-
Porto Biomedical Journal 2023Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) strongly affect the quality of life of patients with cancer.... (Review)
Review
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) strongly affect the quality of life of patients with cancer. Inadequate antiemetic control leads to the decline of patients' quality of life, increases rescue interventions, and may even compromise adherence to cancer treatment. Although there are international recommendations for controlling CINV and RINV, these recommendations focus mainly on pharmacological management, with scarce information on additional measures that patients may adopt. Moreover, the prophylaxis and management of CINV/RINV are not always applied. Thus, we identified the need to systematize the strategies for preventing and managing CINV/RINV and the associated risk factors to implement and promote effective prophylactic antiemetic regimens therapy in patients with cancer. This review sought to create a set of practical recommendations for managing and controlling CINV/RINV, according to the current international recommendations for antiemetic therapy and the main risk factors. Conclusively, we intended to produce a patient-centered guidance document for health care professionals focused on the awareness, monitoring, and treatment of CINV/RINV.
PubMed: 37846304
DOI: 10.1097/j.pbj.0000000000000234 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Dec 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia, and clinicians seek prophylactic interventions to prevent its ill... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia, and clinicians seek prophylactic interventions to prevent its ill effects on patients as well as its ramifications on perioperative care. We sought to assess the body of evidence around prophylactic strategies, both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic, targeting pediatric PONV.
SOURCE
We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE ePubs Ahead of Print and In-Process Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL (via the Ovid platform), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, from their inception to 23 September 2022.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Of 188 clinical trials, 157 (83%) investigated pharmacologic interventions, 25 (13%) investigated nonpharmacologic interventions, and six (3%) investigated mixed pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. The most common surgeries investigated for pediatric PONV were strabismus surgery (68 trials, 36%) and tonsillectomy or tympanoplasty (45 trials, 23%). Of four measurement tools used to assess PONV in the included trials, the most common was clinical judgement (170 trials, 90%).
CONCLUSION
The majority of data in pediatric PONV prophylaxis is based on pharmacologic interventions, with a paucity of research in nonpharmacologic or mixed interventions. Assessing and documenting PONV using tools such as the Baxter Animated Retching Faces Scale or PONV numeric scoring system may help standardize pediatric PONV prophylaxis research moving forward. Furthermore, concurrently assessing pain and adverse effects associated with PONV might further inform our understanding of this complex clinical entity.
Topics: Humans; Child; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Antiemetics; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Anesthesia, General; Pain
PubMed: 37798598
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02560-w -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023Radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV and C-RINV) are common and distressing, and there is a need for guidance for clinicians to provide... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV and C-RINV) are common and distressing, and there is a need for guidance for clinicians to provide up to date optimal antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment. Through a comprehensive review of the literature concerning RINV and C-RINV, this manuscript aims to update the evidence for antiemetic prophylaxis and rescue therapy and provide a new edition of recommendations for the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines for RINV and C-RINV.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature including data published from May 1, 2015, to January 31, 2023, was performed. All authors assessed the literature.
RESULTS
The searches yielded 343 references; 37 met criteria for full article review, and 20 were ultimately retained. Only one randomized study in chemoradiation had the impact to provide new recommendations for the antiemetic guideline. Based on expert consensus, it was decided to change the recommendation for the "low emetic risk" category from "prophylaxis or rescue" to "rescue" only, while the drugs of choice remain unchanged.
CONCLUSION
As for the previous guideline, the serotonin receptor antagonists are still the cornerstone in antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by high and moderate emetic risk radiotherapy. The guideline update provides new recommendation for the management of C-RINV for radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. To avoid overtreatment, antiemetic prophylaxis is no longer recommended for the "low emetic risk" category.
Topics: Humans; Antiemetics; Emetics; Consensus; Vomiting; Nausea; Chemoradiotherapy; Radiotherapy; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 38097904
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08226-z -
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... 2023Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
OBJECTIVE
Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).
METHODS
Prospective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis. A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out.
RESULTS
61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period. A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting. The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2. No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD. A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anthracyclines; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Carboplatin; Dexamethasone; Nausea; Vomiting; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 37268481
DOI: 10.1016/j.farma.2023.04.003 -
International Journal of Clinical... Jan 2023The phase 3 VELIA trial evaluated veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel and as maintenance in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Veliparib with frontline chemotherapy and as maintenance in Japanese women with ovarian cancer: a subanalysis of efficacy, safety, and antiemetic use in the phase 3 VELIA trial.
BACKGROUND
The phase 3 VELIA trial evaluated veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel and as maintenance in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.
METHODS
Patients with previously untreated stage III-IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma were randomized 1:1:1 to control (placebo with carboplatin/paclitaxel and placebo maintenance), veliparib-combination-only (veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel and placebo maintenance), or veliparib-throughout (veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel and veliparib maintenance). Randomization stratification factors included geographic region (Japan versus North America or rest of the world). Primary end point was investigator-assessed median progression-free survival. Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics were evaluated in a subgroup of Japanese patients.
RESULTS
Seventy-eight Japanese patients were randomized to control (n = 23), veliparib-combination-only (n = 30), and veliparib-throughout (n = 25) arms. In the Japanese subgroup, median progression-free survival for veliparib-throughout versus control was 27.4 and 19.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.16; p = 0.1 [not significant]). In the veliparib-throughout arm, grade 3/4 leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia rates were higher for Japanese (32%/88%/32%) versus non-Japanese (17%/56%/28%) patients. Grade 3/4 anemia rates were higher in non-Japanese (65%) versus Japanese (48%) patients. Early introduction of olanzapine during veliparib monotherapy maintenance phase may help prevent premature discontinuation of veliparib, via its potent antiemetic efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS
Median progression-free survival was numerically longer in Japanese patients in the veliparib-throughout versus control arm, consistent with results in the overall study population. Pharmacokinetics were comparable between Japanese and non-Japanese patients. Data for the subgroup of Japanese patients were not powered to show statistical significance but to guide further investigation.
Topics: Humans; Female; Carboplatin; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Anemia; Thrombocytopenia
PubMed: 36534262
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-022-02258-x -
Drugs Jul 2021Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo), available in oral and intravenous (IV) formulations, is a fixed-dose combination of the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist... (Review)
Review
Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo), available in oral and intravenous (IV) formulations, is a fixed-dose combination of the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist netupitant (or the prodrug, fosnetupitant, in the IV formulation) and the second-generation serotonin 3 (5-HT) receptor antagonist palonosetron. Administered as a single dose, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron (in combination with dexamethasone) is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults. In clinical trials, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron plus dexamethasone was associated with high complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute, delayed and overall phases in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with efficacy maintained over multiple cycles. Further, oral netupitant/palonosetron was found to be superior to palonosetron and non-inferior to aprepitant plus granisetron in preventing CINV in individual trials. Both the oral and IV formulations of the drug combination are well tolerated. The fixed-dose combination is concordant with guideline recommendations and provides a simple and convenient option for prophylaxis against acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dexamethasone; Drug Combinations; Drug Interactions; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting
PubMed: 34292534
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-021-01558-2 -
Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie : Organ... Oct 2022There is sparse research reporting effective interventions for preventing nausea and emesis caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locally advanced head and...
BACKGROUND
There is sparse research reporting effective interventions for preventing nausea and emesis caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC).
METHODS
Treatment-naïve LA-HNSCC patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concomitant cisplatin 100 mg/m (33 mg/m/days [d]1-3) every 3 weeks for two cycles. All patients were given oral aprepitant 125 mg once on d1, then 80 mg once on d2-5; ondansetron 8 mg once on d1; and dexamethasone 12 mg once on d1, then 8 mg on d2-5. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR). Pursuant to δ = 0.2 and α = 0.05, the expected CR rate was 80%.
RESULTS
A total of 43 patients with LA-HNSCC were enrolled. The median age was 53 years, and 86.0% were male. All patients received radiotherapy and 86.0% of patients completed both cycles as planned. The overall CR rate was 86.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.1-94.7). The CR rates for cycles 1 and 2 were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9-96.1) and 89.2% (95% CI: 74.6-97.0). The complete protection rate in the overall phase was 72.1% (95% CI: 56.3-84.7). The emesis-free and nausea-free responses in the overall phase were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9-96.1) and 60.5% (95% CI: 44.4-75.0), respectively. The adverse events related to antiemetics were constipation (65.1%) and hiccups (16.3%), but both were grade 1-2. There was no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related toxicity with antiemetic usage.
CONCLUSION
The addition of aprepitant into ondansetron and dexamethasone provided effective protection from nausea and emesis in patients with LA-HNSCC receiving radiotherapy and concomitant high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.
Topics: Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Chemoradiotherapy; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Ondansetron; Prospective Studies; Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck; Vomiting
PubMed: 35635557
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-022-01958-7 -
International Journal of General... 2024Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a prevalent and distressing adverse effect that can negatively affect a patient's quality of life and treatment...
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a prevalent and distressing adverse effect that can negatively affect a patient's quality of life and treatment adherence.
PURPOSE
This study aimed to evaluate the consistency of antiemetic use with standard guidelines and to examine the factors influencing it.
METHODS
This cross-sectional study was conducted at the National Oncology Center (NOC) of Al-Jomhouri Teaching Hospital, Sana'a, Yemen, from November 2022 to September 2023. Demographic data, chemotherapy and antiemetic regimens, dosages, and patient-related risk factors were collected via direct interviews, medical records, and treatment charts. This study evaluated the consistency of antiemetic practices among non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) patients using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. The chi-squared test and regression were used to determine the factors associated with guideline consistency.
RESULTS
A total of 251 patients with NHL were recruited for the study; 57.4% were male and 60.6% were aged between 18-49. Most of the patients received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (81.3%). The overall consistency with the NCCN guidelines was only 23.9%, with antiemetic drug selection and dosage reported inconsistently in 62.9% and 16.7% of patients, respectively. Furthermore, 62.5% of the patients received an under-prescribed antiemetic prophylactic regimen. Treatment duration, number of chemotherapy cycles, emetogenic risk potential, and overall patient risk, as well as age, sex, and marital status, were significantly associated with guideline inconsistency (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
This study revealed a notable gap in the consistency of antiemetic prescriptions among patients with NHL. Inappropriate drug selection, dosing, and under-prescription are common problems. Patient regimen risk factors significantly influenced the consistency of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Personalized approaches are essential to enhance adherence to guidelines and improve antiemetic strategies.
PubMed: 38766595
DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S458922 -
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... 2023Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
OBJECTIVE
Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).
METHODS
Prospective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis. A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out.
RESULTS
61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period. A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting. The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2. No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD. A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Male; Antiemetics; Carboplatin; Anthracyclines; Nausea; Vomiting; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Dexamethasone; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 37500396
DOI: 10.1016/j.farma.2023.06.007 -
PloS One 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting are typical postsurgical complications. Drug therapy is only partially effective. The goal of our meta-analysis is to systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting are typical postsurgical complications. Drug therapy is only partially effective. The goal of our meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of electrical acupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting and to score the quality of evidence supporting this concept.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to March 19, 2020.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies (2064 patients) were included. Compared with control treatment, electrical acupoint stimulation reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.57, P < 0.001), postoperative nausea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64, P < 0.001) and postoperative vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70, P < 0.001). Electrical acupoint stimulation also reduced the number of patients requiring antiemetic rescue (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.85, P = 0.004). No differences in adverse events were observed. Subgroup analysis showed that both electroacupuncture (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, P < 0.001) and transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58, P < 0.001) had significant effects. Electrical acupoint stimulation was effective whether administered preoperatively (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.60, P < 0.001), postoperatively (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.76, P < 0.001), or perioperatively (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.67, P < 0.001). The quality of evidence was moderate to low.
CONCLUSIONS
Electrical acupoint stimulation probably reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, and reduce the number of patients requiring antiemetic rescue, with few adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Antiemetics; Acupuncture Points; Vomiting; Electric Stimulation; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 37256901
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285943