Computerized system for outcomes-based antiemetic therapy in children

OBJECTIVE: To introduce a computerized data collection system used for an outcomes-based approach to antiemetic therapy in children, and to present data collected with this system in support of a new antiemetic dosing regimen. METHODS: A validated nausea/vomiting survey was used to collect data on nausea severity (NSEV), vomiting severity (VSEV), daily activity interference (DAI), and the number of vomiting episodes. NSEV, VSEV, and DAI were rated as 0 = none to 3 = severe. All children and/or their parents were surveyed following the completion of each highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen. This survey was computerized and transferred to a handheld data entry unit. Time and motion studies were performed to compare the time required to collect nausea/vomiting data and transfer the data to a computerized database with the hand-held system versus traditional paper (manual) surveys. The hand-held technology was used to collect survey data for children receiving a new antiemetic regimen (daily ondansetron and dexamethasone [OD]), which was then compared with data obtained with a previously employed regimen (thrice-daily ondansetron and daily methylprednisolone [OM]). Statistical analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) were performed to compare the two antiemetic regimens. RESULTS: The mean time required for total data entry with the manual system was 5.2 minutes per survey versus 2.4 minutes with the hand-held technology (p = 0.0026). A total of 376 nausea/vomiting surveys in 78 children receiving the OM antiemetic regimen were compared with 153 surveys in 38 children treated with the OD regimen. The mean survey scores were as follows: NSEV (1.2 vs. 0.8), VSEV (1.0 vs. 0.7), DAI (1.0 vs. 0.7), and number of vomiting episodes (4.3 vs. 2.1) for OM and OD, respectively; all were significantly lower with the OD regimen (p < 0.05). The percentage of patients with complete control of nausea and vomiting (19.2% vs. 39.2%) and good control (55.6% vs. 65.4%) were significantly greater with the OD regimen (p < 0.05). The CEA revealed that the OD resulted in a reduction of approximately $31 per patient for good protection and a $258 reduction for complete protection from nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: A computerized outcomes-based system aided by handheld technology allowed for more prompt and efficient collection of nausea/vomiting data. The OD antiemetic regimen was shown to be a more cost-effective alternative for children receiving severely emetogenic chemotherapy.     

Effect of postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life

The purpose was to measure the effects of postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting (PCNV) on health-related quality of life (HQL) in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The study sample consisted of 832 chemotherapy-naive patients with cancer who received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy as part of multicenter trials of new antiemetics. The patients completed the self-report European Organization for Research and Cancer (EORTC) core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) before chemotherapy (baseline) and 1 week (day 8) and 2–4 weeks after chemotherapy. They also completed a self-report nausea and vomiting (NV) diary for 5–7 days after chemotherapy. To determine the effects of PCNV on HQL, the change in scores between the baseline and day 8 HQL assessments was calculated for each domain and symptom in the QLQ-C30 and compared in four subgroups of patients: those with both nausea and vomiting, those with nausea but no vomiting, those with no nausea but with vomiting, and those with neither nausea nor vomiting. The group with both nausea and vomiting showed statistically significantly worse physical, cognitive and social functioning, global quality of life, fatigue, anorexia, insomnia and dyspnea as compared to the group with neither nausea nor vomiting (0.0001<P<0.05). Patients with only nausea but no vomiting tended to have less worsening in functioning and symptoms than those having both nausea and vomiting. Increased severity of vomiting (>2 episodes) was associated with worsening of only global quality of life and anorexia as compared with 1–2 episodes of vomiting (0.0001<P<0.01). By 2–4 weeks after chemotherapy all HQL scores had either returned to their baseline levels or were better than baseline. PCNV adversely affects several quality-of-life domains, but patients with only nausea experience less disruption than do those with both nausea and vomiting. Patients with 1–2 episodes of vomiting experience almost the same degree of disruption of HQL as do patients with more than 2 episodes of vomiting.     

Granisetron plus dexamethasone in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: evaluation of activity during three consecutive courses of chemotherapy

In this study we evaluated the antiemetic activity of a combination of 3 mg granisetron in a short i.v. infusion followed by 12 mg dexamethasone i.v. in 64 patients with cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy scheduled in a single day. No patient had previously undergone chemotherapy and three consecutive cycles were evaluated. Response to antiemetic treatment was graded as follows: complete response, no episodes of vomiting; major response, only one episode; minor response, two to four episodes; failure, more than four episodes. Nausea was graded as absent, mild, moderate or severe (patients bedridden). At the first cycle a complete protection from acute vomiting and nausea was achieved in 95% and 73% of patients respectively; the rate of complete response for delayed vomiting was 90%, while 45% of patients complained of delayed nausea. The antiemetic and antinausea efficacy remained substantially unchanged during the second and third cycles of chemotherapy. Constipation and headache were the most frequent adverse events. In conclusion this antiemetic regimen appears very effective in preventing nausea and vomiting in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.     

Effectiveness of a single-day three-drug regimen of dexamethasone, palonosetron, and aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting includes both Acute (0–24 h) and Delayed (24–120 h) components with different physiologic mechanisms. A combination of a serotonin antagonist, a corticosteroid, and an NK-1 antagonist has proven effective against this problem. However, standard antiemetic regimens require administration over 3–4 days after chemotherapy. The present study evaluated a more convenient single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen for patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Materials and methods

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors receiving cyclophosphamide and/or doxorubicin were eligible. Patients could not have pre-existing etiologies for vomiting. Prior to chemotherapy, patients received a single dose of aprepitant 285 mg p.o., dexamethasone 20 mg p.o., and palonosetron 0.25 mg i.v. A daily patient diary recording episodes of emesis and severity of nausea was then kept for 5 days. Any further antiemetics were considered rescue medication.

Results

Forty-one eligible and evaluable patients (40 women, one man) with breast cancer were entered on study. Most were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Complete Response (no vomiting, no rescue medication) was seen in 51% of patients, including 76% with Complete Response for the Acute period and 66% for the Delayed period. No emesis was reported for 100% of patients in the Acute period and 95% in the Delayed period. No Nausea was seen in 32% of patients. No untoward toxicities were seen.

Conclusion

A single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen is feasible and effective for protection against both Acute and Delayed vomiting after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Formal comparison to a standard multi-day antiemetic regimen is warranted.     

Acupuncture against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric oncology

GOALS: In this multicenter crossover study, our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and acceptance of acupuncture as a supportive antiemetic approach during highly emetogenic chemotherapy in pediatric oncology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eleven children receiving several courses of highly emetogenic chemotherapy for treatment of solid tumors were included. Randomization allocated patients to start chemotherapy either with antiemetic medication plus acupuncture or antiemetic medication alone. During all study courses, patients continued to receive their programmed and additional antiemetic medication as needed. Acupuncture was given at day 1 of chemotherapy and at subsequent days on patient's demand. The amount of baseline and additional antiemetic medication during chemotherapy was documented. Patients maintained a daily diary of vomiting episodes and completed an evaluated nausea score at the end of every course. Their body weight was taken before and after a chemotherapy course. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two courses with or without acupuncture were compared. The benefits of acupuncture in adolescents with respect to the reduction of additional antiemetic medication were observed. Acupuncture enabled patients to experience higher levels of alertness during chemotherapy and reduced nausea and vomiting. Except for needle pain, no side effects were noted. Patient's acceptance of acupuncture was high. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that acupuncture might reduce antiemetic medication and episodes of vomiting in pediatric oncology.     

Casopitant improves the quality of life in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Purpose  

The control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is critical in preventing poor health outcomes and increasing patient quality of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the addition of casopitant to dual-combination therapy of dexamethasone and ondansetron on quality of life in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).     

