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.     

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.     

Destruction of the auditory thalamus disrupts the production of fear but not the inhibition of fear conditioned to an auditory stimulus

Although ondansetron (4 mg I.V.) is effective in the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after ambulatory surgery, the optimal timing of its administration, the cost-effectiveness, the cost-benefits, and the effect on the patient's quality of life after discharge have not been established. In this placebo-controlled, double-blind study, 164 healthy women undergoing outpatient gynecological laparoscopic procedures with a standardized anesthetic were randomized to receive placebo (Group A), ondansetron 2 mg at the start of and 2 mg after surgery (Group B), ondansetron 4 mg before induction (Group C), or ondansetron 4 mg after surgery (Group D). The effects of these regimens on the incidence, severity, and costs associated with PONV and discharge characteristics were determined, along with the patient's willingness to pay for antiemetics. Compared with ondansetron given before induction of anesthesia, the administration of ondansetron after surgery was associated with lower nausea scores, earlier intake of normal food, decreased incidence of frequent emesis (more than two episodes), and increased times until 25% of patients failed prophylactic antiemetic therapy (i.e., had an emetic episode or received rescue antiemetics for severe nausea) during the first 24 h postoperatively. This prophylactic regimen was also associated with the highest patient satisfaction and lowest cost-effectiveness ratios. Compared with the placebo group, ondansetron administered after surgery significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in the postanesthesia care unit and during the 24-h follow-up period and facilitated the recovery process by reducing the time to oral intake, ambulation, discharge readiness, resuming regular fluid intake and a normal diet. When ondansetron was given as a "split dose," its prophylactic antiemetic efficacy was not significantly different from that of the placebo group. In conclusion, the prophylactic administration of ondansetron after surgery, rather than before induction, may be associated with increased patient benefits. Implications: Ondansetron 4 mg I.V. administered immediately before the end of surgery was the most efficacious in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting, facilitating both early and late recovery, and improving patient satisfaction after outpatient laparoscopy.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Intravenous dolasetron and ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Intravenous dolasetron mesilate has shown efficacy in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) when administered as a single dose prior to emergence from anesthesia. This trial compared intravenous dolasetron and ondansetron for the prevention of PONV when administered at induction of anesthesia. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial randomized patients to one of four single IV treatments placebo, 25 or 50 mg dolasetron, or 4 mg ondansetron. Efficacy was measured by complete response (0 emetic episodes and no rescue medication), nausea severity and patient satisfaction as measured on a visual analog scale (VAS), investigator's rating, of nausea severity, and total response (complete response with no nausea [< or = 5 mm VAS]). RESULTS: 514 patients at 24 sites were evaluated for efficacy. The 50 mg dolasetron and 4 mg ondansetron doses were statistically equivalent, and superior to placebo, for all efficacy measures. Complete response rates were 49%, 51%, 71% and 64% for placebo, 25 and 50 mg dolasetron, and ondansetron, respectively. Dolasetron 50 mg was statistically superior to 25 mg dolasetron for complete response, total response, VAS maximum nausea, time to first emetic episode, and patient satisfaction. The majority of adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity. Headache was the most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event with a 3%-5% incidence across treatments. CONCLUSION: When given at induction of anesthesia, 50 mg intravenous dolasetron is equivalent to 4 mg ondansetron and superior to 25 mg dolasetron and placebo for the prevention of PONV. All treatments were safely administered and well tolerated.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The effects of dexamethasone on antiemetics in female patients undergoing gynecologic surgery

This randomized, double-blind study compared the effects of dexamethasone plus either droperidol, metoclopramide, or granisetron with each antiemetic alone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in 270 female patients undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either droperidol 1.25 mg (Group D1, n = 45), droperidol 1.25 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (Group D2, n = 45), metoclopramide 10 mg (Group M1, n = 45), metoclopramide 10 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (Group M2, n = 45), granisetron 40 micrograms/kg (Group G1, n = 45), or granisetron 40 micrograms/kg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (Group G2, n = 45) immediately before the induction of anesthesia. A standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used throughout the study. Complete response, defined as no PONV and no administration of rescue antiemetic medication during the first 24 h after anesthesia, was 49% in Group D1, 60% in Group D2 (P = 0.199 versus Group D1), 51% in Group M1, 62% in Group M2 (P = 0.198 versus Group M1), 80% in Group G1, and 96% in Group G2 (P = 0.025 versus Group G1). Our results suggest that dexamethasone enhances the antiemetic efficacy of granisetron but does not potentiate the other antiemetics-droperidol and metoclopramide-in female patients undergoing major gynecological surgery. Implications: We compared the efficacy of dexamethasone plus three different antiemetics-droperidol, metoclopramide, and granisetron-for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after gynecologic surgery. The granisetron-dexamethasone combination was the most effective for preventing post-operative emetic symptoms.     

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.     

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.     

