Two doses of fosaprepitant included prophylactic treatment for the three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists included prophylactic treatment was recommended for patients who receive one-day cisplatin chemotherapy. It is unclear whether the prolonged administration of fosaprepitant is effective for three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We aim to explore the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of two doses of fosaprepitant included regimen in the patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy. METHODS: This randomized, parallel-group, open-labelled study was conducted in nine hospitals between February 2021 and February 2023. Patients diagnosed as lung cancer and chemotherapy naive were screened. Eligible participants were scheduled to be treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen which including three days of cisplatin. Then they were randomly divided into the experimental group (two doses of fosaprepitant, Group 2DF) and the control group (one dose of fosaprepitant, Group C). The primary endpoints included the safety and the average none CINV days (NCDs). This study was registered on the website of chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR2100042665. RESULTS: Overall, 204 participants were randomly assigned, and 198 patients were analyzed. No statistical difference in adverse events was found between the two groups. All treatment-related adverse effects for fosaprepitant observed were of grade 1-2. The average NCDs of Group 2DF was significantly more than Group C (18.21 ± 3.40 days vs 16.14 ± 5.20 days, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the better life function score was achieved in Group 2DF according to FLIE questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The administration of two-dose fosaprepitant was safe and more effective than one dose in protecting patients from CINV induced by three-day cisplatin included chemotherapy.

Treatment of nausea in hospitalized patients with acute illness.

Evidence suggests that available antiemetics are equal to intravenous fluid treatment against acute nausea of other causes than motion sickness, pregnancy, anaesthesia, chemo- or radiation therapy. Each antiemetic is associated with adverse effects, which include movement disorders, sedation, and QT prolongation. Intravenous fluid and treatment directed against underlying pathology is recommended as a first-line treatment against nausea in these patients. If an antiemetic is clinically warranted, ondansetron has the most favourable ratio between side effects and price, as argued in this review.

The quality of life and work productivity are affected by the presence of nausea/vomiting in patients taking iron preparations for heavy menstrual bleeding or anemia: a population-based cross-sectional survey in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Patients with iron deficiency anemia are treated with iron preparations, but gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea and vomiting occur frequently. These symptoms may negatively affect the quality of life and work productivity in patients with iron deficiency anemia. This study assessed the impact of nausea and vomiting on the quality of life and work productivity of patients taking iron preparations for heavy menstrual bleeding or anemia. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among patients taking iron preparations for heavy menstrual bleeding or anemia. Demographic data and information about medication use and the health condition were collected. The patients were asked to answer the 5-level EQ-5D version, and work productivity and activity impairment questionnaires. The outcomes were reported by patients in the presences of nausea, vomiting, and nausea or vomiting. The association with the 5-level EQ-5D version utility score for the severity and frequency of the symptoms were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 385 patients were enrolled, and 96 were patients with nausea or vomiting, of which 94 were with nausea and 27 were with vomiting. The 5-level EQ-5D version utility scores for the patients with nausea, vomiting, and nausea or vomiting were significantly lower than those of the patients without these symptoms (p < 0.001 for each). The 5-level EQ-5D version utility score was correlated with the severity of nausea and the frequency of vomiting per day (p < 0.001 for each). As for the work productivity and activity impairment, the presenteeism, the overall work impairment, and the activity impairment of the patients with nausea, vomiting, and nausea or vomiting were significantly higher than those without these symptoms (p < 0.001 for each). The absenteeism was slightly higher trend was observed, but not significant. CONCLUSION: Patients taking iron preparations who have nausea or vomiting experience a significant burden in terms of poorer quality of life and higher work productivity impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000045700 ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ ). Registered on October 11, 2021.

Resolution of severe gastroparesis induced by parasympathetic surge following facial trauma: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Gastroparesis is a condition that affects the motility of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, causing a delay in the emptying process and leading to nausea, vomiting, bloating, and upper abdominal pain. Motility treatment along with symptom management can be done using antiemetics or prokinetics. This study highlights the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of gastroparesis and suggests a potential link between facial trauma and symptom remission, indicating the need for further investigation. CASE PRESENTATION: A 46-year-old Hispanic man with hypertension, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and hyperlipidemia on amlodipine 10 mg, lisinopril 5 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, and insulin glargine presented with a diabetic foot ulcer with probable osteomyelitis. During hospitalization, the patient developed severe nausea and vomiting. The gastroenterology team advised continuing antiemetic medicine and trying very small sips of clear liquids. However, the patient didn't improve. Therefore, the gastroenterology team was contacted again. They advised having stomach emptying tests to rule out gastroparesis as the source of emesis. In addition, they recommended continuing metoclopramide, and starting erythromycin due to inadequate improvement. Studies found a 748-min stomach emptying time. Normal is 45-90 min. An uneventful upper GI scope was done. Severe gastroparesis was verified, and the gastroenterology team advised a percutaneous jejunostomy or gastric pacemaker for gastroparesis. Unfortunately, the patient suffered a mechanical fall resulting in facial trauma. After the fall, the patient's nausea eased, and emesis stopped. He passed an oral liquids trial after discontinuation of erythromycin and metoclopramide. CONCLUSION: This case exemplifies the difficulties in diagnosing and treating gastroparesis. An interesting correlation between parasympathetic surges and recovery in gastroparesis may be suggested by the surprising remission of symptoms following face injuries.

