-
Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and... Nov 2023Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a debilitating inflammatory skin disease characterized by red to violaceous pruritic lesions. The goal of therapy is to break the scratch-itch... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a debilitating inflammatory skin disease characterized by red to violaceous pruritic lesions. The goal of therapy is to break the scratch-itch cycle. Treatment varies and often requires a multimodal approach to target both immune and neural mediated aspects of disease.
OBJECTIVES
To review the efficacy of systemic treatment used to treat PN.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic search of keywords and Medical Subject Headings was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The first 200 results of an abbreviated search in Google Scholar were also included. PRISMA guidelines were followed and the review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023412012). GRADE criteria were used to assess articles for quality of evidence.
FINDINGS
The search resulted in 1153 articles; 382 were duplicates, 643 were irrelevant, 19 were not retrieved, 21 were abstract only, and 88 are included in this review. There were 24 studies on dupilumab, 16 on thalidomide, 8 on cyclosporin, 7 on methotrexate, 3 each on lenalidomide and aprepitant, 2 each on alitretinoin, apremilast, baricitinib, gabapentin, intravenous (IV) immunoglobulins, pregabalin, tofacitinib, and 1 each on amitriptyline, azathioprine, butorphanol, isoquercitin, IV dexamethasone-cyclophosphamide/ oral cyclophosphamide, ketotifen, metronidazole, montelukast, nalbuphine, nemolizumab, serolopitant, tacrolimus, and herose derma zima capsule.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Dupilumab reduces pruritus and appearance of lesions and is associated with the fewest number of side effects. Thalidomide and pregabalin are also effective, but their long-term use is limited by muscle and nerve pain. Janus Kinase inhibitors may be beneficial, but large population studies are lacking.
Topics: Humans; Thalidomide; Prurigo; Pregabalin; Cyclosporine; Pruritus; Cyclophosphamide
PubMed: 37987710
DOI: 10.1177/12034754231211797 -
Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical... 2022A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases aimed at comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with other antiemetics in their prevention... (Review)
Review
NK1 receptor antagonists versus other antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic surgical procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases aimed at comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with other antiemetics in their prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery identified seven randomized controlled trials for review and meta-analysis. Preoperative aprepitant 80 mg was found to reduce nausea (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41-0.75, I = 0%, = 0.89) and vomiting (RR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.77, I = 0%, = 0.96) and resulted in complete response (RR: 1.61 (1.25-2.08), I = 0%, = 0.70) within the first 2 hours following surgery as well as vomiting in 2-24 hours (RR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02-0.36, I = 0%; = 0.81) when compared to placebo or no antiemetic therapy. Preoperative aprepitant 80 mg has a superior overall effect compared to placebo or other antiemetics in the first two hours postoperatively, and thereafter reduces the risk of vomiting alone in the first 24 hours following laparoscopic surgeries.
PubMed: 35706647
DOI: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_464_20 -
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology Jul 2022Ifosfamide is one of the chemotherapy regimens which potentially causes neurotoxicity in patients up to 30%. Aprepitant is administered as an anti-emetic agent in... (Review)
Review
Ifosfamide is one of the chemotherapy regimens which potentially causes neurotoxicity in patients up to 30%. Aprepitant is administered as an anti-emetic agent in chemotherapy and regarding the inhibitory effect on CYP3A4, aprepitant can increase the risk of ifosfamide adverse effects. This study aims to systematically investigate the relation of ifosfamide-induced neurotoxicity and aprepitant or fosaprepitant in chemotherapy cancer patients. Four databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were systematically reviewed without language restriction and hand searching was performed until December 2021. Total 1639 publications were retrieved and nine studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. For quality assessment, we used Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scales (NOS) for retrospective cohort studies and Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias for a randomized controlled trial. Overall, the results of our systematic review indicated a positive enhanced trend between neurotoxicity and concomitant use of ifosfamide and aprepitant or fosaprepitant, but the association was not statistically significant. As indicated by our findings, several studies identified low albumin as a risk factor for ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy. However, further clinical studies with a larger population of patients are required to evaluate the clinical significance of ifosfamide-related neurotoxicity and aprepitant or fosaprepitant.
