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.     

Radiographic mensuration characteristics of the sagittal lumbar spine from a normal population with a method to synthesize prior studies of lordosis

This multinational, multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study compared the safety, tolerability and efficacy of ondansetron 8 mg orally twice a day with ondansetron suppository 16 mg once daily in patients receiving cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy. A total of 406 patients were randomised to receive ondansetron 8 mg p.o. (198 patients) or ondansetron suppository (208 patients) medication in a double-blind, double-dummy trial. The primary efficacy analysis revealed that ondansetron provided good anti-emetic control with 81% of patients in the 8 mg p.o. b.d. group and 73% of patients in the 16 mg ondansetron suppository o.d. group experiencing complete or major control of emesis (< or = 2 emetic episodes) on the worst day of days 1-3. The 90% confidence interval for the difference between the two treatments for complete or major control (1.4, 15.0%) showed that the treatments could be regarded as equivalent. A difference in favour of oral ondansetron treatment was noted for the complete control (0 emetic episodes) rates over days 1-3, but no differences were found on day 1. There were no significant differences in the distribution of nausea grades between the treatment groups on the worst day of days 1-3 or on day 1. The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two treatment groups, the most frequently reported events were headache and constipation. There were no significant laboratory findings in either treatment group. In conclusion this study showed that the ondansetron treatments could be regarded as equivalent for the primary efficacy endpoint and that ondansetron suppository was well tolerated and effective in the prevention of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A lymphoma cell line resistant to 4-piperidinopiperidine was less sensitive to CPT-11

The purpose of the study was to assess the toxicity and efficacy of an oral, combination antiemetic regimen including granisetron (Kytril; SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, PA, USA) in the setting of highly emetogenic conditioning chemotherapy for stem cell transplantation. Antiemetic prophylaxis consisted of oral granisetron 2 mg once daily, oral prochlorperazine 10 mg q 6 h and oral dexamethasone 4 mg q 6 h, beginning 1 h prior to chemotherapy on each of the 4 days of chemotherapy and continuing until 24 h after the completion of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC). Patients received either CVP (cyclophosphamide 6 g/m2, VP-16 1800 mg/m2 and carboplatin 1200 mg/m2) or CTP (thiotepa 500 mg/m2 in place of VP-16) in four daily doses given over 4 h from days -4 to -1. Previously mobilized and cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) were reinfused on day +1. Evaluation of nausea, emetic episodes (EE), adverse events, and rescue medications were recorded on a daily patient diary. Thirty-six patients were entered. Fifty-three percent (95% CI = 37-75%) of patients achieved complete response for emesis (CR = 0 EE/24 h) and 75% (95% CI = 58-90%) had combined complete and major response (CR+MR = 0-3 EE/24 h) during all 5 of the treatment days. During the 5 study days, the average number of patient-days with no emesis was 3.7 (74%) and with 1-3 EE was 4.3 (86%). On days -4, -3, -2, -1 and 0, the combined CR+MR rate for emesis was 97, 92, 86, 78 and 75%, respectively. Nausea was absent or mild on all 5 study days in 57% (95% CI = 37-75%). Eight patients had severe late-onset emesis occurring on days +1 to +3 after reinfusion of stem cells. No clinically significant toxicities attributable to the antiemetic regimen were observed. An all oral antiemetic regimen of granisetron, prochlorperazine and dexamethasone appears to be safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple, daily, high-dose chemotherapy regimens. This regimen offers the advantage of cost-savings, a low side-effect profile and ease of administration in the predominately outpatient setting of HDC with peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT).     

Efficacy of ondansetron in radiation-induced nausea and vomiting: review of the literature

Radiotherapy-induced emesis depends on the site of irradiation, the field size and the dose per fraction and is generally less intense than chemotherapy-induced emesis. Established anti-emetic drugs offer only limited symptom control (50%). Ondansetron, a 5HT3 receptors antagonist, had proven a complete or a major control efficacy (0-2 emetic episodes) of 68 to 95% in three pilot studies (fractionated, single-dose and total body irradiations). In controlled studies, ondansetron efficacy was significantly higher than placebo, metoclopramide and prochlorperazine. The treatment was well tolerated in the different studies.     

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.     

Tropisetron or ondansetron compared with placebo for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, the efficacy of prophylactic tropisetron (2 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg) for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting after abdominal or non-abdominal surgery with general balanced anaesthesia was studied in 842 ASA I-III patients. In patients undergoing abdominal surgery, ondansetron and tropisetron reduced the frequency of emetic episodes compared with the placebo (29%, 30% vs. 42% respectively). In men, neither tropisetron nor ondansetron had an effect different from the placebo, whereas in women both drugs led to lower rates of emetic episodes and nausea. In comparison with abdominal surgery, fewer patients in the non-abdominal surgery subgroup had emetic episodes (42% vs. 23% in the placebo group). However, neither tropisetron nor ondansetron was significantly different from the placebo in this patient subgroup. In conclusion, for patients at increased risk of post-operative nausea and vomiting, a prophylactic therapy at the lowest effective dose with tropisetron or ondansetron may be useful.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Randomized, double blind, dose-response trial across four oral doses of dolasetron for the prevention of acute emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Oral Dolasetron Dose-Response Study Group

