Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “ANTIEMETICS”

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 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

The effect of timing of ondansetron administration on its efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting.

UNLABELLED: 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.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Efficacy and adverse effects of prophylactic antiemetics during patient-controlled analgesia therapy: a quantitative systematic review.

UNLABELLED: Nausea and vomiting are frequent adverse effects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids. To identify the optimal prophylactic antiemetic intervention in this setting, we performed a systematic search for randomized trials (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, reference lists, hand-searching, no language restriction) published up to May 1998 that compared prophylactic antiemetic interventions with placebo or no treatment in the postoperative PCA-setting with opioids. Fourteen placebo-controlled trials (1117 patients) with different regimens of droperidol, ondansetron, hyoscine TTS, tropisetron, metoclopramide, propofol, and promethazine were analyzed. One PCA was with tramadol, all others were with morphine. At 24 h, the cumulative incidence of nausea and vomiting without antiemetics was approximately 50%. Droperidol 0.017-0.17 mg/mg of morphine (0.5-11 mg/d droperidol) was statistically significantly more effective than placebo without evidence of dose-responsiveness; the number needed to treat to prevent nausea compared with placebo was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8-5.2), and that to prevent vomiting was 3.1 (2.3-4.8). Compared with placebo, the incidence of minor adverse effects with droperidol was increased with doses >4 mg/d. IMPLICATIONS: Of 100 patients treated with droperidol added in a patient-controlled analgesia pump with morphine, 30 who would have vomited or been nauseated had they not received droperidol will not suffer these effects. There is no evidence of dose-responsiveness for efficacy with droperidol, but the risk of adverse effects is dose-dependent. There is a lack of evidence for other antiemetics.

Analgesia, Patient-Controlled↗
PubMed2000

The effect of timing of dexamethasone administration on its efficacy as a prophylactic antiemetic for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

UNLABELLED: We evaluated the timing effect of a 10-mg IV administration of dexamethasone on its efficacy as a prophylactic antiemetic on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). One hundred twenty women (n = 40 in each of three groups) undergoing abdominal total hysterectomy under general anesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Group 1 received dexamethasone before the induction of anesthesia, Group 2 received dexamethasone at the end of anesthesia, and Group 3 received placebo (saline). The incidence of PONV was evaluated. During the postoperative period of 0-2 h, patients in Group 1 reported a less frequent incidence of PONV (15%) than those in Groups 2 and 3 (45% and 53%, respectively). Patients in Group 1 also requested less rescue antiemetic (8%) than those in Groups 2 and 3 (30% and 35%, respectively). During the postoperative period of 2-24 h, patients in both Groups 1 and 2 reported less frequent incidences of PONV (25% and 28%) and requested fewer rescue antiemetics (13% and 15%) than those in Group 3 (55% and 38%, respectively). In conclusion, the prophylactic IV administration of dexamethasone immediately before the induction, rather than at the end of anesthesia, was more effective in preventing PONV. IMPLICATIONS: We evaluated the effect of timing of dexamethasone administration on its efficacy as a prophylactic antiemetic on postoperative nausea and vomiting. We found that dexamethasone, when given immediately before the induction of anesthesia, was more effective than when given at the end of anesthesia.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

The antiemetic effect of lorazepam after outpatient strabismus surgery in children.

The high incidence of postoperative emesis after strabismus surgery in pediatric outpatients can be reduced by the prophylactic administration of droperidol 75 micrograms/kg intravenously. However, this may be associated with profound sedation, delayed discharge, dysphoria, agitation, and extrapyramidal symptoms in this population. Because lorazepam used as an antiemetic in children during chemotherapy decreased the incidence of nausea and vomiting, we compared the antiemetic effects of lorazepam and droperidol in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 129 healthy children undergoing surgical correction of strabismus. The children, aged 1-13 yr, were randomly allocated into three groups. The children in group 1 received droperidol 75 micrograms/kg intravenously; those in group 2 received lorazepam 10 micrograms/kg intravenously; and those in group 3 received placebo. Anesthesia consisted of halothane, nitrous oxide in oxygen, and atracurium. Study drugs were administered intravenously after induction of anesthesia but before surgery. In children 3-13 yr old, administration of either lorazepam or droperidol was associated with a lower (P < 0.024) incidence of postoperative vomiting. There was no difference between the antiemetic effect of lorazepam and that of droperidol. The incidence of postoperative agitation was greater in the droperidol group (P < 0.001) than in the lorazepam and placebo groups. Postdischarge vomiting was less (P < 0.009) in children younger than 3 yr of age. Lorazepam, similar to droperidol, has an antiemetic effect in outpatient children 3-13 yr old undergoing strabismus correction, but it is associated with less postoperative agitation than is droperidol.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

Antiemetics revisited.

In the past few years a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone has been shown to be the most efficacious antiemetic prophylaxis of acute emesis induced by cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis oral metoclopramide or ondansetron, both combined with dexamethasone, offer similar antiemetic protection. Due to its lower cost the metoclopramide regimen remains the treatment of choice, whereas the ondansetron one is a valid alternative treatment that may be preferred in patients who present acute emesis. In the prevention of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy ondansetron and dexamethasone have been shown superior to placebo. On the other hand, a recent observational study suggested that patients presenting acute vomiting or acute moderate-severe nausea, having a high incidence of delayed emesis, should always receive antiemetic prophylaxis. Instead, patients obtaining complete protection from acute emesis may not require any antiemetic prophylaxis.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed2006

Antiemetics for children with gastroenteritis: off-label but still on in clinical practice.

Antiemetics are not included for treatment of vomiting associated with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in children by standard guidelines. We performed a survey to determine antiemetic prescribing rates by Italian pediatricians. A structured questionnaire was distributed at a pediatric national conference. The majority of responders reported prescribing antiemetics for pediatric gastroenteritis. Although there is insufficient evidence to justify their use, the use of antiemetics is widely present among pediatricians.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

Disturbing post-operative symptoms are not reduced by prophylactic antiemetic treatment in patients at high risk of post-operative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: To give prophylactics or timely treatment for post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is the question. We compared the intensity and number of disturbing post-operative symptoms (i.e. pain, PONV, headache, fatigue, etc.) after prophylactic antiemetic treatment in a group of patients with >30% risk for post-operative vomiting. METHODS: Four hundred and ninety-five patients, from three hospitals, planned for gynaecological surgery were randomized double blind. They were given granisetron 3 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg or no prophylactic antiemetic. Post-operative symptoms were followed for 24 h using a questionnaire. Symptoms were analyzed both according to their intensity and in a dichotomous fashion. RESULTS: The intensity of different symptoms differed depending on whether droperidol, granisetron or no antiemetic had been given (P = 0.005) but the overall incidence of moderate to very severe symptoms was similar in all groups. No group fared better in general. The total number of symptoms was higher in the groups given prophylactic treatment (P < 0.05). The relative risk reduction for PONV with granisetron or droperidol prophylaxis was 27%[95% confidence interval (CI) 8-43] and 22% (2-38), respectively. The NNT (number needed to treat) for granisetron (0-24 h) was 7 and for droperidol 8. The NNH (number needed to harm) (0-24 h) for headache and visual disturbances was 6 and 13 (NS) for granisteron and, 50 (NS) and 6 for droperidol. CONCLUSION: The intensity of symptoms or the total number of disturbing symptoms did not decrease after prophylactic antiemetic treatment in a group of patients, but the profile of disturbing symptoms changed. The relevance of post-operative symptoms in terms of patients' well-being needs to be addressed.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Antiemetic effect of ginger in gynecologic oncology patients receiving cisplatin.

To determine whether ginger had antiemetic effect in cisplatin-induced emesis, we conducted a randomized, double-blinded crossover study in 48 gynecologic cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Subjects were randomly allocated to regimen A or regimen B in their first cycle of the study. All patients received standard antiemetics in the first day of cisplatin administration. In regimen A, capsules of ginger root powder were given orally 1 g /day for 5 days, starting on the first day of chemotherapy. In regimen B, placebo was given on the first day and metoclopramide was given orally thereafter for 4 days. The patients were then crossed over to receive the other antiemetic regimen in their next cycle of chemotherapy. Among 43 evaluable patients who received both cycles of treatment, success in controls of nausea and emesis were not significantly different between the two regimens in both acute and delayed phases. Restlessness, as a side effect, occurred more often in metoclopramide arm compared to ginger arm (P=0.109). In conclusion, addition of ginger to standard antiemetic regimen has no advantage in reducing nausea or vomiting in acute phase of cisplatin-induced emesis. In delayed phase, ginger and metoclopramide have no statistically significant difference in efficacy.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1994

Volunteer models for predicting antiemetic activity of 5-HT3-receptor antagonists.

1. Selective 5-HT3-receptor antagonists are highly effective in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. Their pharmacological activity may be determined in vitro and in animal models of emesis. However, these methods may not give an accurate indication of the antiemetic dose range of 5-HT3-receptor antagonists in patients. Two volunteer models have been used to predict more accurately clinically effective antiemetic doses of 5-HT3-receptor antagonists. 2. The flare response to intradermal 5-HT is thought to be mediated by excitation of 5-HT3-receptors on cutaneous afferents, with release of substance P and subsequent vasodilation. Antagonism of the flare response appears to provide an indication of the effective antiemetic dose of 5-HT3-receptor antagonists but data on duration of action are conflicting. 3. Ipecacuanha-induced emesis is thought to be mediated through both peripheral and central 5-HT3-receptors. Antagonism of this response has demonstrated a close correlation with clinically effective antiemetic doses of the specific 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, ondansetron, and has the advantage of being more conceptually relevant than the flare model. 4. Further work, with newer 5-HT3-receptor antagonists, will clarify the role of these models as predictive of the use of these drugs in clinical practice.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed1990

New antiemetic drugs.

Three major areas of medicine are identified in which there is a need for new antiemetic drugs. These are the nausea and vomiting arising from gastrointestinal motility disturbances (functional dyspepsia, diabetic neuropathy, classical migraine), the sickness evoked by abnormal motion, and the severe emesis experienced by cancer patients as a result of certain cytotoxic therapies. For gastrointestinal-related nausea, selective stimulants of gut motility are suggested to form the basis for a new type of antiemetic therapy. In motion sickness, there has been progress in the understanding of the illness, but little advance in the development of new drugs that selectively prevent this type of sickness. In cancer chemo- and radio-therapy, the discovery that selective 5-HT3 (5-HT, 5-hydroxytryptamine) receptor antagonists can prevent severe cytotoxic-evoked emesis now promises to radically change the type of antiemetic therapy given to these patients. This type of antiemetic compound and the pharmacology of the new 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are, therefore, discussed in detail.

Animals↗
PubMed2006

Neurokinin-1-receptor antagonists: a new approach in antiemetic therapy.

Aprepitant (Emend), the first neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist (NK-1-RA), represents a new class of antiemetics. Aprepitant has been approved for the prevention and treatment of acute (0-24 h after chemotherapy) and delayed (1-5 days after chemotherapy) emesis resulting from cisplatin-based chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy in cisplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improves emesis protection in general and, in particular, in the delayed phase by approximately 20%. Results from a recently published study in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy suggest a benefit of aprepitant when combined with dexamethasone and a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist for the prevention of acute emesis, followed by aprepitant as a single agent in the prevention of delayed emesis. Altogether, the addition of aprepitant to the standard antiemetic regimen (5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone) significantly improves the protection against vomiting in the acute as well as in the delayed phase in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapies. Therefore, the combination of a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and aprepitant should be considered as a new standard antiemetic therapy.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed1996

Antiemetic study methodology: recommendations for future studies.

