-
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and... Nov 2019Cinnarizine, is approved for nausea, vomiting, motion sickness, inner ear disorders and is considered as first-line pharmacotherapy for management of vertigo. It acts by...
Cinnarizine, is approved for nausea, vomiting, motion sickness, inner ear disorders and is considered as first-line pharmacotherapy for management of vertigo. It acts by anti-vasoconstrictor activity, reducing blood viscosity and reducing nystagmus in labyrinth. Lack of adequate literature on clinical evidence of cinnarizine and its combination (dimenhydrinate) in vertigo management prompted this review. A specific MEDLINE literature search strategy was designed combining Medical Subject Headings, free-text keywords (like cinnarizine and vertigo) using Boolean operators (1970-2016) for clinical studies, clinical reviews and meta-analyses of cinnarizine. Analyses of studies validated cinnarizine's efficacy in peripheral and central vertigo versus placebo or other therapies, and was well-tolerated by the patients recruited across different studies. Cinnarizine and/ or its combinations are favorable in management of vestibular disorders wherein cinnarizine acts predominantly peripherally on labyrinth and dimenhydrinate acts centrally on vestibular nuclei and associated centers in brainstem. Combination therapy of cinnarizine and/ or its combinations demonstrated a better safety profile than either of the mono-components, offering a viable therapeutic option in vertigo management.
PubMed: 31750127
DOI: 10.1007/s12070-017-1120-7 -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2021Vertigo is not itself a disease, but rather a symptom of various syndromes and disorders that jeopardize balance function, which is essential for daily activities. It is...
Vertigo is not itself a disease, but rather a symptom of various syndromes and disorders that jeopardize balance function, which is essential for daily activities. It is an abnormal sensation of motion that usually occurs in the absence of motion, or when a motion is sensed inaccurately. Due to the complexity of the etiopathogenesis of vertigo, many pharmacological treatments have been tested for efficacy on vertigo. Among these drugs, cinnarizine, usually given together with dimenhydrinate, appears to be the first-line pharmacotherapy for the management of vertigo and inner ear disorders. Based on these considerations, the present non-interventional study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of cinnarizine (20 mg) and dimenhydrinate (40 mg) in patients suffering from vertigo-related symptoms. To this end, we enrolled 120 adults-70 males, and 50 females-with an average age of 64 years. Before beginning pharmacological treatment, all patients were screened for the intensity of vertigo, dizziness, and concomitant symptoms through the Visual Scale of Dizziness Disorders and Dizziness Handicap Inventory scales. At the end of the anamnestic evaluation, patients received the fixed-dose combination of cinnarizine (20 mg) plus dimenhydrinate (40 mg) 3 times daily, for 60 days. The results of this study provide further insight regarding the efficacy of the fixed combination when used to reduce symptoms of vestibular vertigo of central and/or peripheral origin, after both the 15- and 60-day therapies. Independent of the type of vertigo, the fixed combination was able to reduce dizziness- and vertigo-associated symptoms in more than 75% of all patients treated, starting from 15 days of therapy, and improving 60 days after starting the therapy. Interestingly, we also found differences between male and female patients in the framework of the pharmacological effects of therapy. This study provides further details concerning the therapeutic efficacy of the fixed combination of cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate, and also focuses attention on the possibility that these drugs could act in a gender-specific manner, paving the way for further research.
Topics: Adult; Cinnarizine; Dimenhydrinate; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Vertigo
PubMed: 33946152
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094787 -
Subcutaneous dimenhydrinate and levomepromazine-tolerability and compatibility: observational Study.BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Nov 2023
PubMed: 37973202
DOI: 10.1136/spcare-2023-004613 -
Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology 2020Vestibular migraine (VM) is one of the most debilitating chronic diseases that is currently underdiagnosed and undertreated. The treatment of VM is a dynamic and rapidly... (Review)
Review
Vestibular migraine (VM) is one of the most debilitating chronic diseases that is currently underdiagnosed and undertreated. The treatment of VM is a dynamic and rapidly advancing area of research. New developments in this field have the potential to improve the diagnosis and provide more individualized treatments for this condition. In this review, we discussed the progress of evidence-based treatment of VM, including pharmacotherapy and nonmedical methods. A search of the literature was conducted up to September 2019. In order to control or cure VM, patients should follow three steps. First, patients should comply with diet and behavioral medication; Second, during the attack of VM, patients should take medicine to control the symptoms. These acute attack treatment of VM consists of antiemetic medications (e.g., dimenhydrinate and benzodiazepines), anti-vertigo medicine, and analgesics (e.g. triptans). Third, prophylactic medicine (e.g., propranolol, topiramate, valproic aid, lamotrigine, and flunarizine) can be used to reduce the frequency and severity of VM attack. Also, vestibular rehabilitation (VR) treatment should be considered for all VM. Meanwhile, we also propose to establish a culture of prevention which is essential for reducing the personal, social and economic burden of VM.
PubMed: 33623258
DOI: 10.4103/aian.AIAN_591_19 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International May 2022Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting....
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia.
METHODS
The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published.
RESULTS
Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods.
CONCLUSION
Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Humans; Mouth Neoplasms; Nausea; Quality of Life; Vomiting
PubMed: 35140010
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0093 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2023Orphenadrine (ORP), dimenhydrinate (DMN), and cinnarizine (CNN) were investigated using green-sensitive spectrofluorometric methods. Method, I used for determination of...
Orphenadrine (ORP), dimenhydrinate (DMN), and cinnarizine (CNN) were investigated using green-sensitive spectrofluorometric methods. Method, I used for determination of DMN in 0.1 M hydrochloric acid (HCl) and 1.0% sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) at 286 nm after λ 222 nm, while for determination of ORP in 1.0% w/v SDS involves measuring the fluorescence at 285 nm after λ 220 nm. For DMN and ORP, the detection and quantitation limits were 2.99 and 4.71 and 9.08 and 14.29 ng/mL, respectively. The ranges of DMN and ORP were 0.10-1.0 and 0.04-0.5 µg/mL, respectively, in micellar aqueous solution. Method II, the derivative intensities of DMN and CNN were measured at a fixed of different wavelength between the excitation and the emission wavelengths (Δλ) = 60 nm at 282 and 322 nm, at the zero crossing of each other, respectively. The detection and quantitation limits for DMN and CNN were 1.77 and 0.88 ng/mL and 5.36 and 2.65 ng/mL, correspondingly, through the entire range of 0.1-1.0 µg/mL for DMN and CNN. The linearity was perfectly determined through the higher values of the correlation coefficient ranging from 0.9997 to 0.9999 for both direct and synchronous methods. The precision of the proposed methods was also confirmed via the lower values of the standard deviation which ranged from 0.39 to 1.11. The technique was expanded to analyze this mixture in combined tablets and laboratory-prepared mixtures. The method validation was done depending on the international conference on harmonization (ICH) recommendations. An analysis of the statistical data revealed a high agreement between the proposed data and the comparison methodology. Three different assessment methods demonstrated the greenness of the technique.
Topics: Cinnarizine; Dimenhydrinate; Hydrochloric Acid; Laboratories; Orphenadrine; Spectrometry, Fluorescence
PubMed: 37599333
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40559-x -
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and... Apr 2023Aim: The aim of the study is to compare the effects of vestibular rehabilitation and pharmacological treatment in benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). Materials...
UNLABELLED
Aim: The aim of the study is to compare the effects of vestibular rehabilitation and pharmacological treatment in benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). Materials and methods: Thirty patients (40.93 ± 8.66 years old) diagnosed with BPPV were recruited. Patients were equally divided into pharmacological control group and vestibular rehabilitation group. The pharmacological control group was further divided into Group A (n = 8, 2 doses/day, 24 mg betahistine) and Group B (n = 7, 1 dose/day, 50 mg dimenhydrinate in addition to betahistine). Patients in the rehabilitation group underwent repeated head and eye movements, and Epley or Barbecue Roll Maneuvers were applied for 4 weeks. Subjective assessment of vertigo was measured with the visual analog scale. Static balance parameters were measured with the tandem, one-legged stance, and Romberg tests. Dynamic visual acuity was measured with a Snellen chart, and vestibular dysfunction was measured with the Unterberger (Fukuda stepping) test. All parameters were evaluated before and after treatment. Results: Vestibular rehabilitation resulted in greater improvement in severity of vertigo, balance parameters except Romberg test, and vestibular dysfunction than pharmacological therapy (p < 0,001). There was no significant difference in dynamic visual acuity between groups (p = 0,24). The effects of medication with the active ingredients betahistine and dimenhydrinate were similar (p > 0,05). Conclusion: The vestibular rehabilitation method can positively change the severity of vertigo, balance ability, and vestibular dysfunction compared to pharmacological therapy. Dimenhydrinate administered in combination with betahistine was not superior to betahistine alone but can be recommended for its antiemetic effect.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-023-03598-4.
