Cardiac safety and clinical efficacy of high-dose domperidone for long-term treatment of gastroparesis symptoms.

Domperidone is an effective antiemetic used worldwide, but there have been reports of possible cardiotoxicity. Our goal was to explore the cardiac safety and clinical efficacy of long-term domperidone, titrated as high as 120 mg/day, in patients not responding or unable to tolerate other therapies for gastroparesis (GP).This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single tertiary care academic center. We objectively assessed the safety and efficacy of domperidone through questionnaires, clinical follow-up and frequent ECGs as mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. We excluded patients with a history of dangerous arrhythmias, prolonged QTc, clinically significant electrolyte disturbances, gastrointestinal hemorrhage or obstruction, presence of a prolactinoma, pregnant or breastfeeding females, or allergy to domperidone. A total of 21 patients met the inclusion criteria for eligibility in this study (52.4% white, 42.9% Hispanic; mean age 50.1 years; 90.5% female). The mean duration of domperidone therapy was 52.3 (range 16-97) months with a mean highest dose of 80 mg/day (range 40-120 mg). Two patients (9.5%) taking 120 mg/day experienced asymptomatic meaningful QTc prolongation (>450 ms in males, >470 ms in females). One-third of patients had asymptomatic non-meaningful QTc prolongation. Palpitations or chest pain was reported in 19% of patients without ECG abnormalities or adverse cardiac events. The mean severity of vomiting and nausea was improved by 82% and 55%, respectively.Long-term treatment with high doses of domperidone (40-120 mg/day) improved GP symptoms in patients previously refractory to other medical therapies and with a satisfactory cardiovascular risk profile.

Thromboelastography with platelet mapping: Limited predictive ability in detecting preinjury antiplatelet agent use.

BACKGROUND: Preinjury antiplatelet agent (APA) use in trauma patients can increase traumatic hemorrhage and worsen outcomes. Thromboelastography with platelet mapping (TEGPM) has characterized platelet function via arachidonic acid (AA) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP) inhibition in nontrauma settings, but limited data exist in the acute trauma population. METHODS: A prospective observational study of adult trauma patients with suspected preinjury APA use who received TEGPM testing from 2017 to 2020 was performed. Patients on anticoagulants were excluded. Patients were grouped according to preinjury APA regimen: 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin daily, 81 mg of aspirin and 75 mg of clopidrogrel daily, 75 mg of clopidrogrel daily, or no antiplatelet. Ability of TEGPM to detect APA use was assessed using predictive statistics and area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). RESULTS: A total of 824 patients were included with most patients taking 81 mg of aspirin (n = 558). Patients on no antiplatelet were younger and had higher baseline platelet counts, while patients on 75 mg of clopidrogrel were more likely to be admitted after ground level fall. All other baseline characteristics were balanced. Admission TEG values were similar between groups. Median AA inhibition was higher in patients on aspirin containing regimens (p < 0.0001). Median ADP inhibition was higher in patients on clopidogrel containing regimens and those taking 325 mg of aspirin (p < 0.0001). Arachidonic acid inhibition accurately detected preinjury APA use and aspirin use (AUROC, 0.89 and 0.84, respectively); however, ADP inhibition performed poorly (AUROC, 0.58). Neither AA nor ADP inhibition was able to discern specific APA regimens or rule out APA use entirely. CONCLUSION: High AA inhibition accurately detects preinjury APA use in trauma patients. High ADP inhibition after trauma is common, limiting its utility to accurately identify preinjury APA use. Further study is needed to identify assays that can reliably detect and further characterize preinjury APA use in trauma populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic test, level II.

Randomised clinical trial: safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of trazpiroben (TAK-906), a dopamine D2 /D3 receptor antagonist, in patients with gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Gastroparesis is a chronic gastric motility disorder. Dopamine D2 /D3 receptor antagonists metoclopramide and domperidone are current treatment options but are associated with central nervous system and cardiovascular safety concerns, respectively, precluding chronic use. Trazpiroben (TAK-906), a dopamine D2 /D3 receptor antagonist, is under development for chronic treatment of moderate-to-severe gastroparesis. Nonclinical data suggest trazpiroben will have D2 /D3 receptor antagonism comparable with metoclopramide or domperidone. AIMS: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (effect on prolactin and gastric function) of twice-daily trazpiroben (5, 25 and 100 mg) in participants with gastroparesis. METHODS: This phase 2a pilot study evaluated gastric emptying using the gastric emptying breath test, with metoclopramide as an internal control. Gastric accommodation and gastroparesis symptoms were assessed using the nutrient drink test and American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index-Daily Diary, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 51 participants were enrolled. Trazpiroben was well tolerated, demonstrating a favourable safety profile without cardiovascular or central nervous system adverse events. All trazpiroben doses were rapidly absorbed and eliminated (t1/2z 4-5 hours), and D2 /D3 receptor target engagement confirmed by increased serum prolactin (peaking at trazpiroben 25 mg). No effect on gastric emptying was demonstrated with trazpiroben or metoclopramide (P > 0.05), although benefits in volume-to-fullness were seen at trazpiroben 5 mg (P > 0.05) and 25 mg (88.5 vs -26.3 mL; P = 0.019), and nonsignificant numerical aggregate symptom score improvements were observed with trazpiroben 25 mg vs placebo (P = 0.182). CONCLUSIONS: Trazpiroben was well tolerated with a favourable safety profile, supporting its further development for the treatment of gastroparesis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03268941.

Effect of domperidone, ondansetron, olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimen on QTC interval in patients with malignancy: a prospective, observational, single-group, assessor-blinded study.

Domperidone, ondansetron and olanzapine can prolong the QT interval. The clinical use of combinations of these drugs is not uncommon. Our study aimed to determine the presence of any QTc prolonging effect of the combination when used as antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. We carried out a prospective, observational study of patients with malignancy who were to receive domperidone, ondansetron and olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimen. Electrocardiograms were recorded before and during the administration of antiemetics, for three consecutive days. A blinded assessor determined the QTc interval using Bazett and Fridericia formulae. Thirty-six patients completed the study; 23 (63.9%) were females. There was a statistically significant change in QTc with time (Fridericia, χ2(4) = 15.629, p = 0.004; Bazett, χ2(4) = 15.910, p = 0.003); QTc on Day 1 was more than that during baseline (p < 0.001); these differences were significant in females (Fridericia, χ2(4) = 13.753, p = 0.008; Bazett, χ2 (4) = 13.278, p = 0.010) but not in males (Fridericia, χ2 (4) = 4.419, p = 0.352; Bazett, χ2(4) = 4.280, p = 0.369). Two female patients had an absolute QTc prolongation (Bazett correction) of > 500 ms. However, no clinically significant adverse events occurred. The findings show that QTc prolongation is a concern with olanzapine alone and in combination with domperidone and ondansetron, and needs to be investigated further.

Association between domperidone use and adverse cardiovascular events: A nested case-control and case-time-control study.

PURPOSE: To assess the association between domperidone and adverse cardiovascular events. METHODS: We conducted nested case-control and case-time-control studies using Korea's healthcare database (2002-2015). We identified patients without history of hospitalization, cancer, or cardiovascular diseases in 2002. From our cohort, those diagnosed with an adverse cardiovascular event (case), composite of arrhythmia, hypertension, or acute myocardial infarction were matched to two controls using risk-set sampling on various sociodemographic variables. Exposure was assessed in the 1 to 7 days, or in the 1 to 7 days (hazard period) and 91 to 97 days (control period) prior to index date, in nested case-control and case-time control studies, respectively. We compared domperidone to metoclopramide or non-use and estimated odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: From 627 799 patients, we identified 71 555 cases and 141 833 controls. In the nested case-control study, while the risk of cardiovascular events was increased with domperidone (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28-1.47) compared to non-use, the risk was reduced (0.64, 0.57-0.72) compared to metoclopramide. In the case-time-control study, similar increased risk was found when compared to non-use (1.40, 1.29-1.52) but a reduced risk as compared with metoclopramide (0.63, 0.54-0.72). Risk of myocardial infarction associated with domperidone was highest (nested case-control: 1.94, 1.33-2.83; case-time-control: 1.91, 1.01-3.62) when compared to non-use but did not indicate an increased risk when compared to metoclopramide (nested case-control: 0.60, 0.32-1.13; case-time-control: 0.70, 0.25-1.98). CONCLUSION: Our findings support a positive association between domperidone and adverse cardiovascular events. However, domperidone may have a safer cardiovascular profile than metoclopramide.

Domperidone use and risk of primary liver cancer in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Pronounced sex-disparity in liver cancer suggests a role for hormones, one of which could be prolactin. Stimulation of prolactin production in mice via domperidone has been reported to decrease hepatocarcinogenesis, thus may have chemopreventive potential. To study the effect of domperidone in humans, a large medical records study was conducted. METHODS: Based in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 1921 liver cancer cases and 7681 controls were identified. Conditional logistic regression was employed to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Domperidone use was analyzed overall, and by number of prescriptions and cumulative dose. RESULTS: Comparing ever- versus never-use, there was no association between domperidone and liver cancer among men (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.76-1.48) or women (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.82-1.76). Among men, there was no association with dose or number of prescriptions, while among women who received the highest doses (OR2700 mg vs. 0 mg = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.18-5.41, p-trend = 0.02) and greatest number of prescriptions (OR≥11 Rx vs. 0 Rx = 3.17, 95% CI: 1.07-9.40, p-trend = 0.02) there was a significantly increased risk, although there was no evidence of heterogeneity in the results by gender. CONCLUSION: Domperidone use was not associated with decreased liver cancer risk among all study participants. Among women, an increased risk at highest levels of exposure warrants further study.

Repeated Domperidone treatment modulates pulmonary cytokines in LPS-induced acute lung injury in mice.

The dopaminergic antagonist drug Domperidone has immunomodulatory effects. We investigated the effects of repeated Domperidone treatment in a model of Lypopolyssacharide (LPS)-induced acute lung inflammation. Adult C57BL/6J mice were treated with either Vehicle or Domperidone for 5days, and challenged intranasally with LPS in the following day. The behavior of mice was analyzed in the open field and elevated plus-maze test before and 24h after LPS challenge. The bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, blood and lung tissue were collected 24h and 48h after LPS challenge. Domperidone treatment increased LPS-induced tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin (IL)-6 production in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, without altering tissue damage and the number of immune cells in the lungs and circulation. Locomotor and anxiety-like behavior were unchanged after Domperidone and/or LPS treatment. Cytokine data indicate that Domperidone promotes a change in activity of other cell types, likely alveolar epithelial cells, without affecting immune cell migration in the present model. Due to the role of these cytokines in progression of inflammation, Domperidone treatment may exacerbate a subsequent inflammatory injury.

The association between domperidone and ventricular arrhythmia in the postpartum period.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between domperidone (commonly used off-label for lactation stimulation), ventricular arrhythmia and all-cause mortality during the postpartum period. METHODS: This is a retrospective, population-based cohort study of all women with a live birth between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2011 in British Columbia, Canada. Cox proportional hazards models, yielding hazard ratios (HRs), were used to estimate the risk of hospitalization for ventricular arrhythmia associated with domperidone exposure within six months postpartum. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 225 532 women with 320 351 live births. There was only one death during the six-month postpartum period among the study population, and thus we did not perform any analyses of all-cause mortality. We identified 21 hospitalizations for ventricular arrhythmia. Adjusting for age, smoking and prior history of ventricular arrhythmia and cardiovascular disease, the risk of ventricular arrhythmia hospitalization was approximately double among those exposed to domperidone, but the results were not statistically significant (HR = 2.25, 95%CI 0.84-6.01). Adjustment for body mass index in the 74% of women for whom it was known further reduced the association (HR = 1.69, 95%CI 0.48-5.96). CONCLUSIONS: We found a possible association between exposure to domperidone and hospitalization for ventricular arrhythmia among a cohort of women who have recently given birth. Future studies are needed to confirm this association. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.

