-
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Nov 2020This multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase II/III trial aimed to evaluate an oral THC:CBD (tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol) cannabis... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
This multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase II/III trial aimed to evaluate an oral THC:CBD (tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol) cannabis extract for prevention of refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Here we report the phase II component results.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Eligible patients experienced CINV during moderate-to-high emetogenic intravenous chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis. Study treatment consisted of one cycle of 1-4 self-titrated capsules of oral THC 2.5 mg/CBD 2.5 mg (TN-TC11M) three times daily, from days -1 to 5, and 1 cycle of matching placebo in a crossover design, then blinded patient preference for a third cycle. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with complete response during 0-120 h from chemotherapy. A total of 80 participants provided 80% power to detect a 20% absolute improvement with a two-sided P value of 0.1.
RESULTS
A total of 81 participants were randomised; 72 completing two cycles were included in the efficacy analyses and 78 not withdrawing consent were included in safety analyses. Median age was 55 years (range 29-80 years); 78% were female. Complete response was improved with THC:CBD from 14% to 25% (relative risk 1.77, 90% confidence interval 1.12-2.79, P = 0.041), with similar effects on absence of emesis, use of rescue medications, absence of significant nausea, and summary scores for the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Thirty-one percent experienced moderate or severe cannabinoid-related adverse events such as sedation, dizziness, or disorientation, but 83% of participants preferred cannabis to placebo. No serious adverse events were attributed to THC:CBD.
CONCLUSION
The addition of oral THC:CBD to standard antiemetics was associated with less nausea and vomiting but additional side-effects. Most participants preferred THC:CBD to placebo. Based on these promising results, we plan to recruit an additional 170 participants to complete accrual for the definitive, phase III, parallel group analysis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001036404; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370473&isReview=true.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Australia; Cannabidiol; Cannabis; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Dronabinol; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Plant Extracts; Vomiting
PubMed: 32801017
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.07.020 -
International Journal of Molecular... Sep 2022The most common medicinal claims for cannabis are relief from chronic pain, stimulation of appetite, and as an antiemetic. However, the mechanisms by which cannabis... (Review)
Review
The most common medicinal claims for cannabis are relief from chronic pain, stimulation of appetite, and as an antiemetic. However, the mechanisms by which cannabis reduces pain and prevents nausea and vomiting are not fully understood. Among more than 450 constituents in cannabis, the most abundant cannabinoids are Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Cannabinoids either directly or indirectly modulate ion channel function. Transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) is an ion channel responsible for mediating several modalities of pain, and it is expressed in both the peripheral and the central pain pathways. Activation of TRPV1 in sensory neurons mediates nociception in the ascending pain pathway, while activation of TRPV1 in the central descending pain pathway, which involves the rostral ventral medulla (RVM) and the periaqueductal gray (PAG), mediates antinociception. TRPV1 channels are thought to be implicated in neuropathic/spontaneous pain perception in the setting of impaired descending antinociceptive control. Activation of TRPV1 also can cause the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and other neuropeptides/neurotransmitters from the peripheral and central nerve terminals, including the vagal nerve terminal innervating the gut that forms central synapses at the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS). One of the adverse effects of chronic cannabis use is the paradoxical cannabis-induced hyperemesis syndrome (HES), which is becoming more common, perhaps due to the wider availability of cannabis-containing products and the chronic use of products containing higher levels of cannabinoids. Although, the mechanism of HES is unknown, the effective treatment options include hot-water hydrotherapy and the topical application of capsaicin, both activate TRPV1 channels and may involve the vagal-NTS and area postrema (AP) nausea and vomiting pathway. In this review, we will delineate the activation of TRPV1 by cannabinoids and their role in the antinociceptive/nociceptive and antiemetic/emetic effects involving the peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal structures.
Topics: Analgesics; Antiemetics; Cannabinoids; Humans; Nausea; Pain; Solitary Nucleus; TRPV Cation Channels; Transient Receptor Potential Channels; Vomiting
PubMed: 36077412
DOI: 10.3390/ijms231710016 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jun 2024
Review
Topics: Humans; Hyperemesis Gravidarum; Pregnancy; Female; Antiemetics
PubMed: 38830681
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.221502-f -
Clinical & Translational Oncology :... Apr 2022Among the side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared given its high prevalence, affecting up to 40%...
