Search

Objective: Ondansetron, a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, is commonly used in emergency departments to treat nausea and vomiting. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning that this medicine may cause QT prolongation, potentially leading to deadly arrhythmias. The objective of this study was to characterize the QT interval prolongation associated with ondansetron use in the Emergency Department., Methods: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of adult patients who presented to the emergency department during a one-year period and were treated with intravenous ondansetron. We investigated the QT prolongation associated with dosages. ECGs were obtained before the medication and 5, 15, and 30 minutes after IV drug administration. Every QT measurement was recorded and compared to the zero point. The severity of drug-induced QT prolongation was determined according to the recommendations of the International Conference on Compliance (ICH). QTc prolongation was categorized as 'negligible' (<5 ms), 'significant' (>20 ms), 'potential concern' (>30 ms), or 'definitely worrying' (>60 ms)., Results: Of the 435 patients enrolled in the study, 60% (261 patients) were female and the mean age was 39 (±18). The QT prolongation peaked at the fifth minute and remained consistent at the fifteenth and thirty-first minutes. The maximum prolongation of the mean QT duration occured at the fifth minute (7.9 ± 18.1 ms). No patient revealed any problems with cardiac conduction. The prolonged QT interval was not related to the dose of ondansetron, but QT measurements were higher in the 30th minute in patients treated with 8 mg of ondansetron. The effect of ondansetron administration on QT prolongation was found to be above the 'negligible' but below the 'significant' value, according to the ICH recommendations., Discussion: In this study, QT prolongation due to ondansetron administration was below the 'important' value according to the recommendations of the ICH. No cases of cardiac arrhythmia were reported in any of the partients. Thus, routine ECG monitoring in patients given ondansetron due to the risk of QTc prolongation does not seem cost-effective when evaluated together with additional factors such as its negative impact on emergency patient flow, waste of personnel and time, and increase in healthcare costs. In the absence of a known risk of cardiac arrhythmia, IV administration of 4 mg and 8 mg of ondansetron doses no risk of QT prolongation in the emergency population., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest HYM, MA, EÖİ report no conflicting interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The increasing prevalence of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and the parallel surge in alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) emphasize the urgent need for comprehensive alcohol management strategies. Low-dose ondansetron (AD04, a 5-HT3 antagonist) was shown recently to be a promising treatment for AUD with a specific genotypic profile (5-marker). The liver safety of AD04 has never been evaluated in subjects with AUD. The aim of the present study was to assess the liver safety profile of AD04 compared with placebo in subjects with AUD., Methods: Liver biochemical parameters were assessed in subjects with AUD with a 5-marker genetic profile who participated in a Phase 3 randomized controlled trial and received either twice-daily, low-dose AD04 (ondansetron 0.33 mg twice daily) or matching placebo, combined with brief psychosocial counseling. ALT, AST, GGT, Serum Bilirubin, MCV, and Prothrombin were evaluated at weeks 0, 12, and 24. Adverse cardiac events, general well-being, and study completion were also assessed., Results: Low-dose AD04 did not significantly change biochemical markers of liver injury, such as ALT, AST, and Serum Bilirubin. While patients with AUD displayed elevated GGT levels, typically associated with increased alcohol consumption, this parameter remained unaffected by low-dose AD04. Notably, no significant adverse effects were observed due to oral low-dose AD04 treatment., Conclusions: Low-dose AD04 has the potential to be a safe treatment option for subjects with AUD and ALD, indicating the need for an RCT for this specific cohort. Such a trial would pave the way for the design of a precision treatment for combined AUD with ALD., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors are paid consultants of Adial Pharmaceuticals Inc. Bankole Johnson is an officer of Adial Pharmaceuticals Inc., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This study aims to design and optimize ondansetron (OND) gastro-retentive floating minitablets for better and prolonged control of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with improved patient compliance. Minitablets were directly compressed and encapsulated in a size 2 capsule shell with an overall dose of 24 mg. Central composite design (CCD) was applied keeping one cellulose ether derivative HPMC K15M and Carbopol 971 as variable and used as swelling and rate retarding agents. The other cellulose derivative i.e. sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, along with mannitol, sodium bicarbonate, and talc, were used in fixed quantities. The floating lag time, total floating time, swelling index, in-vitro drug release, and zero-order (RSQ value), were critical quality parameters. The optimized formulation (F pred ) was evaluated for all critical parameters, along with surface morphology, thermal stability, chemical interaction, and accelerated stability. The in silico PBPK modeling was applied to compare the bioavailability of F pred with reference OND immediate-release tablets. The numerical optimization model predicted >90 % drug release with zero-order at 12 h. In silico PBPK modeling revealed comparable relative bioavailability of F pred with the reference formulation. The gastroretentive floating minitablets of OND were successfully designed for prolonged emesis control in patients receiving chemotherapeutic agents., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the adverse events that most affects oncologic patients' quality of life. Carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 belongs to agents with high emetic risk (moderate risk in ASCO guidelines). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of netupitant/palonosetron and dexamethasone triple combination (TC) therapy versus ondansetron and dexamethasone double combination (DC) therapy as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. As a secondary endpoint, in TC group we evaluated the effectiveness of changing NEPA administration timing from 1 h to 15 min before chemotherapy., Methods: Open-label prospective study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in patients receiving carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. CINV was evaluated using MASCC antiemetic tool, in acute (<24 h) and delayed phase (24-120 h). Results were analyzed using χ 2 test., Results: Two-hundred four completed questionnaires (CQ) were analyzed (76 in DC and 128 in TC). The proportion of patients who remained emesis-free was superior for TC-treated group compared to DC, either in acute (99.2% vs 92.1%, p  = 0.0115) and delayed phase (97.6% vs 90.7%, p  = 0.043). Likewise, a higher proportion of TC-treated patients compared to DC remained nausea-free for the first 24 h after treatment (90.6% vs 71%, p  = 0.0004) and between 24 and 120 h (82.3% vs 62.7%, p  = 0.0025). The change of NEPA administration time showed similar effectiveness in terms of CINV control (81.6% vs 74.5%, p  = 0.70)., Conclusions: TC showed superiority in early and delayed CINV control in carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 regimens, with no significant differences among cancer types. Change in NEPA administration timing has beneficial implications; it allows NEPA to be administered at hospitals before chemotherapy session., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Swift has received grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Background: This study compared the effects of ondansetron and placebo in patients with diabetes mellitus and symptoms of dyspepsia (diabetic gastroenteropathy [DGE])., Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of ondansetron tablets (8 mg) three times daily for 4 weeks in DGE patients. Symptoms were assessed with the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index daily diaries. Gastric emptying (GE) of solids (scintigraphy) and duodenal lipid infusions (300 kcal over 2 h) were each assessed twice, with placebo and ondansetron. Drug effects on GE, symptoms during the GE study and during lipid infusion, and daily symptoms were analyzed., Key Results: Of 41 patients, 37 completed both GE studies and one completed 1; 31 completed both lipid infusions and four only placebo; and all 35 randomized patients completed 4 weeks of treatment. Compared to placebo, ondansetron reduced the severity of fullness (p = 0.02) and belching (p = 0.049) during lipid infusion but did not affect GE T 1/2 . Both ondansetron and placebo improved daily symptoms versus the baseline period (p < 0.05), but the differences were not significant. In the analysis of covariance of daily symptoms during the treatment period, the interaction term between treatment and the acute effect of ondansetron on symptoms during lipid challenge was significant (p = .024)., Conclusions & Inferences: Ondansetron significantly reduced fullness during enteral lipid infusion in patients with DGE. Overall, ondansetron did not improve daily symptoms versus placebo. But patients in whom ondansetron improved symptoms during enteral lipid challenge were perhaps more likely to experience symptom relief during daily treatment., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The safety of triple antiemetic therapy consisting of ondansetron, haloperidol, and a steroid, to surgical patients is unknown., Objective: To determine the incidence of torsade de pointes (TdP) or death following perioperative administration of triple antiemetic therapy., Methods: A retrospective cohort study identified 19,874 patients who received 22,202 doses of triple antiemetics during the 2.5-year time frame from March 4, 2020 to September 7, 2022 for surgical nausea prophylaxis or treatment of nausea. These patients above were cross-matched with an electrocardiogram and adverse outcome database; this identified 226 patients with documentation of a QTc > 450 ms, all ventricular tachycardias including TdP within 48 hours of receiving triple antiemetic therapy, or death within 7 days of receiving ondansetron., Results: There were 3 patients who had documented VT (n = 3), but there were no documented incidents of TdP (n = 0). There were 9 codes called on patients within 48 hours of medication administration, and none of them were due to ventricular arrythmias (n = 0). A total of 11 patients died within 7 days of triple antiemetic therapy. Ten of the 11 deaths were determined to not be from the triple antiemetic. One patient died at home within 24 hours of the procedure of an unknown cause (n = 1)., Conclusions and Relevance: No episodes of TdP were identified in patients receiving triple antiemetic therapy perioperatively, though the cause of death in 1 patient could not be determined. This suggest that low-dose triple antiemetic therapy is low risk for the development of TdP., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Ondansetron is an antiemetic drug (AED) used to prevent and treat nausea and vomiting. The summary of product characteristics reports a rare risk of transient blindness primarily during IV injections, notably with the concomitant use of chemotherapeutic agents. We aimed to refine the characterization of ondansetron-induced blindness., Research Design and Methods: We performed a descriptive and a case/non-case analysis using VigiBase®. Cases were defined as reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to blindness: amaurosis, amaurosis fugax, blindness. Non-cases were all other recorded reactions. Reporting risk of blindness-related ADRs was assessed using a disproportionality analysis and expressed as Reporting Odds Ratios (ROR)., Results: 138,315 ADRs were reported with AEDs, including 136 blindness-related ADRs, among them 44 (32.4%) with ondansetron. For ondansetron users, blindness-related ADRs occurred mainly on the first day. Out of the 25 patients with known outcomes, 18 (72.0%) were recovering or had recovered, 7 (28.0%) patients had not recovered There were no statistical differences in the number of cases for IV or oral users and for users or not of chemotherapeutic agents. Compared with other AEDs, ondansetron was associated with an increase in the reporting risk of blindness-related ADRs (ROR = 4.00 [2.79-5.72], p  < 0.001)., Conclusions: Rarely blindness can occur following intravenous or oral administration of ondansetron.

