Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Ondansetron”

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
PubMed1996

A multicentre, double-blind study comparing placebo, ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone for the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. Ondansetron Delayed Emesis Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral ondansetron, given alone or in combination with dexamethasone in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. A total of 640 chemotherapy-naïve patients received ondansetron 8 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. for the control of acute emesis prior to cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) on day 1. Patients who were not rescued or withdrawn on day 1 were to be randomised 24 hours after the start of cisplatin administration to one of four groups; group I placebo oral (p.o.), twice daily (bd) on days 2-6 (n = 125); group II ondansetron (8 mg p.o. bd) on days 2/3 followed by placebo (p.o. bd) on days 4-6 (n = 199); group III ondansetron (8 mg p.o. bd) on days 2-6 (n = 214); group IV ondansetron (8 mg p.o. bd) plus dexamethasone (4 mg p.o. bd) on days 2-6 (n = 66). RESULTS: On day 1, 81% of patients had complete control of acute emesis, with 68% having no emesis and no nausea. Over days 2/3 and over days 2-6, significantly more patients receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV) reported no emesis and no nausea (49% and 45%, respectively) compared to ondansetron alone (32% and 27%, respectively) or placebo (group I; 33% and 27%, respectively; P < 0.05 for all pairwise comparisons). There were no significant differences in the control of emesis over days 2/3, where 61% of patients had complete emetic control (0 emetic episodes) with ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV), 54% with ondansetron (groups II + III) and 49% with placebo (group I). In the distribution of nausea grades, ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV) was significantly superior to ondansetron (groups II + III); P = 0.037) and placebo (group I; P = 0.013) over days 2/3. Over days 2-6 there were no significant differences in the control of emesis, however a comparison of the distribution of nausea grades over days 2-6 showed ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV) to be significantly superior to ondansetron (group III; P = 0.043) and placebo (group I; P = 0.024). All treatments were well tolerated and no unexpected drug-related adverse events were reported. There were no differences in the overall incidence of adverse events between the active treatment groups or placebo. Constipation and headache, recognised side effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, were the most commonly reported adverse events with the incidence of constipation with ondansetron alone (group III) being significantly greater than with over days 2-6 (14% vs. 6%; P = 0.030). CONCLUSION: In contrast to some previous investigations, in this study, ondansetron alone appears to have a minor role in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis and nausea. In conclusion, the combination of oral ondansetron plus dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron and to placebo.

Adult↗
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↗
PubMed1999

Comparison of an orally disintegrating ondansetron tablet with the conventional ondansetron tablet for cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in cancer patients: a multicenter, double-masked study. Ondansetron Orally Disintegrating Tablet Emesis Study Group.

A total of 427 cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide chemotherapy participated in this multicenter, double-masked, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized study comparing the antiemetic efficacy and safety of an 8-mg conventional ondansetron tablet (OT, n = 212) taken twice daily with an 8-mg orally disintegrating ondansetron tablet (ODT, n = 215) taken twice daily for 3 days. In the primary efficacy analysis, complete or major control of emesis (0 to 2 emetic episodes) between days 1 and 3 was seen in 80% of OT and 78% of ODT patients. The 90% confidence interval for the differences between treatments was -8.6% to 4.4% (defined interval of equivalence, +/-15%), showing that the formulations were equivalent. In the secondary efficacy analysis, no significant differences were observed in the rates of complete control of emesis (no episodes of emesis) over 3 days (63% and 64% of the respective groups) and on day 1 (84% and 81%, respectively) and in the complete control of nausea over 3 days (37% and 43%, respectively) and on day 1 (59% and 61% of patients, respectively). The taste of ODT was acceptable to the majority of patients (89%) who received it. OT and ODT were both well tolerated. Thus 8 mg ODT twice daily represents a palatable, well-tolerated, and effective antiemetic treatment for the control of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis and nausea and provides equivalent treatment to OT 8 mg twice daily.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1994

Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron alone in the prevention of emesis in chemotherapy-naive and previously treated patients. Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK).

BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized, double-blind study assessed whether the addition of dexamethasone to ondansetron leads to improved control of chemotherapy--induced emesis, both in patients undergoing their first course of highly emetogenic chemotherapy and in chemotherapy-pretreated patients refractory to standard anti-emetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either 20 mg dexamethasone as an intravenous infusion or placebo plus ondansetron 8 mg 15 minutes prior to and 4 and 8 hours after the administration of chemotherapy. According to the randomisation code patients received from day 2 to day 5 either ondansetron 8 mg p.o. + placebo p.o., three times daily, or ondansetron 8 mg p.o. + dexamethasone 4 mg p.o., three times daily. Patients undergoing multiple-day treatment received intravenous study treatment on the days of chemotherapy and thereafter oral treatment as outlined above. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients were entered into the study. Of these, 207 were evaluable (111 previously-untreated and 96 previously-treated patients). In the chemotherapy-naive patients the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone was significantly superior to ondansetron plus placebo in protecting the patients completely from emesis (retching and vomiting) (81% versus 64%, p = 0.04). The mean number of vomiting episodes was significantly lower in the ondansetron-plus-dexamethasone-treated patients than in those receiving ondansetron plus placebo (0.8 versus 2.1, p = 0.03). In this group of patients there was significantly superior protection from emesis on the second day (p-value = 0.04), and a trend towards a better protection on the third and fourth days. On each day the active combination offered better protection from nausea with an approximately 20% difference in favor of ondansetron plus dexamethasone. In the group of established vomiters the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethansone was superior to ondansetron plus placebo in protecting the patients from acute emesis, with 70% versus 48% of the patients being completely protected (p = 0.03). The mean number of vomiting episodes was significantly lower in the ondansetron-plus-dexamethasone-treated-patients than in those receiving ondansetron plus placebo (0.9 versus 2.1, p = 0.02). In the ondansetron-plus-dexamethasone arm 55% of the patients had complete protection from nausea, retching and vomiting compared to 35% in the ondansetron-plus-placebo-treated group (p = 0.05). Overall 22% of the patients (20% in the ondansetron-plus-placebo and 25% in the ondansetron-plus-dexamethasone arm) experienced at least one, usually mild, adverse event. More patients in the ondansetron-plus-dexamethasone arm complained of epigastric pain or burning (8/101 versus 4/112, p-value = 0.16). The difference in patients reporting constipation (6/101 versus 0/112) was highly significant at a p-value of 0.008. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of dexamethasone plus ondansetron is more effective in protecting chemotherapy-naive patients undergoing their first course of highly emetogenic chemotherapy with cisplatin and chemotherapy-pretreated patients refractory to standard antiemetics from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared to ondansetron plus placebo.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A randomized open-label parallel-group study comparing ondansetron with ondansetron plus dexamethasone in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving high-dose epirubicin. A Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: The purpose of this multicenter randomized, open-label, parallel-group study was to assess whether the addition of low-dose dexamethasone to ondansetron results in improved control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in patients undergoing first-line chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin. METHODS & STUDY DESIGN: Patients were randomized to receive either 24 mg of ondansetron or 24 mg of ondansetron plus 8 mg of dexamethasone administered as an intravenous infusion 30 minutes prior to administration of chemotherapy. Both groups of patients received 8 mg of ondansetron given orally from day 2 to 5 two times daily. Fifty-three patients received ondansetron and 50 received ondansetron plus dexamethasone. The patients recorded nausea and the number of vomits and retches daily on diary cards. RESULTS: Significantly more patients in the ondansetron plus dexamethasone group experienced neither vomiting nor retching during the first day of the first course of chemotherapy compared to those receiving ondansetron alone (79.6% vs 53.8%, P = 0.0062). Furthermore, there was a trend in favor of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the control of nausea. There was no statistically significant difference between ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron alone in protecting patients from emesis between days 2 and 5 of the first course of chemotherapy (66.7% vs 62.7%, P = 0.68). This was probably due to the small sample size. Ondansetron was well tolerated, with 15 patients (15%) reporting adverse events such as headache or constipation. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that ondansetron given intravenously in combination with dexamethasone is more effective than ondansetron alone in the control of acute emesis in patients undergoing their first course of chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin. No difference between the regimens was found with regard to nausea and delayed emesis control.

