Effectiveness of levosulpiride versus metoclopramide for nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer patients: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study

Levosulpiride and Ramosetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Double-blind Study

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be common complication of anesthesia and surgery in spite of availability of so many antiemetic drugs and regimens for prevention. This study compared Ramosetron and Levosulpiride in terms of efficacy for PONV prevention after laparoscopic surgery.

Aim

To compare the efficacy of intravenous (i.v.) Levosulpiride 25 mg with i.v. Ramosetron 0.3 mg in preventing PONV.

Setting

S. D. M. College of Medical Sciences and Hospital, Sattur, Dharwad from November 2018 to June 2020.

Design

It is a prospective randomized double-blind study.

Statistical Analysis

All the data were collected, tabulated, and expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 22.0 Evaluation version). Unpaired sample t-test and Chi-square test have been used for the quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically insignificant.

Materials and Methods

This prospective randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 200 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery falling under the inclusion criteria are numbered and every nth patient selected by systemic random sampling procedure and allocated into two groups of 100 each, group Levosulpiride (Group L) and group Ramosetron (group R) study drugs givenwithin 30 min induction of anesthesia. Group L will receive LEVOSULPIRIDE 25 mg i.v. Group R will receive RAMOSETRON 0.3 mg i.v.

Results

The incidence of vomiting in the Levosulpiride group and in the Ramosetron groupduring 0-4 h (20% vs. 30%, P = 0.1110), 4-8 h (4% vs. 5%, P = 0.7450), 8-12 h (5% vs. 4% P = 0.7210) and 12-24 h (0% vs. 0%). The incidence of nausea and overall PONV and the use of rescue antiemetic was not significantly different during all time intervals. The severity of nausea was not different between the two groups. Difference in the efficacy of Levosulpiride and Ramosetron was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05) in the prevention of PONV.

Conclusion

Levosulpiride 25 mg or Ramosetron 0.3 mg given intravenously to prevent PONV inpatients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia are equally effective in controlling PONV.

MASCC antiemetics in advanced cancer updated guideline

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are a common clinical symptom in the advanced cancer patient. Pharmacologic management is important. Evidence for drug choices and guidelines are needed to help clinicians manage nausea and vomiting in this population METHODS: Evidence from a systematic review published in 2010, initial MASCC guidelines developed from a systematic review of literature to 2015, and a new systematic review of randomized trials published between 2015 and February 2, 2021, was combined to establish a new guideline.

RESULTS

A search of the literature between 2015 and February 2, 2021, revealed 257 abstracts of which there was one systematic review and 4 randomized trials which were used to modify the guideline. The new guideline is as follows: First Line: Metoclopramide (II) multiple small RCTs including a placebo-controlled trial, haloperidol (II) multiple non-placebo-controlled RCTs, high consensus. Second line: Methotrimeprazine (II) 1 well-powered non-placebo-controlled RCT, olanzapine (II) 1 placebo-controlled pilot RCT, high consensus. Third line: Tropisetron (II) large unblinded lower quality non-placebo-controlled RCT, levosulpiride (II) 1 blinded non-placebo-controlled pilot RCT, high consensus.

DISCUSSION

Haloperidol, metoclopramide, methotrimeprazine, olanzapine tropisetron, and levosulpiride have been antiemetics used in randomized trials with antiemetic activity demonstrated. There are only three placebo-controlled randomized trials we could find in our literature review. Placebo responses varied significantly between two randomized trials. More randomized placebo-controlled trials with either metoclopramide or haloperidol rescue are needed to clarify antiemetic choices in advanced cancer.

CONCLUSION

First-line antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer are metoclopramide and haloperidol, and second-line medications are methotrimeprazine and olanzapine.

Evidence-Based Palliative Care 13 Years On: Has anything changed?

