The splanchnic circulation time.

H. O. Wheeler,B. Combes,A. Childs,O. Wade

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Olanzapine as a prophylactic antiemetic for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Thiago Ramos Grigio,Hans Timmerman,Angela Maria Sousa,André Paul Wolff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100345

IF: 2.898

2024-01-01

Clinics

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The antiemetic effectiveness of olanzapine, as a prophylactic off-label antiemetic drug, for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors evaluate the efficacy and side effects of olanzapine as a prophylactic antiemetic in adult patients who undergo general anesthesia and assess adverse effects.METHODS: A systematic search was done on electronic bibliographic databases in July 2023. Randomized controlled trials of olanzapine as a prophylactic antiemetic for PONV in adults who underwent general anesthesia were included. The authors excluded non-RCTs and retracted studies. The authors set no date of publication or language limits. The outcomes were the incidence of PONV within 24 h postoperatively and the safety of olanzapine. The risk of bias was assessed according to the tool suggested by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.RESULTS: Meta-analysis included 446 adult patients. Olanzapine reduced on average 38 % the incidence of PONV. The estimated risk ratio (95 % CI) of olanzapine versus control was 0.62 (0.42-0.90), p = 0.010, I<sup>2</sup> = 67 %. In the subgroup meta-analysis, doses of olanzapine (10 mg) reduced on average 49 % of the incidence of PONV (RR = 0.51 [0.34-0.77], p = 0.001, I<sup>2</sup> = 31 %).CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review with meta-analysis indicated that olanzapine as a prophylactic antiemetic alone or combined with other antiemetic agents reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, this conclusion must be presented with some degree of uncertainty due to the small number of studies included. There was a lack of any evidence to draw conclusions on side effects.

medicine, general & internal
Olanzapine as Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Vikas Ostwal,Anant Ramaswamy,Sarika Mandavkar,Prabhat Bhargava,Deepali Naughane,Sharon Flavia Sunn,Sujay Srinivas,Akhil Kapoor,Bal Krishna Mishra,Anuj Gupta,Bipinesh Sansar,Vikash Pal,Aparajita Pandey,Avinash Bonda,Indraja Siripurapu,Vamshi Krishna Muddu,Sadhana Kannan,Deepali Chaugule,Rajshree Patil,Manali Parulekar,Aditya Dhanawat,Mehek Trikha,Jaya Ghosh,Vanita Noronha,Nandini Menon,Vijay Patil,Kumar Prabhash,Ian Olver

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26076

2024-08-01

Abstract:Importance: The role of olanzapine has not been adequately evaluated in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens with or without neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. Objective: To evaluate whether addition of olanzapine to an MEC regimen reduces nausea, vomiting, and use of nausea rescue medications among patients with solid malignant tumors. Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter, open-label phase 3 randomized clinical trial included patients aged 18 years or older with solid malignant tumors who were receiving oxaliplatin-, carboplatin-, or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. The trial was conducted at 3 institutes in India from March 26, 2019, to August 26, 2023; the final cutoff date for analysis was September 10, 2023. Exposure: Patients were randomized 1:1 to dexamethasone, aprepitant, and palonosetron with olanzapine (experimental group) or without olanzapine (observation group). The experimental group received 10 mg of olanzapine orally once at night on days 1 through 3 of the chemotherapy regimen. Main outcomes and measures: The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as the proportion of patients with no vomiting, no significant nausea (scored as <5 on a visual analog scale of 1 to 100), and no use of rescue medications for nausea. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients experiencing nausea and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), receiving rescue medications, and experiencing adverse events. Results: A total of 560 patients (259 [64%] male; median age, 51 years [range, 19-80 years]) were randomized. The analysis included 544 patients with evaluable data (274 assigned to olanzapine and 270 to observation). Baseline characteristics were evenly matched between the 2 groups. The proportion of patients with CR was significantly greater in the group with (248 [91%]) than without (222 [82%]) olanzapine in the overall 120-hour treatment period (P = .005). Likewise, there were significant differences between the olanzapine and observation groups for nausea control (264 [96%] vs 234 [87%]; P < .001) and CINV (262 [96%] vs 245 [91%]; P = .02) during the overall assessment period, and the proportion of patients receiving rescue medications significantly increased in the observation group (30 [11%]) compared with the olanzapine group (11 [4%]) (P = .001). Grade 1 somnolence was reported by 27 patients (10%) following administration of chemotherapy and olanzapine and by no patients in the observation group. Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of olanzapine significantly improved CR rates as well as nausea and vomiting prevention rates in chemotherapy-naive patients who were receiving MEC regimens containing oxaliplatin, carboplatin, or irinotecan. These findings suggest that use of olanzapine should be considered as one of the standards of care in these chemotherapy regimens. Trial registration: Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) Identifier: CTRI/2018/12/016643.
Abstract RF01-08: A randomized, open-label phase III trial Evaluating Low-Dose Vs standard-dose Olanzapine with triple Antiemetic therapy for Prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy- induced Nausea and vomiting in solid tumors (OLAnzaPiNE)