Topics: Aprepitant; Humans; Ifosfamide; Morpholines; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35635561
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-022-04439-x -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2022Chronic nodular prurigo (CNPG) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease, characterized by intense and debilitating pruritus. The pathophysiology is not fully understood,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic nodular prurigo (CNPG) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease, characterized by intense and debilitating pruritus. The pathophysiology is not fully understood, and the condition is difficult to treat with no targeted therapies. The aim of this systematic review was to review the evidence of therapies for non-atopic CNPG and conduct a meta-analysis of the results.
SUMMARY
We conducted a systematic review of the literature concerning effect of treatment for non-atopic CNPG. Due to few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case series, the literature was unfortunately too sparse to conduct a meta-analysis of the results. Instead, we thoroughly report important data from the three existing RCTs and 6 case studies with more than 15 patients. Evaluated therapies include nemolizumab, aprepitant, topical therapy with hydrocortisone and pimecrolimus, thalidomide, UVA phototherapy, pregabalin, and naltrexone. Included RCTs and case studies all had a heterogeneous methodology making direct comparison almost impossible.
KEY MESSAGES
There is sparse evidence for the currently used therapies for non-atopic CNPG. Several RCTs on new therapies are running or in the pipeline, hopefully providing new, effective, and targeted treatment possibilities for CNPG patients both with and without an atopic predisposition.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Graft vs Host Disease; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Prurigo; Pruritus; Skin; Thalidomide; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 35417906
DOI: 10.1159/000523700 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another. OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.
MAIN RESULTS
Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98 to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty). Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively. We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty). Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV. When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Network Meta-Analysis; Palonosetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 34784425
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012775.pub2 -
Medical Principles and Practice :... 2022Several forms of cannabinoids are currently being used to manage nausea and vomiting (N/V). Emerging cases of refractory N/V associated with chronic cannabis use among...
INTRODUCTION
Several forms of cannabinoids are currently being used to manage nausea and vomiting (N/V). Emerging cases of refractory N/V associated with chronic cannabis use among adults and older patients have been reported named cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). CHS is a condition that leads to repeated and severe N/V in long-term users of cannabinoids.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to outline current treatments for the management of CHS.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Databases were used to search for articles on CHS published from January 2009 to June 2021, yielding 225 results of which 17 were deemed relevant and underwent review by 2 separate reviewers.
RESULTS
The duration of cannabis administration ranged between 6 months to 11 years may precipitate symptoms of CHS. The Rome IV diagnostic criteria of CHS require cannabinoid use and persistence of N/V symptoms for at least the past 6 months. Cannabis cessation is noted to be the most successful management, but other treatments also demonstrated symptom relief; these include hot water hydrotherapy, topical capsaicin cream, haloperidol, droperidol, benzodiazepines, propranolol, and aprepitant administration.
CONCLUSION
More research on CHS is needed to enhance knowledge translation, education, and create awareness in the medical community on the side effects of cannabinoids and to propose the best treatment options.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Syndrome; Vomiting
PubMed: 34724666
DOI: 10.1159/000520417 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2021The aim of this systematic review is to assess the published cost-effectiveness analyses of aprepitant for patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting...
The aim of this systematic review is to assess the published cost-effectiveness analyses of aprepitant for patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and CBM database. The date of publication is up to January 2019. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved and reviewers reached a consensus. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the 24-item checklist of the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS). The costs reported by the included studies were converted to US dollars purchasing power parities (PPP) in the year 2019 using the CCEMG-EPPI-Certer Cost Converter. Thirteen articles were included based on the inclusion criteria for cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis. Twelve studies were rated as good quality and one as a moderate quality based on the CHEERS checklist. Eight studies compared aprepitant plus 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) and dexamethasone with the standard regimen (5-HT3RA and dexamethasone). It was concluded that aprepitant plus standard regimen was a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV. Only one study that compared aprepitant plus 5-HT3RA with 5-HT3RA, concluded that the addition of aprepitant reduced the incidence of severe nausea, and it might also provide an economic benefit in the overall management. Four studies that compared aprepitant with other antiemetic drugs concluded that aprepitant is a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV compared with metoclopramide. However, netupitan + palonosetron and olanzapine are cost-effective compared with aprepitant. This study is the first systematic evaluation of adding aprepitant to standard regimens for patients with CINV. Most economic evaluations of antiemetic medications are reported to be of good quality. Adding aprepitant to standard regimens is found to be a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Nausea; Vomiting
PubMed: 34513778
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.660514 -
Journal of Evidence-based Medicine Sep 2021In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time needed to prepare what is now the largest Cochrane review with network meta-analysis in terms of the number of included studies and pages in its full printed form.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank single antiemetic drugs and their combinations belonging to 5HT₃-, D₂-, NK₁-receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia.
