The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
R G Clemence - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparative efficacy of Maropitant and selected drugs in preventing emesis induced by centrally or peripherally acting emetogens in dogs
Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: H. S. Sedlacek, D S Ramsey, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia; a novel, selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist), chlorpromazine, metoclopramide and ondansetron were compared in two randomized, placebo-controlled studies for efficacy in preventing emesis induced by emetogens acting centrally (apomorphine; Study 1) or peripherally (syrup of ipecac; Study 2) in dogs. In each study, ten male and ten female beagles were treated in a five-treatment, five-period crossover design. The five treatments were 0.9% saline (0.1 mL/kg), Maropitant (1 mg/kg), metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg), or chlorpromazine (0.5 mg/kg) all administered subcutaneously, or ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg) administered intravenously. One hour posttreatment dogs were challenged with apomorphine at 0.1 mg/kg intravenously (Study 1) or syrup of ipecac at 0.5 mL/kg orally (Study 2). Following emetogen challenge, dogs were observed for 30 min (Study 1) or 1 h (Study 2) for emesis. No clinical signs, other than those related to emesis, were observed. Efficacy of Maropitant in preventing emesis induced centrally by apomorphine was not different (P > 0.05) from metoclopramide or chlorpromazine but was superior (P 0.05) from ondansetron but was superior (P Maropitant was effective (P < 0.0001 relative to control) in preventing vomiting caused by stimulation of either central or peripheral emetic pathways, whereas the other drugs examined prevented vomiting caused by central (metoclopramide and chlorpromazine; P < 0.0001) or peripheral (ondansetron; P < 0.0001) stimulation but not both.
-
safety and efficacy of injectable and oral Maropitant a selective neurokinin1 receptor antagonist in a randomized clinical trial for treatment of vomiting in dogs
Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: D S Ramsey, K Kincaid, J A Watkins, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia), a selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, was evaluated for safety and efficacy in treatment and prevention of acute vomiting due to various etiologies in dogs in a randomized clinical trial. Two-hundred seventy-eight dogs were enrolled from 29 veterinary hospitals. Two-hundred fifty-two were evaluable for efficacy, while 275 were evaluable for safety. A randomized block design was utilized (three Maropitant- and one placebo-treated dog per block). Initial treatment was Maropitant at 1 mg/kg body weight (0.45 mg/lb) or an equivalent volume of saline (placebo) administered subcutaneously. On the subsequent 1 to 4 days, Maropitant or placebo (dependent on allocation) was administered subcutaneously or orally at approximate 24-h intervals as needed. Oral doses were administered as Maropitant tablets using unit dosing to deliver a minimum dose of 2 mg/kg body weight (0.9 mg/lb) or equivalent numbers of similar placebo tablets. Dogs and housing were observed twice daily for evidence of vomiting. Emesis was significantly (P
-
Safety and efficacy of injectable and oral Maropitant, a selective neurokinin1 receptor antagonist, in a randomized clinical trial for treatment of vomiting in dogs
Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: D S Ramsey, K Kincaid, J A Watkins, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia), a selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, was evaluated for safety and efficacy in treatment and prevention of acute vomiting due to various etiologies in dogs in a randomized clinical trial. Two-hundred seventy-eight dogs were enrolled from 29 veterinary hospitals. Two-hundred fifty-two were evaluable for efficacy, while 275 were evaluable for safety. A randomized block design was utilized (three Maropitant- and one placebo-treated dog per block). Initial treatment was Maropitant at 1 mg/kg body weight (0.45 mg/lb) or an equivalent volume of saline (placebo) administered subcutaneously. On the subsequent 1 to 4 days, Maropitant or placebo (dependent on allocation) was administered subcutaneously or orally at approximate 24-h intervals as needed. Oral doses were administered as Maropitant tablets using unit dosing to deliver a minimum dose of 2 mg/kg body weight (0.9 mg/lb) or equivalent numbers of similar placebo tablets. Dogs and housing were observed twice daily for evidence of vomiting. Emesis was significantly (P
-
Efficacy and safety of Maropitant, a selective neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, in two randomized clinical trials for prevention of vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs.
Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: George A Conder, J F Boucher, H. S. Sedlacek, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia), a selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, was evaluated for efficacy and safety in prevention of vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs in two randomized clinical trials. One-hundred eighty-nine dogs with a history of motion sickness were enrolled at 26 veterinary clinics (across 12 US states) across the two trials; of these, 163 were fully evaluable, 19 were evaluable only for safety, and seven were not evaluable. Each trial used a two-period crossover design. Each dog was treated orally with placebo or Maropitant (minimum dose of 8 mg/kg body weight using unit dosing) tablets at approximately 2 h (Trial 1) or 10 h (Trial 2) before an automobile ride of approximately 60 min, during which dogs were observed for signs of motion sickness. Following a 10-14-day washout period, each dog was administered the opposite treatment and taken for another journey (same route, driver and vehicle). Maropitant reduced the occurrence of vomiting compared to placebo by 86.1% or 76.5% when given approximately 2 or 10 h prior to travel, respectively. No significant clinical signs were observed after Maropitant treatment. Maropitant was safe and effective in preventing vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs when administered at a minimum dose of 8 mg/kg body weight as oral tablets 2 or 10 h prior to travel.
