Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. The Italian Group for Antiemetic Research.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cisplatin↗
Biomedical subjects
F Roila
Publications and source records attributed to F Roila.
Antiemetic activity of two different high doses and schedules of metoclopramide in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients.
The antiemetic activity of two different high doses and schedules of metoclopramide in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients was compared in a double-blind crossover study. Regimen A consisted of metoclopramide [2 mg/kg x 4 intravenously (i.v.)] plus methylprednisolone (250 mg x 2 i.v.) plus diphenhydramine (50 mg x 2 i.v.). Regimen B consisted of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2 i.v.) plus dexamethasone (20 mg i.v.) and diphenhydramine (50 mg i.v.). Both treatments were administered for the first 2 days of 5-day dacarbazine chemotherapy. Thirty-two patients (13 men and 19 women) affected by melanoma and sarcoma were entered in the study. Complete protection against nausea and vomiting for the first 2 days of chemotherapy in both antiemetic regimens was not significantly different. Patient preference and tolerance of the two antiemetic treatments were similar. Regimen B, employing a lower dosage of metoclopramide and steroids and using a more simple schedule of administration should be the preferred treatment.
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
Issues in the measurement of nausea.
Measurement of nausea is essential for the evaluation of efficacy of antiemetic treatment. Frequency, duration and intensity of nausea should be assessed in all trials. Three different methods: a discrete scale (DS), a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a continuous chromatic analogue scale (ACCS) of measuring nausea and four different dimensions maximal intensity, (MI); entity, (E); duration, (D) and quantity, (Q) were evaluated in 849 cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. A substantial agreement between the different scales was found and no advantage was shown for using an analogue (VAS) rather than a discrete (DS) scale. There was a trend towards increasing sensitivity in detecting differences as the dimension of nausea used encompassed wider aspects of this symptom (Q more sensitive than E more sensitive than MI).
Antiemetics↗
Double-blind crossover trial of single vs. divided dose of metoclopramide in a combined regimen for treatment of cisplatin-induced emesis.
In a double-blind crossover antiemetic study in cisplatin-treated cancer patients, metoclopramide 4 mg/kg as a single intravenous dose (regimen A) was compared with 3 mg/kg in two doses (regimen B). In both regimens, metoclopramide was combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. 65 consecutive, chemotherapy-naïve inpatients (45 males and 20 females) treated with high doses (at least 50 mg/m2) of cisplatin entered the study and 54 completed both treatments. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea, mean number of emetic episodes, mean maximum intensity of nausea and mean duration of emesis or nausea were similar with the two antiemetic regimens. 23 patients (43%) did not express a treatment preference, while 16 (30%) preferred regimen B and 15 (28%) preferred regimen A. Side-effects were similar with the two metoclopramide schedules. A combined antiemetic regimen of a single high dose of metoclopramide (4 mg/kg) can preserve efficacy and tolerability and thus should be preferred.
Cisplatin↗
Methodology of antiemetic trials: a review.
Chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting can be controlled with available antiemetics in a high percentage of patients, while emesis remains a critical problem in some subgroups and with certain drugs. In the ceaseless attempt to find newer drugs and better treatment modalities, a sound methodology in antiemetic research is essential. Several factors should always be considered when planning an antiemetic trial: first, the different emetic power of various chemotherapy agents, their dosages and route and schedule of administration and second, the type of antiemetic used, its dosage and timing, and its possible combination with other antiemetics. Important factors which influence outcome but which are often under-evaluated are those related to patient population such as age, gender, and previous experience with chemotherapy. Considering the relevance of subjective phenomena in nausea and vomiting, it is essential that any study be randomized and double blinded. The parallel type of study design is preferable to the cross-over and a large number of patients is usually required to achieve meaningful results. Efficacy and toxicity should be properly evaluated by trained personnel in a standardized way, using a validated, relatively simple methodology.
Adult↗
Intra and interobserver variability in cancer patients' performance status assessed according to Karnofsky and ECOG scales.
The Karnofsky (K) and ECOG (E) performance status (PS) scales are widely used to evaluate the functional status of cancer patients to determine their eligibility for clinical trials and their prognosis, but knowledge of inter and intraobserver variability of these scales is scarse. We therefore planned a prospective study on 209 consecutive cancer patients to evaluate this critical point. Two independent observers evaluated the KPS and EPS of each patient by interviewing them on the same day. After their interviews the patients were asked to fill in, again on the same day, a self-evaluation scale concerning their ability to perform the routine activities of daily life. The 209 patient self-evaluation scales were presented twice, randomly and blinded, to the two observers who had participated in the evaluation of PS as well as to one other observer who had not. The interobserver correlation for both scales was very high (K = 0.921 for KPS and K = 0.914 for EPS) as was the intraobserver correlation (for KPS: K = 0.993, K = 0.960, and K = 0.959 and, respectively, for EPS: K = 0.982, K = 0.970, and K = 0.920). On the basis of these results, it appears that evaluation of PS made by a clinical oncologist using K or E scales can be very reliable and is a guarantee of optimal selection of cancer patients for inclusion in clinical trials.