Antibiotics, Antineoplastic↗
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

Comparison of ondansetron with ondansetron plus dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

BACKGROUND: Children undergoing strabismus surgery have a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is effective in reducing its incidence in many surgical procedures. PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in children undergoing strabismus surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind study of 100 children 2 to 12 years old, in American Society of Anesthesiologists classes I and II, and undergoing strabismus surgery with the use of general anesthesia was conducted. Children received normal saline (n = 31), an injection of 0.15 mg/kg of ondansetron (n = 39), or an injection of 0.15 mg/kg of ondansetron and 0.2 mg/kg of dexamethasone (n = 30). Postoperatively, children were monitored for the number of emetic episodes, Steward recovery score, and need for a rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: The incidence of vomiting was 64.5% in the group receiving saline, 33.3% in the group receiving ondansetron, and 10% in the group receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone (P < .001). The incidence of early vomiting (0 to 4 hours) and the need for a rescue antiemetic were significantly lower in the groups receiving ondansetron (P < .01) and ondansetron plus dexamethasone (P < .001) compared with the group receiving saline; however, the former two groups were comparable in this regard. In the late postoperative period (4 to 24 hours), the incidence of vomiting and the need for a rescue antiemetic were not significantly different among the groups. Vomiting was significantly more severe in the group receiving saline compared with the groups receiving ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone at all times (P < .01 and P < .001, respectively). However, the latter two groups were comparable in this regard. CONCLUSION: Ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone were equally effective in preventing early nausea and vomiting in children following strabismus surgery. However, the efficacy of dexamethasone in late postoperative nausea and vomiting could not be demonstrated. Further studies with a large population and different doses of dexamethasone may be warranted.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed2001

Double-blind comparative trial of oral ondansetron versus oral granisetron versus IV ondansetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic preparative regimens prior to stem cell transplantation.

The optimal management of transplantation preparative regimen-induced nausea and vomiting remains unknown. We conducted a Phase III double-blind study to determine the efficacy and costs of oral ondansetron versus oral granisetron versus IV ondansetron and PRN rescue antiemetics for the prevention/control of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy prior to stem cell transplantation. One hundred two patients were randomized to receive either 8 mg PO ondansetron every 8 hours, 1 mg PO granisetron every 12 hours, or 32 mg IV ondansetron every 24 hours plus 10 mg IV dexamethasone daily during and 1 day after the various preparative regimens. Study arms were compared in terms of emetic episodes, subjective nausea, amount and cost of rescue antiemetics used, and total costs. Response was defined as complete response (CR), no emesis with no or mild nausea and no rescue antiemetics; major response (MR), 1 episode of emesis or moderate nausea with or without rescue antiemetics; and major efficacy (ME), CR + MR. Subjective nausea was assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) with 0 = no nausea. Ninety-six patients completed the study; the trial was analyzed according to intention-to-treat. Overall CR rates were: 48% for oral ondansetron, 47% for oral granisetron, and 49% for IV ondansetron. Overall ME rates were 82% for oral ondansetron, 84% for oral granisetron, and 81% for IV ondansetron. Mean VAS scores were 32 for oral ondansetron, 32 for oral granisetron, and 27 for IV ondansetron. None of the differences were statistically significant. A cost analysis revealed significant differences among all arms (P = .0001, all comparisons). All 3 regimens had similar efficacy in this BMT population; oral ondansetron was the most cost-effective.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2001

Ondansetron plus metopimazine compared with ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of ondansetron plus metopimazine with ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone during nine cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 221 women with stage I or II breast cancer and no prior chemotherapy who were scheduled to receive adjuvant chemotherapy with intravenous cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil and methotrexate or cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil given every 3 weeks were included in a double-blind parallel trial. Patients were randomized to 3 days of oral treatment with ondansetron plus metopimazine, or ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone. Ondansetron was administered as 8 mg bid, metopimazine as 30 mg qid, and prednisolone as 50 mg qd. RESULTS: In all, 216 patients (97.7%) were assessable for efficacy during a total of 1,462 cycles. In cycle 1, complete protection from emetic episodes/nausea day 1, days 2 through 5, and days 1 through 5 was achieved in 84.4%/51.4%, 82.6%/41.3%, and 79.8%/34.9% with ondansetron plus metopimazine and in 84.1%/57.0%, 86.8%/53.8%, and 79.4%/43.0% with ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone, respectively. In cycle 1, the three-drug combination was superior only in the treatment of nausea on days 2 through 5 (P =.0497). The cumulative emetic protection rate after nine cycles was 0.52 with ondansetron plus metopimazine and 0.75 with ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone. Side effects were generally few and mild with both treatments. Constipation was the only adverse event significantly more frequent with the three-drug combination (P =.029). CONCLUSION: Ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone is highly effective and superior to ondansetron plus metopimazine during nine cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Comparison of ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis during cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.

Ondansetron, a serotonin antagonist, is effective in controlling the emesis associated with cancer chemotherapy; however, emesis in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin is poorly controlled by ondansetron alone. Dexamethasone is an effective antiemetic with no known interaction with serotonin receptors and was thus chosen for study in combination with ondansetron. 31 patients (30 male, 1 female; median age 28.5 years, range 18-49) receiving a 4-day course of a chemotherapy regimen containing cisplatin (100-120 mg/m2) for metastatic germ-cell tumours were entered in a randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial comparing oral ondansetron plus placebo with oral ondansetron plus dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis. Ondansetron (8 mg every 8 h) was given to all patients for 8 days from the start of chemotherapy. Patients were given 8 mg of dexamethasone or placebo every 8 h starting 2 h before cisplatin (on day 4) and continuing for six doses (ie, for 2 days only). A second course of chemotherapy began 14 days after the start of the first, during which patients crossed over to the alternative antiemetic regimen. Results were available from 27 patients. In the 24-48 h after cisplatin 78% of patients taking ondansetron plus dexamethasone reported complete or major control of emesis compared with 30% of those taking ondansetron plus placebo (p = 0.001). Cross-over analysis showed a significant advantage for ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the control of nausea (p = 0.013) and emesis (p less than 0.001) over the 8-day study. 24 of 26 patients expressed a preference for the combination therapy (p less than 0.001). Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is effective antiemetic prophylaxis for high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy, has few side effects, and is active when given orally.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Ondansetron compared with granisetron in the prophylaxis of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in out-patients: a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, parallel-group study. Emesis Study Group for Ondansetron and Granisetron in Breast Cancer Patients.

This is the first double-blind clinical trial in a homogenous group of patients to compare the recommended dosing schedules of ondansetron and granisetron in the control of prolonged emesis after cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (48% CMF, 35% EC) for breast cancer. A total of 514 patients were recruited. Of the 488 patients included in the intent-to-treat analyses, 167 were randomised to group A [8 mg ondansetron intravenously (i.v.) + placebo by mouth (p.o.) before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. twice daily (b.d.) until day 5], 155 to group B (placebo i,.v. + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. b.d. until day 5) and 166 to group C (3 mg granisetron i.v. + placebo p.o. before chemotherapy + placebo p.o. b.d. until day 5). On study day 1, the groups were comparable with respect to the proportion of patients experiencing up to 2 emetic episodes (group A: 89%; B: 86%; C: 91%) and in the severity of nausea (no nausea; group A: 51%; B: 55%; C: 54%). Over the 5-day study period significantly more patients were rescued or withdrawn due to lack of response after the granisetron regimen (26%) than after the i.v. + p.o. ondansetron regimen (11%; p < 0.001). Since there was no difference in these parameters on day 1, this reflects differences on days 2-5 and was also reflected in the all-oral ondansetron group over this period (group B: 12%; C: 22% on days 2-5). A significant difference in the severity of nausea after i.v. and p.o. ondansetron compared with granisetron was also observed over the 5-day study period (p = 0.009). This was reflected in a numerical difference in favour of the all-p.o. ondansetron regimen compared with the granisetron regimen (no nausea; group A: 33%; B: 34%; C: 25%). Again these differences reflected differences in nausea control on days 2-5, since no differences were observed on day 1. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for prognostic factors also revealed a significant difference (p = 0.011) in favour of the i.v. + ondansetron group compared with the granisetron group when complete plus major response was compared over days 2-5. No significant differences in the safety profiles of the three treatment groups were observed. There were no severe or unexpected drug-related adverse events and as is well established for the serotonin receptor antagonists, mild constipation (mean 8%) and mild headache (mean 8%) were most commonly reported.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

A comparison of dexamethasone, ondansetron, and dexamethasone plus ondansetron as prophylactic antiemetic and antipruritic therapy in patients receiving intrathecal morphine for major orthopedic surgery.