Control of nausea and vomiting with ondansetron in patients treated with intensive non-cisplatin chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia

18 consecutive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) treated with 34 cycles of intensive chemotherapy received ondansetron as antiemetic treatment. 14 patients were chemotherapy-naive, while 4 patients were treated for relapsed leukaemia. All patients received at least one cycle of chemotherapy, 11 patients (61%) received two cycles and 5 patients (28%) received three cycles. The remission induction regimen consisted of cytarabine 200 mg/m2 daily from day 1 to day 7, in combination with an anthracycline or amsacrine on 3 days. During the second and third cycle the dose of cytarabine was increased. Ondansetron was administered as follows: 8 mg intravenously before the start of chemotherapy, followed by 8 mg orally three times daily for 10 days. 50% of patients had no episodes of vomiting during the first cycle of chemotherapy and 78% had less than five episodes of vomiting over 10 days. 72% of patients had no or only mild nausea. These high response rates were maintained during the subsequent cycles. No side-effects due to ondansetron were registered. These data indicate that ondansetron is efficacious in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with AML treated with intensive chemotherapy.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tropisetron, metoclopramide, and chlorpromazine in the treatment of emesis associated with far advanced cancer

BACKGROUND: A single institution, prospective, randomized trial was performed in terminal cancer patients to compare tropisetron (TRO), metoclopramide (MET), and chlorpromazine (CHL) in the management of nausea and emesis. Patients had far advanced cancer, were far removed from chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and their nausea and emesis was not due to bowel obstruction, drug intake, or cranial, electrolytic, or metabolic causes. The effects of antiemetic treatments were evaluated from Days 1-15. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty patients were randomized to receive 1) MET+ dexamethasone (DEX) (10 mg*4 and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 2) TRO (5 mg*1, orally), 3) TRO + MET (5 mg*1 and 10 mg*2, respectively, orally), 4) TRO + MET + DEX (5 mg*1, 10 mg*2, and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 5) CHL + DEX (25 mg*2 and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 6) TRO + CHL (5 mg*1 and 12.5 mg*2, respectively, orally), or 7) TRO + CHL + DEX (5 mg*1, 12.5 mg*2, and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally). Total control was defined as no nausea or emesis. RESULTS: By the end of the 15th day, total control of emesis was obtained in 23.6% (9 of 38) of MET + DEX patients, 78.9% (30 of 38) of TRO patients, 84.2% (32 of 38) of TRO + MET patients, 92.3% (36 of 39) of TRO + MET + DEX patients, 33.3 (13 of 39) of CHL + DEX patients, 84.6% (33 of 39) of TRO + CHL patients, and 92.5% (37 of 40) of TRO + CHL + DEX patients. Total control of nausea was achieved in 18.4% (7 of 38) of MET + DEX patients, 65.7% (25 of 38) of TRO patients, 73.6% (28 of 38) of TRO + MET patients, 87.1% (34 of 39) of TRO + MET + DEX patients, 17.9% (7 of 39) of CHL + DEX patients, 74.3% (29 of 39) of TRO + CHL patients, and 85% (34 of 40) of TRO + CHL + DEX patients. When comparing MET + DEX versus TRO; MET + DEX versus TRO + MET; MET + DEX versus TRO + MET + DEX; MET + DEX versus TRO + CHL; MET + DEX versus TRO + CHL + DEX; CHL + DEX versus TRO; CHL + DEX versus TRO + MET; CHL + DEX versus TRO + MET + DEX; CHL + DEX versus TRO + CHL; and CHL + DEX versus TRO + CHL + DEX, significant differences were noted. All antiemetic drugs were well tolerated with no severe side effects observed in any treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists such as tropisetron clinically are more effective in the control of emesis of patients with far advanced cancer than previously used agents. This study raises important issues when attempting to decide which antiemetic therapy to choose for an individual patient with far advanced disease.     

Differential effects of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor blockade on nociceptive somatic and visceral reflexes

OBJECTIVE: A Phase I study was conducted to determine the safety, toxicity, and maximum tolerated dose of preirradiation chemotherapy using carmustine (BCNU) and cisplatin in the treatment of high-grade gliomas. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas received BCNU and cisplatin after surgery, both before and during definitive radiation therapy. Preirradiation chemotherapy consisted of an administration of 40 mg/m2 BCNU on Days 1 through 3 and 30 mg/m2 cisplatin on Days 1 through 3 and 29 through 31 and repeated at 8 weeks to coincide with the start of radiation therapy. Postradiation chemotherapy consisted of an administration of 200 mg/m2 BCNU once every 8 weeks for four cycles. Radiation therapy consisted of 160-cGy fractions administered twice daily for 15 days, yielding a total dose of 4800 cGy. Dose escalation of BCNU was planned. If hematological toxicity was mild, the dose of cisplatin was to be held constant and BCNU dose escalated to 50 mg/m2 on Days 1 through 3. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were studied. The hematological toxicity was dose-limiting. Grade 3 or 4 leukopenia occurred in each of 10 patients (56%), and Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in each of 9 patients (50%). Other toxicities included anorexia (94%), nausea (83%), emesis (33%), alopecia (94%), mild ototoxicity (50%), and, in one patient, death as a result of BCNU pulmonary toxicity. The median survival time was 14 months. Objective responses occurred in 45% of the patients evaluable for response. The maximum tolerated dose of this combination was 50 mg/m2 BCNU on Days 1 through 3 and 30 mg/m2 cisplatin on Days 1 through 3 and 29 through 31 before radiation and repeated in 8 weeks to coincide with the start of radiation. CONCLUSION: This schedule of the preirradiation administration of BCNU and cisplatin with accelerated hyper-fractionated radiation therapy for the treatment of high-grade gliomas provides a less toxic alternative to that of previous studies of preirradiation chemotherapy with these agents and merits further investigation.