Effectiveness of orally administered maropitant and ondansetron in preventing preoperative emesis and nausea in healthy dogs premedicated with a combination of hydromorphone, acepromazine, and glycopyrrolate

OBJECTIVE To compare effectiveness of maropitant and ondansetron in preventing preoperative vomiting and nausea in healthy dogs premedicated with a combination of hydromorphone, acepromazine, and glycopyrrolate. ANIMALS 88 dogs owned by rescue organizations. PROCEDURES Dogs received maropitant (n = 29) or ondansetron (28) PO 2 hours prior to premedication or did not receive an antiemetic (31; control). Dogs were evaluated for vomiting, nausea, and severity of nausea (scored for 6 signs) for 15 minutes following premedication with hydromorphone, acepromazine, and glycopyrrolate. RESULTS A significantly lower percentage of dogs vomited after receiving maropitant (3/29 [10%]), compared with control dogs (19/31 [62%]) and dogs that received ondansetron (15/28 [54%]). A significantly lower percentage of dogs appeared nauseated after receiving maropitant (3/29 [10%]), compared with control dogs (27/31 [87%]) and dogs that received ondansetron (14/28 [50%]), and a significantly lower percentage of dogs appeared nauseated after receiving ondansetron, compared with control dogs. Nausea severity scores for hypersalivation, lip licking, hard swallowing, and hunched posture were significantly lower for dogs that received maropitant than for control dogs, and scores for hypersalivation, lip licking, and hard swallowing were significantly lower for dogs that received ondansetron than for control dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Oral administration of maropitant 2 hours prior to premedication with hydromorphone reduced the incidence of vomiting and the incidence and severity of nausea in healthy dogs. Oral administration of ondansetron reduced the incidence and severity of nausea but not the incidence of vomiting.

Smartphone App to Self-Monitor Nausea During Pediatric Chemotherapy Treatment: User-Centered Design Process

Background Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects for children receiving chemotherapy. Limited evidence is available to guide antiemetic recommendations; therefore, prospective and reliable evaluation of antiemetic efficacy is needed. Smartphone apps can be used to effortlessly and precisely collect patient-reported outcomes in real time. Objective Our objective was to develop a smartphone app to monitor nausea and vomiting episodes in pediatric cancer patients aged 0 to 18 years and to test its usability and adherence to its use. Methods We used a user-centered design process and the evolutionary prototype model to develop and evaluate the app. Multidisciplinary group discussions and several rounds of patient feedback and modification were conducted. We translated the validated Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool to assess nausea severity in children aged 4 to 18 years. The child’s own term for nausea was interactively incorporated in the nausea severity question, with response options expressed as 4 illustrative faces. Parent-reported outcomes were used for children aged 0 to 3 years. Reminders were sent using push notifications in order to ensure high response rates. Children aged 0 to 18 years who were undergoing chemotherapy were recruited from the Department of Pediatric Oncology at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet to evaluate the app. Results The app’s most important function was to record nausea severity in children. After assistance from a researcher, children aged 4 to 18 years were able to report their symptoms in the app, and parents were able to report symptoms for their children aged 0 to 3 years. Children (n=20, aged 2.0-17.5 years) and their parents evaluated the app prospectively during a collective total of 60 chemotherapy cycles. They expressed that the app was user-friendly, intuitive, and that the time spent on data entry was fair. The response rates were on average 92%, 93%, and 80% for the day before, the first day of, and the next 3 days after chemotherapy, respectively. Researchers and clinicians were able to obtain an overview of the patient’s chemotherapy dates and responses through a secure and encrypted web-based administrative portal. Data could be downloaded for further analysis. Conclusions The user-friendly app could be used to facilitate future pediatric antiemetic trials and to refine antiemetic treatment during chemotherapy.

Smartphone App to Self-Monitor Nausea During Pediatric Chemotherapy Treatment: User-Centered Design Process (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects for children receiving chemotherapy. Limited evidence is available to guide antiemetic recommendations; therefore, prospective and reliable evaluation of antiemetic efficacy is needed. Smartphone apps can be used to effortlessly and precisely collect patient-reported outcomes in real time. OBJECTIVE Our objective was to develop a smartphone app to monitor nausea and vomiting episodes in pediatric cancer patients aged 0 to 18 years and to test its usability and adherence to its use. METHODS We used a user-centered design process and the evolutionary prototype model to develop and evaluate the app. Multidisciplinary group discussions and several rounds of patient feedback and modification were conducted. We translated the validated Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool to assess nausea severity in children aged 4 to 18 years. The child’s own term for nausea was interactively incorporated in the nausea severity question, with response options expressed as 4 illustrative faces. Parent-reported outcomes were used for children aged 0 to 3 years. Reminders were sent using push notifications in order to ensure high response rates. Children aged 0 to 18 years who were undergoing chemotherapy were recruited from the Department of Pediatric Oncology at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet to evaluate the app. RESULTS The app’s most important function was to record nausea severity in children. After assistance from a researcher, children aged 4 to 18 years were able to report their symptoms in the app, and parents were able to report symptoms for their children aged 0 to 3 years. Children (n=20, aged 2.0-17.5 years) and their parents evaluated the app prospectively during a collective total of 60 chemotherapy cycles. They expressed that the app was user-friendly, intuitive, and that the time spent on data entry was fair. The response rates were on average 92%, 93%, and 80% for the day before, the first day of, and the next 3 days after chemotherapy, respectively. Researchers and clinicians were able to obtain an overview of the patient’s chemotherapy dates and responses through a secure and encrypted web-based administrative portal. Data could be downloaded for further analysis. CONCLUSIONS The user-friendly app could be used to facilitate future pediatric antiemetic trials and to refine antiemetic treatment during chemotherapy.

Dose-Ranging Study of Ramosetron for the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study

Patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery and receiving postoperative analgesia with opioids have a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We compared the antiemetic efficacy of three doses of ramosetron in this high-risk population. In this prospective, double-blind trial, 174 patients randomly received ramosetron 0.3 mg (R0.3 group; n = 58), 0.45 mg (R0.45 group; n = 58), or 0.6 mg (R0.6 group; n = 58) at the end of surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first postoperative 48 h. Nausea severity, pain scores, adverse events, and patient satisfaction (1–4; 4, excellent) were assessed. The incidence of PONV was not different between groups (35%, 38%, and 35% in R0.3, R0.45, and R0.6 groups; p = 0.905). Nausea severity, pain scores, and incidence of adverse events (dizziness, headache, or sedation) were similar between groups. Compared to the R0.3 group, the R0.45 and R0.6 groups had lower incidence of premature discontinuation of fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia primarily because of intractable PONV (9% and 5% vs. 24%; p = 0.038), and higher satisfaction scores (3.4 ± 0.8 and 3.3 ± 0.7 vs. 2.4 ± 0.9; p = 0.005). Compared to ramosetron 0.3 mg, ramosetron 0.45 and 0.6 mg did not reduce PONV, but reduced premature discontinuation of patient-controlled analgesia and increased patient satisfaction, without increasing adverse events.

P29 A smartphone application to monitor nausea in pediatric cancer patients during chemotherapy

BackgroundNausea is a common and distressing side effect for children in chemotherapy. Antiemetic recommendations are based on limited literature and prospective evaluation of antiemetic efficacy is required. Smartphone applications (apps) may collect patient-reported outcomes with precision and effectiveness1. We developed a smartphone app to track nausea in pediatric cancer patients during chemotherapy.MethodsMedical researchers, pediatric oncologists and software engineers worked synergistically in the development. We translated the validated Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool to score nausea severity2. We conducted three rounds of patient-feedback and modification.ResultsThe app has a definition module where the child centers the attention to the concept of nausea. The child can then express nausea severity with four faces and the child’s own definition of nausea is incorporated in the question2. The app includes a notification system to ensure high response rates. All participants felt that the app was user-friendly, intuitive and that time spent was acceptable.ConclusionThe app is a user-friendly tool to assess nausea in pediatric cancer patients that can ease future pediatric antiemetic trials.ReferencesStone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, et al. Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries. Control Clin Trials 2003 Apr;24(2):182–99.Dupuis LL, Taddio A, Kerr EN, et al. Development and validation of the pediatric nausea assessment tool for use in children receiving antineoplastic agents. Pharmacotherapy 2006;26:1221–31.Disclosure(s)Nothing to disclose