Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “EMETICS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 937 records · Page 52Linked to original sources
PubMed1989

The antiemetic profile of zacopride.

The antiemetic activity of zacopride against a variety of emetogenic agents has been determined in dogs. Zacopride was highly effective in inhibiting emesis due to a wide range of cancer chemotherapeutic agents, particularly cisplatin. It was well absorbed orally since the dose of zacopride required to inhibit cisplatin-induced emesis in dogs by 90% was 28 micrograms kg-1 both by i.v. and p.o. routes. Further, zacopride (1 mg kg-1 p.o.), administered after the onset of cisplatin-induced emesis, reduced the number of subsequent emetic episodes by 91%. Zacopride at 0.1, 1, or 3.16 mg kg-1 p.o. or i.v., reduced the number of emetic episodes due to dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, adriamycin, actinomycin D, or peptide YY by 100, 100, 86, 96 and 79%, respectively. However, zacopride was not effective in inhibiting emesis due to either apomorphine, copper sulphate, protoveratrine A, histamine, or pilocarpine. No adverse effects attributed to zacopride were observed. Zacopride is thus a unique and potent antiemetic agent as it selectively inhibits the emetic response to cancer chemotherapy agents and peptide YY.

Animals↗
PubMed1992

A comparison of ondansetron with alizapride plus methylprednisolone in the control of cisplatin-induced emesis. The French Pneumology Group for the Ondansetron Study.

This randomised, single-blind, parallel-group study was carried out in 48 French pneumology centres to compare the anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron and an alizapride plus methylprednisolone (ALI/MPS) combination in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. A total of 220 patients were recruited of whom 209 were evaluable (100 on ondansetron and 109 on ALI/MPS). Thirty minutes before cisplatin, patients received either ondansetron (8 mg i.v.) or alizapride (4 mg/kg i.v.) combined with methylprednisolone (500 mg i.v.). The ondansetron and alizapride injections were repeated 4 and 8 h later. Thereafter, patients received oral ondansetron (8 mg) or alizapride (50 mg) 3 times daily for 5 days. Ondansetron was significantly superior to ALI/MPS in the control of acute emesis (p less than 0.001); 88/100 (88%) of ondansetron, and 69/109 (63%) of ALI/MPS patients experienced less than 3 emetic episodes. Similarly, ondansetron was superior to ALI/MPS for the control of acute nausea (visual analogue scale at 24 h; 13 vs. 22 mm respectively, p = 0.0012). The superiority of ondansetron over days 2-6 was not as great as that over the first 24 h, although there was a trend in favour of ondansetron. More patients treated with ondansetron wished to take the same anti-emetic treatment again (83% for ondansetron vs. 56% for ALI/MPS, p less than 0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated. This study shows that ondansetron is superior to a benzamide-corticosteroid combination in the control of acute cisplatin-induced emesis.

Antiemetics↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Ondansetron suppository: a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group comparison with oral ondansetron for the prevention of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis and nausea. The Ondansetron Suppository emesis study group.

This multinational, multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study compared the safety, tolerability and efficacy of ondansetron 8 mg orally twice a day with ondansetron suppository 16 mg once daily in patients receiving cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy. A total of 406 patients were randomised to receive ondansetron 8 mg p.o. (198 patients) or ondansetron suppository (208 patients) medication in a double-blind, double-dummy trial. The primary efficacy analysis revealed that ondansetron provided good anti-emetic control with 81% of patients in the 8 mg p.o. b.d. group and 73% of patients in the 16 mg ondansetron suppository o.d. group experiencing complete or major control of emesis (< or = 2 emetic episodes) on the worst day of days 1-3. The 90% confidence interval for the difference between the two treatments for complete or major control (1.4, 15.0%) showed that the treatments could be regarded as equivalent. A difference in favour of oral ondansetron treatment was noted for the complete control (0 emetic episodes) rates over days 1-3, but no differences were found on day 1. There were no significant differences in the distribution of nausea grades between the treatment groups on the worst day of days 1-3 or on day 1. The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two treatment groups, the most frequently reported events were headache and constipation. There were no significant laboratory findings in either treatment group. In conclusion this study showed that the ondansetron treatments could be regarded as equivalent for the primary efficacy endpoint and that ondansetron suppository was well tolerated and effective in the prevention of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1994

Ondansetron 4 mg for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after minor laparoscopic gynaecological surgery.

