Hello,
The SN Bible and the PPEH recommend metoclopramide as the standard antiemetic, even though it is only a moderately potent antiemetic.
Based on my own research and considerations, as well as reading some truly excellent posts with background information here in the forum, I have come to the conclusion that the use of one or more antacids is the best prevention against premature vomiting and perhaps also against stomach pain (by neutralizing stomach acid, the acid can no longer chemically react with the SN solution).
Nevertheless, the additional effect of antiemetics seems necessary to me:
The main benefit of Meto seems to be that it increases gastric motility, i.e., thanks to Meto, the toxin solution leaves the stomach more quickly? (to reach the small intestine, where the SN is ultimately absorbed by the body)
Strangely enough, the SN Bible and also the PPEH mention ondansetron as an alternative to metoclopramide, even though its mechanism of action is completely different from that of metoclopramide. Meto seems primarily to reduce the retention time of the SN solution in the stomach, but in cases of intoxication (receptors within the body detect that poison is already present), Ondansetron seems to be the better solution here?
So I'm assuming that the best approach is to take Meto and (!!!) Ondansetron. Strangely enough, it seems someone else had this idea besides me, or maybe I just haven't found the relevant threads yet (actually, it makes perfect sense to combine Meto and Ondo).
So here's my idea: Nausea can be triggered 1. in the stomach (by chemical burns from nitrite) or 2. in the blood vessels (receptors detect the toxin in the body).
Possible solutions would be:
This might be a bit off-topic, but here are the two mechanisms of action for Meto and Ondo:
Metoclopramide (Meto) — mechanisms and effects:
Reasons why there are different receptor systems that can trigger nausea:
Short: Evolutionary redundancy and specialization. Multiple, distinct receptors and pathways for nausea/emesis exist because they detect different threats and increase survival:
The SN Bible and the PPEH recommend metoclopramide as the standard antiemetic, even though it is only a moderately potent antiemetic.
Based on my own research and considerations, as well as reading some truly excellent posts with background information here in the forum, I have come to the conclusion that the use of one or more antacids is the best prevention against premature vomiting and perhaps also against stomach pain (by neutralizing stomach acid, the acid can no longer chemically react with the SN solution).
Nevertheless, the additional effect of antiemetics seems necessary to me:
The main benefit of Meto seems to be that it increases gastric motility, i.e., thanks to Meto, the toxin solution leaves the stomach more quickly? (to reach the small intestine, where the SN is ultimately absorbed by the body)
Strangely enough, the SN Bible and also the PPEH mention ondansetron as an alternative to metoclopramide, even though its mechanism of action is completely different from that of metoclopramide. Meto seems primarily to reduce the retention time of the SN solution in the stomach, but in cases of intoxication (receptors within the body detect that poison is already present), Ondansetron seems to be the better solution here?
So I'm assuming that the best approach is to take Meto and (!!!) Ondansetron. Strangely enough, it seems someone else had this idea besides me, or maybe I just haven't found the relevant threads yet (actually, it makes perfect sense to combine Meto and Ondo).
So here's my idea: Nausea can be triggered 1. in the stomach (by chemical burns from nitrite) or 2. in the blood vessels (receptors detect the toxin in the body).
Possible solutions would be:
1a. Antacids to reduce the chemical reaction between nitrite and stomach acid
1b. Meto to shorten the retention time of the SN solution in the stomach
2. Ondo to delay, mitigate, or, in the best case, completely suppress the nausea caused by the toxin in the body.
1b. Meto to shorten the retention time of the SN solution in the stomach
2. Ondo to delay, mitigate, or, in the best case, completely suppress the nausea caused by the toxin in the body.
This might be a bit off-topic, but here are the two mechanisms of action for Meto and Ondo:
Metoclopramide (Meto) — mechanisms and effects:
- Dopamine D2 antagonism: blocks D2 receptors in the chemoreceptor trigger zone (CTZ) and central emetic network, inhibiting emetic signaling.
- Prokinetic action (5‑HT4 agonism and indirect cholinergic effects): increases acetylcholine release in enteric neurons, accelerates gastric emptying and gut motility, reducing gastro‑triggered nausea.
- Effect: reduces nausea/vomiting (medication‑induced, postoperative, gastroparesis), speeds gastric emptying. Main adverse effects: extrapyramidal symptoms (acute dystonia, parkinsonism), sedation, hyperprolactinemia.
- Selective 5‑HT3 receptor antagonism: blocks 5‑HT3 receptors peripherally (enteric nerve endings) and centrally (CTZ and nucleus tractus solitarii), suppressing serotonin‑mediated vagal and brain emesis signals.
- Effect: effective prevention/treatment of chemotherapy‑, radiation‑, and postoperative vomiting; generally well tolerated. Common adverse effects: headache, constipation/diarrhea; rare dose‑dependent QT prolongation.
Reasons why there are different receptor systems that can trigger nausea:
Short: Evolutionary redundancy and specialization. Multiple, distinct receptors and pathways for nausea/emesis exist because they detect different threats and increase survival:
- Specialization by stimulus source:
- 5‑HT3 (enteric): senses serotonin release from intestinal mucosal irritation (toxins, chemicals, enteritis) — triggers vagal signals to the vomiting center.
- D2 (CTZ): detects blood‑borne toxins/medications (the chemoreceptor trigger zone lies outside the blood–brain barrier) — quickly senses systemic poisons.
- Muscarinic (M1) and histaminergic (H1): important for vestibular‑mediated nausea (motion sickness) and visually triggered nausea.
- Neurokinin‑1 (NK1, substance P): mediates sustained emesis signals and central integration; important in severe, persistent nausea.
- Functional advantages:
- Redundancy increases robustness: if one system fails, others still warn.
- Differentiated responses allow appropriate countermeasures (e.g., rapid gastric emptying vs. avoiding further intake).
- Location‑specific sensing (peripheral vs. central) optimizes detection of local GI injury versus systemic poisoning.
- Therapeutic consequence:
- Different antiemetics target different receptors; combination therapy can be synergistic by blocking multiple pathways simultaneously.
Last edited:
