Correlates of Plasma NT-proBNP/Cyclic GMP Ratio in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: An Analysis of the RELAX Trial.

BACKGROUND: Phosphodiesterases degrade cyclic GMP (cGMP), the second messenger that mediates the cardioprotective effects of natriuretic peptides. High natriuretic peptide/cGMP ratio may reflect, in part, phosphodiesterase activity. Correlates of natriuretic peptide/cGMP in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are not well understood. Among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the RELAX (Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial, we examined (1) cross-sectional correlates of circulating NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide)/cGMP ratio, (2) whether selective phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition by sildenafil changed the ratio, and (3) whether the effect of sildenafil on 24-week outcomes varied by baseline ratio. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 212 subjects, NT-proBNP/cGMP ratio was calculated at randomization and 24 weeks. Correlates of the ratio and its change were examined in multivariable proportional odds models. Whether baseline ratio modified the sildenafil effect on outcomes was examined by interaction terms. Higher NT-proBNP/cGMP ratio was associated with greater left ventricular mass and troponin, the presence of atrial fibrillation, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and peak oxygen consumption. Compared with placebo, sildenafil did not alter the ratio from baseline to 24 weeks (P=0.17). The effect of sildenafil on 24-week change in peak oxygen consumption, left ventricular mass, or clinical composite outcome was not modified by baseline NT-proBNP/cGMP ratio (P-interaction >0.30 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, higher NT-proBNP/cGMP ratio associated with an adverse cardiorenal phenotype, which was not improved by selective phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition. Other phosphodiesterases may be greater contributors than phosphodiesterase-5 to the adverse phenotype associated with a high natriuretic peptide/cGMP ratio in HFpEF. REGISTRATION INFORMATION: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT00763867.

Cancer-related fatigue-pharmacological interventions: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a very common symptom in patients with cancer, and one of the five areas of highest priority in cancer research. There is currently no consensus on pharmacologic interventions for treating CRF. The aim of this systematic review is to provide more clarity on which pharmacologic interventions may be most promising, for future clinical trials. The network meta-analysis provides the ability to compare multiple agents when no direct head-to-head trials of all agents have been performed. METHODS: Medline (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up until 5 March 2021. Studies were included if they reported on a pharmacologic intervention for CRF. Standardised mean differences and corresponding 95% CIs were computed using a random-effects maximum-likelihood model. RESULTS: This review reports on 18 studies and 2604 patients, the most comprehensive review of pharmacologic interventions for CRF at the time of this publication. Methylphenidate, modafinil and paroxetine were superior to placebo. Methylphenidate and modafinil were equivalent to one another. Paroxetine was superior to modafinil. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine should be further studied in future trials. As well, more safety data are needed on pharmacologic interventions.

Trends in Blood Pressure Treatment Intensification in Older Adults With Hypertension in the United States, 2008 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension control has worsened nationally, and treatment intensification is important for control. National trends for appropriate blood pressure intensification for older adults are unknown. We determine the proportion of ambulatory visits where older adults with hypertension were appropriately intensified on antihypertensives from 2008 to 2018. METHODS: Data from National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were used. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey is a nationally representative sample of ambulatory visits. Adults 60 years or older were included. Appropriate antihypertensive intensification was defined as addition of an antihypertensive for a blood pressure reading above target. We examined appropriate intensification by blood pressure targets set by the American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association, the European Society of Cardiology, and the American College of Physicians-American Academy of Family Physicians guidelines for older adults. Further, we defined an additional all-inclusive criterion meeting all 3 guidelines. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2018, appropriate intensification by American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association occurred at 11.1% (95% CI, 9.8%-12.5%) of visits, decreasing from 13.6% (95% CI, 15.6%-28.7%) of visits in 2008 to 2009 to 10.4% (95% CI, 10.9%-26.4%) in 2015 to 2018. Appropriate intensification by European Society of Cardiology occurred at 14.2% (12.1%-16.6%) of visits over 2008 to 2018, decreasing from 16.9% (95% CI, 13.5%-21.0%) in 2008 to 2009 to 12.5% (95% CI, 7.4%-20.3%) from 2015 to 2018. Appropriate intensification by American Academy of Family Physicians/American College of Physicians occurred at 18.9% (16.2%-22.0%) of visits over 2008 to 2018, decreasing from 24.7% (95% CI, 20.2%-29.0%) in 2008 to 2009 to 14.9% (95% CI, 9.0%-23.7%) from 2015 to 2018. By all-inclusive criteria, intensification trended toward worsening with time: odds ratio: 0.93 ([95% CI, 0.87-1.00]; P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate treatment intensification for older adults with hypertension in the United States was suboptimal over the past decade.

Meta-Analysis of Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasonography Versus Chest Radiography in Adults With Symptoms of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a primary cause of older adults presenting to the emergency department with acute dyspnea. Point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) has shown comparable or superior diagnostic accuracy in comparison with a chest x-ray (CXR) in patients presenting with symptoms of ADHF. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the sensitivity and specificity of LUS in comparison with CXR for diagnosing ADHF and summarize the rapidly growing body of evidence in this domain. A total of 5 databases were searched through February 18, 2021, to identify observational studies that reported on the use of LUS compared with CXR in diagnosing ADHF in patients presenting with shortness of breath. Meta-analysis was conducted on the sensitivities and specificities of each diagnostic method. A total of 8 studies reporting on 2,787 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For patients presenting with signs and symptoms of ADHF, LUS was found to be more sensitive than CXR (91.8% vs 76.5%) and more specific than CXR (92.3% vs 87.0%) for the detection of cardiogenic pulmonary edema. In conclusion, LUS is more sensitive and specific than CXR in detecting pulmonary edema. This highlights the importance of sonographic B-lines, along with the accurate interpretation of clinical data, in the diagnosis of ADHF. In addition to its convenience, reduced costs, and reduced radiation exposure, LUS should be considered an effective alternative to CXR for evaluating patients with dyspnea in the setting of ADHF.

Colchicine use in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Colchicine may inhibit inflammasome signaling and reduce proinflammatory cytokines, a purported mechanism of COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to report on the state of the current literature on the use of colchicine in COVID-19 and to investigate the reported clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients by colchicine usage. METHODS: The literature was searched from January 2019 through January 28, 2021. References were screened to identify studies that reported the effect of colchicine usage on COVID-19 outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, or mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroup of trial design (RCT vs observational) and ICU status. Studies reporting an risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Eight studies, reporting on 16,248 patients, were included in this review. The Recovery trial reported equivalent mortality between colchicine and non-colchicine users. Across the other studies, patients who received colchicine had a lower risk of mortality-HR of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.66) and OR of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.57). There was no statistical difference in risk of ICU admissions between patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine and those who did not-OR of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.06, 1.09). CONCLUSION: Colchicine may reduce the risk of mortality in individuals with COVID-19. Further prospective investigation may further determine the efficacy of colchicine as treatment in COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease, including post-hospitalization and long-term care.

Effect of famotidine on hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated. RESULTS: Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death-HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%. CONCLUSION: Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.

Weight changes of younger and older early breast cancer patients-a meta regression.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain during chemotherapy for breast cancer is quite common and has a major impact on the quality of life. Post-treatment weight gain can also impact on primary endpoints such as tumor recurrence and overall survival. Parameters thought to impact weight gain include menopausal status, age and chemotherapy regimen. Using meta-regression, we studied the effect of age on weight change by menopausal status and chemotherapy regimen. METHODS: Twenty-four studies were identified, and extracted for weight change, mean/median age, menopausal status and chemotherapy regimen. A meta-regression was performed using a random-effects model for high heterogeneity and fixed-effects inverse-variance model for low heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses by menopausal status and chemotherapy regimen were conducted. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There exists no relationship between weight change and age (ß=0.00; P=0.987). Stratifying by menopausal status (ß=0.05 and P=0.150 for premenopausal patients; ß=0.09 and P=0.588 for postmenopausal patients) and chemotherapy regimens (ß=-0.07 and P=0.562 for patients receiving CMF alone; ß=0.08 and P=0.707 for patients receiving CMF in addition to others; ß=0.02 and P=0.807 for patients not receiving CMF), there likewise was no relationship between weight change and age. CONCLUSIONS: Management of weight gain due to chemotherapy has been focused on relatively young women who are generally at higher risk of mortality and tumor recurrence. However, our results suggest that age should not be used for differential care.

The protective association between statins use and adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Statins may reduce a cytokine storm, which has been hypothesized as a possible mechanism of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report on adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients by statin usage. METHODS: Literatures were searched from January 2019 to December 2020 to identify studies that reported the association between statin usage and adverse outcomes, including mortality, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroups of ICU status and statin usage before and after COVID-19 hospitalization. Studies reporting an odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Thirteen cohorts, reporting on 110,078 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Individuals who used statins before their COVID-19 hospitalization showed a similar risk of mortality, compared to those who did not use statins (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.28; OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38, 1.03). Patients who were administered statins after their COVID-19 diagnosis were at a lower risk of mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.61; OR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.75). The use of statins did not reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.64). Among non-ICU patients, statin users were at a lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.62; OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.88). CONCLUSION: Patients administered statins after COVID-19 diagnosis or non-ICU admitted patients were at lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) patients.

