A double-blind, randomised, parallel group, multinational, multicentre study comparing a single dose of ondansetron 24 mg p.o. with placebo and metoclopramide 10 mg t.d.s. p.o. in the treatment of opioid-induced nausea and emesis in cancer patients.

Nausea and emesis are common side effects of opioid drugs administered for pain relief in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of ondansetron, placebo and metoclopramide in the treatment of opioid-induced nausea and emesis (OIE) in cancer patients. This was a multinational, multicentre, double-blind, parallel group study in which cancer patients who were receiving a full opioid agonist for cancer pain were randomised to receive one of oral ondansetron 24 mg once daily, metoclopramide 10 mg three times daily, or placebo. Study medication was started only if the patient experienced nausea and/or emesis following opioid administration. Efficacy and safety assessments were made over a study period of 24 h from the time of the first dose of anti-emetics/placebo. The study was terminated prematurely because of the difficulties in recruiting patients satisfying the stringent entry criteria. Ninety-two patients were included in the intent-to-treat population: 30 patients received placebo, 29 patients ondansetron and 33 patients metoclopramide. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the proportion achieving complete control of emesis (33% of patients on placebo, 48% on ondansetron and 52% on metoclopramide) or complete control of nausea (23% of patients on placebo, 17% on ondansetron and 36% on metoclopramide). Rescue anti-emetics were required in 8 of 33 patients on metoclopramide, 4 of 29 on ondansetron, and 3 of 30 on placebo. The incidence of adverse events was very low and similar in all treatment groups. Neither ondansetron 24 mg once daily nor metoclopromide 10 mg t.d.s. given orally was significantly more effective than placebo in the control of OIE in cancer patients.

Ondansetron is more effective than metoclopramide for the treatment of opioid-induced emesis in post-surgical adult patients. Ondansetron OIE Post-Surgical Study Group.

Nausea and vomiting are common side effects of opioids administered for pain control. This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study evaluated the anti-emetic efficacy and tolerability of single intravenous (i.v.) doses of ondansetron 8 mg, ondansetron 16 mg and metoclopramide 10 mg in the treatment of opioid-induced emesis. Adult patients undergoing low emetogenic surgical procedures, using a standardized anaesthesia regimen were assessed for 24 h following administration of study anti-emetic to treat established post-surgical opioid-induced emesis. A total of 4511 patients were enrolled of whom 1366 experienced opioid-induced emesis and received randomized study medication. Ondansetron 8 mg and 16 mg were significantly better than metoclopramide 10 mg (P < 0.05) for both complete control of emesis, complete control of nausea and other efficacy measures. There were no significant differences between the two ondansetron groups. All three treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, this large, multicentre study demonstrates that ondansetron is more effective than metoclopramide in the treatment of opioid-induced emesis following administration of post-surgical opioids to control pain.

Antiemetic activity of the NK1 receptor antagonist GR205171 in the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting after major gynaecological surgery.

In this double-blind, randomized, parallel group study, we have investigated the antiemetic activity of the potent and selective NK1 receptor antagonist GR205171 25 mg i.v. compared with placebo in the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients after major gynaecological surgery performed under general anaesthesia. The incidence of PONV in the study population was 65%. Thirty-six patients were treated with placebo or GR205171 (18 patients per group). GR205171 produced greater control of PONV than placebo over the 24-h assessment period. The stimuli for emesis after PONV are multifactorial and the efficacy of GR205171 in this study supports the broad spectrum potential for NK1 receptor antagonists in the management of postoperative emesis. GR205171 was well tolerated and no adverse events were reported that would preclude the further development of this agent.

A multicenter, double-blind comparison of i.v. and oral administration of ondansetron plus dexamethasone for acute cisplatin-induced emesis. Ondansetron Acute Emesis Study Group.

A total of 530 patients were treated in this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of a once daily ondansetron oral regimen with a once daily i.v. dosing regimen over a 24 h period, administered to patients prior to receiving cisplatin (50 mg/m2 or greater) chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of ondansetron plus dexamethasone given either orally (ondansetron 24 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, n=262) or i.v. (ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg, n=268). Complete control of emesis (i.e. no emetic episodes, no rescue and no premature withdrawal) was achieved for 85% of patients (224 of 262) in the oral group and 83% (223 of 268) in the i.v. group. No nausea was reported in 70% of patients in the oral group and 68% in the i.v. group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for any of the assessments of efficacy, which included time to first emetic episode, number of emetic episodes and the worst grade of nausea occurring over the 24 h study period. Once daily ondansetron oral and i.v., in combination with dexamethasone, was well tolerated in this study. In conclusion, once daily oral ondansetron 24 mg plus dexamethasone is equally effective in the control of emesis and nausea induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy as once daily ondansetron 8 mg i.v. plus dexamethasone.

