Olanzapine as Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The role of olanzapine has not been adequately evaluated in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens with or without neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. Objective: To evaluate whether addition of olanzapine to an MEC regimen reduces nausea, vomiting, and use of nausea rescue medications among patients with solid malignant tumors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, open-label phase 3 randomized clinical trial included patients aged 18 years or older with solid malignant tumors who were receiving oxaliplatin-, carboplatin-, or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. The trial was conducted at 3 institutes in India from March 26, 2019, to August 26, 2023; the final cutoff date for analysis was September 10, 2023. Exposure: Patients were randomized 1:1 to dexamethasone, aprepitant, and palonosetron with olanzapine (experimental group) or without olanzapine (observation group). The experimental group received 10 mg of olanzapine orally once at night on days 1 through 3 of the chemotherapy regimen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as the proportion of patients with no vomiting, no significant nausea (scored as <5 on a visual analog scale of 1 to 100), and no use of rescue medications for nausea. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients experiencing nausea and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), receiving rescue medications, and experiencing adverse events. Results: A total of 560 patients (259 [64%] male; median age, 51 years [range, 19-80 years]) were randomized. The analysis included 544 patients with evaluable data (274 assigned to olanzapine and 270 to observation). Baseline characteristics were evenly matched between the 2 groups. The proportion of patients with CR was significantly greater in the group with (248 [91%]) than without (222 [82%]) olanzapine in the overall 120-hour treatment period (P = .005). Likewise, there were significant differences between the olanzapine and observation groups for nausea control (264 [96%] vs 234 [87%]; P < .001) and CINV (262 [96%] vs 245 [91%]; P = .02) during the overall assessment period, and the proportion of patients receiving rescue medications significantly increased in the observation group (30 [11%]) compared with the olanzapine group (11 [4%]) (P = .001). Grade 1 somnolence was reported by 27 patients (10%) following administration of chemotherapy and olanzapine and by no patients in the observation group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of olanzapine significantly improved CR rates as well as nausea and vomiting prevention rates in chemotherapy-naive patients who were receiving MEC regimens containing oxaliplatin, carboplatin, or irinotecan. These findings suggest that use of olanzapine should be considered as one of the standards of care in these chemotherapy regimens. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) Identifier: CTRI/2018/12/016643.

Acupoint Application Combined with Acupressure as an Adjunctive Therapy for Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) refers to the nausea and vomiting experienced by patients after the application of chemotherapy drugs, significantly affecting their quality of life and physical recovery, as well as increasing the pain of the patients. Basic medicine primarily focuses on acid suppression, gastric protection, and vomiting suppression, but there are still many patients with nausea and vomiting symptoms that cannot be alleviated. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) can effectively alleviate nausea and vomiting through acupoint stimulation and pressure, while also offering advantages such as simplicity, affordability, and fewer side effects. The aim of this article is to introduce the method of using acupoint application combined with acupressure as an adjunctive therapy for CINV, using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool (MAT) tablet scale as a questionnaire. The article details aspects such as acupoint selection, production, and the use of acupoint application, massage techniques, and operating procedures, all with the goal of ensuring the safety and efficacy of acupoint application combined with acupressure as an adjuvant therapy, thereby improving patients' clinical symptoms and quality of life.

Differences in severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: analysis of data from two prospective observational studies.

PURPOSE: We assessed the differences in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) severity in patients with breast cancer, receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). METHODS: CINV severity in patients on anthracycline-based NAC (n = 203) and AC (n = 79) was assessed at baseline (C0) and after the first and fourth chemotherapy using a 10-point Likert scale. Group-by-time interaction term was used to evaluate the effect of the group on changes in CIN (cCIN) and CIV (cCIV) from C0 to the follow-up periods (C1, C4). If insignificant, group effects were analyzed without the interaction term. Subgroup analysis was performed based on age 50. In statistical analyses, sociodemographic and clinical variables that differed between groups were adjusted for. RESULTS: The effect of group by follow-up period was not significant in cCIN and cCIV. The AC group showed a significantly higher change in the severity of cCIN compared to the NAC group (estimated mean = 1.133, 95% CI = 0.104-2.161, p = 0.031), but there was no difference in cCIV. In those ≤ 50 years, significant differences in cCIN severity (estimated mean = 1.294, 95% CI = 0.103-2.484, p = 0.033) were observed, but not in cCIV. In those > 50 years, neither cCIN nor cCIV differed significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: NAC in breast cancer patients showed less severe CIN than adjuvant chemotherapy AC, but not in those over 50. Clinicians should recognize that the severity of CIN may vary across different chemotherapy settings and adjust their management accordingly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial registration ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ) numbers were NCT01887925 (the registration date is from June 20, 2013, to November 27, 2015) and NCT02011815 (the registration date is from December 10, 2013, to September 22, 2019).

Gastrointestinal and Neuropsychological Symptoms Are Associated With Distinct Vomiting Profiles in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: To identify subgroups of patients with distinct chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) profiles; determine how these subgroups differ on several demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics; and evaluate factors associated with chemotherapy-induced nausea and CIV profiles. SAMPLE & SETTING: Adult patients (N = 1,338) receiving cancer chemotherapy. METHODS & VARIABLES: Data were collected on demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics. Differences among subgroups of patients with distinct CIV profiles were evaluated using parametric and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Three CIV profiles (None, Decreasing, and Increasing) were identified. Compared with the None class, Decreasing and Increasing classes were more likely to have lower household income and a higher comorbidity burden, as well as to report higher rates of dry mouth, nausea, diarrhea, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, morning fatigue, and pain interference. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Clinicians need to assess common and distinct risk factors for CIV and chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Prolonged administration of the granisetron transdermal delivery system reduces capecitabine plus oxaliplatin regimen induced nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) combined with Dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin (CapeOX) therapy. DESIGN: Open-label, prospective, multi-center phase II trial. SETTING: Three institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four patients scheduled to receive CapeOX chemotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received GTDS (3.1 mg applied to the upper arm 48 h before chemotherapy, replaced on day 5, and discarded on day 12) and Dexamethasone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the complete control rate of CINV. Secondary endpoints included the duration of delayed complete control, complete control rate in the acute phase, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: The complete control rate for delayed CINV over the entire period (25-480 h) was 72.7% (95% CI 0.57-0.88). The duration of delayed complete control was 17.2 ± 4.5 days, with 51.5% of patients experiencing no nausea during the delayed phase. The complete control rate in the acute phase was 81.8% (95% CI 0.69-0.95). No serious adverse events related to the antiemetic regimen were reported. CONCLUSION: Prolonged administration of GTDS is safe and effective for preventing CINV in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies treated with CapeOX. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT05325190); registered on October 10, 2021.

Association of the OPRM1 variant rs1799971 (A118G) and clinical manifestations in tramadol poisoned patients: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid receptor mu1 is a protein coding gene that can have different codes for a protein and may have variations (polymorphisms) affecting how opioids work. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of the most common opioid receptor mu1 polymorphism (A118G) and any relationship between this polymorphism and features following tramadol overdose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of patients admitted with tramadol poisoning to an Iranian hospital. These patients were not taking any other drugs or medications and had no history of seizures. RESULTS: The results showed that among the 83 patients included in the study, 57 (69 per cent) had the AA genotype, 25 (30 per cent) had the AG genotype, and one (1 per cent) had the GG genotype for the opioid receptor mu1 A118G polymorphism. Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in nine (11 per cent) patients and dizziness in 38 (46 per cent) patients. Serious adverse events included seizures in 51 (60 per cent) patients and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation in 21 (25 per cent) patients. However, there was no significant association between the opioid receptor mu1 A118G polymorphism and these adverse events. DISCUSSION: In our study, the frequency of the A allele was greater than the G allele, and the AA genotype was more prevalent than AG. The GG genotype was the least common among the polymorphisms of opioid receptor mu1 rs1799971. There was no significant association between the opioid receptor mu1 A118G polymorphism and symptoms in tramadol-poisoned patients. Although these allele proportions are similar to the results reported in other Caucasian populations, they are dissimilar to the findings in Chinese and Singaporean populations. In these Asian studies, the predominant allele was the G allele. It has been suggested that a mutated G allele will decrease the production of opioid receptor mu1-related messenger ribonucleic acid and related proteins, leading to fewer mu-opioid receptors in the brain. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no significant association between the opioid receptor mu1 A118G polymorphism and adverse outcomes in tramadol-poisoned patients. However, more research is needed to draw more definitive conclusions due to the limited evidence and variability of opioid receptor mu1 polymorphisms in different populations.

Practical management of oral treprostinil in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: Lessons from ADAPT, EXPEDITE, and expert consensus.

BACKGROUND: Oral treprostinil is a prostacyclin analogue approved to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) by delaying disease progression and improving exercise capacity. Higher doses of oral treprostinil correlate with increased treatment benefit. Titrations may be challenging due to common side effects of prostacyclin-class therapies. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The multicenter, prospective, real-world, observational ADAPT Registry study followed adult patients with PAH for up to 78 weeks after initiating oral treprostinil (NCT03045029). Dosing, titration, and transitions of oral treprostinil were at the discretion of the prescriber. Patient-reported incidence and treatment of common side effects were collected to understand side effect management and tolerability. Insights from literature and expert recommendations were added to provide a consolidated resource for oral treprostinil use. RESULTS: In total, 139 participants in ADAPT completed ≥1 weekly survey; (median age 60.0 years, 76 % female). Median treatment duration of oral treprostinil was 13.1 months. During early therapy (Months 1-5), 62 % (78/126) of patients reported headache and diarrhea, and 40 % (50/126) reported nausea. At Month 6, many patients who reported side effects during early therapy reported an improvement (61 % headache, 44 % diarrhea, 70 % nausea). Common side effect treatments, including acetaminophen, loperamide, and ondansetron, were effective. Approximately one-quarter of patients reporting the most common side effects were untreated at Month 6. CONCLUSION: Patient selection for, and initiation and titration of, oral treprostinil should be individualized and may include parenteral treprostinil induction-transition for faster titration. Assertive side effect management may help patients reach higher and more efficacious doses of oral treprostinil.

Auriculotherapy and acupuncture treatments for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multicenter clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Nausea and vomiting complicating chemotherapy (CINV) remain side effects despite preventive and curative treatments. We hypothesize that acupuncture (ACU), auriculotherapy (AUR), and their combination (ACU-AUR), could decrease, compared to usual treatment (UT), the intensity of acute nausea in patients already treated according to the antiemetic guidelines and presenting nausea with or without vomiting in the earlier cycle. METHODS: In this multicenter study, patients were treated just before chemotherapy according to randomization. ACU consisted of implanting bilaterally on each forearm, one semi-permanent needle at point P6. AUR consisted of implanting bilaterally on each pavilion of the ear, one semi-permanent needle at point O. All patients received systematic preventive drug treatment according to antiemetic guidelines. Main outcome was intensity of nausea at 24 h after chemotherapy using a numeric scale ranging from 0 (no nausea) to 10 (maximum symptoms). RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups at inclusion. Intensity of nausea at 24 h after chemotherapy, was statistically different between the groups (covariance intergroup analysis, p = 0.005) and was significantly lower for the all-treatment groups vs UT group (p = 0.007 for AUR, p = 0.008 for ACU, and p = 0.0009 for AUR-ACU). AUR-ACU also decreased intensity of delayed nausea when compared to UT (p = 0.023). AUR, ACU and AUR-ACU had no effect on acute and delayed vomiting episodes. No serious adverse event due to the studied treatments was reported in our study. CONCLUSION: AUR or ACU reduce intensity of acute and delayed nausea in patients treated by optimal antiemetic treatment. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT02767791, registered on May 10, 2016.

