Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts: Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound   Target Concepts: Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound

---

Query: UMLS:C0027497 (nausea)
23,468 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

The aim of the study was to verify whether the combination of an antiserotoninergic, metoclopramide, and a steroid could improve the complete control (CC) of delayed emesis, a contraversial issue, 105 patients undergoing highly-emetogenic chemotherapy, receiving Ondansetron (O) 8 mg + Dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. for the prevention of acute emesis, were randomly treated p.o for three further days with a) Metoclopramide 10 mg x 3 b) the same as a) + Methylprednisolone 4 mg c) the same as b) + O 8 mg x 3. CC (acute+delayed emesis) over three cycles was: a) 0.b) 12.5%, c) 38.5% (p = 0.02). Days with nausea/vomiting: 59%, 51%, 29.7% of the total observed period, respectively (b vs c p = 0.0000). CC of acute emesis was similar in the first cycle (about 85%), remained unchanged in the following cycles (c) and decreased to 30% and 68% in the third cycle (a and b) (p = 0.01). The three drug combination significantly improved complete control of acute and delayed emesis over successive chemotherapy cycles.
...
PMID:The combination of metoclopramide, methylprednisolone and ondansetron against antiblastic-delayed emesis: a randomised phase II study. 913 96

Ondansetron was the first of several selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) antagonists to be available as an antiemetic. Its uses in the setting of highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and radiotherapy are well established. Ondansetron has also been used to manage nausea and vomiting in other patients. We report a retrospective analysis of its use in all 16 patients who were commenced on ondansetron after admission to our institution for nausea and/or vomiting over a 4-year period. Nine patients had advanced human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), and seven had malignancy. These patients were not undergoing disease-modifying treatment and had inadequate responses to therapeutic doses of standard antiemetics, used either singly or in combination. Responses were independently reviewed and graded by two investigators. Response was judged at 48 hr after commencing therapy. Potential causes of nausea were also reviewed. Overall, 13 of 16 [81%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 54%-96%] derived benefit. Twelve of 15 patients (80%) with nausea had a demonstrable improvement, and ten of 14 patients (71%) with vomiting also improved. Eight of ten patients (80%) admitted with nausea and/or vomiting as one of their presenting problems had the symptom controlled within 48 hr of ondansetron therapy. Treatment with ondansetron was well tolerated, onset of action was rapid, and response rates were high and sustained over time. Seven of the 16 patients continued ondansetron therapy for more than 10 days. With minimal reductions in inpatient bed stays, the total costs of ondansetron could be met while at the same time better supporting patients remaining in the community.
...
PMID:Use of ondansetron in palliative medicine. 918 36

In the past few years important progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has been made mainly thanks to the introduction of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in clinical practice (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron). In the prevention of acute emesis induced by cisplatin, an intravenous combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus single dose dexamethasone (20 mg) should be considered the treatment of choice. This is also the case in the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (intravenous cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, epirubicin, carboplatin, used alone or in combination), but high and repeated doses of dexamethasone should be used (8 mg intravenously plus 4 mg orally every 6 hours for four doses starting contemporarily to chemotherapy administration). Several-well conducted double-blind comparative studies among intravenously administered 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have been carried out. Almost all showed that they have identical antiemetic activity and tolerability. Therefore, the choice among 5-HT3 receptor antagonists should be based only on their acquisition cost in each country. In the prevention of delayed emesis (from day 2 to day 4) induced by cisplatin oral metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg or 20 mg every 6 hours for four doses daily) and oral ondansetron (8 mg twice daily), both combined with dexamethasone, showed similar antiemetic efficacy. Metoclopramide plus dexamethasone should be considered the antiemetic regimen of choice due to its lower cost. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is a valid alternative regimen that should be preferred in patients who not tolerate metoclopramide and in patients who suffer from acute vomiting. In the prevention of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy oral dexamethasone or oral ondansetron showed a good antiemetic efficacy, but the results from a recently published study seem suggest the necessity to treat only patients who present acute vomiting or moderate-severe nausea. In fact, patients obtaining complete protection from vomiting and nausea (or at most mild acute nausea) have a very low incidence of delayed emesis.
...
PMID:[Recent improvements in antiemetic therapy]. 923 27

