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

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

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.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

Ethical issues regarding study designs used in serotonin-antagonist drug development

The time has come to develop new methods for the evaluation of antiemetic compounds. The well-established tenet that combination antiemetic therapy is superior to that achieved with any single agent for severely emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy does not warrant reevaluation with future cancer patients whenever a new antiemetic enters Phase II and III evaluation. New trials should instead focus on the more important issues of whether the new agent in combination offers comparable or superior efficacy to that achievable with the current standard antiemetic regimen for both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. While proof of efficacy is crucial in drug trials, adequacy of patient care needs to be the first and foremost priority in any trial.     

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.     

A comparison of prophylactic ondansetron hydrochloride and droperidol for strabismus repair in adults

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic administration of an antiemetic is a common procedure for patients undergoing strabismus surgery. Droperidol and ondansetron hydrochloride are commonly used antiemetics. This study compared the rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in adult patients undergoing strabismus surgery with prophylactically administered Droperidol or ondansetron hydrochloride. METHODS: A double-masked, randomized, prospective study was conducted comparing droperidol with ondansetron hydrochloride when administered prophylactically to adults undergoing strabismus surgery. RESULTS: Forty-five patients entered the study with a mean age of 30 years. Twenty percent of patients had nausea immediately postoperatively and 37% had nausea before discharge with no significant differences between groups. Overall rate of emesis, time in the recovery room, and time to discharge was not significantly different between the droperidol and ondansetron hydrochloride group. CONCLUSION: No real differences in the ability to prevent PONV between the two medications were found in this study.     

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

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

Generating a normalized geometric liver model using warping

This review discusses the development and use of 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) antagonists, especially granisetron, for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Following recent evidence suggesting that high-dose chemotherapy is more effective in increasing tumor response rate and median survival time, more effective antiemetic control is essential. Granisetron, a new 5-HT3, is approximately 400 times more potent than metoclopramide and, unlike metoclopramide, does not produce extrapyramidal side effects. Granisetron has been shown to be effective as a single prophylactic dose, over 5 days and in patients receiving repeated cycles of chemotherapy. Patients with nausea and vomiting within the first 24 h after chemotherapy are more likely to experience delayed symptoms; however, episodes of breakthrough nausea and vomiting can be controlled by intervention with one, and in some cases more, doses of granisetron. The development of granisetron represents an important advance in the control of chemotherapy induced emesis.     

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.     

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.     

Economic impact with home delivery of chemotherapy to pediatric oncology patients

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

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).     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

Prevention of emesis by tropisetron in children receiving combined chemotherapy with cisplatin

We evaluated the antiemetic efficacy of tropisetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, during its use in 15 children with malignant disease who received cisplatin (CDDP) either alone (1/15) or in combination (14/15) with other cytostatic drugs. Tropisetron was given to 15 children (8 boys and 7 girls, ranging from 6 months to 17 years of age) with miscellaneous neoplasms. Generally, tropisetron (5 mg/m2/day, maximum 5 mg/day) was administered intravenously the first day of CDDP-based chemotherapy and orally for 4 subsequent days of chemotherapy. The dose of tropisetron was reduced to 0.2 mg/kg/day in children less than 1 year of age and/or those weighing less than 10 kg. Vomiting and nausea were controlled completely in 8 of 15 (53.3%) children on day 1 with a single intravenous infusion of tropisetron. Partial control was observed in 40% of patients on day 1. Complete control of delayed nausea and vomiting ranged between 40% and 80% in patients over days 2 to 5. The results obtained during administration of tropisetron confirm that it is a valid, safe, and manageable antiemetic for the treatment of malignant disease in pediatric patients.