Dataset Information

Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy. DESIGN:Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol. SETTING:11 palliative care sites in Australia. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours. INTERVENTIONS:Based on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:A ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change. RESULTS:Response to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In the per protocol analysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Complete per protocol response rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm. CONCLUSION:This study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN 12615000177550.

SUBMITTER: Hardy JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6747674 | biostudies-other | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial.

Hardy Janet Rea JR Skerman Helen H Philip Jennifer J Good Phillip P Currow David C DC Mitchell Geoffrey G Yates Patsy P

BMJ open 20190912 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy.<h4>Design</h4>Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol.<h4>Setting</h4>11 palliative care sites in Australia.<h4>Participants</h4>Participants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligi ...[more]

PMID: 31515428

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPalliative oxygen therapy is widely used for treatment of dyspnoea in individuals with life-limiting illness who are ineligible for long-term oxygen therapy. We assessed the effectiveness of oxygen compared with room air delivered by nasal cannula for relief of breathlessness in this population of patients.MethodsAdults from outpatient clinics at nine sites in Australia, the USA, and the UK were eligible for enrolment in this double-blind, randomised controlled trial if they had life-limiting illness, refractory dyspnoea, and partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO(2)) more than 7.3 kPa. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by a central computer-generated system to receive oxygen or room air via a concentrator through a nasal cannula at 2 L per min for 7 days. Participants were instructed to use the concentrator for at least 15 h per day. The randomisation sequence was stratified by baseline PaO(2) with balanced blocks of four patients. The primary outcome measure was breathlessness (0-10 numerical rating scale [NRS]), measured twice a day (morning and evening). All randomised patients who completed an assessment were included in the primary analysis for that data point (no data were imputed). This study is registered, numbers NCT00327873 and ISRCTN67448752.Findings239 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (oxygen, n=120; room air, n=119). 112 (93%) patients assigned to receive oxygen and 99 (83%) assigned to receive room air completed all 7 days of assessments. From baseline to day 6, mean morning breathlessness changed by -0.9 points (95% CI -1.3 to -0.5) in patients assigned to receive oxygen and by -0.7 points (-1.2 to -0.2) in patients assigned to receive room air (p=0.504). Mean evening breathlessness changed by -0.3 points (-0.7 to 0.1) in the oxygen group and by -0.5 (-0.9 to -0.1) in the room air group (p=0.554). The frequency of side-effects did not differ between groups. Extreme drowsiness was reported by 12 (10%) of 116 patients assigned to receive oxygen compared with 14 (13%) of 108 patients assigned to receive room air. Two (2%) patients in the oxygen group reported extreme symptoms of nasal irritation compared with seven (6%) in the room air group. One patient reported an extremely troublesome nose bleed (oxygen group).InterpretationSince oxygen delivered by a nasal cannula provides no additional symptomatic benefit for relief of refractory dyspnoea in patients with life-limiting illness compared with room air, less burdensome strategies should be considered after brief assessment of the effect of oxygen therapy on the individual patient.FundingUS National Institutes of Health, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Duke Institute for Care at the End of Life, and Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundExenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has neuroprotective effects in preclinical models of Parkinson's disease. We investigated whether these effects would be apparent in a clinical trial.MethodsIn this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with moderate Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of exenatide 2 mg or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks in addition to their regular medication, followed by a 12-week washout period. Eligible patients were aged 25-75 years, had idiopathic Parkinson's disease as measured by Queen Square Brain Bank criteria, were on dopaminergic treatment with wearing-off effects, and were at Hoehn and Yahr stage 2·5 or less when on treatment. Randomisation was by web-based randomisation with a two strata block design according to disease severity. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the adjusted difference in the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the practically defined off-medication state at 60 weeks. All efficacy analyses were based on a modified intention-to-treat principle, which included all patients who completed any post-randomisation follow-up assessments. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01971242) and is completed.FindingsBetween June 18, 2014, and March 13, 2015, 62 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 32 to exenatide and 30 to placebo. Our primary analysis included 31 patients in the exenatide group and 29 patients in the placebo group. At 60 weeks, off-medication scores on part 3 of the MDS-UPDRS had improved by 1·0 points (95% CI -2·6 to 0·7) in the exenatide group and worsened by 2·1 points (-0·6 to 4·8) in the placebo group, an adjusted mean difference of -3·5 points (-6·7 to -0·3; p=0·0318). Injection site reactions and gastrointestinal symptoms were common adverse events in both groups. Six serious adverse events occurred in the exenatide group and two in the placebo group, although none in either group were judged to be related to the study interventions.InterpretationExenatide had positive effects on practically defined off-medication motor scores in Parkinson's disease, which were sustained beyond the period of exposure. Whether exenatide affects the underlying disease pathophysiology or simply induces long-lasting symptomatic effects is uncertain. Exenatide represents a major new avenue for investigation in Parkinson's disease, and effects on everyday symptoms should be examined in longer-term trials.FundingMichael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Project description:BackgroundOxytocin is an effective drug for induction of labour, but is associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need of immediate delivery are the most common. Discontinuation of oxytocin once the active phase of labour is established could reduce the adverse effects. The objective is to investigate how the caesarean section rate is affected when oxytocin stimulation is discontinued in the active phase of labour compared to labours where oxytocin is continued.MethodsCONDISOX is a double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted at Danish and Dutch Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The first participant was recruited on April 8 2016. Based on a clinically relevant relative reduction in caesarean section rate of 7%, an alpha of 0.05, a beta of 80%, we aim for 1200 participating women (600 in each arm). The CONDISOX trial includes women at a gestational age of 37-42 complete weeks of pregnancy, who have uterine activity stimulated with oxytocin infusion for the induction of labour. Women are randomised when the active phase of labour becomes established, to study medication containing either oxytocin (continuous group) or placebo (discontinued group) infusion. Women are stratified by birth site, indication for oxytocin stimulation (induction of labour, prelabour rupture of membranes) and parity (nulliparous, parous +/- previous caesarean section). We will compare the primary outcome, caesarean section rate, in the two groups using a chi-square test with a p-value of 0.05. If superiority is not demonstrated, we have a pre-defined post hoc non-inferiority boundary (margin, delta) at 1.09. Secondary outcomes include duration of the active phase of labour, incidence of uterine tachysystole, postpartum haemorrhage, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, Apgar score, umbilical arterial blood pH, and birth experience.DiscussionThe high frequency of oxytocin use and the potential risks of both maternal and fetal adverse effects of oxytocin emphasise the need to determine the optimal oxytocin regime for induction of labour.Trial registrationNCT02553226 (registered September 17, 2015). Eudra-CT number: 2015-002942-30.

Dataset Information

Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial.

Publications

Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets