In recent years, significant improvements have been made in the management of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia and other potentially life-threatening complications of ablative chemotherapy. While these complications are of particular concern to physicians, patients receiving ablative therapy for bone marrow or blood stem cell transplants are often troubled by other side effects such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and mouth sores. The purpose of the study was to gain a better understanding of patients' experiences while undergoing a transplant. The same professional medical interviewer conducted in-depth interviews with 38 subjects (10 men, 28 women; mean age 46.9 years) who had received ablative therapy for bone marrow and/or peripheral blood stem cell transplants. Participants were consecutively identified through physician and patient referrals, cancer and BMT patient support groups, and newspaper advertisements. Twenty-eight patients (74%) received autologous stem cell transplants and 10 patients (26%) received allogeneic transplants. Participants reported mouth sores, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue as the most troubling side effects of their transplants. Mouth sores were selected as the single most debilitating side effect (42%), followed by nausea and vomiting (13%). Many patients mentioned that mouth sores made it difficult or impossible to eat (n = 23), swallow (n = 21), drink (n = 17), and/or talk (n = 8). Twenty patients reported pain in the mouth, throat, and/or esophagus. Two-thirds (66%) of patients reported receiving opioid analgesics, most frequently morphine, to relieve oral pain. For many, opioids caused incapacitating side effects, including hallucinations, a feeling of loss of control and a decrease in mental acuity. Patients receiving ablative chemotherapy identify oral mucositis as a significant cause of suffering and morbidity. Effective interventions to alleviate this complication are urgently needed.

Patient reports of complications of bone marrow transplantation.

Background: Nausea and vomiting remain a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting, and associated clinical problems. This is an update of the original systematic review. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged less than 18 years) about to receive or receiving chemotherapy. Search methods: Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society of Paediatric Oncology, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and ISI Science and Technology Proceedings Index from incept to December 16, 2014, and trial registries from their earliest records to December 2014. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies. We also screened the reference lists of included studies. Selection criteria: Two review authors independently screened abstracts in order to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid, or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (less than 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis. Main results: We included 34 studies that examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only. The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (27 studies). Adverse events were reported in 29 studies and nausea outcomes in 16 studies. Two studies assessed the addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT3 antagonists for complete control of vomiting (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). Three studies compared granisetron with ondansetron for complete control of acute nausea (pooled RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; 2 studies), acute vomiting (pooled RR 2.26; 95% CI 2.04 to 2.51; 3 studies), delayed nausea (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; 2 studies), and delayed vomiting (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; 2 studies). No other pooled analyses were possible. Narrative synthesis suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents, even when these agents are combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects. Authors' conclusions: Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people, and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective in patients who are to receive emetogenic chemotherapy, with granisetron or palonosetron possibly better than ondansetron. Adding dexamethasone improves control of vomiting, although the risk-benefit profile of adjunctive steroid remains uncertain.

Antiemetic medication for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting in childhood

UNLABELLED Ondansetron, a selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, is an antiemetic agent available for use in adults and children. In children receiving ondansetron (multiple 5 mg/m2 or 0.15 mg/kg intravenous and/or oral doses) in addition to chemotherapy in 2 large (n > 100) non-comparative analyses, < or =2 emetic episodes were observed in 33 and 40% of cisplatin recipients, 48 and 68% of ifosfamide recipients, and 70 and 72% of patients receiving other chemotherapeutic regimens. In comparative trials, ondansetron was significantly more effective at reducing nausea and vomiting than metoclopramide or chlorpromazine (both combined with dexamethasone), although the incidence of delayed symptoms were similar between children receiving ondansetron and metoclopramide. In addition, dexamethasone significantly improved the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron in 1 randomised trial. When used in children undergoing conditioning therapy (including total body irradiation) prior to bone marrow transplantation, ondansetron was significantly better at controlling nausea and vomiting than combined perphenazine and diphenhydramine therapy. In dose-ranging and large placebo-controlled trials, intravenous (0.075 to 0.15 mg/kg) or oral (0.1 mg/kg) ondansetron was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing emesis in children undergoing surgery associated with a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) including tonsillectomy or strabismus repair. In comparative studies, intravenous administration of ondansetron 0.1 to 0.15 mg/kg was significantly superior to droperidol 0.02 to 0.075 mg/kg or metoclopramide 0.2 to 0.25 mg/kg in preventing emesis in children undergoing various surgical procedures. In comparison with other antiemetics, including prochlorperazine and dimenhydrinate, ondansetron generally showed greater prophylactic antiemetic efficacy. Ondansetron combined with dexamethasone was significantly more effective than ondansetron or dexamethasone alone, as was the combination of ondansetron with a propofol-based anaesthetic compared with either agent alone. Ondansetron is generally well tolerated in children, rarely necessitating treatment withdrawal. The most frequently reported adverse events were mild to moderate headache, constipation and diarrhoea in patients receiving chemotherapy. Wound problems, anxiety, headache, drowsiness and pyrexia were reported most frequently in patients postsurgery. CONCLUSIONS Ondansetron has shown good efficacy in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting in children receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and/or irradiation, particularly when combined with dexamethasone. In the chemotherapy setting, ondansetron is significantly better than metoclopramide and chlorpromazine and has a more favourable tolerability profile. In children undergoing surgery, ondansetron demonstrated superior prophylactic antiemetic efficacy compared with placebo, droperidol and metoclopramide, and was relatively free of adverse events. Ondansetron is thus an effective first-line antiemetic in children undergoing chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery.

