Lorazepam: a randomized, double-blind, crossover study of a new antiemetic in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy and prochlorperazine

Antiemetic Activity of Oral Lorazepam in Addition to Methylprednisolone and Metoclopramide in the Prophylactic Treatment of Vomiting Induced by Cisplatin. A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study with Crossover Design

Aims and Backgorund

It has been suggested that lorazepam has a definite role as an antiemetic drug in antiemetic cocktails. In this study we examined the antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide (200 mg) and methylprednisolone (1000 mg) with or without lorazepam.

Methods

Sixty patients treated with cisplatin-containing regimens were entered into a randomized, double-blind study with cross-over. Lorazepam 2.5 mg or placebo were administered orally the evening before therapy and just after the beginning of fluid infusion for chemotherapy. Degree of nausea and number of vomiting episodes, together with somnolence, were recorded on a data flow sheet and visual-analogue scales.

Results

100 cycles (50 patients) are evaluable. In 39 cycles there was no nausea and vomiting, in 74 cycles acceptable control of emesis was reached (0-2 episodes of vomiting), without significant differences among the two arms. However, nausea was shorter in lorazepam arm (p < 0.01), and 80 % of the patients preferred treatment with lorazepam (p < 0.003). Anxiety was reduced in the patients treated with lorazepam (p < 0.4).

Conclusions

Lorazepam improves tolerability to cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, mainly by influencing the psychological status of the patient and favoring the amnestic process.

A research study review of effectiveness of treatments for psychiatric conditions common to end-stage cancer patients: needs assessment for future research and an impassioned plea

BACKGROUND

Rates of psychiatric conditions common to end-stage cancer patients (delirium, depression, anxiety disorders) remain unchanged. However, patient numbers have increased as the population has aged; indeed, cancer is a chief cause of mortality and morbidity in older populations. Effectiveness of psychiatric interventions and research to evaluate, inform, and improve interventions is critical to these patients' care. This article's intent is to report results from a recent review study on the effectiveness of interventions for psychiatric conditions common to end-stage cancer patients; the review study assessed the state of research regarding treatment effectiveness. Unlike previous review studies, this one included non-traditional/alternative therapies and spirituality interventions that have undergone scientific inquiry.

METHODS

A five-phase systematic strategy and a theoretic grounded iterative methodology were used to identify studies for inclusion and to craft an integrated, synthesized, comprehensive, and reasonably current end-product.

RESULTS

Psychiatric medication therapies undoubtedly are the most powerful treatments. Among them, the most effective (i.e., "best practices benchmarks") are: (1) for delirium, typical antipsychotics-though there is no difference between typical vs. atypical and other antipsychotics, except for different side-effect profiles, (2) for depression, if patient life expectancy is ≥4-6 weeks, then a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and if < 3 weeks, then psychostimulants or ketamine, and these generally are useful anytime in the cancer disease course, and (3) for anxiety disorders, bio-diazepams (BDZs) are most used and most effective. A universal consensus suggests that psychosocial (i.e., talk) therapy and spirituality interventions fortify the therapeutic alliance and psychiatric medication protocols. However, trial studies have had mixed results regarding effectiveness in reducing psychiatric symptoms, even for touted psychotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study's findings prompted a testable linear conceptual model of co-factors and their importance for providing effective psychiatric care for end-stage cancer patients. The complicated and tricky part is negotiating patients' diagnoses while articulating internal intricacies within and between each of the model's co-factors. There is a relative absence of scientifically derived information and need for more large-scale, diverse scientific inquiry. Thus, this article is an impassioned plea for accelerated study and better care for end-stage cancer patients' psychiatric conditions.

Effect of Sedation with Midazolam or Propofol on Patient's Comfort During Cancer Chemotherapy Infusion: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study in Breast Cancer Patients

Nausea, vomiting and anxiety related to administration of cancer chemotherapy remain significant problems. This randomized, clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate the effect of sedation on the patient's comfort during chemotherapy infusion in patients with breast cancer. Forty-five breast cancer patients were randomized into three groups: Group I--chemotherapy, control, Group II--midazolam+chemotherapy, and Group III--propofol+chemotherapy. Nausea occured in 87% and vomiting in 13% of the patients in the control group, while none of the sedated subjects had these side-effects, although 76% of them had experienced then during previous cycles of chemotherapy. Compared with the control group, post-chemotherapy anxiety scores also improved with the addition of midazolam or propofol. Eighty percent of the subjects declared that they would prefer the sedative-containing regimen for their further cycles. Sedation with midazolam or propofol may improve the patient's comfort, and provide better control of chemotherapy-related side effects during chemotherapy infusion in breast cancer patients.

Using diazepam and atropine before strabismus surgery to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of diazepam and atropine sulfate premedication in preventing nausea and vomiting after strabismus surgery under general anesthesia.

METHODS

Fifty children age 4 to 15 years who underwent strabismus surgery at Cukurova University Medical Faculty, Department of Ophthalmology, from February 2000 to June 2000 were randomized into 2 groups: 25 children in the control group did not receive premedication, whereas 25 children in the treatment group received premedication with 0.15 mg/kg diazepam and 0.015 mg/kg atropine sulfate. Occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was recorded.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV was lower in the premedicated group (P <.018, chi(2) test).

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that diazepam and atropine sulfate premedication decreases nausea and vomiting after strabismus surgery.

Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting, Part 2

Credit

This lesson is good for 0.3 CE units, with a passing grade of 70%.

Goal

The goal of this program is to inform the participant about cost-effective ways to prevent, identify, and manage nausea and vomiting induced by antineoplastic agents.

Objectives

At the completion of this program the participant will be able to: 1. List antineoplastic agents associated with a high incidence of nausea and vomiting. 2. Identify patient-specific risk factors for developing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and how these factors may influence treatment of this syndrome. 3. Compare the three major types of CINV, including the pathophysiologic mechanism, time of onset, and symptom duration of each type. 4. Explain the mechanism of action and appropriate place in therapy for each type of antiemetic agent. 5. Differentiate between pharmacologic regimens for the prevention and treatment of CINV in adults. 6. Identify drug-specific factors that must be considered when developing a formulary management strategy for the antiemetic agents. 7. Describe specific information that the pharmacist can share with patients to help them understand and manage CINV.

A study of patients' experiences of side-effects associated with chemotherapy: pilot stage report

This paper reports findings from the pilot stage of a longitudinal descriptive study of problems experienced by day-patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment with the Day Ward, Worthing Hospital. Unlike the majority of studies in this field, this study allows documentation of all side-effects perceived by the patient as important, and is designed to follow the progress in incidence and severity of each problem through the treatment course. Preliminary findings show some 100 side-effects have been identified, with different problems being most troublesome for each treatment regime. Full data are provided. The study emphasises the importance of regime-specific data both in formulating clinical practice and in the provision of patient education.

Trends in the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome

Alcohol use among head and neck cancer patients is common. Alcohol withdrawal (especially delirium tremens) poses significant potential morbidity to postsurgical patients. Treatment with newer benzodiazepines (BZDs) such as lorazepam and midazolam has become more widespread, and mortality rates from severe alcohol withdrawal have decreased in recent years. The authors retrospectively studied 102 patients with a diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal, including 20 patients undergoing surgery for cancer of the head and neck. There were 81 men and 21 women, with a mean (+/- standard deviation [SD]) age of 52.3 (+/- 16.1) years. Many of these patients (46%) were treated with more than one BZD or other neuroleptic, while 49% received single agent therapy of either chlordiazepoxide (26%) or lorazepam (23%). Delirium tremens occurred in 12% of all patients undergoing withdrawal and in 10% of head and neck cancer patients, with a mortality rate of 9% and 0%, respectively. Single agent use was successful in greater than 95% when either lorazepam or chlordiazepoxide was used. Instances of combination treatment where older BZDs were used yielded a 69% success rate. The higher complication rate and lower treatment success with combination treatment was multifactorial. Optimal management of the alcohol withdrawal syndrome requires an understanding of its pathophysiology and the principles of its prevention along with a familiarity of BZD pharmacokinetic drug profiles. The authors present a treatment plan which is cost-effective, keeps morbidity low, and should allow a continued decreasing trend in mortality rates from delirium tremens.

Antiemetics in children receiving cancer chemotherapy

Nausea and vomiting are debilitating side effects that often accompany the administration of chemotherapy and may lead to adverse physiological and psychological effects. Chemotherapy agents usually stimulate the chemoreceptor trigger zone, which then sends signals to the vomiting center in the medullary lateral reticular formation. The neurochemistry of vomiting involves serotonin and serotonin S3 receptors. Nausea and vomiting are difficult to treat once they have occurred, and prior poor antiemetic control may lead to future anticipatory nausea and vomiting. Thus, good antiemetic regimens must be prophylactic, scheduled, and individualized. Specific regimens must be adjusted to account for the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy drug(s) being administered and the individual patient's preferences. The major classes of antiemetics include serotonin S3 receptor antagonists, phenothiazines and metoclopramide. Steroids are ineffective antiemetics alone but good potentiators of other antiemetics. We usually recommend a serotonin S3 receptor antagonist alone for less emetogenic regimens or in conjunction with dexamethasone for more emetogenic regimens. For breakthrough vomiting, we usually add lorazepam and/or scopolamine.

Enhancing the effectiveness of the specific serotonin antagonists. Combination antiemetic therapy with dexamethasone

Combinations of drugs have become standard therapy for the prevention of vomiting caused by anticancer drugs like cisplatin. Recently, a new class of antiemetic agents, the potent and specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonists such as ondansetron, granisetron, and tropisetron, have been shown to be more effective and better tolerated than metoclopramide. This report describes the rationale for combination antiemetic therapy, details the testing of metoclopramide-based regimens as a model for combination therapy development, reviews completed trials of ondansetron plus dexamethasone, and offers strategies to further alleviate vomiting during anticancer chemotherapy. The reported trials testing metoclopramide-based combinations were reviewed and that experience was applied to the ongoing studies of ondansetron when used with dexamethasone and other agents. Combinations of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and lorazepam prevented acute emesis caused by high-dose cisplatin in 63% of patients, lessened side effects, and were convenient enough to administer to outpatients. Completed trials of ondansetron and dexamethasone demonstrated improved vomiting control over ondansetron alone while using less cumbersome schedules. Attempts to improve ondansetron-based antiemetic regimens by developing optimal drug doses and schedules and adding adjuvant and different classes of antiemetic agents are now in clinical testing. Based on previous experience and current results, combinations of a specific serotonin agonist and dexamethasone are the best treatment for prevention of vomiting induced by chemotherapy. Future clinical research should aim to refine antiemetic regimens and improve emetic control through the use of new antiemetic and adjuvant agents.

Midazolam in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy and antiemetics

Benzodiazepines lessen anxiety and improve comfort in cancer patients. Midazolam is an effective benzodiazepine with a rapid onset and short duration of action, properties that could permit its use in outpatient areas or in short but stressful situations. Two consecutive trials were undertaken to study midazolam as an adjunct in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy. Each studied midazolam given as a short infusion 30 min prior to chemotherapy at dose levels ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 mg/kg. Trial I determined the safety, sedation, and dose of midazolam in patients receiving chemotherapy of low to moderate emetic potential. Twenty-two patients were entered. No significant respiratory depression or oxygen desaturation was observed. At the optimal dose level (0.04 mg/kg), sedation began a median of 3 min following administration and continued for a median of 38 min. Sixty-four percent of patients experienced mild sedation. Trial II studied the same doses of midazolam when used in combination with intravenous metoclopramide and dexamethasone in patients receiving cisplatin > or = 100 mg/m2. Nineteen patients were entered; 79% experienced mild sedation. At the 0.04-mg/kg dose level, sedation began a median of 18 min following administration and continued for a median of 170 min. Midazolam can be given safely to patients receiving chemotherapy with and without concomitant antiemetics. The predictability and duration of its sedative effects suggest it can be used in outpatients.

The cancer patient with pain: psychiatric complications and their management

The most common psychiatric complications in the cancer population are depression, anxiety, and delirium. All are more likely to occur in the cancer patient who has pain. This review outlines the normal responses to cancer and the psychiatric disorders frequently encountered in clinical practice. The influence of pain on the incidence and presentation of these disorders is described. Multimodal treatment, which includes pharmacologic, psychotherapeutic, and behavioral interventions, is outlined.

A randomised double-blind study of high-dose intravenous prochlorperazine versus high-dose metoclopramide as antiemetics for cancer chemotherapy

High-dose prochlorperazine 0.8 mg/kg administered intravenously 30 min pre and 7 h 30 min post the initial dose of emetogenic chemotherapy was compared to high-dose metoclopramide 2 mg/kg over 20 min every 2 h for five doses starting 30 min prior to chemotherapy in a randomised, double-blind, parallel subjects design study. On the prochlorperazine arm intravenous dextrose placebos every 2 h maintained blinding. Complete suppression of vomiting occurred in 42% on metoclopramide (53% with non-cisplatin regimens) and 36% on prochlorperazine (52% with non-cisplatin-containing regimens) while major responses (2 or less vomits) occurred in 58% on metoclopramide and 54% on prochlorperazine. In patients who vomited after cisplatin, prochlorperazine achieved a significantly shorter duration of vomiting, a median of 5 h compared to 15 h on metoclopramide (P = 0.03). The response rate to prochlorperazine for cisplatin-induced emesis between 12 and 24 h was significantly better than for metoclopramide (prochlorperazine = 0.02). Toxicities were equivalent except for significantly greater sedation and dry mouth on prochlorperazine. Extrapyramidal reactions were recorded equally on both arms but were only severe enough to stop treatment on metoclopramide. The metoclopramide regimen was five times as expensive as prochlorperazine. High-dose prochlorperazine is an active and cost-effective antiemetic.

Five-drug antiemetic combination for cisplatin chemotherapy

A combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, droperidol, lorazepam, and diphenhydramine was used in prophylaxis of high-dose (greater than or equal to 100 mg/m2) or moderate dose (greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2) cisplatin. Sixty minutes prior to starting cisplatin, 16 mg dexamethasone, 50 mg diphenhydramine, and 0.5 mg lorazepam were given orally (PO). Droperidol 1 mg was given intramuscularly (IM) 15 minutes prior to beginning cisplatin. Repetitive doses of intravenous (IV) metoclopramide, 2 mg/kg in 75 ml 5% dextrose in water over 15 minutes was given 30 minutes prior to, and at 1 1/2, 4 1/2, and 7 1/2 hours after beginning cisplatin chemotherapy. Only patients with nausea and/or vomiting received subsequent doses of 2 mg/kg metoclopramide IV every 3 hours as needed. Patients refractory to metoclopramide were given 1 mg droperidol IM and 50 mg of diphenhydramine PO every 6 hours. There were 19 men and 9 women with a median age of 58 (range 31-75) years. Complete protection from nausea and vomiting in all courses of treatment occurred in 17 (61%) patients. In 63% and 70% of the 57 evaluable courses, there was neither nausea nor vomiting, during the first 24 hours after cisplatin. When present, nausea was mild and the median number of vomiting episodes was 2 (range 1-3). This antiemetic regimen was well tolerated. Toxicities were mild and occurred in 3 patients (angioneurotic edema, transient episode of facial twitching, and heaviness of tongue, respectively). The 5-drug antiemetic combination can prevent cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in a majority of patients.

A randomised trial of dexamethasone, lorazepam and prochlorperazine for emesis in patients receiving chemotherapy

To define further the place of dexamethasone in antiemetic combinations, lorazepam, prochlorperazine and placebo (LP) were compared with lorazepam, prochlorperazine and dexamethasone (DLP) in a randomised, double-blind, crossover study. Both patient and observer assessments were documented in 84 patients receiving both cisplatin and non-cisplatin chemotherapy. The addition of dexamethasone significantly reduced the severity of nausea (P = 0.002) and vomiting (P less than 0.0001), duration of nausea (P = 0.01) and vomiting (P = 0.002) and the number of vomiting episodes (P = 0.003). DLP was the superior regimen in subsets of patients receiving cisplatin and the non-cisplatin chemotherapy. The improvements produced by the dexamethasone regimen were large and of major benefit to our patients. Patients documented significantly improved tolerance to chemotherapy with DLP courses (P = 0.0006). Overall, significantly more patients preferred DLP (P less than 0.0001). Patient assessments produced results similar to observer assessments but gave a broader understanding of their experience. The addition of dexamethasone to prochlorperazine and lorazepam significantly improved our patients' experience while receiving chemotherapy.

Controlling cancer chemotherapy-induced emesis. An update

Cytotoxic chemotherapy can induce acute, delayed and anticipatory nausea and vomiting. The efficacy and toxicity data of the available anti-emetics and their role in chemotherapy-induced emesis are reviewed. Moreover, some pitfalls in the methodology of anti-emetic trials as well as factors known to affect the individual sensitivity of patients for the emetic challenge are illustrated. So far, high-dose metoclopramide (3-6 mg.kg-1.d-1) was the most effective single agent in the control of acute emesis. However, extrapyramidal reactions caused by its dopamine antagonism remained a major drawback. The addition of dexamethasone and/or lorazepam decreases the incidence of extrapyramidal reactions, and further improves anti-emetic control. In animals, serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists have demonstrated promising anti-emetic results against chemotherapy-induced and radiotherapy-induced emesis; the results of clinical studies are awaited. Delayed nausea and vomiting have not been studied as extensively. At present, the combination of metoclopramide and dexamethasone offers an optimal protection in approximately 50% of patients on cisplatin chemotherapy. Anticipatory nausea and emesis remain major problems, and an effective pharmacological treatment is lacking. Attempts to control this type of emesis focus on drugs with amnesic properties and on behaviour therapy.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of the antiemetic effect of metoclopramide and lorazepam with or without dexamethasone in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin

Thirty-seven patients with advanced incurable malignancies who were receiving their first course of cisplatin (greater than or equal to 90 mg/m2 bolus), alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents, were entered in this randomized, double-blind study to determine the antiemetic efficacy of the addition of high-dose dexamethasone to lorazepam plus metoclopramide. All patients received lorazepam (1.5 mg/m2) and metoclopramide (2.0 mg/kg) intravenously (IV) 30 minutes before cisplatin, with the same dose of metoclopramide repeated 1.5, 3.5, 6.5, and 9.5 hours after the 30-minute cisplatin infusion. Patients were randomized to receive dexamethasone (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo by slow bolus injection 30 minutes before cisplatin. All patients were hospitalized for 24 hours and evaluated by observation after cisplatin and a patient questionnaire before discharge. Eighteen patients received metoclopramide and lorazepam without dexamethasone: six (33%) reported no vomiting and four (22%) reported no nausea or vomiting. Nineteen patients also received dexamethasone: 14 (74%) had no vomiting and 13 (68%) reported no nausea or vomiting. These differences were statistically significantly different (P = 0.013 and 0.005, respectively). The side effects attributable to the antiemetic regimen were somnolence (100%), confusion (8%), and diarrhea (46%), and were the same in both arms. Dexamethasone significantly improved the antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide plus lorazepam without adding toxicity. This three-drug combination gave a high rate of control of acute emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin.

Assessment of nausea

In a standardized way three different methods of measuring nausea have been assessed in 849 patients enrolled in 4 double blind, randomized, clinical trials, and 2 observational studies. Nausea was measured before and 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours after cancer chemotherapy by using a discrete scale (DS), a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a continuous chromatic analogue scale (ACCS), and it was evaluated according to 4 different dimensions: maximal intensity (MI) entity (E) duration (D) and quantity (Q). The distributions of nausea measurements in the population, agreement between the scales and their sensitivity, and agreement between dimensions and their sensitivity were analyzed. A uniform distribution of nausea measurements was found only in patients receiving chemotherapy without any antiemetic treatment. There was substantial equivalence of the different scales, and no advantage was shown an using an analogue (VAS) than a discrete (DS) scale. A trend toward increasing sensitivity in detecting differences as the dimensions of nausea considered became more inclusive of the various aspects of this symptom (Q more sensible than E more sensible than MI) was observed.

Antiemetic superiority of lorazepam over oxazepam and methylprednisolone as premedicants for patients receiving cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

Lorazepam, oxazepam, and methylprednisolone were compared for antiemetic efficacy in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Three consecutive courses of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy were administered at equal doses so that each patient acted as his own control. Of 100 patients randomized, 85 received at least two of the three agents and were evaluable for analysis. Lorazepam significantly reduced the number of patients with more than ten vomits compared to either oxazepam (P less than 0.05) or methylprednisolone (P less than 0.001). Lorazepam also significantly reduced the number of patients with the most severe degrees of vomiting compared to either oxazepam or methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.005). The duration of vomiting was reduced significantly after the first 48 hours postchemotherapy for those patients receiving lorazepam over those receiving methylprednisolone (P less than 0.05). Lorazepam significantly reduced the number of patients with severe nausea compared to both oxazepam and methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.05), but there were no significant differences in duration of nausea among the groups. The results of linear analogue self-assessment scores indicated a strong patient preference for lorazepam over both oxazepam and methylprednisolone. Drowsiness was significantly more common with both lorazepam and oxazepam compared to methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.001). Patients who received lorazepam or oxazepam also experienced significantly more severe drowsiness than those patients receiving methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.001). Lack of recall was significantly more common with lorazepam than with oxazepam and methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.001) and was more profound when lorazepam was compared with oxazepam (P less than 0.05) and with methylprednisolone (P less than 0.001). Methylprednisolone was administered with minimal side effects. The results of this randomized cross-over study indicate that, in the dosage/schedule used, lorazepam is a significantly superior premedicant than is either oxazepam or methylprednisolone in alleviating the distress of cytotoxic-induced emesis in patients receiving cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.

A dose finding study of prochlorperazine as an antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy

This phase I study determined the maximum tolerated dose of prochlorperazine when used as an antiemetic prior to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Initially, cohorts of three patients were given prochlorperazine at escalating doses of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion over 20 min. The maximum tolerated dose was 1.2 mg/kg. The dose-limiting toxicity was hypotension which was reversed by a fluid load. The other major toxicities were extrapyramidal reactions which were dose related. All patients at the 1.2 mg/kg dose reported restlessness while five of six were restless and two of six at 1.0 mg/kg had muscle spasms. Two of seven patients reported restlessness at the 0.8 mg/kg level. Sedation and dry mouth were reported at all dose levels but were more common at higher doses. Prochlorperazine in plasma was assayed by high performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection and pharmacokinetics were determined for three patients at the 1.0 mg/kg dose level. The average terminal elimination half life was 7.6 +/- 0.4 h, plasma clearance 27 +/- 5 ml/min/kg and volume of distribution 17.7 +/- 4.5 l/kg. The dose of prochlorperazine recommended for further studies of antiemetic efficacy is 0.8 mg/kg intravenously.

8-OH-DPAT suppresses vomiting in the cat elicited by motion, cisplatin or xylazine

Vomiting was suppressed in cats pretreated with 8-OH-DPAT and then challenged with an emetic stimulus; motion, xylazine or cisplatin. The antiemetic effect is likely due to stimulation of postsynaptic serotonin-1A receptors. The most parsimonious explanation is that it acts at a convergent structure, presumably at or near the vomiting center. If so, 8-OH-DPAT may block emesis elicited by virtually any other stimulus. A supplementary experiment revealed that lorazepam suppressed motion sickness at a dose that produced ataxia, but did not suppress xylazine-induced emesis. These results do not support the possibility that the antiemetic effects of 8-OH-DPAT were the result of anxiolytic activity.

Antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced vomiting: metoclopramide, benztropine, dexamethasone, and lorazepam regimen compared with chlorpromazine alone

Twenty-six children aged 4 to 15 years who were to receive cancer chemotherapy were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial that compared the antiemetic efficacy of a four-drug regimen (the MBDL regimen: metoclopramide, 8 mg/kg; benztropine, 0.04 mg/kg; dexamethasone, 0.7 mg/kg; lorazepam, 0.1 mg/kg), given over 24 hours, with the efficacy of chlorpromazine, 3.3 mg/kg, given in four doses over 24 hours. The MBDL regimen was more effective than chlorpromazine in both objective and subjective measures of antiemetic control. Of 26 children, 23 (89%) had less vomiting on the MBDL regimen, and 20 (77%) of 26 patients or parents preferred this regimen (p less than 0.01). The MBDL regimen reduced the number of vomiting episodes by a mean of 4.0 (p less than 0.01) and reduced the duration of vomiting by a mean of 3.7 hours (p less than 0.01). A moderate level of sedation was documented at some stage in the 24-hour period of observation in 27% on the MBDL regimen and in 35% receiving chlorpromazine. Dystonia was seen in 1 (4%) of 26 children. We conclude that the MBDL regimen is safe in children and more effective than chlorpromazine.

Metoclopramide versus metoclopramide and lorazepam. Superiority of combined therapy in the control of cisplatin-induced emesis

Sixty-four patients treated with cisplatin-containing regimens were entered into a randomized, double-blinded study examining the antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide with and without lorazepam for control of cisplatin-induced emesis. Metoclopramide was administered to all patients at 2 mg/kg, intravenously, 30 minutes before chemotherapy and 1.5, 3.5, and 5.5 hours posttreatment. Patients randomized to receive combined antiemetic therapy were administered lorazepam at 2 mg/m2 (maximum, 4 mg dose) intravenously, 30 minutes before chemotherapy. Those patients not receiving lorazepam were given normal saline placebo. Degree of nausea and number of vomiting episodes were recorded on a data flow sheet with a visual analogue scale. Drug toxicities were evaluated before each administered dose. Patients receiving both metoclopramide and lorazepam experienced significantly less vomiting episodes (P less than 0.05) and nausea (P less than 0.01) when compared to patients given metoclopramide alone. Forty-four percent of those receiving the combined therapy reported no nausea or vomiting episodes compared to only 22% receiving metoclopramide alone. Sedation was significantly more common in patients receiving lorazepam (88%) as opposed to patients receiving only metoclopramide (43%), P less than 0.01. Amnesia was seen in 25% receiving lorazepam. No significant difference in diarrhea, dystonia, or disinhibition was observed between the two arms. The authors conclude that the combination of lorazepam and metoclopramide was superior to metoclopramide alone in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting, with sedation and amnesia more commonly observed in the combined regimen.

Contributions of benzodiazepines to cancer therapy

We have reviewed the therapeutic effects of benzodiazepines employed as adjuncts to cancer treatment. These agents have been used primarily for alleviating or attenuating situational anxiety, insomnia, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting. Situational anxiety not corrected by psychosocial support, symptom control, or time may be successfully treated with benzodiazepines. Procedure-related anxiety, for example, that related to bone marrow biopsy, venipuncture, intrathecal therapy, and the insertion of subclavian and femoral catheters, is a serious problem that may be alleviated by the use of benzodiazepines. Insomnia not caused by a depression serious enough to warrant treatment with a tricyclic antidepressant also may be successfully treated with benzodiazepines. Many clinicians have found benzodiazepines to be useful adjuncts to a cancer chemotherapy regimen because of their anxiolytic, sedative, and amnesic properties and also because of their suspected antiemetic properties when these drugs are used in conjunction with known antiemetic agents. The ability of lorazepam to induce antegrade amnesia has proved particularly useful in alleviating anticipatory nausea and vomiting connected with repeated courses of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Furthermore, since benzodiazepines are relatively safe drugs, their continued and probably expanded uses as cancer therapy adjuncts can be anticipated.