Jyoti Bajpai,Venkatesh Kapu,Sushmita Rath,Sravan Kumar,Anbarasan Sekar,Srikanth Anne,Akash Pawar,Sujay Srinivas,Prabhat Bhargava,Seema Gulia,Rajiv Sarin,Rajendra Badwe,Sudeep Gupta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-rf01-08

IF: 11.2

2024-05-03

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse event for cancer patients. Olanzapine (OLZ) in standard 10 mg dose along with triple antiemetics (TAE), has shown effectiveness in treating CINV with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), however, significant day time somnolence (DTS) precludes its widespread use. Steroids related side effects are another major concern. Hence, a lower dose of OLZ, with single dose (SD) steroid use is worth exploring in a randomized fashion. Methods Solid tumors planned for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide & high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy was randomized (1:1) to receive either 10mg OLZ (standard arm) or 2.5mg (experimental arm) till day 4 with TAE regimen [5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, dexamethasone (SD, without delayed doses), and neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists] in both arms. Primary objective was to evaluate Complete control rate (CCR) defined as proportion of subjects with no emetic episodes (EE), no use of rescue medications (RM), no or mild nausea assessed in overall phase (OP) =0-120 hours(h) in both groups. Secondary objectives were to compare two groups for the CCR in acute(AP) and delayed phase(DP);Complete response rate (CRR)=no EE and no use of RM in AP(0- 24h), DP(25-120h) and OP; Total control rate(TCR)= no EE, no use of RM, and no nausea) in AP, DP, OP; Time to treatment failure(TTF), defined as mean duration from chemotherapy initiation to first episode of nausea, EE, use of RM; Incidence of significant daytime somnolence(DTS).Tertiary objectives were effect on appetite loss. Subjects maintained a daily record of nausea, EE, RM use with the severity graded on a four-category scale. Statistical analysis CCR, CRR, TCR are given in counts and proportions. Occurrence of nausea, EE, DTS and their grades were compared using Chi-square test. Results A total of 275 subjects were enrolled, among them 267 were analyzable, inclusive of 132 subjects in 2.5mg and135 in 10mg arms with well-balanced baseline characteristics (Table 1) Proportion of patients with CCR in OP (Primary end point) in 2.5mg vs. 10mg arms were, 44.7 % vs. 43.7 % (P = 0.87) respectively. CCR in 2.5mg vs. 10mg arms in AP, DP were 50% vs. 48.9%(p=0.856) and 50.8% vs. 58.5% (P=0.203) respectively. CRR in 2.5mg vs. 10mg in AP, DP and OP were 56.1% vs. 57 % (P=0.872), 55.3% vs. 63% (P = 0.203), and 50.8 % vs. 51.1% (P=0.954), respectively. TCR in2.5mg vs. 10mg in AP, DP, and OP were25% vs. 23 % (P=0.697), 20.5% vs. 22% (P = 0.725), and 13.6 % vs. 15.6% (P=0.657), respectively. Subjects receiving 2.5 mg as compared with those receiving 10 mg, had statistically significant decreased DTS on overall grades 65.2%vs 89.6% vs. (p < 0.001); severe grade DTS was more on day1 i.e., 4.5%vs. 40% (p < 0.001) and although successively reduced from day 2-5 in both the arms, however, 2.5 mg fared better on all the days (table 1). No statistically significant effect of reduced appetite noted in 2.5mg vs. 10mg i.e., 17.4% vs. 24.4 %(p=0.208) Conclusion Low dose olanzapine (2.5mg) is non inferior to 10mg olanzapine in controlling CINV without requirement of delayed steroids, and is superior with respect to DTS (all days, all grades, severe grades) in subjects receiving HEC. This merits wide recognition as a new steroid sparing antiemetic regimen of choice with HEC. Demographic data, Clinical characteristics and Outcomes Citation Format: Jyoti Bajpai, Venkatesh Kapu, Sushmita Rath, Sravan Kumar, Anbarasan Sekar, Srikanth Anne, Akash Pawar, Sujay Srinivas, Prabhat Bhargava, Seema Gulia, Rajiv Sarin, Rajendra Badwe, Sudeep Gupta. A randomized, open-label phase III trial Evaluating Low-Dose Vs standard-dose Olanzapine with triple Antiemetic therapy for Prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy- induced Nausea and vomiting in solid tumors (OLAnzaPiNE) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl) nr RF01-08.

