1983
DOI: 10.1016/0277-5379(83)90032-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A randomised multicentre single blind comparison of a cannabinoid anti-emetic (Levonantradol) with chlorpromazine in patients receiving their first cytotoxic chemotherapy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0
1

Year Published

1989
1989
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
14
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the only parallel group trial that reported preference as an end point,45 78% of the patients who had received chlorpromazine and 58% of those who had received levonantradol wished to receive the same drug for future chemotherapy cycles. This difference that was not significant (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.09).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the only parallel group trial that reported preference as an end point,45 78% of the patients who had received chlorpromazine and 58% of those who had received levonantradol wished to receive the same drug for future chemotherapy cycles. This difference that was not significant (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.09).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given intramuscularly at standard doses (100 mg total dose), CLP was better than placebo [15] and equally as effective as droperidol (6 mg/m2) [15], MCP (5 mg/kg) [16] or levonantadrol [17] in controlling emesis induced by cytotoxic regimens with and with out cisplatin. A high rate of sedation with no extrapyramidal reactions was also observed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another THC analogue, levonantradol, has both anti-emetic and powerful analgesic properties. It was effective in the treatment of post surgical pain (Jain et al, 1981), and as an antiemetic in cancer patients (Cronin et al, 1981;Hutcheon et al, 1983;Stambaugh et al, 1984). However, adverse events were common, and sometimes severe and dose limiting (Cronin et al, 1981;Hutcheon et al, 1983), thus the drug was judged unacceptable and the programme was dropped (Dr K. Koe quoted in (Iversen, 2000)).…”
Section: Licensed Formulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%