[Evaluation of the anti-emetic effectiveness of two drug formulations of Ondansetron in combined chemotherapy for children with malignant tumors]. Randomized double-blind crossover ondansetron-dexamethasone versus ondansetron-placebo study for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients with malignancies. Randomised comparison of ondansetron and metoclopramide plus dexamethasone for chemotherapy induced emesis. Randomized double-blind study of the Reliefband as an adjunct to standard antiemetics in patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced vomiting: metoclopramide, benztropine, dexamethasone, and lorazepam regimen compared with chlorpromazine alone. Palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, comparative phase III trial. Effects of ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children. The effect of preoperative dexamethasone on the immediate and delayed postoperative morbidity in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy. A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
A double-blind randomized comparison (protocol S3AB4003, Glaxo Wellcome, Great Britain) carried out in a group of 52 children showed that the 5-HT3-receptor antagonist ondansetron (in syrup) effectively prevented vomiting, nausea and loss of appetite caused in combination chemotherapy with highly- or moderately emetogenic cytostatic drugs in 92.3; 69.3 and 81.0%, respectively. Treatment was given to patients who were on dexamethasone. With intravenous injection of ondansetron plus dexamethasone, per os, said indices were 88.5; 73.2%; 73.2%, respectively, thus showing no significant differences. No side-effects were observed with either regimen. To determine whether the addition of dexamethasone to ondansetron (OND + DEX) is a more effective antiemetic regimen than ondansetron (OND) alone in children receiving chemotherapy.
                Children who had solid tumors and who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, including cisplatin, carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, and ifosfamide, were randomized (1:1) in a double-blind fashion to receive either OND 0.15 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) 30 min before and 4 and 8 h after chemotherapy and placebo, or OND + DEX (same OND doses plus DEX 8 mg/m2 i.v. 30 min before chemotherapy, followed by 16 mg/m2 in divided doses) as antiemetics. The patients were crossed over to the other antiemetic regimen when receiving an identical course of chemotherapy. Patients were monitored for emetic episodes, nausea, appetite, sense of well-being, and antiemetic adverse events.
                A total of 33 patients were evaluated. Sixty-one percent of the patients receiving OND + DEX regimens had a complete response for emetic episodes as compared with 23% with OND alone. Combined complete and major responses (two or less emetic episodes) were 86% for OND + DEX and 67% for OND. Failure for emetic episodes (more than five vomitings/day) were seen only in 7-10% of the total population. Minimal or no nausea was experienced in 74% of OND + DEX courses and in 52% of the OND courses. Appetite was better in OND + DEX courses (p = 0.006). Both antiemetic arms had similar adverse events. Mild to moderate sedation occurred in about half of the courses, followed by restlessness (29%), headache (17%), diarrhea (17%), and hiccups (2%).
                The combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron alone to control emetic episodes in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (p = 0.04). The serotonin (5HT3) antagonist ondansetron was compared in a randomised study with metoclopramide and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy induced emesis. Thirty children aged 1-15 years with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia received 'intensification modules' according to the MRC United Kingdom acute lymphoblastic leukaemia regimen UKALL XI. This contains the moderately emetogenic drugs daunorubicin, etoposide, and cytarabine. Fifteen children received an intravenous loading dose of ondansetron followed by intravenous or oral doses 12 hourly for five days. Fifteen children received intravenous metoclopramide every six hours for three days with a loading dose of dexamethasone, repeated every eight hours for three days intravenously or orally. Efficacy was assessed by a diary card documenting the incidence of nausea, retching, or vomiting. In the 24 hour period after starting chemotherapy, ondansetron was more effective, with a complete or major response rate of 93%, compared with 33% using metoclopramide/dexamethasone. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the Reliefband as an adjunct to standard antiemetics in patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy.
                Forty-nine adult cancer patients receiving moderately-high or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized to receive either the active Reliefband ( n=26) or an inactive device ( n=23). Patients continued to receive all scheduled and as needed antiemetic agents as prescribed. The device was worn the day of chemotherapy administration for 5 days (days 1-5). Patients maintained a daily dairy of nausea severity, vomiting and retching episodes, and antiemetic medications taken. Each patient completed a Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) and a tolerability survey at the conclusion of the study. A Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the number of vomiting episodes, severity of nausea and FLIE scores between the two groups.
                Patients wearing the active Relifband experienced less vomiting (Reliefband 1.9 versus inactive device 4.6 mean episodes; p=0.05), retching (1.4 versus 3.6 mean episodes; p=0.05), and nausea severity (0.91 versus 1.65 mean cm/day; p=0.01) over the 5-day period compared to patients wearing the inactive device. Vomiting was statistically significantly reduced during the delayed period (0.42 versus 1; p=0.032), whereas nausea was significantly reduced during the acute (0.71 versus 2.3; p=0.028) and delayed (1.8 versus 3.3; p=0.020) periods. FLIE scores did not differ between the two treatment groups (91 versus 80; p=0.088).
                This study suggests that patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy who experience nausea and vomiting despite scheduled antiemetics may benefit from the use of the Reliefband as an adjunct to antiemetics. Limitations of this study include differences in risk factors for emesis, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimens. A larger, better, controlled randomized study is needed to better define optimal use of this device. Twenty-six children aged 4 to 15 years who were to receive cancer chemotherapy were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial that compared the antiemetic efficacy of a four-drug regimen (the MBDL regimen: metoclopramide, 8 mg/kg; benztropine, 0.04 mg/kg; dexamethasone, 0.7 mg/kg; lorazepam, 0.1 mg/kg), given over 24 hours, with the efficacy of chlorpromazine, 3.3 mg/kg, given in four doses over 24 hours. The MBDL regimen was more effective than chlorpromazine in both objective and subjective measures of antiemetic control. Of 26 children, 23 (89%) had less vomiting on the MBDL regimen, and 20 (77%) of 26 patients or parents preferred this regimen (p less than 0.01). The MBDL regimen reduced the number of vomiting episodes by a mean of 4.0 (p less than 0.01) and reduced the duration of vomiting by a mean of 3.7 hours (p less than 0.01). A moderate level of sedation was documented at some stage in the 24-hour period of observation in 27% on the MBDL regimen and in 35% receiving chlorpromazine. Dystonia was seen in 1 (4%) of 26 children. We conclude that the MBDL regimen is safe in children and more effective than chlorpromazine. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonist that has shown better efficacy than ondansetron and dolasetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and similar efficacy to ondansetron in preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, stratified, parallel-group, active-comparator trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus granisetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, both of which were administered with dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.
                Between July 5, 2006, and May 31, 2007, 1143 patients with cancer who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ie, cisplatin, or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination [AC/EC]) were recruited from 75 institutions in Japan, and randomly assigned to either single-dose palonosetron (0.75 mg), or granisetron (40 microg/kg) 30 min before chemotherapy on day 1, both with dexamethasone (16 mg intravenously) on day 1 followed by additional doses (8 mg intravenously for patients receiving cisplatin or 4 mg orally for patients receiving AC/EC) on days 2 and 3. A non-deterministic minimisation method with a stochastic-biased coin was applied to the randomisation of patients. Covariates known to effect emetic risk, such as sex, age, and type of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, were used as stratification factors of minimisation to ensure balance between the treatment groups. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the acute phase (0-24 h postchemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with granisetron) and the proportion of patients with a complete response during the delayed phase (24-120 h postchemotherapy; superiority comparison with granisetron). The non-inferiority margin was predefined in the study protocol as a 10% difference between groups in the proportion of patients with complete response. The palonosetron dose of 0.75 mg was chosen on the basis of two dose-determining trials in Japanese patients. All patients who received study treatment and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in the efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359567.
                1114 patients were included in the efficacy analyses: 555 patients in the palonosetron group and 559 patients in the granisetron group. 418 of 555 patients (75.3%) in the palonosetron group had complete response during the acute phase compared with 410 of 559 patients (73.3%) in the granisetron group (mean difference 2.9% [95% CI -2.70 to 7.27]). During the delayed phase, 315 of 555 patients (56.8%) had complete response in the palonosetron group compared with 249 of 559 patients (44.5%) in the granisetron group (p<0.0001). The main treatment-related adverse events were constipation (97 of 557 patients [17.4%] in the palonosetron group vs 88 of 562 [15.7%] in the granisetron group) and raised concentrations of serum aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase: 24 of 557 [4.3%] vs 34 of 562 [6.0%]; alanine aminotransferase: 16 of 557 [2.9%] vs 33 of 562 [5.9%]); no grade 4 main treatment-related adverse events were reported.
                When administered with dexamethasone before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, palonosetron exerts efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting which is non-inferior to that of granisetron in the acute phase and better than that of granisetron in the delayed phase, with a comparable safety profile for the two treatments.
                Taiho Pharmaceutical (Tokyo, Japan). Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a commonly observed adverse effect of general anesthesia. Recently, ondansetron, a new serotonin3 (5-hydroxytryptamine3) receptor antagonist was shown to be effective in the prophylaxis and prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children and adults as well as of PONV in adults. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the capacity of ondansetron to prevent PONV in pediatric patients.