Evaluation of Efficacy of Adding Aprepitant to Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in Carboplatin and Etoposide Therapy.

Although carboplatin (CBDCA) is classified as a moderately emetogenic agent, the majority of guidelines recommend the use of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist in addition to a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone (DEX) for CBDCA-containing chemotherapy because of its higher emetogenic risk. However, the additional efficacy of aprepitant (APR) in CBDCA-containing treatment remains controversial, and data on multiple-day treatments are limited. Etoposide (ETP) was administered on days 1-3 in the CBDCA + ETP regimen, and it is important to evaluate suitable antiemetic therapy for the regimen. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of additional APR in CBDCA + ETP. Patients were divided into two groups and retrospectively evaluated. One was the control group, which was prophylactically administered palonosetron (PALO) and DEX, and the other was the APR group, which received APR orally with PALO and DEX. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) between the groups. The overall CR rates were 75.0 and 76.4% in the control and APR groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 1.00). In the acute phase, it was 88.9 and 97.2%, respectively, and 86.1 and 79.2% in the delayed phase, respectively, without significant differences (p = 0.10 and 0.38, respectively). The incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, and anorexia were not significantly different between the two groups in the acute and delayed phases. Our findings suggest that combining APR with PALO and DEX does not improve the CR rate in CBDCA + ETP therapy.

Propranolol attenuates the establishment of conditioned context aversions: differential effects compared to MK-801 in an animal model of anticipatory nausea and vomiting.

Cancer patients often experience anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV) due to Pavlovian conditioning. Both N-methyl-D-aspartate and beta-adrenergic receptors are known to mediate memory formation, but their role in the development of ANV remains unclear. This study used a conditioned context aversion (CCA) paradigm, an animal model for ANV, to assess whether administration of the beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist propranolol or the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist MK-801 immediately after CCA training has an effect on the later expression of CCA in CD1 male mice. In experiment 1, three groups were injected with lithium chloride (LiCl) to induce aversion in a novel context, resulting in CCA. A control group was injected with sodium chloride (NaCl). Following conditioning, two of the LiCl-treated groups received different doses of MK-801 (0.05 or 0.2 mg/kg), while the remaining LiCl-treated and NaCl-treated groups received a second NaCl injection. In experiment 2, two groups were injected with LiCl, and one group was injected with NaCl. After conditioning, one of the LiCl-treated groups received a propranolol injection (10 mg/kg). The remaining LiCl-treated and NaCl-treated groups received NaCl injections. Water consumption was measured in all groups 72 h later within the conditioning context. Postconditioning administration of propranolol, but not MK-801, attenuated CCA, as revealed by similar levels of water consumption in animals that received LiCl and propranolol relative to NaCl-treated animals. These findings suggest that beta-adrenergic receptor activation is crucial for the development of CCA. Therefore, propranolol may represent a novel therapeutic approach for cancer patients at high risk of ANV.

Sibutramine-induced pheochromocytoma crisis: A rare and lethal occurrence.

Pheochromocytoma is a neuroendocrine tumor that secretes catecholamines; excessive catecholamine secretion can lead to pheochromocytoma crisis (PCC), a rare and life-threatening condition. Sibutramine, a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, was previously used for obesity treatment but is now banned due to its cardiovascular side effects. Although fatalities related to PCC and adverse events associated with sibutramine have been frequently reported individually, there is no documented literature addressing PCC-induced by sibutramine. Here we report a rare case of fatal sibutramine-induced PCC in a previously asymptomatic young female with undiagnosed pheochromocytoma. The 25-year-old patient took a weight-loss pill containing sibutramine for the first time and subsequently experienced nausea, vomiting, chest tightness, and other symptoms. She went to hospital about 6 hours after taking the pill but died approximately 4 hours later despite the resuscitation efforts. An autopsy revealed a pheochromocytoma in the right adrenal gland. The cause of death was attributed to sibutramine-induced PCC. To our knowledge, this is the first report to document the occurrence of sibutramine-induced PCC.

Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Topical Capsaicin for Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

PURPOSE: We examined the efficacy of topical capsaicin in reducing delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: Adults on highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens applied 2 g of capsaicin ointment (0.075%) or matching placebo four times a day to the abdomen for 5 days in addition to standard antiemetic regimen in this blinded randomized controlled trial. Patients were monitored for nausea and vomiting in the immediate (day 1), delayed (days 2-5), and extended phases (days 2-15). Self-reported incidence and daily episodes of CINV were compared between the groups. Onset, severity, need for rescue antiemetics, cumulative vomiting episodes, and safety were also compared. RESULTS: In total, 160 patients were enrolled. The final modified intention-to-treat population included 75 patients each in the capsaicin and placebo groups. Fewer patients experienced nausea (36.0% [n = 27] v 53.3% [n = 40]; P = .033) and vomiting (28.0% [n = 21] v 42.7% [n = 32]; P = .060) in the capsaicin arm during the delayed phase. During the extended phase, there was a significantly lower incidence of nausea (44% v 64.0%; P = .014) in the capsaicin arm. No difference in nausea (26.7% v 25.3%) or vomiting (22.7% v 18.7%) was evident in the immediate phase. The average daily episodes of nausea and vomiting were significantly fewer in the capsaicin arm during the delayed and extended phases. With capsaicin, no grade 3 nausea (9.3% v 0.0%; P = .007) was observed, and the time to first nausea and vomiting was significantly prolonged. There were no differences between the groups with respect to rescue antiemetics, unscheduled hospital visits, and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Topical capsaicin reduced the incidence of nausea and the average number of vomiting episodes during delayed and extended phases without increasing adverse effects.

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.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of dopamine-receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

INTRODUCTION: Dopamine (D)2,3-receptor antagonists (RAs) were the first antiemetics used in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). AREAS COVERED: Eight D2,3-RAs, amisulpride, domperidone, droperidol, haloperidol, metoclopramide, metopimazine, olanzapine and prochlorperazine are reviewed focusing on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antiemetic effect and side effects. EXPERT OPINION: Since the introduction of D2,3-RAs, antiemetics such as corticosteroids, 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3-RAs and neurokinin (NK)1-RAs have been developed. The classical D2,3-RAs are recommended in the prophylaxis of CINV from low emetic risk chemotherapy, but not as a fixed component of an antiemetic regimen for moderately or highly (HEC) emetic risk chemotherapy. D2,3-RAs are also used in patients with breakthrough nausea and vomiting. It should be emphasized, that most of these drugs are not selective for dopamine receptors.The multi-receptor targeting agent, olanzapine, is recommended in the prophylaxis of HEC-induced CINV as part of a four-drug antiemetic regimen, including a 5-HT3-RA, dexamethasone and a NK1-RA. Olanzapine is the most effective agent to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea.Side effects differ among various D2,3-RAs. Metopimazine and domperidone possess a low risk of extrapyramidal side effects. Domperidone and metoclopramide are prokinetics, whereas metopimazine delays gastric emptying and haloperidol does not influence gastric motility. Many D2,3-RAs increase the risk of prolonged QTc interval; other side effects include sedation and orthostatic hypotension.

Pharmacological treatment of cancer pain and opioid induced nausea and vomiting: online survey and comparison with current guidelines.