Palonosetron: a unique 5-HT3 receptor antagonist indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Despite the advance in supportive care that occurred with the introduction of selective serotonin subtype 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with first-generation agents (ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron) is less than ideal. Palonosetron is a unique 5-HT3 receptor antagonist whose distinctive pharmacologic characteristics (ie, high 5-HT3 receptor binding affinity, prolonged half-life) result in superior clinical benefit. Superiority of palonosetron over ondansetron and dolasetron in the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV has been observed in each phase III trial conducted. Of note, such evidence of superiority has never been seen in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration trials of other approved agents in this class. Recently approved by the FDA, palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously is indicated for the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of moderately and highly emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. Unlike other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, palonosetron is also indicated for prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. Palonosetron exhibits an excellent tolerability profile, with frequency, severity, and duration of adverse reactions similar to that of comparator agents. Unlike older agents that are considered therapeutically interchangeable at equipotent doses, palonosetron should be considered a clinically distinct and superior treatment for the prevention of CINV.     

A double-blind,crossover, randomized dose-comparison trial of granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and emesis in children receiving moderately emetogenic carboplatin-based chemotherapy

Background Granisetron is a safe and effective prophylaxis for nausea and vomiting associated with moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Few trials have been conducted to determine the optimal effective dose of granisetron in children with cancer. The objective of this report was to compare two doses of granisetron in patients with optic pathway tumors receiving moderately emetogenic doses of carboplatin. Patients and methods In this double-blind, crossover, randomized study, antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of two dose levels (10 and 40 μg/kg) of granisetron in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea/emesis were compared in children and young adults. A total of 18 patients (13 boys) aged 1–23 years (median 7.7 years) treated with a moderately emetogenic dose of carboplatin were randomly assigned to receive either 10 or 40 μg/kg of slow granisetron intravenous (i.v.) infusions at alternating cycles of chemotherapy in a blinded fashion until the end of the study period or until their chemotherapy regimen ended. In this way, the patients acted as their own controls. Results Patients in the granisetron 10 and 40 μg/kg groups received 104 and 121 cycles of chemotherapy, respectively. There was no significant difference in antiemetic efficacy in terms of nausea and emesis between the dose groups in the first 5 days of chemotherapy. The treatment was well tolerated. Conclusion We conclude that granisetron 10 and 40 μg/kg have comparable efficacy in controlling carboplatin-induced acute and delayed nausea/emesis and is well tolerated in children and young adults.     

Midazolam for acute emesis refractory to dexamethasone and granisetron after highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a phase II study

Goals of the work To assess whether the addition of midazolam to dexamethasone and granisetron could ameliorate the refractory acute nausea and/or vomiting caused by a highly emetogenic platinum-based chemotherapy.Patients and methods Enrolled in the study were 30 consecutive adult patients with refractory acute emesis. Nausea and vomiting were assessed by physicians and graded according to the NCI common toxicity criteria. Nausea was further self-assessed by patients using a visual analogue scale. Statistical analysis was performed by nonparametric tests.Results With the introduction of midazolam, 73% of patients had a reduction of at least one grade in nausea and vomiting intensity in comparison with the previous cycle of chemotherapy. From the second cycle, six patients (23%) had complete control of acute vomiting, a benefit that usually persisted in the subsequent cycles. Five more patients achieved complete control of acute vomiting during the third course; this effect persisted in the subsequent courses as well. The average relative reduction in acute nausea and vomiting grade from the first to the second course was 48% (95% CI 34–62%) and 48% (95% CI 31–65%), respectively. A significant difference in acute nausea and vomiting over all the six courses of chemotherapy administered was recorded (Friedman ANOVA, P <0.0001). Comparing each course with any subsequent course, a significant reduction in acute nausea and vomiting was observed between the first and second course, the first and third course, and the first and fourth course.Conclusions Our results suggest that midazolam may be a useful adjunct to standard antiemetic drugs for patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A randomized trial is warranted to confirm these results.     

A pilot study of ondansetron plus metopimazine vs. ondansetron monotherapy in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a Bayesian randomized serial N-of-1 trials design

Goals of work Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is problematic in paediatric brain tumour treatment protocols which often discourage the use of corticosteroids as anti-emetics. The dopamine receptor antagonist, metopimazine, is an effective anti-emetic in combination with ondansetron in adults. The present study was designed to assess its efficacy in children with cancer, a group in which it has not been studied previously.Patients and methods We conducted a series of randomized, multiple-crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled N-of-1 trials comparing ondansetron/metopimazine with ondansetron monotherapy in children with brain tumours receiving highly emetogenic therapy and combined the individual results using Bayesian statistical modeling.Main results Ten of twelve enrolled patients completed at least one chemotherapy cycle on study (median=2.5 cycles, range 1–11). Two patients were unable to complete any cycles, and a further three patients withdrew from the study prior to completing all cycles because of an inability to tolerate the taste of the study drug. Combination therapy increased the proportion of days during which patients had no emesis (overall odds ratio=1.52, 95% credible region=0.32–6.40, probability of odds ratio>1=72%), decreased the number of emetic episodes per day (overall rate ratio=0.67, 95% credible region=0.15–3.14, probability of rate ratio<1=75%) and decreased parents ratings of their childs distress. The drug was more effective during the delayed chemotherapy phase than the acute phase. No adverse events were attributed to metopimazine.Conclusions Based on this pilot study, we believe that the high likelihood that metopimazine is an effective adjunct to ondansetron monotherapy suggests that this combination therapy is worthy of further study in children receiving emetogenic chemotherapy.     

An open-label dose comparison study of ondansetron for the prevention of emesis associated with chemotherapy prior to bone marrow transplantation

Nausea and vomiting are significant side effects in bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients who receive high-dose preparative regimens. Higher than conventional ondansetron doses and continuous infusion might improve emetic control, because of the high doses and combinations of chemotherapy (CT) used in this setting. Our objective was to conduct a prospective, randomized study comparing two different administration methods of high-dose ondansetron during a BMT preparative regimen in breast cancer patients. Patients were eligible if they were nonpregnant women over 18 but under 65 years of age, undergoing highly emetogenic CT in preparation for autologous BMT. All patients received ondansetron as an intermittent (INT=24 mg i.v. q 12 h/day) or continuous intravenous infusion (CIV=8 mg i.v. loading dose followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg/h per day). A total of 66 patients were enrolled in the study (n=34, INT; n=32, CIV). There was no statistical difference between treatment groups in the worst grade of emesis for the entire study period (P=0.49). Greater than 90% of all patients were graded as failures (≥5 emetic episodes or need for rescue antiemetics). Complete control (no vomiting episodes) and complete plus major control (1–2 emetic episodes) per day ranged from 8% to 85% and 11% to 91%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the treatment arms in: grade of emesis, episodes of vomiting and retching, nausea scores, and mean number of rescue medications administered. There were no differences in efficacy when high-dose ondansetron was given as CIV or INT for the control of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients undergoing high-dose CT for autologous BMT. Ondansetron alone was not adequate to provide sustained control of CT-induced nausea and vomiting over the entire 5-day study period. A combination of antiemetics targeting various mechanisms of CT-induced nausea and vomiting may be necessary to improve response rates.     

A prospective observational study of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting in routine practice in a UK cancer centre

Objective The aim of the study was to assess levels of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in routine practice. Materials and methods The study was an observational prospective evaluation using patient self-reports. One hundred and two patients with cancer in a single cancer centre in UK receiving their first chemotherapy treatment participated in the study and were followed up over four cycles, providing a total of 272 assessments of nausea and vomiting. Data was collected with the use of the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT), which is an eight-item short clinical scale assessing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy. Results Results indicated that acute vomiting was experienced by 15.7% of the patients in cycle 1 and delayed vomiting by 14.7%, while acute nausea was present in 37.3% of the patients and delayed nausea in 47.1%, increasing over the subsequent cycles. Moderately emetogenic and highly emetogenic chemotherapy had the highest incidence of CINV, whereas patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy showed significant levels of delayed nausea. Acute symptoms were more easily controlled than delayed symptoms. Discussion The data suggest that, while vomiting is well controlled, nausea remains a significant problem in practice, and optimal management of CINV is yet to be achieved. Understanding more clearly the biological basis of nausea will assist in managing this complex symptom more effectively in practice.     

