Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial.
- Publisher:
- BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- BMJ open, 2019, 9, (9)
- Issue Date:
- 2019-09-12
Open Access
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
Full metadata record
Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Hardy, JR | |
dc.contributor.author | Skerman, H | |
dc.contributor.author | Philip, J | |
dc.contributor.author |
Good, P https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8198-0375 |
|
dc.contributor.author | Currow, DC | |
dc.contributor.author | Mitchell, G | |
dc.contributor.author | Yates, P | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-07-22T08:02:06Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-07-22T08:02:06Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019-09-12 | |
dc.identifier.citation | BMJ open, 2019, 9, (9) | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2044-6055 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2044-6055 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10453/149915 | |
dc.description.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. | |
dc.format | Electronic | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.publisher | BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP | |
dc.relation | http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/614247 | |
dc.relation.ispartof | BMJ open | |
dc.relation.isbasedon | 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029942 | |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.subject | 1103 Clinical Sciences, 1117 Public Health and Health Services, 1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences | |
dc.subject.mesh | Humans | |
dc.subject.mesh | Neoplasms | |
dc.subject.mesh | Nausea | |
dc.subject.mesh | Haloperidol | |
dc.subject.mesh | Methotrimeprazine | |
dc.subject.mesh | Antiemetics | |
dc.subject.mesh | Glucocorticoids | |
dc.subject.mesh | Drug Monitoring | |
dc.subject.mesh | Treatment Outcome | |
dc.subject.mesh | Drug Therapy, Combination | |
dc.subject.mesh | Palliative Care | |
dc.subject.mesh | Drug Administration Schedule | |
dc.subject.mesh | Double-Blind Method | |
dc.subject.mesh | Dose-Response Relationship, Drug | |
dc.subject.mesh | Middle Aged | |
dc.subject.mesh | Female | |
dc.subject.mesh | Male | |
dc.subject.mesh | Antiemetics | |
dc.subject.mesh | Dose-Response Relationship, Drug | |
dc.subject.mesh | Double-Blind Method | |
dc.subject.mesh | Drug Administration Schedule | |
dc.subject.mesh | Drug Monitoring | |
dc.subject.mesh | Drug Therapy, Combination | |
dc.subject.mesh | Female | |
dc.subject.mesh | Glucocorticoids | |
dc.subject.mesh | Haloperidol | |
dc.subject.mesh | Humans | |
dc.subject.mesh | Male | |
dc.subject.mesh | Methotrimeprazine | |
dc.subject.mesh | Middle Aged | |
dc.subject.mesh | Nausea | |
dc.subject.mesh | Neoplasms | |
dc.subject.mesh | Palliative Care | |
dc.subject.mesh | Treatment Outcome | |
dc.title | Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial. | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
utslib.citation.volume | 9 | |
utslib.location.activity | England | |
utslib.for | 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis | |
utslib.for | 1115 Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences | |
utslib.for | 1103 Clinical Sciences | |
utslib.for | 1117 Public Health and Health Services | |
utslib.for | 1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences | |
pubs.organisational-group | /University of Technology Sydney | |
pubs.organisational-group | /University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health | |
pubs.organisational-group | /University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/IMPACCT | |
utslib.copyright.status | open_access | * |
pubs.consider-herdc | false | |
dc.date.updated | 2021-07-22T08:02:01Z | |
pubs.issue | 9 | |
pubs.publication-status | Published | |
pubs.volume | 9 | |
utslib.citation.issue | 9 |
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.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Download statistics for the last 12 months
Not enough data to produce graph