Difference in persistence of efficacy of two antiemetic regimens on acute emesis during cisplatin chemotherapy. The Italian Group for Antiemetic Research.

1993 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 2396-2404 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acute Emesis ◽  
The Third ◽  
First Time ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE AND METHODS We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multicenter study of 287 cancer patients treated for the first time with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy who were randomly assigned to receive three consecutive cycles of the same antiemetic treatment consisting of ondansetron plus dexamethasone, or metoclopramide plus dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. RESULTS Patients who received the ondansetron combination achieved significantly greater complete protection from vomiting, but not from nausea, in all three cycles of chemotherapy than did patients treated with metoclopramide (78.7% v 59.6%, P < .002 during the first cycle; 73.4% v 51.0%, P < .002 during the second cycle; 73.7% v 47.5%, P < .001 during the third cycle). The ability of ondansetron treatment to protect patients from vomiting during the first cycle did not change in subsequent cycles, but decreased significantly as far as complete protection from nausea and from both nausea and vomiting are concerned. With the metoclopramide combination, a significantly greater reduction of complete protection from vomiting, nausea, and both nausea and vomiting was detected. Protection obtained in previous cycles of chemotherapy was the most important prognostic factor. Adverse events were significantly less frequent with ondansetron treatment during the three cycles of chemotherapy and no cumulative toxic effects were found with either treatment. CONCLUSION Ondansetron plus dexamethasone was significantly more efficacious and better tolerated than metoclopramide plus dexamethasone and diphenhydramine during three cycles of chemotherapy and, in contrast to the metoclopramide regimen, the efficacy of ondansetron plus dexamethasone, at least for vomiting, is maintained in subsequent cycles.

Ondansetron versus metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, in the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. The Italian Group for Antiemetic Research.

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-130 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Delayed Emesis ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Acute Emesis ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Oral Ondansetron

PURPOSE The role of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis is controversial. We compared ondansetron and metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, in cisplatin-treated patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred twenty-two patients who had been given > or = 50 mg/m2 of cisplatin were randomly assigned to receive, from days 2 to 4 after chemotherapy, oral ondansetron (8 mg twice daily) or oral metoclopramide (20 mg every 6 hours), both associated with intramuscular dexamethasone (8 mg twice on days 2 and 3, and 4 mg twice on day 4). Patients received the same intravenous prophylaxis for acute emesis: ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg. Nausea and vomiting were assessed daily until day 6 after chemotherapy. RESULTS According to the intention-to-treat principle, 318 patients were assessable. Known prognostic factors were similar in the two treatment groups. Complete protection from delayed vomiting and nausea was achieved by 62.0% and 43.7% of patients treated with ondansetron and by 60.0% and 53.7% of those receiving metoclopramide (no significant differences). Patients who vomited in the first 24 hours achieved the lowest complete protection from delayed emesis. In these patients, ondansetron offered better complete protection from vomiting than metoclopramide (28.6% v 3.8%, P < .05). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION The two treatments offer similar protection from delayed emesis, although ondansetron plus dexamethasone may be preferred in patients who suffer from acute vomiting. Optimal control of acute emesis is essential to achieve good protection from delayed nausea and vomiting, irrespective of the antiemetic treatment received.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Dose-Finding Study of Dexamethasone in Preventing Acute Emesis Induced by Anthracyclines, Carboplatin, or Cyclophosphamide:

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 725-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acute Emesis ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Finding Study ◽  
Dose Finding Study ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Different Doses