Ondansetron suppository: a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group comparison with oral ondansetron for the prevention of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis and nausea. The Ondansetron Suppository emesis study group.

This multinational, multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study compared the safety, tolerability and efficacy of ondansetron 8 mg orally twice a day with ondansetron suppository 16 mg once daily in patients receiving cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy. A total of 406 patients were randomised to receive ondansetron 8 mg p.o. (198 patients) or ondansetron suppository (208 patients) medication in a double-blind, double-dummy trial. The primary efficacy analysis revealed that ondansetron provided good anti-emetic control with 81% of patients in the 8 mg p.o. b.d. group and 73% of patients in the 16 mg ondansetron suppository o.d. group experiencing complete or major control of emesis (< or = 2 emetic episodes) on the worst day of days 1-3. The 90% confidence interval for the difference between the two treatments for complete or major control (1.4, 15.0%) showed that the treatments could be regarded as equivalent. A difference in favour of oral ondansetron treatment was noted for the complete control (0 emetic episodes) rates over days 1-3, but no differences were found on day 1. There were no significant differences in the distribution of nausea grades between the treatment groups on the worst day of days 1-3 or on day 1. The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two treatment groups, the most frequently reported events were headache and constipation. There were no significant laboratory findings in either treatment group. In conclusion this study showed that the ondansetron treatments could be regarded as equivalent for the primary efficacy endpoint and that ondansetron suppository was well tolerated and effective in the prevention of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis.

A multicentre, double-blind study comparing placebo, ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone for the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. Ondansetron Delayed Emesis Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral ondansetron, given alone or in combination with dexamethasone in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. A total of 640 chemotherapy-naïve patients received ondansetron 8 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. for the control of acute emesis prior to cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) on day 1. Patients who were not rescued or withdrawn on day 1 were to be randomised 24 hours after the start of cisplatin administration to one of four groups; group I placebo oral (p.o.), twice daily (bd) on days 2-6 (n = 125); group II ondansetron (8 mg p.o. bd) on days 2/3 followed by placebo (p.o. bd) on days 4-6 (n = 199); group III ondansetron (8 mg p.o. bd) on days 2-6 (n = 214); group IV ondansetron (8 mg p.o. bd) plus dexamethasone (4 mg p.o. bd) on days 2-6 (n = 66). RESULTS: On day 1, 81% of patients had complete control of acute emesis, with 68% having no emesis and no nausea. Over days 2/3 and over days 2-6, significantly more patients receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV) reported no emesis and no nausea (49% and 45%, respectively) compared to ondansetron alone (32% and 27%, respectively) or placebo (group I; 33% and 27%, respectively; P < 0.05 for all pairwise comparisons). There were no significant differences in the control of emesis over days 2/3, where 61% of patients had complete emetic control (0 emetic episodes) with ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV), 54% with ondansetron (groups II + III) and 49% with placebo (group I). In the distribution of nausea grades, ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV) was significantly superior to ondansetron (groups II + III); P = 0.037) and placebo (group I; P = 0.013) over days 2/3. Over days 2-6 there were no significant differences in the control of emesis, however a comparison of the distribution of nausea grades over days 2-6 showed ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV) to be significantly superior to ondansetron (group III; P = 0.043) and placebo (group I; P = 0.024). All treatments were well tolerated and no unexpected drug-related adverse events were reported. There were no differences in the overall incidence of adverse events between the active treatment groups or placebo. Constipation and headache, recognised side effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, were the most commonly reported adverse events with the incidence of constipation with ondansetron alone (group III) being significantly greater than with over days 2-6 (14% vs. 6%; P = 0.030). CONCLUSION: In contrast to some previous investigations, in this study, ondansetron alone appears to have a minor role in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis and nausea. In conclusion, the combination of oral ondansetron plus dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron and to placebo.

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 tolerability of ondansetron plus dexamethasone (O + D) with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus lorazepam (M + D + L) over three consecutive courses of cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an international, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study. O+D patients were randomised to receive ondansetron 8 mg intravenously (i.v.) plus dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. prior to cisplatin (50-100 mg/m2) chemotherapy. On the following 4 days they were treated with ondansetron 8 mg bd orally and dexamethasone 4 mg bd orally. M + D + L patients were randomised to receive metoclopramide 3 mg/kg i.v., dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. and lorazepam 1.5 mg/m2 i.v. (max 3 mg) prior to cisplatin chemotherapy and a further dose of metoclopramide 3 mg/kg i.v. approximately 2 hours following the first dose of metoclopramide. Treatment for the following 4 days was metoclopramide 40 mg tds and dexamethasone 4 mg bd orally. Two hundred and thirty-seven patients were recruited into the study (117 patients received O + D and 120 received M + D + L). RESULTS: On the first course chemotherapy, O + D was significantly superior to the M + D + L regimen for complete control of emesis (days 1-5, 54% versus 37%, respectively, P = 0.014). This was maintained over the three treatment cycles; 38% of O + D and 20% of M + D + L patients remained free of emesis (P = 0.003). Maintenance of control of nausea grade as none or mild on days 1-5 over the 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 group were constipation (25%) and headache (19%). In the M + D + L group drowsiness (38% of patients), malaise/fatigue (16% of patients), constipation (13% of patients), anxiety (11% of patients) and dizziness (10% of patients) were the most commonly reported adverse 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 study due to extrapyramidal symptoms, which in the opinion of the investigators, were probably or almost certainly related to study medication. CONCLUSION: This study show that O + D is significantly more effective and better tolerated than M + D + L for the control of emesis and nausea over a series of three courses of cisplatin chemotherapy.

Ondansetron compared with granisetron in the prophylaxis of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in out-patients: a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, parallel-group study. Emesis Study Group for Ondansetron and Granisetron in Breast Cancer Patients.

This is the first double-blind clinical trial in a homogenous group of patients to compare the recommended dosing schedules of ondansetron and granisetron in the control of prolonged emesis after cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (48% CMF, 35% EC) for breast cancer. A total of 514 patients were recruited. Of the 488 patients included in the intent-to-treat analyses, 167 were randomised to group A [8 mg ondansetron intravenously (i.v.) + placebo by mouth (p.o.) before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. twice daily (b.d.) until day 5], 155 to group B (placebo i,.v. + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. b.d. until day 5) and 166 to group C (3 mg granisetron i.v. + placebo p.o. before chemotherapy + placebo p.o. b.d. until day 5). On study day 1, the groups were comparable with respect to the proportion of patients experiencing up to 2 emetic episodes (group A: 89%; B: 86%; C: 91%) and in the severity of nausea (no nausea; group A: 51%; B: 55%; C: 54%). Over the 5-day study period significantly more patients were rescued or withdrawn due to lack of response after the granisetron regimen (26%) than after the i.v. + p.o. ondansetron regimen (11%; p < 0.001). Since there was no difference in these parameters on day 1, this reflects differences on days 2-5 and was also reflected in the all-oral ondansetron group over this period (group B: 12%; C: 22% on days 2-5). A significant difference in the severity of nausea after i.v. and p.o. ondansetron compared with granisetron was also observed over the 5-day study period (p = 0.009). This was reflected in a numerical difference in favour of the all-p.o. ondansetron regimen compared with the granisetron regimen (no nausea; group A: 33%; B: 34%; C: 25%). Again these differences reflected differences in nausea control on days 2-5, since no differences were observed on day 1. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for prognostic factors also revealed a significant difference (p = 0.011) in favour of the i.v. + ondansetron group compared with the granisetron group when complete plus major response was compared over days 2-5. No significant differences in the safety profiles of the three treatment groups were observed. There were no severe or unexpected drug-related adverse events and as is well established for the serotonin receptor antagonists, mild constipation (mean 8%) and mild headache (mean 8%) were most commonly reported.

The efficacy and safety of ondansetron in the prophylaxis of cancer-chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in children.

