Effective control of moderate-dose cisplatin-induced emesis by a short-course regimen including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine and hydrocortisone: results of a randomized trial with metoclopramide alone

To improve the antiemetic effectiveness of a previously selected short regimen of moderate-dose metoclopramide (MCP), 80 patients were randomized to receive MCP either alone (regimen A) or in combination with low-dose chlorpromazine (CLP) and high-dose hydrocortisone (HDC) (regimen B) with the first course of cisplatin (50 mg/m2). The antiemetic effect was assessed over a 24-hour period only by objective means (duration and volume of vomiting in overnight fasting patients). The response was classified as follows: no emesis (absence of vomiting), partial protection (up to 100 ml of vomiting) and antiemetic failure (more than 100 ml). For regimen A, this study confirms the results previously reported over a 6-hour period. Regimen B provided better emetic control, significantly reducing the prevalence (p = 0.03) and severity (p = 0.02) of emesis, as well as the median volume (p less than 0.006) and duration (p less than 0.02) of vomiting. Except for the higher incidence of sedation, neither limiting nor unexpected toxicities were observed with the multidrug regimen. The male sex and antiemetic regimen B were the only favorable independent prognostic factors recognized by means of a multivariate analysis using a logistic model. This study therefore shows the usefulness of combining a lower dose of MCP and CLP, together with a high-dose HDC in a short regimen, suitable for outpatients receiving moderate-dose cisplatin. The better emesis control in the highly resistant group of female patients warrants further studies and a more aggressive approach.     

Randomized trial comparing two short courses of moderate-dose metoclopramide for moderate-dose cisplatin-induced emesis

To better define the dose-response relationship of moderate-dose (MD) metoclopramide (MCP), 42 patients receiving their first course of cisplatin (50 mg/m2) were randomly allocated to receive a short-course regimen of MCP, either at 1 mg/kg X 1 dose, 30 min before cisplatin (regimen A) or 1 mg/kg X 2 doses, 30 min before and 1 h after cisplatin (regimen B). The antiemetic response was assessed only by objective means (duration and volume of emesis over a 6-hour period). The results obtained in the two groups show a significantly better antiemetic effect (p = 0.03) employing the higher dose of this short-course regimen, with as much as 76% of the patients experiencing no vomiting or only a low degree of emesis. Furthermore, the lower-dose MCP regimen seems to be inadequate for preventing emesis, especially in the subgroups at higher emetic risk (patients with prior chemotherapy exposure and those concurrently receiving adriamycin. No significant side effects were present with either treatment. Further studies are required to define the best short-course regimen of MCP for patients receiving MD cisplatin.     

Improved control of cisplatin-induced emesis with high-dose metoclopramide and with combinations of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and diphenhydramine. Results of consecutive trials in 255 patients

A series of consecutive trials were undertaken to determine whether higher doses of intravenous metoclopramide and combinations of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and diphenhydramine would improve antiemetic control or decrease treatment-related side effects in patients receiving cisplatin at 120 mg/m2. Metoclopramide and dexamethasone were studied because of their proven efficacy as single agents and their differing mechanisms of action and side effects. Diphenhydramine was used because of its possible antiemetic properties and its ability to control acute dystonic reactions. Two hundred fifty-five patients who had never received chemotherapy or antiemetics were observed in the hospital for the 24 hours following cisplatin administration. The addition of dexamethasone or dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine to intravenous metoclopramide 2 mg/kg produced both improved antiemetic control and a decrease in treatment-associated diarrhea (P = 0.002). The use of metoclopramide alone at a dose of 3 mg/kg for only two doses appeared as effective as 2 mg/kg for five doses. When dexamethasone and diphenhydramine were given with metoclopramide 3 mg/kg for two intravenous dosages, 81% of patients experienced no emesis and 93% had two or fewer vomiting episodes. The antiemetic results of this 2-hour "short-course" regimen were superior to metoclopramide 2 mg/kg, with (P = 0.002) or without (P = 0.0001) dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. It was concluded that combinations of metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine improve antiemetic control, facilitate the usage of higher doses of metoclopramide, and decrease the incidence of treatment-related side effects.     

High efficacy of a single oral dose of ondansetron 8 mg versus a metoclopramide regimen in the prevention of acute emesis induced by fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC) chemotherapy for breast cancer

The aim of our single-center, prospective, randomized, open study was to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of a regimen based on a single oral dose of ondansetron 8 mg in comparison with a metoclopramide-based regimen, for prevention of acute FAC (fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy-induced emesis. A total of 149 chemotherapy-naive, female outpatients, under 50 years of age and with no history of alcohol consumption, scheduled to receive their first cycle of FAC chemotherapy, were included. The patients received either oral ondansetron (8 mg) or metoclopramide (1.5 mg/kg, i.v.), both combined with dexamethasone (16 mg, i.v.) and alprazolam (0.5 mg t.i.d. orally). No antiemetic prophylaxis was given for delayed emesis. Complete control of acute vomiting was obtained in 69/74 (93%) of patients receiving ondansetron, and in 49/75 (65%) of those receiving metoclopramide (p=0.00003). Complete control of acute nausea was obtained in 58% of patients receiving ondansetron and in 36% of those receiving metoclopramide (p=0.007). Complete prevention of delayed vomiting/nausea was achieved in 73%/20% and 60%/16% of patients, respectively. Sedation was more frequent in the metoclopramide arm (p=0.04). As far as we know this is the first study that supports the efficacy of a regimen based on a single oral dose of ondansetron 8 mg in the prevention of acute FAC chemotherapy-induced emesis. The ondansetron regimen was highly effective in female patients and was superior to the metoclopramide based regimen.     

Double-blind crossover trial of single vs. divided dose of metoclopramide in a combined regimen for treatment of cisplatin-induced emesis

In a double-blind crossover antiemetic study in cisplatin-treated cancer patients, metoclopramide 4 mg/kg as a single intravenous dose (regimen A) was compared with 3 mg/kg in two doses (regimen B). In both regimens, metoclopramide was combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. 65 consecutive, chemotherapy-naïve inpatients (45 males and 20 females) treated with high doses (at least 50 mg/m²) of cisplatin entered the study and 54 completed both treatments. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea, mean number of emetic episodes, mean maximum intensity of nausea and mean duration of emesis or nausea were similar with the two antiemetic regimens. 23 patients (43%) did not express a treatment preference, while 16 (30%) preferred regimen B and 15 (28%) preferred regimen A. Side-effects were similar with the two metoclopramide schedules. A combined antiemetic regimen of a single high dose of metoclopramide (4 mg/kg) can preserve efficacy and tolerability and thus should be preferred.     

Protection from nausea and vomiting in cisplatin-treated patients: high-dose metoclopramide combined with methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine: a study of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research

Despite treatment, emesis remains a major problem with cisplatin (CDDP) chemotherapy. Reasons for variability in antiemetic response among patients and in subsequent cycles are largely unknown and toxicity is sometimes severe. We have, therefore, carried out a multicenter, double-blind randomized trial comparing a combination of high-dose metoclopramide (MTC) (1 mg/kg x 4) and methylprednisolone (P) (treatment A) with a shorter but higher single-dose schedule of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2) combined with dexamethasone (DEX) and diphenhydramine (DIP) to prevent extrapyramidal reactions (treatment B). Three hundred sixty-seven consecutive patients treated with various chemotherapy combinations containing CDDP were studied. Complete protection from vomiting/nausea was, at first cycle, 72.5%/79.5% with treatment B and 55.8%/65.1% with treatment A, a statistically significant difference (P less than .002/P less than .005). In subsequent cycles, protection from emesis significantly decreased with no difference between the two treatments. Multifactorial analysis shows that women, younger patients, outpatients, and patients who experienced emesis in previous cycles were at higher risk of suffering nausea and/or vomiting. Both regimens were well tolerated, but patients treated with treatment B had significantly less extrapyramidal reactions (1.7%/6.1%, P = .053). Treatment B is preferred due to its greater efficacy and lower incidence of extrapyramidal reactions. Trials on antiemetic therapy should take into account the important variables able to influence the efficacy of treatment. There is still a need for improving prevention of emesis in CDDP-treated patients.     

Ondansetron for the prevention of emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin. A multi-center dose-response study

To determine a dose-response relationship of ondansetron for the prevention of emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin and to study the efficacy of the extended dosing schedule of ondansetron during 20 hours after cisplatin administration, 36 patients with malignant neoplasms who had not previously received chemotherapy but who were currently receiving cisplatin were treated. These patients received a six-dose regimen of 0.01 mg/kg (low dose) or 0.18 mg/kg (high dose) of ondansetron. Seven (41%) patients in the high-dose group had no emesis and four (24%) patients had one or two episodes. One (5%) patient in the low-dose group had no emesis and four (21%) patients had one or two episodes. The difference in the number of emetic episodes was significant (P less than 0.02). Fifty percent of the high-dose patients reported no nausea or mild nausea, compared with 11% of the low-dose patients. Clinical adverse events included mild, transient headache and dizziness in the high-dose group and headache and diarrhea in the low-dose group, with no significant laboratory abnormalities. There is a parallel relationship between the ondansetron doses and the antiemetic efficacy. The response rate for the six-dose regimen of 0.18 mg/kg was not superior to that for the previously reported 0.18 mg/kg regimen given in a three-dose schedule in a similar clinical setting.     

Antiemetic control and prevention of side effects of anti-cancer therapy with lorazepam or diphenhydramine when used in combination with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone. A double-blind, randomized trial

Combinations of metoclopramide and dexamethasone given intravenously control vomiting caused by high doses of cisplatin. Lorazepam and diphenhydramine are useful adjuncts to antiemetics. In a double-blind trial, 120 patients receiving high-dose cisplatin (120 mg/m2) for the first time were randomly assigned to receive either lorazepam (1.5 mg/m2) or diphenhydramine (50 mg) intravenously, 45 minutes prior to cisplatin. In addition, all patients received intravenous dexamethasone (20 mg) 40 minutes prior to chemotherapy along with metoclopramide (3 mg/kg) 30 minutes before and 90 minutes after cisplatin. Patients were directly observed in the hospital after cisplatin administration and completed a subjective assessment questionnaire. Overall, 60% of patients experienced no vomiting, and 83% had two or fewer emetic episodes during the study. There were no significant differences in objective antiemetic control between the two regimens. Only 3% of patients receiving lorazepam experienced treatment-related restlessness as opposed to 19% given diphenhydramine (P = 0.007). Less recall of chemotherapy administration (P less than 0.001), more sedation (P = 0.003), and transient enuresis while sedated (P = 0.0002) were characteristic of patients receiving lorazepam. Patient-generated ratings revealed less anxiety (P = 0.0001) for those individuals given the lorazepam-containing combination. Both regimens were well accepted, with 89% of patients receiving the lorazepam combination and 83% of those given the diphenhydramine regimen wishing to receive the same drugs in the future. Some degree of delayed vomiting occurred in 85% of patients during the 4-day period following this study. During the time that patients are at the greatest risk for emesis, the 24 hours immediately following cisplatin, three drug antiemetic combinations of either lorazepam or diphenhydramine with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone stopped cisplatin-induced emesis for the majority of patients and lessen other treatment-related side effects. Less restlessness and anxiety were observed among individuals receiving the lorazepam-containing combination.     

