Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15655399

Motion sickness.

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The public's longstanding resigned tolerance to motion sickness threatens to change, due to the widespread introduction of nauseogenic tilting trains and the increasing use of virtual reality immersion. RECENT FINDINGS: Scientific effort over the last 5 years has focused on precise evaluation of the stimuli that provoke sickness and on the development of behavioural and new pharmacological interventions to suppress sickness. SUMMARY: The precise mechanical ride characteristics of vehicles that provoke sickness have been identified and this will lead to guidelines for future engineering design, especially for suspension systems that compensate for inertial tilt, and recommendations for passengers at risk. The frequency characteristics of motion provoking sickness have been defined with greater precision and identified with shifts in perception of motion versus orientation, and changes in the quality of reflex eye movements. Ability to modify readily the time constant of vestibular 'velocity store' has emerged as a potential candidate marker of successful motion sickness habituation. Behavioural 'autogenic' countermeasures to the development of sickness, such as controlled breathing, which can be implemented readily, are shown to have significant ameliorating effects on nausea and are of value for short term moderate exposures. New classes of pharmacological agents such as N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists and 5HT1a receptor agonists show promise in animals but await trials in humans.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John F Golding, Michael A Gresty. 2005. Motion sickness.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00019052-200502000-00007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced emesis: results of the 2004 Perugia International Antiemetic Consensus Conference.

BACKGROUND: In the late 1990s, several professional organizations convened antiemetic guideline groups and published the findings of these expert panels. Each of these documents was based on analyses of the available published trials and provided nearly similar recommendations. Nonetheless, small differences in emetic risk categories and treatment recommendations led to confusion in antiemetics selection. With the emergence of new findings and agents since the guidelines were initially published, many of the oncology professional societies have updated the antiemetic guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review up to March 2004 was carried out using MEDLINE with evaluation of the evidence by an expert panel composed of 23 oncology professionals in clinical medicine, medical oncology, radiation oncology, oncology nursing, statistics, pharmacy, medical policy and decision making, and pharmacology. The experts represented nine oncology professional societies and came from 11 different countries on four continents. RESULTS: Recommendations on antiemetic regimens to prevent emesis induced by high, moderate, low and minimal risk chemotherapy were suggested as well as management of anticipatory emesis. Furthermore, recommendations for refractory emesis, emesis induced by high-dose chemotherapy and radiotherapy and for antiemetics in children receiving chemotherapy were elaborated. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations about antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving treatment with chemo- and radiotherapy have been updated by representatives of nine oncological organizations.

Antiemetics↗

Employment of substandard antiemetic prophylaxis in recent trials of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of substandard antiemetic therapy among recently published trials conducted in patients with cancer who received emetogenic chemotherapy. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search was conducted (2000-July 2004) using the key words 5-HT(3) antagonists, ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, ramosetron, palonosetron, NK-1 antagonists, and aprepitant. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All antiemetic trials in patients receiving chemotherapy that were published from January 2000 to July 2004 were evaluated. Standard prophylactic antiemetic therapy was derived from contemporary antiemetic guidelines published by oncology professional organizations and expert panels. The number of patients and studies in which patients received standard and substandard antiemetic therapy was determined for both the acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Separate determinations were made for severely and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The annual percentage of studies in which substandard antiemetic prophylaxis was given and the percentage of patients who received substandard prophylaxis also were determined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-six studies were reviewed, which included a total of 10 274 patients and 125 study arms. The percentage of patients who received substandard antiemetic prophylaxis was 30% (n = 3063) for acute CINV and 33% (n = 3413) for delayed CINV. The average annual percentage of studies that employed substandard prophylaxis during this time period was 54%. CONCLUSIONS: In recent antiemetic trials for CINV, the employment of substandard antiemetic therapy is common. These results raise important ethical questions regarding contemporary antiemetic trial design.

Antiemetics↗