Comparison of Antiemetics in the Management of Pediatric Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: As a result of recent legislative changes allowing for increased access to marijuana products, there have been increasing rates of cannabis abuse among adolescents and subsequent diagnoses of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). Most available literature on this syndrome exists within the adult population and describes benzodiazepines, haloperidol, and topical capsaicin as potentially efficacious in the management of CHS. The objectives of this study were to identify antiemetics and compare their efficacy and safety in the management of pediatric CHS. METHODS: A retrospective review of Penn State Children's Hospital electronic health record was performed to identify patients 18 years or younger who had an emergency department or inpatient encounter, a cannabis hyperemesis-related diagnosis code, and met diagnostic criteria for CHS. Antiemetic efficacy was determined using subjective patient perception of nausea and objective documentation of vomiting. Benzodiazepines, haloperidol, and topical capsaicin were classified as nontraditional antiemetics, whereas all other antiemetics were classified as traditional. RESULTS: Nontraditional antiemetic medications appeared to be more effective in resolving patient symptoms compared with traditional antiemetics. Analysis of all ordered antiemetics demonstrated a gap in partial or full symptom resolution between nontraditional and traditional agents. Reported adverse effects were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is an underrecognized and underdiagnosed condition characterized by cyclic vomiting related to chronic cannabis use. Abstinence from cannabis remains the most effective approach to mitigating morbidity associated with CHS. Medications such as lorazepam or droperidol may have benefit in managing toxidrome symptoms. Traditional antiemetic prescribing remains a key barrier to effective management of pediatric CHS.

Immunotherapy as a second-line or later treatment modality for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A review of safety and efficacy.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80-85% of these cases. Surgical resection is the most common conventional treatment of lung cancer. For patients with advanced NSCLC, platinum-based chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment. Although platinum-based chemotherapy demonstrated improved outcomes, the need for the second-line/later therapies is evident. A review was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of immunotherapies as the second-line/later therapy of advanced NSCLC. Clinical trial data was collected via PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov. Recent studies were selected based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data on the safety and efficacy of the immunotherapy was subsequently compiled from relevant trials. Monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1/PD-L1 showed the most promising results as the second-line/later treatment modalities. Immunizations did not produce as robust of an immune response in participants; however, they warrant further research to determine their place in therapy.