Randomized double-blind study of the Reliefband as an adjunct to standard antiemetics in patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Goals Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the Reliefband as an adjunct to standard antiemetics in patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy.Patients and methods Forty-nine adult cancer patients receiving moderately-high or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized to receive either the active Reliefband (n=26) or an inactive device (n=23). Patients continued to receive all scheduled and as needed antiemetic agents as prescribed. The device was worn the day of chemotherapy administration for 5 days (days 1–5). Patients maintained a daily dairy of nausea severity, vomiting and retching episodes, and antiemetic medications taken. Each patient completed a Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) and a tolerability survey at the conclusion of the study. A Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the number of vomiting episodes, severity of nausea and FLIE scores between the two groups.Main results Patients wearing the active Relifband experienced less vomiting (Reliefband 1.9 versus inactive device 4.6 mean episodes; p=0.05), retching (1.4 versus 3.6 mean episodes; p=0.05), and nausea severity (0.91 versus 1.65 mean cm/day; p=0.01) over the 5-day period compared to patients wearing the inactive device. Vomiting was statistically significantly reduced during the delayed period (0.42 versus 1; p=0.032), whereas nausea was significantly reduced during the acute (0.71 versus 2.3; p=0.028) and delayed (1.8 versus 3.3; p=0.020) periods. FLIE scores did not differ between the two treatment groups (91 versus 80; p=0.088).Conclusions This study suggests that patients receiving moderately-high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy who experience nausea and vomiting despite scheduled antiemetics may benefit from the use of the Reliefband as an adjunct to antiemetics. Limitations of this study include differences in risk factors for emesis, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimens. A larger, better, controlled randomized study is needed to better define optimal use of this device.Supported in part by Woodside Biomedical, Inc., Carlsbad, California USA.     

Single high-dose dexamethasone improves the effect of ondansetron on acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting but impairs the control of delayed symptoms

The introduction of serotonin receptor (5-HT₃) antagonists has improved the control of acute nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapy, but they seem to have little or no effect on delayed symptoms. Corticosteroids are known to reduce both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that a single high dose of dexamethasone (20 mg), a long-acting corticosteroid, given after cisplatin and in addition to ondansetron (8 mg three times a day), would enhance the control of both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. A group of 104 chemotherapy-naive ovarian cancer patients, scheduled for at least three cycles of combination chemotherapy including cisplatin (50 mg/m₂), were randomly allocated to receive either dexamethasone or placebo in addition to ondansetron. Two-thirds of the patients received doxorubin and melphalan on the day before cisplatin and 1/3 received doxorubicin immediately before cisplatin. Unexpectedly we found, in all three chemotherapy cycles, that patients receiving dexamethasone suffered from more delayed nausea and vomiting than patients receiving placebo. In patients with no acute nausea or vomiting, the boomerang effect of dexamethasone could be seen on the first day after chemotherapy. In a follow-up study on 5 patients not included in the randomized trial, dexamethasone induced a pronounced reduction in urinary cortisol excretion on the day after chemotherapy with a return to normal excretion on day 2. It is concluded that a single high dose of dexamethasone does not seem appropriate for controlling delayed nausea and vomiting.     