Information on the physical compatibility of intravenous (IV) medications is vital for patient care and safety in acute care settings. Drug information resources list ondansetron and nafcillin as IV compatible, however, bolus concentrations of ondansetron are not reported. This study investigated the in vitro physical compatibility of bolus and infusion concentrations of ondansetron hydrochloride with nafcillin sodium. Two admixtures were prepared: 1) ondansetron hydrochloride 2 mg/mL and nafcillin sodium 20 mg/mL, and 2) ondansetron hydrochloride 0.16 mg/mL and nafcillin sodium 20 mg/mL. The admixtures were prepared in triplicate using aseptic technique according to manufacturer guidance and stored at room temperature (22-23 °C) for up to 24 hours. Admixtures were examined for visual precipitation, turbidity, and pH at baseline and at 1, 5, 8, and 24 hours. Admixture 1 developed a haze immediately after mixing, which was sustained over 24 hours. There was a demonstrative change in absorbance after 1 hour, but pH remained stable until hour 24. Admixture 2 developed a haze at 5 hours, but the absorbance and pH remained stable until hour 24; a decrease in the pH was observed in all samples at hour 24. This in vitro study revealed that ondansetron hydrochloride 2 mg/mL and nafcillin sodium 20 mg/mL are not physically compatible when administered through the same IV line. No demonstrative change was observed with ondansetron hydrochloride 0.16 mg/mL and nafcillin sodium 20 mg/mL; however, concurrent administration of these medications is questionable when delivered through an IV line for periods of five hours or longer., (Copyright© by International Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding, Inc.)

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravenous palonosetron compared to ondansetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing cesarean section., Methods: Fifty-four women scheduled for elective cesarean section were, randomly allocated to ondansetron group (n = 27) or palonosetron group (n = 27). Ten minutes prior to the administration of spinal anesthesia, participants received an intravenous injection of either ondansetron or palonosetron. A prophylactic phenylephrine infusion was initiated immediately following the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was titrated to maintain adequate blood pressure until the time of fetal delivery. The primary outcome was total dose of phenylephrine administered. The secondary outcomes were nausea or vomiting, the need for rescue antiemetics, hypotension, bradycardia, and shivering. Complete response rate, defined as the absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and no need for additional antiemetics, were assessed for up to 24 hours post-surgery., Results: No significant differences were observed in the total dose of phenylephrine used between the ondansetron and palonosetron groups (387.5 μg [interquartile range, 291.3-507.8 μg versus 428.0 μg [interquartile range, 305.0-507.0 μg], P = 0.42). Complete response rates also showed no significant differences between the groups both within two hours post-spinal anesthesia (88.9% in the ondansetron group versus 100% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.24) and at 24 hours post-surgery (81.5% in the ondansetron group versus 88.8% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.7). In addition, there was no difference in other secondary outcomes., Conclusion: Prophylactic administration of palonosetron did not demonstrate a superior effect over ondansetron in mitigating hemodynamic changes or reducing phenylephrine requirements in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl for cesarean section., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Kim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