Antiemetic control and prevention of side effects of anti-cancer therapy with lorazepam or diphenhydramine when used in combination with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone. A double-blind, randomized trial

Combinations of metoclopramide and dexamethasone given intravenously control vomiting caused by high doses of cisplatin. Lorazepam and diphenhydramine are useful adjuncts to antiemetics. In a double-blind trial, 120 patients receiving high-dose cisplatin (120 mg/m2) for the first time were randomly assigned to receive either lorazepam (1.5 mg/m2) or diphenhydramine (50 mg) intravenously, 45 minutes prior to cisplatin. In addition, all patients received intravenous dexamethasone (20 mg) 40 minutes prior to chemotherapy along with metoclopramide (3 mg/kg) 30 minutes before and 90 minutes after cisplatin. Patients were directly observed in the hospital after cisplatin administration and completed a subjective assessment questionnaire. Overall, 60% of patients experienced no vomiting, and 83% had two or fewer emetic episodes during the study. There were no significant differences in objective antiemetic control between the two regimens. Only 3% of patients receiving lorazepam experienced treatment-related restlessness as opposed to 19% given diphenhydramine (P = 0.007). Less recall of chemotherapy administration (P less than 0.001), more sedation (P = 0.003), and transient enuresis while sedated (P = 0.0002) were characteristic of patients receiving lorazepam. Patient-generated ratings revealed less anxiety (P = 0.0001) for those individuals given the lorazepam-containing combination. Both regimens were well accepted, with 89% of patients receiving the lorazepam combination and 83% of those given the diphenhydramine regimen wishing to receive the same drugs in the future. Some degree of delayed vomiting occurred in 85% of patients during the 4-day period following this study. During the time that patients are at the greatest risk for emesis, the 24 hours immediately following cisplatin, three drug antiemetic combinations of either lorazepam or diphenhydramine with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone stopped cisplatin-induced emesis for the majority of patients and lessen other treatment-related side effects. Less restlessness and anxiety were observed among individuals receiving the lorazepam-containing combination.

Mechanisms and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Only in recent years has serious attention been given to the control of chemotherapy-induced emesis (CIE) which is to the patient a most obnoxious side-effect. Important advances in the understanding of the mechanisms of CIE have led to the scientific appraisal of potential anti-emetics whilst additional, useful anti-emetics have appeared by serendipity. CIE has largely been studied in trials separating either cis-platinum (severely emetic) or non-cis-platinum(moderately emetic)-induced emesis. In the evolution of these trials the difficulty and importance of accurate evaluation of emesis has been revealed and the whole area of psychogenic emesis opened to investigation and treatment. Phenothiazines and butyrophenones have a definite modest anti-emetic role against moderately emetogenic chemotherapy but increasingly corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, high dose metoclopramide and cannabinoids are being used with great effect even with severely emetic drugs. Combination anti-emesis has further improved control rates and new schedules of currently available anti-emetics are now proving their worth. Major advances in anti-emetic control have been achieved recently and every patient at risk of CIE should have good control, if not total abolition, of emesis with appropriate use of anti-emetics.

The management of nausea and vomiting in clinical oncology

The development of cisplatin and the use of intensive combination chemotherapy have resulted in significant therapeutic advances in medical oncology, as well as the need for intensive supportive care aimed at ameliorating enhanced toxicity. From the patient's perspective, the most prominent adverse effects of chemotherapy are nausea and vomiting. Inadequate control of these symptoms leads to physiologic debilitation and psychologic distress, sequelae that result in either the patient being medically unable to continue therapy or noncompliant. Recent antiemetic research has created a voluminous data base from which the appropriate management of many aspects of chemotherapy-induced emesis can be gleaned. Despite these advances, at least 30% of patients continue to experience some degree of acute emesis with chemotherapy, and the problems of delayed and anticipatory nausea and vomiting have just begun to be addressed. Effective management of chemotherapy-induced emesis is an important aspect of the total care of oncologic patients, improving patient compliance and enhancing the therapeutic index of chemotherapy regimens resulting in a decrease in the overall morbidity and mortality of cancer therapy.