Among the side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared given its high prevalence, affecting up to 40% of patients. It can impair patient's quality of life and provoke low adherence to cancer treatment or chemotherapy dose reductions that can comprise treatment efficacy. Suffering CINV depends on factors related to the intrinsic emetogenicity of antineoplastic drugs and on patient characteristics. CINV can appear at different times regarding the administration of antitumor treatment and the variability of risk according to the different antitumor regimens has, as a consequence, the need for a different and adapted antiemetic treatment prophylaxis to achieve the desired objective of complete protection of the patient in the acute phase, in the late phase and in the global phase of emesis. As a basis for the recommendations, the level of emetogenicity of anticancer treatment is considered and they are classified as high, moderate, low and minimal emetogenicity and these recommendations are based on the use of antiemetic drugs with a high therapeutic index: anti 5-HT, anti-NK and steroids. Despite having highly effective treatments, clinical reality shows that they are not applied enough, so evidence-based recommendations are needed to show the best options and help in decision-making. To cover all the antiemetic prophylaxis options, we have also included recommendations for oral treatments, multiday regimens and radiation-induced emesis prevention.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Vomiting
PubMed: 35347571
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-022-02802-1 -
Australian Prescriber Apr 2020Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms with many possible causes, including the adverse effects of drugs. If a drug is indicated, the cause guides the choice of... (Review)
Review
Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms with many possible causes, including the adverse effects of drugs. If a drug is indicated, the cause guides the choice of antiemetic drug The main antiemetic classes include antagonists of the serotonin, dopamine, histamine, muscarinic and neurokinin systems, corticosteroids and benzodiazepines. Some antiemetics appear more effective for specific indications Serotonin and neurokinin antagonists, such as ondansetron and aprepitant, are highly effective in treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Metoclopramide and antihistamines are first-line options for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy Serotonin antagonists and some dopamine antagonists, such as metoclopramide, can prolong the QT interval on the ECG. Dopamine antagonists can cause extrapyramidal adverse effects, particularly in children
PubMed: 32346211
DOI: 10.18773/austprescr.2020.011 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving visual environments. The most common symptoms are nausea and vomiting. Antihistamines have been used in the management of motion sickness for decades, however studies have shown conflicting results regarding their efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamines in the prevention and treatment of motion sickness in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 December 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in susceptible adults and children in whom motion sickness was induced under natural conditions such as air, sea and land transportation. We also included studies in which motion sickness was induced under experimental conditions (analysed separately). Antihistamines were included regardless of class, route or dosage and compared to no treatment, placebo or any other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any motion sickness symptoms; 2) the proportion of susceptible participants who experienced a reduction or resolution of existing symptoms. Secondary outcomes were 1) physiological measures (heart rate, core temperature and gastric tachyarrhythmia (electrogastrography)) and 2) adverse effects (sedation, impaired cognition, blurred vision). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (658 participants). Studies were conducted across seven countries, with an overall age range of 16 to 55 years. Motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four studies (rotating chair). All the naturally induced studies only evaluated first-generation antihistamines (cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate). Risk of bias across the studies varied, with mostly low risk for random sequence generation and allocation concealment, and mostly high risk for selective reporting. Only the experimentally induced studies measured physiological parameters and only the naturally induced studies evaluated adverse effects. There were no studies that clearly assessed the paediatric population. Antihistamines versus placebo or no treatment Antihistamines are probably more effective than placebo at preventing motion sickness symptoms under natural conditions (symptoms prevented: 25% placebo; 40% antihistamines) (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.66; 3 studies; 240 participants) (moderate-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under experimental conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.83; 2 studies; 62 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia under experimental conditions (mean difference (MD) -2.2, 95% CI -11.71 to 7.31; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to placebo, antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation (sedation: 44% placebo; 66% antihistamines) (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); they may result in little or no difference in blurred vision (blurred vision: 12.5% placebo; 14% antihistamines) (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.48; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); and they may result in little or no difference in terms of impaired cognition (impaired cognition: 33% placebo; 29% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty). Antihistamines versus scopolamine The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under natural conditions when compared to scopolamine (symptoms prevented: 81% scopolamine; 71% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16; 2 studies; 71 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies were performed under experimental conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on heart rate under natural conditions (narrative report, 1 study; 20 participants; "No difference in pulse frequency"; very low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to scopolamine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on sedation (sedation: 21% scopolamine; 30% antihistamines) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.07 to 9.25; 2 studies; 90 participants) (very low-certainty) and on blurred vision (narrative report: not a significant difference; 1 study; 51 participants; very low-certainty). No studies evaluated impaired cognition. Antihistamines versus antiemetics Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions (MD -0.20, 95% CI -10.91 to 10.51; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). The evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. No studies assessed the effects of antihistamines versus antiemetics under natural conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. No studies evaluated sedation, impaired cognition or blurred vision. One study reported physiological data for this outcome, evaluating gastric tachyarrhythmia specifically. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants; low-certainty evidence). This evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. Antihistamines versus acupuncture The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of antihistamines on the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions when compared to acupuncture (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.57; 1 study; 100 participants) (very low-certainty). This study did not assess the prevention of motion sickness under natural conditions, nor the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. There was no study performed under natural conditions. Physiological measures and adverse effects were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is probably a reduction in the risk of developing motion sickness symptoms under naturally occurring conditions of motion when using first-generation antihistamines, in motion sickness-susceptible adults, compared to placebo. Antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation when compared to placebo. No studies evaluated the treatment of existing motion sickness, and there are few data on the effect of antihistamines in children. The evidence for all other outcomes and comparisons (versus scopolamine, antiemetics and acupuncture) was of low or very low certainty and we are therefore uncertain about these effects of antihistamines.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiemetics; Child; Cinnarizine; Dimenhydrinate; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Middle Aged; Motion Sickness; Scopolamine Derivatives; Young Adult
PubMed: 36250781
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012715.pub2 -
BMJ Case Reports Apr 2024SummaryCannabis use is legalised in many countries. We present a patient in their 40s who complained of recurrent abdominal pain and associated nausea and vomiting. The...
