Advertisement

Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 151–162 | Cite as

Levosulpiride for Dyspepsia and Emesis

A Review of its Pharmacology, Efficacy and Tolerability
  • G.R. Corazza
  • M. Tonini
Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

Objective: To review the clinical pharmacology of levosulpiride and establish its efficacy and tolerability profile in the treatment of patients with dyspepsia and emesis.

Methods: A critical review was conducted to assess the clinical pharmacology, therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of levosulpiride and to establish whether it offers any advantage over currently available therapies.

Results: Levosulpiride has been evaluated in 15 double-blind, randomised clinical trials in patients with dyspepsia (n = 1818, of whom 676 were treated with levosulpiride) and 11 clinical trials in patients with emesis (n = 718, of whom 383 were treated with levosulpiride). It was shown to be effective in the treatment of dyspepsia (functional or organic dyspepsia, diabetic gastroparesis and reflux oesophagitis), the prevention and treatment of iatrogenic emesis resulting from pharmacological agents (anaesthetics, anticancer chemotherapy, calcitonin), and the treatment of severe non-iatrogenic nausea and vomiting. The incidence of adverse events was 11% in 840 patients with dyspepsia; most of them were mild and they resulted in treatment discontinuation in only eight (0.9%) cases.

Conclusions: Levosulpiride should be considered among the drugs of choice for the treatment of various forms of dyspepsia and emesis.

Keywords

Dyspepsia Metoclopramide Cisapride Reflux Oesophagitis Functional Dyspepsia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was finded in part by an unrestricted educational grant by Ravizza Farmaceutici SpA.