oncology
Olanzapine (5 mg) plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of multiple-day cisplatin hemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a prospective randomized controlled study

Jiali Gao,Jun Zhao,Caihong Jiang,Feng Chen,Lanzhen Zhao,Ying Jiang,Hui Li,Wenjuan Wang,Yungaowa Wu,Yilan Jin,Lenggaowa Da,Guang Liu,Yajuan Zhang,Hongxia Li,Zewei Zhang,Gaowa Jin,Quanfu Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07067-6

IF: 3.1

2022-04-21

Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract:Abstract Objective A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare 5 mg olanzapine plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy. Methods Patients who received a 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (25 mg/m 2 /d) were given either 5 mg olanzapine plus triple therapy with aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (quadruple group) or 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant (triplet group). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) in the overall phase (OP) (0–120 h) between quadruple group and triplet group. The secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute phase (AP) (0–24 h) and delayed phase (DP) (25–120 h) between two groups. The first time of vomiting was also compared by Kaplan–Meier curves. The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Aprepitant-related adverse effects (AEs) were also recorded. Results (1) The primary endpoint CR during OP was 76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) between the quadruple group and triplet group ( P = 0.271). The secondary endpoint CR during the AP was significantly higher in the quadruple group than in the triplet group, which was 100.0% (59/59) vs 93.0% (57/61) ( P = 0.045). The difference of CR during delayed phase between the groups was especially higher in the quadruple group compared to the triplet group (76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) ( P = 0.271)). The rate of patients who achieved total protection in the overall phase was also higher in the quadruple group than the triplet group (28.8% (17/59) vs 23.0% (14/61) ( P = 0.463)). During the OP, the incidence of no vomiting in the quadruple group and the triplet group was 93.2% (55/59) vs 80.3% (49/61) ( P = 0.038), respectively. (2) Kaplan–Meier curves of time to first emesis were obviously longer in the quadruple group compared with the triplet group ( P = 0.031). According to FLIE, no impact of CINV on daily life was defined as total score of questionnaire > 108; this study exhibited identical life quality between two groups. (3) The most common aprepitant- or olanzapine-related AEs included sedation, fatigue, and constipation. The occurrences between two groups were identical. Conclusion It may been recommended that 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant triplet regimen as an alternative therapy in prevention CINV induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy due to the excellent CINV control rate and safety.

oncology,health care sciences & services,rehabilitation
Efficacy Of Olanzapine For The Prophylaxis Of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea And Vomiting: A Meta-Analysis

Ting Yang,Qianxin Liu,Min Lu,Lingyue Ma,Ying Zhou,Yimin Cui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13242

2017-01-01

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:AIMThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).METHODSThe literature was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of olanzapine for the prophylaxis of CINV using PubMed, Embase, Central, as well as for unpublished studies. The endpoints of the study were the number of patients who achieved a complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue) and no nausea in the acute, delayed and overall phases. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The included RCTs were analysed using RevMan 5.3 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration.RESULTSTen RCTs were identified for the meta-analysis. Compared with other antiemetic agents, olanzapine significantly improved the CR in the delayed and overall phases, but did not enhance the CR in the acute phase. For the control of CINV, olanzapine was better than and comparable with aprepitant in the acute phase and delayed phase, respectively. Compared with placebo, treatment with 5 mg and 10 mg olanzapine exhibited similar efficacy in terms of the CR in the delayed and overall phases.CONCLUSIONSOlanzapine is an excellent alternative for the prophylaxis of CINV. Olanzapine 5 mg per day should be recommended as the initial dose because of equivalent efficacy to a 10 mg dose but a lower potential risk of side effects. Further studies are needed to explore the optimal combination of medicines.
A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study)

Yuanyuan Zhao,Yunpeng Yang,Fangfang Gao,Changlu Hu,Diansheng Zhong,Miaozhen Lu,Zhiping Yuan,Jianqing Zhao,Jidong Miao,Yan Li,Jie Zhu,Chunbin Wang,Jianjun Han,Yanqiu Zhao,Yan Huang,Li Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101771

IF: 15.1

2022-12-15

EClinicalMedicine

Abstract:Background: Evidence supports prophylactic use of olanzapine for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, most studies to date have focused on patients with single-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Currently, administration of antiemetic therapies for nausea and vomiting induced by multiday chemotherapy regimens remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine combined with triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving multiday chemotherapy. Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 22 hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years old, were diagnosed with malignant solid tumors, and they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. All the study participants were scheduled to be treated with chemotherapy regimens containing 3-day cisplatin (3-day total dose ≥75 mg/m2). Randomization was computer generated and stratified by gender and chemotherapy treatment history. Allocation was done via an interactive web response system. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5 mg olanzapine or placebo orally before bedtime for 5 days combined with intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) 1 h before the administration of cisplatin on day 1, ondansetron hydrochloride intravenously, and dexamethasone orally 30 min before cisplatin from days 1 to 3. Dexamethasone was also administered at the same time on days 4 and 5. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) within the overall phase (days 1-8) after starting chemotherapy. Baseline plasma concentrations of P-substance and 5-HT were measured for exploratory analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04536558. Findings: Between December 2020 and September 2021, 349 patients with malignant solid tumors were enrolled in the study, with 175 participants randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 174 participants assigned to receive placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall phase was significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (69% vs. 58%, P = 0.031). A complete response benefit was observed in the olanzapine group versus the placebo group in almost all the subgroups. Four factors were considered significantly associated with complete response in multivariable analysis: treatment group, gender, baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT, and prior radiotherapy. All the reported adverse events associated with olanzapine administration were grades 1 and 2. Interpretation: Olanzapine (5 mg) combined with fosaprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone was better than triple antiemetic therapy alone for patients receiving multiday chemotherapy regimens. Based on these results, the four-drug combination should be recommended as the best antiemetic regimen given to patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy and baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT may be used to identify individuals who are prone to CINV. However, all these findings need to be further validated in future studies. Funding: Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided research grant and study drugs for this investigator-initiated study.
Olanzapine or dexamethasone, with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and NK-1 receptor antagonist, to prevent nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin-based doublet chemotherapy: A non-inferiority, prospective, multi-centered, randomized, controlled, phase III clinical trial.

Zhigang Liu,Yuling Zhou,Shuang Yang,Wei-neng Feng,Ming-Yuan Chen,Xiong Zou,Guang Han,Jie Tang,Guorong Zou,Yu-Xiang He,Lemeng Zhang,Lei Cui,Hualin Chen,Guo Li,Shan Jiang,Jin Gao,Lin Xiao,Qun Zhang,Wei Yi,Chenghui Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.tps12133

IF: 45.3

2021-05-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:TPS12133 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common side effect of cancer treatments, and dexamethasone offers an advantage over placebo for protection against chemotherapy-induced emesis in both acute and delayed phases. However, its side effects are diverse including moderate to severe insomnia, hyperglycemia, dyspepsia and so on, which are gathering increasing concerns. What’s more, dexamethasone is not applicable to all cancer patients. The incidence of diabetes mellitus varies in different cancer which can reach up to 55.3%, and dexamethasone might not be a proper anti-emesis choice for them. Besides, dexamethasone delivery is always on debating when patients are receiving immunotherapy. However, all anti-emesis regimen recommended in guidelines are dexamethasone based. Alternative anti-emesis regimen are required. Studies have shown that olanzapine plays an important role in treating delayed, refractory, breakthrough nausea and vomiting. Thus, we initiated this prospective, multi-center, phase III study to validate the dexamethasone-free protocol: the non-inferiority role of applying olanzapine to prevent CINV instead of dexamethasone. Methods: This clinical trial started on February 3, 2020 is being conducted in 23 centres. All patients eligible are chemotherapy naïve and plan to receive cisplatin-containing regimen. Based on a 70% complete remission rate of previous study, to demonstrate a non-inferiority margin of 10%, 548 patients are required for two arms with the consideration of 5% of drop out and lost to follow-up (80% power,α = 0.05). Study design: Enrolled patients are randomized 1:1 into 2 arms to receive olanzapine or dexamethasone combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (palonosetron, granisetron or ondansetron) and NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) from the first day of chemotherapy. Olanzapine (5mg) is delivered orally per night from day 1 to day 4. Dexamethasone (12 mg) is given orally or intravenously within 30 minutes before cisplatin administrated on day 1; on day 2-4, the orally or intravenously given dose of dexamethasone is 8 mg. The primary endpoint is complete remission rate of vomiting during the whole observation period (0-120 hours from the starting of first course chemotherapy delivery). The secondary endpoints are complete remission rate of vomiting during 25-120 hours from the starting of first course chemotherapy delivery and no nausea rate during the whole observation period. Besides, side effects will be recorded according protocol. Clinical trial information: NCT04437017.