SummaryCannabis use is legalised in many countries. We present a patient in their 40s who complained of recurrent abdominal pain and associated nausea and vomiting. The patient was previously seen in various hospitals, treated symptomatically, and discharged with a diagnosis of non-specific abdominal pain. The patient had a chronic history of smoking cannabis and nicotine and drinking alcohol. Abdominal examination revealed no masses, and abdominal X-ray was normal. Blood tests and gastroduodenoscopy revealed no obvious aetiology. Intravenous fluids, together with antiemetics and proton pump inhibitors, were administered. The patient also received counselling and was advised to stop cannabis use. At discharge, the patient was well and asked to come back for review in 2 weeks, and, thereafter monthly for a period of 6 months after stopping cannabis use. The patient reported no recurrent symptoms despite continued cigarette and alcohol use. A suspected cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) became a consideration. Awareness of cannabis-related disorders such as CHS may assist in avoiding costly hospital workups.
Topics: Humans; Vomiting; Adult; Abdominal Pain; Male; Cannabinoids; Syndrome; Nausea; Marijuana Abuse; Antiemetics; Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome
PubMed: 38688569
DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2023-256921 -
Advances in Clinical and Experimental... Jan 2023Although the treatment and mechanisms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are similar, the interactions... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
BACKGROUND
Although the treatment and mechanisms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are similar, the interactions between these 2 morbidities require more research.
OBJECTIVES
In our prospective observational study, we investigated whether previous chemotherapy has an effect on PONV in breast cancer surgery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
One hundred and forty-eight female patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II, aged 18-65 years and with a scheduled breast cancer surgery were recruited into the study. After they completed preoperative follow-up questionnaires, anesthesia was induced with propofol (2 mg/kg), remifentanil (1.0 μg/kg) and rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg), and maintained with sevoflurane (1.5-2.0%), 45% oxygen/air mixture and infusion of remifentanil (0.1-0.2 μg/kg/min). After extubation, the intensity of PONV was assessed during the first 2 h and at 2-24 h after surgery. The symptoms of PONV were classified as mild (mild nausea, vomiting once, and nausea caused by an external stimulant (eating, drinking or motion)), moderate (vomiting twice, mild nausea without an external stimulant, and antiemetic medication required once) and severe (vomiting more than twice, severe nausea, antiemetic medication required more than once) by a different researcher. Preoperative interview forms, perioperative anesthetic follow-up forms and postoperative assessment forms were recorded and evaluated by different members of this research group.
RESULTS
Data of 143 patients were analyzed. In the group of patients who received chemotherapy, the prevalence of nausea and vomiting within the postoperative period of 2-24 h significantly increased (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Previous chemotherapy may be a risk factor for the presence of PONV.
Topics: Humans; Female; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Antiemetics; Remifentanil; Propofol; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 36603139
DOI: 10.17219/acem/157242 -
Anesthesiology Jun 2023Anesthesiologists' contribution to perioperative healthcare disparities remains unclear because patient and surgeon preferences can influence care choices. Postoperative...
BACKGROUND
Anesthesiologists' contribution to perioperative healthcare disparities remains unclear because patient and surgeon preferences can influence care choices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a patient- centered outcome measure and a main driver of unplanned admissions. Antiemetic administration is under the sole domain of anesthesiologists. In a U.S. sample, Medicaid insured versus commercially insured patients and those with lower versus higher median income had reduced antiemetic administration, but not all risk factors were controlled for. This study examined whether a patient's race is associated with perioperative antiemetic administration and hypothesized that Black versus White race is associated with reduced receipt of antiemetics.
METHODS
An analysis was performed of 2004 to 2018 Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data. The primary outcome of interest was administration of either ondansetron or dexamethasone; secondary outcomes were administration of each drug individually or both drugs together. The confounder-adjusted analysis included relevant patient demographics (Apfel postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors: sex, smoking history, postoperative nausea and vomiting or motion sickness history, and postoperative opioid use; as well as age) and included institutions as random effects.
RESULTS
The Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data contained 5.1 million anesthetic cases from 39 institutions located in the United States and The Netherlands. Multivariable regression demonstrates that Black patients were less likely to receive antiemetic administration with either ondansetron or dexamethasone than White patients (290,208 of 496,456 [58.5%] vs. 2.24 million of 3.49 million [64.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.82; P < 0.001). Black as compared to White patients were less likely to receive any dexamethasone (140,642 of 496,456 [28.3%] vs. 1.29 million of 3.49 million [37.0%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.78; P < 0.001), any ondansetron (262,086 of 496,456 [52.8%] vs. 1.96 million of 3.49 million [56.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.85; P < 0.001), and dexamethasone and ondansetron together (112,520 of 496,456 [22.7%] vs. 1.0 million of 3.49 million [28.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
In a perioperative registry data set, Black versus White patient race was associated with less antiemetic administration, after controlling for all accepted postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors.
Topics: Humans; Antiemetics; Ondansetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Retrospective Studies; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37158649
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004549