BACKGROUND: This double blind parallel group study assessed the acute antiemetic efficacy of four oral doses of dolasetron mesylate in cancer patients receiving their first course of intravenous chemotherapy with doxorubicin and/or cyclophosphamide. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive 25, 50, 100, or 200 mg of dolasetron mesylate 30 minutes prior to chemotherapy and were monitored for nausea and emetic episodes for the next 24 hours. RESULTS: Three hundred and nineteen cancer patients at 32 sites completed the study. Most patients were female (81%); of this group, 69% had breast carcinoma. A highly statistically significant linear trend demonstrating improved response with higher doses was detected for complete response (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) (P < 0.001), for complete plus major response (0-2 emetic episodes and no rescue medication) (P < 0.001), and for patient visual analog scale assessments of nausea (P = 0.001) and general satisfaction with antiemetic therapy (P = 0.001). No serious adverse events were noted. The most frequent adverse event was mild, self-limiting headache, which has been reported with other drugs in this class. CONCLUSIONS: Single oral doses of dolasetron mesylate were found to be effective in preventing acute emesis in cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.     

Control of emesis by intravenous granisetron in breast cancer patients treated with 5-FU, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide

Granisetron, a potent and selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor (5-HT3) antagonist was reported to be an effective antiemetic agent both in animal studies and in patients given highly emetogenic chemotherapy. A sample of 43 patients with breast cancer was accrued from September to November 1992 in a phase II study to assess the efficacy of granisetron in patients receiving FEC (5-FU, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide). Each patient received 3 mg intravenous granisetron as a single dose just prior to chemotherapy. Oral metoclopromide was prescribed to each patient as a rescue anti-emetic. The emetic episodes and degree of nausea were evaluated on a daily basis. Good control of emesis (0-2 episodes of vomiting) and nausea (mild or no nausea) was in the range 77%-98% and 77%-93% respectively. There was a complete response (no emetic episodes throughout the 6-day period) in 16 patients (37.2%). Onset of emesis tends to occur on day 1 and tend to subside after day 3; 85% of patients had onset of emesis in the first 2 days after chemotherapy. Control of emesis and nausea tends to improve after day 3, which could be the result of the reduced emetogenicity of the combination FEC with time. Altogether, 77% had good control of acute emesis; control of delayed emesis was better with 84% achieving a major response on day 2 after chemotherapy, which improved to more than 90% after day 4. Granisetron was generally tolerated with headache being the most common side-effect followed by constipation and flushing. This study suggests that granisetron is an effective and well-tolerated anti-emetic agent, which deserves randomised trials to elucidate its efficacy further.     

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.     

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.     

Familial inv(X) (p22q22): ovarian dysgenesis in two sisters with del Xq and fertility in one male carrier

PURPOSE: To evaluate the antiemetic efficacy and safety of adding the dopamine antagonist prochlorperazine to the combination of granisetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting following high-dose cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 75 mg/m2) (median dose = 100 mg/m2) were enrolled at three sites. Patients received prochlorperazine spansule 15 mg orally, 60 minutes prior to and 12 hours after cisplatin; dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously, 45 minutes prior to cisplatin, and 10 mg intravenously or orally, 12 hours after cisplatin; and granisetron 10 micrograms/kg intravenously, 30 minutes prior to cisplatin. Efficacy was assessed during the 24-hour period after cisplatin using complete antiemetic response (no emetic episodes and no rescue antiemetics) and patient assessment of nausea and satisfaction using 100-mm visual analog scales (nausea: 0 = none, 100 = nausea as bad as it can be; satisfaction: 0 = not at all satisfied, 100 = satisfied as can be). RESULTS: Complete response (0 emetic episodes) was noted in 84% (49/58) of patients. Forty-two patients (72%) experienced no nausea. The mean change in posttreatment nausea visual analog scales from baseline was 8.9 mm. Forty-eight patients (83%) were completely satisfied with their antiemetic treatment. The mean posttreatment patient satisfaction score was 92 mm. Treatment was well tolerated, with infrequent and minor adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This three-drug antiemetic regimen is well tolerated and highly effective in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting arising from high-dose cisplatin. Further studies evaluating this regimen are warranted.     

Efficacy of granisetron as anti-emetic agent for emesis induced by intra-arterial injection therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

The effect of granisetron in preventing nausea and emesis induced by intraarterial chemotherapy was comparatively studied with a historical control group (46 cases) in 50 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving intraarterial anti-tumor drugs such as cisplatin and doxorubicin. Emesis was perfectly controlled in 39 out of 50 patients in the treatment group (78%), in comparison to 33 out of 46 patients (71.7%) in the historical control group. This represented no statistical significance between the two groups. In terms of the severity of nausea, however, the granisetron group demonstrated significant superiority to the control group with 27 out of 50 patients (54%) being free of symptoms compared with 16 out of 46 patients (34.8%) in the control group. A stratified analysis of the data also demonstrated significant superiority of the granisetron group over the historical group in the number of emetic episodes and the severity of nausea in female patients, who are more predisposed to emesis. The above results confirm the usefulness of granisetron as an antiemetic agent used for the prevention of acute nausea and emesis induced by intraarterial chemotherapy.