                Two hundred children (132 boys and 68 girls) 2-10 yr of age received general inhalational anesthesia for surgical procedures (the extremities; ear, nose, and throat; inguinal hernia and phimosis; and dentistry) of an expected duration of less than 90 min. This study was divided into two phases: prophylaxis and rescue treatment. For prophylaxis, patients were randomly assigned to two groups: one group received an intravenous injection of 0.1 mg/kg ondansetron, and the other group received a placebo before surgical incision under double-blind conditions. For rescue treatment, only placebo patients were included; as a rescue medication they received an intravenous injection of 0.1 mg/kg ondansetron or 0.02 mg/kg droperidol according to a prestudy randomization under double-blind conditions. Incidence and severity of PONV (PONV score 0 = no nausea and no retching; 1 = complaining of sickness and retching; 2 = vomiting one or two time in 30 min; 3 = vomiting more than two times in 30 min) was recorded over a 4-h period in the postanesthesia care unit. Within 72 h of the procedure, a follow-up nurse interviewed the parents for late-onset nausea in the children.
                With regard to prophylaxis, 10% of patients receiving ondansetron had PONV during the 4-h observation period versus 40% of those receiving placebo (P < 0.001). The incidence of vomiting alone (PONV score > or = 2) was 5% and 25%, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between ondansetron and droperidol in the treatment of PONV. However, at the end of the 4-h period, ondansetron patients were less sedated than were patients who had received droperidol (P < 0.01). Interviews with parents could be performed for 143 of 200 children (76 ondansetron and 67 placebo). Twenty-four children (15 ondansetron and 9 placebo) showed late-onset PONV after the 4-h observation period but within 24 h of the procedure (19.7% vs. 13.4%; P not significant).
                Ondansetron is effective in the prevention of PONV in pediatric patients for the first 4 h after general anesthesia. Lower sedation scores with ondansetron compared with droperidol may be an advantage, especially in ambulatory surgery. However, the incidence of late-onset PONV (> 4-24 h) was not influenced by prophylactic treatment with one dose of ondansetron preoperatively. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we examined the effect of preoperative dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and 24-h recovery in children undergoing tonsillectomy. One hundred thirty children, 2-12 yr of age, ASA physical status I or II, completed the study. All children received oral midazolam 0.5-0.6 mg/kg preoperatively. Anesthesia was induced with halothane and nitrous oxide in 60% oxygen and maintained with nitrous oxide and isoflurane. Intubation was facilitated by mivacurium 0.2 mg/kg. Each child received fentanyl 1 microgram/kg i.v. before initiation of surgery, as well as dexamethasone 1 mg/kg (maximal dose 25 mg) (steroid group) or an equal volume of saline (control group). Intraoperative fluids were standardized to 25-30 mL/kg lactated Ringer's solution. All tonsillectomies were performed under the supervision of one attending surgeon using an electrodissection technique. Postoperatively, fentanyl and acetaminophen with codeine elixir were administered as needed for pain. Rescue antiemetics were administered when a child experienced two episodes of retching and/or vomiting. Before home discharge, the incidence of PONV, need for rescue antiemetics, quality or oral intake, and analgesic requirements did not differ between groups. However, during the 24 h after discharge, more patients in the control group experienced PONV (62% vs 24% in the steroid group) and complained of poor oral intake. Additionally, more children in the control group (8% vs 0% in the steroid group) returned to the hospital for the management of PONV and/or poor oral intake. The preoperative administration of dexamethasone significantly decreased the incidence of PONV over the 24 h after home discharge in these children. Implications: In this double blind, placebo-controlled study, we examined the efficacy of a single large dose (1 mg/kg; maximal dose 25 mg) of preoperative dexamethasone on posttonsillectomy postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in children 2-12 yr of age undergoing tonsillectomy. Compared with placebo, dexamethasone significantly decreased the incidence of PONV in the 24 h after discharge, improved oral intake, decreased the frequency of parental phone calls, and resulted in no hospital returns for the management of PONV and/or poor oral intake. Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown.
                We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions. Of these patients, 4123 were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions: 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; propofol or a volatile anesthetic; nitrogen or nitrous oxide; and remifentanil or fentanyl. The remaining patients were randomly assigned with respect to the first four interventions. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly.
                Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent. Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent, and nitrogen by 12 percent; the risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics. All the interventions acted independently of one another and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. Absolute risk reduction, though, was a critical function of patients' baseline risk.
                Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.
                Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists with dexamethasone added are effective in patients who are to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy although the risk-benefit profile of additional steroid remains uncertain.