References

  1. 1.
    American Gastroenterology Association. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement: Evaluation of Dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 1998; 114: 579–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Gastroenterology Association. AGATechnical Review: Evaluation of Dyspepsia: Gastroenterology 1998; 114: 582–95Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Camilleri M. Motor function in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. In: Goebell H, Holtmann G, Talley N, editors. Functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. Concepts and controversies. Amsterdam, Kluwer, 1997: 103–12Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horowitz M, Wishart JM, Jones KL, et al. Gastric emptying in diabetes: an overview. Diabet Med 1996; 13: S16–S22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tonini M. Recent advances in the pharmacology of gastrointestinal prokinetics. Pharmacol Res 1996; 33: 217–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tonini M, Spelta V, De Giorgio R, et al. A re-assessment of the pharmacodynamics of levosulpiride in the guinea pig gastrointestinal tract. Gastroenterology 1999; 116: A1093Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arienti V, Magri F, Sorge M, et al. Sindrome dispeptica: valutazione dello svuotamento gastrico e colecistico. Gastroenterologia Oggi 1992; num spec: 23-6Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arienti V, Corazza GR, Sorge M, et al. The effects of levosulpiride on gastric and gallbladder emptying in functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1994; 8: 631–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corazza GR, Sorge M, Biagi F, et al. Sindrome dispeptica: svuotamento gastrico e sintomatologia clinica. Gastroenterologia Oggi 1992; num spec: 20-2Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gatto G, Ricca T, Randazzo MA, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of levosulpiride and domperidone in the management of chronic functional dyspepsia: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Curr Ther Res 1992; 51: 715–22Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mangiameli A, Brogna A, Catanzaro R, et al. Levosulpiride vs domperidone nel trattamento della dispepsia funzionale. La Clinica Terapeutica 1994; 144: 107–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mansi C, Savarino V, Vigneri S, et al. Gastrokinetic effects of levosulpiride in dyspeptic patients with diabetic gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90: 1989–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mansi C, Savarino V, Borro P, et al. Gastric emptying evaluation by 13C-octanoic acid breath test: pharmacological modulation by levosulpiride. Gastroenterology 1998; 114: G0875Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mansi C, Savarino V, Remagnino A, et al. Comparison of the gastrokinetic effect of cisapride and levosulpiride on fat-induced delayed gastric emptying. Gastroenterology 1998; 114: G0874Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Monello S, Scollo L, Sala LO, et al. Effetti della L-sulpiride sulla motilità gastrica interdigestiva nell’uomo. Proceedings of the XXVII Congresso Nazionale SIGE, Bologna, Italy. 1989. Abstract bookGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Passaretti S, Tosi T, Tittobello A. Effect of levo-sulpiride on gastric emptying in healthy volunteers. Clin Trials J 1990; 27: 100–2Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Passaretti S, Mazzotti G, Franzoni M, et al. Motilità antroduodenale nella dispepsia non organica. Gastroenterologia Oggi 1992; num spec: 15-9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mansi C, Borro P, Melga PL. Relevance of DA2 dopamine receptors in diabetic gastroparesis: a study with levosulpiride and cisapride. Digestion 1998; 59Suppl. 3: 227Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bazzocchi G, Diquattro C, Conti E, et al. Effect of levosulpiride on electrogastrogram in patients with functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 1998; 114(4II): G2975Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arienti V, Ferrentino M, Micaletti E, et al. Studio suH’efficacia della l-sulpiride nella dispepsia e sulla dinamica motoria della colecisti. Prova controllata verso domperidone. Minerve Dietol Gastroenterol 1987; 33: 1–5Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mansi C, Savarino V, Vigneri S, et al. Effect of D2-dopamine receptor antagonist levosulpiride on diabetic cholecystoparesis: a double-blind crossover study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1995; 9: 185–9 au22._Monello S, Sala LO, Scollo L, et al. Effetti della L-sulpiride sulla pressione a riposo dello sfintere esofageo inferiore nell’uomo. Proceedings of the XXVII Congresso Nazionale SIGE, Bologna, Italy: 1989; 79. Abstract bookPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Monello S, Sala LO, Scollo L, et al. Effetti della L-sulpiride sulla pressione a riposo dello sfintere esofageo inferiore nell’uomo. Proceedings of the XXVII Congresso Nazionale SIGE, Bologna, Italy: 1989; 79. Abstract bookGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monello S, Sala LO, Scollo L, et al. Effetti della L-sulpiride e del domperidone sulla pressione dello sfintere esofageo inferiore in pazienti con reflusso gastro-esofageo. Proceedings of the IV Congresso Nazionale GISMAD, Sirmione, Italy: 1990; 63. Abstract bookGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Massa P, Coccia G, Oppezzi M, et al. Malattia da reflusso gastroesofageo. Gastroenterologia Oggi 1992; num spec: 10-4Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sabbatini F, Petrelli G, La Manna S, et al. The effect of L-sulpiride on lower esophageal sphincter pressure and esophageal peristaltic activity in healthy subjects. Curr Ther Res 1989; 46: 445–51Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Corsini GU, Del Zompo M, Melis GB et al. Sulpiride as a specific antagonist of ‘low dose’ effects of apomorphine in man. In: Spano PF, Trabucchi M, Corsini GU, et al., editors. Sulpiride and other benzamides. Milan: Italian Brain Research Foundation Press, 1979Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Forgione A. Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability study on levopraid tablets, drops and ampoules by single administration. Report LEV1/90bis, 01.09.1990. Ravizza Farmaceutici SpAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moro E. Comparative pharmacokinetc study of 1-sulpiride (25 and 50 mg) and of d,1-sulpiride (50 and 100 mg) after single oral administration to humans. Report LEV 1/90, 01.09.1990. Ravizza Farmaceutici SpAGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Melga P, Giusti R, Mansi C, et al. Chronic administration of levosulpiride and glycaemic control in IDDM patients with gastroparesis. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 55–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guslandi M, Forgione A, Tittobello A. Attività antidispeptica e tollerabilità della levosulpiride in pazienti affetti da patologia epatobiliare o gastroenterica. Fannaci Terapia 1987; 4: 179–84Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zanoboni A, Forgione A, Zanussi C. Antiemetic efficacy and safety of 1-sulpiride in patients with digestive and other disorders. Curr Ther Res 1987; 41: 903–14Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Trabucchi E, Radaelli E, Castoldi L, et al. The effects of L-sulpiride on reflux oesophagitis. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1991; 17: 317–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tosi T, Masci E, Ceppodomo D, et al. Levosulpiride and racemic sulpiride in non-ulcer dyspepsia: results of a randomized clinical study. Curr Ther Res 1992; 51: 787–91Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Corazza GR, Biagi F, Albano O, et al. Levosulpiride in functional dyspepsia: a multicentric, double-blind, controlled trial. Ital J Gastroenterol 1996; 28: 317–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Macarri G, Biasi L, Brunelli E, et al. L-sulpiride contro metoclopramide nella dispepsia funzionale: studio randomizzato in doppio cieco. Minerva Med 1991; 82: 1–4Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Masci E, Sorghi M, Tosi T, et al. Levosulpiride and domperidone in the treatment of reflux esophagitis: results of a double-blind study versus placebo. Curr Ther Res 1992; 51: 814–8Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Song CW, Chun HJ, Kim CD, et al. Effects of levosulpiride in patients with functional dyspepsia accompanied by delayed gastric emptying. Korean J Intern Med 1998 Feb; 13(1): 15–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Manani G, Manuali M, Diani M, et al. Studio comparativo della efficacia antiemetica della (−)sulpiride e della (+)sulpiride. Acta Anesth Italica 1984; 35: 889–95Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mazzarella B, Mastronardi P, Cafiero T, et al. Antiemetic effect of 1-sulpiride in obstetric patients. Curr Ther Res 1988; 43: 255–61Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schettini G, Mastronardi P, Scanni E, et al. Effetto antiemetico dell’isomero levogiro della sulpiride (1-sulpiride) nell’uomo. Minerva Anestesiol 1989; 55: 239–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zanoboni A, Forgione A, Oppiuzzi G, et al. Effectiveness of S-sulpiride in chemotherapy-induced emesis. Chemioterapia 1983; II: 311–6Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Poccardi G, Rota Scalabrini D, Capaldi A, et al. Efficacia della 1-sulpiride nel trattamento e nella prevenzione dell’emesi nel corso di chemioterapia antiblastica. Gazz Med Ital —Arch sciMed 1991; 150: 1–7Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    De Jong J, Neuschwander H, Cavalli F, et al. A randomized crossover clinical study on the effectiveness of L-sulpiride in the prevention of nausea and emesis induced by antiblastic chemotherapy. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1989; 46: 974–9Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sabbatini R, Federico M, Baldini L, et al. A randomized double-blind, crossover study comparing a L-sulpiride-based and a metoclopramide-based combination in the prevention of promece-cytabom induced emesis. Haematologica 1995; 80: 416–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Palmeri S, Gebia V, Valenza R, et al. A randomized study on the antiemetic efficacy of levosulpiride versus metoclopramide in patients with chemotherapy related vomiting. Int J Exp Clin Chemother 1991; 4: 114–7Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schiraldi GF, Lo Cicero S, Parodi GM, et al. Efficacy and safety of levosulpiride versus metoclopramide in patients with emesis induced by high doses of salmon calcitonin. Curr Ther Res 1993; 53: 42–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schiraldi GF, Parodi GM, Cimino G, et al. Attività antiemetica della levosulpiride durante terapia calcitoninica ad elevato dosaggio. Confronto con metoclopramide. Gazz Med Ital —Arch sci Med 1991; 150: 3–7Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Corli O, Cozzolino A, Battaiotto L. Effectiveness of levosulpiride versus metoclopramide for nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer patients: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. J Pain Symptom Manage 1995; 10: 521–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    -Physician’s desk Reference. 1998 edGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schettini G, Mastronardi P, Scanni E, et al. Effetto antiemetico dell’isomero levogiro della sulpiride (1-sulpiride) nell’uomo. Minerva Anestesiol 1989; 55(5): 239–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Josefson D. FDA warns about heartburn drug. BMJ 1998; 317: 101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tack J, Coremans G, Janssens J. A risk-benefit assessment of cisapride in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. Drug Saf 1995; 12(6): 384–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Di Nucci A, Spelta V, Balestra B, et al. Effetti cardiaci delle benzamidi sostituite: un aspetto clinico emblematico per alcuni procinetici gastrointestinali. Argomenti Gastroenterol Clin 1999; 12: 1–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • G.R. Corazza
    • 1
  • M. Tonini
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, Divisions of Gastroenterology and Experimental and Clinical PharmacologyUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Experimental and Clinical PharmacologyUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations