Browsing by Subject "Vomiting"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Association of Cannabis Use With Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2022) Metz, Torri D.; Allshouse, Amanda A.; McMillin, Gwendolyn A.; Silver, Robert M.; Smid, Marcela C.; Haas, David M.; Simhan, Hyagriv N.; Saade, George R.; Grobman, William A.; Parry, Samuel; Chung, Judith H.; Jarlenski, Marian P.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    Our objective was to evaluate whether cannabis use was associated with nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Participants from nuMoM2b (Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be) enrolled from October 2010 through September 2013 with a PUQE (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis) questionnaire and an available stored urine sample from the first study visit (median gestational age 12 weeks) were included. Cannabis exposure was ascertained by urine immunoassay for 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH); positive results were confirmed with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. The primary outcome was moderate-to-severe nausea by the PUQE score. Overall, 9,250 participants were included, and 5.8% (95% CI 5.4-6.3%) had detectable urine THC-COOH. In adjusted analyses, higher THC-COOH levels were associated with greater odds of moderate-to-severe nausea (20.7% in the group with THC-COOH detected vs 15.5% in the group with THC-COOH not detected, adjusted odds ratio 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2 for a 500 ng/mg Cr THC-COOH increment).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome in Pediatric Patients: A Review of Therapeutics
    (Pediatric Pharmacy Association, 2022) Tillman, Emma M.; Harvath, Emily M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder that can present quite a challenge to clinicians caring for children with this complex disease. Different therapeutic interventions are recommended for prophylaxis and acute abortive therapy for a CVS attack. The aim of this review is to summarize therapeutic treatment recommendations from the 2008 North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHN) Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis and Management of Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome and discuss studies contemporary to this expert recommendation. After an extensive search of medical databases, 8 studies that evaluated therapeutic treatments for CVS were identified. Amitriptyline and cyproheptadine remain the standard of care for prophylaxis. Nutritional supplements such as carnitine and coenzyme Q10 have shown efficacy in decreasing episodes and severity in small studies with high tolerability among patients. The combination of ondansetron and sumatriptan are recommended for abortion of an acute vomiting episode, but other agents such as aprepitant and sedative agents can be considered when vomiting is refractory to initial treatments.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Management of Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients on Multiday Cisplatin Based Combination Chemotherapy
    (Hindawi, 2015-09) Ranganath, Praveen; Einhorn, Lawrence; Albany, Costantine; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Introduction of cisplatin based chemotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of germ cell tumors. A common side effect of multiday cisplatin chemotherapy is severe nausea and vomiting. Considerable progress has been made in the control of these side effects since the introduction of cisplatin based chemotherapy in the 1970s. Germ cell tumor which is a model for a curable neoplasm has also turned into an excellent testing ground to develop effective strategies to prevent chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in multiday cisplatin based regimens. The use of combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine (HT)3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonist, and dexamethasone has greatly improved our ability to prevent and control acute and delayed CINV. Mechanism and pattern of CINV with multiday chemotherapy may differ from those in single day chemotherapy and therefore efficacy of antiemetic drugs as observed in single day chemotherapy may not be applicable. There are only few randomized clinical trials with special emphasis on multiday chemotherapy. Further studies are essential to determine the efficacy, optimal dose, and duration of the newer agents and combinations in multiday cisplatin based chemotherapy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
    (Massachusetts Medical Society, 2016-07-14) Navari, Rudolph M.; Qin, Rui; Ruddy, Kathryn J.; Liu, Heshan; Powell, Steven F.; Bajaj, Madhuri; Dietrich, Leah; Biggs, David; Lafky, Jacqueline M.; Loprinzi, Charles L.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND We examined the efficacy of olanzapine for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS In a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we compared olanzapine with placebo, in combination with dexamethasone, aprepitant or fosaprepitant, and a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3–receptor antagonist, in patients with no previous chemotherapy who were receiving cisplatin (≥70 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or cyclophosphamide–doxorubicin. The doses of the three concomitant drugs administered before and after chemotherapy were similar in the two groups. The two groups received either 10 mg of olanzapine orally or matching placebo daily on days 1 through 4. Nausea prevention was the primary end point; a complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue medication) was a secondary end point. RESULTS In the analysis, we included 380 patients who could be evaluated (192 assigned to olanzapine, and 188 to placebo). The proportion of patients with no chemotherapy-induced nausea was significantly greater with olanzapine than with placebo in the first 24 hours after chemotherapy (74% vs. 45%, P = 0.002), the period from 25 to 120 hours after chemotherapy (42% vs. 25%, P = 0.002), and the overall 120-hour period (37% vs. 22%, P = 0.002). The complete-response rate was also significantly increased with olanzapine during the three periods: 86% versus 65% (P<0.001), 67% versus 52% (P = 0.007), and 64% versus 41% (P<0.001), respectively. Although there were no grade 5 toxic effects, some patients receiving olanzapine had increased sedation (severe in 5%) on day 2. CONCLUSIONS Olanzapine, as compared with placebo, significantly improved nausea prevention, as well as the complete-response rate, among previously untreated patients who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02116530.)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Olanzapine for the Treatment of Advanced Cancer–Related Chronic Nausea and/or Vomiting
    (American Medical Association, 2020-06) Navari, Rudolph M.; Pywell, Cameron M.; Le-Rademacher, Jennifer G.; White, Patrick; Dodge, Andrew B.; Albany, Costantine; Loprinzi, Charles L.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Importance: Nausea and vomiting, unrelated to chemotherapy, can be substantial symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. Objective: To evaluate the utility of olanzapine for treating chronic nausea/vomiting, unrelated to chemotherapy, in patients with advanced cancer. Design, setting, and participants: This study is a double-line, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted from July 2017 through April 2019, with analysis conducted in 2019. Eligible participants were outpatients with advanced cancer who had persistent nausea/vomiting without having had chemotherapy or radiotherapy in the prior 14 days. Chronic nausea was present for at least 1 week (worst daily nausea numeric rating scores needed to be greater than 3 on a 0-10 scale). Interventions: Patients received olanzapine (5 mg) or a placebo, orally, daily for 7 days. Main outcomes and measures: Patient-reported outcomes were used for study end points. Data were collected at baseline and daily for 7 more days. The primary study end point (the change in nausea numeric rating scores from baseline to the last treatment day) and the study hypothesis were both identified prior to data collection. Results: A total of 30 patients (15 per arm) were enrolled; these included 16 women and 14 men who had a mean (range) age of 63 (39-79) years. Baseline median nausea scores, in all patients, were 9 out of 10 (range, 8-10). After 1 day and 1 week, the median nausea scores in the placebo arm were 9 out of 10 (range, 8-10) on both days, compared with the olanzapine arm scores of 2 out of 10 (range, 2-3) after day 1 and 1 out of 10 (range, 0-3) after 1 week. After 1 week of treatment, the reduction in nausea scores in the olanzapine arm was 8 points (95% CI, 7-8) higher than that of the placebo arm. The primary 2-sided end point P value was <.001. Correspondingly, patients in the olanzapine arm reported less emesis, less use of other antiemetic drugs, better appetite, less sedation, less fatigue, and better well-being. One patient, on the placebo, stopped treatment early owing to lack of perceived benefit. No patients receiving olanzapine reported excess sedation or any other adverse event. Conclusions and relevance: Olanzapine, at 5 mg/d, appeared to be effective in controlling nausea and emesis and in improving other symptoms and quality-of-life parameters in the study population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03137121.