Antiemetic activity of high-dose methylprednisolone associated with continuous-infusion metoclopramide and oral alprazolam during multiple-day chemotherapy

Summary The addition of high-dose methylprednisolone (120 mg given i.v. and repeated after a 4-h interval) to a conventional antiemetic regimen consisting of metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg given as an i.v. bolus over 30 min followed by 1 mg/kg given as a continuous infusion over 24 h) and alprazolam (0.5 mg given p.o.) was evaluated in a randomized study of leukemic patients undergoing anthracycline-containing multiple-day chemotherapy. Double-blind analysis was done in 30 patients who completed a total of 40 treatment courses. Cumulative 3-day results revealed complete control of nausea in 66% of patients and complete control of emesis in 77% of cases. The addition of methylprednisolone significantly reduced the occurrence of nausea (p=0.003) and emesis (P=0.06). Moreover, antiemetic rescue with chlorpromazine was less frequently necessary in patients receiving corticosteroids (P=0.02). No harmful side effect was observed, and the incidence of severe infectious episodes was similar in both arms. We conclude that high-dose methylprednisolone can improve the efficacy of metoclopramide and alprazolam in controlling nausea and emesis induced by anthracycline-containing multiple-day chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia.     

Improvement in the control of chemotherapy induced emesis with ondansetron, methylprednisolone and lorazepam combination in patients treated by a moderate emetic treatment and uncontrolled by a previous antiemetic combination

The objective of this double blind parallel-group multicentre study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination ondansetron + methylprednisolone + lorazepam (O + M + L) in the prevention of emesis induced by chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide or adriamycin . This tritherapy was compared to a bitherapy O + M. Patients included were suffering from severe haemopathy or breast cancer. They had to have an incomplete response to a previous antiemetic association of 5HT3 serotoninergic receptor antagonist and corticoid. One hundred and thirty-five adult patients were included and were randomised to receive : O + M + L or O + M for 3 days. The emesis control during the 3 days of treatment (no emetic episode during the complete course) was significantly superior in the group O + M + L than in the group O + M (69% versus 46%, p = 0. 042); nausea control on the worst day of the cure was significantly superior in the group O + M + L than in the group O + M (p = 0.04) with 76% of patients in the group O + M + L having complete or major nausea control compared to 51% in the group O + M. The stability of quality of life during the days following chemotherapy measured by one questionnaire, including two scales, one cancer specific (FLIC) and one emesis specific (FLIE), appeared significantly better in group O + M + L (p = 0.04 and p = 0.019). Safety of both antiemetic regimens was good and similar between the two treatment groups. This trial shows that the adjunction of lorazepam to ondansetron and corticoid in combination increases the antiemetic control for patients with an incomplete response to a previous regimen containing a 5HT3 serotoninergic receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis.     

Randomized double-blind comparison of single high-dose ondansetron and multiple standard-dose ondansetron in chemotherapy-naive pediatric oncology patients.

This prospective, double-blind, randomized study compares the antiemetic efficacy of an equivalent dose of ondansetron administered as a single high dose or as multiple standard doses in pediatric oncology patients. Thirty-one chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized at diagnosis to receive either single high-dose ondansetron (0.6 mg/kg, maximum dose 32 mg) or multiple standard-dose ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg, maximum dose 8 mg, every 4 hr for four doses). Antiemetic efficacy was assessed by an emesis scale described as follows: 1, no nausea or emesis; 2, nauseous but able to eat; 3, nauseous and unable to eat; and 4, emesis. Sixteen patients received high-dose and 15 received standard-dose ondansetron. Patients receiving moderately or severely emetogenic chemotherapy were evenly distributed between the two treatment groups. Eighty-one percent of patients receiving high-dose and 80% receiving standard-dose ondansetron rated 1 or 2 on the emesis scale (p = 0.93). No patient experienced any clinical or laboratory toxicity. Our study suggests that single high-dose ondansetron is as efficacious as the multiple standard-dose regimen and is well tolerated. Its use will facilitate the administration of ondansetron in pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy.     

