Oral combination antiemetics in patients with small cell lung cancer receiving cisplatin or cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin

BACKGROUND: Intravenous antiemetic combinations containing a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (like metoclopramide, ondansetron, or granisetron) with dexamethasone have become the standard therapy for the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting. Intravenous antiemetics, however, can be more costly and take more time to prepare and deliver, and therefore are not preferred for home, outpatient, or office use. The objective of this study was to determine the antiemetic activity and safety of the oral combination antiemetic regimen of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and diphenhydramine in patients with small cell lung cancer receiving standard outpatient chemotherapy programs. METHODS: Fifty-two patients receiving initial cisplatin (60 mg/m2) or cyclophosphamide (600-1500 mg/m2) plus doxorubicin (30-45 mg/m2) received an oral regimen of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2 then 2 mg/kg x 2 or 4 doses), dexamethasone (20 mg) and diphenhydramine (50 mg x 2 or 3 doses) (oral MDD), beginning 30 minutes before chemotherapy. RESULTS: Vomiting was prevented in 15 of 21 (76%) patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 53%-92%) receiving cisplatin and 21 of 31 (71%) individuals (95% CI, 52%-86%) given cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin. Adverse effects were mild and transient and included sedation, loose stools, akathisia, and hiccoughs. CONCLUSIONS: The oral MDD antiemetic regimen prevented acute emesis in 73% of the patients entered and was well tolerated in this population of patients with small cell lung cancer.     

Outcome of lithium prophylaxis: a prospective follow-up of affective disorder patients assigned to high and low serum lithium levels

Recently, the availability of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 antagonists has provided better protection from chemotherapy-induced emesis. These drugs, in combination with dexamethasone, are more expensive but more cost-effective than the alternative antiemetic regimens in the prevention of acute emesis induced by high single dose and low and repeated doses of cisplatin and, probably, of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In the prevention of emesis induced by oral cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-fluorouracil and in the prevention of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, the most cost-effective choices are represented, respectively, by a combination of intravenous dexamethasone on day 1 and 8 plus 14-day oral metoclopramide (a combination of oral dexamethasone plus metoclopramide and oral dexamethasone alone). In all cases, the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 antagonists should be used only in patients in whom the most cost-effective antiemetic regimens either fail or are not tolerated.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic efficacy of 250 mg with 500 mg methylprednisolone succinate (Solu-Medrol) as a single intravenous dose in patients treated with noncisplatin chemotherapy

A double-blind randomized crossover study was performed in 56 chemotherapy-naive patients, all receiving non-cisplatin-based chemotherapy, to compare the antiemetic effects of 2 doses of a single administration of methylprednisolone succinate (Solu-Medrol): 250 versus 500 mg. Among the 39 patients who satisfactorily completed both parts of the study, complete and major protection from emesis (0 and 1 emetic episode or only retching) was observed in 79% during the first course and in 69% during the second course. Treatment failure (> or = 6 episodes of vomiting) was observed in 18% during the first course and 21% during the second course. There was no significant difference between the two dose levels neither in terms of antiemetic protection nor in terms of the occurrence of side effects nor in patient preference. Most important side effects were facial flushing (45%), headache (22%) and facial edema (18%). It is concluded that, although a comparison with lower dosages cannot be made, within the dose range studied no clear dose-response relationship could be found.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Antiemetic efficacy of granisetron in pediatric cancer treatment--(2). Comparison of granisetron and granisetron plus methylprednisolone as antiemetic prophylaxis

A crossover clinical trial was carried out to compare the effectiveness and safety of granisetron alone (40 micrograms/kg) with that from a combination of granisetron plus methylprednisolone (MPL, 10 mg/kg) for control of emesis and vomiting induced by anticancer drugs in children with cancer. Complete control of emesis and vomiting were achieved in 95% (19/20 cases) of patients receiving the combination compared to 85% (17/20 cases) of patients receiving granisetron alone. There were no clinical toxicities or side effects in either treatment group. These data indicated that the combination of granisetron plus MPL was superior for control of emesis and vomiting in children receiving cytostatic anticancer drugs.     

