格拉司琼联合升降胶囊防治化疗引起呕吐40例

[目的]观察格拉司琼联合升降胶囊防治肿瘤化疗所致呕吐的临床疗效。[方法]80例恶性肿瘤患者随机分为中西医结合组40例和西药组40例,中西医结合组采用格拉司琼联合升降胶囊治疗,西药组采用格拉司琼治疗。[结果]中西医结合组化疗后第1~4天预防呕吐有效率均高于西药组(P<0.05)。[结论]格拉司琼联合升降胶囊能有效防治含顺铂方案化疗所致急性呕吐及迟发性呕吐,且不良反应较轻。     

甲氧氯普胺的用药时机对联合用药预防老年患者铂类化疗药物恶心呕吐的效果

<正>顺铂是临床最常用的抗肿瘤细胞毒药物,也是导致恶心呕吐作用最强的药物。每次用药量超过30 mg/m2,恶心、呕吐发生率为100%〔1〕。近年来,随着格拉司琼等5-羟色胺(5-HT3)受体拮抗剂的大量应用,使患者的恶心、呕吐反应有所控制。甲氧氯普胺是常用的止吐药物,格拉司琼联合甲氧氯普胺、地塞米松用于预防含顺铂方案化疗所致恶心、呕吐疗效优于单用格拉司琼〔2〕。1资料与方法1.1资料本院普通外科2011年1月至2012年12月诊断为     

托烷司琼与格拉司琼预防蒽环类药物联合环磷酰胺化疗所致恶心、呕吐的成本-效果分析

目的 评价托烷司琼与格拉司琼预防蒽环类药物联合环磷酰胺化疗所致恶心、呕吐的经济学效果.方法 将同期行蒽环类药物联合环磷酰胺化疗的58例（105例次）患者随机分为A组37例（75例次）、B组21例（30例次）,分别应用托烷司琼及格拉司琼预防化疗所致呕吐,观察止吐效果并进行成本-效果分析.结果 A、B组止吐有效率分别为86.6%、76.6%（P＞0.05）,成本/有效率分别为1.58和0.48.结论 托烷司琼与格拉司琼预防蒽环类药物联合环磷酰胺化疗所致恶心、呕吐的疗效相似,但后者经济学效果较好.     

帕洛诺司琼与格拉司琼联合应用对化疗所致恶心、呕吐的防治效果观察

目的探讨帕洛诺司琼与格拉司琼联合应用对化疗所致恶心、呕吐的防治作用和安全性。方法接受培美曲塞或多西他赛联合顺铂方案化疗的非小细胞肺癌患者111例,其中化疗前给予帕洛诺司琼联合格拉司琼36例(联合组),给予帕洛诺司琼38例(帕洛诺司琼组),给予格拉司琼例37例(格拉司琼组)。比较各组急性期(化疗后0~24 h)、延迟期(化疗后24~120 h)及全期(化疗后0~120 h)的呕吐完全缓解率,急性期、延迟期解救治疗率、恶心改善率及不良反应发生情况。结果三组急性期完全缓解率及恶心改善率组间比较差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05);联合组延迟期呕吐完全缓解率、恶心改善率及全期完全缓解率均明显高于帕洛诺司琼组和格拉司琼组(P均<0.05)。三组解救治疗率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。三组不良反应主要为头痛、便秘及腹胀等,各不良反应的发生率三组比较差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。结论帕洛诺司琼与格拉司琼联用对高致吐性化疗药所致的急性期、延迟期恶心、呕吐反应有预防及治疗作用,其效果优于单用帕洛诺司琼或格拉司琼,且较为安全。     

顺铂化疗后程加用地塞米松对迟发性恶心呕吐的防治作用观察

目的观察顺铂(DDP)化疗后程加用地塞米松对迟发性恶心呕吐的防治作用。方法 80例恶性肿瘤患者,采用DDP为基础的化疗方案化疗(DDP 60～80 mg/m2、d1),随机分为A(28例)、B(26例)、C(26例)组。A组给予阿扎司琼10 mg静滴、d 1～d 4,地塞米松5 mg静注、d 3～d 4;B组给予阿扎司琼10 mg静滴、d 1～d 4,地塞米松5 mg静注、d 1～d 4;C组给予阿扎司琼10 mg、静滴、d 1～d 4。观察各组化疗第2、3、4天恶心呕吐情况及不良反应。结果 A、B、C组恶心呕吐发生率分别为96.43%、96.15%、73.08%;A、B两组相比,P均>0.05;A、B组与C组相比,P均<0.05。A、B、C组出现不良反应者分别为10、29、7例;A、C组与B组相比,P均<0.05。结论 DDP化疗后程短期加用地塞米松可有效防治迟发性恶心呕吐,不良反应小。     

帕洛诺司琼预防大剂量顺铂化疗所致呕吐的临床观察

目的：评价帕洛诺司琼的止吐疗效和毒性.方法：将56例接受大剂量顺铂化疗的患者随机分入帕洛诺司琼组（实验组,28例）和托烷司琼组（对照组,28例）,比较2组急性呕吐和延迟性呕吐的发生率和毒性反应.结果：实验组急性呕吐完全缓解率明显高于对照组（85.7％ vs 67.9％,P＜0.05）.实验组的延迟性呕吐完全控制率明显高于对照组（68.2％vs49.7％,P=0.03）2组的毒性反应发生率相似,未观察到3～4级毒性反应.结论：帕洛诺司琼预防大剂量顺铂化疗所致呕吐优于托烷司琼,毒性轻微,值得临床推广应用.     

帕洛诺司琼及昂丹司琼预防化疗所致恶心、呕吐的效果对比

目的比较帕洛诺司琼、昂丹司琼预防化疗所致恶心、呕吐的临床疗效及安全性。方法将32例恶性肿瘤患者随机分为观察组和对照组各16例,均行顺铂等药物化疗,并分别予帕洛诺司琼、昂丹司琼预防恶心、呕吐反应;观察两组恶心、呕吐控制效果及不良反应。结果观察组和对照组急性期恶心、呕吐有效控制率分别为75.00%、62.5%（P〉0.05）,延迟期分别为75.00%、31.25%（P〈0.05）,不良反应发生率均为18.75%。结论帕洛诺司琼预防化疗所致恶性、呕吐的安全性与昂丹司琼相似,但效果优于后者且临床使用方便。     

格拉司琼联合甲基强的松龙预防化疗所致胃肠反应的临床疗效

我院自 2 0 0 0 - 0 1～ 2 0 0 3 - 0 1,将 63例接受联合化疗的患者随机分组 ,观察格拉司琼加甲基强的松龙与单用格拉司琼预防化疗所致的恶心呕吐的安全性及止吐效果。1　材料与方法　　全组患者均完成至少 2个周期化疗 ,均可评价疗效和不良反应。男性 3 9例 ,女性 2 4例 ,年龄 19～ 68岁 ,中位年龄 5 3岁。肺癌 2 0例 ,食管癌 15例 ,胃癌 12例 ,乳腺癌 9例 ,恶性淋巴瘤 7例。初治者 42例 ,复治者 2 1例。化疗前肝肾功能、血常规及心电图检查均正常。化疗方案 :联合化疗方案因病种不同而各异 ,其中 3 7例患者的联合化疗方案中含顺铂 ,其它致…     

奈达铂联合化疗治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌

目的评价奈达铂联合长春瑞滨治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效和不良反应。方法对28例初治晚期非小细胞肺癌行奈达铂联合长春瑞滨化疗，方案：奈达铂80mg／m^2静滴d1。长春瑞滨25mg／m^2静注d1、d8，3～4周为一周期，用药4周期。对照组25例，化疗方案为顺铂加长春瑞滨。结果奈达铂组PR11例，有效率（CR＋PR）为39．2％；对照组CR1例、PR8例，有效率40．0％，两组间差异不明显（P〉0．05）；毒性反应白细胞与血小板减少治疗组与对照组无显著性差别（P〉0．05）；消化道反应奈达铂组明显小于顺铂组（P〈0．05）。结论奈达铂联合化疗治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效与顺铂相当，消化道毒性小于顺铂。奈达铂联合长春瑞滨化疗是治疗晚期小细胞肺癌较为有效的化疗方案之一。     

奥氮平联合昂丹司琼预防非小细胞肺癌化疗所致恶心呕吐的疗效观察

目的比较奥氮平联合昂丹司琼与单用昂丹司琼预防非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）化疗所致恶心呕吐（CINV）的效果。方法84例NSCLC患者随机分为研究组（42例）及对照组（42例）,研究组和对照组均在化疗前30min给予静脉滴注昂丹司琼8mg,研究组自化疗第1天早晨开始I：1服奥氮平10mg,连用8d,评价化疗第1周期的止吐效果。结果研究组和对照组急性呕吐的发生率分别为33．33％（14／42）和54．76％（23／42）,差异有统计学意义,P〈0．05;迟发性呕吐的发生率分别为16．67％（7／42）和47．62％（20／42）,差异有统计学意义,P〈0．01。结论奥氮平联合昂丹司琼与单用昂丹司琼相比,奥氮平联合昂丹司琼对于预防NSCLC化疗所致恶心呕吐有更好的效果,尤其是对迟发型恶心呕吐效果更为显著。     

Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study on the efficacy and safety of oral granisetron and oral ondansetron in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving hyperfractionated total body irradiation

The efficacy and safety of granisetron and ondansetron for the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting resulting from hyperfractionated total body irradiation (TBI) were assessed. Thirty-four patients randomly received double-blind, oral granisetron (2 mg, 1 h before first daily fraction of radiation) or ondansetron (8 mg, 1.5 h prior to each fraction of TBI). Ninety patients who received the same TBI regimen prior to bone marrow transplantation (BMT), but no 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, were identified and comprised the historical control group. By design, this study was only powered to show a difference between each of the active treatment groups and the historical control group. Significantly more patients given granisetron (33.3%) or ondansetron (26.7%) had zero emetic episodes over 4 days, the primary efficacy end point, than those in the historical control group (0%) (P < 0.01; intent-to-treat). Secondary efficacy end points were also evaluated. During the first 24 h, significantly more patients taking granisetron (61.1%) or ondansetron (46.7%) had zero emetic episodes than patients in the historical control group (6.7%) (P < 0.01). Complete emetic control (no emesis or rescue antiemetic) over 4 days was more frequent in patients taking granisetron (27.8%) or ondansetron (26.7%) compared with the historical control group (0%) (P < 0.01). Significantly fewer patients taking granisetron (18/18), but not those taking ondansetron (12/15), experienced more than five emetic episodes during the 4 days of the study compared with the historical control group (40/90; P < 0.01). Oral granisetron and ondansetron are safe and effective for the prevention of nausea and vomiting resulting from TBI.     

紫杉醇联合铂类药物治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床研究

目的评价紫杉醇联合铂类药物对晚期非小细胞肺癌的客观疗效及毒副作用。方法经病理组织学证实的晚期非小细胞肺癌59例，采用紫杉醇135mg／m^2，静脉滴注，第1天，顺铂80mg／m^2，分3d给药，第2～4天，或卡铂350mg／m^2。静脉滴注，第2天，21天为1个周期，2个周期以上评价疗效及毒副作用。结果全组PR24例，SD23例，PD12例，总有效率为40.7％。主要毒副作用为恶心，呕吐、骨髓抑制、关节肌肉痛等。大部分为Ⅰ～Ⅱ度不良反应，患者耐受良好。结论紫杉醇联合铂类方案是1种对晚期非小细胞肺癌有效的治疗方案，毒副作用轻，值得临床进一步研究应用。     

Antiemetic efficacy of granisetron plus dexamethasone in bone marrow transplant patients receiving chemotherapy and total body irradiation

Few trials exist regarding the antiemetic efficacy of granisetron in bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients conditioned with high-dose chemotherapy and total body irradiation (TBI). In this single-center, open-label, prospective, trial, the antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron plus dexamethasone were evaluated in 26 patients conditioned with cyclophosphamide-containing regimens (the majority receiving 60 mg/kg per day on 2 consecutive days), and TBI (12 Gy divided over 4 days). Daily intravenous doses of granisetron 1 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg were given 30 min prior to chemotherapy or radiation, and continued for 24 h after the last conditioning treatment for a median of 6 days (range 3-9). Emetic control was defined by the number of emetic episodes occurring within a 24 h period, or the requirement for rescue medication for nausea or vomiting. A total of 25 patients completed 186 evaluable treatment days. Response (emetic control by treatment days) was complete in 50% of patients, major in 48%, minor in 2%, and there were no failures. Adverse effects were minor, with diarrhea (15%), headache (14%), and constipation (11%) reported most often. Based on these results, the antiemetic regimen of granisetron plus dexamethasone appears effective and well tolerated during BMT conditioning with high-dose cyclophosphamide and TBI.     

The antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron compared with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone in patients receiving fractionated chemotherapy over 5 days

The antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron (40 g/kg), a selective and potent 5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) antagonist, was compared with that of metoclopramide (7 mg/kg) plus dexamethasone (12 mg) in patients receiving fractionated chemotherapy. Patients receiving cisplatin at doses of at least 15 mg/m² or etoposide at least 120 mg/m² or ifosfamide at least 1.2 g/m² on each of 5 consecutive days were eligible. A total of 143 patients received granisetron and 141 received the comparator regimen. The 5-day complete response rate (no vomiting, no worse than mild nausea) for granisetron (46.8%) was equivalent to that for metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (43.9%). The overall 5-day response profile was superior for granisetron (P=0.013) because of fewer failures in this group. The overall incidence of adverse experiences was significantly lower in the granisetron group (60.8% versus 77.3%,P=0.003). Headache and constipation, more prevalent in the granisetron group, are recognized side-effects of serotonin antagonists. Extrapyramidal syndrome, not seen in any granisetron patients, occurred in 20.6% of comparator patients (P<0.0001). The majority of granisetron patients only required a single prophylactic dose of the drug on each treatment day (at least 82%). In conclusion, granisetron showed at least equivalent efficacy to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone in patients receiving 5-day fractionated chemotherapy. In addition it offered a simple and convenient dosing regimen and a safer side-effect profile.     

Antiemetic efficacy of three serotonin antagonists during high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in malignant lymphoma

The aim of this study was to compare antiemetic efficacy of three serotonin antagonists, granisetron, tropisetron and ondansetron, during conditioning for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Forty-five malignant lymphoma patients (mean age 38 years, M:F 30:15), undergoing the highly emetogenic regimen BEAM prior to ASCT, were randomized to receive IV granisetron (G) 3 mg once a day, IV tropisetron (T) 5 mg once a day, or IV ondansetron (0) 8 mg twice daily, for six days. The treatment groups were comparable with respect to age, sex and previous experience of nausea and/or vomiting. Nausea and/or emesis control failure was defined as a nausea lasting > or = 4 hours and/or > or = 3 episodes of vomiting/24 h, emesis control failure as > or = 3 episodes of vomiting/24 h. Both the period of chemotherapy (6 days) and the whole period of observation (10 days) were evaluated. Nausea and/or emesis control failure occurred in 24% of patients during the period of chemotherapy and in 51% of patients throughout the whole period of observation, while emesis control failed in 2% and 27% of patients, respectively. The efficacy of three serotonin antagonists was comparable during the chemotherapy period (5 patients with nausea and/or emesis control failure in the granisetron group, 2 in the tropisetron group and 4 in the ondansetron group,p = 0.40). When evaluating the whole period of observation, the antiemetic response to G and T was significantly better than to O, nausea and/or emesis control failure having occurred in 7 (47%) patients treated with G, 5 (33%) patients treated with T, and 12 (80%) patients treated with O, p = 0.03. The results concerning emesis control failures were similar, G 4 (27%), T 1 (7%), O 7 (47%), p = 0.04. Headache was the only frequent side effect of serotonin antagonists (30% incidence). All three serotonin antagonists sufficiently controlled nausea and vomiting during high-dose chemotherapy (BEAM) administration in 67-87% of patients. In comparison with ondansetron, both tropisetron and granisetron proved to be more effective after ASCT, when emetogenic factors other than chemotherapy alone participated.     

Continuous-infusion granisetron compared to ondansetron for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after high-dose chemotherapy