Surgical removal of extended-release buprenorphine depot due to adverse reactions.

Extended-release formulations of buprenorphine offer less frequent dosing, provide consistent medication delivery, and improve adherence for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Although buprenorphine is a partial agonist with seemingly less precipitated withdrawal and easier initiation than full opioid agonists used for OUD, its use is not benign and understanding of the different extended-release formulations is necessary. We report a case of a patient that received a long-acting buprenorphine formulation (Sublocade®) administered subcutaneously that presented to the emergency department with tachycardia, hyperglycemia, elevated anion gap, and sustained nausea and vomiting refractory to pharmacotherapy requiring surgical removal of the buprenorphine depot for resolution of nausea and vomiting symptoms.

The clinical effect of an electric massage chair on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: randomized phase II cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse events in cancer patients and can negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an electric massage chair (EMC) for the treatment of CINV. METHODS: A randomized phase II cross-over trial was conducted on solid cancer patients who received moderate (MEC) to high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The participants were randomly assigned to receive their first chemotherapy either on a standard bed (Group A) or in an EMC (Group B) during the infusion. The patients were then crossed over to the next cycle. CINV and QoL questionnaires were collected from the participants. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients completed the trial protocol and were included in the analysis, with 29 and 30 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean INVR (Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching) score in the 2nd day of the first cycle was higher in Group B (3.63 ± 5.35) than Group A (2.76 ± 4.78), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5367). The complete response rate showed little difference between the groups. Among the high-emetic risk subgroups, patients who received HEC (p = 0.04595), younger patients (p = 0.0108), and non-colorectal cancer patients (p = 0.0495) presented significantly lower CINV scores when EMC was applied. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no significant difference in INVR scores between standard care and EMC. Applying EMC at the first chemotherapy infusion may help preserve QoL and reduce CINV in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: KCT0008200, 17/02/2023, Retrospectively registered.

2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

Evaluation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine-a case series.

PURPOSE: Although lomustine has been used as a chemotherapeutic agent for decades, no recommendation on appropriate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is available. As CINV is considered one of the most bothersome side effects of chemotherapy, adequate prophylaxis is of relevance to improve quality of life during cancer treatment. The aim of this retrospective case series was to report the incidence and severity of CINV in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine and to formulate recommendations for appropriate CINV prophylaxis. METHODS: Pediatric patients treated with lomustine for high-grade glioma according to the ACNS 0423 protocol were identified retrospectively. Two researchers independently reviewed and classified complaints of CINV and administered CINV prophylaxis. Treatment details, tumor localization, and response to therapy were systematically extracted from the patients' files. RESULTS: Seventeen children aged 8-18 years received a median of four cycles of lomustine. CINV complaints and administered prophylaxis were evaluable in all patients. Moderate or severe CINV was observed in 13/17 (76%) patients. Administered prophylactic CINV regimens varied from no prophylaxis to triple-agent combinations. CONCLUSION: In this case series, we identified lomustine as a highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. According to the current guidelines, CINV prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in combination with dexamethasone and (fos)aprepitant is recommended.

Mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancers: A prospective multicenter phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Mirtazapine blocks 5-hydroxytryptamine type (5-HT)2A, 5-HT2C, 5-HT3 and histamine H1 receptors, similarly to olanzapine. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancers. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial in four institutions in Japan. Registered patients were moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy-naïve, and were scheduled to receive CBDCA at area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute. Patients received mirtazapine 15 mg/day orally at bedtime for four consecutive days, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) rate during the delayed period (24-120 h). RESULTS: Between July 2022 and July 2023, 52 patients were enrolled, and 48 patients were evaluated. CR rates in the delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and acute periods (0-24 h) were 83.3%, 83.3%, and 100%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were observed except for one patient who had grade 3 dry mouth as evaluated by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone shows promising efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. This three-drug combination appears to be a reasonable treatment approach in patients with thoracic cancers receiving a CBDCA-based regimen at AUC ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute.

Retrospective analysis of real-world prescribing data for managing cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in China.

BACKGROUND: The current utilization of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) and the impact of updated guidelines on prescription patterns of antiemetic drugs among Chinese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remain undetermined. This study aims to analyze the present situation of Chinese cancer patients using antiemetic drugs and assess the appropriateness of antiemetic regimens. METHODS: Prescription data were collected between January 2015 and December 2020 from cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy at 76 hospitals in six major cities in China. Trends in the use of antiemetic drugs, prescribing patterns and adherence to antiemetic guidelines were assessed. RESULTS: Among the 108,611 patients included in this study, 6 classes and 17 antiemetic drugs were identified as monotherapy or combination therapy in 93,872 patients (86.4%), whereas 14,739 patients (13.6%) were administered no antiemetic treatment. 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) and glucocorticoids were the two most frequently used classes of antiemetics, followed by metoclopramide. NK1RAs were underused across the six cities, only 9332 (8.6%) and 1655 (1.5%) cisplatin-based treatments were prescribed aprepitant and fosaprepitant, respectively. Prescriptions of olanzapine and lorazepam were very low throughout the study period. In prescribing patterns of antiemetic drugs, dual combination regimens were the most common (40.0%), followed by triple combination therapy and monotherapy (25.8% and 15.1%, respectively). Overall, the adherence to antiemetic guidelines for patients undergoing cisplatin-based regimens was only 8.1% due to inadequate prescription of antiemetic drugs. Finally, our study also revealed that 5-HT3RAs and glucocorticoids were overprescribed in 8.8% and 1.6% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The current study reveals suboptimal utilization of recommended antiemetic drugs for managing cisplatin-based HEC-induced nausea and vomiting in China. Improving the management of CINV is crucial, and these findings provide valuable insights into optimizing antiemetic drug practices.

Gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with the use of intravenous oliceridine compared with intravenous hydromorphone or fentanyl in acute pain management utilizing adjusted indirect treatment comparison methods.

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. Aim: To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine - 2; hydromorphone - 3; fentanyl - 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.

Intraoperative clonidine in endometriosis and spine surgery: A protocol for two randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A high proportion of patients who undergo surgery continue to suffer from moderate to severe pain in the early postoperative period despite advances in pain management strategies. Previous studies suggest that clonidine, an alpha2 adrenergic agonist, administered during the perioperative period could reduce acute postoperative pain intensity and opioid consumption. However, these studies have several limitations related to study design and sample size and hence, further studies are needed. AIM: To investigate the effect of a single intravenous (IV) dose of intraoperative clonidine on postoperative opioid consumption, pain intensity, nausea, vomiting and sedation after endometriosis and spine surgery. METHODS: Two separate randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trials are planned. Patients scheduled for endometriosis (CLONIPAIN) will be randomised to receive either 150 µg intraoperative IV clonidine or placebo (isotonic saline). Patients undergoing spine surgery (CLONISPINE) will receive 3 µg/kg intraoperative IV clonidine or placebo. We aim to include 120 patients in each trial to achieve power of 90% at an alpha level of 0.05. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is opioid consumption within the first three postoperative hours. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity at rest and during coughing, nausea, vomiting and sedation within the first two postoperative hours and opioid consumption within the first six postoperative hours. Time to discharge from the PACU will be registered. CONCLUSION: This study is expected to provide valuable information on the efficacy of intraoperative clonidine in acute postoperative pain management in patients undergoing endometriosis and spine surgery.

Exploring the role of ghrelin and des-acyl ghrelin in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Ghrelin and its mimetics have been shown to reduce cisplatin-induced emesis in preclinical studies using ferrets and shrews. This study investigated the effectiveness of ghrelin and des-acyl ghrelin (DAG) in antagonizing cisplatin-induced emesis and physiological changes indicative of nausea in Suncus murinus. Animals implanted with radiotelemetry devices were administered ghrelin (0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 µg/day), DAG (0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 µg/day), or saline (14 µL/day) intracerebroventricularly 4 days before and 3 days after treatment with cisplatin (30 mg/kg). At the end, the anti-apoptotic potentials of ghrelin and DAG were assessed by measuring Bax expression and cytochrome C activity. Neurotransmitter changes in the brain were evaluated using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. Ghrelin and DAG reduced cisplatin-induced emesis in the delayed (24-72 h) but not the acute phase (0-24 h) of emesis. Ghrelin also partially reversed the inhibitory effects of cisplatin on food intake without affecting gastrointestinal myoelectrical activity or causing hypothermia; however, ghrelin or DAG did not prevent these effects. Ghrelin and DAG could attenuate the cisplatin-induced upregulation of Bax and cytochrome C in the ileum. Cisplatin dysregulated neurotransmitter levels in the frontal cortex, amygdala, thalamus, hypothalamus, and brainstem, and this was partially restored by low doses of ghrelin and DAG. Our findings suggest that ghrelin and DAG exhibit protective effects against cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. The underlying antiemetic mechanism may involve GHSR and/or unspecified pathways that modulate the neurotransmitters involved in emesis control in the brain and an action to attenuate apoptosis in the gastrointestinal tract.