There is a paucity of data on whether interventions in individual palliative care units are evidence-based. Thirteen years ago an initial study evaluated the evidence base of interventions in palliative care. Using similar methodology in the present study, we evaluated the evidence for interventions performed in an inpatient palliative care setting, looking at level of evidence as well as quality and outcome of evidence. More than half of all the interventions (47 interventions, 59 percent) we looked at in a Brisbane, Australia, inpatient palliative care setting were based on a high level of evidence in the form of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (level I or level II). There were only a few interventions (10 percent) for which no evidence could be retrieved. Our results show that the evidence base for interventions in palliative care continues to evolve, but that there are still areas for which further high-quality studies are needed.

Pregnancy outcomes in women reporting ingestion of levosulpiride in early pregnancy

This study aimed to evaluate pregnancy outcomes of women who were inadvertently exposed to levosulpiride in early pregnancy. All 162 consecutive singleton pregnant women counselled through the Korean Motherisk Program, Cheil General Hospital, between April 2001 and April 2014, on teratogenic risk after inadvertent exposure to levosulpiride in early pregnancy were enrolled in this study. The women were exposed to levosulpiride at median 4.8 gestational weeks. The rate of miscarriage was not significantly different between groups (9.2% in those exposed and 5.5% in the non-exposed; p = .084). The rate of major malformations was not significantly different between exposed (2.7%) and non-exposed pregnancies (4.4%) (p = .481). All other pregnancy outcomes between the two groups were comparable (p > .05). Our data suggest that levosulpiride causes no significant adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes and therefore may be not a major teratogen.

Efficacy and Safety of Levosulpiride Versus Haloperidol Injection in Patients With Acute Psychosis: A Randomized Double-Blind Study

BACKGROUND

Injectable antipsychotics are frequently required for controlling agitation and aggression in acute psychosis. No study has examined the use of injectable levosulpiride for this indication.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of injectable levosulpiride and haloperidol in patients with acute psychosis.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in which 60 drug-naive patients having acute psychosis were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular haloperidol (10-20 mg/d) or levosulpiride (25-50 mg/d) for 5 days. All patients were rated on Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Overt Agitation Severity Scale (OASS), Overt Aggression Scale-Modified (OAS-M) scores, Simpson Angus Scale (SAS), and Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS).

RESULTS

Repeated-measures ANOVA for BPRS scores showed significant effect of time (P < 0.001) and a trend toward greater reduction in scores in haloperidol group as shown by group × time interaction (P = 0.076). Repeated-measures ANOVA for OASS showed significant effect of time (P < 0.001) but no group × time interaction. Repeated-measures ANOVA for OAS-M scores showed significant effect of time (P < 0.001) and greater reduction in scores in haloperidol group as shown by group × time interaction (P = 0.032). Lorazepam requirement was much lower in haloperidol group as compared with those receiving levosulpiride (P = 0.022). Higher rates of akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms were noted in the haloperidol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol was more effective than levosulpiride injection for psychotic symptoms, aggression, and severity of agitation in acute psychosis, but extrapyramidal adverse effects were less frequent with levosulpiride as compared with those receiving haloperidol.

How are palliative care cancer populations characterized in randomized controlled trials? A literature review

CONTEXT

The difficulties in defining a palliative care patient accentuate the need to provide stringent descriptions of the patient population in palliative care research.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying which key variables have been used to describe adult palliative care cancer populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The data sources used were MEDLINE (1950 to January 25, 2010) and Embase (1980 to January 25, 2010), limited to RCTs in adult cancer patients with incurable disease. Forty-three variables were systematically extracted from the eligible articles.

RESULTS

The review includes 336 articles reporting RCTs in palliative care cancer patients. Age (98%), gender (90%), cancer diagnosis (89%), performance status (45%), and survival (45%) were the most frequently reported variables. A large number of other variables were much less frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial variation exists in how palliative care cancer populations are described in RCTs. Few variables are consistently registered and reported. There is a clear need to standardize the reporting. The results from this work will serve as the basis for an international Delphi process with the aim of reaching consensus on a minimum set of descriptors to characterize a palliative care cancer population.

[Treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients : a review]

BACKGROUND

Many recommendations concerning the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients exist but what is the evidence for this? Most studies dealing with this topic have focused on cancer patients under chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy or on patients with postoperative nausea. Cancer patients without chemotherapy or radiation therapy, patients without postoperative nausea, and patients having other diseases with palliative care aspects, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), progressive heart failure, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and multiple sclerosis (MS) have been underrepresented in studies on nausea and vomiting so far.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine the level of evidence for the treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients suffering from far advanced cancer and no longer being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, AIDS, COPD, progressive heart failure, ALS or MS.

METHODS

Two different electronic databases (PubMed und Embase) were used to identify studies. Furthermore, a hand search for related articles was performed. No restriction was made concerning study types. Studies with patients undergoing chemotherapy radiation therapy or suffering from postoperative nausea, pediatric studies and studies published neither in English nor in German were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were found. All studies focused on cancer patients. Despite intensive research studies in patients with AIDS, COPD, heart failure, ALS or MS were not detected. Metoclopramide is seen as an effective drug in many studies whereas the evidence for it is moderate at best. Within the group of neuroleptics, levosupiride and levomepromazine seem to have good antiemetic potential but the evidence level is low.

CONCLUSION

In patients with advanced cancer not being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, metoclopramide can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting. Neuroleptics, such as levosulpiride or levomepromazine are alternatives but their adverse effects have to be considered carefully. The evidence level for prokinetics and neuroleptics is moderate to low. Concerning palliative care of patients with diseases other than cancer no studies exist. More well designed studies in palliative care patients are needed in order to facilitate evidence based antiemetic therapy. The English full text version of this article will be available in SpringerLink as of November 2012 (under "Supplemental").

Treating nausea and vomiting in palliative care: a review

Nausea and vomiting are portrayed in the specialist palliative care literature as common and distressing symptoms affecting the majority of patients with advanced cancer and other life-limiting illnesses. However, recent surveys indicate that these symptoms may be less common and bothersome than has previously been reported. The standard palliative care approach to the assessment and treatment of nausea and vomiting is based on determining the cause and then relating this back to the "emetic pathway" before prescribing drugs such as dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, and anticholinergic agents which block neurotransmitters at different sites along the pathway. However, the evidence base for the effectiveness of this approach is meager, and may be in part because relevance of the neuropharmacology of the emetic pathway to palliative care patients is limited. Many palliative care patients are over the age of 65 years, making these agents difficult to use. Greater awareness of drug interactions and QT(c) prolongation are emerging concerns for all age groups. The selective serotonin receptor antagonists are the safest antiemetics, but are not used first-line in many countries because there is very little scientific rationale or clinical evidence to support their use outside the licensed indications. Cannabinoids may have an increasing role. Advances in interventional gastroenterology are increasing the options for nonpharmacological management. Despite these emerging issues, the approach to nausea and vomiting developed within palliative medicine over the past 40 years remains relevant. It advocates careful clinical evaluation of the symptom and the person suffering it, and an understanding of the clinical pharmacology of medicines that are available for palliating them.

Management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: systematic review and evidence-based recommendations

The objectives were to review the existing literature on management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients and summarize the findings into evidence-based recommendations. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed, using free text and MeSH/EMTREE search terms. The searches were limited to articles published in English from each database set-up date to 31 July 2009. Reference lists and relevant international conference proceedings were hand-searched. Fifty-five studies were identified, providing data on 5741 patients. The studies were classified into: (A) studies in which treatment of nausea/vomiting was the primary outcome (a total of 18 studies, of which eight studies specifically addressed opioid-induced emesis); and (B) studies in which nausea/vomiting were secondary or tertiary outcomes (37 studies). The existing evidence had several limitations, there was a lack of consistency and the overall quality was grade D. By applying the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system, three weak recommendations were formulated. The current evidence is too limited to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics for opioid-induced nausea or vomiting in cancer patients. The evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving an opioid might be reduced by changing the opioid or opioid administration route. The evidence was also too limited to prioritize between symptomatic treatment and adjustment of the opioid treatment.