We studied the efficacy and safety of intravenous ondansetron 4 mg for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after minor gynaecological laparoscopic surgery in Oriental women. This double-blind randomised study compared ondansetron with placebo, given before the induction of anaesthesia. The anaesthetic technique used thiopentone, fentanyl, atracurium, nitrous oxide and isoflurane. Patients were studied for 24 h with nausea assessed using a verbal numeric scale from 0-10 and emetic episodes recorded as they occurred. Results were available for 102 patients in each group. In the first postoperative hour, fewer patients in the ondansetron Group (12%) had emetic episodes compared with the placebo group (33%, P < 0.01). Nausea score over the first hour (sum of three readings at 0, 30 and 60 min) was lower in the ondansetron group (median 1.6) compared with the placebo group (3.1, P < 0.05). Over the 24 h period, fewer patients in the ondansetron group had emetic episodes (25%) or nausea (43%) compared with patients in the placebo group (56%, P < 0.01) and (58%, P < 0.05) respectively. No adverse events were seen. Ondansetron 4 mg was more effective than placebo in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting throughout the 24 h after minor laparoscopic surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Ondansetron versus ondansetron, dexamethasone, and chlorpromazine in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of ondansetron alone (OND) or in combination with 2 days of dexamethasone and 5 days of chlorpromazine (ODC) in the prevention of emetic episodes in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients receiving 20 or 40 mg/m2 of cisplatin daily for 4 to 5 days plus etoposide (VP-16) alone or in combination with bleomycin or ifosfamide were randomized to receive three doses of OND (0.15 mg/kg 30 minutes before and 4 and 8 hours after cisplatin) versus the identical OND regimen plus dexamethasone 8 mg before cisplatin and 4 mg 4 and 8 hours later on days 1 and 2, plus chlorpromazine 50 mg every 4 hours for four doses per day. Patients were chemotherapy-naive, had a Karnofsky performance status > or = 60, and were not receiving nonstudy antiemetics. RESULTS: Nineteen of 22 patients (86%) on ODC had fewer than three emetic episodes throughout the study period, compared with 10 of 22 (46%) on OND (P = .009), and 55% of patients on ODC had no emetic episodes, compared with 32% on OND (P = .22). The ODC arm had fewer treatment failures (5%) than the OND arm (32%). The mean nausea ratings per visual analog scale were 15.0 for OND and 5.5 for ODC (P = .046). Headache was less frequent with ODC versus OND (14% and 41%, respectively, P = .09). CONCLUSION: ODC was superior to OND with respect to therapeutic efficacy and decreased headaches. Both OND and ODC were more effective on days 1 and 2, rather than days 4 and 5, suggesting tachyphylaxis, anticipatory nausea, or delayed nausea from the first few days of cisplatin combination chemotherapy.

Chlorpromazine↗
PubMed1995

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.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2003

Roles of substance P and NK(1) receptor in the brainstem in the development of emesis.

The emetic response is primarily a protective reflex occurring in a wide variety of vertebrates in response to the ingestion of toxic compounds. The role of the nuclei in the brainstem, including the area postrema, nucleus tractus solitarius, the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus, and the central pattern generator for vomiting, as well as the involvement of the abdominal visceral innervation relevant to the emetic reflex, have all been discussed by many researchers. The introduction of serotonin 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists into clinical practice allowed for a dramatic improvement in the management of vomiting. However, vomiting still remains a significant problem. The mechanism of the emetic response is even more complicated than was first thought. This review attempts to bring together some of the evidence suggesting the roles of substance P and its receptor, neurokinin NK(1) receptor, in the brainstem nuclei in the development of emesis. Accordingly, NK(1)-receptor antagonists might represent novel drugs for the management of major types of emesis.