PubMed: 37206852
DOI: 10.1007/s12070-023-03598-4 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Apr 2021Dimenhydrinate (DMH) is an antihistamine used to treat nausea and vomiting. Although widely available in pharmacies as an over the counter medication, there have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dimenhydrinate (DMH) is an antihistamine used to treat nausea and vomiting. Although widely available in pharmacies as an over the counter medication, there have been reports of potential DMH tolerance and dependence and a possible euphoric potential accompanying heavy use (>100 mg/day). Despite the potential for misuse, there is a gap in the literature concerning patterns, characteristics, and potential mechanisms of DMH misuse.
AIMS
This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the pharmacology, clinical effects, and management of DMH misuse and dependence to inform clinical decision making and relevant drug policy.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and using Cochrane collaboration methods. We searched seven databases from their inception through July 2019. To be included in the review, studies needed to measure or focus on one or more dimensions of morbidity or mortality related to the misuse of DMH. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies were included in order to capture the breadth of possible studies. Studies were excluded if they did not fit into the conceptual framework of the study of if they focused primarily on the misuse of other substances. A narrative synthesis of study findings was pursued given the limited capacity for a quantitative meta-analysis.
FINDINGS
We identified 24 studies, which described a range of neuropsychiatric sequelae related to DMH consumption, including seizures, psychosis, depression, intoxication (resembling anticholinergic syndrome) and withdrawal. The sedative and euphoric properties, readily available nature, and low cost of DMH appear to facilitate DMH dependence, which were more commonly reported among individuals who had concurrent psychiatric disorders, displaying symptoms such as low motivation, poor concentration, and delirium. The overall quality of studies identified by this review was low-largely because the majority of studies were case reports or review articles, with few intervention or cohort studies.
CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence to suggest the existence of DMH-related syndromes involving intoxication, withdrawal, and dependence, more commonly among long-term, heavy DMH consumers. However, higher quality studies are needed to confirm preliminary findings that there may be a biological basis for such syndromes.
Topics: Dimenhydrinate; Humans; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 33153760
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.10.032 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Feb 2021This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide in patients with nausea and vertigo. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide in patients with nausea and vertigo.
METHODS
A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was performed on patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with nausea and vertigo in the six month period between Nov 1st 2012 and May 1st 2013. Adult patients who were 18 to 65 years old presenting to the ED with nausea and vertigo or motion sickness were included in the study. A total of 200 patients were divided into 2 groups who were admitted to ED with complaints of vertigo accompanied by nausea. In the first group, 50 mg dimenhydrinate and 10 mg metoclopramide infusions were given intravenously for 15 min. The efficacy of treatment was measured by using a 10 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) performed at 0, 15 and the 30th minute. The primary outcome variable was a reduction in vertigo intensity documented on the VAS at the 30th minute after medication administration.
RESULTS
A total of 200 patients were included in the randomization (n=100 in both groups). The baseline vertigo VAS scores were 7.57±1.42 in the dimenhydrinate (DMT) group and 7.27±1.40 in the metoclopramide (MTP) group (p=0.09). In the 30th minute of treatment, the average vertigo VAS score was 2.46 ± 2.39 in the DMT group and 2.31±1.96 in the MTP group; no significant differences were detected between groups. The baseline nausea VAS scores were 7.62±1.48 in the DMT group and 7.45±1.27 in the MTP group (p=0.36). In the 30th minute of treatment the average vertigo VAS score decreased to 2.27±2.24 in the DMT group and 2.70±2.48 in the MTP group, no significant differences were detected between groups. No significant differences were detected between nausea VAS changes and vertigo VAS changes at 30th minutes of the treatment (p=0.06, p=0.85 respectively). Rescue medication need was similar in both treatment groups (p=0.94). No significant differences were detected about the side effects which are sedation (p=0.56) and hypotension (p=0.57).