-
Comparative efficacy of Maropitant and selected drugs in preventing emesis induced by centrally or peripherally acting emetogens in dogs
Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: H. S. Sedlacek, D S Ramsey, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia; a novel, selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist), chlorpromazine, metoclopramide and ondansetron were compared in two randomized, placebo-controlled studies for efficacy in preventing emesis induced by emetogens acting centrally (apomorphine; Study 1) or peripherally (syrup of ipecac; Study 2) in dogs. In each study, ten male and ten female beagles were treated in a five-treatment, five-period crossover design. The five treatments were 0.9% saline (0.1 mL/kg), Maropitant (1 mg/kg), metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg), or chlorpromazine (0.5 mg/kg) all administered subcutaneously, or ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg) administered intravenously. One hour posttreatment dogs were challenged with apomorphine at 0.1 mg/kg intravenously (Study 1) or syrup of ipecac at 0.5 mL/kg orally (Study 2). Following emetogen challenge, dogs were observed for 30 min (Study 1) or 1 h (Study 2) for emesis. No clinical signs, other than those related to emesis, were observed. Efficacy of Maropitant in preventing emesis induced centrally by apomorphine was not different (P > 0.05) from metoclopramide or chlorpromazine but was superior (P 0.05) from ondansetron but was superior (P
David C. Twedt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Assessing the Efficacy of Maropitant Versus Ondansetron in the Treatment of Dogs with Parvoviral Enteritis
Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 2018Co-Authors: Lauren A. Sullivan, Pedro Boscan, Jamie P Lenberg, Timothy B. Hackett, David C. TwedtAbstract:Antiemetics are commonly prescribed during the treatment of canine parvoviral enteritis. This blinded, randomized prospective study compared the quality of clinical recovery and duration of hospitalization in canine parvoviral dogs receiving either Maropitant (1 mg/kg [0.45 mg/lb] IV q 24 hr, n = 11) or ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg [0.23 mg/lb] IV q 8 hr, n = 11). All dogs were treated with IV fluids, cefoxitin, and enteral nutrition. Frequency of vomiting and pain scoring were recorded twice daily. Rescue analgesics and antiemetics were administered as dictated by specific pain and vomiting criteria. Clinical severity scoring, body weight, and caloric intake were monitored daily. When comparing dogs receiving Maropitant versus ondansetron, respectively, there were no differences in duration of hospitalization (3.36 ± 0.56 versus 2.73 ± 0.38 days, P = .36), requirement of rescue antiemetic (3/11 versus 5/11 dogs, P = .66), duration of vomiting (5 versus 4 days, P = .65), or days to voluntary food intake (2 versus 1.5 days, P = 1.0). Results of this study suggest that Maropitant and ondansetron are equally effective in controlling clinical signs associated with parvoviral enteritis.
-
Evaluation of an outpatient protocol in the treatment of canine parvoviral enteritis.
Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio Tex. : 2001), 2016Co-Authors: Emilee C. Venn, Pedro Boscan, David C. Twedt, Karolina Preisner, Lauren A. SullivanAbstract:Objective To compare 2 treatment protocols (standard in-hospital versus modified outpatient) in affecting the duration of treatment or survival of dogs with parvoviral enteritis. Design Prospective, randomized study. Setting University teaching hospital. Animals Client-owned dogs with naturally acquired parvovirus were randomized to receive either an inpatient (n = 20) or outpatient (n = 20) treatment protocol. Interventions Both groups received intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation and correction of hypoglycemia at hospital admission. Following stabilization, basic inpatient interventions included administration of IV fluids, administration of cefoxitin (22 mg/kg IV q 8 h), and Maropitant (1 mg/kg IV q 24 h). Basic outpatient interventions (provided in-hospital) included administration of subcutaneous (SC) fluid (30 mL/kg q 6 h), administration of Maropitant (1 mg/kg SC q 24 h) and cefovecin (8 mg/kg SC once). Using daily electrolyte and glucose evaluations, dextrose and potassium supplementation was provided intravenously (inpatients) or orally (outpatients) as indicated. Rescue criteria were used in both groups for analgesia and nausea. All dogs were syringe fed a commercial canine convalescence diet (1 mL/kg PO q 6 h) until voluntary appetite returned. Measurements and Main Results Protocol success, defined as survival to hospital discharge, was 90% (18/20) for the inpatient group compared to 80% (16/20) for the outpatient group (P = 0.66). There was no difference detected in duration of hospitalization for inpatient dogs (4.6 ± 2 days) versus outpatient dogs (3.8 ± 1.8 days, P = 0.20). Metabolic disturbances were frequent in the outpatient group, with 50% of dogs requiring dextrose supplementation and 60% of dogs requiring potassium supplementation. Conclusions An outpatient protocol may be a reasonable alternative for dogs that cannot receive standard in-hospital treatment for parvoviral enteritis. Diligent supportive care and monitoring are still required to optimize treatment of dogs with parvoviral enteritis in an outpatient setting.