A randomized, double-blind comparison of the antiemetic effect of metoclopramide and lorazepam with or without dexamethasone in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin

Thirty-seven patients with advanced incurable malignancies who were receiving their first course of cisplatin (greater than or equal to 90 mg/m2 bolus), alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents, were entered in this randomized, double-blind study to determine the antiemetic efficacy of the addition of high-dose dexamethasone to lorazepam plus metoclopramide. All patients received lorazepam (1.5 mg/m2) and metoclopramide (2.0 mg/kg) intravenously (IV) 30 minutes before cisplatin, with the same dose of metoclopramide repeated 1.5, 3.5, 6.5, and 9.5 hours after the 30-minute cisplatin infusion. Patients were randomized to receive dexamethasone (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo by slow bolus injection 30 minutes before cisplatin. All patients were hospitalized for 24 hours and evaluated by observation after cisplatin and a patient questionnaire before discharge. Eighteen patients received metoclopramide and lorazepam without dexamethasone: six (33%) reported no vomiting and four (22%) reported no nausea or vomiting. Nineteen patients also received dexamethasone: 14 (74%) had no vomiting and 13 (68%) reported no nausea or vomiting. These differences were statistically significantly different (P = 0.013 and 0.005, respectively). The side effects attributable to the antiemetic regimen were somnolence (100%), confusion (8%), and diarrhea (46%), and were the same in both arms. Dexamethasone significantly improved the antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide plus lorazepam without adding toxicity. This three-drug combination gave a high rate of control of acute emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin.     

Optimum anti-emetic therapy for cisplatin induced emesis over repeat courses: Ondansetron plus dexamethasone compared with metoclopramide, dexamethasone plus lorazepam

BACKGROUND:: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerabilityof ondansetron plus dexamethasone (O+D) with metoclopramideplus dexamethasone plus lorazepam (M+D+L) over three consecutivecourses of cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS:: This was an international, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy,parallel group study. O+D patients were randomised to receiveondansetron 8 mg intravenously (i.v.) plus dexamethasone 20mg i.v. prior to cisplatin (50–100 mg/m) chemotherapy.On the following 4 days they were treated with ondansetron 8mg bd orally and dexamethasone 4mg bd orally. M+D+L patientswere randomised to receive metoclopramide 3 mg/kg i.v., dexamethasone20 mg i.v. and lorazepam 1.5 mg/m² i.v. (max 3 mg) prior tocisplatin chemotherapy and a further dose of metoclopramide3 mg/kg i.v. approximately 2 hours following the first doseof metoclopramide. Treatment for the following 4 days was metoclopramide40 mg tds and dexamethasone 4 mg bd orally. Two hundred andthirty-seven patients were recruited into the study (117 patientsreceived O+D and 120 received M+D+L). RESULTS:: On the first course of chemotherapy, O+D was significantly superiorto the M+D+L regimen for complete control of emesis (days 1–5,54% versus 37%, respectively, P = 0.014). This was maintainedover the three treatment cycles; 38% of O+D and 20% of M+D+Lpatients remained free of emesis (P = 0.003). Maintenance ofcontrol of nausea grade as none or mild on days 1–5 overthe three courses was significantly better in the O+D group(48%) than in the M+D+L (26%, P = 0.003). The most commonly occurring adverse events in the O+D groupwere constipation (25%) and headache (19%). In the M+D+L groupdrowsiness (38% of patients), malaise/fatigue (16% of patients),constipation (13% of patients), anxiety (11% of patients) anddizziness (10% of patients) were the most commonly reportedadverse events. Extrapyramidal symptoms were reported by 20%of patients in the M+D+L group. Despite the inclusion of lorazepam,14% of patients in the M+D+L group were withdrawn from the studydue to extrapyramidal symptoms, which in the opinion of theinvestigators, were probably or almost certainly related tostudy medication. CONCLUSIONS:: This study shows that O+D is significantly more effective andbetter tolerated than M+D+L for the control of emesis and nauseaover a series of three courses of cisplatin chemotherapy. cisplatin, emesis, nausea, ondansetron, repeated treatments     

The antiemetic activity of high-dose metoclopramide and high-dose alizapride in combination with lorazepam in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

The antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide and lorazepam (MTC + L) versus alizapride and lorazepam (ALZ + L) was compared in 100 patients receiving chemotherapy, in a prospective randomized double-blind study. In highly emetogenic (HE) regimen (including platinum) patients received MTC 1 mg/kg or ALZ 3 mg/kg x 4 doses, and lorazepam 2.5 mg 30 min before therapy. In moderately emetogenic (ME) regimen patients received MTC 0.5 mg/kg or ALZ 1.5 mg kg x 3 doses, and lorazepam 2.5 mg 30 min before therapy. In both HE and ME regimen groups there was no statistically significant difference between MTC + L and ALZ + L treatments as regards the number of vomiting episodes, the duration of emesis and nausea, the intensity of nausea and side effects, but a statistically significant difference between treatments was found in the HE group where MTC-L was superior to ALZ + L in obtaining complete protection from vomiting (37 vs 11%, p = 0.05). No significant difference in side effects was observed.     

Prevention of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with acute emesis

The rates of delayed nausea and vomiting by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with previous experience of acute emesis are usually quite high. This is a pilot study aiming to evaluate the safety of a new antiemetic schedule to prevent delayed emesis in this subset of patients. During 5 consecutive cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, we evaluated 50 patients (15 males) who experienced acute emesis in the first cycle of treatment. The regimen for prevention of delayed emesis consisted of daily tropisetron (5 mg orally from d 2 to d 6 of each chemotherapeutic cycle) associated to ACTH-Depot (1 mg intramuscularly 24 and 68 h after the initiation of chemotherapy). In 77% of chemotherapy cycles, there was a total elimination of nausea and vomiting, whereas in the remaining 23% of cycles, there was a major response defined as ≤ 2 vomiting episodes per cycle or nausea grade 1 according to the WHO. The efficacy of the antiemetic regimen persisted during the entire treatment program without the appearance of toxic effects. The proposed antiemetic regimen is highly active in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting episodes in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Moreover, no toxic effects were observed. These promising results require confirmation by a randomized trial.     

Randomised trial for the prevention of delayed emesis in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin.

Despite recent advances in control of acute emesis following cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens, delayed emesis remains a significant cause of treatment-related morbidity and factors associated with delayed emesis have not yet been evaluated. A prospective randomised trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and toxicity of granisetron, dexamethasone plus prochlorperazine with granisetron alone in controlling cisplatin-induced delayed emesis and to identify the important factors that influence its occurrence and severity. Seventy cisplatin-naive patients with inoperable solid tumors participated in the trial. Patients who received 80 mg m-2 or 100 mg m-2 of cisplatin were randomly assigned to receive either granisetron 40 micrograms kg-1 intravenously (i.v.) on day 1, dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. on days 2 and 3 and prochlorperazine 5 mg orally thrice daily on days 1-5 or granisetron 40 micrograms kg-1 i.v. on day 1 alone. There was no difference in their acute antiemetic efficacy. A combination regimen was more effective than granisetron alone in preventing delayed symptoms, with superior rates of complete plus major responses of 77% vs 51% (P = 0.0460). Treatment arm was the only determinant factor for the occurrence of delayed emesis (P = 0.0101).     

High-dose metoclopramide and dexamethasone as an antiemetic in outpatients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Second study

Forty-six outpatients with breast cancer who had experienced severe emesis as a result of chemotherapy were evaluated for the antiemetic efficacy of high-dose metoclopramide (HD-MCP) and dexamethasone (DXM). Chemotherapy consisted of: cyclophosphamide 600, methotrexate 40 and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 (CMF) given intravenously every 3 weeks. The dosage of antiemetic drugs was MCP 2 mg/kg and DXM 0.2 mg/kg given by slow intravenous drip 0.5 h before the administration of chemotherapy. 138 courses of combined chemotherapy--HD-MCP and DXM--were administered, with a mean of 3 courses and a range of 1-10 courses per patient. Complete protection--no nausea and no vomiting--was achieved in 17.7% of the courses. Partial protection--no vomiting with mild nausea or 1-3 episodes of vomiting--in 45.3% of the courses. The total antiemetic efficacy was 63%. The most common side effects were: drowsiness, dry mouth, restlessness and diarrhea. Sixteen patients (35%) refused to continue the antiemetic regimen because of the side effects. HD-MCP and DXM have antiemetic efficacy, but because of these side effects, further studies are required to determine the optimal dose of each of these drugs.     