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, this prospective, double-blind, randomized study showed that both DMT and MTP have similar efficacy in reducing nausea and vertigo symptoms in the ED.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Dimenhydrinate; Double-Blind Method; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Middle Aged; Nausea; Prospective Studies; Vertigo
PubMed: 33360021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.12.010 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Sep 2022The source data of four individual randomised, double-blind, reference- and/or placebo-controlled clinical trials with virtually identical study design were pooled for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and Safety of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Cinnarizine 20 mg and Dimenhydrinate 40 mg in the Treatment of Patients with Vestibular Vertigo: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomised, Double-Blind, Controlled Clinical Trials.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The source data of four individual randomised, double-blind, reference- and/or placebo-controlled clinical trials with virtually identical study design were pooled for the present meta-analysis. The main objective was to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of the fixed combination of cinnarizine 20 mg and dimenhydrinate 40 mg in comparison to various other antivertigo treatments in patients suffering from central and/or peripheral vestibular vertigo.
METHODS
Adult male and female outpatients were subjected to a 4-week treatment with the fixed combination of cinnarizine 20 mg and dimenhydrinate 40 mg, cinnarizine (20 mg, 50 mg), dimenhydrinate (40 mg, 100 mg), betahistine dimesylate (12 mg), betahistine dihydrochloride (16 mg) and placebo, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction of a validated mean vertigo score (MVS), a composite score of 12 individual vertigo symptoms, the intensities of which were each evaluated by the patients on a 5-point visual analogue scale. For analysis of primary and further secondary efficacy endpoints, baseline-adjusted analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to calculate adjusted least squares means (LSM) with associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in MVS reductions between treatment groups. Moreover, various sensitivity analyses, responder and subgroup analyses as well as descriptive analyses with respect to safety/tolerability of the treatments were conducted.
RESULTS
Of 795 randomised patients, 779 belonged to the intent-to treat (ITT) and 723 to the per-protocol (PP) population. The main efficacy analysis was based on the ITT population (mean age 52.1 years, 61% female). The mean decrease of the MVS from baseline to Week 4 in the cinnarizine/dimenhydrinate group (-1.10) proved to be significantly larger than in any of the comparator groups. LSM differences for comparators versus the fixed combination ranged between 0.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03; 0.30, p = 0.017) for cinnarizine 20 mg and 0.60 (95% CI 0.42; 0.78; p < 0.001) for betahistine dimesylate 12 mg in favour of the fixed combination. Furthermore, after 4 weeks of treatment, 74 patients (24.7%) in the cinnarizine/dimenhydrinate group were completely symptom free (MVS = 0), a significantly greater proportion than in any of the comparator groups. Sensitivity analyses showed that baseline characteristics such as age, sex, duration of vertigo and antivertigo pretreatment had only a very minor and clinically non-relevant impact on the efficacy results regarding the primary efficacy outcome. Subgroup analyses with respect to age groups (< 65 years/≥ 65 years) and sex showed no significant differences in efficacy within any of the treatment groups. All treatments were well tolerated. A total of 55 patients (6.9%) reported 75 non-serious adverse events (AEs), and 19 patients (2.4%) discontinued the study prematurely because of AEs. Nearly 95% of the patients (cinnarizine/dimenhydrinate group: 97.9%) rated the tolerability of the study medications as either "good" or "very good".
CONCLUSION
The findings of the present meta-analysis indicate that the fixed combination of cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate is a safe and potentially superior treatment option for patients suffering from central and/or peripheral vestibular vertigo, as compared to current standard treatments such as cinnarizine, dimenhydrinate or betahistine given alone in monotherapy.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Betahistine; Cinnarizine; Dimenhydrinate; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vertigo
PubMed: 35864302
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-022-01184-0