Purpose Different doses and schedules of dexamethasone, combined with a 5-HT3 antagonist, are used to prevent acute emesis induced by anthracyclines, carboplatin, or cyclophosphamide. Therefore, we planned a randomized, double-blind, dose finding study aimed to identify the preferred dose and schedule of dexamethasone. Patients and Methods All consecutive chemotherapy-naive patients enrolled onto study were randomly assigned to receive for the prevention of acute emesis, during the first 24 hours, one of the following dexamethasone regimens, in combination with ondansetron 8 mg intravenously (IV): for arm A, 8 mg IV before chemotherapy plus 4 mg orally every 6 hours for four doses, starting at the same time of the chemotherapy; for arm B, 24 mg IV single dose before chemotherapy; and for arm C, 8 mg IV single dose before chemotherapy. All patients received from day 2 to 5 oral dexamethasone 4 mg bid. Results A total of 587 patients were enrolled, and 585 were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle (195 patients in each arm). The rate of complete protection from acute vomiting and nausea, respectively, was not significantly different among the three groups (arm A, 84.6% and 66.7%; arm B, 83.6% and 56.9%; arm C, 89.2% and 61.0%), nor was the rate of complete protection from delayed vomiting and nausea, respectively (arm A, 81.0% and 46.7%; arm B, 81.3% and 45.1%; arm C, 79.8% and 46.1%). The incidence of delayed vomiting and nausea was strictly dependent on the presence of acute vomiting and nausea. Adverse events were mild and not significantly different among the three groups. Conclusion Dexamethasone 8 mg single dose IV before chemotherapy, in combination with a 5-HT3 antagonist, should be considered the preferred dose to prevent acute emesis induced by anthracyclines, carboplatin, or cyclophosphamide.

Double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the effect of two doses of adrenocorticotropic hormone versus placebo in controlling delayed emesis after high-dose cisplatin in adult patients with cancer.

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 2467-2473 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Passalacqua ◽  
G Cocconi ◽  
C Caminiti ◽  
V Silingardi ◽  
M A Bella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Adrenocorticotropic Hormone ◽  
Serum Cortisol ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Delayed Emesis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acute Emesis ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Different Doses

PURPOSE To compare, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, the efficacy of two different doses of the depot formulation of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) in controlling delayed emesis after cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled onto the study. On day 1, all patients received cisplatin (60 to 120 mg/m2) and a combination of dexamethasone 20 mg plus ondansetron or metoclopramide to prevent acute emesis. On day 2 (24 hours after cisplatin administration), patients were randomized to receive placebo, or ACTH 1 mg intramuscularly (I.M.), or ACTH 2 mg I.M. plus one additional dose of 1 mg on day 4. Details of vomiting, nausea, and adverse effects were recorded daily for every 24-hour period from day 2 to day 6. In a subset of patients, serum cortisol levels were measured between 20 and 72 hours after cisplatin administration. RESULTS One hundred fifty patients were assessable. Over the 5 days of the study, delayed vomiting occurred less frequently in the patients treated with ACTH 2 mg plus 1 mg than in those treated with ACTH 1 mg or placebo (28%, 38%, and 65%, respectively; P = .001). The greatest observed differences were seen on days 2 (24 to 48 hours; P = .01) and 3 (48 to 72 hours; P = .01). On days 4, 5, and 6 (96 to 144 hours), no significant differences were observed among the three arms. The severity of delayed emesis expressed as the mean number of emetic episodes per day was 0.48, 0.70, and 0.80, respectively (P = .002). Patients treated with the higher dose of ACTH had the least nausea on day 3 (P = .02) and day 4 (P = .03). Adrenal cortisol secretion rapidly increased after ACTH injection, but was suppressed for approximately 44 hours in the placebo group. Toxicity was mild and transient in all groups. CONCLUSION ACTH reduces the incidence and severity of delayed vomiting and nausea after cisplatin. A dose of 2 mg 24 hours after cisplatin is better than one of 1 mg. Whether the activity of ACTH is mediated only by adrenal corticosteroids needs to be verified.

Double-blind, dose-finding study of four intravenous doses of dexamethasone in the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis. Italian Group for Antiemetic Research.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. 2937-2942 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Finding ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acute Emesis ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Finding Study ◽  
Dose Finding Study ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Different Doses

PURPOSE A 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone is the most efficacious antiemetic prophylactic treatment for the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis, but the optimal intravenous (i.v.) dose of dexamethasone is unknown. This prompted us to perform a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, dose-finding study that compared four different doses of dexamethasone. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized to receive dexamethasone, either 4, 8, 12, or 20 mg, administered by 15-minute i.v. infusion 45 minutes before cisplatin. Ondansetron 8 mg was added to dexamethasone and was administered i.v. 30 minutes before cisplatin. From March 1996 to July 1997, 531 patients were enrolled onto the study and 530 were assessable according to the intention-to-treat principle (133 patients received 4 mg; 136 patients, 8 mg; 130 patients, 12 mg; and 131 patients, 20 mg of dexamethasone). RESULTS Complete protection from acute vomiting and nausea was achieved by 69.2% and 60.9% of patients, respectively, who received 4 mg of dexamethasone, by 69.1% and 61.0% of those who received 8 mg, by 78.5% and 66.9% of those who received 12 mg, and by 83.2% and 71.0% of those who received 20 mg of dexamethasone. Complete protection from vomiting was significantly superior in patients who received 20 mg compared with those who received 4 and 8 mg of dexamethasone (P < .005) and was superior, but not significantly, compared with those who received 12 mg. Complete protection from nausea was superior, but not significantly, in patients who received 20 mg of dexamethasone. Multifactorial analysis confirmed these results. Antiemetic treatment was well tolerated, and no significant difference was found among the four groups in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION A 20-mg single i.v. dose of dexamethasone should be considered the most efficacious prophylactic dose for the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron alone and in combination with intravenous dexamethasone in the prevention of high-dose cisplatin-induced emesis.

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 596-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
P J Hesketh ◽  
W H Harvey ◽  
W G Harker ◽  
T M Beck ◽  
T Ryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Parallel Group Design ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Abdominal Colic ◽  
Safety Parameters ◽  
Blind Comparison ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE This study compares the efficacy and safety of ondansetron alone with that of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the prevention of emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin (> or = 100 mg/m2). PATIENTS AND METHODS This multicenter study used a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design. Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) ondansetron (Zofran, Cerenex Pharmaceuticals, Research Triangle Park, NC) 0.15 mg/kg for three doses every 4 hours beginning 30 minutes before cisplatin administration either alone or in combination with dexamethasone 20 mg administered 45 minutes before cisplatin. Cisplatin (> or = 100 mg/m2) was administered as a single infusion (< or = 3 hours). Patients were monitored for emetic episodes (EEs), adverse events, and laboratory safety parameters for 24 hours after cisplatin administration. RESULTS A total of 275 patients were enrolled. Of these, 245 were assessable for efficacy. Patients who received ondansetron plus dexamethasone had a higher complete antiemetic response rate (61% v 46%, P = .02) and less nausea (posttreatment visual analog scale mean 18.2 v 32.8, P < .001) than did those who received ondansetron alone. The time to the first EE was longer for patients in the group that received ondansetron plus dexamethasone (P = .005). Headache (12%), diarrhea (2%), and abdominal colic (1%) were the most common antiemetic-related adverse events reported. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION IV ondansetron in combination with dexamethasone is safe and more effective than ondansetron alone in the prevention of emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin.

scholarly journals Phase 1 Study of the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of the β-Lactamase Inhibitor Vaborbactam (RPX7009) in Healthy Adult Subjects

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (10) ◽  
pp. 6326-6332 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Griffith ◽  
Jeffery S. Loutit ◽  
Elizabeth E. Morgan ◽  
Stephanie Durso ◽  
Michael N. Dudley
Keyword(s):  
Plasma Clearance ◽  
Healthy Adult ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Time Curve ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Multiple Doses ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Lactamase Inhibitor

ABSTRACTVaborbactam (formerly RPX7009) is a member of a new class of β-lactamase inhibitor with pharmacokinetic properties similar to those of many β-lactams, including carbapenems. The pharmacokinetics and safety of vaborbactam were evaluated in 80 healthy adult subjects in a first-in-human randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, sequential single- and multiple-ascending-dose study. A total of 10 dose cohorts were enrolled in the study, with 6 subjects randomized to receive 250 to 2,000 mg of vaborbactam and 2 subjects randomized to receive placebo in each cohort. Maximum concentrations for vaborbactam were achieved at the end of the 3-h infusion. Vaborbactam exposure (Cmaxand area under the concentration-time curve [AUC]) increased in a dose-proportional manner following multiple doses. There was no evidence of accumulation with multiple doses, consistent with the terminal half-life of ∼2 h. Both the volume of distribution (Vss) and plasma clearance were independent of dose. For the 2,000-mg dose, the plasma clearance was 0.17 ± 0.03 liters/h, the AUC from 0 h to infinity (AUC0–∞) was 144.00 ± 13.90 mg · h/liter, and theVsswas 21.80 ± 2.26 mg · h/liter. Urinary recovery was 80% or greater over 48 h across all dose groups. No subjects discontinued the study due to adverse events (AEs), and no serious AEs (SAEs) were observed. All AEs were mild to moderate and similar among the vaborbactam- and placebo-treated subjects, with mild lethargy as the only unique AE reported with the high dose of vaborbactam. Overall, this study revealed the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profile of vaborbactam and formed the basis for advancement into patient studies in combination with meropenem, including treatment of patients with carbapenem-resistantEnterobacteriaceae(CRE) infections. (This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01751269.)

Adverse events and blinding in two randomized trials of hyperbaric oxygen for persistent post-concussive symptoms

2019 ◽  
pp. 331-340
Author(s):  
Susan Churchill ◽  
◽  
Kayla Deru ◽  
Lindell K. Weaver ◽  
Steffanie H. Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Hyperbaric Oxygen ◽  
Gas Flow ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Symptom Improvement ◽  
Sham Control ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
To Receive

Safety monitoring and successful blinding are important features of randomized, blinded clinical trials. We report chamber- and protocol-related adverse events (AEs) for participants enrolled in two randomized, double-blind clinical trials of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) for persistent post-concussive symptoms clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT01306968, HOPPS, and NCT01611194, BIMA), as well as the success of maintaining the blind with a low-pressure sham control arm. In both studies, participants were randomized to receive HBO2 (1.5 atmospheres absolute, >99% oxygen) or sham chamber sessions (1.2 atmospheres absolute, room air). In 143 participants undergoing 4,245 chamber sessions, chamber-related adverse events were rare (1.1% in the HOPPS study, 2.2% in the BIMA study). Minor, non-limiting barotrauma was the most frequently reported. Rarely, some participants experienced headache with chamber sessions. No serious adverse events were associated with chamber sessions. An allocation questionnaire completed after intervention revealed that the sham control arm adequately protected the blind in both trials. Participants based allocation assumptions on symptom improvement or lack of symptom improvement and could not discern intervention arm by pressure, smell, taste, or gas flow.

Solumedrol Treatment for Severe Sepsis in Humans with a Blunted Adrenocorticotropic Hormone-Cortisol Response: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Pilot Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 088506662110388
Author(s):  
Divya Birudaraju ◽  
Sajad Hamal ◽  
John A. Tayek
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Adrenocorticotropic Hormone ◽  
Serum Cortisol ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Cortisol Response ◽  
Acth Stimulation ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
To Receive