Animals↗
PubMed2006

Development and validation of the pediatric nausea assessment tool for use in children receiving antineoplastic agents.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an instrument to assess nausea intensity in children aged 4-18 years. DESIGN: Prospective, descriptive study. SETTING: Tertiary-quaternary, university-affiliated pediatric hospital. PATIENTS: Four pediatric inpatient groups (177 patients): group 1 (107), those receiving cancer chemotherapy; group 2 (24), those receiving cancer chemotherapy before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; group 3 (23), those with cancer who were not receiving cancer chemotherapy; and group 4 (23), those without cancer. INTERVENTION: We developed a scale with a standard script for administration, the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT). Revisions were made after face validity testing with clinicians and parents, and pilot testing with 15 inpatients undergoing chemotherapy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The PeNAT scores were obtained 4-24 hours after chemotherapy in groups 1 and 2. Dietary intake scores and number of emetic episodes were recorded for the 4 hours before PeNAT administration for all patients in group 2 and 36 patients in group 1. Parents of a subset of patients made an independent assessment of their child's nausea and pain intensities immediately before PeNAT administration. Reliability was evaluated in groups 1 and 2 by correlating the first and second (obtained 1 hr after the first) PeNAT scores. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing PeNAT scores in groups 1-4. Criterion-related validity was evaluated by correlating PeNAT scores with emetic episodes and dietary intake. Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by correlating PeNAT scores with parental assessments of nausea and pain. Significant differences in PeNAT scores were noted among the study groups (p=0.035). Moderate correlation was noted between the first and second PeNAT scores (Spearman rho = 0.649). The PeNAT scores correlated modestly with emetic episodes (Spearman rho = 0.322) but not with dietary intake (Spearman rho = -0.217). Children's PeNAT scores correlated moderately with their parents' assessment of nausea (Spearman rho = 0.442), whereas little correlation was seen between children's PeNAT scores and parents' assessment of pain (Spearman rho = 0.167). CONCLUSION: The PeNAT is a new instrument that can be used by children to assess nausea intensity.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2007

Efficacy of maropitant for treatment and prevention of emesis caused by intravenous infusion of cisplatin in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of maropitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, to treat and prevent emesis caused by IV infusion of a chemotherapeutic dose of cisplatin (70 mg/m(2)) in dogs. ANIMALS: 64 healthy 6-month-old Beagles (32 males and 32 females). PROCEDURES: To evaluate the effect of maropitant on ongoing emesis, 24 dogs were randomized to 2 treatment groups (12 dogs each). Saline (0.9% NaCl) solution or maropitant (1 mg/kg) was administered once by SC injection immediately following the first emetic event after cisplatin infusion. Dogs were assessed for emesis for 6 hours after initiation of cisplatin infusion. To evaluate the use of maropitant for the prevention of emesis, 40 dogs were randomized to 4 treatment groups (10 dogs each). Placebo or maropitant (1, 2, or 3 mg/kg) was administered PO as a tablet. Cisplatin infusion was initiated at 19 hours after treatment, and dogs were assessed for emesis for 6 hours. RESULTS: No treatment-related adverse events were observed in either study. For the treatment of ongoing emesis, significantly fewer emetic events were observed for maropitant-treated dogs, compared with placebo-treated dogs (mean, 5.2 vs 15.8), and the mean time to cessation of emesis was significantly shorter (0.65 vs 1.65 hours). In the prevention of emesis, maropitant-treated dogs had significantly fewer emetic events (means, 2.7, 1.1, and 0.5 for maropitant at 1, 2, and 3 mg/kg, respectively), compared with placebo-treated dogs (mean, 20.3). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that maropitant is safe and effective in the treatment and prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis in dogs.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1998

