Successful steroid treatment for fibrosing mediastinitis and sclerosing cervicitis.

Koei Ikeda,H. Nomori,Takeshi Mori,Hironori Kobayashi,K. Iwatani,K. Yoshimoto,M. Yoshioka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATHORACSUR.2006.09.034

2007-03-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of a combination of midazolam with ramosetron and midazolam with palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Jung A Lim,Sungbin Jo,Eun Kyung Choi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000036824

IF: 1.6

2024-01-10

Medicine

Abstract:Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of general anesthesia. The incidence of PONV is between 10% and 80%, especially in high-risk patients [ 1 , 2 ] and it affects the recovery and satisfaction of patients after surgery. Females, nonsmokers, previous history of PONV or motion sickness, laparoscopic surgery, volatile anesthesia, and the use of opioids for postoperative analgesia are known risk factors for PONV. [ 3 ] In patients with more than one risk factor, a multimodal prophylactic approach has recently been recommended to reduce inappropriate prophylaxis. [ 4 ]

medicine, general & internal
Comparison of palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in women using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

Jae Hwa Yoo,In Suk Jeon,Ji Won Chung,Jae Hoon Ryoo,Gyu Wan You,Soon Im Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.2020.15.1.28

2020-01-31

Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: We compared the effects of palonosetron with ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during the first 24 h after surgery in women receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with fentanyl for pain control.METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, 204 healthy patients who were undergoing elective surgery with general anesthesia were enrolled. In the palonosetron group (n = 102), 0.075 mg bolus was given intravenously (i.v.) 30 min before the end of surgery and 8 ml saline was added to the IV-PCA. In the ondansetron group (n = 102), 8 mg bolus i.v. was given 30 min before the end of surgery and 16 mg of ondansetron was added to the IV-PCA. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, and use of rescue anti-emetics were evaluated 6 and 24 h after the operation.RESULTS: The incidences of nausea (55.6%) and vomiting (14.1%) in the palonosetron group did not differ from those (58.3 and 19.8%) in the ondansetron group during the first 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the severity of nausea and use of rescue anti-emetics between the two groups (P > 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: The effects of palonosetron in preventing PONV were not different from those of ondansetron during the first 24 h postoperatively in women receiving IV-PCA with fentanyl.
A comparison of palonosetron and dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting in orthopedic patients receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia

Byung-Gun Kim,Hyunzu Kim,Hyun-Kyoung Lim,Chunwoo Yang,Sora Oh,Byung-Wook Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2017.70.5.520

IF: 5.167

2017-01-01

Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the major concerns after anesthesia and surgery, and it may be more frequent in orthopedic patients receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone on the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty and receiving PCEA.METHODS: Patients scheduled for total hip or knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia/PCEA were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous palonosetron (0.075 mg, n = 50) or dexamethasone (5 mg, n = 50). Treatments were administered intravenously to the patients 30 min before the beginning of surgery. The total incidence of PONV and incidence in each time period, severity of nausea, need for rescue anti-emetics, pain score, and adverse effects during the first 48 h postoperatively were evaluated.RESULTS: The total incidence of PONV was lower in the palonosetron group compared with the dexamethasone group (18.4% vs. 36.7%, P = 0.042), but there were no statistically significant differences in incidence between the groups at all time points. No significant intergroup differences were observed in the severity of nausea, use of rescue anti-emetics, pain score, and adverse effects.CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no significant differences in the incidence of PONV between the treatment groups at all time points, intravenous palonosetron reduced the total incidence of PONV in orthopedic patients receiving PCEA compared with dexamethasone.
The Effect of Palonosetron Hydrochloride in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Moderate and Severe Nausea and Vomiting

Jian Huang,Xiao-Jia Wang,Ding Yu,Ye-Ning Jin,Zhen,Nong Xu,Wei Liu,Yong-Chuan Deng,Shi-Xiu Wu,Jia He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2013.996