UNLABELLED: In a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial, we evaluated the efficacy of IV (a) dexamethasone 8 mg, (b) ondansetron 8 mg, and (c) dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg for the prevention of postoperative nausea, vomiting (PONV), and pruritus in 130 (ASA physical status I to III) patients undergoing elective major orthopedic surgery after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine and intrathecal morphine. After spinal anesthesia, patients were randomized to one of three groups. Failure of PONV prophylaxis in the 24-h postoperative period occurred more frequently in patients who received dexamethasone alone (29 of 40; 73%) compared with those who received either ondansetron alone (23 of 47; 49%) (P = 0.02) or dexamethasone plus ondansetron together (19 of 43; 44%)(P = 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of failure of prophylaxis of pruritus (70%, 72%, and 70% in dexamethasone 8 mg, ondansetron 8 mg, and dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg, respectively) (P > 0.1) in the 24-h postoperative period. We conclude that the administration of dexamethasone 8 mg with ondansetron 4 mg has no added benefit compared with ondansetron 8 mg alone in the prophylaxis of PONV and pruritus. IMPLICATIONS: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pruritus are common side effects after spinal opioid administration. In this study, dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg was as effective as ondansetron 8 mg. The administration of dexamethasone alone was associated with a frequent incidence of PONV, demonstrating a lack of efficacy. This has important cost implications.

Aged↗
PubMed1994

Ondansetron compared with ondansetron plus metoclopramide in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis.

To determine the contribution of metoclopramide to the efficacy of ondansetron in control of cisplatin-induced emesis, ondansetron was compared with ondansetron plus metoclopramide for antiemetic efficacy in a randomized double-blind trial. Enrolled 66 patients were treated with cisplatin(60mg/m2) in combination with etoposide, flourouracil, or vinblastine, and randomized to receive either ondansetron alone or ondansetron plus metoclopramide. Sixty patients were evaluable. Complete or major control of acute emesis was achieved in 96.6% (29/30) of patients given ondansetron plus metoclopramide and in 80% (24/30) receiving ondansetron alone, with no statistical significance (P = 0.07). However, delayed emesis (days 2-6) was better controlled by combination therapy than by ondansetron alone with 22 of 30 (73.4%) and 11 of 30 (36.7%), respectively (P = 0.03). No major drug-related side effects were observed. These results suggest that ondansetron plus metoclopramide is superior to ondansetron alone in the control of cisplatin induced delayed emesis without significant side effects.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Comparison of ondansetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron plus dexamethasone and placebo in the prevention of nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic tubal ligation.

Laparoscopic tubal ligation is associated with an appreciably high rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of ondansetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron plus dexamethasone or placebo in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients after laparoscopic tubal ligation. In a prospective, randomised, double blind placebo controlled trial, 160 ASA I-II females received one of four regimens; ondansetron 4 mg, dexamethasone 8 mg, ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg or placebo (n=40 each) intravenously immediately before induction of anaesthesia. Patients were then observed for 24 hours postoperatively. The incidence of emetic episodes in the ondansetron with dexamethasone group was lower than in the placebo (p<0.001) and ondansetron (p=0.091) and dexamethasone (p=0.143) groups. A complete response (as no postoperative nausea and vomiting) was achieved in 60% of patients given ondansetron, 63% of the patients given dexamethasone, 78% of patients given ondansetron with dexamethasone and 37% of patients received placebo. The prophylactic use of ondansetron with dexamethasone is more effective in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed1999