The management of chemotherapy induced emesis presents a major difficulty in the paediatric population. Ondansetron is a 5-HT3 antagonist and its antiemetic properties have been established in adults receiving chemotherapy. Experience in the treatment of children, however, is limited. There is no standard comparative antiemetic in paediatric practice, so this European, multi-centred study aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of ondansetron in a large cohort of children receiving a range of emetogenic chemotherapy regimens for malignant disease. Two hundred patients were entered into the study, of whom 183 fulfilled entry criteria. Forty per cent (10/25) of patients receiving cisplatin, 68% (27/40) receiving ifosfamide and 70% (83/118) receiving other drugs had less than 3 emetic episodes (vomit or retch) during their worst 24 hours of chemotherapy. The number of days without vomiting or retching during and shortly after receiving chemotherapy was also related to the emetic potential of the agents in the regimen: cisplatin 82/182 (45%), ifosfamide 137/213 (64%) and other agents 430/566 (76%). The control of nausea appeared better than that of emesis in each of the sub-groups analysed. Ondansetron was safe, well tolerated and effective in the prevention of vomiting in children receiving a wide variety of chemotherapy regimens.

Ondansetron as prophylaxis for chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced emesis in children.

Ondansetron was given as anti-emetic prophylaxis to 429 children receiving a variety of emetogenic cancer treatments for up to 8 days, in three, open, multicentre, European studies. Children aged between 6 months and 17 years with a variety of tumours and receiving chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus total body irradiation (TBI) were studied. Ondansetron was given intravenously, 5 mg/m2 or 8 mg, according to the surface area of the child, immediately before chemotherapy. Intravenous or oral treatment (2, 4 or 8 mg, according to surface area) was continued 3 times a day during chemotherapy or TBI, and for a further 2 days (non-cisplatin chemotherapy or TBI) or 5 days (cisplatin chemotherapy). The number of vomits and retches (each counting as an emetic episode) were recorded daily, as was an assessment of nausea, which was graded as none (not feeling sick at all), mild (feeling sick) or severe (feeling very sick). Responses were graded according to the number of emetic episodes during the worst 24-hour period. In addition, response was expressed in terms of emesis-free days as a proportion of all ondansetron treatment days. During chemotherapy, 66% of children experienced less than 3 emetic episodes on their 'worst day' and 88% had none or mild nausea. Sixty-eight percent of all ondansetron treatment days (2,131) were free of emesis. Of the patients who were poorly controlled with 'customary' anti-emetics, at least 81% experienced better control with ondansetron. When analysed according to the most emetogenic agent given 36, 59 and 75% of children reported less than 3 emetic episodes on their 'worst day' respectively, during cisplatin, ifosfamide and other less emetogenic chemotherapy. During conditioning for bone marrow transplantation with cyclophosphamide and TBI, 80 and 57% of patients, respectively, experienced less than 3 emetic episodes. The overall incidence of adverse events was low and headache (reported in 4% of patients) was the only event reported by more than 1% of patients. These studies show that ondansetron is a safe, well tolerated and an effective anti-emetic in the treatment of children receiving a wide variety of chemotherapy regimens.

Ondansetron compared with metoclopramide in the control of emesis and quality of life during repeated chemotherapy for breast cancer.

This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study which included female breast cancer patients, receiving their first of 6 scheduled courses of chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide greater than or equal to 500 mg/m2). Patients received an intravenous dose of 16 mg dexamethasone with either 8 mg ondansetron or 60 mg metoclopramide before chemotherapy, followed by oral dosing with 8 mg ondansetron or 20 mg metoclopramide 3 times daily for 5 days. A total of 93 patients were treated with ondansetron and 94 patients with metoclopramide. On day 1 of their first course of treatment 91 and 60% of patients in the ondansetron and metoclopramide groups respectively were free of emesis (p less than 0.001). Over the 5-day treatment period, the corresponding figures were 81 and 48% (p less than 0.001). The results for nausea also revealed highly statistically significant treatment differences (p less than 0.001) in favour of ondansetron for both day 1 and day 1-5 analyses of the first treatment course. Over the series of courses, 67% of patients receiving ondansetron completed all 6 courses with a maximum of 2 emetic episodes on their worst day, compared with 28% of patients receiving metoclopramide (p less than 0.001). A similar analysis for nausea revealed that 49% of patients receiving ondansetron completed all 6 courses with 'none' or 'mild' nausea compared with 27% of patients receiving metoclopramide (p less than 0.001). These differences were reflected in quality of life data (Rotterdam Symptom Checklist). After the first course of treatment, a statistically significant improvement (p = 0.002) in the psychological subscale scores was observed after ondansetron compared with metoclopramide. No differences were observed in the physical or functional activity subscales after the first course. However, the quality of life results over the series of courses revealed a more pronounced difference in favour of ondansetron in the psychological subscale scores (p less than 0.001) as well as trends in favour of ondansetron in the physical (p = 0.096) and functional activity (p = 0.056) subscales. Extrapyramidal symptoms were reported in 19% of patients in the metoclopramide group and resulted in 15% of patients withdrawing from their randomised anti-emetic schedule, either during or between treatment courses. Other adverse events were generally minor in nature and did not necessitate withdrawal from treatment. In conclusion, this study shows that ondansetron is significantly superior to metoclopramide (each with a single pre-treatment dose of dexamethasone) in the control of emesis over 6 courses of chemotherapy for breast cancer.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