High-dose oral and intravenous metoclopramide in doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-induced emesis. A randomized double-blind study

Emesis remains a major side effect of cancer chemotherapy. High-dose intravenous metoclopramide has proved to be effective antiemetic therapy for cisplatinum induced emesis. It has not been rigorously tested in nonplatinum chemotherapy. This double-blind, noncrossover, randomized trial compared high-dose oral and intravenous metoclopramide to standard oral prochlorperazine in emesis caused by doxorubicin [70 mg/m2 body surface area (BSA)] and cyclophosphamide (700 mg/m2 BSA). Prochlorperazine (10 mg/dose), oral metoclopramide, and intravenous metoclopramide (2 mg/kg/dose each) were given 30 min before chemotherapy and then every 4 h for 24 h. Ten patients were randomized to prochlorperazine therapy, 10 to oral metoclopramide, and 9 to i.v. metoclopramide. Median number of emeses for the first chemotherapy cycle was 3, 3, and 7 for prochlorperazine, oral, and i.v. metoclopramide, respectively. Statistical analysis showed no significant advantage of any regimen (p greater than 0.4). For patients who continued the antiemetic study, frequency of emesis increased with each successive cycle of chemotherapy. Six of 19 patients treated with metoclopramide developed dystonic reactions compared with zero of 10 on prochlorperazine. High plasma metoclopramide levels were achieved with both metoclopramide regimens and did not correlate with frequency of emesis. High-dose oral and i.v. metoclopramide in an every 4 h regimen did not show any advantage over standard antiemetic therapy for doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-induced emesis and were associated with significant toxicity.     

A controlled clinical trial of the addition of transdermal scopolamine to a standard metoclopramide and dexamethasone antiemetic regimen

A randomized prospective clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the potential utility of adding transdermal scopolamine to a standard regimen of metoclopramide and dexamethasone for the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. Thirty-one patients who were about to receive their first cycle of chemotherapy, using a combination regimen including cisplatin at a dose greater than or equal to 60 mg/m2 were randomized to receive an antiemetic regimen of either metoclopramide and dexamethasone alone, or these two drugs plus transdermal scopolamine patches. The mean number of episodes of emesis was .63 +/- 1.31 in the 16 scopolamine-treated patients, and 2.27 +/- 2.66 in the 15 patients who did not receive scopolamine (P less than .01). The scopolamine appeared to inhibit extrapyramidal reactions to the metoclopramide, but the number of cases was too small for statistical significance. We conclude that the addition of transdermal scopolamine to a standard metoclopramide and dexamethasone antiemetic regimen provides additive benefit in the control of cisplatin-induced emesis.     

High-dose oral metoclopramide. An effective antiemetic agent

Seventy-six patients receiving cisplatin and noncisplatin-containing cancer chemotherapy were treated with an outpatient phase II metoclopramide regimen. The program consisted of an outpatient intravenous loading dose of metoclopramide before chemotherapy, followed by oral metoclopramide at 1, 3, 5, and 8 hours after chemotherapy. Three oral dose levels were evaluated. Treatment with 2 mg/kg/dose or 100 mg/dose resulted in no vomiting in 53% of 65 evaluable patients, and 0-2 episodes of emesis in 74%. Oral doses of 50 mg/dose were less effective, preventing emesis in 18%. This trial demonstrated the antiemetic effectiveness of high-dose oral metoclopramide in a new schedule designed for the outpatient setting. The side effects included restlessness (51% of patients), dystonic reactions (9%), and gastrointestinal complaints (41%).