Effects of metoclopramide on emesis in cats sedated with xylazine hydrochloride

The prophylactic anti-emetic effect of five dosages of metoclopramide (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1 mg/kg, IM) was evaluated against saline solution, both injected 1 h before administration of xylazine in cats. Saline was administered to cats (day 0) followed by sequentially increasing dosages of metoclopramide at 1-week intervals. After xylazine injection, all cats were carefully observed to record the frequency of emesis and the time until onset of the first emetic episode. The onset of sedation in these cats was also studied. Prior treatment with each dosage of metoclopramide significantly reduced the frequency of emetic episodes (P<0.05). Metoclopramide administration prior to xylazine injection did not alter the time until onset of the first emetic episode at any of mentioned dosages, but significantly reduced the time until onset of sedation only at the dose of 1 mg/kg. Metoclopramide may be used as a prophylactic anti-emetic in cats sedated with xylazine hydrochloride.

A systematic review of the treatment of nausea and/or vomiting in cancer unrelated to chemotherapy or radiation

CONTEXT

A systematic review of antiemetics for emesis in cancer unrelated to chemotherapy and radiation is an important step in establishing treatment recommendations and guiding future research. Therefore, a systematic review based on the question "What is the evidence that supports antiemetic choices in advanced cancer?" guided this review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of evidence for antiemtrics in the management of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer unrelated to chemotherapy and radiation, and to discover gaps in the evidence, which would provide important areas for future research.

METHODS

Three databases and independent searches using different MeSH terms were performed. Related links were searched and hand searches of related articles were made. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective single-drug studies, studies that used guidelines based on the etiology of emesis, cohort studies, retrospective studies, and case series or single-patient reports. Studies that involved treatment of chemotherapy, radiation, or postoperation-related emesis were excluded. Studies that involved the treatment of emesis related to bowel obstruction were included. The strength of evidence was graded as follows: 1) RCTs, A; 2) single-drug prospective studies, B1; 3) studies based on multiple drug choices for etiology of emesis, B2; and 4) cohort, case series, retrospective, and single-patient reports, E. Level of evidence was determined by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001) (A, B, C, D).

RESULTS

Ninety-three articles were found. Fourteen were RCTs, most of them of low quality, based either on lack of blinding, lack of description of the method of randomization, concealment, and/or attrition. Metoclopramide had modest evidence (B) based on RCTs and prospective cohort studies. Octreotide, dexamethasone, and hyoscine butylbromide are effective in reducing symptoms of bowel obstruction, based on prospective studies and/or one RCT. There was no evidence that either multiple antiemetics or antiemetic choices based on the etiology of emesis were any better than a single antiemetic. There is poor evidence for dose response, intraclass or interclass drug switch, or antiemetic combinations in those individuals failing to respond to the initial antiemetic.

CONCLUSION

There are discrepancies between antiemetic studies and published antiemetic guidelines, which are largely based on expert opinion. Antiemetic recommendations have moderate to weak evidence at best. Prospective randomized trials of single antiemetics are needed to properly establish evidence-based guidelines.

Nausea and Vomiting in Advanced Cancer

Nausea and vomiting are relatively common in advanced cancer and is dreaded more than pain by patients. The history, pattern of nausea and vomiting, associated symptoms, and physical examination provides clues as to etiology and may guide therapy. Continuous severe nausea unrelieved by vomiting is usually caused by medications or metabolic abnormalities, while nausea relieved by vomiting or induced by eating is usually due to gastroparesis, gastric outlet obstruction, or small bowel obstruction. Drug choices are empiric or based on etiology. Metoclopramide has the greatest evidence for efficacy followed by phenothiazines and tropisetron. Corticosteroids have not been effective in randomized trials except in the case of bowel obstruction. Treatment of nausea unresponsive to first-line medications involves rotation to medications which bind to multiple receptors (broad-spectrum antiemetics), the addition of another antiemetic to a narrow-spectrum antiemetic (a serotonin receptor antagonist such as tropisetron to a phenothiazine), rotation to a different class of antiemetic (tropisetron for a phenothiazine), or in-class drug rotation. Venting gastrostomy, octreotide, and corticosteroids will reduce nausea and vomiting associated with malignant bowel obstruction.