Postoperative analgesia and vomiting, with special reference to day-case surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Day-case surgery is of great value to patients and the health service. It enables many more patients to be treated properly, and faster than before. Newer, less invasive, operative techniques will allow many more procedures to be carried out. There are many elements to successful day-case surgery. Two key components are the effectiveness of the control of pain after the operation, and the effectiveness of measures to minimise postoperative nausea and vomiting. OBJECTIVES: To enable those caring for patients undergoing day-case surgery to make the best choices for their patients and the health service, this review sought the highest quality evidence on: (1) the effectiveness of the control of pain after an operation; (2) the effectiveness of measures to minimise postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Full details of the search strategy are presented in the report. RESULTS - ANALGESIA: The systematic reviews of the literature explored whether different interventions work and, if they do work, how well they work. A number of conclusions can be drawn. RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INEFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS: There is good evidence that some interventions are ineffective. They include: (1) transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in acute postoperative pain; (2) the use of local injections of opioids at sites other than the knee joint; (3) the use of dihydrocodeine, 30 mg, in acute postoperative pain (it is no better than placebo). RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INTERVENTIONS OF DOUBTFUL VALUE: Some interventions may be effective but the size of the effect or the complication of undertaking them confers no measurable benefit over conventional methods. Such interventions include: (1) injecting morphine into the knee joint after surgery: there is a small analgesic benefit which may last for up to 24 hours but there is no clear evidence that the size of the benefit is of any clinical value; (2) manoeuvres to try and anticipate pain by using pre-emptive analgesia; these are no more effective than standard methods; (3) administering non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by injection or per rectum in patients who can swallow; this appears to be no more effective than giving NSAIDs by mouth and, indeed, may do more harm than good; (4) administering codeine in single doses; this has poor analgesic efficacy. RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INTERVENTIONS OF PROVEN VALUE: These include a number of oral analgesics including (at standard doses): (1) dextropropoxyphene; (2) tramadol; (3) paracetamol; (4) ibuprofen; (5) diclofenac. Diclofenac and ibuprofen at standard doses give analgesia equivalent to that obtained with 10 mg of intramuscular morphine. Each will provide at least 50% pain relief from a single oral dose in patients with moderate or severe postoperative pain. Paracetamol and codeine combinations also appear to be highly effective, although there is little information on the standard doses used in the UK. The relative effectiveness of these analgesics is compared in an effectiveness 'ladder' which can inform prescribers making choices for individual patients, or planning day-case surgery. Dose-response relationships show that higher doses of ibuprofen may be particularly effective. Topical NSAIDs (applied to the skin) are effective in minor injuries and chronic pain but there is no obvious role for them in day-case surgery. RESULTS-POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA AND VOMITING: The proportion of patients who may feel nauseated or vomit after surgery is very variable, despite similar operations and anaesthetic techniques. Systematic review can still lead to clear estimations of effectiveness of interventions. Whichever anti-emetic is used, the choice is often between prophylactic use (trying to prevent anyone vomiting) and treating those people who do feel nauseated or who may vomit. Systematic reviews of a number of different anti-emetics show clearly that none of the anti-emetics is sufficiently effective to be used for prophylaxis. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATE

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed1976

The effect of the antibilharzial compound (Bilharcid) on Schistosoma mansoni in vitro and in vivo.

The effect of Piperazine diantimonyl tartrate (Bilharcid) as compared with that of tartar emetic on Schistosoma mansoni has been studied. In vitro experiments on living worms in tyrode/serum cultures have proved that Bilharcid 5-10 gamma/ml has the same antibilharzial activity as tartar emetic in 5-10 gamma/ml. In vivo experiments on Schistosoma mansoni infected mice have proved also that Bilharcid has more or less the same effect as that of tartar emetic. In this study, the worm burden load and the oogram techniques were used as the criteria for antibilharzial assessment.

Animals↗
PubMed1999

Cyclic vomiting syndrome: timing, targets, and treatment--a basic science perspective.