Ondansetron: a review of its use as an antiemetic in children.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a major debilitating side effect of oncology treatment despite recent advances in pharmaceutical management. Nurses who provide care to patients experiencing nausea and vomiting are often only marginally aware of the pathophysiological processes involved in the treatment. A better understanding of the science behind current interventions to reduce nausea and vomiting may help nurses use those interventions more effectively. This article reviews current knowledge about the pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. By understanding the pathophysiology behind this patient experience, gastroenterology nurses can develop a better understanding of the common symptoms of nausea and vomiting in general. When a nurse understands the complexity of factors causing nausea and vomiting, he or she will be better able to provide appropriate interventions to reduce these symptoms.

The pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

The purpose of this review of the literature was to evaluate measures of physical symptoms in children and adolescents with cancer or those having completed treatment for cancer. Objectives included identification of instruments measuring physical symptoms, a description of how symptoms were conceptualized, description of reliability and validity measures, and assessment of developmental appropriateness for the intended age groups. The electronic databases Medline, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsychLit were searched. Reports of cancer symptoms published in the English language between January 1988 and October 2003 were selected. Inclusion criteria were study samples consisting of children or adolescents with cancer and use of a tool developed for use in children or adolescents with cancer in which physical symptoms comprised a portion of the total measure. Nineteen studies met criteria for review and 23 instruments were identified. Five studies reported measures of the single symptoms of nausea and vomiting and fatigue; 9 studies reported measures of multiple symptoms. An additional 5 studies reported physical symptoms as a component of quality of life measures. Initial psychometric evaluation of these instruments demonstrates acceptable reliability and validity. Areas for future research include application of these measures in specific populations, intervention-based studies, and outcome-focused studies.

Measuring physical symptoms in children and adolescents with cancer.

Purpose/objectives To compare the efficacy of two antiemetic regimens, ondansetron alone versus perphenazine with diphenhydramine, on emesis control in children undergoing conditioning therapy for bone marrow transplantation (BMT). Design Single-center, prospective, open, randomized, crossover study. Setting Pediatric BMT unit in an urban area in the northeastern United States. Sample 28 children, ages 4-17, undergoing BMT for a variety of underlying diseases. Methods After randomization to one of the two antiemetic regimens, emesis control was evaluated during conditioning therapy. If a participant experienced more than five episodes of emesis during any 12-hour period, he or she was crossed over to the other antiemetic regimen. If emesis control still was not achieved, the participant was removed from the study and other medications were administered to control vomiting. Main research variables Number of emetic episodes and incidence of side effects. Findings 10 of 15 patients (67%) who received ondansetron experienced major emesis control (no more than two episodes) compared with 0 of 13 patients (0%) who received perphenazine with diphenhydramine (p = 0.044, Fisher exact test). Of those who crossed over to ondansetron after failure with perphenazine and diphenhydramine, 38% were able to achieve major emesis control. Conclusions Ondansetron offers superior antiemetic control over the combination of perphenazine and diphenhydramine for children undergoing high-dose chemotherapy with or without total body irradiation for BMT. Implications for nursing practice Oncology nurses must develop an understanding of the etiology of therapy-induced emesis and the mechanisms of action of the various classes of antiemetic agents designed to control it. Implementing documentation to describe events of emesis will help to tailor antiemetic therapy to a patient's specific situation. Further research is necessary to determine alternate strategies, including different combinations or sequences of antiemetics to provide optimum emetic control during acute and delayed phases of emesis. The higher cost of ondansetron therapy must be considered within the context of superior efficacy.

Controlling conditioning-related emesis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

C M Reed

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Controlling conditioning-related emesis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation