hour infusion on day 1 or in divided doses as eight-hour infusions daily on days 1 to 3. Each patient received 24 mg of ondansetron per day for six days. Intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg was given daily on the days of cisplatin infusion. The emetic episodes and degree of nausea were evaluated daily. "Good" control of emesis (0-2 episodes of vomiting) and nausea (mild or no nausea) ranged from 64-100% and 88-100% respectively. Failure in emesis control occurred most frequently on days 3 and 4. Ondansetron was generally well tolerated with only minimal side-effects. One patient developed unexplained encephalopathy which resolved completely. Our results suggest that ondansetron is an effective anti-emetic agent with minimal toxicities. Randomised studies comparing ondansetron against "standard" anti-emetics should be conducted.     

Oral ondansetron for the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a large, multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparative trial of ondansetron versus placebo

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of oral ondansetron in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis in patients who do not require rescue antiemetic therapy for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred thirty-eight chemotherapy-naive patients who received cisplatin chemotherapy (> or = 70 mg/m2), and who were not rescued for acute emesis, were eligible to be randomized to receive one of the three oral regimens to control delayed emesis. Group I received placebo on days 2 to 6; group II received ondansetron 8 mg twice daily on days 2 and 3 and placebo on days 4 to 6; group III received ondansetron 8 mg twice daily on days 2 to 6. All patients received intravenous ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg every 4 hours for three doses) for the control of acute emesis on day 1. The number of emetic episodes on days 2 and 3 combined (days 2/3, when incidence and severity of delayed emesis were expected to be greatest) was considered the primary measure of efficacy. RESULTS: Patients who received odansetron had significantly fewer emetic episodes on days 2/3, 4, and 5 than those who received placebo (P < or = .002 on each day). Additionally, significantly more patients who received ondansetron had a complete plus major response (C+MR; < or = two two emetic episodes) than those who received placebo on days 2/3 (56% v 37%, P = .001), 4 (94% v 85%, P = .005), and 5 (98% v 88%, P = .006). Patients who received ondansetron had significantly less nausea on day 2/3 when day-1 nausea was used as the baseline score (P = .025). Patients who received ondansetron also had significantly less nausea on day 4 (P = .042) and the results approached significance on day 5 (P = .066). CONCLUSION: Oral ondansetron had a significant effect in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis and nausea in patients who had not required rescue antiemetics during the acute emesis period. The control of delayed nausea and vomiting was most notable in the immediate 2 days following cisplatin administration, with the clinical difference narrowing between the two treatment arms on subsequent days.     

Treatment of cisplatin-related nausea and vomiting with a combination of ondansetron and metoclopramide: a pilot study

Forty chemotherapy-naive patients receiving high-dose cisplatin were included in a pilot study of a combination of ondansetron plus metoclopramide as antiemetic therapy. Patients received ondansetron 16 mg plus metoclopramide 0.5 mg/kg in 250 cm3 of normal saline i.v. 15 min before cisplatin administration on day 1; then ondansetron 8 mg was given orally b.i.d. and metoclopramide 0.5 mg/kg was given intramuscularly t.i.d. for 4 days. This combination was given to all patients receiving the first cycle of chemotherapy. At the second cycle of chemotherapy all patients received the same antiemetic treatment as above plus methylprednisolone 125 mg i.v. on day 1 and the intramuscularly once a day for 4 days. There were 20 females and 20 males with a mean performance status of 1 (range 0-2) and a mean age of 58 years (range 36-68). Ten patients had ovarian carcinoma, eight patients had uterine adenocarcinoma and 22 and non-small cell lung carcinoma. The mean cisplatin dose was 96 mg/m2. All patients denied significant alcohol consumption. At cycle 1, complete protection against acute emesis was achieved in 22 patients (55%), major protection in 12 cases (30%), minor protection in four patients (10%) and failure in two cases (5%). On the other hand, the efficacy of this combination on delayed vomiting was not striking. For delayed vomiting, complete protection was observed in nine patients (23%), major protection in 13 cases (33%), minor protection in 10 patients (25%) and failure in eight cases (20%). At cycle 2, patients also received methylprednisolone showing complete protection from vomiting in 19 cases (47%) and major protection on 12 cases (30%). Results achieved with ondansetron plus metoclopramide are in the range reported for ondansetron alone in the medical literature. Although this study was not prospectively carried out in a randomized fashion, the results are not suggestive of a possible positive effect of metoclopramide addition to ondansetron. On the other hand, these results stress the role that corticosteroids may play in the control of delayed emesis. Toxicity was predictable and the frequency of side-effects was in the range reported in other studies with ondansetron.     

