Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25127659›Full record

Trial reportBMC pharmacology & toxicology2014

Palonosetron versus ondansetron as rescue medication for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, multicenter, open-label study.

Keith A Candiotti, Syed Raza Ahmed, David Cox, Tong J Gan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00967499 (A Multi-Center, Open-Label, 2-Arm, Randomized, Stratified, Parallel, Pilot Study to Assess Palonosetron vs. Ondansetron as Rescue Medication in Subjects That Develop Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00967499 phase2completednot on this map

A Multi-Center, Open-Label, 2-Arm, Randomized, Stratified, Parallel, Pilot Study to Assess Palonosetron vs. Ondansetron as Rescue Medication in Subjects That Develop Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) in the Postanesthesia Care Unit (PACU)

TypeinterventionalSponsorEisai Inc.Ran2009 to 2009Enrolled239ConditionsPostoperative Nausea and VomitingArmsOndansetron, Palonosetron
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Keith A CandiottiUniversity of Miami-Jackson Memorial Hospital, 1611 NW 12th Avenue, Room 300, 33136 Miami, FL, USA. KCandiot@med.miami.edu.
Syed Raza Ahmed
David Cox
Tong J Gan
Becton Dickinson (United States) · USDuke Medical Center · USEisai (United States) · USUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study compared palonosetron and ondansetron as rescue medications for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients who received prophylactic ondansetron. Although guidelines recommend use of an agent from a different class when prophylaxis has failed, palonosetron has unique properties relative to other serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Prior trials assessing its use for rescue have had conflicting results. Although palonosetron has compared favorably with ondansetron for PONV prevention, the drugs have not been compared in the rescue setting of failure of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist prophylaxis.

methodsThis was a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravenous palonosetron 0.075 mg and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg in patients experiencing PONV following laparoscopic abdominal or gynecological surgery despite prophylactic ondansetron.

resultsOf 239 patients screened, 220 were enrolled and 98 were treated for PONV: 48 and 50 in the palonosetron and ondansetron arms, respectively. Complete control during 72 hours after study drug administration was achieved in 25.0% of palonosetron recipients and 18.0% of ondansetron recipients (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.2, 23.3; p = 0.40). Corresponding incidences of vomiting were 29.2% for palonosetron and 48.0% for ondansetron (95% CI, -0.06, 37.7; p = 0.057), and 62.5% and 56.0% required additional rescue treatment, respectively (95% CI, -25.9, 12.9; p = 0.52). Other than a similar incidence of procedural pain in the 2 groups, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, which were generally mild, were headache (14.6% vs 12.0%), constipation (8.3% vs 10.0%), and dizziness (6.3% vs 8.0%), for the palonosetron and ondansetron groups, respectively.

conclusionsPalonosetron and ondansetron did not show differences in the primary efficacy endpoint of CC during the 72 hours after study drug administration. There was a trend toward less emesis in the 0-72 h time period favoring palonosetron. While larger studies are needed to fully assess any clinical benefits of palonosetron to rescue patients who have failed ondansetron prophylaxis for PONV, the benefit, if any, would be limited based on this study.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00967499 (Registered August 27, 2009).

Indexed as

AdultAntiemeticsFemaleHumansIsoquinolinesMaleMiddle AgedOndansetronPalonosetronPostoperative Nausea and VomitingQuinuclidinesAntiemeticsIsoquinolinesOndansetronPalonosetronQuinuclidines

Identifiers

PMID25127659
PMCPMC4152758
OpenAlexW1972721647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.