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison of oral ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d., 24 mg q.d., and 32 mg q.d. in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of orally administered ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d., 24 mg q.d., and 32 mg q.d. in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy (cisplatin > or = 50 mg/m2). This was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study conducted in North America. It was planned that all patients would receive one of the following orally administered ondansetron treatments 30 min before starting cisplatin dosing (administered over < or = 3 h): 8 mg b.i.d. with 8 h between doses (124 patients), 24 mg q.d. (116 patients), and 32 mg q.d. (117 patients). Use of prophylactic corticosteroids was not permitted. During the 24-h study period, the highest complete response rate (no emesis, rescue antiemetic therapy, or withdrawal) occurred in patients who received ondansetron 24 mg q.d.: 76/115 or 66%, as against 68/124 (55%) after ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d. and 64/117 (55%) after ondansetron 32 mg q.d. Complete control of nausea (no nausea, no rescue, no withdrawal) occurred in more patients in the ondansetron 24 mg q.d. group (64/114, 56%) than in the ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d. group (43/121, 36%) or in the ondansetron 32 mg group (55/117, 50%). These results demonstrate that following highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy (> or =2 50 mg/m2), oral ondansetron 24 mg q.d. is more effective than 8 mg b.i.d. for overall control of nausea, and at least as effective if not more effective in the control of acute vomiting than 8 mg b.i.d. or 32 mg q.d. Ondansetron 24 mg q.d. was well tolerated, and no new or unexpected adverse events were identified.     

The Effects of Peppermint Oil on Nausea,Vomiting and Retching in Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: An Open Label Quasi–Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

ObjectivesThe current study evaluated the effects of peppermint oil on the frequency of nausea, vomiting, retching, and the severity of nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.DesignA quasi-randomized controlled study.SettingPatients were recruited from the ambulatory chemotherapy unit of a public hospital located (Batman, Turkey) between September 2017 and September 2018.InterventionsThe participants in the intervention group applied one drop the aromatic mixture on the spot between their upper lip and their nose, three times a day for the five days following chemotherapy administration, in addition to the routine antiemetic treatment. Participants in the control group underwent only the routine antiemetic treatment. Main outcome measures VAS-the severity of nausea and the Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching.ResultsThe VAS nausea score was significantly lower after peppermint oil applying in the patients receiving Folfirinox (treatment effect (mean dif.): 4.00±2.28; P<0.001), Paclitaxel-Trastuzumab (treatment effect (mean dif.): 1.70±0.90; P=0.014), Carboplatin-Paclitaxel (treatment effect (mean dif.): 3.71±1.41; P<0.001), and Cyclophosphamide-Adriamycin (treatment effect (mean dif.): 1.41±0.73; P=0.005) excluding cisplatin scedule (treatment effect (mean dif.): 0.56±2,18; P=0.642). We detected a statistical significant difference in the change in frequency of nausea, vomiting, retching in the other all schedules excluding cisplatin schedule (P<0.05).ConclusionsThe peppermint oil was significantly reduced the frequency of nausea, vomiting, retching and the severity of nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Therefore, usage of peppermint oil together with antiemetics after chemotherapy with moderate and low emetic risk may be recommended to cope with CINV.     

Comparison of patient-controlled and nurse-controlled antiemetic therapy in patients receiving chemotherapy

The purpose of this quasi-experimental pilot study was to compare the effect of patient-controlled (PCAE) and nurse administered (NCAE) antiemetic therapy for controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderate emetogenic chemotherapy. Twenty subjects were randomly assigned to either the PCAE group who received IV antiemetic medication via a patient-controlled pump or the NCAE group who received antiemetic medication via nurse administered minibags. Nausea, vomiting, sedation, and drug consumption were measured. There was no difference in nausea scores between the two groups. Subjects in the PCAE group consumed significantly less medication than subjects in the NCAE group.     

耳穴压豆联合昂丹司琼改善宫颈癌术后化疗患者恶心、呕吐反应发生情况的效果

目的探究耳穴压豆联合昂丹司琼改善宫颈癌术后化疗患者恶心、呕吐反应发生情况的效果。方法选取我院2016年2月至2019年2月的宫颈癌术后化疗患者80例,按照随机数字表法将其分为对照组和观察组,各40例。对照组给予昂丹司琼治疗,观察组给予耳穴压豆联合昂丹司琼治疗。比较两组疗效、呕吐次数、恶心等级、恶心及呕吐反应缓解时间及化疗应激指标。结果第1天,两组的治疗总有效率无显著差异(P>0.05);第2、3、4天,观察组的治疗总有效率均显著高于对照组(P<0.05)。第2、3、4天,观察组的呕吐次数、恶心等级均优于对照组(P<0.05);第2、3、4天,观察组的呕吐次数、恶心等级均优于第1天(P<0.05)。观察组的恶心、呕吐反应缓解时间均显著短于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组的胰岛素水平高于照组,空腹血糖水平、HAMA评分、NRS及HAMD均低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论耳穴压豆联合昂丹司琼治疗可降低宫颈癌术后化疗患者的恶心、呕吐反应发生率,促进恶心与呕吐反应缓解,改善化疗应激指标。     

Superiority of methylprednisolone sodium succinate over low dose metoclopramide hydrochloride in the prevention of nausea and vomiting produced by cancer chemotherapy

Methylprednisolone sodium succinate and metoclopramide were compared for their efficacy, tolerance, and safety in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Previously untreated patients about to receive at least 2 cycles of identical chemotherapy were entered into a study using a randomized, double-blind, crossover design. Patients were given either 250 mg of methylprednisolone or 10 mg of metoclopramide intravenously before the first cycle of chemotherapy and were then crossed over to receive the alternate medication before the second cycle of chemotherapy. Prochlorperazine was prescribed in both cycles for postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting. After each treatment cycle patients recorded the degree of nausea, drowsiness and anxiety, the number of episodes of vomiting experienced, and the amount of prochlorperazine taken. After the second treatment cycle patients recorded their preference for either the first or the second antiemetic medication with respect to nausea, vomiting, and overall effectiveness. Of 157 patients entered into the study, 115 were fully appraisable. Methylprednisolone was superior to metoclopramide in preventing nausea and vomiting and in decreasing anxiety and the amount of prochlorperazine used. A majority of the patients expressing a preference preferred methylprednisolone to metoclopramide for control of nausea (p = 0.003), control of vomiting (p = 0.0006), and overall effectiveness (p = 0.00004). There were few side-effects. We conclude that methylprednisolone may have some utility as an antiemetic in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and who are treated as outpatients.     

A phase II trial of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A Hoosier Oncology Group study

In a previous phase I study, olanzapine was demonstrated to be a safe and effective agent for the prevention of delayed emesis in chemotherapy-naïve cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and/or cisplatin. Using the maximum tolerated dose of olanzapine in the phase I trial, a phase II trial was performed for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy-naïve patients. The regimen was 5 mg/day of oral olanzapine on the 2 days prior to chemotherapy, 10 mg on the day of chemotherapy, day 1, (added to intravenous granisetron, 10 mcg/kg and dexamethasone 20 mg), and 10 mg/day on days 2–4 after chemotherapy (added to dexamethasone, 8 mg p.o. BID days 2 and 3, and 4 mg p.o. BID day 4). Thirty patients (median age 58.5 years, range 25–84; 23 women; ECOG PS 0, 1) consented to the protocol, and all were evaluable. Complete response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue) was 100% for the acute period (24 h postchemotherapy), 80% for the delayed period (days 2–5 postchemotherapy), and 80% for the overall period (0–120 h postchemotherapy) in ten patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (cisplatin 70 mg/m²). CR was also 100% for the acute period, 85% for the delayed period, and 85% for the overall period in 20 patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (doxorubicin 50 mg/m²). Nausea was very well controlled in the patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, with no patient having nausea [0 on scale of 0–10, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)] in the acute or delayed periods. Nausea was also well controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with no nausea in 85% of patients in the acute period and 65% in the delayed and overall periods. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities and no significant pain, fatigue, disturbed sleep, memory changes, dyspnea, lack of appetite, drowsiness, dry mouth, mood changes, or restlessness experienced by the patients. Complete response and control of nausea in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy (25 patients, cycle 2; 25 patients, cycle 3; 21 patients, cycle 4) were equal to or greater than cycle 1. Olanzapine is safe and highly effective in controlling acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.