Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0027497 (nausea)
 23,468 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Successful management of pain can be accomplished in nearly all terminally ill patients. Pain must be assessed in terms of its physical, psychological and social components. Spiritual care and control of environmental factors are just as important as drug therapies. Once the cause of the pain is identified, an individualized plan of treatment can be developed. Nondrug therapies are tried first. When drugs must be used, the pain is treated by regular dosing to prevent recurrent breakthroughs--no PRN orders are used. The pain is blocked and its memory erased so that continued, uninterrupted relief is given. Drug management should provide ease of administration to maintain patient independence, unclouded and normal affect, and minimal troublesome side effects. Anticipatory treatment of expected problems with constipation and nausea should be done. By using a reproducible pain measurement scale, titration of drugs is carried out in a stepwise fashion, increasing dosage or potency until the desired effect is achieved. With multimode therapy, no patient should have to suffer the aching/agony pain cycle of terminal illness with cancer.
 ...
PMID:Pain management. 288 74

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.
 ...
PMID: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. 1176 Jan 47

As part of a randomized clinical trial that compared three different analgesic dosing regimens ( Sutters et al., 2004 ), the purpose of this study, in children who underwent tonsillectomy, was to determine whether around-the-clock (ATC) dosing of acetaminophen with codeine, compared with as-needed (PRN) dosing, increased the frequency of moderate-to-severe opioid-related side effects (i.e., daytime sedation, lightheadedness, nightmares, nausea, vomiting, and constipation) in the first 3 days after surgery. Because no differences were found in pain intensity scores and in the amount of analgesic administered between the two ATC groups (i.e., with and without coaching), for these analyses, the two groups were combined ( n = 52) and compared with the PRN group ( n = 28). Each side effect was recoded into a dichotomous response (i.e., 0 = did not have symptoms or had slight symptoms; 1 = symptoms that were moderate, severe, or very severe) to provide an adequate sample size in each cell for the statistical analyses. No differences were found in the frequency of moderate-to-severe side effects between the ATC and PRN groups at any of the postoperative assessments. The number of children who reported moderate-to-severe daytime sedation decreased over time in both the PRN ( p = .02) and ATC groups ( p = .01). Children in the ATC groups reported a statistically significant decrease over time in vomiting ( p = .001) and feeling lightheaded or dizzy ( p = .003), and a significant increase in constipation ( p = .018). Except for daytime sedation, changes, over time, in the frequency of moderate-to-severe side effects were not observed in the PRN group.
 ...
PMID:Time-contingent dosing of an opioid analgesic after tonsillectomy does not increase moderate-to-severe side effects in children. 1597 Sep 18

Methylnaltrexone is a methylated form of the mu-opioid antagonist naltrexone that blocks peripheral effects of opioids without affecting centrally mediated analgesia. The authors conducted a 3-month open-label extension trial of methylnaltrexone in patients with advanced illness and opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Following completion of a 2-week double-blind (DB) trial, 82 patients with OIC who did not respond to laxatives received subcutaneous (SC) methylnaltrexone as needed for up to 3 months. Patients received 0.15 mg/kg as a first dose, adjusted to 0.3 mg/kg or 0.075 mg/kg as needed (maximum of one dose per 24 hours). Mean laxation response (rescue-free bowel movement within 4 hours) rates (DB phase, months 1, 2, 3 open-label phase) were 45.3%, 45.5%, 57.7%, and 57.3%, respectively, for patients treated with DB methylnaltrexone and 10.8%, 48.3%, 47.6%, and 52.1%, respectively, for patients treated with DB placebo. Median time to laxation among responders was 45 minutes (range 0-4 hours) for all doses. Approximately 50% of patients reported improvement in constipation distress. Patient and investigator global clinical impression of change scores also improved. There were minimal changes in pain scores and opioid withdrawal symptoms. Adverse events included abdominal pain and nausea, mostly mild or moderate in severity. SC methylnaltrexone administered PRN (as needed) for up to 3 months continued to rapidly induce laxation in advanced illness patients with OIC.
 ...
PMID:Methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced illness: a 3-month open-label treatment extension study. 2165 61

Uncontrolled delayed nausea and vomiting remains a problem after high-dose preparative regimens used for autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Recently, aprepitant was approved for highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and, in particular, is effective for decreasing delayed emesis. To evaluate its safety and efficacy in the transplantation setting, we performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of aprepitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone in patients treated with ablative preparative regimens. Patients were randomized to receive oral aprepitant or placebo daily with oral ondansetron and dexamethasone during and for 3 days after the completion of the preparative regimen in this prospective randomized, double-blind study. The primary objective was complete response (CR) rate, defined as no emesis with no or mild nausea. Other endpoints included number of emetic episodes, nausea severity assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), the need for rescue antiemetics, and transplantation outcome, including regimen-related toxicity. One hundred eighty-one patients were randomized and 179 patients were eligible for analysis. Overall, CR rates were 81.9% for the aprepitant and 65.8% for the placebo arms (P < .001). Percentages of patients with no emesis all days were 73.3% for aprepitant and 22.5% placebo (P < .001). Mean VAS scores were 16.6 mm aprepitant and 16.9 mm placebo (NS), and there were no differences in the amount of rescue antiemetics used, regimen related toxicity, engraftment, or transplantation outcome. Aprepitant in combination with dexamethasone and ondansetron significantly decreased emesis and significant nausea, whereas not increasing RRT or affecting short-term survival but had no significant impact on the use of PRN antiemetics, or overall VAS nausea scores.
 ...
PMID:Prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with stem cell transplant: results of a prospective, randomized trial of aprepitant used with highly emetogenic preparative regimens. 2286 40