Comparison of ondansetron with ondansetron and dexamethasone in prevention of PONV in diagnostic laparoscopy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of ondansetron-dexamethasone combination with ondansetron alone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: This double blind, randomized study was carried out in 51 female patients, aged 20-40 yr, ASA-1 physical status undergoing gynecological diagnostic laparoscopy. Group 1 (n = 26) received 4 mg ondansetron i.v. and group 2 (n = 25) received a combination of 4 mg ondansetron and 8 mg dexamethasone i.v. soon after induction of anesthesia. Postoperatively patients were assessed hourly for four hours and then at 24 hr for nausea, vomiting, pain and post anesthetic discharge score. Vomiting occurring up to two hours was considered early vomiting and from 2-24 hr as delayed vomiting. RESULTS: The postoperative nausea score was lower in patients receiving a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone (3.76) than ondansetron alone (4.38) at 0 hr (P < 0.01), 2 hr (P < 0.05) and 24 hr (P < 0.01). In group 1, 38.5% of patients had a nausea score of > or = 5 (major nausea) compared with only 12% of patients in group 2 (P < 0.025). The overall incidence of vomiting was greater in group 1 (35%) than in group 2 (8%) (P < 0.05). The combination group showed better control of delayed vomiting compared with the ondansetron group (4% vs 35%) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone provides adequate control of PONV, with delayed PONV being better controlled than early PONV.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Ondansetron plus metopimazine compared with ondansetron alone in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine3) antagonists have improved the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, but their ability to prevent delayed nausea and vomiting seems less pronounced. The results of a preliminary open trial suggested that the addition of a selective dopamine D2 antagonist could improve the antiemetic efficacy of the serotonin antagonists. In a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial, we compared oral treatment with ondansetron (8 mg twice a day) and the dopamine D2 antagonist metopimazine (30 mg four times a day) with treatment with ondansetron alone for three days in 30 patients who had vomited during the previous cycle of chemotherapy. All the patients received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. RESULTS: Combination treatment with ondansetron and metopimazine significantly reduced the incidence of acute (P = 0.006) and delayed (P = 0.02) nausea and acute (P = 0.02) and delayed (P = 0.006) vomiting, as compared with treatment with ondansetron alone. Patients had significantly fewer days of nausea (P = 0.03) and vomiting (P = 0.003) if they received combination therapy. Sixty-seven percent of the patients preferred ondansetron and metopimazine, and 33 percent favored ondansetron alone (P = 0.10). Adverse reactions were mild with both regimens. With the exception of constipation, which was reported more frequently with combination therapy (P = 0.03), there were no significant differences in adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron plus metopimazine is a highly effective and safe antiemetic regimen that is markedly superior to treatment with ondansetron alone in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Efficacy of oral ondansetron, a selective antagonist of 5-HT3 receptors, in the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapies. Ondansetron Study Group.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral ondansetron, a selective antagonist of 5-HT3 receptors, for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy (> 500 mg/m2). In this trial 324 chemotherapy-naive cancer patients, mostly females with breast cancer, were randomized to receive either placebo or ondansetron 1 mg, 4 mg, or 8 mg three times per day for 3 days. There were no differences in the doses of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and methotrexate between the study groups. All ondansetron dose groups were superior to the placebo control group (p < .001) for all measured efficacy parameters (complete response, number of emetic episodes, therapeutic failures, need of rescue antiemetics). No emetic episodes were reported by 9 (12%), 29 (37%), 48 (64%), and 47 (66%) of the placebo patients and the 1-mg, 4-mg, and 8-mg dose of ondansetron patients, respectively. Nausea was reduced and food intake was improved for all the ondansetron groups. A more severe emetic response was observed in patients receiving cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin combination chemotherapy. In this subgroup of patients, 66%, 38%, 25%, and 16% of the placebo group and 1-mg, 4-mg, and 8-mg ondansetron patients, respectively, required rescue antiemetics. No significant toxic effects were observed in this study. A higher incidence of headaches and gastrointestinal complaints (constipation, abdominal pain) were observed in the three ondansetron groups. In conclusion, oral ondansetron is an effective and well-tolerated antiemetic treatment in the management of cancer patients receiving ambulatory cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. These results support the view that serotonin and 5-HT3 receptors play an important role in cyclophosphamide-induced nausea and vomiting.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1998

Low-dose ondansetron with dexamethasone more effectively decreases vomiting after strabismus surgery in children than does high-dose ondansetron.

BACKGROUND: Ondansetron and dexamethasone have been observed to decrease the incidence of vomiting by children after general anesthesia. This study compared the effect of high-dose (150 microg/kg) ondansetron with low-dose (50 microg/kg) ondansetron plus 150 microg/kg dexamethasone on the incidence of vomiting after strabismus in children. METHODS: This study had a double-blind, blocked, stratified, randomized design. With parental consent and Hospital Ethics Committee approval, healthy children aged 2-14 yr who were undergoing elective strabismus surgery were studied. Anesthesia was induced intravenously with propofol or by inhalation with halothane and nitrous oxide. Patients in the high-dose group were given placebo plus 150 microg/kg (maximum dose, 8 mg) of ondansetron intravenously, whereas patients in the low-dose group were given 150 microg/kg dexamethasone (maximum dose, 8 mg) and 50 microg/kg ondansetron intravenously in a double-blind manner. Anesthesia was maintained with halothane and nitrous oxide. All incidences of vomiting occurring as long as 24 h after anesthesia were recorded. RESULTS: Three of the 200 patients enrolled in the study were excluded from data analysis. The groups were similar with respect to demographic data and potential confounding variables. Patients vomited from 0-12 times. The low-dose ondansetron plus dexamethasone group had a lower incidence of vomiting, 9% (95% CI = 4-17%) versus 28% (95% CI = 20-38%; P < 0.001). Only 1% of the patients in the low-dose ondansetron plus dexamethasone group vomited while in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose ondansetron plus dexamethasone is an effective prophylactic antiemetic combination for children undergoing strabismus surgery.

Antiemetics↗