An objective and validated index of nausea and vomiting such as the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) and HyperEmesis Level Prediction (HELP) tools can be used to classify the severity of NVP and HG. [Grade C] Ketonuria is not an indicator of dehydration and should not be used to assess severity. [Grade A] There are safety and efficacy data for first line antiemetics such as anti (H1) histamines, phenothiazines and doxylamine/pyridoxine (Xonvea®) and they should be prescribed initially when required for NVP and HG (Appendix III). [Grade A] There is evidence that ondansetron is safe and effective. Its use as a second line antiemetic should not be discouraged if first line antiemetics are ineffective. Women can be reassured regarding a very small increase in the absolute risk of orofacial clefting with ondansetron use in the first trimester, which should be balanced with the risks of poorly managed HG. [Grade B] Metoclopramide is safe and effective and can be used alone or in combination with other antiemetics. [Grade B] Because of the risk of extrapyramidal effects metoclopramide should be used as second-line therapy. Intravenous doses should be administered by slow bolus injection over at least 3 minutes to help minimise these. [Grade C] Women should be asked about previous adverse reactions to antiemetic therapies. If adverse reactions occur, there should be prompt cessation of the medications. [GPP] Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) with additional potassium chloride in each bag, with administration guided by daily monitoring of electrolytes, is the most appropriate intravenous hydration. [Grade C] Combinations of different drugs should be used in women who do not respond to a single antiemetic. Suggested antiemetics for UK use are given in Appendix III. [GPP] Thiamine supplementation (either oral 100 mg tds or intravenous as part of vitamin B complex (Pabrinex®)) should be given to all women admitted with vomiting, or severely reduced dietary intake, especially before administration of dextrose or parenteral nutrition. [Grade D] All therapeutic measures should have been tried before considering termination of pregnancy. [Grade C]., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Chronic psychological stress develops and exacerbates irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) via activation of intestinal 5-HT 3 receptors involves impairment of intestinal functions. This study aimed to investigate the effects of ondansetron, a 5-HT 3 receptor antagonist, on locomotor activity, anxiety-related behaviors, and colonic functions in repeated water avoidance stress., Materials and Methods: Food intake and fecal pellet output (FPO) of sham stress (SS), water avoidance stress (WS), and water avoidance stress with oral administration of ondansetron (1 mg/kg BW) (WA) groups were monitored along the water avoidance stress protocol for 10 consecutive days. On day 11, locomotor activity and anxiety-related behaviors were determined using an open field test. Contractile properties of colonic tissues in response to KCl and a cumulative dose of carbachol (CCh) were determined using in vitro organ bath technique., Results: FPO was significantly increased in the WS group after 7 days of water avoidance stress, which was reversed in WA group. WS group decreased unsupported rearing behavior compared to WS group, which was not altered in the WA group. The colon of the WS group had a higher tonic contraction in response to CCh than the SS and WA groups, which was reversed with ondansetron pre-incubation., Conclusions: Oral administration of ondansetron prevented increased FPO but did not affect anxiety-related behavior in repeated stress model. Colonic hypercontractility in the stressed mice was related to increased responses to cholinergic-induced contractions, which involved 5-HT 3 receptors. Our findings suggest the modulatory roles of 5-HT 3 receptors to mediate stress-induced colonic dysfunction., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate if preoperative ondansetron reduces postoperative nausea associated with laparoscopic gastropexy and castration in dogs., Study Design: Prospective clinical study., Animals: Twenty client-owned, healthy male dogs., Methods: Dogs were premedicated with dexmedetomidine (2-5 mcg kg -1 ) and methadone (0.2-0.5 mg kg -1 ) intramuscularly. General anesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with an inhalant anesthetic agent. Dogs were randomized into group S (saline 0.1 mL kg -1 , intravenously) or group O (ondansetron 0.2 mg kg -1 , intravenously). Plasma and serum were collected before premedication and 3 hours postextubation to measure arginine vasopressin (AVP) and cortisol concentrations. Nausea scoring occurred before and 10 minutes after premedication, immediately after extubation, and at 1, 2 and 3 hours postextubation. Data were analyzed by mixed and split-plot anova with Bonferroni adjustment for the number of group comparisons. Significance was set at p < 0.05., Results: Nausea scores increased over time at 1 (p = 0.01) and 2 (p < 0.001) hours postextubation in both groups compared with before premedication. Median nausea score (0-100 mm) for groups S and O before premedication were 2.5 and 0.5 mm, respectively. At 1 and 2 hours postextubation, group S scored 7.5 and 4.0 mm and group O scored 6.0 and 5.0 mm, respectively. No significant differences in nausea scores within or between groups were observed before premedication and 3 hours postextubation. Cortisol concentrations increased significantly 3 hours postextubation in both groups (p < 0.001) compared with before premedication, with no differences between groups. AVP concentrations showed no significant differences within or between groups., Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: Preoperative intravenous administration of ondansetron (0.2 mg kg -1 ) did not impact postoperative nausea after laparoscopic gastropexy and castration. Investigation of higher doses of ondansetron on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in dogs after surgery is warranted., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ondansetron reduces the median effective dose (ED50) of prophylactic phenylephrine to prevent spinal-induced hypotension (SIH) during cesarean delivery. However, the exact dose response of phenylephrine in combination with prophylactic ondansetron for preventing SIH is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the dose-response of phenylephrine to prevent SIH in cesarean delivery when 4 mg of ondansetron was used as a preventive method., Methods: A total of 80 parturients were enrolled and divided randomly into four groups (n = 20 in each group) who received either 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, or 0.5 μg/kg/min of prophylactic phenylephrine. Ten minutes before the initiation of spinal induction, 4 mg prophylactic ondansetron was administered. The effective dose of prophylactic phenylephrine was defined as the dose required to prevent hypotension after the period of intrathecal injection and up to neonatal delivery. The ED50 and ED90 of prophylactic phenylephrine and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using probit analysis., Results: The ED50 and ED90 for prophylactic phenylephrine to prevent SIH were 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.30), and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.59) μg/kg/min, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the side effects and neonatal outcomes between the four groups., Conclusion: The administration of 4 mg of prophylactic ondansetron was associated with an ED50 of 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15~0.30) and ED90 of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.39~0.59) μg/kg/min for phenylephrine to prevent SIH., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Sun et al.)

Lung cancer, a global mortality leader, often necessitates Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic (VATS) surgery. However, post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common, highlighting a need for effective management and prevention strategies in this context. A retrospective case-control study at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital evaluated patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer between May and September 2022. Patients were categorized based on PONV prevention methods, and data encompassing demographics, surgical history, and postoperative adverse events s were analyzed to assess the association between prophylactic protocols and PONV incidence. The Netupitant and Palonosetron Hydrochloride (NEPA) group showed a significant reduction in PONV occurrences post-surgery compared to Ondansetron (ONDA) and Control groups, emphasizing NEPA's efficacy in alleviating PONV symptoms (P < 0.05). Furthermore, following VATS radical resection of lung cancer, NEPA markedly reduced the intensity of PONV symptoms in patients. Both univariate and multivariate logistic analyses corroborated that NEPA independently reduces PONV risk, with its protective effect also apparent in susceptible populations like females and non-smokers. NEPA utilization markedly reduced both the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer, serving as an independent protective factor in mitigating PONV risk post-surgery., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: The present study was to investigate three different single-drug regimens to show which was more effective to reduce radioactive iodine therapy (RAI) associated nausea and vomiting, and to compare the occurrence of long-term gastrointestinal diseases after RAI therapy., Method: We performed a single-center, non-randomized clinical trial among patients who underwent RAI therapy from March 2016 to July 2022. Enrolled patients were divided into four cohorts based on the date of the treatment. cohort 1, with no preventive antiemetics; cohort 2, received 20 mg of pantoprazole per day for 3 days; cohort 3, received a 10 mg metoclopramide tablet two times daily for 3 days; cohort 4, oral ondansetron, 8 mg, twice daily for 3 days. The primary endpoints were proportion of patients who experience vomiting episodes and nausea during the 7-day hospital period. Secondary end points included Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) quality-of life questionnaires and the occurrence of gastrointestinal diseases., Results: A total of 1755 patients were analyzed, comprised of 1299 (74.0%) women and 456 (26.0%) men, with a median age of 44 years (range 18-78 years). The characteristics of patient were similar within the four groups. 465 (26.4%) patients developed RAI-associated nausea, and 186 (14.4%) patients developed RAI-associated vomiting. The rate of nausea was significantly decreased in the patients who were taking ondansetron when compared with the other cohorts ( P <0.05), while the rate of vomiting (≥6 episodes) was slightly lower. As secondary endpoint, FLIE measures ondansetron scored highly compared to other cohorts, from baseline (mean score of 110.53 ± 17.54) to day 7 (mean score of 105.56 ± 12.48). In addition, 48 (2.7%) patients were found to be with gastrointestinal diseases at the end of one year follow up. Multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight revealed a significantly independent risk factors of developing gastrointestinal disorders., Conclusions: In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that short-term ondansetron could be an effective prophylactic agent in controlling RAI-associated nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the risk of developing gastrointestinal disorders was significantly higher for patients with multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Li, Cao, Wang, Zhu, Sun, Song, Zhang and Han.)

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is one of the most common malignancies in women and imposes a significant health burden globally. According to data from the World Health Organization, the incidence of BC has been increasing steadily over the years. It has become one of the leading causes of cancer-related death among women worldwide., Objective: This work was to evaluate the combined intervention effect of psychological care along with the use of ondansetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine hydrochloride in breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing chemotherapy, including their impact on nausea and vomiting control, quality of life (QoL), and psychological status., Methods: 64 BC patients undergoing chemotherapy were collected and randomly rolled into a control group (Group C) and an intervention group (Group I). Group C received ondansetron combined with routine psychological support and counseling therapy, while Group I received a combination of ondansetron, dexamethasone, promethazine hydrochloride, and psychological care therapy. Self-assessment scores for anxiety, QoL ratings, white blood cell counts, and incidence of adverse reactions were assessed and compared between the two groups., Results: Group I showed better control of nausea and vomiting versus Group C (P< 0.05). Marked improvements were also observed in the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) scores, white blood cell counts, and nursing satisfaction in Group I versus Group C (P< 0.05). Nevertheless, the two groups had no significant difference regarding QoL scores (P> 0.05)., Conclusion: the combination of psychological care with ondansetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine hydrochloride effectively controls nausea and vomiting symptoms in BC patients undergoing chemotherapy and provides higher levels of clinical nursing satisfaction.

