Category Archives: Nausea/Vomiting

Fungal biotransformation of cannabinoids: potential for new effective drugs.

Posted on by
1

Abstract

“Phytocannabinoids from the plant Cannabis sativa induce a variety of physiological and pharmacological responses in living systems, including anti-inflammatory, antinociceptive, anti-ulcer and antitumor activities. The discovery of the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 led to the development of agonists and antagonists of these receptors for the treatment of a variety of diseases. Nabilone, a synthetic derivative of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta9-THC), which is the main natural psychotropic constituent of C sativa, was approved by the US FDA for the treatment of nausea and as an anti-emetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Delta9-THC and related cannabinoids are involved in a variety of signal transduction pathways; thus, reducing or removing the psychotropic effects of these compounds would enhance their therapeutic spectra. Compound synthesis and qualitative SAR studies are time-consuming activities; however, microbes are effectively the most inventive synthetic chemists because of their metabolic plasticity. This review discusses the potential of C sativa mycoflora, which is pathogenic as well as endophytic, to remove the psychotropic effects of Delta9-THC and related cannabinoids, and describes the development of a model system for the rapid and cost-effective commercial production of cannabinoids through fermentation pathways.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19333876

Nabilone: an effective antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Eighty evaluable patients receiving chemotherapy were entered on a random prospective double-blind study to evaluate the effectiveness of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, compared to prochlorperazine. Most of these patients received cisplatin, a drug that universally produces severe nausea and vomiting, as part of a combination chemotherapy regimen. The patients served as their own controls, receiving either nabilone or prochlorperazine during two consecutive treatment courses with the identical chemotherapy. Side effects consisting of hypotension and lethargy were more pronounced with nabilone. Toxicity, in general, did not preclude antiemetic treatment and in no way interfered with chemotherapy. Sixty patients (75 per cent) reported nabilone to be more effective than prochlorperazine for relief of nausea and vomiting. Of these 60 patients, 46 required further chemotherapy and continued taking nabilone as the antiemetic of choice.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6271844

Nabilone. A preliminary review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Nabilone is a new orally active cannabinoid for the treatment of severe gastrointestinal toxicity associated with cancer chemotherapy. The pharmacological profile of nabilone suggests that it acts primarily by preventing emesis controlled by the medulla oblongata, although its secondary mild anxiolytic activity may contribute to the overall efficacy. Nabilone 2mg twice daily starting 12 hours prior to, and continued for the duration of, chemotherapy produces significant reduction in the severity and duration of nausea and the frequency of vomiting in about 50 to 70% of patients with severe symptoms refractory to conventional therapy. Nabilone has proven to be more effective in controlling symptoms and preferred by more patients than prochlorperazine 10mg 2 to 4 times daily in a limited number of studies, despite a higher incidence of side effects. Comparative trials against other new antiemetic agents, such as high dose metoclopramide, and use of nabilone in combination with other antiemetics remain to be undertaken. The incidence of side effects is high with nabilone; drowsiness, dizziness and/or vertigo occur in 60 to 70% of patients, but rarely lead to drug withdrawal, although more troublesome effects, such as postural hypotension, ataxia, vision disturbance and toxic psychoses, may cause discontinuation of therapy. Thus, nabilone offers an effective alternative to the treatment options available in a difficult therapeutic area – those patients with severe gastrointestinal side effects from cancer chemotherapy who are refractory to conventional therapy.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2863127

Anti-emetic efficacy and toxicity of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, in lung cancer chemotherapy.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, and Prochlorperazine were compared in a double-blind crossover study of 34 patients with lung cancer undergoing a 3-day schedule of chemotherapy with Cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin and Etoposide. Symptom scores were significantly better for patients on nabilone for nausea, retching and vomiting (P less than 0.05). Fewer subjects vomited with nabilone (P = 0.05) and the number of vomiting episodes was lower (P less than 0.05); no patients on nabilone required additional parenteral anti-emetic. More patients preferred nabilone for anti-emetic control (P less than 0.005). Adverse effects common with nabilone were drowsiness (57%), postural dizziness (35%) and lightheadedness (18%). Euphoria was seen in 14% and a “high” in 7%. Erect systolic blood pressure was lower in nabilone patients on Day 1 (P = 0.05) but postural hypotension was a major problem in only 7%. Nabilone is an effective oral anti-emetic drug for moderately toxic chemotherapy, but the range and unpredictability of its side-effects warrant caution in its use.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6315040

Cannabidiolic acid prevents vomiting in Suncus murinus and nausea-induced behaviour in rats by enhancing 5-HT(1A) receptor activation.

Posted on by
Reply

“BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

To evaluate the ability of cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) to reduce nausea and vomiting and enhance 5-HT(1A) receptor activation in animal models.”

“CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:

Compared to cannabidiol, CBDA displays significantly greater potency at inhibiting vomiting in shrews and nausea in rats, and at enhancing 5-HT(1A) receptor activation, an action that accounts for its ability to attenuate conditioned gaping in rats. Consequently, CBDA shows promise as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, including anticipatory nausea for which no specific therapy is currently available.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23121618

Cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic component of cannabis, attenuates vomiting and nausea-like behaviour via indirect agonism of 5-HT(1A) somatodendritic autoreceptors in the dorsal raphe nucleus.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

To evaluate the hypothesis that activation of somatodendritic 5-HT(1A) autoreceptors in the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) produces the anti-emetic/anti-nausea effects of cannabidiol (CBD), a primary non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in cannabis.”

“CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:

These results suggest that CBD produced its anti-emetic/anti-nausea effects by indirect activation of the somatodendritic 5-HT(1A) autoreceptors in the DRN.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21827451

Central and peripheral mechanisms contribute to the antiemetic actions of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol against 5-hydroxytryptophan-induced emesis.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) prevents cisplatin-induced emesis via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors. Whether central and/or peripheral cannabinoid CB(1) receptors account for the antiemetic action(s) of delta-9-THC remains to be investigated. The 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT=serotonin) precursor, 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP), is an indirect 5-HT agonist and simultaneously produces the head-twitch response (a centrally mediated serotonin 5-HT(2A) receptor-induced behavior) and emesis (a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor-induced response, mediated by both peripheral and central mechanisms) in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva). The peripheral amino acid decarboxylase inhibitor, carbidopa, prevents the conversion of 5-HTP to 5-HT in the periphery and elevates 5-HTP levels in the central nervous system (CNS). When administered i.p. alone, a 50 mg/kg dose of 5-HTP failed to induce either behaviour while its 100 mg/kg dose produced robust frequencies of both head-twitch response and emesis. Pretreatment with carbidopa (0, 10, 20 and 40 mg/kg) potentiated the ability of both doses of 5-HTP to produce the head-twitch response in a dose-dependent but bell-shaped manner, with maximal potentiation occurring at 20 mg/kg carbidopa. Carbidopa dose-dependently reduced the frequency of 5-HTP (100 mg/kg)-induced emesis, whereas the 10 mg/kg dose potentiated, and the 20 and 40 mg/kg doses suppressed the frequency of vomits produced by the 50 mg/kg dose of 5-HTP. The peripheral and/or central antiemetic action(s) of delta-9-THC (0, 1, 2.5, 5, 10 and 20 mg/kg) against 5-HTP (100 mg/kg)-induced head-twitch response and emesis were investigated in different groups of carbidopa (0, 10 and 20 mg/kg) pretreated shrews. Irrespective of carbidopa treatment, delta-9-THC attenuated the frequency of 5-HTP-induced head-twitch response in a dose-dependent manner with similar ID(50) values. Although delta-9-THC also reduced the frequency of 5-HTP-induced emesis with similar ID(50s), at the 5 mg/kg delta-9-THC dose however, 5-HTP induced significantly less vomits in the 10 and 20 mg/kg carbidopa-treated groups relative to its 0 mg/kg control group. Moreover, increasing doses of carbidopa significantly shifted the inhibitory dose-response effect of delta-9-THC in protecting shrews from 5-HTP-induced emesis to the left. Relatively, a large dose of delta-9-THC (20 mg/kg) was required to significantly reduce the number of vomits produced by direct acting serotonergic 5-HT(3) receptor agonists, serotonin and 2-methylserotonin. Low doses of delta-9-THC (0.1-1 mg/kg) nearly completely prevented 2-methylserotonin-induced, centrally mediated, head-twitch and ear-scratch responses. The results indicate that delta-9-THC probably acts pre- and postsynaptically to attenuate emesis produced by indirect and direct acting 5-HT(3) receptor agonists via both central and peripheral mechanisms. In addition, delta-9-THC prevents 5-HTP-induced head-twitch and emesis via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors since the CB(1) receptor antagonist, SR 141716A [N-piperidino-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methylpyrazole-3-carboxamide], countered the inhibitory actions of an effective dose of delta-9-THC against both behaviours.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15044052

http://www.thctotalhealthcare.com/category/nauseavomiting/

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol differentially suppresses cisplatin-induced emesis and indices of motor function via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors in the least shrew.

Posted on by
Reply

“The present study investigates the cannabinoid receptor mechanisms by which Delta(9)-THC produces its antiemetic effects against cisplatin -induced emesis as well as its cannabimimetic activity profile (motor reduction) in the least shrew.

Intraperitoneal administration of Delta(9)-THC (1, 2.5, 5 and 10 mg/kg) dose-dependently reduced both the percentage of animals vomiting (ID(50)=1.8+/-1.6 mg/kg) and the frequency of vomits (ID(50)=0.36+/-1.18 mg/kg) in a potent manner.

The lowest significantly effective antiemetic dose of Delta(9)-THC for the latter emesis parameters was 2.5 mg/kg. Although Delta(9)-THC reduced the frequency of vomits up to 98%, it failed to completely protect all tested shrews from vomiting (80% protection). The cannabinoid CB(1) antagonist (SR 141716A) and not the CB(2) antagonist (SR 144528), reversed the antiemetic effects of Delta(9)-THC in a dose-dependent fashion. Delta(9)-THC (1, 5, 10 and 20 mg/kg, ip) suppressed locomotor parameters (spontaneous locomotor activity, duration of movement and rearing frequency) in a biphasic manner and only the 20-mg/kg dose simultaneously suppressed the triad of locomotor parameters to a significant degree. Subcutaneous (1-10 mg/kg) and intraperitoneal (0.05-40 mg/kg) injection of some doses of SR 141716A caused significant reductions in one or more components of the triad of locomotor parameters but these reductions were not dose dependent. Subcutaneous injection of SR 141716A (0.2, 1, 5 and 10 mg/kg) reversed the motor suppressant effects of a 20-mg/kg dose of Delta(9)-THC (ip) in a dose-dependent manner. Relative to its motor suppressant effects,

Delta(9)-THC is a more potent antiemetic agent. Both effects are probably mediated via CB(1) receptors in distinct loci.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11420092

http://www.thctotalhealthcare.com/category/nauseavomiting/

Antiemetic efficacy of levonantradol compared to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“The antiemetic efficacy of im levonantradol, a synthetic cannabinoid, given at a dose of 1 mg every 4 hours, was compared to oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) given at a dose of 15 mg every 4 hours in a double-blind crossover study. Twenty-six patients receiving emetogenic cancer chemotherapy were evaluated. For each drug, 28% of treated patients had no nausea. The median number of emetic episodes with levonantradol was 2.0 versus 3.0 for THC (P = 0.06). Side effects occurred in 91.7% and 97.3% of levonantradol and THC patients, respectively, with drowsiness and dizziness most commonly seen. Side effects were generally well-tolerated, with only 13.9% of levonantradol and 21.6% of THC patients discontinuing treatment because of side effects. Levonantradol appears to be at least as effective an antiemetic as THC and is the only cannabinoid available for parenteral use.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2981616

Levonantradol for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Twenty patients with cancer previously unresponsive to antiemetic treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting were treated with the new tetrahydrocannabinoid Levonantradol. 15 patients experienced substantial relief and 10 of them preferred the drug for further courses. These observations suggest that Levonantradol can be beneficial to patients refractory to conventional antiemetic therapy.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6350696