These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effective control of CMF-related emesis with high-dose dexamethasone: results of a double-blind crossover trial with metoclopramide and placebo.
    Author: Pollera CF, Nardi M, Marolla P, Pinnaró P, Terzoli E, Giannarelli D.
    Journal: Am J Clin Oncol; 1989 Dec; 12(6):524-9. PubMed ID: 2589233.
    Abstract:
    To establish the antiemetic activity of both dexamethasone (DXM) and metoclopramide (MCP) in patients receiving i.v. cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF), 25 women with stage II breast cancer were entered into this study. A randomized, double-blind, crossover design was employed to evaluate DXM (24 mg in 5 doses) versus MCP (1 mg/kg as a single dose) versus a combination of both drugs (as above) or placebo (PLC). The patients were requested to complete a questionnaire evaluating the antiemetic effect. All but one patient completed the planned antiemetic program during the first four CMF courses. As compared to PLC, both the DXM-MCP combination and DXM alone provided a higher complete antiemetic protection rate (p = 0.01 and p = 0.006, respectively). The DXM regimens were more effective than both PLC (p = 0.004 and p = 0.01) and MCP (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006) in reducing the prevalence of severe vomiting. As compared to MCP, the DXM regimens provided a better control of the nausea (p less than 0.04 and p less than 0.01) and reduced both the episodes and the duration of vomiting (p less than 0.02 and p less than 0.05). The DXM regimens were also associated with a better patient opinion than the PLC (p less than 0.002 and p less than 0.0002). No significant differences were found between MCP and PLC, nor between the DXM regimens. Except for two dystonic reactions, MCP-related toxicity was mild, whereas that induced by DXM was negligible in patients with no contraindications to corticosteroids. As employed in this study, DXM provided safe and effective antiemetic protection for patients receiving adjuvant i.v. CMF. Data available do not support the use of a short-course MCP, either alone or in combination with DXM. The search for better antiemetic treatments is mandatory, especially for patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. To date, we recommend the use of DXM as a standard regimen and as a control for further studies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]