oncology
A Comparative Study of Efficacy and Safety of Ondansetron, Glycopyrrolate and Dexamethasone for Post Operative Nausea and Vomiting Following General Aneasthesia

Afreen Fatima,Mamatha K R

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13005/bpj/2068

2020-12-30

Abstract:Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common distressing problem in patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia which requires frequent medical interventions. This was a prospective, randomized study conducted in Victoria hospital, Bengaluru. Study subjects were randomly assigned into four groups of twenty patients in each. Group A received inj. Ondansetron 8 mg i.v, Group B received inj Glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg i.v, Group C received inj Dexamethasone 10 mg i.v and Group D received 1ml normal saline i.v, just before induction of anaesthesia with inj fentanyl and inj propofol. Number of patients having nausea & vomiting was assessed for 24 hrs after surgery. Out of eighty patients 47 (58.7%) patients had nausea and vomiting in the postoperative period. Six (30%) patients in group A, eleven (55%) in group B, thirteen (65%) in group C and seventeen (85%) patients in group D. Use of rescue antiemetic was higher in normal saline group followed by dexamethasone group. Headache was reported as an adverse effect in less than 10% of the patients. Our study showed that prophylactic use of ondansetron is more effective for prevention of PONV with lesser requirement of rescue medication and fewer side effects, followed by glycopyrrolate and dexamethasone.

English Else
Olanzapine 5 mg for Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Receiving Cisplatin-Based Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

Jun Wang,Tao Li,Li-E Lin,Qin Lin,San-Gang Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9984738

IF: 4.501

2022-03-21

Journal of Oncology

Abstract:Purpose. To explore the efficacy and safety of adding olanzapine (5 mg or 10 mg) to 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RA), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RA), and dexamethasone for nausea and vomiting in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) receiving cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Methods. Patients receiving olanzapine 5 mg or 10 mg combined with 5-HT3 RA, NK1 RA, and dexamethasone during the cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy were included. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) (no vomiting) rate, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of no nausea. Results. A total of 150 chemotherapy cycles were administrated for 88 patients (75 in the olanzapine 5 mg group and 75 in the olanzapine 10 mg group). The proportions of CR in the olanzapine 5 mg group were comparable to those in the olanzapine 10 mg group in acute (93.3% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.731 ), delayed (76% vs. 78.7%, P = 0.697 ), and overall phase (73.3% vs. 77.3%, P = 0.570 ). Moreover, no nausea rates were also comparable between the two groups in acute (76% vs. 78.7%, P = 0.697 ), delayed (54.7% vs. 60%, P = 0.509 ), and overall period (50.7% vs. 57.3%, P = 0.111 ). Regarding the adverse effects, the incidence of somnolence in the 10 mg group (58.6%) was significantly higher than that in the 5 mg group (41.3%) ( P = 0.034 ), while constipation (20.0% vs. 24.0%, P = 0.554 ) and hiccups (9.3% vs. 10.6%, P = 0.785 ) rates were comparable in two groups. Conclusions. Patients receiving olanzapine plus standard antiemetic therapy has excellent antiemetic effect in NPC patients receiving cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and patients with olanzapine 5 mg have a similar antiemetic effect and lower adverse effects compared with those with olanzapine 10 mg.