-
Comparison of NK-1 Receptor Antagonist (Maropitant) to Morphine as a Pre-Anaesthetic Agent for Canine Ovariohysterectomy
PloS one, 2015Co-Authors: Megan Marquez, Pedro Boscan, Heather Weir, Pamela Vogel, David C. TwedtAbstract:Objective To compare the NK-1 receptor antagonist Maropitant to morphine during and after surgery in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OHE). Methods 30 healthy female dogs were randomly divided to receive either a pre-anaesthetic dose of morphine (0.5 mg/kg SQ) or Maropitant (1 mg/kg, SQ) prior to OHE. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. Expired isoflurane concentration, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and respiratory rate were measured. Post-operative pain scores and appetite were evaluated during the recovery period. Rescue analgesia (morphine 0.1 mg/kg IV) was administered as needed post-operatively based on blinded pain score assessments. Results Although clinically comparable; during surgical stimulation, the Maropitant group had lower HR (108±18 vs 115±24 bpm; p = 0.04), lower SAP (114±23 vs 125±23 mmHg; p = 0.003) and required slightly lower percent of isoflurane anaesthetic (1.35±0.2 vs 1.51±0.4%; p = 0.005), when compared to the morphine group. In the recovery period, the Maropitant group had lower pain scores at extubation (1.7±0.7 vs 3.4±2.3; p = 0.0001) and were more likely to eat within 3 hours after extubation (64.7 vs 15.3%). However, post-operative rescue analgesia requirements were similar between groups. All other measured parameters were similar between groups. The overall difference observed between groups was small and all monitored and measured parameters were within the expected range for anesthetized dogs. Clinical Significance No major differences in cardiorespiratory parameters or anaesthetic requirements were observed between Maropitant and morphine when used as a pre-anesthetic agent for OHE. Further studies are necessary to fully elucidate the benefits of Maropitant as a pre-anaesthetic agent for canine OHE.
-
RESEARCH ARTICLE Comparison of NK-1 Receptor Antagonist (Maropitant) to Morphine as a Pre- Anaesthetic Agent for Canine
2015Co-Authors: Megan Marquez, Pedro Boscan, Heather Weir, Pamela Vogel, David C. TwedtAbstract:Objective To compare the NK-1 receptor antagonist Maropitant to morphine during and after surgery in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OHE). Methods 30 healthy female dogs were randomly divided to receive either a pre-anaesthetic dose of morphine (0.5 mg/kg SQ) or Maropitant (1 mg/kg, SQ) prior to OHE. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. Expired isoflurane concentration, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and respiratory rate were measured. Post-operative pain scores and appetite were evaluated during the recovery period. Rescue analgesia (morphine 0.1 mg/kg IV) was administered as needed post-operatively based on blinded pain score assessments. Results Although clinically comparable; during surgical stimulation, the Maropitant group had lower HR (108±18 vs 115±24 bpm; p = 0.04), lower SAP (114±23 vs 125±23 mmHg; p = 0.003) and required slightly lower percent of isoflurane anaesthetic (1.35±0.2 vs 1.51±0.4%; p = 0.005), when compared to the morphine group. In the recovery period, the Maropitant group had lower pain scores at extubation (1.7±0.7 vs 3.4±2.3; p = 0.0001) and were more likely to eat within 3 hours after extubation (64.7 vs 15.3%). However, post-operative rescue analge-sia requirements were similar between groups. All other measured parameters were similar between groups. The overall difference observed between groups was small and all moni-tored and measured parameters were within the expected range for anesthetized dogs
-
Effect of Maropitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, on the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane during stimulation of the ovarian ligament in cats
Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia, 2013Co-Authors: Sirirat Niyom, Pedro Boscan, Eric Monnet, David C. Twedt, Jens C. EickhoffAbstract:Abstract Objective Determine if Maropitant decreases the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane during stimulation of the ovarian ligament in cats. Study design Prospective study. Animals Fifteen, female cats weighing 2.5 ± 0.6kg (mean ± SD). Methods Anesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane. The right ovary was accessed via laparoscopy. A suture around the ovary and ovarian ligament was exteriorized through the abdominal wall for stimulation. A stimulus–response curve was created to identify the optimal force for MAC comparisons. In 10 cats, MAC was determined with only sevoflurane (baseline) then after 1 and 5 mg kg −1 intravenous Maropitant administration. The stimulation tension force used was 4.9 N. Repeated measures anova was used to compare the groups. MAC was defined as the average of the cross‐over concentrations and reported MAC is adjusted to sea‐level and depicted as mean ± SD. Results The stimulus‐response curve was hyperbolic and plateaued at 4.3 ± 3 N. The optimal tension force chosen to compare MAC was 4.9 N. The baseline sevoflurane MAC was 2.96 ± 0.3%. Maropitant, 1 mg kg −1 , decreased the MAC to 2.51 ± 0.3% (15%, p −1 did not change MAC further when compared to the low dose (2.46 ± 0.4%, p = 0.33). Conclusion and clinical relevance The ovarian ligament stimulation model is suitable to determine MAC during visceral stimulation in cats. Maropitant decreased the anesthetic requirements during visceral ovarian and ovarian ligament stimulation in cats. Maropitant (1 mg kg −1 ) decreases MAC by 15%; a higher dose had no additional effect.
J F Boucher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The pharmacokinetics of Maropitant citrate dosed orally to dogs at 2 mg/kg and 8 mg/kg once daily for 14 days consecutive days
Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2012Co-Authors: S. P. Lesman, J F Boucher, S R Cox, G. S. Grover, T. L. BidgoodAbstract:The pharmacokinetics of Maropitant were evaluated in beagle dogs dosed orally with Cerenia® tablets (Pfizer Animal Health) once daily for 14 consecutive days at either 2 mg/kg or 8 mg/kg bodyweight. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was performed on the plasma concentration data to measure the AUC(0-24) (after first and last doses), Ct (trough concentration-measured 24 h after each dose), Cmax (after first and last doses), tmax (after first and last doses), λz (terminal disposition rate constant; after last dose), t(1/2) (after last dose), and CL/F (oral clearance; after last dose). Maropitant accumulation in plasma was substantially greater after fourteen daily 8 mg/kg doses than after fourteen daily 2 mg/kg doses as reflected in the AUC(0-24) accumulation ratio of 4.81 at 8 mg/kg and 2.46 at 2 mg/kg. This is most likely due to previously identified nonlinear pharmacokinetics of Maropitant in which high doses (8 mg/kg) saturate the metabolic clearance mechanisms and delay drug elimination. To determine the time to reach steady-state Maropitant plasma levels, a nonlinear model was fit to the least squares (LS) means Maropitant Ct values for each treatment group. Based on this model, 90% of steady-state was determined to occur at approximately four doses for daily 2 mg/kg oral dosing and eight doses for daily 8 mg/kg oral dosing.
-
safety and efficacy of injectable and oral Maropitant a selective neurokinin1 receptor antagonist in a randomized clinical trial for treatment of vomiting in dogs
Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: D S Ramsey, K Kincaid, J A Watkins, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia), a selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, was evaluated for safety and efficacy in treatment and prevention of acute vomiting due to various etiologies in dogs in a randomized clinical trial. Two-hundred seventy-eight dogs were enrolled from 29 veterinary hospitals. Two-hundred fifty-two were evaluable for efficacy, while 275 were evaluable for safety. A randomized block design was utilized (three Maropitant- and one placebo-treated dog per block). Initial treatment was Maropitant at 1 mg/kg body weight (0.45 mg/lb) or an equivalent volume of saline (placebo) administered subcutaneously. On the subsequent 1 to 4 days, Maropitant or placebo (dependent on allocation) was administered subcutaneously or orally at approximate 24-h intervals as needed. Oral doses were administered as Maropitant tablets using unit dosing to deliver a minimum dose of 2 mg/kg body weight (0.9 mg/lb) or equivalent numbers of similar placebo tablets. Dogs and housing were observed twice daily for evidence of vomiting. Emesis was significantly (P
-
comparative efficacy of Maropitant and selected drugs in preventing emesis induced by centrally or peripherally acting emetogens in dogs
Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: H. S. Sedlacek, D S Ramsey, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia; a novel, selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist), chlorpromazine, metoclopramide and ondansetron were compared in two randomized, placebo-controlled studies for efficacy in preventing emesis induced by emetogens acting centrally (apomorphine; Study 1) or peripherally (syrup of ipecac; Study 2) in dogs. In each study, ten male and ten female beagles were treated in a five-treatment, five-period crossover design. The five treatments were 0.9% saline (0.1 mL/kg), Maropitant (1 mg/kg), metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg), or chlorpromazine (0.5 mg/kg) all administered subcutaneously, or ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg) administered intravenously. One hour posttreatment dogs were challenged with apomorphine at 0.1 mg/kg intravenously (Study 1) or syrup of ipecac at 0.5 mL/kg orally (Study 2). Following emetogen challenge, dogs were observed for 30 min (Study 1) or 1 h (Study 2) for emesis. No clinical signs, other than those related to emesis, were observed. Efficacy of Maropitant in preventing emesis induced centrally by apomorphine was not different (P > 0.05) from metoclopramide or chlorpromazine but was superior (P 0.05) from ondansetron but was superior (P Maropitant was effective (P < 0.0001 relative to control) in preventing vomiting caused by stimulation of either central or peripheral emetic pathways, whereas the other drugs examined prevented vomiting caused by central (metoclopramide and chlorpromazine; P < 0.0001) or peripheral (ondansetron; P < 0.0001) stimulation but not both.