Modified oral ondansetron regimen for cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in lupus nephritis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of a modified regimen of oral ondansetron and dexamethasone in patients with lupus nephritis undergoing treatment with cyclophosphamide whose conventional antiemetic regimen had failed. DESIGN: A before-after prospective observational pilot project. SETTING: A federal research hospital. PATIENTS: Fourteen outpatients with lupus nephritis receiving intravenous cyclophosphamide 0.75-1.0 g/m2 had previously experienced chemotherapy-induced emetic events (vomiting or retching) while receiving a standard combination intravenous antiemetic regimen. The regimen consisted of four doses of thiethylperazine 10 mg and diphenhydramine 25 mg every 6 hours, and two doses of lorazepam 0.5 mg every 6 hours starting at 1 hour prior to cyclophosphamide. A subset of 8 patients previously completed a blinded study in which they received the intravenous formulation of ondansetron (4 doses of 4-16 mg q4h) administered orally beginning 30 minutes prior to the cyclophosphamide infusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of emetic events and cost of drug administration were assessed for the modified ondansetron intervention and compared with those of the standard antiemetic regimen. The incidence of emetic events and visual analog nausea scores for the subset of eight patients were also evaluated. INTERVENTIONS: To account for the delayed onset of emesis associated with cyclophosphamide, patients received both ondansetron 8 mg orally every 4 hours (3 doses) and dexamethasone 10 mg orally (1 dose) beginning 4 hours after the cyclophosphamide infusion. This is different from the manufacturer's recommended dose schedule, in which ondansetron is administered prior to chemotherapy. RESULTS: No emetic events were observed following the administration of oral ondansetron/dexamethasone. The 95% confidence interval for the true rate of emesis was 0% to 19.3%. There was a significant difference in efficacy between ondansetron/dexamethasone and the triple antiemetic regimen (p < 0.0002). None of the patients experienced adverse effects while receiving the ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen. Cost comparisons (including admixture and nursing administration times) for standard combination therapy and oral ondansetron/dexamethasone were $109.09 and $70.24, respectively. No difference in emetic events or nausea ratings was observed between oral ondansetron/dexamethasone tablets and oral administration of ondansetron using the intravenous formula. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a modified oral ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen is safe and efficacious, and costs less than alternative regimens to prevent cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in patients with lupus nephritis.     

A randomized cross-over study of high-dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone in patients receiving chemotherapy with high-dose cisplatin

We carried out a randomized, single-blind, cross-over trial to compare the antiemetic effect, for both acute and delayed emesis, of granisetron plus dexamethasone (GRN+Dx) with that of high-dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (HDMP+Dx). Fifty-four patients with primary or metastatic lung cancer, given single-dose cisplatin (> 80 mg/m2) chemotherapy more than twice, were enrolled in this study. They were treated with both HDMP+Dx and GRN+Dx in two consecutive chemotherapy courses. On day 1, patients experienced a mean of 2.5 (SD = 4.3) and 0.1 (SD = 0.4) episodes of vomiting in the HDMP+Dx and the GRN+Dx groups, respectively (P = 0.0008). Complete response rate on day 1 was 45 and 90% in the HDMP+Dx and the GRN+Dx groups, respectively (P = 0.0001). Patients treated with GRN+Dx had a tendency to suffer more episodes of vomiting than the HDMP+Dx group on days 2-5, but it was not statistically significant. Twenty-four patients (57%) preferred the GRN+Dx treatment and 14 patients (33%), HDMP+Dx. In the HDMP+Dx group, nine patients (21%) had an extrapyramidal reaction, and 5 patients (12%) had constipation that lasted for at least two days. In contrast, no patients had extrapyramidal reactions, and 18 patients (43%) had constipation in the GRN+Dx group (P < 0.01). GRN+Dx was more effective than HDMP+Dx only in preventing the acute emesis induced by cisplatin. An effective treatment for delayed emesis is still needed.     