Aged↗
Predictive factors of delayed emesis in cisplatin-treated patients and antiemetic activity and tolerability of metoclopramide or dexamethasone. A randomized single-blind study.
To prevent delayed emesis induced by cisplatin (mean dose 90 mg/m2), 120 consecutive patients were randomized to receive, in a 7-day crossover design, oral metoclopramide (20 mg q.i.d.), dexamethasone (1 mg q.i.d.) or placebo (two tablets q.i.d.) starting 24 hours after the end of chemotherapy. Complete protection from nausea, but not from vomiting. was significantly increased by both dexamethasone and metoclopramide with respect to placebo. Important prognostic factors favoring the appearance of delayed emesis were incomplete protection from vomiting during the first 24 hours after cisplatin, female gender, and highest cisplatin doses. Tolerability of both drugs was good. Larger and randomized controlled trials are necessary to identify better preventive treatment of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin.
Cisplatin↗
Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: a double-blind multicenter randomized crossover study comparing ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone.
Ondansetron (OND) is a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that give complete protection from emesis/nausea in approximately 50% of cisplatin (CDDP)-treated patients. To evaluate if dexamethasone (DEX) added to OND increases antiemetic efficacy, we carried out a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity of OND with OND plus DEX. One hundred two chemotherapy-naive patients (44 women and 58 men) scheduled to receive CDDP chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2 entered the study. Eighty-nine patients completed both cycles with the following results: complete protection from emesis/nausea was obtained in 57/59 patients (64.0%/66.3%) with OND and in 81/79 (91.0%/88.8%) with OND plus DEX (P = .0005/P = .0021). At the end of the study, 53% of the patients expressed a treatment preference, and of these, 74% chose OND plus DEX compared with 26% who preferred OND alone, a statistically significant difference (P less than .003). Side effects were very mild and not significantly different between the two treatments. We conclude that OND plus DEX is more efficacious than OND in protecting patients from CDDP-induced emesis and nausea.
Antiemetics↗
Publication of unethical studies on the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Antiemetics↗
Assessment of nausea.
In a standardized way three different methods of measuring nausea have been assessed in 849 patients enrolled in 4 double blind, randomized, clinical trials, and 2 observational studies. Nausea was measured before and 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours after cancer chemotherapy by using a discrete scale (DS), a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a continuous chromatic analogue scale (ACCS), and it was evaluated according to 4 different dimensions: maximal intensity (MI) entity (E) duration (D) and quantity (Q). The distributions of nausea measurements in the population, agreement between the scales and their sensitivity, and agreement between dimensions and their sensitivity were analyzed. A uniform distribution of nausea measurements was found only in patients receiving chemotherapy without any antiemetic treatment. There was substantial equivalence of the different scales, and no advantage was shown an using an analogue (VAS) than a discrete (DS) scale. A trend toward increasing sensitivity in detecting differences as the dimensions of nausea considered became more inclusive of the various aspects of this symptom (Q more sensible than E more sensible than MI) was observed.
Antiemetics↗
A pilot study of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and acupuncture in women treated with cisplatin.
A total of 26 women who submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy received as antiemetic treatment a combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. Acupuncture according to traditional Chinese medicine was also carried out. The results were compared with those obtained in a similar group of women with cancer, who were treated in the same setting with the same antiemetic combination but without additional acupuncture. Acupuncture was shown to increase complete protection from nausea and to decrease the intensity and duration of nausea and vomiting. However, the difficulties of performing acupuncture routinely in daily practice are a hindrance to its wider use.
Acupuncture Therapy↗
Ondansetron (GR38032) in the prophylaxis of acute and delayed cisplatin-induced emesis.
Sixty five chemotherapy naive patients receiving cisplatin (50-120 mg/m2) containing chemotherapy participated in an evaluation of ondansetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, in the prophylaxis of acute and delayed nausea and emesis. Ondansetron was given as three 0.15 mg/kg doses intravenously (0.5 h before, 3.5 h and 7.5 h after cisplatin) for acute emesis followed by 8 mg orally 8-hourly for five days at 24 h post-cisplatin for delayed emesis. For acute emesis (first 24 h, n = 63), complete control was achieved in 34 patients (54%) and major control (1-2 episodes) in 16 patients (25%). Complete protection from acute nausea was achieved in 48 patients (76%). For delayed emesis (days 2-6, n = 55), 33 patients (60%) were completely protected or reported one to two episodes during the entire 5-day observation period; 63% reported only mild or no nausea. Ondansetron was well tolerated with no significant drug-related adverse events. These results are consistent with serotonin being a significant transmitter of cisplatin-induced emesis.