Purpose: The serotonin receptor antagonists effectively prevent emesis with little toxicity when employed with standard doses of emetogenic chemotherapy. The optimal approach to the prevention of the emesis associated with the high doses of chemotherapy used for autologous stem cell transplantation is not known. A randomized controlled trial was designed to assess the relative efficacy and toxicity of granisetron compared to ondansetron in the setting of autologous stem cell transplantation. Methods: A group of 48 patients with breast cancer were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either (1) granisetron as a 0.5-mg i.v. bolus 30 min. before chemotherapy followed by a continuous infusion of 0.04 mg/h (1 mg/day) for 7 days or (2) ondansetron as an 8-mg i.v. bolus 30 min before chemotherapy followed by a continuous infusion of 1 mg/h (24 mg/day) for 7 days. All patients also received 10 mg dexamethasone/day i.v. for 7 days. Chemotherapy consisted of 1500 mg cyclophosphamide per m²/day, 125 mg thiotepa m⁻² day⁻¹, and 200 mg carboplatin per m²/day all as a continuous infusion for 4 consecutive days. The two study arms were then compared for the incidence and severity of nausea, incidence of emesis, number of salvage anti-emetics required, cost, and toxicity. Results: A total of 46 patients were evaluable. The treatment arms were well-balanced for known risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Compliance with self-reporting of nausea and vomiting was poor but indicated no difference between the two treatment arms. The average number of anti-emetics required was 15.8 in both treatment arms and the average time to the first dose of a salvage anti-emetic was 2.8 days in the granisetron arm and 2.9 days in the ondansetron arm. The incidence of headache was 36 % in the granisetron arm and 39 % in the ondansetron arm. None of these differences was statistically significant. The use of granisetron resulted in a cost saving of 6.5 %. Conclusion: There was no significant difference between granisetron and ondansetron in either efficacy or toxicity. At our institution, the use of granisetron resulted in a moderate cost saving. Received: 17 October 1997 / Accepted: 17 December 1997     

洛铂联合依托泊苷治疗小细胞肺癌的临床疗效

目的评价洛铂联合依托泊苷治疗初治小细胞肺癌的疗效和毒副反应,并与同期应用的顺铂联合依托泊苷治疗初治小细胞肺癌的方案相比较。方法分析呼吸内科住院治疗的45例初治小细胞肺癌患者,其中洛铂治疗组25例:洛铂50mg/m2,iv,d1,依托泊苷:100 mg/m2,iv,d 1～3;顺铂治疗组20例:顺铂80 mg/m2,iv,d1,依托泊苷:100 mg/m2,iv,d1～3;并对两组患者近期疗效及毒副反应进行比较。结果洛铂组CR 8例,PR 9例,SD 4例,PD 4例;顺铂组CR 9例,PR 7例,SD 3例,PD 2例;两组总有效率为68%和80%,差异无统计学意义(P=0.805)。全组主要毒性反应为骨髓抑制。顺铂组Ⅲ-Ⅳ度胃肠道反应及脱发明显高于洛铂组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论洛铂联合依托泊苷治疗初治小细胞肺癌疗效确切,毒副反应小,与顺铂联合依托泊苷方案相比,疗效相似。     

About the antiemetic effectivity of granisetron in chemotherapy-induced acute emesis: a comparison of results with intravenous and oral dosing.

The paper is devoted to review literature data on intravenous and oral antiemetic effectivity of granisetron (GRAN) a selective 5HT3 antagonist and to determine the optimal dose for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced acute emesis. The drug was put on the market in the injectable form in 1994 and in the oral form in 1995, so a sufficient number of reports have been published for the evaluation. According to the summarized data on 6095 patients treated with intravenous GRAN, on average 66% antiemetic complete response (CR) rate was reached (i.e. no vomiting in the first 24 hours of chemotherapy). Best results were observed with the dose of 40 microg/kg intravenous GRAN, on average 70% CR (range 47-93%) were achieved in 4182 of the 6095 patients with this dose. In 942 patients treated with the mostly applied oral dose of GRAN (1 mg twice daily), on average 61% CR (range 52-82%) were reported. Side effects were weak and transient, mostly headache and constipation were observed. Headache appeared in 13% with the use of 40 microg/kg intravenous dose GRAN and in 18% with 1 mg oral dose twice daily Constipation was observed in 5.3% and 17% with the injection and oral dose, respectively.     

吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床观察

目的探讨吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺（NSCLC）的疗效及毒性。方法对26例晚期非小细胞肺癌患者予以顺铀80mg／m^2，VD，第1天，吉西他滨800—1000／m^2，VD，第1、8天，21d为一个周期，完成3个周期后评价疗效。结果全组总有效率为38．5％，其中鳞癌为40％，腺癌为36．4％，中位生存期12．1个月，1年生存率为41％。主要毒性反应为骨髓抑制和恶心呕吐，绝大多数患者可以耐受良好。结论吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌是安全、有效的化疗方案，可延长患者生存存期，毒性反应可以耐受。