Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tropisetron, metoclopramide, and chlorpromazine in the treatment of emesis associated with far advanced cancer

阅读量:

34

作者:

K MystakidouD Ph.S BefonCLB Sc.L Vlachos

展开

摘要:

BACKGROUNDA single institution, prospective, randomized trial was performed in terminal cancer patients to compare tropisetron (TRO), metoclopramide (MET), and chlorpromazine (CHL) in the management of nausea and emesis. Patients had far advanced cancer, were far removed from chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and their nausea and emesis was not due to bowel obstruction, drug intake, or cranial, electrolytic, or metabolic causes. The effects of antiemetic treatments were evaluated from Days 1-15.METHODSTwo hundred and eighty patients were randomized to receive 1) MET+ dexamethasone (DEX) (10 mg*4 and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 2) TRO (5 mg*1, orally), 3) TRO + MET (5 mg*1 and 10 mg*2, respectively, orally), 4) TRO + MET + DEX (5 mg*1, 10 mg*2, and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 5) CHL + DEX (25 mg*2 and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 6) TRO + CHL (5 mg*1 and 12.5 mg*2, respectively, orally), or 7) TRO + CHL + DEX (5 mg*1, 12.5 mg*2, and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally). Total control was defined as no nausea or emesis.RESULTSBy the end of the 15th day, total control of emesis was obtained in 23.6% (9 of 38) of MET + DEX patients, 78.9% (30 of 38) of TRO patients, 84.2% (32 of 38) of TRO + MET patients, 92.3% (36 of 39) of TRO + MET + DEX patients, 33.3 (13 of 39) of CHL + DEX patients, 84.6% (33 of 39) of TRO + CHL patients, and 92.5% (37 of 40) of TRO + CHL + DEX patients. Total control of nausea was achieved in 18.4% (7 of 38) of MET + DEX patients, 65.7% (25 of 38) of TRO patients, 73.6% (28 of 38) of TRO + MET patients, 87.1% (34 of 39) of TRO + MET + DEX patients, 17.9% (7 of 39) of CHL + DEX patients, 74.3% (29 of 39) of TRO + CHL patients, and 85% (34 of 40) of TRO + CHL + DEX patients. When comparing MET + DEX versus TRO; MET + DEX versus TRO + MET; MET + DEX versus TRO + MET + DEX; MET + DEX versus TRO + CHL; MET + DEX versus TRO + CHL + DEX; CHL + DEX versus TRO; CHL + DEX versus TRO + MET; CHL + DEX versus TRO + MET + DEX; CHL + DEX versus TRO + CHL; and CHL + DEX versus TRO + CHL + DEX, significant differences were noted. All antiemetic drugs were well tolerated with no severe side effects observed in any treatment arm.CONCLUSIONSThese data suggest that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists such as tropisetron clinically are more effective in the control of emesis of patients with far advanced cancer than previously used agents. This study raises important issues when attempting to decide which antiemetic therapy to choose for an individual patient with far advanced disease. Cancer 1998;83:1214-23. © 1998 American Cancer Society. 1998;83:1214-1223. © 1998 American Cancer Society.

展开

DOI:

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980915)83:6<1214::AID-CNCR22>3.0

被引量:

92

年份:

1998

通过文献互助平台发起求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。

相似文献

参考文献

引证文献

来源期刊

引用走势

2014
被引量:13

站内活动

辅助模式

0

引用

文献可以批量引用啦~
欢迎点我试用!

关于我们

百度学术集成海量学术资源,融合人工智能、深度学习、大数据分析等技术,为科研工作者提供全面快捷的学术服务。在这里我们保持学习的态度,不忘初心,砥砺前行。
了解更多>>

友情链接

百度云百度翻译

联系我们

合作与服务

期刊合作 图书馆合作 下载产品手册

©2025 Baidu 百度学术声明 使用百度前必读

引用