Prophylactic Use of Antiemetics for Prevention of Opioid-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Questionnaire Survey among Japanese Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetics are being used both for the treatment and prophylaxis of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) in clinical practice, despite the lack of evidence for the prophylactic benefit. Data regarding the actual status of prophylactic antiemetic use for OINV remain to be elucidated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the practice among Japanese physicians of the prophylactic use of antiemetics when starting opioids prescription for the prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS: This questionnaire survey was targeted among physicians experienced in cancer pain treatment at two institutions of Japan (Nagoya University Hospital and Ichinomiya City Municipal Hospital). The questionnaire assessed the physicians' practice and beliefs regarding the prophylactic antiemetics prescription when they start opioids in patients with cancer pain. RESULTS: Questionnaires were filled in and received from 112 physicians from two institutions. Eighty-two percent of physicians prescribed prophylactic antiemetics at the beginning of opioid prescription, and the most commonly prescribed drug for this purpose was prochlorperazine (88%). CONCLUSION: Despite the lack of evidence, Japanese physicians commonly prescribe prophylactic antiemetics, most commonly prochlorperazine, for OINV. Prospective clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of this practice.

Transient psychosis in women on clomiphene, bromocriptine, domperidone and related endocrine drugs.

BACKGROUND: There have been reports of transient psychosis in women medicated for gynecologic conditions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to explore this literature. METHOD: The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant case reports Results: The following reports were found: psychosis induced by gonadotropin-releasing hormone in the treatment of endometriosis, by clomiphene treatment for infertility, by bromocriptine treatment for milk suppression and by the withdrawal of domperidone prescribed as a galactologue as well as by the withdrawal of estrogen replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: In susceptible women, psychotic symptoms can result from treatments that reduce estrogen levels, such as leuprolide acetate or clomiphene, or treatments that increase dopamine levels (bromocriptine). Psychosis can also be caused indirectly when estrogen treatment is discontinued or dopamine antagonism (e.g. domperidone) withdrawn. Estrogen-reducing and dopamine-increasing treatments used in gynecology need to be carefully monitored.

Domperidone, cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme inhibitors and ventricular arrhythmia: a nationwide case-crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggested that oral form of domperidone may possess pro-arrhythmic effects and increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmia. The concomitant use of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 isoenzyme inhibitors may further potentiate this association. Nevertheless, empirical data supporting these associations are very limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between oral domperidone, CYP 3A4 inhibitors, and ventricular arrhythmia. METHODS: We identified 25,356 patients who were admitted or were seen in the emergency room for ventricular arrhythmia between 2000 and 2011 from Taiwan's Longitudinal Health Insurance Database. We adopted a case-crossover study design to compare the exposure to oral domperidone for the same patient within a "case period" and within a "control period". RESULTS: Conditional logistic regression models showed that domperidone use was significantly associated with an increased odds of ventricular arrhythmia (aOR 1.56, 95%CI [1.41-1.72]). The association was stronger with a higher daily dose of domperidone (>30 mg, aOR 1.98, 95%CI [1.50-2.63]). Furthermore, the co-exposure of domperidone and CYP 3A4 inhibitors was significantly associated with an increased odds of ventricular arrhythmia, especially considering the lasting effect of CYP 3A4 inhibitors (1 day apart: aOR 1.91, 95%CI [1.33-2.75], 3 days apart: aOR 1.90, 95%CI [1.33-2.71], 7 days apart: aOR 1.80, 95%CI [1.28-2.54]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that oral domperidone was significantly associated with an increased odds of ventricular arrhythmia and that the association was stronger with exposure to >30 mg of domperidone. In addition, our study reported increased odds of ventricular arrhythmia among those who concomitantly used domperidone and CYP 3A4 inhibitors.

[Cardiac adverse effects of domperidone in adult patients: a systematic review]. / Efectos adversos cardíacos de la domperidona en pacientes adultos: revisión sistemática.

BACKGROUND: Domperidone is widely prescribed in patients with gastrointestinal disorders but some cardiac adverse effects have been recently reported. AIM: To evaluate the risk of QT prolongation, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death associated with the use of oral domperidone in adults without cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic searches in MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, the Cochrane Library and regulatory agencies websites were performed, followed by a manual search of cited references. The search strategy consisted of combining free and indexed text words without any date or language restriction. RESULTS: Three case-control studies met the inclusion criteria; none of them evaluated QT interval prolongation. With low risk of bias, each study quantified the risk of ventricular arrhythmia or sudden cardiac death (VA/SCD). The odds ratios for these events in these studies were 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-16), 1.59 (95% CI: 1.28-1.98) and 11.02 (95% CI: 2.02-62.3) respectively. A significantly increased risk was observed in patients older than 60 years of age or receiving doses > 30 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity between selected studies did not allow the computation of a summary measure. However, evidence was found that an increased risk of VA/SCD is associated with the use of oral domperidone in adults.

Euprolactinemic galactorrhea secondary to domperidone treatment.

Milk leakage from the breast, which is known as galactorrhea, can be caused by a number of pharmacological, physical, and tumoral factors. Galactorrhea is a well-known side effect of domperidone, and is usually associated with hyperprolactinemia. However, euprolactinemic galactorrhea secondary to domperidone is very rarely seen and has yet to be reported in children before. Here, we report an adolescent with euprolactinemic galactorrhea caused by domperidone.

Current use of domperidone and co-prescribing of medications that increase its arrhythmogenic potential among older adults: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Domperidone is commonly used to treat nausea and gastrointestinal disorders. Recent data suggests that it may increase the risk of sudden cardiac death, particularly in older people. Little is known about how it is used in contemporary practice. This study sought to characterize the population of older adults newly dispensed domperidone, describe dosages of domperidone used, and determine the frequency of co-prescribing domperidone with medications that may increase the arrhythmogenic potential of domperidone. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using administrative health database information from Ontario, Canada. Prescription medication records were obtained from the Ontario Drug Benefit Claims Database. Diagnostic codes were obtained from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan Database, the Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database, and the same-day surgery database. Patients who received a new prescription for domperidone between April 1, 2003 and March 31, 2010 were included. RESULTS: A total of 122,233 patients met inclusion criteria; 85 % were between 66 and 84 years old and 63 % were female. The mean estimated daily domperidone dose was 35 mg, and the estimated daily dose was <40 mg for 62 % of users. Strong or moderately strong cytochrome P-450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitors were co-prescribed for 4.3 and 10.7 % of users, while medications with a known risk or possible risk for torsades de pointes (TdP) were co-prescribed to 18.3 and 18.8 % of users. CONCLUSIONS: Older domperidone users were commonly co-prescribed drugs with the potential to increase the risk for TdP. These combinations should be avoided, as iatrogenic QT prolongation is a modifiable risk factor for TdP.

Domperidone induced galactorrhea: an unusual presentation of a common drug.

Domperidone is a prokinetic drug used for diabetic gastro paresis, hiccoughs, and vomiting. It is a peripheral D2 receptor antagonist with selective peripheral activity restricted to the upper gastro intestinal tract. It is not known to cross the blood brain barrier and hence, lacks neurological side effects. We would like to report a case of domperidone induced galactorrhea in a young female who presented with galactorrhea and other symptoms suggestive of prolactinoma.

[Treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients : a review]. / Behandlung von übelkeit und erbrechen mit prokinetika und neuroleptika bei palliativpatienten : ein review.