PURPOSE: Olanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV. RESULTS: Olanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

Olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review, meta-analysis, cumulative meta-analysis and fragility assessment of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model. RESULTS: Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

Secondary and cumulative meta-analysis of olanzapine for antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: do we still need to study its effectiveness?

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine has been found to have antiemetic properties due to its ability to inhibit multiple serotonergic, dopaminergic, alpha-1 adrenergic and histamine receptors. In 2016, a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting found olanzapine to be more efficacious than other standard antiemetics in the prophylactic setting. However, since the review, many clinical trials using olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been published-in many cases, contending that further trials would further help elucidate the efficacy of olanzapine for CINV given the continued paucity of literature. The primary aim of this study is to conduct a secondary, cumulative meta-analysis to assess the impact of the most recent trials on the published effect estimate of olanzapine and ultimately determine whether trials published since 2016 have significantly changed the summary estimate. METHODS: As reported previously, a literature search was conducted up until 2015, of Ovid Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 10 RCTs with a total of over 1,000 patients were included, that compared olanzapine to other antiemetics in the prophylactic setting, which reported on at least one of two endpoints-no emesis and no nausea. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute cumulative risk ratios (RR) and their accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: For the endpoint of emetic control, the cumulative meta-analysis shows that the summary effect did not change noticeably with the inclusion of the most recent trials. In the acute phase, the RR shifted from 1.07 before 2011 to 1.10 after 2015, even after the inclusion of 7 trials. Similar small changes were noted in the delayed and overall phases. For the endpoint of nausea control, the cumulative meta-analysis does show a significant visual change in summary effect, except for nausea control in the acute phase. In the delayed phase, the RR shifts from 1.58 before 2011 to 1.50 after 2015. In the overall phase, the RR shifts from 1.642 before 2011 to 1.53 after 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine's efficacy for the prophylaxis of CINV has been sufficiently documented, with respect to emetic control. There is, however, more limited data supporting its efficacy with respect to nausea control.

United network for organ sharing outcomes after heart transplantation for al compared to ATTR cardiac amyloidosis.

Light-chain (AL) cardiac amyloidosis (CA) has a worse prognosis than transthyretin (ATTR) CA. In this single-center study, we compared post-heart transplant (OHT, orthotopic heart transplantation) survival for AL and ATTR amyloidosis, hypothesizing that these differences would persist post-OHT. Thirty-nine patients with CA (AL, n = 18; ATTR, n = 21) and 1023 non-amyloidosis subjects undergoing OHT were included. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to evaluate the impact of amyloid subtype and era (early era: from 2001 to 2007; late era: from 2008 to 2018) on survival post-OHT. Survival for non-amyloid patients was greater than ATTR (P = .034) and AL (P < .001) patients in the early era. One, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were higher for ATTR patients than AL patients in the early era (100% vs 75%, 67% vs 50%, and 67% vs 33%, respectively, for ATTR and AL patients). Survival in the non-amyloid cohort was 87% at 1 year, 81% at 3 years, and 76% at 5 years post-OHT. In the late era, AL and ATTR patients had unadjusted 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates of 100%, which was comparable to non-amyloid patients (90% vs 84% vs 81%). Overall, these findings demonstrate that in the current era, differences in post-OHT survival for AL compared to ATTR are diminishing; OHT outcomes for selected patients with CA do not differ from non-amyloidosis patients.

Correction to: Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients, a comparison of complication rates: an updated systematic review and (cumulative) meta-analysis.

The appendices were incorrectly numbered in the original article. Please see below correcct appendices.

Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients, a comparison of complication rates: an updated systematic review and (cumulative) meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Weight loss in cancer patients is a worrisome constitutional change predicting disease progression and shortened survival time. A logical approach to counter some of the weight loss is to provide nutritional support, administered through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The aim of this paper was to update the original systematic review and meta-analysis previously published by Chow et al., while also assessing publication quality and effect of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the meta-conclusion over time. METHODS: A literature search was carried out; screening was conducted for RCTs published in January 2015 up until December 2018. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving no infection and no nutrition support complications. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients achieving no major complications and no mortality. Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) by Cochrane IMS and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3) by Biostat were used for meta-analyses of endpoints and assessment of publication quality. RESULTS: An additional seven studies were identified since our prior publication, leading to 43 papers included in our review. The results echo those previously published; EN and PN are equivalent in all endpoints except for infection. Subgroup analyses of studies only containing adults indicate identical risks across all endpoints. Cumulative meta-analysis suggests that meta-conclusions have remained the same since the beginning of publication time for all endpoints except for the endpoint of infection, which changed from not favoring to favoring EN after studies published in 1997. There was low risk of bias, as determined by assessment tool and visual inspection of funnel plots. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the current European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines recommending enteral over parenteral nutrition, when oral nutrition is inadequate, in adult patients. Further studies comparing EN and PN for these critical endpoints appear unnecessary, given the lack of change in meta-conclusion and low publication bias over the past decades.

Single vs multiple fraction palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: Cumulative meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a long-standing debate regarding the efficacy of single fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) compared to multiple fraction radiotherapy (MFRT); many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted to resolve the debate and suggested SFRT is equally as effective as MFRT. Given the adequate amalgamated sample size that exists, it is difficult to appreciate the need for further RCTs. The aim of this paper was to conduct a cumulative meta-analysis to determine whether further trials will be of value to the meta-conclusion. This paper also assessed publication quality. METHODS: A total of 29 studies were used in our meta-analysis. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3) by Biostat was used to conduct a cumulative meta-analysis. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool was employed to assess study quality of the included RCTs. Funnel plots were generated using Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) by Cochrane IMS, to visually assess for publication bias. RESULTS: All but one endpoint, overall response rates in assessable patients, maintained the same meta-conclusion over publication time; published studies did not change the amalgamated scientific conclusion of existing literature. Additional studies have simply confirmed pre-existing conclusions and refined the point estimate of the efficacy estimate. The majority of included studies have low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the meta-conclusion has remained consistent over time - SFRT is equally as efficacious as MFRT. Recent studies have had little impact on the overall conclusion, and given the vast amount of resources to execute a randomized trial, future resources should not be used to repeat these studies, and can be better allocated to test other hypotheses.

Do we still need to study palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting? A cumulative meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim is to conduct an updated systematic review comparing palonosetron to other 5-HT3RAs for the prophylaxis of CINV, assess for publication biases, and determine whether further RCTs are required, that could potentially lead to a different meta-conclusion. METHODS: Random-effects analysis model was used to generate odds ratio (OR), risk differences (RD) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI). Funnel plots to assess for biases and cumulative meta-analyses to assess effect size over time were generated. RESULTS: 4145 patients were randomized to palonosetron and 4911 received other 5-HT3RAs. In the majority of efficacy endpoints, the meta-conclusion has not changed over time - recent clinical trials simply narrow CIs the meta-conclusion. Safety profile boasts a stable conclusion over time. No publication biases exist. CONCLUSION: Considering the vast amount of resources needed to conduct RCTs, resources should be dedicated to other prophylactic treatments/settings which have not been as well explored.

Efficacy of the combination neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron, and dexamethasone compared to others for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a common side effect of chemotherapy, can substantially impair a patient's quality of life, interfere with a patient's compliance with anticancer therapy, and result in the manifestation of adverse events such as electrolyte imbalance, dehydration and malnutrition. The most recent guidelines published by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommend the combination of dexamethasone (DEX), a 5-hydroxytrypatmine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), preferably palonosetron (PALO), and a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) for prophylactic treatment of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The aim of this review was to examine the efficacy of triple agent, as reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), compared to any other prophylactic treatments. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase Classic & Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (CR) in the acute, delayed and overall phase. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who achieved complete control (CC), no nausea and no vomiting in the acute, delayed and overall phases. RESULTS: A total of 17 RCTs were included in this review, of which 3,146 patients were randomized to receive NK1RA, PALO and DEX, and 2,987 patients to receive other antiemetic treatments. The combination was not superior to other treatments in five endpoints-CC and CR in the acute phase, nausea and emesis control in the delayed phase, and nausea in the overall phase-but was superior in the other 11 endpoints. When looking only at HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) studies, the combination was only superior to others in three endpoints (delayed and overall CC, and overall emesis control) in HEC setting, which is less than the nine identified endpoints (delayed and overall CR, delayed and overall CC, acute and overall nausea control, and acute, delayed and overall phases for emesis control) in the MEC setting. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of NK1RA, PALO and DEX is superior in the majority of assessed endpoints of this meta-analysis. Further studies should investigate the efficacy and safety of the triple regimen compared to regimens lacking NK1RA, to add to the discussions about whether future CINV prophylaxis guidelines should include NK1RA as a first-line treatment in the MEC setting.