Acute Disease↗
Inflammatory reaction presages response in melanoma skin lesions during i.m. rIFN alpha-2a-based treatment.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Adult↗
A pilot study of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and lorazepam in prevention of nausea and vomiting in cisplatin-treated male patients.
In a pilot study we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of a four-drug antiemetic combination (metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and lorazepam) in cancer patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2. Fifty male patients entered the study. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea was obtained in 41 patients (82%) (95% confidence limits 71 and 93%). Toxicity was slight except for moderate sedation in 10% of patients necessitating their hospitalization. Only one extrapyramidal reaction (akathisia) was observed. When these results were compared to our previous experience in male patients treated with a combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine without lorazepam, used at the same doses and schedule, no clear benefit and higher toxicity was observed.
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
Diphenhydramine and acute dystonia.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Aged↗
Buserelin in the treatment of prostatic cancer.
Buserelin is a synthetic gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog which is more potent than natural GnRH. Prolonged administration of the drug produces, after a short phase of stimulation, a selective and durable inhibition of secretion of pituitary gonadotropins, resulting in medical castration. In pilot and controlled studies buserelin shows a response rate that is similar to that of diethylstilbestrol or orchiectomy in the palliative treatment of advanced prostatic cancer, but larger and better designed studies are needed before reaching definitive conclusions about the duration of response and survival. The most common adverse effects of buserelin are loss of libido and/or impotence, hot flushes and possible flare-up of prostatic carcinoma symptoms in the first week of therapy. The combination of buserelin with an antiandrogen could avoid the flare syndrome; whether the combination has advantages compared to administration of buserelin alone requires confirmation from the large randomized studies still in progress.
Androgen Antagonists↗
Antiemetic activity of high-dose metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide alone in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients. A randomized double-blind study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.
In a double-blind randomized trial, we compared the efficacy and tolerability of high-dose (2 mg/kg X 4) intravenous metoclopramide (MTC) versus metoclopramide plus high-dose (250 mg X 2) intravenous methylprednisolone (MP) administered for the first 2 days in untreated patients submitted to dacarbazine chemotherapy for 5 days. Thirty-four patients entered the study. Complete protection from nausea and vomiting was achieved in the majority of patients all through the study period with both antiemetic treatments, with slightly greater efficacy at day 2 for the combination. However, after suspension of the antiemetic therapy, there was a relapse of vomiting in patients. Side effects were not different between the two treatments, but extrapyramidal reactions were significantly increased on the second day of antiemetic therapy. In conclusion, high-dose MTC with or without MP can give good antiemetic protection and the combination seems to be slightly more efficacious. However, the relapse of vomiting after discontinuing antiemetic treatment and the high incidence of extrapyramidal reactions justify further studies to find a better antiemetic treatment.
Dacarbazine↗
Protection from nausea and vomiting in cisplatin-treated patients: high-dose metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine: a study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research.
Despite treatment, emesis remains a major problem with cisplatin (CDDP) chemotherapy. Reasons for variability in antiemetic response among patients and in subsequent cycles are largely unknown and toxicity is sometimes severe. We have, therefore, carried out a multicenter, double-blind randomized trial comparing a combination of high-dose metoclopramide (MTC) (1 mg/kg x 4) and methylprednisolone (P) (treatment A) with a shorter but higher single-dose schedule of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2) combined with dexamethasone (DEX) and diphenhydramine (DIP) to prevent extrapyramidal reactions (treatment B). Three hundred sixty-seven consecutive patients treated with various chemotherapy combinations containing CDDP were studied. Complete protection from vomiting/nausea was, at first cycle, 72.5%/79.5% with treatment B and 55.8%/65.1% with treatment A, a statistically significant difference (P less than .002/P less than .005). In subsequent cycles, protection from emesis significantly decreased with no difference between the two treatments. Multifactorial analysis shows that women, younger patients, outpatients, and patients who experienced emesis in previous cycles were at higher risk of suffering nausea and/or vomiting. Both regimens were well tolerated, but patients treated with treatment B had significantly less extrapyramidal reactions (1.7%/6.1%, P = .053). Treatment B is preferred due to its greater efficacy and lower incidence of extrapyramidal reactions. Trials on antiemetic therapy should take into account the important variables able to influence the efficacy of treatment. There is still a need for improving prevention of emesis in CDDP-treated patients.
Age Factors↗