oncology
Olanzapine Combined with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Type 3 Receptor Antagonist (5-HT3 RA) Plus Dexamethasone for Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in High and Moderate Emetogenic Chemotherapy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Jianguo Zhou,Lang Huang,Sanli Jin,Cheng Xu,Benjamin Frey,Hu Ma,Udo S. Gaipl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2019-000621

IF: 6.883

2020-01-01

ESMO Open

Abstract:We performed a pooled analysis to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of olanzapine combined with dexamethasone plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) compared with 5-HT3 RA plus dexamethasone for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Literature database (CBM), WanFang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) (from their inception to April 2019) were searched to capture relevant articles. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals for CINV and AEs were all extracted or calculated. Eleven studies with 1107 cancer patients were involved in this review. The pooled RR of delayed CINV (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.66; p<0.01) were significantly decreased in the olanzapine group. The occurrence of insomnia was also statistically decreased, as was the rate of acute CINV (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; p<0.01). However, only the percentages of CINV III and CINV IV were significantly decreased in the acute and delayed phases. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the efficacy was not statistically significantly different between 5 mg and 10 mg olanzapine. Olanzapine significantly decreased the occurrence of CINV III and IV and insomnia in high and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Compared with 10 mg per day, 5 mg oral olanzapine may be more appropriate for patients with cancer.
Strong interlocking of nonconvex particles in random packings.

F. Ludewig,N. Vandewalle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PHYSREVE.85.051307

2012-05-01

Abstract:We present a numerical study of random packings made of nonconvex grains. These particles are built by the agglomeration of overlapping spheres in order to control their sphericity φ. The contact number C is found to be much larger than the coordination number Z, providing a significant difference with convex grains. The packing properties are found to be highly dependent on the morphological parameters of the grains : packing fractions as low as 0.3 have been reached. More importantly, the way nonconvex grains develop multiple contacts, i.e., interlocking, is found to be a relevant effect in such packings. Interlocking provides more stability to loose packings.
Olanzapine Plus Triple Antiemetic Therapy for the Prevention of Carboplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial

Naoki Inui,Takahito Suzuki,Kazuki Tanaka,Masato Karayama,Yusuke Inoue,Kazutaka Mori,Hideki Yasui,Hironao Hozumi,Yuzo Suzuki,Kazuki Furuhashi,Tomoyuki Fujisawa,Shun Matsuura,Koji Nishimoto,Takashi Matsui,Kazuhiro Asada,Dai Hashimoto,Masato Fujii,Mitsuru Niwa,Masahiro Uehara,Hiroyuki Matsuda,Keigo Koda,Masaki Ikeda,Nao Inami,Yutaro Tamiya,Masato Kato,Hideki Nakano,Yasuaki Mino,Noriyuki Enomoto,Takafumi Suda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.24.00278

IF: 45.3

2024-06-05

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE We evaluated the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy with olanzapine, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT 3 ) RA, and dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naïve patients scheduled to receive carboplatin (AUC ≥5) were randomly assigned to receive either olanzapine 5 mg once daily (olanzapine group) or placebo (placebo group) in combination with aprepitant, a 5-HT 3 RA, and dexamethasone. The primary end point was the complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue therapy) rate in the overall phase (0-120 hours). Secondary end points included the proportion of patients free of nausea and safety. RESULTS In total, 355 patients (78.6% male, median age 72 years, 100% thoracic cancer), including 175 and 180 patients in the olanzapine and placebo groups, respectively, were evaluated. The overall CR rate was 86.9% in the olanzapine group versus 80.6% in the placebo group. The intergroup difference in the overall CR rate was 6.3% (95% CI, –1.3 to 13.9). The proportions of patients free of chemotherapy-induced nausea in the overall (88.6% in the olanzapine group v 75.0% in the placebo group) and delayed (89.7% v 75.6%, respectively) phases were significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (both P < .001). Somnolence was observed in 43 (24.6%) and 41 (22.9%) patients in the olanzapine and placebo groups, respectively, and no events were grade ≥3 in severity. CONCLUSION The addition of olanzapine was not associated with a significant increase in the overall CR rate. Regarding the prevention of nausea, adding olanzapine provided better control in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, which needs further exploration.