IF: 2.7

2013-01-01

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

Abstract:The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron hydrochloride injection for preventing chemotherapy-induced moderate and severe nausea and vomiting. A multi-centered, randomly stratified, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group and positive-controlled trial was performed. A total of 240 patients who underwent chemotherapy treatment which induced moderate or severe vomiting were divided into the experimental and control groups. Half an hour before chemotherapy, the experimental group received a 0.25-mg palonosetron hydrochloride injection, whereas the control group received a 3-mg granisetron injection. The acute vomiting complete remission rate (CRR) of the experimental group was not significantly different compared with that of the control group (P=0.35). The delayed vomiting CRR of the experimental group was significantly higher compared with that of the control group (P=0.002). No difference in full course vomiting CRR, vomiting control time, treatment failure time or acute nausea CRR was identified between the two groups. No significant differences in adverse events were observed between the experimental group and the control group. No significant differences in adverse reactions occurred between the experimental group and the control group (12.50%). Palonosetron hydrochloride injection had a better effect on delayed vomiting CRR than granisetron hydrochloride injection. The two injections exhibited similar effects on acute vomiting CRR, full course vomiting CRR, vomiting control time, treatment failure time (days), acute nausea CRR and adverse events.
Efficacy of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Post-operative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomised Double-Blind Trial

Mohd Atesham Khan,Anju Gupta,Nishkarsh Gupta,Manasij Mitra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2021.191

Abstract:Objective: Post-operative nausea and vomiting is a frequent complication following anaesthesia. We compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous palonosetron and intravenous dexamethasone as prophylactic antiemetic in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: After obtaining institutional ethical committee approval, 100 adult female patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to receive 4mg dexamethasone (group I, n ¼ 50) or 0.075 mg palonosetron (group II, n ¼ 50) intravenously (IV) over 2-5 minutes prior to induction of anaesthesia. Standard anaesthetic technique was followed, and the residual neuromuscular block was antagonised at theend of the procedure. A single anaesthesiologist assessed all the cases for post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for 24 hours. The complete response rate and the overall patient satisfaction were noted. If patient experienced PONV, injection metoclopramide 10 mg was given as rescue antiemetic IV. Results: A total of six patients had vomiting within 6 hours (four patients in groups I and two patients in group II), whereas none had vomiting after 6 hours (P ¼ .39). Complete response rate was 88 and 90% in both group I and group II. Three patients in both group I and group II required rescue antiemetics. Ninety-two percent patients were completely satisfied in group I, while 96% patients were fully satisfied in group II. Conclusion: Intravenous administration of palonosetron (0.075 mg) is as effective as dexamethasone (4 mg) as prophylactic antiemetic without any untoward side effects for female patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Comparison of antienetic efficacy between palonosetron and ondansetron in patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Yan-qian ZHU,Wei-hong GE

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4777.2012.08.034

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective To observe and evaluate clinical effect of palonosetron hydrochloride and ondansetron hydrochloride that are used to prevent the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.Methods Sixty cases of cancer chemotherapy were divided into 2 groups:palonosetron group(n =30)and ondansetron group(n =30).Palonosetron group were given palonosetron hydrochloride 0.25 mg,intravenous infusion 30 min before chemotherapy on the first day.Ondansetron group was given ondansetron hydrochloride 8 mg,slow intravenous infusion 30 min before chemotherapy for three days.Dexamethasone 5 mg intravenous injection was used in the two groups.The situation of nausea and vomiting and adverse reactions were observed and recorded respectively in a period of 5 days after chemotherapy.Results In controlling acute CINV,the complete remission rate in palonosetron group was 80.0％ (24/30)and it was 76.7％ (23/30)in ondansetron group (P ＞ 0.05).The effective rate in palonosetron group was 93.3％ (28/30)and it was 86.7％ in ondansetron group (26/30)(P ＞ 0.05).In controlling delayed CINV,palonosetron hydrochloride was superior to ondansetron hydrochloride.The complete remission rate in palonosetron group was 76.7％ (23/30)and it was 63.3％ (19/30)in ondansetron group (P＞0.05).The effective rate was 93.4％ (28/30)in palonosetron group and 73.3％ (22/ 30)in ondansetron group(P ＜ 0.05).There was no significant difference in the adverse reactions between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions Palonosetron hydrochloride is superior to ondansetron hydrochloride in controlling delayed CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.There is no significant difference in controlling delayed CINV.It has few adverse reactions and should be used widely in clinic.
Neo‐Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy

M. Valenzuela,T. Julian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2008.00575.x

2008-05-01

The Breast Journal

Abstract:Abstract: Neo‐adjuvant endocrine therapy has opened new alternatives for locally advanced breast cancer. Such therapy, which has permitted us to expand the treatment role of neo‐adjuvant therapies, may be of great benefit to patient groups such as the elderly, those not suited for chemotherapy, and those whose response may not be optimal. This therapy also may be able to help us identify agents that could improve outcomes in the adjuvant setting as well as possible biologic predictors for outcome. The latest generation of endocrine therapy for breast cancer, aromatase inhibitors, has proved superior to tamoxifen in terms of toxicity and efficacy in the adjuvant setting and is currently being studied in other clinical trials. Current findings indicate that these agents are less toxic and better tolerated than neo‐adjuvant chemotherapy and that third‐generation anti‐hormomal therapy offers improved tumor response compared with tamoxifen, which has resulted in increased breast conserving surgery. Biomarker findings of improved response in tumors that are both estrogen receptor positive and HER‐2 positive as well as progesterone receptor positivity only will be important for planning future selective treatment and clinical trials.
Patient-controlled Analgesia With Propacetamol-Fentanyl Mixture for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in High-risk Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Eun Jung Kim,Jae-Kwang Shim,Sarah Soh,Jong Wook Song,Se Ryeon Lee,Young-Lan Kwak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ANA.0000000000000252

Abstract:Background: This randomized trial evaluated the effect of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) based on fentanyl mixed with either propacetamol or an equivalent volume of normal saline on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in highly susceptible patients undergoing spinal surgery. Materials and methods: One hundred eight nonsmoking female patients were randomly and evenly allocated to receive IV-PCA with either propacetamol (4 g) or normal saline mixed to fentanyl (20 μg/kg). Primary study outcome was PONV incidence at 24 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes were nausea severity, pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale), use of rescue antiemetics and analgesics, patient satisfaction, and adverse events at 6, 12, and 24 hours postsurgery. Results: Postsurgery, the propacetamol versus normal saline group had lower PONV incidence at 24 hours (41% vs. 66%, P=0.011); pain intensity at rest and rescue analgesic requirements at 6 to 12 hours (30±15 vs. 41±19, P=0.008; and 25% vs. 49%, P=0.036, respectively) and at 12 to 24 hours (25±15 vs. 35±17, P=0.008; and 19% vs. 42%, P=0.044, respectively); and higher patient satisfaction score (6.4±1.4 vs. 5.7±1.8, P=0.028). Conclusions: In patients undergoing spinal surgery and at risk of developing PONV, continuous IV-PCA based on propacetamol mixed to fentanyl, relative to fentanyl alone, effectively reduced the incidence of PONV, pain intensity at rest, and additional use of rescue analgesics with higher patient satisfaction.
Comparative efficacy and safety of palonosetron with the first 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis

Chen Jin,Weihao Sun,Dongying Gu,Jingsong Yang,Zhi Xu,Jinfei Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2012.01353.x

IF: 2.1

2013-01-01

European Journal of Cancer Care

Abstract:A number of studies have reported the difference between the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and palonosetron in preventing the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Through analysing the efficacy and safety in palonosetron-treated patients, it can provide evidence for palonosetron administration. We identified randomised controlled clinical trials comparing palonosetron with the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the prevention of CINV in cancer patients. Nine studies investigated the outcomes in a total of 3463 cases. Compared with the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, the cumulative incidences of emesis were significantly reduced in the patients treated with palonosetron (0.25 mg i.v.) on the first day [ relative risk (RR) = 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-1.17], from 2 to 5 days (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.16-1.36) and the overall five days (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.13-1.34). Regarding the drug safety, there was no significant difference between palonosetron-treated group and the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists-treated group. Results from the analysis suggest that palonosetron is highly effective in preventing nausea and vomiting in the days after administration of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy agents.
A Clinical Study of Palonosetron in Prevention of Chemotherapy-related Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Breast Cancer

Shu-xian QU,Zhen-dong ZHENG,Zhao-zhe LIU,Miao ZHANG,Liang LIU,Guan-zhong ZHANG,Ya-ling HAN,Xiao-dong XIE

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2095-140X.2014.03.007

2014-01-01

Abstract:Objective To observe the curative effect and safety of Palonosetron in prevention of chemotherapyrelated nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer. Methods A total of 77 inpatients with breast cancer during January 2010 and June 2013 were randomly divided into Palonosetron group( group A,n = 38) and Tropisetron group( group B,n = 39). All the patients underwent Epirubicin-containing chemotherapy. The episodes of loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting,and adverse effects such as constipation and dizziness in the two groups within 0-5 d after the chemotherapy were observed. Results The control rates for loss of appetite,nausea and vomiting in the two groups within 0- 24 h after chemotherapy showed no statistical differences( P 0. 05). The control rates for nausea and vomiting in group A within 2- 5 d after chemotherapy were significantly better than those in group B( P 0. 05),but the difference in control rate for loss of appetite was not statistically significant( P 0. 05). No serious adverse effect was observed in the two groups( P 0. 05). Conclusion Palonosetron has significant efficacy and high safety in prevention of chemotherapy-related tardive nausea and vomiting in Epirubicin-containing chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Fosaprepitant for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: a randomised trial

Qingshan Huang,Fan Wang,Chujun Liang,Yabin Huang,Yingyin Zhao,Chuling Liu,Chunmeng Lin,Lizhen Zhang,Shaoli Zhou,Qiuling Wang,Shan Li,Ruirui Gong,Qian Wu,Yuting Gu,Jinxin Zhang,Tongfeng Luo,Wei Wang,Song Zhang,Nassirou Bizo Mailoga,Kai Wang,Sanqing Jin,Yang Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2023.06.029

IF: 11.719

2023-07-01

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major problem after surgery. Even with double prophylactic therapy including dexamethasone and a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, the incidence is still high in many at-risk patients. Fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic, but its efficacy and safety in combination antiemetic therapy for preventing PONV remain unclear.METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, 1154 participants at high risk of PONV and undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery were randomly assigned to either a fosaprepitant group (n=577) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg i.v. dissolved in 0.9% saline 150 ml, or a placebo group (n=577) receiving 0.9% saline 150 ml before anaesthesia induction. Dexamethasone 5 mg i.v. and palonosetron 0.075 i.v. mg were each administered in both groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV (defined as nausea, retching, or vomiting) during the first 24 postoperative hours.RESULTS: The incidence of PONV during the first 24 postoperative hours was lower in the fosaprepitant group (32.4% vs 48.7%; adjusted risk difference -16.9% [95% confidence interval: -22.4 to -11.4%]; adjusted risk ratio 0.65 [95% CI: 0.57 to 0.76]; P<0.001). There were no differences in severe adverse events between groups, but the incidence of intraoperative hypotension was higher (38.0% vs 31.7%, P=0.026) and intraoperative hypertension (40.6% vs 49.2%, P=0.003) was lower in the fosaprepitant group.CONCLUSIONS: Fosaprepitant added to dexamethasone and palonosetron reduced the incidence of PONV in patients at high risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. Notably, it increased the incidence of intraoperative hypotension.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04853147.

anesthesiology
The Effects of Glycopyrrolate as Premedication on Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Seunghyuk Lee,Sang W. Yoon,Geun J. Choi,Yong-Hee Park,Hyun Kang,Chong W. Baek,Yong Hun Jung,Young C. Woo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/2589645801913010093

2019-09-30

The Open Anesthesia Journal

Abstract:Background: Glycopyrrolate is often used as a premedication for anesthesia as it has anti-sialogogue and vagolytic effect. Patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery have high-risk of Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV). Objectives: This retrospective study investigates the effect of glycopyrrolate as a premedication for PONV in patients receiving fentanyl-based Intravenous (IV) Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) after laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of adult patients who received fentanyl-based IV-PCA after laparoscopic gynecological surgery at Chung-Ang University Hospital between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2016. We classified patients into two groups on the basis of glycopyrrolate premedication: non-premedicated group (Group N; n = 316) and glycopyrrolate premedicated group (Group P; n = 434). The Propensity Score Matching Method (PSM) was used to select 157 subjects in Group N and P, on the basis of their covariates which were matched with a counterpart in the other group. Results: Prior to PSM, the necessities for rescue anti-emetics were lower on Postoperative Day (POD) 0 (58[18.4%] vs. 45[10.4%], P = 0.002) and POD1 (60[19.0%] vs. 59[13.6%], P = 0.046), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of pain on POD 1 (2.86 ± 1.49 vs. 3.13 ± 1.53, P = 0.017) was higher in group P. After PSM, the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score for nausea (0.38 ± 0.75 vs . 0.21 ± 0.62, P = 0.027) and rescue anti-emetics (27 [17.2%] vs . 15 [9.6%], P = 0.047) on POD 0 were both lower in the group P. Conclusion: In patients receiving fentanyl-based IV-PCA after laparoscopic gynecological surgery, the severity of nausea and necessity for rescue ant-emetic was lower in the glycopyrrolate premedication group.

English Else
Chemoradioprotection of the rat parotid gland by combined use of WR-2721 and Ro-07-0582.

M. Sodicoff,A. D. Conger,N. Pratt,M. Sinesi,P. Trepper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3575063

1979-11-01

Radiation Research

Abstract:The radioprotection of the rat parotid gland by WR-2721 alone (DMF, 2.4) was compared to the protection afforded when WR-2721 was given in combination with the hypoxic cell radiosensitizer Ro-07-0582 (DMF, 2.6). It was concluded that the radiosensitizer of malignant tumor cells Ro-07-0582 was compatible with and did not reduce the protection of normal tissue afforded by WR-2721.
Effect of Palonosetron in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Vomiting

Zhongsheng TONG,Shufen LI,Rongsheng ZHENG,Zhiyong HE,Lili ZHANG,Xuenong OUYANG,Jinfei CHEN,Hao YU,Yehui SHI,Xu WANG,Xiaoxin LI,Yishan ZHANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.20141171

2014-01-01

Clinical Oncology and Cancer Research

Abstract:Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced vomiting. Meth-ods:A multi-center, randomized, double-blind, and self-cross-over positively controlled clinical trial design was used. All patients were randomized into two groups, as follows:Regiment A (61 cases) and Regiment B (64 cases). Regimen A with palonosetron hydrochlo-ride injection (test agent) was used in the treatment cycle A, whereas granisetron hydrochloride injection (control drug) was used in the cycle B. Treatments were randomly administered on the patients of the two groups. Regimen B was on the contrary, the control drug was used in the cycle A, and the test agent was used in the treatment cycle B. All patients treated with the test agent were classified as the test group, whereas those treated with the control drug were classified as the control group. Complete control rate and adverse reac-tion of acute and delayed vomiting in the two groups during the two cycles of chemotherapy regimen were compared. Results: In Group One, the complete control rate of delayed vomiting was significantly higher in the palonosetron administration cycles than in the granisetron cycles (76.92%vs. 55.38%, P=0.0110). In the same group, the frequency of vomiting was significantly less in palonosetron cycles than in the granisetron cycles during day 1 to day 5 (1.32±3.42 vs. 1.94±3.03, P=0.0096). The incidences of adverse effects were low in both groups. No grades 3 and 4 adverse effects were observed. Conclusion: Palonosetron showed efficacy in preventing the acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting. The drug is superior to granisetron, specifically in delaying vomiting in Group One. Palonosetron hydrochloride showed slight adverse effects. Hence, this drug can be used in clinic.
Fosaprepitant versus aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-simulated, positive-controlled phase III trial

Zhonghan Zhang,Yunpeng Yang,Ping Lu,Xiaoqin Li,Jianhua Chang,Rongsheng Zheng,Lei Zhou,Shaoshui Chen,Xiaopin Chen,Biyong Ren,Wei Gu,Xiaodong Jiang,Jiyong Peng,Miaolong Huang,Guosheng Feng,Peng Shen,Qingyuan Zhang,Baihong Zhang,Yan Huang,Jingdong He,Yinglan Chen,Jingxu Cao,Hong Wang,Wei Li,Huiping Wan,Kejun Nan,Zijun Liao,Cuiying Zhang,Zhong Lin,Diansheng Zhong,Qing Xu,Hailong Liu,Tao Sun,Yanming Deng,Li Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.12.158

IF: 3.616

2020-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:Background: To establish the role of antiemetic therapy with neurolcinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists (RAs) in Chinese patients associated with cisplatin-base chemotherapy regimens, this study evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimen to a 3-day orally aprepitant-based antiemetic triplet schedule for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Methods: A randomized, double-blind, positive-control design was used to test the noninferiority of fosaprepitant towards aprepitant. Patients receiving cisplatin-base (>= 50 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy were administrated palonosetron and dexamethasone with a single-dose fosaprepitant (150 mg on day 1) or a standard aprepitant regimen (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on day 2 and day 3). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during overall phase (OP). Secondary endpoints include CR during acute phase (AP) and delayed phase (DP), no vomiting and no significant nausea during OP, AP and DP. Accrual of 324 patients per treatment arm was planned to confirm noninferiority with expected CR of 75% and noninferiority margin of minus 10 percentage points. Results: A total of 648 patients were randomly assigned, and 644 were evaluable for efficacy and safety. Antiemetic efficacy of CR during the OP with fosaprepitant and aprepitant was equivalent (71.96% versus 69.35%, P=0.4894). And a between-group difference of 2.61 percentage points was finally achieved (95% CI, -4.42 to 9.64) within predefined bounds for noninferiority (primary end point achieved). Both regimens were well tolerated and commonly reported adverse events (>= 1%) were similar between these two group. Conclusions: Single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone was well tolerated and demonstrated noninferior control of CINV to aprepitant-based triple regimen in Chinese patients treating with cisplatin-base chemotherapy.
Effect of Prophylactic Tropisetron on Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

In Jung Kim,Geun Joo Choi,Hyeon Joung Hwang,Hyun Kang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14080797

2024-07-27

Abstract:This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with trial sequential analysis (TSA) aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy of the prophylactic administration of tropisetron in the prevention of the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024372692). RCTs comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of tropisetron with that of a placebo, other anti-emetic agents, or a combination of anti-emetic injections were retrieved from the databases of Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. The frequency of rescue anti-emetic use (RA) and the incidence of PON, POV, and PONV (relative risk [RR]: 0.718; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.652-0.790; I2 = 0.0, RR: 0.587; 95% CI 0.455-0.757; I2 = 63.32, RR: 0.655; 95% CI 0.532-0.806; I2 = 49.09, and RR: 0.622; 95% CI 0.552-0.700; I2 = 0.00, respectively) in the tropisetron group were lower than those in the control group; however, the incidence of complete response (CR) was higher in the tropisetron group (RR: 1.517;95% CI 1.222-1.885; I2 = 44.14). TSA showed the cumulative Z-curve exceeded both the conventional test and trial sequential monitoring boundaries for RA, PON, POV, and PONV between the tropisetron group and the control group. Thus, the prophylactic administration of tropisetron exhibited superior efficacy in the prevention of PON, POV, and PONV. Furthermore, a lower incidence of RA and a higher incidence of CR were observed with its use.
Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Office-based Surgery

Jun Tang,Xiaoguang Chen,Paul F. White,Ronald H. Wender,Hong Ma,Alexander Sloninsky,Robert Naruse,Robert Kariger,Tom Webb,Alan Zaentz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200302000-00005

IF: 8.986

2003-01-01

Anesthesiology

Abstract:Background Office-based surgery has become increasingly popular because of its cost-saving potential. However, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can delay patient discharge. Prophylaxis using a combination of antiemetic drugs has been suggested as an effective strategy for minimizing PONV. The authors designed this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron when administered in combination with droperidol and dexamethasone for routine antiemetic prophylaxis against PONV in the office-based surgery setting. Methods Following institutional review board approval, 135 consenting outpatients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III who were undergoing superficial surgical procedures lasting 20-40 min were randomly assigned to one of three antiemetic treatment groups. Propofol was administered for induction of anesthesia, followed by 2-4% desflurane with 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Desflurane was subsequently adjusted to maintain a clinically adequate depth of anesthesia with an electroencephalographic Bispectral Index value between 50 and 60. All patients received 0.625 mg intravenous droperidol and 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone after induction of anesthesia. The study medication, containing normal saline (control), 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron, or 4 mg intravenous ondansetron, was administered prior to the end of surgery. All patients received local anesthetics at the incisional site and 30 mg intravenous ketolorac to minimize postoperative pain. Recovery profiles, incidence of PONV, requirement for rescue antiemetic drugs, complete response rates, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Results The recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, ambulation, and actual discharge did not differ among the three groups. The incidence of PONV, nausea scores, and requirement for rescue antiemetics were also similar in all three groups during the 24-h study period. In addition, the complete response rates to the prophylactic antiemetics (96-98%) and percentages of very satisfied patients (93-98%) were equally high in all three groups. However, the antiemetic drug acquisition costs were US $2.50, $15.50, and $18.50 in the control, dolasetron, and ondansetron groups, respectively. Conclusion The addition of dolasetron (12.5 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg) failed to improve the antiemetic efficacy of droperidol (0.625 mg intravenous) and dexamethasone (4 mg intravenous) when they were used for routine prophylaxis in the office-based surgery setting.
Randomized, double-blind, crossover study of palonosetron compared with granisetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a Chinese population

Weihua Tian,Zhiqiang Wang,Juntian Zhou,Shucai Zhang,Jinghui Wang,Qiang Chen,Cheng Huang,Liangxi Pan,Lili Zhang,Jianjin Huang,Hong Shen,Tongyu Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-009-9398-2

2011-01-01

Medical Oncology

Abstract:The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron and granisetron in a Chinese population receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy with cisplatin (yes/no) and then randomly assigned to receive either palonosetron (0.25 mg i.v.) in the first cycle followed by granisetron (3 mg i.v.) in the second cycle or vice versa. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response 0–24 h post-chemotherapy administration. The proportions of patients with complete response 24–120 and 0–120 h following chemotherapy were also compared. Of the 144 patients randomized, 36 (25%) received 60–80 mg/m2 cisplatin; 66 of 72 patients in the palonosetron to granisetron group and 56 of 72 patients in the granisetron to palonosetron group completed treatment with both antiemetics. The efficacy and safety analyses included 128 palonosetron treatments and 138 granisetron treatments. Palonosetron consistently produced numerically higher complete response rates than granisetron in the acute phase (0–24 h, 71.09 vs. 65.22%), the delayed phase (24–120 h, 60.16 vs. 55.80%), and overall (0–120 h, 53.13 vs. 50.00%) though the differences were not significant. Both palonosetron and granisetron were well tolerated. Palonosetron was well tolerated and effective in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a Chinese population. When used as monotherapy, 0.25-mg palonosetron was not inferior to 3-mg granisetron for preventing vomiting following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
Cost-effectiveness comparison between 6 interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) on low-risk patients

WANG Li-jun,CANG Jing,XUE Zhang-gang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-8467.2014.01.012

2014-01-01

Abstract:Objective: We conducted this study to compare the cost and effectiveness of prophylactic antiemetic interventions combined with different anesthetic techniques on those relative low-risk patients received laparoscopic oholcystectomy (LC). Methods: One hundred and eighty male patients fulfilling inclusion criteria scheduled for LC were randomized divided into 6 groups, with 30 patients in each group. Group 1 received target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol +5 mg tropisetron. Group 2 received TCI propofol +10 mg dexamethasone +1.25 mg droperidol. Group 3 received TCI propofol without antiemetics. Group 4 received sevoflurane +5 mg tropisetron. Group 5 received sevoflurane +10 mg dexamethasone +1.25 mg droperidol. Group 6 received sevoflurane without antiemetic. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly. Results: No difference was seen with regard to patient characteristics, time of surgery, anesthesia and extubation and visual analogue score (VAS) for 24 hours after surgery. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in group 2 was significantly lower than in group 3 (P=0.03), and in group 5 was significantly lower than that in group 6 (P=0.01). The relative risk of PONV for those received tropisetron and propofol or sevoflurane were 0.51 or 0.68, for those received dexamethasone, droperidol and propfol or sevoflurane were 0.40 or 0.39, for those received propofol was 0.80. The relative risk of PONV for those received antiemetics were 0.62 compared with those received only anesthetics. Looking at the total cost including waste, the cost-effectiveness ratio per minute was 1.07, 0.88, 1.14, 1.05, 0.74 and 1.06 respectively in group 1 to 6. Conclusions: Propofol, tropisetron, dexamethasone and droperidol had different relative risk of PONV. Dexamethasone plus droperidol and sevoflurane had the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio per minute.
Chronic, infantile, neurological, cutaneous, and articular syndrome in a neonate: a case report.

L. D. De Raeve,J. Ramet,B. Desprechins,J. Otten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHDERM.136.3.431

2000-03-01

Archives of Dermatology

Abstract:

Successful steroid treatment for fibrosing mediastinitis and sclerosing cervicitis.

Comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of a combination of midazolam with ramosetron and midazolam with palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Comparison of palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in women using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

A comparison of palonosetron and dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting in orthopedic patients receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia

The Effect of Palonosetron Hydrochloride in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Moderate and Severe Nausea and Vomiting

Efficacy of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Post-operative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomised Double-Blind Trial

Comparison of antienetic efficacy between palonosetron and ondansetron in patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Neo‐Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy

Patient-controlled Analgesia With Propacetamol-Fentanyl Mixture for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in High-risk Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparative efficacy and safety of palonosetron with the first 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis

A Clinical Study of Palonosetron in Prevention of Chemotherapy-related Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Breast Cancer

Fosaprepitant for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: a randomised trial

The Effects of Glycopyrrolate as Premedication on Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Chemoradioprotection of the rat parotid gland by combined use of WR-2721 and Ro-07-0582.

Effect of Palonosetron in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Vomiting

Fosaprepitant versus aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-simulated, positive-controlled phase III trial

Effect of Prophylactic Tropisetron on Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Office-based Surgery

Randomized, double-blind, crossover study of palonosetron compared with granisetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a Chinese population

Cost-effectiveness comparison between 6 interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) on low-risk patients

Chronic, infantile, neurological, cutaneous, and articular syndrome in a neonate: a case report.