-
Safety and efficacy of injectable and oral Maropitant, a selective neurokinin1 receptor antagonist, in a randomized clinical trial for treatment of vomiting in dogs
Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: D S Ramsey, K Kincaid, J A Watkins, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia), a selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, was evaluated for safety and efficacy in treatment and prevention of acute vomiting due to various etiologies in dogs in a randomized clinical trial. Two-hundred seventy-eight dogs were enrolled from 29 veterinary hospitals. Two-hundred fifty-two were evaluable for efficacy, while 275 were evaluable for safety. A randomized block design was utilized (three Maropitant- and one placebo-treated dog per block). Initial treatment was Maropitant at 1 mg/kg body weight (0.45 mg/lb) or an equivalent volume of saline (placebo) administered subcutaneously. On the subsequent 1 to 4 days, Maropitant or placebo (dependent on allocation) was administered subcutaneously or orally at approximate 24-h intervals as needed. Oral doses were administered as Maropitant tablets using unit dosing to deliver a minimum dose of 2 mg/kg body weight (0.9 mg/lb) or equivalent numbers of similar placebo tablets. Dogs and housing were observed twice daily for evidence of vomiting. Emesis was significantly (P
-
Efficacy and safety of Maropitant, a selective neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, in two randomized clinical trials for prevention of vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs.
Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: George A Conder, J F Boucher, H. S. Sedlacek, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia), a selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, was evaluated for efficacy and safety in prevention of vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs in two randomized clinical trials. One-hundred eighty-nine dogs with a history of motion sickness were enrolled at 26 veterinary clinics (across 12 US states) across the two trials; of these, 163 were fully evaluable, 19 were evaluable only for safety, and seven were not evaluable. Each trial used a two-period crossover design. Each dog was treated orally with placebo or Maropitant (minimum dose of 8 mg/kg body weight using unit dosing) tablets at approximately 2 h (Trial 1) or 10 h (Trial 2) before an automobile ride of approximately 60 min, during which dogs were observed for signs of motion sickness. Following a 10-14-day washout period, each dog was administered the opposite treatment and taken for another journey (same route, driver and vehicle). Maropitant reduced the occurrence of vomiting compared to placebo by 86.1% or 76.5% when given approximately 2 or 10 h prior to travel, respectively. No significant clinical signs were observed after Maropitant treatment. Maropitant was safe and effective in preventing vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs when administered at a minimum dose of 8 mg/kg body weight as oral tablets 2 or 10 h prior to travel.
George A Conder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
safety and efficacy of injectable and oral Maropitant a selective neurokinin1 receptor antagonist in a randomized clinical trial for treatment of vomiting in dogs
Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: D S Ramsey, K Kincaid, J A Watkins, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia), a selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, was evaluated for safety and efficacy in treatment and prevention of acute vomiting due to various etiologies in dogs in a randomized clinical trial. Two-hundred seventy-eight dogs were enrolled from 29 veterinary hospitals. Two-hundred fifty-two were evaluable for efficacy, while 275 were evaluable for safety. A randomized block design was utilized (three Maropitant- and one placebo-treated dog per block). Initial treatment was Maropitant at 1 mg/kg body weight (0.45 mg/lb) or an equivalent volume of saline (placebo) administered subcutaneously. On the subsequent 1 to 4 days, Maropitant or placebo (dependent on allocation) was administered subcutaneously or orally at approximate 24-h intervals as needed. Oral doses were administered as Maropitant tablets using unit dosing to deliver a minimum dose of 2 mg/kg body weight (0.9 mg/lb) or equivalent numbers of similar placebo tablets. Dogs and housing were observed twice daily for evidence of vomiting. Emesis was significantly (P
-
comparative efficacy of Maropitant and selected drugs in preventing emesis induced by centrally or peripherally acting emetogens in dogs
Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: H. S. Sedlacek, D S Ramsey, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia; a novel, selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist), chlorpromazine, metoclopramide and ondansetron were compared in two randomized, placebo-controlled studies for efficacy in preventing emesis induced by emetogens acting centrally (apomorphine; Study 1) or peripherally (syrup of ipecac; Study 2) in dogs. In each study, ten male and ten female beagles were treated in a five-treatment, five-period crossover design. The five treatments were 0.9% saline (0.1 mL/kg), Maropitant (1 mg/kg), metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg), or chlorpromazine (0.5 mg/kg) all administered subcutaneously, or ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg) administered intravenously. One hour posttreatment dogs were challenged with apomorphine at 0.1 mg/kg intravenously (Study 1) or syrup of ipecac at 0.5 mL/kg orally (Study 2). Following emetogen challenge, dogs were observed for 30 min (Study 1) or 1 h (Study 2) for emesis. No clinical signs, other than those related to emesis, were observed. Efficacy of Maropitant in preventing emesis induced centrally by apomorphine was not different (P > 0.05) from metoclopramide or chlorpromazine but was superior (P 0.05) from ondansetron but was superior (P Maropitant was effective (P < 0.0001 relative to control) in preventing vomiting caused by stimulation of either central or peripheral emetic pathways, whereas the other drugs examined prevented vomiting caused by central (metoclopramide and chlorpromazine; P < 0.0001) or peripheral (ondansetron; P < 0.0001) stimulation but not both.