oncology
3D reconstruction from plenoptic image

F. Murgia,D. Giusto,C. Perra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TELFOR.2015.7377504

2015-11-01

Abstract:Novel plenoptic cameras sample the light field crossing the main camera lens. The information available in a plenoptic image can be processed, in order to create the depth map of the scene, from a single camera shot. In this paper a novel algorithm, for the reconstruction of 3D point cloud of the scene from a single plenoptic image, taken with a consumer plenoptic camera, is proposed. Experimental analysis is conducted on several test images, and results are compared with state of the art methodology. The results are very promising, as the quality of the 3D point cloud from plenoptic image, is comparable with the quality obtained with current methodologies, that necessitates of more than one image.
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
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.
Olanzapine vs Haloperidol for Management of Acute Agitation in Emergency Department: An Open Label Randomised Controlled Trial

Yatharth Choudhary,Nayer Jamshed,Roshan Mathew,Satya Prakash Rout,Golak Prasad Patra,Ankit Kumar Sahu,Maroof Ahmad Khan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.11.014

IF: 1.473

2024-12-01

Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Background Acute agitation is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED), often managed with haloperidol. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus haloperidol for the initial treatment of acute agitation in the ED. Objectives Primary outcome was adequate sedation at 15 minutes, defined as Altered Mental Status (AMS) score of zero or less. Secondary outcomes included adequate sedation at 30 minutes, need for rescue medications and reported adverse events. Methods This open-label, randomized controlled trial included adult patients presenting to the ED with acute agitation, defined with an AMS score ≥ 3. After taking surrogate consent from their legally authorized representative, patients were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular (IM) olanzapine (10 mg) or IM haloperidol (5 mg). Results Of the total 94 patients, 47 received IM olanzapine and 47 received IM haloperidol. Similar proportions of patients were adequately sedated at 15 minutes (olanzapine 31.9% vs haloperidol 25.5%; relative risk [RR] - 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.37; p - 0.494) and 30 minutes (olanzapine 61.7% vs haloperidol 48.9%; RR – 1.26, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.82; p - 0.213). The need for rescue medications was similar (olanzapine 12.7% vs. haloperidol 25.5%; RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.22; p 0.116). Adverse events were uncommon and similar across both arms (olanzapine 4.2% vs. haloperidol 10.6%; RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.96; p 0.238). Conclusion Intramuscular olanzapine performed better than IM haloperidol in the management of acute agitation in ED. However, the differences were not statistically significant.

emergency medicine
A pooled analysis of adding olanzapine to guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy for breast cancer patients treated with an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in prospective and retrospective studies

Bo-Ya Xiao,Tong Su,Yu-Jia Huang,Guo-He Lin,Zhao-Bo Liu,Yun-Xiang Tang,Bi-Cheng Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06689-6

IF: 3.1

2021-11-13

Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract:PurposeAs an antipsychotic agent that targets multiple neurotransmitter receptors, olanzapine has been added to antiemetic therapies. For better understanding the application of olanzapine in antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients who suffered anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-induced nausea and vomiting, we comprehensively reviewed the antiemetic researches related to olanzapine and pooled-analyzed the results to confirm the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in breast cancer.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception through Sep 15, 2021. Both prospective and retrospective studies were eligible. The primary outcomes were complete response (defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medications) and no nausea rate, and the secondary outcome was treatment-related adverse events.ResultsFour studies with 466 breast cancer patients were identified in the pooled analysis. In the acute period (0–24 h), the olanzapine group had significantly higher rates of complete response (71.3% vs 48.1%, odds ratio [OR]: 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39–5.11, p = 0.003) and no nausea (70.0% vs 43.0%, OR: 3.55, 95% CI 1.76–7.18, p = 0.04) than the placebo group, while in the delayed period, the olanzapine group was also superior to the placebo group in terms of the complete response (82.5% vs 63.3%, OR: 3.81, 95% CI 1.58–9.15, p = 0.003) and no nausea (66.3% vs 51.9%, OR: 2.08, 95% CI 1.03–4.21, p = 0.04) rates. During the overall period in prospective studies, the proportions of complete response (50.0% vs 34.2%, OR: 1.93, p = 0.04) and no nausea (51.3% vs 25.3%, OR: 3.40, p = 0.0006) in the olanzapine group were higher than those in the placebo group.ConclusionHighly emetogenic chemotherapy breast patients could benefit from olanzapine-contained antiemetic therapy. Furthermore, since the cost is low, olanzapine is worth further clinical application and promotion.

oncology,health care sciences & services,rehabilitation
Comment on "Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2–4 with combined palonosteron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial)"