Efficacy of ondansetron and prochlorperazine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after total hip replacement or total knee replacement procedures: a randomized, double-blind, comparative trial

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the efficacy of ondansetron hydrochloride compared with prochlorperazine maleate for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy of ondansetron and prochlorperazine for the prophylaxis of PONV in patients undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement procedures. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, comparative trial was conducted at a tertiary care, university hospital. Seventy-eight patients undergoing elective total hip or total knee replacement procedures received a single dose of ondansetron hydrochloride (n = 37), 4 mg intravenously, or prochlorperazine maleate (n = 41), 10 mg intramuscularly, at the end of the surgical procedure. Rescue therapy was administered every 4 hours as needed during the initial 48 hours. Primary outcome measures were the incidences and severity of PONV. Secondary outcome measures included the number of rescue antiemetic doses required, number of physical therapy cancellations because of PONV, length of hospital stay, and cost of antiemetic agents administered. RESULTS: The incidence of nausea was significantly greater in the ondansetron group compared with the prochlorperazine group (81% vs 56%; odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-9.4) as was the severity of nausea (P = .04). Multivariate analysis identified administration of ondansetron, history of PONV, obesity, and female sex as risk factors for a nausea event. The incidence of vomiting tended to be greater in the ondansetron group (49% vs 32%; odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-5.0). The need for rescue antiemetic therapy was also greater in the ondansetron group (46% vs 27%; odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-6.0). The mean antiemetic drug cost per patient was significantly greater for the ondansetron group ($47.56 vs $2.47; P<.001). However, the proportion of patients who were unable to participate in physical therapy because of PONV and the median length of hospital stay were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Prochlorperazine is associated with superior efficacy and significant cost savings compared with ondansetron for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing total hip and total knee replacement procedures.     

Efficacy and tolerability of oral ondansetron versus prochlorperazine in the prevention of emesis associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy and maintenance of health-related quality of life

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of oral ondansetron (8 mg twice daily [BID] for up to 3 days) with those of phenothiazine prochlorperazine (10 mg BID for up to 3 days) in 133 cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. In addition, the study evaluated the impact of these treatments on patients' health-related quality of life, measured with both the Functional Living Index--Cancer and the Functional Living Index--Emesis questionnaires. The first dose of study drug was administered 30 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy. Patients received a rescue antiemetic at their request or if the investigator deemed it necessary. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of patients with no emetic episodes over the 3-day study period: 60% in the ondansetron group compared with 21% in the prochlorperazine group. Twenty-five percent of ondansetron-treated patients compared with 68% of prochlorperazine-treated patients experienced three or more emetic episodes, rescue medication use, or withdrawal from the study due to adverse events or lack of efficacy of the study drug. Among patients with at least one emetic episode, the mean time to emesis was significantly longer (13 hours and 37 minutes) in the ondansetron group compared with the prochlorperazine group (9 hours and 30 minutes). Nausea and appetite scores did not differ significantly between groups. The score on the vomiting subscale of the Functional Living Index--Emesis was significantly more favorable in the ondansetron group compared with the prochlorperazine group, indicating better maintenance of health-related quality of life in ondansetron-treated patients. Both treatments were well tolerated. The most common potentially drug-related adverse event was headache, which occurred in significantly more (16%) ondansetron-treated patients compared with prochlorperazine-treated patients (3%). The results of this study demonstrate that oral ondansetron 8 mg BID for up to 3 days is more effective than prochlorperazine 10 mg BID for up to 3 days in the prevention of emesis associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.