A phase II study of ondansetron as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving carboplatin for advanced ovarian cancer. The North Thames Ovary Group.

Thirty four patients who were receiving carboplatin 400 mg/m2 for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer were treated with ondansetron antiemetic prophylaxis. Ondansetron was given as 4 mg oral +4 mg iv 30 minutes prior to carboplatin followed by 8 mg oral tds for 5 days. Of the evaluable patients complete or major control of emesis on day one was achieved in 94% of previously untreated patients and 81% of patients refractory to conventional antiemetic therapy. For the 5 day period as a whole 88% of untreated patients and 69% of those with refractory emesis reported complete or major control of nausea and vomiting. Fifteen patients noted no side effects with mild headache (30%) and constipation (21%) the most frequent problems in the remainder. Ondansetron is effective antiemetic prophylaxis for carboplatin chemotherapy and should allow the majority of these patients to be managed on an out-patient basis.

Comparison of ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis during cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.

Ondansetron, a serotonin antagonist, is effective in controlling the emesis associated with cancer chemotherapy; however, emesis in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin is poorly controlled by ondansetron alone. Dexamethasone is an effective antiemetic with no known interaction with serotonin receptors and was thus chosen for study in combination with ondansetron. 31 patients (30 male, 1 female; median age 28.5 years, range 18-49) receiving a 4-day course of a chemotherapy regimen containing cisplatin (100-120 mg/m2) for metastatic germ-cell tumours were entered in a randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial comparing oral ondansetron plus placebo with oral ondansetron plus dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis. Ondansetron (8 mg every 8 h) was given to all patients for 8 days from the start of chemotherapy. Patients were given 8 mg of dexamethasone or placebo every 8 h starting 2 h before cisplatin (on day 4) and continuing for six doses (ie, for 2 days only). A second course of chemotherapy began 14 days after the start of the first, during which patients crossed over to the alternative antiemetic regimen. Results were available from 27 patients. In the 24-48 h after cisplatin 78% of patients taking ondansetron plus dexamethasone reported complete or major control of emesis compared with 30% of those taking ondansetron plus placebo (p = 0.001). Cross-over analysis showed a significant advantage for ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the control of nausea (p = 0.013) and emesis (p less than 0.001) over the 8-day study. 24 of 26 patients expressed a preference for the combination therapy (p less than 0.001). Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is effective antiemetic prophylaxis for high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy, has few side effects, and is active when given orally.

Characterization of a loss-of-function mutation in the isopenicillin N synthetase gene of Acremonium chrysogenum.

The N-2 strain of Acremonium chrysogenum accumulates the beta-lactam precursor tripeptide delta-(L-alpha-amino-adipoyl)-L-cysteinyl-D-valine and has no discernible activity for three of the cephalosporin C (Ce) biosynthetic enzymes. This phenotype is consistent with a mutation either within pcbC [the isopenicillin N synthetase (IPNS)-encoding gene] or in a pathway-regulator gene. To distinguish these possibilities we have cloned and sequenced pcbC from strain N-2. There is a single C----T mutation at nt 854 within the coding sequence, changing aa 285 from proline to leucine. An IPNS-specific monoclonal antibody recognises a catalytically inactive IPNS protein in extracts of N-2 cells. These findings suggest that strain N-2 carries a simple IPNS mutation and that IPNS or its biosynthetic product isopenicillin N is involved in regulation of the later stages of the Ce biosynthetic pathway.