Luigi Celio,Andrea Antonuzzo,Matti S. Aapro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02611-z

IF: 9.075

2024-02-27

British Journal of Cancer

Abstract:Minatogawa et al. [1] should be commended for conducting this important trial. Antiemetic guidelines devised from the major international organizations recommend now olanzapine as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic regimen in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) [2, 3]. In light of this, it is clinically relevant that a four-drug regimen containing olanzapine, palonosetron, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone (DEX) single-dose was shown to be non-inferior to the guideline-recommended reference regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by cisplatin-based HEC. Also, in the SPARED trial both patients' global health status scores and the incidence of severe nausea were not worsened by DEX sparing beyond day 1. However, the authors failed to take into account the available evidence on the DEX sparing strategy in the cisplatin setting when interpreting the clinical implications of the study results. Despite the SPARED trial met its primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of the DEX-sparing arm in terms of complete response (CR) during the delayed phase, the authors did not confirm their study hypothesis that olanzapine 5 mg could substitute for DEX on days 2–4 to prevent delayed CINV following cisplatin. This position relies on the finding that DEX sparing beyond day 1 caused a significant increase in mild to moderate nausea and appetite loss [1]. It is interesting to note that a prior non-inferiority study (LUNG-NEPA trial) showed comparable antiemetic control during the 5 days post-chemotherapy with a three-drug regimen of NEPA (a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron) plus DEX single-dose versus the standard reference treatment with 4-day DEX in the setting of high-dose (≥70 mg/m 2 ) cisplatin [4]. Although olanzapine was not used, efficacy results in the DEX-sparing arm are comparable to those seen in the SPARED trial not only in terms of CR rates (primary endpoint) but also rates of patients free of nausea or vomiting. While the patient population is similar between the two studies according to sex and age, only 80% of patients in the SPARED trial received cisplatin at a dose of 70 mg/m 2 or greater. Since olanzapine 5 mg combined with palonosetron, aprepitant, and multiple-day DEX was shown to be better than placebo plus the same standard regimen in patients undergoing cisplatin [5], it is important to underline that we are still lacking of evidence from an adequately powered trial comparing 5 mg with 10 mg olanzapine in the CINV setting [6]. Therefore, there is a question whether olanzapine 5 mg can provide full benefit in improving control of cisplatin-induced nausea when the drug is added to a standard antiemetic regimen with DEX sparing on days 2–4. In the SPARED trial, the results of secondary endpoints suggest that the ability to improve nausea control may be jeopardized when olanzapine 5 mg is administered in combination with the DEX-sparing strategy.

oncology
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.

The splanchnic circulation time.

Olanzapine as a prophylactic antiemetic for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Olanzapine as Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract RF01-08: A randomized, open-label phase III trial Evaluating Low-Dose Vs standard-dose Olanzapine with triple Antiemetic therapy for Prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy- induced Nausea and vomiting in solid tumors (OLAnzaPiNE)

Olanzapine (5 mg) plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of multiple-day cisplatin hemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a prospective randomized controlled study

Efficacy Of Olanzapine For The Prophylaxis Of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea And Vomiting: A Meta-Analysis

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study)

Olanzapine or dexamethasone, with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and NK-1 receptor antagonist, to prevent nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin-based doublet chemotherapy: A non-inferiority, prospective, multi-centered, randomized, controlled, phase III clinical trial.

A Comparative Study of Efficacy and Safety of Ondansetron, Glycopyrrolate and Dexamethasone for Post Operative Nausea and Vomiting Following General Aneasthesia

Olanzapine 5 mg for Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Receiving Cisplatin-Based Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

Olanzapine Combined with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Type 3 Receptor Antagonist (5-HT3 RA) Plus Dexamethasone for Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in High and Moderate Emetogenic Chemotherapy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Strong interlocking of nonconvex particles in random packings.

Olanzapine Plus Triple Antiemetic Therapy for the Prevention of Carboplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial

3D reconstruction from plenoptic image

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

Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Office-based Surgery

Olanzapine vs Haloperidol for Management of Acute Agitation in Emergency Department: An Open Label Randomised Controlled Trial

A pooled analysis of adding olanzapine to guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy for breast cancer patients treated with an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in prospective and retrospective studies

Comment on "Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2–4 with combined palonosteron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial)"

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