Purpose To test the benefits of Solumedrol treatment in sepsis patients with a blunted adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-cortisol response (delta <13 µg/dL) with regard to the number of days on ventilator, days on intravenous blood pressure support, length of time in an intensive care unit (ICU), 14-day mortality, and 28-day mortality. The trial was prospective, randomized, and double-blind. As part of a larger sepsis trial, 54 patients with sepsis had an intravenous ACTH stimulation test using 250 µg of ACTH, and serum cortisol was measured at times 0, 30, and 60 min. Eleven patients failed to increase their cortisol concentration above 19.9 µg/dL and were excluded from the clinical trial as they were considered to have adrenal insufficiency. The remaining 43 patients had a baseline cortisol of 32 ± 1 µg/dL increased to 38 ± 3 µg/dL at 30 min and 40 ± 3 at 60 min. All cortisol responses were <12.9 µg/dL between time 0 and time 60, which is defined as a blunted cortisol response to intravenous ACTH administration. Twenty-one were randomized to receive 20 mg of intravenous Solumedrol and 22 were randomized to receive a matching placebo every 8 h for 7-days. There was no significant difference between the two randomized groups. Data analysis was carried out bya two-tailed test and P < .05 as significant. Results Results: The mean age was 51 ± 2 (mean ± SEM) with 61% female. Groups were well matched with regard to APACHE III score in Solumedrol versus placebo (59 ± 6 vs 59 ± 6), white blood cell count (18.8 ± 2.2 vs 18.6 ± 2.6), and incidence of bacteremia (29 vs 39%). The 28-day mortality rate was reduced in the Solumedrol treated arm (43 ± 11 vs 73 ± 10%; P < .05). There was no change in days in ICU, days on blood pressure agents, or days on ventilator. Seven days of high-dose intravenous Solumedrol treatment (20 mg every 8 h) in patients with a blunted cortisol response to ACTH was associated with an improved 28-day survival. This small study suggests that an inability to increase endogenous cortisol production in patients with sepsis who are then provided steroid treatment could improve survival.

scholarly journals Randomized Double-blind Placebo-controlled Proof-of-concept Trial of Resveratrol for Outpatient Treatment of Mild Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marvin R. McCreary ◽  
Patrick M. Schnell ◽  
Dale A. Rhoda
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Low Incidence ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Resveratrol is a polyphenol that has been well studied and has demonstrated anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties that might mitigate the effects of COVID-19. Outpatients (N=105) were recruited from central Ohio in late 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo or resveratrol. Both groups received a single dose of Vitamin D3 which was used as an adjunct. The primary outcome measure was hospitalization within 21 days of symptom onset; secondary measures were ER visits, incidence of pneumonia and pulmonary embolism. Five patients chose not to participate after randomization. Twenty-one day outcome was determined of all one hundred participants (mean [SD] age 55.6 [8.8] years; 61% female) (or their surrogates). There were no clinically significant adverse events attributed to resveratrol. Outpatients in this phase 2 study treated with resveratrol had a lower incidence compared to placebo of: hospitalization (2% vs. 6%, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04-3.10), COVID-related ER visits (8% vs. 14%, RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.18-1.83), and pneumonia (8% vs. 16%, RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.16-1.55). One patient (2%) in each group developed pulmonary embolism (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.06-15.55). This underpowered study was limited by small sample size and low incidence of primary adverse events. A larger trial could determine efficacy.TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400890 26/05/2020; FDA IND #150033 05/05/2020

Pirenzepine in Non-Ulcer Dyspepsia: A Double-Blind Multicentre Trial

1990 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.M. Smith ◽  
A.H. Troughton ◽  
F. Gleeson ◽  
J. Walters ◽  
C.F. McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Multicentre Study ◽  
Multicentre Trial ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Non Ulcer Dyspepsia ◽  
Upper Abdominal ◽  
To Receive

In a double-blind multicentre study to compare pirenzepine with placebo in non-ulcer dyspepsia, 71 patients were randomized to receive 50 mg pirenzepine or placebo given orally twice daily for 4 weeks. The trial was not completed by five patients in the pirenzepine group and six in the placebo group. There were no significant differences between the groups in respect to changes in total symptoms (upper abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, early satiety and postprandial bloating, eructation and pyrosis) scores and outcome, although 27/35 (77%) patients receiving pirenzepine were cured or improved compared with 22/36 (61%) receiving the placebo. Adverse effects were reported by 13 (37%) patients treated with pirenzepine and by six (17%) treated with placebo, seven withdrawing due to adverse effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document