Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “DRAMAMINE”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

Comparison of marezine and dramamine in preventing symptoms of motion sickness.

BACKGROUND: The most common pharmacological agents for alleviating symptoms of motion sickness in the U.S. are over-the-counter antihistamines. Two example are dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) and cyclizine (Marezine). HYPOTHESIS: Dramamine and Marezine suppress overall motion sickness symptoms with equal effectiveness, but Dramamine affects the central nervous system (CNS), while Marezine affects the stomach directly. METHODS: This study employed a double-blind, within-subject design to compare the effectiveness of Marezine (50 mg) and Dramamine (50 mg), in preventing subjective symptoms and gastric dysrhythmias associated with motion sickness. The sedative effects of the two drugs were also compared. Electrogastrograms (EGGs) were recorded from 23 subjects during 2 counterbalanced sessions for 3 trial periods: an 8-min pre-drug baseline, an 8-min pre-rotation baseline, which began 30 min after drug ingestion, and a 16-min period of exposure to a rotating optokinetic drum. Subjects reported any subjective symptoms of motion sickness (SSMS) and drowsiness before and during induction of motion sickness. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two drug conditions for the overall mean SSMS scores. However, when the scores were divided into symptom groups, Marezine was associated with significantly lower scores than Dramamine for gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Also, Marezine was associated with significantly less drowsiness than Dramamine 30 min after ingestion. Power in both the normal (3 cpm) and tachyarrhythmia (4-9 cpm) ranges of the EGG increased significantly more during rotation compared to baseline in the Dramamine condition than in the Marezine condition. CONCLUSIONS: Marezine and Dramamine are similarly effective in preventing the overall subjective symptoms of motion sickness. While Dramamine's effectiveness may be related to its sedative properties, Marezine may work more directly on the stomach and thus be more effective in preventing gastric dysrhythmias and reports of GI symptoms.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effect of propylene glycol on the disposition of Dramamine in the rabbit.

Dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) is the 8-chlorotheophylline salt of diphenhydramine. Dramamine is commercially available as a solution containing 50 mg dimenhydrinate per ml in 50% propylene glycol/5% benzyl alcohol. Studies in which New Zealand albino female rabbits received dimenhydrinate, i.v. and/or im, revealed evidence of inhibition of drug clearance apparently due to exposure to vehicle. Following im administration of 8-chlorotheophylline to naive rabbits, peak drug levels of 420 ng/ml were attained in 60 min which declined exponentially to near baseline levels within 7 hr. Animals treated with an additional im dose 2 days later achieved blood drug levels of > 2000 ng/ml which were sustained for the duration of the experimental period. Initial i.v. administration of 8-chlorotheophylline resulted in peak concentration of about 5000 ng/ml which declined to near baseline levels within 90 min, while 8-chlorotheophylline (i.v.) blood levels in rabbits exposed to im vehicle (2 days prior) appeared to plateau around 250 ng/ml after 60 min. Acute, short-term exposure to im vehicle did not appear to elicit the altered elimination profiles. An investigation of the influence of the recommended vehicle on the bioavailability and clearance of dimenhydrinate in isolated rabbit liver microsomes revealed that vehicle at concentrations > 0.68 mg/ml significantly decreased the percent of drug metabolized. This effect was directly proportional to the concentration of vehicle added. Studies showed this effect to be due to the propylene glycol component of the vehicle.

Animals↗
PubMed2000

Antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) vs ondansetron (Zofran): a randomized, prospective trial inpatients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: The prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) is as effective as the use of ondansetron (Zofran) in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective double-blind randomized study was performed in a tertiary care referral center. METHODS: For this study, 128 American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical statuses I, II, and III patients were randomly assigned to receive either ondansetron 4 mg intravenously (IV) at $17 per dose (group 1) or dimenhydrinate 50 mg IV at $2.50 per dose (group 2) before induction of anesthesia. The end points evaluated were frequency of PONV, need for rescue antiemetics, need for overnight hospitalization secondary to persistent nausea and vomiting, and frequency PONV 24 h after discharge. RESULTS: Chi-square tests and student's t-test were used to determine the significance of differences among groups. Of the 128 patients enrolled in this study, 20 were excluded: 15 patients received an additional antiemetic preoperative; 4 were converted to open cholecystectomies; and 1 procedure was aborted due to carcinomatosis. Of the 108 remaining participants, 50 received ondansetron (group 1) and 58 received dimenhydrinate (group 2). Both groups were well matched for demographics including gender, ASA class, and history of motion sickness. The need for rescue antiemetics occurred in 34% of group 1 and 29% of Group 2 (p = 0.376), postoperative vomiting in 6% of group 1 and 12% of group 2 (p = 0.228), and postoperative nausea in 42% of group 1 and 34% of group 2 (p = 0.422). One group 1 patient and two group 2 patients required overnight hospitalization for persistent nausea, a difference that was not significant. Rates of PONV 24 h after discharge were similar between groups 1 and 2 (10% vs 14%, p = 0.397 and 2% vs 5%, p = 0.375, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate is as effective as the use of ondansetron in preventing PONV in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dimenhydrinate is the preferred drug because it is less expensive. With more than 500, 000 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed in the United States each year, the potential drug cost savings from the prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate instead of ondansetron exceed $7.25 million per year.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed1979

Effects of aspirin and dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) on visual processes.

1. The effect of three doses of either aspirin (1280 mg each) or dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) (100 mg each) in an 8 h period on visual processes was investigated double-blind on sixteen volunteer subjects. 2. Tests included night-vision, colour-discrimination, stereoacuity and stereopsis, reaction-time, pupil size, eye-movements, visual evoked cortical potentials, electroencephalographs, a dial-reading task, and a test of texture discrimination. 3. Both drugs affected colour discrimination, and dimenhydrinate degraded night-vision, reaction-time, and stereopsis. 4. The effect of aspirin was minor, but the impairments produced by dimenhydrinate appear to be of practical importance.

Adult↗
PubMed1976

The acute effects of Dramamine on uterine contractability during labor.

The acute effects of intravenously administered Dramamine or placebo on uterine activity were studied in 32 primigravida patients during the active phase of spontaneous labor. Uterine activity was monitored by invasive quantitative techniques. The results showed no change in uterine activity in the placebo group, but there was a significant increase in activity in the Dramamaine-treated women. The increased activity was primarily the result of an increase in the frequency of contractions.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