RESULTS
585 studies (97 516 participants) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were included. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 studies, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared to placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single NK receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron, while moderate for fosaprepitant and droperidol. For serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse event (AE), and drug-class specific side effects evidence for intervention effects was mostly not convincing.
CONCLUSIONS
There is high or moderate evidence for at least seven single drugs preventing postoperative vomiting. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 34043870
DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12429 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Apr 2021Researchers have not clearly determined whether adding aprepitant (ADH) to dexamethasone and one 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (DH) is clinically effective at preventing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Use of dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with or without aprepitant to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with lung cancer who are treated with platinum-based chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Researchers have not clearly determined whether adding aprepitant (ADH) to dexamethasone and one 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (DH) is clinically effective at preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with lung cancer (LC) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of ADH and DH.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases, among others, for relevant studies. The primary outcomes were the complete response (CR) and the no nausea rate (NNR). The secondary endpoints were the number of patients who needed rescue antiemetic treatment (RAT), adverse events (AEs), and the Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) score.
RESULTS
We initially screened 2,118 articles; ultimately, four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 518 patients were included. The ADH group had a superior overall CR [risk ratio (RR): 1.16 (1.06, 1.27), P=0.002] and a lower number of patients who needed RAT [RR: 0.44 (0.29, 0.65), P<0.0001]. The ADH group also had a better overall NNR [RR: 1.11 (0.97, 1.26), P=0.12] and delayed CR [RR: 1.12 (0.97, 1.31), P=0.13]. No significant differences were observed in acute CR, acute NNR, or delayed NNR. In the subgroup analysis of the overall CR and NNR, ADH was superior in certain clinical characteristics (China, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, 2nd-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, ADC <50%, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0-2). No significant differences in the AEs characterized as hematological or nonhematological toxicity were observed between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with DH, ADH appears to be superior at preventing CINV and achieving a better CR among patients with LC treated with PBC.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; China; Dexamethasone; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Morpholines; Nausea; Platinum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Vomiting
PubMed: 33894731
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-2290 -
Dermatologic Therapy Jan 2021Accumulating evidence has showed the possibility of using NK1R antagonists for the treatment of chronic pruritus. However, the benefit and risk profile of NK1R... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Accumulating evidence has showed the possibility of using NK1R antagonists for the treatment of chronic pruritus. However, the benefit and risk profile of NK1R antagonists-serlopitant and aprepitant for the treatment of pruritus remains unclear. To assess the efficacy and safety of NK1R antagonists-serlopitant and aprepitant in patients with pruritus based on analysis of clinical trials. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A total of 10 randomized clinical trials including 631 patients were enrolled. Four randomized controlled trials investigated the comparative treatment effect of serlopitant on pruritus. Our results showed that serlopitant had reasonable anti-pruritic effectiveness in patients, with mild toxicities. The overall proportion of 4-point improvement of NRS and VAS in serlopitant-treatment group were both significantly higher relative to placebo group (OR 2.345, 95%CI 1.557 to 3.531, P < .001; OR 3.308, 95% CI 1.949 to 5.616, P < .001). Serlopitant treatment was also found to be associated with a significant reduction in NRS score as compared with placebo (SMD -0.381, 95%CI -0.599 to -0.164, P = .001). Six clinical trials reported the treatment effect of aprepitant on pruritus. The meta-analysis result of fixed-effect model showed that there was no significant difference between aprepitant and controlled treatment in terms of improved pruritus VAS score (SMD -0.088, 95%CI -0.384 to 0.207, P = .558). There is promising high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of serlopitant on pruritus. More large-sample randomized controlled trials with appropriate treatment regimen are urgently needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of aprepitant in pruritus.
Topics: Humans; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33368902
DOI: 10.1111/dth.14698