The methodology of future antiemetic studies will reflect the need to address the problems identified in current studies. New preclinical information on the mechanisms of emesis and antiemetic action will allow more rational clinical study design. Prior to large randomized studies, phase I and II trials should define the minimum effective dose of an antiemetic which may differ according to the strength of the emetic stimulus. The most convenient route of administration and schedule should also be sought in early phase trials. New endpoints such as cost-effectiveness should be incorporated into phase III studies, which should also serve as vehicles for further studies of prognostic factors. Problem areas such as delayed emesis should be specifically targeted in future trials. Patients must evaluate the overall benefit of a new antiemetic regimen.

Animals↗
PubMed1991

Non-invasive stimulation of the P6 (Neiguan) antiemetic acupuncture point in cancer chemotherapy.

The beneficial effects of transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the P6 antiemetic point (Neiguan) as an adjuvant to standard antiemetics was studied in over 100 patients in whom chemotherapy-induced sickness was not adequately controlled by antiemetics alone. Although the results were not quite as good as with invasive acupuncture, more than 75% patients achieved considerable benefit from what was a non-toxic procedure. The use of large diffuse low impedence electrodes simplifies the technique. The 2 hourly application of Sea Bands prolongs the antiemetic action. Best results were obtained from the 2 hourly self-administration of 5 min of transcutaneous electrical stimulation of P6 using a simple battery-operated TENS machine (15 Hz) to activate a large, easy-to-place surface electrode and increasing current until Qi is elicited.

Acupuncture Points↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Cancer patients submitted to innovative chemotherapeutic agents of intermediate emetogenic potential: antiemetic prescriptions and incidence of emesis.

Controversies exist regarding the classification of the emetogenic potential of chemotherapeutic agents such as taxanes, gemcitabine and irinotecan and the antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis to be administered. Instead, no prophylaxis for delayed emesis has been suggested. A prospective, observational study was carried out in 103 Italian oncological centers to evaluate the prescriptions of antiemetics and the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients submitted to these chemotherapy agents. Two hundred and nine patients treated with taxanes, 300 with gemcitabine and 93 with irinotecan were evaluated. For the prophylaxis of acute emesis a 5-HT3 antagonist alone or in combination with a corticosteroid was administered to 86.6% of patients receiving taxanes, to 59.3% of those receiving gemcitabine and to 96.8% of those submitted to irinotecan. 20% to 40% of patients received antiemetic prophylaxis for delayed emesis. In taxane-treated patients the incidence of acute vomiting and nausea was 6.2% and 27.3%, respectively, while in gemcitabine- and irinotecan-treated patients it was 6.0/33.4% and 17.9/58.9%, respectively. In conclusion, the study showed that almost all patients received prophylaxis for acute emesis and that there is overprescription of 5-HT3 antagonists. The incidence of acute emesis is low; therefore, randomized clinical trials are necessary to verify the utility of prophylaxis and to find the best antiemetic treatment.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1985

The antiemetic efficacy of methylprednisolone compared with metoclopramide in outpatients receiving adjuvant CMF chemotherapy for breast cancer: a randomized trial.

A randomized trial was performed comparing the antiemetic efficacy of methylprednisolone (MPN) and metoclopramide (MCP) in 60 breast cancer patients eligible for outpatient adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-FU (CMF). At the time of their first chemotherapy course patients were randomized to receive either MPN 375 mg or MCP 1 mg/kg both administered in 3 equal doses, IV just prior to chemotherapy and then IM 6 and 12 hours after treatment. Patients receiving MPN experienced significantly less nausea (p less than 0.0005) and vomiting (p less than 0.0005) and antiemetic protection was maintained in patients receiving multiple chemotherapy courses. Complete protection (0 emesis) was observed in 58% of patients receiving MPN as compared with 20% of patients treated with MCP (p less than 0.005). The most frequent side effects were facial flush in 38% of patients and somnolence in 15% of patients receiving MPN and MCP, respectively. Complete protection from CMF-induced gastrointestinal side effects was observed in two-thirds of our patients receiving antiemetic MPN treatment. In these patients administration of the maximum cumulative CMF dose was possible without impairing their quality of life. MPN, at the dose and schedule reported, is an affective antiemetic drug suitable for use in breast cancer outpatients receiving adjuvant CMF therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed1984

Double-blind crossover study of the antiemetic efficacy of high-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose metoclopramide.

Nausea and vomiting remain common and debilitating side effects of therapy with many anticancer drugs. Recent reports have shown that both metoclopramide and dexamethasone are effective drugs for the treatment of severe nausea and vomiting caused by cis-platinum. A double-blind crossover study comparing the antiemetic properties of high-dose oral and intravenous regimens of metoclopramide and dexamethasone in outpatients was carried out. Standardized patient questionnaires and interviews were used to evaluate response. Dexamethasone and metoclopramide protected against more than five episodes of emesis in 48% and 40% of patients, respectively. Nausea persisted for less than six hours in 45% of patients on dexamethasone and in 37% on metoclopramide. The antiemetic efficacy of both regimens was retained through repeated courses of chemotherapy. Side effects were minimal with dexamethasone; however, 33% of patients experienced unacceptable extrapyramidal side effects to metoclopramide. Patient preference was significantly in favor of dexamethasone: 70% of patients chose to continue dexamethasone compared to 22% who preferred metoclopramide and 8% who chose other antiemetics. Dexamethasone was the preferred antiemetic in this patient population due to minimal side effects.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Dexamethasone has a central antiemetic mechanism in decerebrated cats.

Dexamethasone is an effective antiemetic drug, but its mechanism of action is unclear. We designed this study to investigate the direct antiemetic action of dexamethasone in the medulla of cats. By using an oscillographic vomiting model, decerebrated cats received microinjections of dexamethasone 100 nL (1 microg, n = 7; 0.1 microg, n = 7) into the bilateral nuclei tractus solitarii, which led to a significant prolongation of the latency (1 microg, 6.4 +/- 1.1 min versus 28.2 +/- 4.9 min, P < 0.05; 0.1 microg, 6.7 +/- 1.1 min versus 27.1 +/- 5.0 min, P < 0.05) of the first emetic episode and significantly decreased the frequency of emetic episodes (1 microg, 2.7 +/- 0.8 versus 0.1 +/- 0.4, P < 0.05; 0.1 microg, 2.9 +/- 0.9 versus 0.3 +/- 0.5, P < 0.05) induced by xylazine. Pretreatment with mifepristone, a glucocorticoid receptor antagonist, blocked the antiemetic effect of dexamethasone in the bilateral nuclei tractus solitarii. However, microinjection of dexamethasone into the unilateral nucleus tractus solitarius alone did not alter the latency of the first emetic episode or the frequency of emetic episodes induced by xylazine. Local application of dexamethasone into the area postrema had no effect on the latency of the first emetic episode or the frequency of emetic episodes induced by xylazine. These results suggest that dexamethasone exerts its central antiemetic action through an activation of the glucocorticoid receptors in the bilateral nuclei tractus solitarii in the medulla.

Animals↗
PubMed2004

Diphenidol has no actual broad antiemetic activity in dogs and ferrets.

Previous studies showed that diphenidol was effective on emetogens-induced pica, eating of non-nutritive substances, in rats, a model analogous to emesis in other species. We evaluated the actual antiemetic activity of diphenidol against four emetic stimuli in the dog and ferret, animals that possess an emetic reflex. In dogs, emetic responses to apomorphine were significantly prevented by diphenidol (3.2 mg/kg, i.v.), whereas diphenidol (3.2 mg/kg, i.v. x 2) showed a weak inhibition to the vomiting evoked by cisplatin. In ferrets, diphenidol (10 mg/kg, i.p.) exhibited a weak antiemetic activity on the emesis induced by copper sulfate and had no activity on emesis by loperamide. On the other hand, CP-122,721, a NK1-receptor antagonist, significantly reduced the emetic episodes to all four stimuli. These results suggest that the prediction of antiemetic activity of compounds in animals lacking an emetic reflex does not always correspond with actual antiemetic activity.

Animals↗