Treatment of nausea and vomiting in terminally ill cancer patients

Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing symptom complex in patients with far-advanced cancer, affecting up to 60% of individuals at some stage of their illness. The current approach to the palliative care of patients with nausea and vomiting is based on identifying the cause, understanding its pathophysiology and knowing the pharmacology of the drugs available for its amelioration. The following six main syndromes are identified: gastric stasis, biochemical, raised intracranial pressure, vestibular, mechanical bowel obstruction and ileus. A careful history, focused physical examination and appropriate investigations are needed to elucidate the syndrome and its cause, so that therapy is rational. Drugs are the mainstay of treatment in terminal cancer, and the main classes of antiemetic agents are prokinetics, dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, anticholinergics and serotonin antagonists. Dexamethasone and octreotide are also used, especially in bowel obstruction. Non-drug measures are important in relieving the associated distress. Patients should be able to die comfortably, without tubes. Despite decades of practice affirming this approach, the evidence base is weak and well designed studies are urgently needed.

How should we measure emesis in palliative care?

There are many assessment tools available to measure emesis. This Association for Palliative Medicine Science Committee Task Group undertook a review of the validity and suitability of the assessment tools available to measure nausea, vomiting and retching within a palliative care population. Electronic databases were searched from 1970 to 2004. Both specific and global tools were identified and reviewed for their validity, reliability and suitability for our patient population where coexisting cognitive impairment and significant co-morbidities may make accurate assessment of symptoms difficult. Within specific palliative care scenarios namely daily clinical assessment, prevalence surveys and randomized controlled trial settings, the team reached a consensus on which tools had the greatest evidence to recommend them, either for immediate use or for further validation studies. An ideal measurement tool for the assessment of nausea, vomiting and retching has not yet been developed.

An open study of methotrimeprazine in the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced cancer

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms affecting between 20% and 70% of patients with advanced cancer. Methotrimeprazine is a phenothiazine antipsychotic used in palliative care for the management of terminal agitation and nausea/vomiting but there is only anecdotal evidence to support its use in palliative care.

AIM

To establish whether nausea/vomiting in palliative care patients is improved by the administration of low-dose methotrimeprazine.

METHODS

Patients with advanced malignancy were entered at different treatment levels according to symptom severity. The dose was altered according to response (minimum dose 6.25 mg daily po, maximum 25 mg by 24-h subcutaneous infusion). Symptoms and side effects were recorded daily from 0 (baseline) to day 5 using a four-point scale. Any improvement in nausea/vomiting score was taken as a response.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were entered. The cause of nausea and vomiting was multifactorial in the majority of patients, 35/65 (54%). As expected in a study of patients with poor performance status, the attrition rate was high. Of 53 patients evaluable for response at day 2, 33 (62%) showed some improvement in nausea or vomiting. At day 5, improvement was seen in 20/34 (58%). There was no significant change in "side effects" from baseline with time.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that methotrimeprazine has antiemetic activity.

Effect of acute and chronic levosulpiride administration on gastric tone and perception in functional dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Altered visceral perception is common in functional dyspepsia (FD). Dopaminergic pathways control gastrointestinal motility, but whether they modulate visceral sensitivity is unknown.

AIM

To investigate whether levosulpiride, a D2 antagonist, modulates gastric sensitivity and compliance in dyspeptic patients.

METHODS

Eight healthy subjects and 16 dyspeptic patients underwent graded gastric distensions using a tensostat. In dyspeptic patients the same isotonic distensions were repeated during either levosulpiride or saline administration. Eight FD patients were evaluated after 4-week treatment with oral levosulpiride. Gastrointestinal symptoms were evaluated using a 100 mm visual analogue score. Perception was scored on a scale of 0 to 6.

RESULTS

Although healthy subjects and FD patients had similar gastric compliance, FD patients tolerated lower tension levels. At the same distending tension levels, levosulpiride decreased gastric compliance and perception score (14 +/- 6% and 38 +/- 10% change, respectively; P < 0.05 vs. saline) only in FD patients. Isotonic distensions exhibited very reproducible perception. Chronic levosulpiride administration significantly reduced dyspeptic symptoms and increased discomfort threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with healthy subjects, FD patients show marked gastric hypersensitivity. In FD patients levosulpiride decreased the perception of gastric distension with an action unrelated to change of gastric tone. Chronic levosulpiride administration significantly ameliorates gastrointestinal symptoms and increases the discomfort threshold.

Comparative effects of levosulpiride and cisapride on gastric emptying and symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia and gastroparesis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of several prokinetic drugs on dyspeptic symptoms and on gastric emptying rates are well-established in patients with functional dyspepsia, but formal studies comparing different prokinetic drugs are lacking.

AIM

To compare the effects of chronic oral administration of cisapride and levosulpiride in patients with functional dyspepsia and delayed gastric emptying.

METHODS

In a double-blind crossover comparison, the effects of a 4-week administration of levosulpiride (25 mg t.d.s.) and cisapride (10 mg t.d.s.) on the gastric emptying rate and on symptoms were evaluated in 30 dyspeptic patients with functional gastroparesis. At the beginning of the study and after levosulpiride or cisapride treatment, the gastric emptying time of a standard meal was measured by 13C-octanoic acid breath test. Gastrointestinal symptom scores were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The efficacy of levosulpiride was similar to that of cisapride in significantly shortening (P < 0.001) the t1/2 of gastric emptying. No significant differences were observed between the two treatments with regards to improvements in total symptom scores. However, levosulpiride was significantly more effective (P < 0.01) than cisapride in improving the impact of symptoms on the patients' every-day activities and in improving individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and early postprandial satiety.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of levosulpiride and cisapride in reducing gastric emptying times with no relevant side-effects is similar. The impact of symptoms on patients' everyday activities and the improvement of some symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and early satiety was more evident with levosulpiride than cisapride.

Sulpiride versus metoclopramide in nononcologic patients with vomiting or nausea

Metoclopramide, a benzamide substitute, is used frequently as an antiemetic drug. Sulpiride, another benzamide substitute, was investigated and found to be safe and effective in a handful of studies involving only oncologic or other severely symptomatic patients. In this investigation the authors compared prospectively the antiemetic efficacy of sulpiride versus metoclopramide in a double-blind, randomized study involving 36 nononcologic patients with transient vomiting or nausea of various etiologies. Each group of 18 patients received oral metoclopramide or sulpiride (10 mg or 50 mg respectively) every 8 hours for a total of three doses each (24 hours of treatment). A 5-point score was used to evaluate symptomatic relief. Efficacy of the two drugs proved similar, and at the end of the study, 14 and 13 of 18 patients on sulpiride or metoclopramide respectively were asymptomatic. Only transient, minor side effects were reported in one patient in each group. The authors conclude that sulpiride is an effective and safe antiemetic drug that can be adopted legitimately in such cases as a first choice, or serve as an equipotent alternative to metoclopramide in patients sensitive to the latter.

Vomiting and retching in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: a report of ten cases and a review of the literature

Retching and vomiting are common symptoms in childhood. We describe the cases of 10 patients with Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS) for whom vomiting or retching tics were part of the clinical picture, and discuss other instances where retching and vomiting occur with neuropsychiatric or movement disorders.