Background: Direct stimulation of the afferent nerve endings in the venous endothelium is one explanation of propofol injection pain. Previous studies found that ondansetron can also block sodium channels. This effect is similar to that of lidocaine., Objective: The primary outcome was the efficacy of ondansetron compared to lidocaine and placebo for the reduction of propofol injection pain., Method: This trial was conducted in 240 patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I-III and aged between 18-65 years old, undergoing elective surgery, and having a 20-gauge intravenous catheter at the hand dorsum. Each group of 80 patients received 8 mg. of ondansetron in the O Group, 40 mg. of lidocaine in the L Group and normal saline in the C Group. The study medications were blindly administered to the patients through a 20-gauge intravenous catheter placed on the hand dorsum, and then 1 min later, the small dose of propofol (50 mg.) was infused via the syringe pump at a rate of 600 ml/hr. for 30 s. Following that, the syringe pump of propofol was temporarily stopped, and the patients were asked to rate their pain at the injection site., Result: The incidence of pain was lowest in the L group (66.2%) compared with the O (82.5%) and the C groups (85.0%) (P < 0.01). The median pain score in the L, O, and C groups were 2 (0-4), 4 (2-5), and 4.5 (2-6), respectively (P < 0.01). The incidences of no pain, mild, moderate, and severe pain were also significantly different in the L group (33.8%, 37.5%, 21.2%, and 7.5%, respectively) compared with those in the O group (17.5%, 31.2%, 31.2%, and 20.0%, respectively) and the C groups (15.0%, 22.5%, 40.0%, and 22.5%, respectively) (P < 0.01)., Conclusion: Pretreatment with intravenous lidocaine, rather than ondansetron, can reduce the incidence and intensity of propofol-induced pain., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Study Objective: This study aimed to explore oral ondansetron usage and impact on outcomes in clinical practice., Methods: This observational study was a planned secondary analysis of 2 trials conducted in 10 US and 6 Canadian institutions between 2014 and 2017. Children 3 to 48 months old with gastroenteritis and ≥3 episodes of vomiting in the 24 hours preceding emergency department (ED) presentation were included. Oral ondansetron was administered at the discretion of the provider. The principal outcomes were intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization at the index visit and during the subsequent 72 hours and diarrhea and vomiting frequency during the 24 hours following the ED visit., Results: In total, 794 children were included. The median age was 16.0 months (interquartile range 10.0 to 26.0), and 50.1% (398/794) received oral ondansetron. In propensity-adjusted analysis (n=528), children administered oral ondansetron were less likely to receive intravenous fluids at the index visit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 0.88). There were no differences in the frequencies of intravenous fluid administration within the first 72 hours (aOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10) or hospitalization at the index visit (aOR 0.31; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.10) or the subsequent 72 hours (aOR 0.52; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.28). Episodes of vomiting (aRR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19) and diarrhea (aRR 1.11; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.32) during the 24 hours following ED discharge also did not differ., Conclusion: Among preschool-aged children with gastroenteritis seeking ED care, oral ondansetron administration was associated with a reduction in index ED visit intravenous fluid administration; it was not associated with intravenous fluids administered within 72 hours, hospitalization, or vomiting and diarrhea in the 24 hours following discharge., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), ondansetron, in patients with malignant lymphoma receiving multi-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy., Methods: We conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients receiving the first course of an ESHAP (etoposide, cisplatin, methylprednisolone, cytarabine) regimen including 4-day continuous infusion of cisplatin (25 mg/m 2 /day). All patients received ondansetron 4 mg intravenously during 5-day administration of ESHAP. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) for emesis, which was defined as absence of both emesis and rescue medications. Total control (TC) was defined as an absence of emetic episodes, including nausea and emesis, and complete protection (CP) was defined as an absence of emesis with addition of rescue antiemetics. Nausea and vomiting were assessed and graded daily by medical staff., Results: Eighty-two patients were analyzed. Nausea and vomiting were generally well controlled, with the CR rates of emesis being 79% in the overall phase, 82% in the early phase (days 1-6), and 89% in the delayed phase (days 7-10). TC and CP were achieved in 51 patients (62%) and 77 patients (94%) in the overall phase., Discussion: Most of the chemotherapy regimens for lymphoid malignancies include high-dose corticosteroid which may be also effective as antiemetics. Although NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) is generally recommended for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, it can interact with variety drugs., Conclusion: Although NK1RA is generally recommended for cisplatin-containing regimen, our results suggest that ondansetron effectively controlled emesis in patients receiving ESHAP therapy which includes high-dose corticosteroid.

The objective of this randomised, double blinded clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic administration of 4 mg ondansetron as monotherapy versus combination therapy of 4 mg ondansetron plus 8 mg dexamethasone for the prevention of intrathecal morphine-associated pruritus in caesarean section within 24 h. A total of 194 patients were included, 96 patients in the monotherapy group and 98 in the combination group. One hour after the operation, 11.5% of patients in ondansetron group had failure of prophylaxis for pruritus compared to 13.5% of patients in the combination group ( p  = .66). This decreased throughout the follow-up to reach 0.0% and 1.0% at 24 h in the ondansetron vs. the combination groups respectively. There was no superiority of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone over the use of ondansetron as prophylactic antipruritic in parturients receiving intrathecal morphine for caesarean section.IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? The incidence of pruritus has been reported to be between 36% and 60% in patients undergoing caesarean section with intrathecal morphine. Ondansetron has been identified as possible antipruritic agent while the antipruritic effect of dexamethasone is inconclusive. What do the results of this study add? The study demonstrated that there was no superiority of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone over the use of ondansetron as prophylactic antipruritic in parturients receiving intrathecal morphine for caesarean section. Moreover, it seems that there is no effect of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone over ondansetron alone on antiemetic consequences. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Ondansetron could be an effective antipruritic if used solely for patients undergoing caesarean section.

Nausea, vomiting, and renal injury are the common adverse effects associated with cisplatin. Cisplatin is excreted via the multidrug and toxin release (MATE) transporter, and the involvement of the MATE transporter in cisplatin-induced kidney injury has been reported. The MATE transporter is also involved in the excretion of ondansetron, but the effects of 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists used clinically for cisplatin-induced renal injury have not been elucidated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists in a mouse model of cisplatin-induced kidney injury and to validate the results using medical big data analysis of more than 1.4 million reports and a survey of 3000 hospital medical records. The concomitant use of a first-generation 5-HT 3 receptor antagonist (ondansetron, granisetron, or ramosetron) significantly increased cisplatin accumulation in the kidneys and worsened renal damage. Conversely, the concomitant use of palonosetron had no effect on renal function compared with the use of cisplatin alone. Furthermore, an analysis of data from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and retrospective medical records revealed that the combination treatment of cisplatin and a first-generation 5-HT 3 receptor antagonist significantly increased the number of reported renal adverse events compared with the combination treatment of cisplatin and a second-generation 5-HT 3 receptor antagonist. These results suggest that compared with the first-generation antagonists, second-generation 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists do not worsen cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury. The findings should be validated in a prospective controlled trial before implementation in clinical practice., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Introduction: As immune checkpoint inhibitors increasingly gain oncological utility, the incidence of unique adverse events may rise as well. The description and management of localized, recurrent muscle spasms secondary to pembrolizumab infusions has not previously been reported., Case Report: A 64-year-old male receiving pembrolizumab infusions experienced acute-onset, isolated spasms and pain occurring in cycles 2 through 5.Management and outcome: Pretreatment with intravenous lorazepam, diphenhydramine, famotidine, ondansetron, and fluids have led to spasm-free pembrolizumab infusions., Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide the first known incidence and successful corrective measures taken for localized muscle spasms secondary to pembrolizumab infusion.

Background: Vestibular syndrome is often accompanied by nausea. Drugs currently approved for its treatment have been developed to stop vomiting but not nausea. The efficacy of 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists to reduce nausea has been described for chemotherapy, but not for nausea secondary to vestibular disorders., Methods: Sixteen dogs with vestibular syndrome-associated nausea were included in the open-label, multicentre study. The intensity of nausea-like behaviour was analysed before ondansetron administration (0.5 mg/kg i.v.) and 2 h afterwards, using a validated 5-point-scale. The occurrence and frequency of salivation, lip licking, restlessness, vocalisation, lethargy, and vomiting were assessed., Results: All dogs initially showed signs of nausea, whereas only 31% showed vomitus. The intensity of nausea was significantly reduced in all dogs (p ≤ 0.0001) 2 h after ondansetron administration, including the clinical signs of nausea analysed in 11 dogs (salivation [p = 0.0078], lip licking [p = 0.0078], restlessness [p = 0.0039], and lethargy [p = 0.0078]) except for vocalisation (p > 0.9999)., Conclusions: The results provide preliminary evidence of the potential benefit of ondansetron in the treatment of nausea, which was present in all examined dogs. Vomiting was only observed in 5 dogs indicating that nausea can occur separately and should not be perceived only as a preceding stimulation of the vomiting centre.

Aims: Comparison of efficacy, safety and sedation between two doses of olanzapine in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients & methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted, enrolling 68 patients receiving a single-day cycle of high and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received either of olanzapine 5 mg or 10 mg from day 1 through 3 in addition to ondansetron and dexamethasone. Control of CINV, nausea, sedation, quality of life (QoL) and adverse events were compared. Results: Nausea, emesis control and improvement of QoL were similar in both groups. Sedation severity was 133% higher with 10 mg olanzapine. Conclusions: Lower dose olanzapine is effective to control CINV with significantly reduced sedation.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common complication in cancer treatment. Ondansetron is an effective antiemetic drug widely used to prevent CINV; however, the effective administrative dosing strategies among pediatrics remain unclear. The study aimed to investigate clinical effectiveness of single daily dosing versus divided dosing ondansetron., Methods: In all, 194 children undergoing chemotherapy were randomized to receive either single daily dosing (0.3 mg/kg/dose) or divided dosing (0.15 mg/kg/dose every 8 hours) intravenous ondansetron for 24 hours. Clinical parameters including number of emesis episodes, nausea scores, appetite levels, parent's satisfaction, and adverse effects within 24 hours were analyzed., Results: No significant differences were found between the two dosing strategies concerning number of emesis episodes and parent's satisfaction. However, nonleukemic hematologic malignancies and concurrent administration of intrathecal methotrexate-hydrocortisone-cytarabine (IT-MHA) were associated with increased risk of acute-phase vomiting. Interestingly, none of the patients aged under 7 years, receiving divided dosing ondansetron, presented nausea symptoms compared with those receiving single daily dosing (p-value .034). No significant differences regarding headache were observed between the two dosing strategies and none of the patients experienced QTc prolongation., Conclusion: Ondansetron administered as divided dosing should be considered among children aged under 7 years to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and among patients receiving low emetogenic chemotherapy to maintain their appetite. Both administrative dosing strategies were well tolerated with no significant adverse effects., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Study Objective: Little is known about the cause or optimal treatment of hyperemesis in habitual cannabis users. Anecdotal evidence supports the use of haloperidol over traditional antiemetics for this newly recognized disorder. We compare haloperidol with ondansetron for cannabis hyperemesis syndrome., Methods: We randomized cannabis users with active emesis to either haloperidol (with a nested randomization to either 0.05 or 0.1 mg/kg) or ondansetron 8 mg intravenously in a triple-blind fashion. The primary outcome was the reduction from baseline in abdominal pain and nausea (each measured on a 10-cm visual analog scale) at 2 hours after treatment. Although the trial allowed for crossover, the primary analysis used only the first treatment period because few subjects crossed over., Results: We enrolled 33 subjects, of whom 30 (16 men, aged 29 years [SD 11 years] using 1.5 g/day [SD 0.9 g/day] since age 19 years [SD 2 years]) received at least 1 treatment (haloperidol 13, ondansetron 17). Haloperidol at either dose was superior to ondansetron (difference 2.3 cm [95% confidence interval 0.6 to 4.0 cm]; P=.01), with similar improvements in both pain and nausea, as well as less use of rescue antiemetics (31% versus 59%; difference -28% [95% confidence interval -61% to 13%]) and shorter time to emergency department (ED) departure (3.1 hours [SD 1.7] versus 5.6 hours [SD 4.5]; difference 2.5 hours [95% confidence interval 0.1 to 5.0 hours]; P=.03). There were 2 return visits for acute dystonia, both in the higher-dose haloperidol group., Conclusion: In this clinical trial, haloperidol was superior to ondansetron for the acute treatment of cannabis-associated hyperemesis. The efficacy of haloperidol over ondansetron provides insight into the pathophysiology of this now common diagnosis in many EDs., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Prospective data evaluating the effect of ondansetron on the corrected QT (QTc) interval is lacking in emergency department clinical use. As part of a randomized trial of a 24-mg bimodal-release ondansetron (RHB-102) pill, we tested the effect of RHB-102 compared to placebo on QTc change., Methods: This was a planned safety outcome analysis within a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The trial compared the effects of RHB-102 among patients ≥12 years who presented to 21 centers with symptoms of acute gastroenteritis. Patients with an initial baseline electrocardiogram as well as a follow-up electrocardiogram 4 h later were included in the analysis. The safety endpoint for this analysis was the change from baseline in QTc interval at 4 h, the median time at which ondansetron serum level peaks., Results: A total of 147 patients were included with a mean baseline QTc in the RHB-102 and placebo arms of 410 and 406 ms, respectively. There was no difference in the change in QTc at 4 h post-study drug administration between the RHB-102 (+4, 95% CI 1-8 ms) and placebo group (+5, 95% CI 1-9 ms). In the RHB-102 arm, 6.6% of patients had a QTc change >30 ms and in the placebo arm 3.6% (p = 0.48). No patient in either arm had a QTc change >60 ms after study drug administration., Conclusion: In patients with normal baseline QTc, 24-mg bimodal-release ondansetron did not prolong the QTc in comparison to placebo., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Grant money for commercial research: JM, SH, LL, AM, BH, JA, and RS report grant money to their institutions from RedHill Biopharma for the performance of this trial. Employment: TP, RS, IK, and RF are employed by RedHill Biopharma, which manufacturers a product related to the subject matter., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Ondansetron is frequently used to treat nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Although some studies reported important safety signals, few studies have been sufficiently large to assess rare pregnancy outcomes., Objective: To study the association between ondansetron exposure during pregnancy and the risks of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and major congenital malformations., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cohort study conducted in 3 countries, with a meta-analysis. Participants included women and girls aged 12 to 55 years who experienced spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, stillbirth, or live birth between April 2002 and March 2016, as recorded in administrative data from 5 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario), the US IBM MarketScan Research Databases, and the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The statistical analysis was completed in October 2020., Exposures: Exposure to ondansetron during pregnancy was compared with exposure to other commonly used antiemetics to minimize confounding by indication., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was fetal death, defined as either spontaneous abortion or stillbirth. Secondary outcomes were the 2 components of the primary outcome and major congenital malformations identified during the year after a live birth. Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time-dependent drug exposures and were adjusted using high-dimensional propensity scores. For major congenital malformations, adjusted odds ratios were estimated from logistic models. Site-level results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses considered second-line antiemetic exposure and exposure specifically during 4 to 10 weeks of gestation., Results: Data from 456 963 pregnancies were included in this study of fetal death (249 787 [54.7%] in Canada, 197 913 [43.3%] in the US, and 9263 [2.0%] in the UK; maternal age, ≤24 years, 93 201 patients [20.4%]; 25-29 years, 149 117 patients [32.6%]; 30-34 years, 142 442 patients [31.2%]; and ≥35 years, 72 203 patients [15.8%]). Fetal death occurred in 12 907 (7.9%) of 163 810 pregnancies exposed to ondansetron, and 17 476 (5.7%) of 306 766 pregnancies exposed to other antiemetics. The adjusted hazard ratios were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.67-1.23) for fetal death with time-dependent ondansetron exposure during pregnancy, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.64-1.04) for spontaneous abortion, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.79-1.20) for stillbirth. For major congenital malformations, the estimated odds ratio was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.91-1.22). Results of sensitivity analyses were generally consistent with those of the primary analyses., Conclusions and Relevance: In this large, multicenter cohort study, there was no association between ondansetron exposure during pregnancy and increased risk of fetal death, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, or major congenital malformations compared with exposure to other antiemetic drugs.

