Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
2.
Support Care Cancer ; 25(1): 145-154, 2017 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27591991

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Even with the use of modern antiemetic drugs, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still a cause of great distress to the patients. Olanzapine, primarily marketed as an antipsychotic, was found to reduce nausea and vomiting in some chemotherapy patients. But it was never tested in Indian population with a diverse genetic background. The present study aims to evaluate the role of olanzapine in CINV in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: The study was a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded study on 100 chemotherapy-naïve consenting patients receiving any one from cisplatin, carboplatin or oxaliplatin. The control group (n = 50) received palonosetron and dexamethasone in the approved therapeutic dose from the day 1 of chemotherapy. The test group (n = 50) received additional olanzapine 10 mg/day from day 1 for five consecutive days. CINV and quality of life (QoL) were assessed. RESULTS: Vomiting was significantly less among the olanzapine-treated patients. Control of delayed emesis was significantly better in this group (complete response among 96 vs. 42 % in the control group, p value <0.0001). Incidence and severity of nausea was significantly less in this group. Failure of anti-CINV measure was 4 % in this group compared to 26 % of the patients of the control group during overall days 1-5. Though sedation was more in these olanzapine-treated patients, there was no dose-limiting adverse event. Quality of life was also better among the olanzapine-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine was found to be effective as add-on in the control of CINV.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Benzodiazepinas/uso terapêutico , Náusea/prevenção & controle , Vômito/prevenção & controle , Antieméticos/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Dexametasona/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Humanos , Isoquinolinas/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Náusea/induzido quimicamente , Olanzapina , Compostos Organoplatínicos/administração & dosagem , Compostos Organoplatínicos/efeitos adversos , Palonossetrom , Qualidade de Vida , Quinuclidinas/uso terapêutico , Vômito/induzido quimicamente
3.
Int J Dermatol ; 54(10): 1199-204, 2015 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25521304

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is a common dermatological condition. Its pathogenesis involves mainly histamine and also other mediators, including platelet-activating factor (PAF) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). In the absence of an exact etiology, H1 -antihistaminics are the mainstay of treatment. Levocetirizine is widely prescribed for CIU. Rupatadine, a newer antihistaminic, has PAF receptor antagonist activity and has shown anti-TNF-α activity in vitro. These additional anti-inflammatory effects may improve its efficacy. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of rupatadine and levocetirizine, respectively, in CIU patients. METHODS: A prospective, open, comparative, randomized study was conducted in 100 patients, of whom 50 were treated with levocetirizine and 50 were treated with rupatadine. Efficacy parameters used were urticarial activity score (UAS) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) values. Safety was evaluated by monitoring for adverse drug reactions and by using the critical flicker fusion threshold (CFFT) test and a visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline, and at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. RESULTS: The mean UAS decreased to 0.10 in the levocetirizine group and to 0.38 in the rupatadine group. Patients in the levocetirizine group showed a more significant (P < 0.001) improvement, although symptoms improved in both groups. Significant reductions in mean DLQI scores were observed in both groups, but the decrease was statistically significant in the levocetirizine group (P < 0.05). Somnolence was the most common side effect in both groups. Patients in the levocetirizine group showed more psychomotor impairment based on the CFFT test. Findings on the VAS showed sedative effects in both groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Levocetirizine was found to be more efficacious than rupatadine in CIU patients, but both drugs caused mild sedation.


Assuntos
Cetirizina/uso terapêutico , Ciproeptadina/análogos & derivados , Antagonistas não Sedativos dos Receptores H1 da Histamina/uso terapêutico , Antagonistas dos Receptores Histamínicos H1/uso terapêutico , Urticária/tratamento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Cetirizina/efeitos adversos , Criança , Doença Crônica , Ciproeptadina/efeitos adversos , Ciproeptadina/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Antagonistas dos Receptores Histamínicos H1/efeitos adversos , Antagonistas não Sedativos dos Receptores H1 da Histamina/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fator de Ativação de Plaquetas/antagonistas & inibidores , Qualidade de Vida , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Fator de Necrose Tumoral alfa/antagonistas & inibidores , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA