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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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).     

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.     

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.     

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

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

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

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

Immunoglobulin production by human peripheral B cells against Staphylococcus aureus

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Prophylactic oral antiemetics for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: granisetron versus domperidone

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, we evaluated the efficacy of the oral antiemetics, granisetron and domperidone, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in 100 women undergoing major gynecologic surgery. Patients received either granisetron 2 mg or domperidone 20 mg (n = 50 in each group) orally 1 h before surgery. Standardized anesthetic techniques and postoperative analgesia regimens were used. Complete response (defined as no PONV and no administration of rescue antiemetic medication) for 0-3 h after anesthesia was 88% with granisetron and 52% with domperidone; the corresponding incidence for 3-24 h after anesthesia was 86% and 48% (P < 0.05). No clinically important adverse events due to the drugs were observed in any of the groups. In conclusion, the efficacy of preoperative oral granisetron is superior to that of domperidone for the prevention of PONV after major gynecologic surgery. IMPLICATIONS: We compared the efficacy of granisetron and domperidone administered orally for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing gynecologic surgery. Preoperative oral granisetron was more effective than domperidone.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Modern aspects of antiemetic therapy

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