Cowings P S, Toscano W B
Space Life Sciences Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California 94035, USA.
J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 Oct;40(10):1154-65.
Motion sickness symptoms affect approximately 50% of the crew during space travel and are commonly treated with intramuscular injections of promethazine. The purpose of this paper is to compare the effectiveness of three treatments for motion sickness: intramuscular injections (i.m.) of promethazine, a physiological training method (autogenic-feedback training exercise [AFTE]), and a no-treatment control. An earlier study tested the effects of promethazine on cognitive and psychomotor performance and motion sickness tolerance in a rotating chair. For the present paper, motion sickness tolerance, symptom reports, and physiological responses of these subjects were compared to matched subjects selected from an existing database who received either AFTE or no treatment. Three groups of 11 men, between the ages of 33 and 40 years, were matched on the number of rotations tolerated during their initial rotating-chair motion sickness test. The motion sickness test procedures and the 7-day interval between tests were the same for all subjects. The drug group was tested under four treatment conditions: baseline (no injections), a 25 mg dose of promethazine, a 50 mg dose of promethazine, and a placebo of sterile saline. AFTE subjects were given four 30-minute AFTE sessions before their second, third, and fourth motion sickness tests (6 hours total). The no-treatment control subjects were only given the four rotating-chair tests. Motion sickness tolerance was significantly increased after 4 hours of AFTE when compared to either 25 mg (p < 0.00003) or 50 mg (p < 0.00001) of promethazine. The control and promethazine groups did not differ. AFTE subjects reported fewer or no symptoms at higher rotational velocities than subjects in the control or promethazine groups. The primary physiological effect of promethazine was an inhibition of skin conductance level. The AFTE group showed significantly less heart rate and skin conductance variability during motion sickness tests administered after training.
在太空旅行期间，约50%的宇航员会出现晕动病症状，常用肌肉注射异丙嗪进行治疗。本文旨在比较三种晕动病治疗方法的效果：肌肉注射异丙嗪、一种生理训练方法（自生反馈训练运动[AFTE]）以及不治疗的对照组。一项早期研究测试了异丙嗪对在转椅上的认知和心理运动表现以及晕动病耐受性的影响。对于本文，将这些受试者的晕动病耐受性、症状报告和生理反应与从现有数据库中选取的接受AFTE或未接受治疗的匹配受试者进行比较。三组11名年龄在33至40岁之间的男性，根据他们在初始转椅晕动病测试中耐受的旋转次数进行匹配。所有受试者的晕动病测试程序以及两次测试之间的7天间隔均相同。药物组在四种治疗条件下进行测试：基线（不注射）、25毫克剂量的异丙嗪、50毫克剂量的异丙嗪以及无菌生理盐水安慰剂。AFTE组受试者在第二次、第三次和第四次晕动病测试前（共6小时）接受四次30分钟的AFTE训练。未治疗的对照组受试者仅进行四次转椅测试。与25毫克（p < 0.00003）或50毫克（p < 0.00001）异丙嗪相比，AFTE训练4小时后晕动病耐受性显著提高。对照组和异丙嗪组之间没有差异。与对照组或异丙嗪组的受试者相比，AFTE组受试者在较高旋转速度下报告的症状较少或没有症状。异丙嗪的主要生理作用是抑制皮肤电导水平。在训练后进行的晕动病测试中，AFTE组的心率和皮肤电导变异性显著较小。