-
Safety and efficacy of injectable and oral Maropitant, a selective neurokinin1 receptor antagonist, in a randomized clinical trial for treatment of vomiting in dogs
Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: D S Ramsey, K Kincaid, J A Watkins, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia), a selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, was evaluated for safety and efficacy in treatment and prevention of acute vomiting due to various etiologies in dogs in a randomized clinical trial. Two-hundred seventy-eight dogs were enrolled from 29 veterinary hospitals. Two-hundred fifty-two were evaluable for efficacy, while 275 were evaluable for safety. A randomized block design was utilized (three Maropitant- and one placebo-treated dog per block). Initial treatment was Maropitant at 1 mg/kg body weight (0.45 mg/lb) or an equivalent volume of saline (placebo) administered subcutaneously. On the subsequent 1 to 4 days, Maropitant or placebo (dependent on allocation) was administered subcutaneously or orally at approximate 24-h intervals as needed. Oral doses were administered as Maropitant tablets using unit dosing to deliver a minimum dose of 2 mg/kg body weight (0.9 mg/lb) or equivalent numbers of similar placebo tablets. Dogs and housing were observed twice daily for evidence of vomiting. Emesis was significantly (P
-
Efficacy and safety of Maropitant, a selective neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, in two randomized clinical trials for prevention of vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs.
Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: George A Conder, J F Boucher, H. S. Sedlacek, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia), a selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, was evaluated for efficacy and safety in prevention of vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs in two randomized clinical trials. One-hundred eighty-nine dogs with a history of motion sickness were enrolled at 26 veterinary clinics (across 12 US states) across the two trials; of these, 163 were fully evaluable, 19 were evaluable only for safety, and seven were not evaluable. Each trial used a two-period crossover design. Each dog was treated orally with placebo or Maropitant (minimum dose of 8 mg/kg body weight using unit dosing) tablets at approximately 2 h (Trial 1) or 10 h (Trial 2) before an automobile ride of approximately 60 min, during which dogs were observed for signs of motion sickness. Following a 10-14-day washout period, each dog was administered the opposite treatment and taken for another journey (same route, driver and vehicle). Maropitant reduced the occurrence of vomiting compared to placebo by 86.1% or 76.5% when given approximately 2 or 10 h prior to travel, respectively. No significant clinical signs were observed after Maropitant treatment. Maropitant was safe and effective in preventing vomiting due to motion sickness in dogs when administered at a minimum dose of 8 mg/kg body weight as oral tablets 2 or 10 h prior to travel.