The anti-emetic efficacy of a combination of ondansetron 8 mg with either droperidol 0.75 mg or 1.25 mg given prophylactically was studied in a randomised blinded trial of 94 female inpatients with a previous history of postoperative nausea and vomiting and scheduled to have laparoscopic surgery. A standardised general anaesthetic technique was used for all patients. The mean estimated risk of postoperative sickness according to predictive patient characteristics was 65% for both treatment groups. During the 24 h study period, the proportion of patients with nausea was similar (35%) in both groups, and vomiting occurred in 16% and 14% of the patients in the droperidol 0.75 mg and 1.25 mg groups, respectively. No serious adverse events were observed. Ondansetron in combination with droperidol 0.75 mg resulted in less drowsiness than in combination with 1.25 mg (p = 0.03). In conclusion, a prophylactic combination treatment of ondansetron 8 mg with a small dose of droperidol was clinically effective and well tolerated for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery in patients with a high probability of nausea and vomiting.
...
PMID:The anti-emetic efficacy of a combination of ondansetron and droperidol. 961 23

We have studied 746 males and females undergoing general anaesthesia for any type of surgical procedure in a double-blind, controlled, randomized study. After experiencing at least one nausea and/or one emetic episode in the 6 h after recovery from anaesthesia, patients received either ondansetron 4 mg i.v. or metoclopramide 10 mg i.v. Patients were observed for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for 24 h after drug administration. Complete control of PONV was achieved more frequently in the ondansetron-treated patients compared with the metoclopramide-treated patients during the 24-h period (59% vs 41% (P < 0.001) and 44% vs 34% (P = 0.006) for emetic episodes and nausea, respectively). Furthermore, ondansetron was associated with greater patient satisfaction than metoclopramide (P < 0.001) with 49% and 32% of patients, respectively, very satisfied. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in the ondansetron (7%) and metoclopramide (8%) groups. Ondansetron was as well tolerated and more effective than metoclopramide for all assessment criteria in the treatment of established PONV.
...
PMID:Ondansetron compared with metoclopramide in the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting. The French Ondansetron Study Group. 962 48

Lower hemibody radiotherapy is an effective palliative treatment for patients with wide-spread bone metastases, but is frequently associated with the unpleasant side effects of nausea and vomiting. Patients often require admission to hospital for at least an overnight stay, with its inevitable costs. This study has investigated the clinical efficacy and safety profile of ondansetron, a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, and compared it to a standard antiemetic combination, chlorpromazine and dexamethasone. Sixty-six patients were randomised to receive antiemetic prophylaxis with either oral ondansetron or a combination of chlorpromazine and dexamethasone (33 patients in each arm): 60 were treated with lower abdominal radiotherapy (8 Gy mid-plane dose) and 6 with radiotherapy to the upper lumbar spine (12.5 Gy incident dose). Patients were assessed for severity of nausea and vomiting and for whether they would use the same antiemetic again. Quality of life was assessed using the Functional Living Index Cancer (FLIC) and Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) quality-of-life questionnaires. A detailed cost-benefit analysis was also performed. Ondansetron scored highly as an antiemetic, being significantly better at controlling emesis on all four study days (P < 0.001) and significantly better at controlling nausea on day 1 (P < 0.001) than the standard combination of chlorpromazine and dexamethasone. Quality of life was better in the ondansetron-treated group, and ondansetron was found to be safe with no significant adverse effects. As a result, 98% of patients and investigators would use ondansetron again. Cost-benefit analysis revealed that, when complete control of emesis is the aim, ondansetron is not unduly expensive compared to the standard antiemetic regimen. As ondansetron was clearly effective in patients receiving hemibody irradiation it seems it would be prudent to adopt it for use in such patients routinely. The use of ondansetron would allow them to be treated as outpatients, with the attendant financial and psychosocial benefits of such an approach.
...
PMID:Ondansetron versus a chlorpromazine and dexamethasone combination for the prevention of nausea and vomiting: a prospective, randomised study to assess efficacy, cost effectiveness and quality of life following single-fraction radiotherapy. 940 64