Abstract: Preoperative anxiety is a major problem in children leading to a poor outcome. Preanesthetic oral ketamine is generally used in children but has less bioavailability due to the first-pass effect. Even ketamine has an unpleasant taste. Preanesthetic inhaled ketamine is also reported effective and safe in children. The objectives of the study were to compare the effectiveness and safety of preanesthetic nebulized ketamine against preanesthetic oral ketamine for sedation and postoperative pain management in children.Children received 10 mg/kg oral ketamine (children received preanesthetic oral ketamine [OK cohort], n = 142), or nebulized with 3 mg/kg ketamine (children were preanesthetic nebulized with ketamine [NK cohort], n = 115), or received apple juice (children suspectable to preoperative ketamine and received apple juice only [OA cohort], n = 126) before anesthesia for elective surgery. Data regarding preoperative hemodynamic parameters, sedation score measurements, postoperative pain management, postoperative nausea and vomiting management, and postoperative complications were collected and analyzed.Preoperative hemodynamic parameters for oral and nebulized ketamine administration were stable. Nebulized ketamine was provided higher sedation than apple juice (P = .002, q = 4.859) and oral ketamine (P = .002, q = 3.526). Children of NK cohort had required fewer fentanyl consumption until discharge than those of OA (55.45 ± 7.19 μG/ child vs 65.15 ± 15.24 μG/ child, P < .0001, q = 9.859) and OK (55.45 ± 7.19 μG/child vs 60.19 ± 8.12 μG/child, P < .0001, q = 4.953) cohorts. Children of the NK cohort had consumed higher ondansetron syrup than those of the OA cohort but fewer than those of the OK cohort until discharge. Gastrointestinal side effects were reported in the OK cohort, and nose irritation and drowsiness were reported in the NK cohort.Like preanesthetic oral ketamine, preanesthetic inhaled ketamine also has safety for children. Preanesthetic inhaled ketamine can provide effective sedation in low doses during operation than preanesthetic oral ketamine.Level of evidence: III., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

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, χ 2 (4) = 15.629, p = 0.004; Bazett, χ 2 (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, χ 2 (4) = 13.753, p = 0.008; Bazett, χ 2 (4) = 13.278, p = 0.010) but not in males (Fridericia, χ 2 (4) = 4.419, p = 0.352; Bazett, χ 2 (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.

Objectives: Pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting are among the most unpleasant sensations experienced after surgery. Patients after gynaecological surgery are at higher risk for both complications. Former methods of pain management based mainly on opioid administration were much less safe, especially for elderly patients. In addition, they generated an even greater increase of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Multimodal therapies in anesthesiology are currently being used more and more often. These include both multimodal postoperative pain management and multimodal prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The aim of the study was to assess the benefits of the methods used for gynaecological patients in the immediate postanesthetic period., Material and Methods: The research material is an analysis of medical documentation of 150 patients from the gynaecology clinic who underwent surgical procedures of categories III and IV from October 2018 and until January 2019, carried out in one of the clinical hospitals in Szczecin at the Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Clinic. Patients were divided into 3 groups: 1. Patients who received multimodal analgesia using non-opioid and opioid analgesics. 2. Patients who received multimodal analgesia using non-opioid and opioid analgesics and adjuvants. 3. Patients who received multimodal analgesia using non-opioid and opioid analgesics and central blockade., Results: The highest age was in the third group at 57.48 years of age, 50.86 in the second group, and 47.8 in the first group. Healthy patients classified as ASA 1 accounted for 14% of group I, 18% of group II and 10% of group III. Patients with severe systemic disease (ASA 3) constituted 30% of group III 18%, of group II and 8% of group I. Upon leaving the operating room, as many as 80% of the patients from groups II and III did not feel any pain. In group I was 52%. When entering the recovery room, 26% of the patients in group I, 10% in group III, and 8% in group II rated their pain as higher than 5. The most used antiemetic medication in the studied facility was ondansetron. In group II it was given to 36 (72%) patients, in group III to 23 (46%) patients, and 13 (26%) patients in group I. In the postanaesthetic care unit, 9 (18%) patients in group III, 6 (12%) patients in group I, and 3 (6%) patients in group II received ondansetron. Metoclopramide was given only to patients in group III - one intraoperatively, and the other in the recovery room., Conclusions: Multimodal analgesia is effective in pain treatment. The use of PONV prevention is used for gynaecological patients. The analysis of the surgical records facilitated the recognition of patient needs.

Purpose: To compare rates of complete response (no emesis, retching, or rescue antiemetics) in the late phase (days 4-7 post-chemotherapy) of cycle 1 between transdermal granisetron and oral ondansetron in cervical, endometrial, or vaginal cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and LBJ Hospital in Houston, TX., Methods: In this non-blinded parallel design trial, eligible patients received a granisetron patch replaced every 7 days or 8 mg of ondansetron thrice daily continued for 72 h after chemotherapy completion. Data were collected on medication compliance, episodes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), use of rescue antiemetics, and effects of CINV on quality of life., Results: Seventy-five survivors receiving chemoradiation for cervical (n = 61), endometrial (n = 12), or vaginal (n = 2) cancer were electronically randomized to transdermal granisetron (n = 41) or oral ondansetron (n = 34). In the late phase of cycle 1, the rate of complete response was 49.8% (95% CI, 35.2-64.3%) for transdermal granisetron and 39.7% (95% CI, 24.4-56.1%) for oral ondansetron. The posterior probability that transdermal granisetron achieved a higher success rate in controlling late-onset CINV compared with oral ondansetron was 82%. During the acute phase (day 1 post-chemotherapy) of cycles 2 and 3, transdermal granisetron patients used more rescue antiemetics than oral ondansetron patients (p = 0.006 and p = 0.003, respectively). Otherwise, no between-group differences in CINV events were observed. Medication compliance and the effect of CINV on quality of life were similar between groups., Conclusion: Transdermal granisetron was 82% more like to control CINV than oral ondansetron in the late phase of cycle 1 and performed similarly to oral ondansetron in all other cycles. Transdermal granisetron should be considered an option as prophylactic antiemetic therapy for gynecologic cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation.

Background: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is a painful procedure, and treatment of emetic events associated with drugs used in the current multimodal pain management remains challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ramosetron or ondansetron to relieve postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair., Methods: In total, 122 consecutive patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were randomly allocated into three groups: ramosetron group (n = 39), ondansetron group (n = 43), and control group (n = 40). Then, 0.3 mg of ramosetron or 8 mg of ondansetron was administered intravenously at the end of surgery according to group. All patients received general anesthesia and multimodal pain management protocol including preemptive analgesic medication, fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, and postoperative analgesic medication. Incidence of emetic events, rescue antiemetic requirements (10 mg of metoclopramide, IV), complete response, pain level, and side effects were recorded in three periods: 0-6, 6-24, and 24-48 h postoperatively. The severity of nausea and pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale., Results: The ramosetron group tended to have a lower incidence and severity of nausea during the 6- to 24-h postoperative period and fewer rescue antiemetic drug requirements during the 0- to 48-h period than the control group, showing statistical significance. Additionally, the frequency of complete response of the ramosetron and ondansetron groups was significantly higher than that of the control group. No difference was found among the groups in the pain level except during the 0- to 6-h period. The two groups have a higher complete response during the 6- to 24-h period than the control group., Conclusions: Ramosetron use led to a lower incidence, mild severity of nausea, and reduced use of rescue antiemetic drug after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair during the 6- to 24-h postoperative period than the control., Level of Evidence: Level I, randomized controlled trials, treatment study.

Purpose: We assessed the efficacy of aprepitant (APR) or 10 or 5 mg OLN (OLN10 or OLN5) plus ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)., Methods: Patients who received doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide or cisplatin were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy and oral dexamethasone on days 2-4 and randomized 1:1:1 to receive APR125 on day 1 and APR80 on days 2-3 or OLN10 or OLN5 on days 1-4. Matched placebo controls were used. The primary endpoint was no nausea in ≤ 120 h. Secondary endpoints included CINV severity, complete response (CR) rate, adverse effects (AE), and quality of life., Results: Of 141 patients, 104 received AC and 37 received cisplatin. The no-nausea rates were 33% (APR), 43.2% (OLN10; p = 0.24), and 37% (OLN5; p = 0.87). Grades 2-4 nausea were experienced by fewer patients for OLN10 than for APR (24-120 h, 8.7% vs. 27.7%, respectively; p = 0.02; overall period, 19.6% vs. 40.4%, respectively; p = 0.03). The median visual analog scale nausea score from 24 to 120 h was significantly lower for OLN10 (2.3) than for APR (1.2, p = 0.03). The degrees of vomiting, CR, and AE were similar between the APR and OLN10 groups. CINV was similar between the OLN5 and APR groups., Conclusions: Nausea was less severe for OLN10 than for APR in patients receiving HEC, but other measures were similar. CINV prevention efficacy was comparable between OLN5 and APR.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Purpose of Review: The aim of this review is to provide an update of nonantibiotic therapies for acute gastroenteritis (AGE), focusing on antiemetics and probiotics., Recent Findings: The mainstay of therapy for nonsevere AGE remains oral rehydration therapy (ORT). Recent randomized controlled trials and metaanalyses have further strengthened the evidence-base supporting single-dose ondansetron administration in emergency departments to facilitate ORT based on evidence that it safely reduces intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization rates. Intravenous ondansetron administration and multiple-dose use should be avoided. A bimodal release ondansetron formulation was shown to improve outcomes in adolescents and adults with AGE in one study, but further evidence is required to support use. Recent large trials evaluating probiotic administration demonstrated a lack of benefit and guidelines that recommend their use should reevaluate their positions in light of this evidence. Furthermore, caution should be exercised when use is considered in high-risk populations and settings., Summary: The benefits, dosing/route, and target populations most likely to benefit from ondansetron have been further clarified. Optimization of the real-life effectiveness of this therapy will require implementation strategies. Recent high-quality evidence showing a lack of efficacy and potential harm associated with probiotic use suggests that routine use for AGE should be discouraged.

Spinal anesthesia (SpA) for elective caesarean section (CS) is often accompanied by clinically relevant arterial hypotension. The Bezold-Jarisch reflex, causing postspinal hypotension, has been shown to be antagonized by serotonin type 3 (5-HT3) blockade. Our aim was to assess if routine prophylactic administration of the 5-HT3 antagonist ondansetron (ODS) attenuates postspinal change in maternal blood pressure.Elective CS under SpA were retrospectively analyzed. Eighty parturients having routinely received 8 mg ODS prior to SpA were compared with 80 patients having not (control group).Mean arterial blood pressure significantly decreased from baseline to the postspinal period (P < .0001) without differences in blood pressure decreases between the 2 groups. This also applied to the heart rate. Overall use of cafedrine/theodrenaline was higher in the ODS group (0.8 (0.4-1.6) mL vs 0.8 (0-1.0) mL in the control group, P = .01). APGAR values showed a presumably clinically irrelevant decrease in control group compared with the ODS group.Our results suggest that routine administration of ODS in a dosage of 8 mg does not effectively attenuate postspinal change in maternal blood pressure during CS in our setting. Given the wide variability of anesthetic techniques, only large prospective and randomized multicenter trials will ultimately serve to elucidate this issue.

Introduction and Objectives: The incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) after video cholecystectomy is high. Progress in pharmacological PONV prophylaxis includes a new generation of 5-HT 3 antagonists. This study aims to assess the effect of the 5-HT 3 antagonist in postanesthetic antiemetic management of patients submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy with total intravenous anesthesia., Methods: Sixty individuals who underwent video cholecystectomy were randomized into three groups of 20 individuals according to the treatment administered: 0.125 mg of palonosetron (Group 1); 4 mg of ondansetron associated with 4 mg of dexamethasone (Group 2); 4 mg of dexamethasone (Group 3). General intravenous anesthesia was performed with propofol, remifentanil and rocuronium. The group to which the participant belonged was concealed from the investigator who assessed drug effect. PONV was assessed using the Rhodes Scale at 12 and 24 hours after surgery. Rescue medication was 0.655 to 1.5 mg of droperidol., Results: Group 1 presented a lower incidence of PONV and required less rescue medication in the first postoperative hour. There was no significant difference among the three groups regarding PONV incidence in the first 12 postoperative hours. Groups 1 and 2 were superior to Group 3 regarding the control of PONV from 12 to 24 hours, and after rescue medication from 12 to 24 hours. Group 1 showed significantly superior nausea control in the first 12 postoperative hours., Conclusions: The present study showed evidence that palonosetron is superior to the drugs compared regarding a protracted antiemetic effect and less requirement of rescue drugs, mainly related to its ability to completely inhibit the uncomfortable symptom of nausea., (Copyright © 2020 Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60-80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery., Methods: Sixty-four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded., Results: Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2-6hours only (p=0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0-24hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (p=0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron-dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number-needed-to-treat was 4. The patient's satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (p=0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (p=0.026)., Conclusion: The combination of palonosetron-dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron-dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries., (Copyright © 2020. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda.)

Introduction: Previous, small studies have suggested that ondansetron has beneficial effects in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of daily 12 mg RHB-102, an investigational bimodal release ondansetron tablet, in IBS-D., Methods: Men and women with IBS-D by the Rome III criteria, Bristol Stool Scale ≥6 on 2 or more days weekly, and average daily worst pain intensity ≥3/10 were randomized 60:40 to RHB-102 or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. The primary end point was overall stool consistency response for at least 4 of 8 weeks. Secondary end points included overall worst abdominal pain and overall composite response, defined as response on both abdominal pain and stool consistency end points., Results: Overall stool consistency response rates were 56.0% and 35.3% (RHB-102 vs placebo, P = 0.036) and similar among male and female patients. Overall pain response (50.7% vs 39.2%) and composite response rates (40.0% vs 25.5%) favored RHB-102, although these differences were not statistically significant. Stool consistency response rates were enhanced in patients with baseline C-reactive protein above the median (2.09 mg/L), 59.5%, vs 23.1% (P = 0.009). Overall rates of adverse events were similar, with a higher rate of constipation in RHB-102 patients (13.3% vs 3.9%) that resolved rapidly on withholding treatment., Discussion: RHB-102 was effective and safe in the treatment of men and women with IBS-D. Baseline C-reactive protein seemed to be predictive of response.

Background: Acute gastroenteritis is a leading cause of emergency department visits and hospitalizations among children in North America. Oral-rehydration therapy is recommended for children with mild-to-moderate dehydration, but children who present with vomiting are frequently offered intravenous rehydration in the emergency department (ED). Recent studies have demonstrated that the anti-emetic ondansetron can reduce vomiting, intravenous rehydration, and hospitalization when administered in the ED to children with dehydration. However, there is little evidence of additional benefit from prescribing ondansetron beyond the initial ED dose. Moreover, repeat dosing may increase the frequency of diarrhea. Despite the lack of evidence and potential adverse side effects, many physicians across North America provide multiple doses of ondansetron to be taken following ED disposition. Thus, the Multi-Dose Oral Ondansetron for Pediatric Gastroenteritis (DOSE-AGE) trial will evaluate the effectiveness of prescribing multiple doses of ondansetron to treat acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. This article specifies the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the DOSE-AGE trial and was submitted before the outcomes of the study were available for analysis., Methods/design: The DOSE-AGE study is a phase III, 6-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel design randomized controlled trial designed to determine whether participants who are prescribed multiple doses of oral ondansetron to administer, as needed, following their ED visit have a lower incidence of experiencing moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis, as measured by the Modified Vesikari Scale score, compared with a placebo. To assess safety, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the frequency and maximum number of diarrheal episodes following ED disposition, and the occurrence of palpitations, pre-syncope/syncope, chest pain, arrhythmias, and serious adverse events. For the secondary outcomes, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the individual elements of the Modified Vesikari Scale score and caregiver satisfaction with the therapy., Discussion: The DOSE-AGE trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of multiple doses of oral ondansetron, taken as needed, following an initial ED dose in children with acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. The data from the DOSE-AGE trial will be analyzed using this SAP. This will reduce the risk of producing data-driven results and bias in our reported outcomes. The DOSE-AGE study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on February 22, 2019., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03851835 . Registered on 22 February 2019.