-
Comparative efficacy of Maropitant and selected drugs in preventing emesis induced by centrally or peripherally acting emetogens in dogs
Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2008Co-Authors: H. S. Sedlacek, D S Ramsey, J F Boucher, George A Conder, J S Eagleson, R G ClemenceAbstract:Maropitant (Cerenia; a novel, selective neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist), chlorpromazine, metoclopramide and ondansetron were compared in two randomized, placebo-controlled studies for efficacy in preventing emesis induced by emetogens acting centrally (apomorphine; Study 1) or peripherally (syrup of ipecac; Study 2) in dogs. In each study, ten male and ten female beagles were treated in a five-treatment, five-period crossover design. The five treatments were 0.9% saline (0.1 mL/kg), Maropitant (1 mg/kg), metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg), or chlorpromazine (0.5 mg/kg) all administered subcutaneously, or ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg) administered intravenously. One hour posttreatment dogs were challenged with apomorphine at 0.1 mg/kg intravenously (Study 1) or syrup of ipecac at 0.5 mL/kg orally (Study 2). Following emetogen challenge, dogs were observed for 30 min (Study 1) or 1 h (Study 2) for emesis. No clinical signs, other than those related to emesis, were observed. Efficacy of Maropitant in preventing emesis induced centrally by apomorphine was not different (P > 0.05) from metoclopramide or chlorpromazine but was superior (P 0.05) from ondansetron but was superior (P
Pedro Boscan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Assessing the Efficacy of Maropitant Versus Ondansetron in the Treatment of Dogs with Parvoviral Enteritis
Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 2018Co-Authors: Lauren A. Sullivan, Pedro Boscan, Jamie P Lenberg, Timothy B. Hackett, David C. TwedtAbstract:Antiemetics are commonly prescribed during the treatment of canine parvoviral enteritis. This blinded, randomized prospective study compared the quality of clinical recovery and duration of hospitalization in canine parvoviral dogs receiving either Maropitant (1 mg/kg [0.45 mg/lb] IV q 24 hr, n = 11) or ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg [0.23 mg/lb] IV q 8 hr, n = 11). All dogs were treated with IV fluids, cefoxitin, and enteral nutrition. Frequency of vomiting and pain scoring were recorded twice daily. Rescue analgesics and antiemetics were administered as dictated by specific pain and vomiting criteria. Clinical severity scoring, body weight, and caloric intake were monitored daily. When comparing dogs receiving Maropitant versus ondansetron, respectively, there were no differences in duration of hospitalization (3.36 ± 0.56 versus 2.73 ± 0.38 days, P = .36), requirement of rescue antiemetic (3/11 versus 5/11 dogs, P = .66), duration of vomiting (5 versus 4 days, P = .65), or days to voluntary food intake (2 versus 1.5 days, P = 1.0). Results of this study suggest that Maropitant and ondansetron are equally effective in controlling clinical signs associated with parvoviral enteritis.
-
Evaluation of an outpatient protocol in the treatment of canine parvoviral enteritis.
Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio Tex. : 2001), 2016Co-Authors: Emilee C. Venn, Pedro Boscan, David C. Twedt, Karolina Preisner, Lauren A. SullivanAbstract:Objective To compare 2 treatment protocols (standard in-hospital versus modified outpatient) in affecting the duration of treatment or survival of dogs with parvoviral enteritis. Design Prospective, randomized study. Setting University teaching hospital. Animals Client-owned dogs with naturally acquired parvovirus were randomized to receive either an inpatient (n = 20) or outpatient (n = 20) treatment protocol. Interventions Both groups received intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation and correction of hypoglycemia at hospital admission. Following stabilization, basic inpatient interventions included administration of IV fluids, administration of cefoxitin (22 mg/kg IV q 8 h), and Maropitant (1 mg/kg IV q 24 h). Basic outpatient interventions (provided in-hospital) included administration of subcutaneous (SC) fluid (30 mL/kg q 6 h), administration of Maropitant (1 mg/kg SC q 24 h) and cefovecin (8 mg/kg SC once). Using daily electrolyte and glucose evaluations, dextrose and potassium supplementation was provided intravenously (inpatients) or orally (outpatients) as indicated. Rescue criteria were used in both groups for analgesia and nausea. All dogs were syringe fed a commercial canine convalescence diet (1 mL/kg PO q 6 h) until voluntary appetite returned. Measurements and Main Results Protocol success, defined as survival to hospital discharge, was 90% (18/20) for the inpatient group compared to 80% (16/20) for the outpatient group (P = 0.66). There was no difference detected in duration of hospitalization for inpatient dogs (4.6 ± 2 days) versus outpatient dogs (3.8 ± 1.8 days, P = 0.20). Metabolic disturbances were frequent in the outpatient group, with 50% of dogs requiring dextrose supplementation and 60% of dogs requiring potassium supplementation. Conclusions An outpatient protocol may be a reasonable alternative for dogs that cannot receive standard in-hospital treatment for parvoviral enteritis. Diligent supportive care and monitoring are still required to optimize treatment of dogs with parvoviral enteritis in an outpatient setting.