Peri-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), remain a considerable problem. Ondansetron is being promoted currently as the drug of choice for the prevention and treatment of PONV. Experiments to investigate efficacy of ondansetron in PONV have been made with placebo or single doses of other drugs, e.g. metoclopramide, and often with different anaesthetic regimes with different emetic potential. This study investigated the relative benefits, in the prevention of PONV, of ondansetron compared with metoclopramide used at a dose higher than used in previous studies. Ninety-six patients undergoing minor gynaecological surgery were randomized to receive either ondansetron 4 mg or metoclopramide 0.4 mg kg-1. The patients were then assessed in the recovery room, in the day ward prior to discharge and the following day for the occurrence of PONV. Emetic symptoms occurred in similar proportions of patients who received ondansetron and metoclopramide. Nausea scores were similar between the groups in the recovery ward and 24-h follow-ups but there were higher post-operative nausea scores in the ondansetron group in the day ward (P = 0.001). There were no significant side effects due to either drug. We conclude that moderate dose metoclopramide is an effective alternative to ondansetron in the control of PONV.
...
PMID:Ondansetron is not superior to moderate dose metoclopramide in the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting after minor gynaecological surgery. 946 96

Ondansetron 4 mg was compared with metoclopramide 10 mg for prevention of post-operative nausea and emesis in in-patients undergoing major gynaecological surgery in this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. A total of 1044 patients received a single intravenous (i.v.) injection of study medication immediately before induction of anaesthesia. Nausea and emesis were assessed over the 24 h post-operative period. Significantly more patients who received ondansetron experienced no emetic episodes (44%) compared with those who received metoclopramide (37%, P = 0.049) or placebo (25%, P < 0.001). No nausea was experienced by significantly more patients who received ondansetron (32%) than with patients who received metoclopramide (24%, P = 0.009) or placebo (16%, P < 0.001). In addition, fewer emetic episodes, less severe nausea and a reduced need for rescue antiemetics were also observed with ondansetron (P < 0.05 vs. metoclopramide and placebo). Metoclopramide and placebo-treated patients were also 1.5 times (95% Cl 1.5-4.2) and 2.5 times (95% Cl 1.1-2.0) more likely, respectively, to experience nausea post-operatively. Overall, ondansetron was the most effective antiemetic in this patient population.
...
PMID:International, multicentre, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness of ondansetron vs. metoclopramide in the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting. 952 45

In this placebo controlled, double blind multicentre study, the efficacy and safety of a single i.v. bolus dose of ondansetron 4 mg were evaluated in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), which remains one of the most unpleasant side effects experienced by patients postoperatively. The study population included patients having general anesthesia and undergoing major gynecological or elective abdominal surgery by laparoscopy. Thirty three percent of placebo-treated patients had at least one emetic episode over 24 hrs compared with 21% in the ondansetron group (p = 0.03). Forty two percent of placebo-treated patients experienced nausea in the 24 hours post-recovery period, compared to 27% of patients treated with ondansetron 4 mg (p = 0.01). Several factors appeared to be associated with an increased risk of developing PONV, namely gender (female), type of surgery (gynecological), experience of previous PONV and duration of anesthesia; the use of propofol was not a significant factor. Ondansetron was well tolerated, with no side effect being reported as a significant problem.
...
PMID:Single i.v. bolus dose of ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and emesis. 952 3

This study compares the preoperative administration of ondansetron with that of droperidol or saline solution for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in otologic surgery patients. A total of 120 otherwise healthy individuals were randomly assigned to receive either saline solution, ondansetron (4 mg intravenously), or droperidol (25 microg/kg intravenously) before anesthetic induction. Intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit times were recorded along with incidence of nausea, vomiting, pain, nausea and recovery scores, and the administration of rescue antiemetics. Similar assessments were made during the next 24 hours. Demographics were similar, but more males received ondansetron. Anesthetic recovery scores were lower after administration of droperidol than after ondansetron. Incidence of nausea was similar between groups, but severity was greater with placebo and droperidol than with ondansetron. More vomiting occurred with placebo than with ondansetron or droperidol. No intergroup differences in rescue antiemetic administration were noted, however. Twenty-four hours later, more patients receiving placebo had nausea or vomited than patients receiving droperidol or ondansetron. Fewer women in the ondansetron group vomited than in the other two groups. Ondansetron 4 mg intravenously is as effective as droperidol and better than saline solution in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing otologic surgery. No cost advantage as determined by lower use of rescue antiemetics or shorter postanesthesia care unit times was noted after ondansetron therapy.
...
PMID:Ondansetron versus droperidol or placebo to prevent nausea and vomiting after otologic surgery. 962 37


<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>

---