<h4>Purpose of review</h4>Motion sickness is an ancient phenomenon that affects many people. Nausea, vomiting, disorientation, sweating, fatigue, and headache are just few of the many signs and symptoms that are commonly experienced during an episode of motion sickness. In the present review, we will provide an overview of the current research trends and topics in the domain of motion sickness, including theoretical considerations, physiological and neural mechanisms, individual risk factors, and treatment options, as well as recommendations for future research directions.<h4>Recent findings</h4>More recently, motion sickness has been in the focus of attention in the context of two global technological trends, namely automated vehicles and virtual reality. Both technologies bear the potential to revolutionize our daily lives in many ways; however, motion sickness is considered a serious concern that threatens their success and acceptance. The majority of recent research on motion sickness focuses on one of these two areas.<h4>Summary</h4>Aside from medication (e.g. antimuscarinics, antihistamines), habituation remains the most effective nonpharmacological method to reduce motion sickness. A variety of novel techniques has been investigated with promising results, but an efficient method to reliably prevent or minimize motion sickness has yet to emerge.

<h4>Background</h4>This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2004 and previously updated in 2007 and 2009.Motion sickness, the discomfort experienced when perceived motion disturbs the organs of balance, may include symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, pallor, cold sweats, hypersalivation, hyperventilation and headaches. The control and prevention of these symptoms has included pharmacological, behavioural and complementary therapies. Although scopolamine (hyoscine) has been used in the treatment and prevention of motion sickness for decades, there have been no systematic reviews of its effectiveness.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the effectiveness of scopolamine versus no therapy, placebo, other drugs, behavioural and complementary therapy or two or more of the above therapies in combination for motion sickness in persons (both adults and children) without known vestibular, visual or central nervous system pathology.<h4>Search strategy</h4>We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 14 April 2011.<h4>Selection criteria</h4>All parallel-arm, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on scopolamine versus no therapy, placebo, other drugs, behavioural and complementary therapy or two or more of the above therapies in combination. We considered outcomes relating to the prevention of onset or treatment of clinically-defined motion sickness, task ability and psychological tests, changes in physiological parameters and adverse effects.<h4>Data collection and analysis</h4>Two authors independently extracted data from the studies using standardised forms. We assessed study quality. We expressed dichotomous data as odds ratio (OR) and calculated a pooled OR using the random-effects model.<h4>Main results</h4>Of 35 studies considered potentially relevant, 14 studies enrolling 1025 subjects met the entry criteria. Scopolamine was administered via transdermal patches, tablets or capsules, oral solutions or intravenously. Scopolamine was compared against placebo, calcium channel antagonists, antihistamine, methscopolamine or a combination of scopolamine and ephedrine. Studies were generally small in size and of varying quality.Scopolamine was more effective than placebo in the prevention of symptoms. Comparisons between scopolamine and other agents were few and suggested that scopolamine was superior (versus methscopolamine) or equivalent (versus antihistamines) as a preventative agent. Evidence comparing scopolamine to cinnarizine or combinations of scopolamine and ephedrine is equivocal or minimal.Although sample sizes were small, scopolamine was no more likely to induce drowsiness, blurring of vision or dizziness compared to other agents. Dry mouth was more likely with scopolamine than with methscopolamine or cinnarizine.No studies were available relating to the therapeutic effectiveness of scopolamine in the management of established symptoms of motion sickness.<h4>Authors' conclusions</h4>The use of scopolamine versus placebo in preventing motion sickness has been shown to be effective. No conclusions can be made on the comparative effectiveness of scopolamine and other agents such as antihistamines and calcium channel antagonists. In addition, we identified no randomised controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of scopolamine in the treatment of established symptoms of motion sickness.

Motion sickness occurs when the vestibular system is subjected to conflicting sensory information or overstimulation. Despite the lack of knowledge about the actual underlying mechanisms, several drugs, among which scopolamine, are known to prevent or alleviate the symptoms. Here, we aim at better understanding how motion sickness affects the vestibular system, as well as how scopolamine prevents motion sickness at the behavioral and cellular levels. We induced motion sickness in adult mice and tested the vestibulo-ocular responses to specific stimulations of the semi-circular canals and of the otoliths, with or without scopolamine, as well as the effects of scopolamine and muscarine on central vestibular neurons recorded on brainstem slices. We found that both motion sickness and scopolamine decrease the efficacy of the vestibulo-ocular reflexes and propose that this decrease in efficacy might be a protective mechanism to prevent later occurrences of motion sickness. To test this hypothesis, we used a behavioral paradigm based on visuo-vestibular interactions which reduces the efficacy of the vestibulo-ocular reflexes. This paradigm also offers protection against motion sickness, without requiring any drug. At the cellular level, we find that depending on the neuron, scopolamine can have opposite effects on the polarization level and firing frequency, indicating the presence of at least two types of muscarinic receptors in the medial vestibular nucleus. The present results set the basis for future studies of motion sickness counter-measures in the mouse model and offers translational perspectives for improving the treatment of affected patients.

Abstract Background Scopolamine has been demonstrated to relieve motion sickness. However, repeated significance testing may increase false-positive results. Objectives Review the efficacy and safety of scopolamine in the prevention of motion sickness by performing a meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Material and methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared scopolamine with other medications or placebo were included. Primary outcomes were nausea reported and head movement time. Results Twenty studies with 753 participants were included. Scopolamine had a greater reported reduction in nausea than placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 0.52; p<0.00001; I2 = 45%), while TSA showed the included sample size exceeded the required information size (RIS). There is no difference in head movement time between scopolamine and placebo (mean difference [MD] 2.02; 95% CI −1.2 to 5.25; p = 0.6; I2 = 0%), while the included sample size did not reach RIS. Conclusion Scopolamine is effective for motion sickness nausea compared to placebo. The TSA recommends conducting more head movement trials to validate the objective efficacy of scopolamine. Significance Clarifying the efficacy of scopolamine for motion sickness, the TSA highlights the need for more prospective studies using head movement as an outcome.

Transdermal scopolamine (TDS) is a potential long-acting prophylactic antiemetic initially developed to prevent motion sickness. TDS is a centrally acting anticholinergic agent that was approved in 2001 by the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Although TDS has been reported to be clinically efficacious in the prevention of PONV, several adverse events (AEs), such as sedation, dry mouth, blurred vision, central cholinergic syndrome, and confusion (particularly in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment), are potential concerns. The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy and tolerability of TDS in the prevention of PONV in adults. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials in adults that compared the effects of TDS and placebo on postoperative nausea, vomiting, and PONV was conducted in March 2009, and an update was conducted in July 2010. Without any language restrictions, a search with the following terms was performed: postoperative, postoperative, postanesthe*, postanaesthe*, post-anesthe*, post-anaesthe*, anesthesia, anaesthesia, surgery, surgeries, surgical, nausea, vomiting, emesis, retching, scopolamine, and hyoscine. Identified studies were then hand-searched for further relevant literature. Data from 25 randomized controlled trials were analyzed (N = 3298). In the postanesthesia care unit, TDS was associated with a significantly reduced risk for postoperative nausea compared with placebo (relative risk [RR] = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98; P = 0.03). TDS was also associated with a significantly reduced risk for postoperative nausea (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; P < 0.001), postoperative vomiting (RR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.76; P < 0.001), and PONV (RR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88; P = 0.001) during the first 24 hours after the start of anesthesia. TDS appeared to be effective compared with placebo in the prevention of postoperative nausea when treatment was initiated the night before (early application) (RR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P < 0.001) or on the day of surgery (late application) (RR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79; P < 0.001). TDS was associated with a higher prevalence of visual disturbances at 24 to 48 hours compared with placebo (RR = 3.35; 95% CI, 1.78-6.32). Analyses of confusion and other AEs did not show a significant association with TDS. In this systematic review and metaanalysis, TDS was associated with significant reductions in PONV with both early and late patch application during the first 24 hours after the start of anesthesia. TDS was associated with a higher prevalence of visual disturbances at 24 to 48 hours after surgery, but no other AEs, compared with placebo.

The physiology, risk factors, and prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are discussed. Factors to consider when determining a patient's risk for PONV include sex, history of PONV, history of motion sickness, smoking status, duration of anesthesia, use of opioids, and type of surgery. Receptors that, when activated, can cause nausea or vomiting or both include dopamine type 2, serotonin type 3, histamine type 1, and muscarinic cholinergic type 1 receptors. Patients at moderate to high risk for PONV benefit from the administration of a prophylactic antiemetic agent that blocks one or more of these receptors. Effective agents include transdermal scopolamine, prochlorperazine, promethazine, droperidol, ondansetron, dolasetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone. In high-risk patients, combining two or more antiemetics with different mechanisms of action has been shown to be more effective than using a single agent. In addition to administering a prophylactic antiemetic, it is important to reduce the patient's risk by considering regional anesthesia, considering inducing and maintaining general anesthesia with propofol, ensuring good intravenous hydration, avoiding hypotension, and providing effective analgesia. If PONV occurs in the immediate postoperative period, it is best treated with an antiemetic agent from a pharmacologic class different from that of the prophylactic agent. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy for PONV is effective, but combinations of agents may be necessary for high-risk patients. Nonpharmacologic strategies are also important.

The paper describes the current state of development of seasickness as one of movement disease variants. The given type of pathology occurs when combining different types of ship’s motion (rolling and pitching). Circular, vertical and slow movements induce more pronounced and frequent signs of seasickness than linear, horizontal and quick ones. In the view of majority of researchers, the most likely is an intersensory conflict theory i.e. violation of coherent functioning of afferent body systems performing spatial orientation, statokinetic equilibrium and keeping balance. The leading role is played by the functional dysfunction of the vestibular analyzer. The classification of means of preventing and stopping of motion sickness is given, the mechanisms of their action, specific activity and side effects are described. It has been shown that currently the most effective drugs are M-cholinergic antagonists (scopolamine hydrobromide) and H1-histamine antagonists of the 1st generation (dimenhydrinate, diphenhydramine, cyclizine, meclizine, promethazine, etc.). Of the antipsychotics and blockers of D2receptors, prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are recommended. It is also worth to use prokinetics (domperidone, cisapride, renzapride, etc.), tranquilizers (barbiturates, benzodiazepines), sleeping pills and local anesthetics. Particular attention is paid to combination drugs, consisting of antiemetic and psychostimulating drugs, designed to maintain working capacity under the influence of seasickness factors on the body. Non-pharmacological means of preventing seasickness and alleviating its symptoms are described. The main directions of improving the system of measures aimed at maintaining efficiency in the presence of symptoms of seasickness are determined.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common and undesirable complaints recorded in as many as 70-80% of high-risk surgical patients. The current prophylactic therapy recommendations for PONV management stated in the Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) guidelines should start with monotherapy and patients at moderate to high risk, a combination of antiemetic medication should be considered. Consequently, if rescue medication is required, the antiemetic drug chosen should be from a different therapeutic class and administration mode than the drug used for prophylaxis. The guidelines restrict the use of dexamethasone, transdermal scopolamine, aprepitant, and palonosetron as rescue medication 6 h after surgery. In an effort to find a safer and reliable therapy for PONV, new drugs with antiemetic properties and minimal side effects are needed, and scopolamine may be considered an effective alternative. Scopolamine is a belladonna alkaloid, α-(hydroxymethyl) benzene acetic acid 9-methyl-3-oxa-9-azatricyclo non-7-yl ester, acting as a non-selective muscarinic antagonist and producing both peripheral antimuscarinic and central sedative, antiemetic, and amnestic effects. The empirical formula is C17H21NO4 and its structural formula is a tertiary amine L-(2)-scopolamine (tropic acid ester with scopine; MW = 303.4). Scopolamine became the first drug commercially available as a transdermal therapeutic system used for extended continuous drug delivery during 72 h. Clinical trials with transdermal scopolamine have consistently demonstrated its safety and efficacy in PONV. Thus, scopolamine is a promising candidate for the management of PONV in adults as a first line monotherapy or in combination with other drugs. In addition, transdermal scopolamine might be helpful in preventing postoperative discharge nausea and vomiting owing to its long-lasting clinical effects.