-
Comparison of NK-1 Receptor Antagonist (Maropitant) to Morphine as a Pre-Anaesthetic Agent for Canine Ovariohysterectomy
PloS one, 2015Co-Authors: Megan Marquez, Pedro Boscan, Heather Weir, Pamela Vogel, David C. TwedtAbstract:Objective To compare the NK-1 receptor antagonist Maropitant to morphine during and after surgery in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OHE). Methods 30 healthy female dogs were randomly divided to receive either a pre-anaesthetic dose of morphine (0.5 mg/kg SQ) or Maropitant (1 mg/kg, SQ) prior to OHE. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. Expired isoflurane concentration, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and respiratory rate were measured. Post-operative pain scores and appetite were evaluated during the recovery period. Rescue analgesia (morphine 0.1 mg/kg IV) was administered as needed post-operatively based on blinded pain score assessments. Results Although clinically comparable; during surgical stimulation, the Maropitant group had lower HR (108±18 vs 115±24 bpm; p = 0.04), lower SAP (114±23 vs 125±23 mmHg; p = 0.003) and required slightly lower percent of isoflurane anaesthetic (1.35±0.2 vs 1.51±0.4%; p = 0.005), when compared to the morphine group. In the recovery period, the Maropitant group had lower pain scores at extubation (1.7±0.7 vs 3.4±2.3; p = 0.0001) and were more likely to eat within 3 hours after extubation (64.7 vs 15.3%). However, post-operative rescue analgesia requirements were similar between groups. All other measured parameters were similar between groups. The overall difference observed between groups was small and all monitored and measured parameters were within the expected range for anesthetized dogs. Clinical Significance No major differences in cardiorespiratory parameters or anaesthetic requirements were observed between Maropitant and morphine when used as a pre-anesthetic agent for OHE. Further studies are necessary to fully elucidate the benefits of Maropitant as a pre-anaesthetic agent for canine OHE.
-
RESEARCH ARTICLE Comparison of NK-1 Receptor Antagonist (Maropitant) to Morphine as a Pre- Anaesthetic Agent for Canine
2015Co-Authors: Megan Marquez, Pedro Boscan, Heather Weir, Pamela Vogel, David C. TwedtAbstract:Objective To compare the NK-1 receptor antagonist Maropitant to morphine during and after surgery in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OHE). Methods 30 healthy female dogs were randomly divided to receive either a pre-anaesthetic dose of morphine (0.5 mg/kg SQ) or Maropitant (1 mg/kg, SQ) prior to OHE. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. Expired isoflurane concentration, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and respiratory rate were measured. Post-operative pain scores and appetite were evaluated during the recovery period. Rescue analgesia (morphine 0.1 mg/kg IV) was administered as needed post-operatively based on blinded pain score assessments. Results Although clinically comparable; during surgical stimulation, the Maropitant group had lower HR (108±18 vs 115±24 bpm; p = 0.04), lower SAP (114±23 vs 125±23 mmHg; p = 0.003) and required slightly lower percent of isoflurane anaesthetic (1.35±0.2 vs 1.51±0.4%; p = 0.005), when compared to the morphine group. In the recovery period, the Maropitant group had lower pain scores at extubation (1.7±0.7 vs 3.4±2.3; p = 0.0001) and were more likely to eat within 3 hours after extubation (64.7 vs 15.3%). However, post-operative rescue analge-sia requirements were similar between groups. All other measured parameters were similar between groups. The overall difference observed between groups was small and all moni-tored and measured parameters were within the expected range for anesthetized dogs
-
Effect of Maropitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, on the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane during stimulation of the ovarian ligament in cats
Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia, 2013Co-Authors: Sirirat Niyom, Pedro Boscan, Eric Monnet, David C. Twedt, Jens C. EickhoffAbstract:Abstract Objective Determine if Maropitant decreases the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane during stimulation of the ovarian ligament in cats. Study design Prospective study. Animals Fifteen, female cats weighing 2.5 ± 0.6kg (mean ± SD). Methods Anesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane. The right ovary was accessed via laparoscopy. A suture around the ovary and ovarian ligament was exteriorized through the abdominal wall for stimulation. A stimulus–response curve was created to identify the optimal force for MAC comparisons. In 10 cats, MAC was determined with only sevoflurane (baseline) then after 1 and 5 mg kg −1 intravenous Maropitant administration. The stimulation tension force used was 4.9 N. Repeated measures anova was used to compare the groups. MAC was defined as the average of the cross‐over concentrations and reported MAC is adjusted to sea‐level and depicted as mean ± SD. Results The stimulus‐response curve was hyperbolic and plateaued at 4.3 ± 3 N. The optimal tension force chosen to compare MAC was 4.9 N. The baseline sevoflurane MAC was 2.96 ± 0.3%. Maropitant, 1 mg kg −1 , decreased the MAC to 2.51 ± 0.3% (15%, p −1 did not change MAC further when compared to the low dose (2.46 ± 0.4%, p = 0.33). Conclusion and clinical relevance The ovarian ligament stimulation model is suitable to determine MAC during visceral stimulation in cats. Maropitant decreased the anesthetic requirements during visceral ovarian and ovarian ligament stimulation in cats. Maropitant (1 mg kg −1 ) decreases MAC by 15%; a higher dose had no additional effect.