BACKGROUND: Many recommendations concerning the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients exist but what is the evidence for this? Most studies dealing with this topic have focused on cancer patients under chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy or on patients with postoperative nausea. Cancer patients without chemotherapy or radiation therapy, patients without postoperative nausea, and patients having other diseases with palliative care aspects, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), progressive heart failure, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and multiple sclerosis (MS) have been underrepresented in studies on nausea and vomiting so far. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine the level of evidence for the treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients suffering from far advanced cancer and no longer being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, AIDS, COPD, progressive heart failure, ALS or MS. METHODS: Two different electronic databases (PubMed und Embase) were used to identify studies. Furthermore, a hand search for related articles was performed. No restriction was made concerning study types. Studies with patients undergoing chemotherapy radiation therapy or suffering from postoperative nausea, pediatric studies and studies published neither in English nor in German were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were found. All studies focused on cancer patients. Despite intensive research studies in patients with AIDS, COPD, heart failure, ALS or MS were not detected. Metoclopramide is seen as an effective drug in many studies whereas the evidence for it is moderate at best. Within the group of neuroleptics, levosupiride and levomepromazine seem to have good antiemetic potential but the evidence level is low. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced cancer not being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, metoclopramide can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting. Neuroleptics, such as levosulpiride or levomepromazine are alternatives but their adverse effects have to be considered carefully. The evidence level for prokinetics and neuroleptics is moderate to low. Concerning palliative care of patients with diseases other than cancer no studies exist. More well designed studies in palliative care patients are needed in order to facilitate evidence based antiemetic therapy. The English full text version of this article will be available in SpringerLink as of November 2012 (under "Supplemental").

DNA microarray SNP associations with clinical efficacy and side effects of domperidone treatment for gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Domperidone treatment for gastroparesis is associated with variable efficacy as well as the potential for side effects. DNA microarray single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis may help to elucidate the role of genetic variability on the therapeutic effectiveness and toxicity of domperidone. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify SNPs that are associated with clinical efficacy and side effects of domperidone treatment for gastroparesis from DNA microarray experiments. This will help develop a strategy for rational selection of patients for domperidone therapy. METHODS: DNA samples extracted from the saliva of 46 patients treated with domperidone were analyzed using Affymetrix 6.0 SNP microarrays. Then least angle regression (LARS) was used to select SNPs that are related to domperidone efficacy and side effects. Decision tree based prediction models were constructed with the most correlated features selected by LARS. RESULTS: Using the most stable SNP selected by LARS a prediction model for side effects of domperidone achieved (95 ± 0)% true negative rate (TN) and (78 ± 11)% true positive rate (TP) in nested leave-one-out tests. For domperidone efficacy, the prediction based on five most stable SNPs achieved (85 ± 7)% TP and (61±4)% TN. Five identified SNPs are related to ubiquitin mediated proteolysis, epithelial cell signaling, leukocyte, cell adhesion, and tight junction signaling pathways. Genetic polymorphisms in three genes that are related to cancer and hedgehog signaling were found to significantly correlate with efficacy of domperidone. CONCLUSION: LARS was found to be a useful tool for statistical analysis of domperidone-related DNA microarray data generated from a small number of patients.

Domperidone treatment for gastroparesis: demographic and pharmacogenetic characterization of clinical efficacy and side-effects.

BACKGROUND: Domperidone is a useful alternative to metoclopramide for treatment of gastroparesis due to better tolerability. Effectiveness and side-effects from domperidone may be influenced by patient-related factors including polymorphisms in genes encoding drug-metabolizing enzymes, drug transporters, and domperidone targets. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine if demographic and pharmacogenetic parameters of patients receiving domperidone are associated with response to treatment or side-effects. METHODS: Patients treated with domperidone for gastroparesis provided saliva samples from which DNA was extracted. Fourteen single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in seven candidate genes (ABCB1, CYP2D6, DRD2, KCNE1, KCNE2, KCNH2, KCNQ1) were used for genotyping. SNP microarrays were used to assess single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the ADRA1A, ADRA1B, and ADRA1D loci. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients treated with domperidone participated in the study. DNA was successfully obtained from each patient. Age was associated with effectiveness of domperidone (p=0.0088). Genetic polymorphism in KCNH2 was associated with effectiveness of domperidone (p=0.041). The efficacious dose was associated with polymorphism in ABCB1 gene (p=0.0277). The side-effects of domperidone were significantly associated with the SNPs in the promoter region of ADRA1D gene. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic characteristics associated with response to domperidone therapy included polymorphisms in the drug transporter gene ABCB1, the potassium channel KCNH2 gene, and α1D--adrenoceptor ADRA1D gene. Age was associated with a beneficial response to domperidone. If verified in a larger population, this information might be used to help determine which patients with gastroparesis might respond to domperidone and avoid treatment in those who might develop side-effects.