Nausea and vomiting are both elements of the system that evolved to defend the body against toxins accidentally ingested with the food. When they are induced by an ingested toxin, they are considered to be an appropriate response, but in many clinical settings (eg, anticancer chemotherapy, anesthesia and surgery, raised intracranial pressure) both responses are inappropriate in that the vomiting does not remove the cause and the nausea may lead to aversion to further treatment. Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is a particularly intense and prolonged example of inappropriate activation of this protective reflex. This review argues that insights into the pattern of emesis in CVS can be gained by examining the basic unit (quantum) of emesis, the emetic episode usually comprising retches followed by a vomit. Two (of several) possible mechanisms for the induction of the intense vomiting in CVS are discussed: (1) defects in intrinsic pathways (eg, opioid neurons) that may modulate the brain-stem emetic mechanisms, and (2) defects in the regulation of cellular mechanisms (eg, cAMP, ion channels) in cells at critical locations in the emetic pathway (eg, nucleus tractus solitarius, area postrema). If it is not possible to identify the causal mechanism of CVS, then will it be possible to treat CVS? This question is discussed in the context of the identification of universal or broad-spectrum antiemetic agents with recent preclinical studies with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists reviewed to illustrate that such an approach is feasible.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Central mechanisms of vomiting.

Nausea and vomiting (emesis) occur under a variety of conditions in response to activation of one or more emetic triggers. The act of vomiting is coordinated by neuronal circuitry located in the brain stem between the obex and the retrofacial nucleus, including the region extending from the nucleus of the solitary tract through the lateral tegmental field of the reticular formation to the ventrolateral medulla. The area postrema, medullary midline, and certain higher brain centers are also important for vomiting. The sensation of nausea is thought to involve the cerebral cortex. The most effective near-term treatment for combating nausea and vomiting associated with cyclic vomiting syndrome may come from experimental drugs (NK-1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT1A receptor agonists) or P6 acustimulation, which have been shown to combat nausea and vomiting in response to a broad spectrum of emetic challenges and thus presumably act on central emetic mechanisms.

Acupuncture Points↗
PubMed2000

Probable involvement of the 5-hydroxytryptamine(4) receptor in methotrexate-induced delayed emesis in dogs.

Delayed emesis in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy remains a significant problem. The pathogenesis of delayed emesis is still obscure. It was recently demonstrated that methotrexate (MTX), an anticancer drug, evoked delayed emesis in dogs in a manner similar to its actions in humans. We evaluated the antiemetic activity of FK1052, a potent antagonist for both the 5-hydroxytryptamine (HT)(3) and 5-HT(4) receptors, on delayed emesis induced by MTX in beagle dogs. Animal behavior was recorded for 3 days using a video camera. Delayed emesis lasting up to 72 h was observed in dogs treated with MTX (2.5 mg/kg i.v.), but acute emesis did not occur. The following antiemetics, at the dose that prevents cisplatin-induced acute emesis in dogs, were administered i.v. as multiple injections every 12 h during days 2 to 3. FK1052 (1 and 3.2 mg/kg) significantly reduced the emetic episodes caused by MTX, whereas ondansetron (1 mg/kg), a selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, was not effective. The emetic episodes induced by MTX were also inhibited by another 5-HT(3/4) receptor antagonist, tropisetron (1 mg/kg). CP-122,721 (0. 1 mg/kg), a potent selective tachykinin NK(1) receptor antagonist, significantly reduced the emetic responses to MTX. Copper sulfate-induced emesis in dogs was also prevented by FK1052, tropisetron, and CP-122,721 but not by ondansetron. FK1052, tropisetron, and ondansetron had negligible affinity for the NK(1) receptor at 1 microM. These results suggest that the 5-HT(4) receptor may be in part involved in the production of delayed emesis induced by MTX in dogs and that FK1052 may be a useful drug against both acute and delayed emesis induced by cancer chemotherapy.

Animals↗
PubMed2001

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in the recovery room. A report from Guyana.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients in the recovery room can delay transfer of such patients to the wards, preventing a smooth inflow of patients into the recovery area. The high incidence of these complications in developed countries has led to the introduction of management strategies that may be too expensive for developing countries. An investigation of the incidence and factors associated with PONV in the recovery room of the Public Hospital, Georgetown, Guyana, was undertaken with a view to developing an approach to its management based on local data. Seven hundred and sixty patients were studied. The majority (97%) had general anaesthesia. Simple anaesthetic techniques involving agents of relatively low cost were used. Anti-emetics were infrequently administered. Only twenty-two patients (2.9%) experienced PONV in the recovery room, all after general anaesthesia. Twenty-one of these (95%) had risk factors for PONV in their history. PONV in the recovery room was associated with female gender, gynaecological surgery, extra-abdominal surgery and lack of anti-emetic medication (p < 0.05), as well as prolonged duration of recovery room stay (p < 0.01). A management strategy for PONV in the recovery room involving continued use of present anaesthetic agents, increased use of inexpensive anti-emetic drugs currently available in Guyana, and targeting of patients found to be more at risk is suggested. Increased regional techniques may also be appropriate.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Involvement of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2 receptor in cisplatin induced emesis in dogs.

The effect of drug acting on 5-HT1A, 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 receptors were studied against cisplatin and apomorphine induced emesis in dogs. Buspirone, 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist significantly reduced the emetic episodes though it had no significant effect on emetic latency. Mianserin, 5-HT2 receptor antagonist exhibited significant reduction in emetic episodes and in latency. Buspirone prevented the apomorphine induced emesis while mianserin had no effect. The antiemetic activity of buspirone may be attributable to its agonistic activity at 5-HT1A receptor and antagonistic activity at dopamine receptors. These findings further confirm the involvement of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2 receptor in cytotoxic drug induced emesis, though the species difference in their antiemetic action can not be ruled out.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

A prospective study of incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a tertiary care hospital in Oman.

INTRODUCTION: This is a pilot study conducted in a tertiary referral center in Oman, to assess the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) so that an institutional policy towards its alleviation could be evolved. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a prospective study of 491 patients undergoing obstetric and gynecological, general surgical, pediatric and urological surgical procedures that received general anesthesia, regional anesthesia or a combination of both. Data regarding the incidence of PONV was collected and was documented in a standardized questionnaire based on the patient history, anesthetic protocol, a postoperative interview of the patient and a review of the nursing records. RESULT: The over all incidence of PONV in our institution was 19.6%. The occurrence of vomiting compared to nausea or retching was high (p < 0.01). PONV was less in urological cases (p < 0.05) compared to general surgical cases. The incidence of PONV was similar (p > 0.05) in both groups, whether the patients received anti emetics along with pre-medication or not. PONV occurrence was significant in the first 6 hrs postoperatively (p < 0.01). In those patients who received propofol the prevalence of PONV was significantly less (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There should be a reassessment of the existing anti emetics in the institution. Propofol was found to be a good anti emetic.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1992

[Clinical evaluation of ondansetron (injection of a single intravenous dose) against nausea and emesis associated with anti-cancer drugs--dose-finding study in patients receiving cisplatin].

We examined anti-emetic effects, safety and the optimal dose of Ondansetron Injection given in a single intravenous dose in patients receiving a single high dose of cisplatin in randomized controlled comparative study using telephone registration. Ondansetron was injected intravenously in a single dose of 4 mg, 8 mg or 12 mg, at 15 minutes before administration of cisplatin. Nausea and emesis were observed for 24 hours after administration of cisplatin. Efficacy rate of inhibitory effects on nausea and emesis were 76% (19/25 cases) in the 4 mg dose group, 57% (12/21 cases) in the 8 mg dose group and 83% (20/24 cases) in the 12 mg dose group, without a statistically significant difference among 3 dose groups. Hence, it was estimated that the low dose of 4 mg was adequate to exert satisfactory anti-emetic effects. No clear relationship between onset time of the initial emetic episode and plasma concentrations of Ondansetron was found in 16 cases of the 4 mg dose group, 11 cases in the 8 mg dose group and 15 cases in the 12 mg dose group. Side effects observed during this study period were headache and diarrhea in 1 case in the 12 mg dose group. Both symptoms were mild and resolved without treatment. No abnormal findings attributable to Ondansetron were observed in clinical laboratory test. From the above, it was considered that Ondansetron given by a single intravenous injection was highly effective to inhibit nausea and emesis induced by cisplatin, and was highly safe. As to the dose, 4 mg once daily was considered to be adequate for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and emesis.

Adult↗