Background: Ondansetron has been shown to reduce the incidence of hypotension and vasopressor requirement during spinal anesthesia for obstetric and nonobstetric surgery. However, the magnitude of this effect has not been fully quantified. In this parallel-group, randomized, double-blinded study, we determined the effective dose in 50% of subjects (ED50) of a prophylactic phenylephrine infusion for preventing hypotension in patients who received a single dose of intravenous ondansetron 4 mg or saline control before combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. ED50 values obtained were compared to estimate the effect of ondansetron versus placebo on vasopressor requirement., Methods: Sixty parturients were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron (group O) or saline control (group C) 10 minutes before positioning for induction of spinal anesthesia. A prophylactic phenylephrine infusion was used to prevent hypotension. The first patient in each group received a phenylephrine infusion at the rate of 0.5 µg/kg/min. The infusion rate for each subsequent patient was varied with increments or decrements of 0.05 µg/kg/min based on the response of the previous patient, and the effective dose of the phenylephrine infusion for preventing hypotension in 50% of patients (ED50) was calculated for each group and compared using up-down sequential analysis. Probit regression was applied as a backup and sensitivity analysis was used to compare ED50 values for phenylephrine between groups by comparing calculated relative mean potency., Results: The ED50 (mean [95% confidence interval (CI)]) of the rate of phenylephrine infusion was lower in group O (0.24 µg/kg/min [0.10-0.38 µg/kg/min]) compared with group C (0.32 µg/kg/min [0.14-0.47 µg/kg/min]) (P < .001). The total consumption of phenylephrine (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) until delivery was lower in group O (316.5 ± 25.9 µg) than in group C (387.7 ± 14.7 µg, P = .02). The estimate of relative median potency for phenylephrine for group O versus group C was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.37-0.95)., Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, intravenous ondansetron 4 mg reduced the ED50 of a prophylactic phenylephrine infusion by approximately 26% in patients undergoing cesarean delivery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.

Background: There was controversy about ondansetron can reduce the incidence of spinal-induced hypotension and decrease the consumption of vasopressor in cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia. We hypothesized that different timing of ondansetron administration may contribute to the controversy. Therefore, we aimed to determine the effect of different timing of ondansetron administration on the dose requirement of preventing phenylephrine via comparing the ED 50 of prophylactic phenylephrine., Methods: Seventy-five parturients were finally enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded dose finding study. Ondansetron or placebo was administered 5 min or 15 min before intrathecal injection. Up-down allocation method was used to determine the dose of prophylactic phenylephrine for each parturient in the three groups. The initial infusion rate of first patient was 0.5 µg/kg/min. Then, the rate for next patient was varied with increasing or decreasing of 0.05 μg/kg/min according to the response of the previous patient. An effective dose was defined as no hypotension occurred during the study period. An ineffective dose was defined as hypotension occurred during the study period. Study period in this study is from intrathecal injection to neonatal delivery. ED 50 of phenylephrine infusion was calculated by probit regression., Results: The ED 50 of intravenous phenylephrine calculated by probit analysis was 0.33 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.38) µg/kg/min and 0.36 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.38) µg/kg/min in group A and B, and 0.41 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.44) µg/kg/min in group C for patients undergoing cesarean delivery with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia., Conclusion: An earlier administration of 4 mg prophylactic ondansetron contributed no benefits for lowing the dose of prophylactic phenylephrine compared to a late administration, but can decrease the dose of preventing phenylephrine in patients undergoing cesarean delivery with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. This finding may be useful for clinical practice and further studies., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2020 Qian et al.)

Background: Relapsed high-grade glioma has dismal outcomes. Mebendazole has shown promising activity against glioma in in-vitro and in-vivo studies. Hence, we undertook a phase 1 study to repurpose mebendazole in the treatment of glioblastoma., Methods: We conducted a phase 1 study (accelerated titrated design 4) of mebendazole in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Patients eligible for re-irradiation were enrolled in arm A1 (radiation with concurrent temozolomide 75 mg/m 2 daily during the course of radiation+mebendazole) while patients who were ineligible were enrolled in either arm B1 (CCNU 110 mg/m 2 day 1, every 6 weekly + mebendazole) or arm C1 (temozolomide 200 mg/m 2 day 1-5, every 4 weekly + mebendazole). The primary endpoint of phase 1 was to identify the MTD of mebendazole in each combination., Findings: 11 patients were enrolled in the whole study. MTD of mebendazole was not reached in arm A1 and C1 and hence the recommended dose for phase 2 was 1600 mg TDS (4800 mg) per day. The MTD of mebendazole in combination with CCNU was 1600 mg TDS (4800 mg) per day and the dose recommended for phase 2 was 800 mg TDS (2400 mg) per day. The three most common adverse events seen in the study were anemia (n = 9, 81.8%), nausea (n = 7, 63.6%), and fatigue (n = 6, 55.5%)., Interpretation: The recommended phase 2 dose of mebendazole is 1600 mg TDS with temozolomide and temozolomide-radiation combination while the dose of 800 mg TDS needs to be used with single-agent CCNU., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This review aimed to meta-analyze evidence of efficacy and safety of one single dose of ondansetron for vomiting in children and adolescents with acute gastroenteritis. Database searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov up to November 2019 were performed. Only randomized clinical trials versus placebo were considered. Fixed and random effect models were used for the analyses of pooled data. Thirteen randomized clinical trials (2146 patients) were finally included. One single dose of ondansetron showed to produce (1) higher chance of vomiting cessation within 8 h (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19-1.68; low-quality evidence); (2) lower chances of oral rehydration therapy failure (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.55; high-quality evidence), intravenous hydration needs (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34-0.57; high-quality evidence), and hospitalization rates within 8 h (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75; high-quality evidence); and (3) no statistically significant differences in return visits to emergency department (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.74-1.76; high-quality evidence) compared with placebo. Further studies are necessary to better assess long term efficacy and safety of ondansetron in this context.Conclusions: Mixed evidence was found via few studies about the efficacy and safety of a single dose of ondansetron in the pediatric population.What is known:• Ondansetron use for vomiting in pediatric acute gastroenteritis is increasing worldwide.• Actual convictions come from studies evaluating one and more than one dose of the drug.What is new:• This is the first review to collect data about the effects of one single dose of ondansetron on strong and temporally homogeneous clinical outcomes.• This study supports the use of one dose of ondansetron in pediatric acute gastroenteritis.• Further studies are necessary to assess its long-term efficacy and safety.

The availability of agonists and antagonists to modulate the activity of the 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) type 3 (5-HT 3 ) receptor has renewed interest in its role as a therapeutic target. Ondansetron is a highly selective 5-HT 3 receptor antagonist that is well tolerated as an anti-emetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Preclinical studies in rat have shown the effects of small doses of ondansetron on cognition, behavioural sensitisation, and epilepsy. However, the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of ondansetron in rat has not been described, which limits the translational relevance of these findings. Here, we aim to determine, in the rat, the PK profile of ondansetron in the plasma and to determine associated brain levels. The plasma PK profile was determined following acute subcutaneous administration of ondansetron (0.1, 1, and 10 μg/kg). Brain levels were measured following subcutaneous administration of ondansetron at 1 μg/kg. Plasma and brain levels of ondansetron were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography - tandem mass spectrometry. Following administration of all three doses, measured ondansetron plasma levels (≈30-3000 pg/mL) were below levels achieved with doses usually administered in the clinic, with a rapid absorption phase and a short half-life (≈30-40 min). We also found that brain levels of ondansetron at 1 μg/kg were significantly lower than plasma levels, with brain to plasma ratios of 0.45 and 0.46 in the motor and pre-frontal cortices. We discuss our findings in the context of a minireview of the literature. We hope that our study will be helpful to the design of preclinical studies with therapeutic end-points.