Modern aspects of antiemetic therapy

We summarized the current knowledge about chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Nausea and vomiting are among the most frequent side effects in the treatment of malignancies, and they are very unpleasant for the patient. We reviewed basic aetiological and physiological mechanisms (except that of delayed emesis, which is not enough explored), particularly the role of serotonin in acute chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. An oncologist cannot make many changes in the treatment of malignancies and patient-related prognostic factors, but he (she) can make changes in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in order to improve the quality of life of patients with malignancies. We also listed some of the most widely used antiemetic drugs with their most important pharmacological properties. Important progress in the control of nausea and vomiting was obtained by the use of selective antagonists of 5-HT3-receptors such as ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron and dolasetron. Usually ondasetron and granisetron were used. Their clinical activity is similar but better results were obtained with the combination of 5-HT3-antagonists and corticosteroids (complete response was approximately 90%) than by their individual use (complete response was approximately 50%). The problem of delayed emesis has not yet been solved, and best results were obtained with the combination of metoclopramide and corticosteroids. For the control of nausea and vomiting caused by radiotherapy, orally given ondansetron is 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.     

Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist. L-754,030 Antiemetic Trials Group

BACKGROUND: The localization of substance P in brain-stem regions associated with vomiting, and the results of studies in ferrets, led us to postulate that a neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist would be an antiemetic in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 159 patients who had not previously received cisplatin, we evaluated the prevention of acute emesis (occurring within 24 hours) and delayed emesis (on days 2 to 5) after a single dose of cisplatin therapy (70 mg or more per square meter of body-surface area). Before receiving cisplatin, all the patients received granisetron (10 microg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatments in addition to granisetron and dexamethasone: 400 mg of an oral trisubstituted morpholine acetal (also known as L-754,030) before cisplatin and 300 mg on days 2 to 5 (group 1), 400 mg of L-754,030 before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 2), or placebo before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 3). Additional medication was available at any time to treat occurrences of vomiting or nausea. RESULTS: In the acute-emesis phase, 93 percent of the patients in groups 1 and 2 combined and 67 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001). In the delayed-emesis phase, 82 percent of the patients in group 1, 78 percent of those in group 2, and 33 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001 for the comparison between group 1 or 2 and group 3). The median nausea score in the delayed-emesis phase was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 3 (P=0.003). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-754,030. CONCLUSIONS: The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist L-754,030 prevents delayed emesis after treatment with cisplatin. Moreover, combining L-754,030 with granisetron plus dexamethasone improves the prevention of acute emesis.     

Initial high anti-emetic efficacy of granisetron with dexamethasone is not maintained over repeated cycles

We have reported previously that the anti-emetic efficacy of single agent 5HT3 antagonists is not maintained when analysed with the measurement of cumulative probabilities. Presently, the most effective anti-emetic regimen is a combination of a 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone. We, therefore, assessed the sustainment of efficacy of such a combination in 125 patients, scheduled to receive cisplatin > or = 70 mg m(-2) either alone or in combination with other cytotoxic drugs. Anti-emetic therapy was initiated with 10 mg of dexamethasone and 3 mg of granisetron intravenously, before cisplatin. On days 1-6, patients received 8 mg of dexamethasone and 1 mg of granisetron twice daily by oral administration. Protection was assessed during all cycles and calculated based on cumulative probability analyses using the method of Kaplan-Meier and a model for transitional probabilities. Irrespective of the type of analysis used, the anti-emetic efficacy of granisetron/dexamethasone decreased over cycles. The initial complete acute emesis protection rate of 66% decreased to 30% according to the method of Kaplan-Meier and to 39% using the model for transitional probabilities. For delayed emesis, the initial complete protection rate of 52% decreased to 21% (Kaplan-Meier) and to 43% (transitional probabilities). In addition, we observed that protection failure in the delayed emesis period adversely influenced the acute emesis protection in the next cycle. We conclude that the anti-emetic efficacy of a 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone is not maintained over multiple cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and that the acute emesis protection is adversely influenced by protection failure in the delayed emesis phase.     

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.     

Combination effect of granisetron plus corticosteroid for prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: a cross-over study comparing methylprednisolone and dexamethasone

Granisetron (G) is an effective antiemetic drug that is used to prevent cisplatin-induced emesis, although it is less effective for delayed emesis. To enhance the antiemetic effects of granisetron, corticosteroid analogues such as methylprednisolone (M) and dexamethasone (D) were employed in a study of patients treated with cisplatin (CDDP). We investigated the clinical response and urinary excretion of 5-hydroxyindole acetic acid (5-HIAA), the main metabolite of serotonin, in 31 patients with ovarian cancer or uterine endometrial cancer who received CAP therapy (CDDP 75 mg/m2) in a 3-day cross-over trial comparing G + M and G + D treated patients. Both regimens were and delayed emesis than G + D. We conclude that G + D is a more efficacious combination than G + D in protecting patients from CDDP-induced acute and delayed emesis.     

Early neuropsychological impairment in HIV-seropositive intravenous drug users: evidence from the Italian Multicentre Neuropsychological HIV Study

The purpose of this study was to document the emetogenic potential of intrathecal chemotherapy (IC) in children and to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron in reducing nausea and vomiting with this chemotherapy treatment. Patients less than 18 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukemia were eligible to participate in a survey project measuring the emetogenic potential of various chemotherapy treatments. Patients surveyed for 1 or more IC treatments were included in this report. The IC consisted of methotrexate, hydrocortisone and cytarabine, dosed according to patient age. A nausea/vomiting survey instrument was completed by each patient and/or parent following IC treatment. The instrument rated nausea, vomiting and daily activity interference (DAI) on a 4-point scale of 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe, and collected data on the number of vomiting and/or retching episodes in addition to the child's appetite following the chemotherapy treatment. When ondansetron was employed, it was administered in an i.v. infusion at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg before and after chemotherapy or as an oral dose of 4 mg or 8 mg before chemotherapy. Courses of IC without antiemetics were analyzed to determine the emetogenic potential of IC. For patients receiving IC both with and without ondansetron, courses were compared with each patient used as their own control to determine the influence of ondansetron upon survey responses. Statistical analysis consisted of nonparametric Friedman 2-way ANOVA for ordinal variables and a paired t-test for continuous variables. The binomial test was employed to analyze for differences between ondansetron and no antiemetic in the number of patients with complete control of both nausea and vomiting or vomiting alone. A total of 63 children with a mean age of 7.6 +/- 4.2 years were each studied on one or more occasions. Thirty-seven children were surveyed for 87 IC treatments without antiemetics (group I), and 17 children from this group were surveyed for 48 IC courses with i.v. ondansetron (group IA). An additional 18 children were subsequently surveyed for 39 IC courses with i.v. ondansetron (group II). Fifteen patients (7 of whom were members of group I) were surveyed following 33 IC courses with oral ondansetron (group III). The survey scores for group I patients were: nausea severity 1.3 +/- 1.1, vomiting severity 1.2 +/- 1.1, DAI 1.2 +/- 1.0 and mean number of emetic episodes 4.7 +/- 8.4. The mean appetite score was 1.5 +/- 1.1. For patients in group IA, nausea severity (0.8 +/- 0.9), vomiting severity (0.5 +/- 0.8), DAI (0.7 +/- 0.8), and the number of emetic episodes (1.4 +/- 2.8) were all significantly lower than with prior IC treatments without ondansetron. For complete protection, children receiving i.v. ondansetron had greater complete protection rates from both nausea and vomiting or vomiting alone than did patients receiving no antiemetic. Survey responses were also lower for patients receiving oral ondansetron, but insufficient control data did not allow for statistical analysis. IC results in mild to moderate nausea and vomiting in children. The emetogenic potential of IC is significantly reduced by i.v. 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.