PURPOSE: We assumed that in Palliative Care, even in common clinical situations, the choice of drugs differs substantially between physicians. Therefore, we assessed the practice of pharmaceutical treatment choices of physicians for cancer pain and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the rationale for their choices. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with physicians covering the following domains: i) Cancer pain therapy: non-opioids in addition to opioids: choice of drug ii) prevention of OINV: choice of drug and mode of application. Current guidelines concerning cancer pain therapy and prevention of OINV were compared. RESULTS: Two-hundred-forty European physicians responded to our survey. i) Use of non-opioids in addition to opioids for the treatment of cancer pain: Only 1.3% (n = 3) of respondents never used an additional non-opioid. Others mostly used: dipyrone/metamizole (49.2%, n = 118), paracetamol/acetaminophen (34.2%, n = 82), ibuprofen / other NSAIDs (11.3%, n = 27), specific Cox2-inhibitors (2.1%, n = 5), Aspirin (0.4%, n = 1), no answer (2.9%, n = 7). ii) Antiemetics to prevent OINV: The drugs of choice were metoclopramide (58.3%, n = 140), haloperidol (26.3%, n = 63), 5-HT3 antagonists (9.6%, n = 23), antihistamines (1.3%, n = 3) and other (2.9%, n = 7); no answer (1.7%, n = 4). Most respondents prescribed the substances on-demand (59.6%, n = 143) while others (36.3%, n = 87) provided them as around the clock medication. Over both domains, most physicians answered that their choices were not based on solid evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Guidelines were inconsistent regarding if and what non-opioid to use for cancer pain and recommend anti-dopaminergic drugs for prevention or treatment of OINV. CONCLUSIONS: Physician's practice in palliative care for the treatment of cancer pain and OINV differed substantially. Respondents expressed the lack of high-quality evidence- based information from RCTs. We call for evidence from methodologically high-quality RCTs to be available to inform physicians about the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments for common symptoms in palliative care.

Outcomes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting guideline adherence in pediatric and adult patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: This study describes chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control rates in pediatric and adult patients who did or did not receive guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of studies published in 2000 or later that evaluated CINV control in patients receiving guideline-consistent vs. guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis and reported at least one CINV-related patient outcome. Studies were excluded if the guideline evaluated was not publicly available or not developed by a professional organization. Over-prophylaxis was defined as antiemetic use recommended for a higher level of chemotherapy emetogenicity than a patient was receiving. RESULTS: We identified 7060 citations and retrieved 141 publications for full-text evaluation. Of these, 21 publications (14 prospective and seven retrospective studies) evaluating guidelines developed by six organizations were included. The terms used to describe CINV endpoints and definition of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis varied among studies. Included studies either did not address over-prophylaxis in their definition of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (48%; 10/21) or defined it as guideline-inconsistent (38%; 8/21) or guideline-consistent (3/21; 14%). Eleven included studies (52%; 11/21) reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one CINV endpoint in patients receiving guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis. Ten reported a statistically significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence supports the use of guideline-consistent prophylaxis to optimize CINV control. Institutions caring for patients with cancer should systematically adapt CINV CPGs for local implementation and routinely evaluate CINV outcomes.

Olanzapine Plus Triple Antiemetic Therapy for the Prevention of Carboplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy with olanzapine, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients scheduled to receive carboplatin (AUC ≥5) were randomly assigned to receive either olanzapine 5 mg once daily (olanzapine group) or placebo (placebo group) in combination with aprepitant, a 5-HT3 RA, and dexamethasone. The primary end point was the complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue therapy) rate in the overall phase (0-120 hours). Secondary end points included the proportion of patients free of nausea and safety. RESULTS: In total, 355 patients (78.6% male, median age 72 years, 100% thoracic cancer), including 175 and 180 patients in the olanzapine and placebo groups, respectively, were evaluated. The overall CR rate was 86.9% in the olanzapine group versus 80.6% in the placebo group. The intergroup difference in the overall CR rate was 6.3% (95% CI, -1.3 to 13.9). The proportions of patients free of chemotherapy-induced nausea in the overall (88.6% in the olanzapine group v 75.0% in the placebo group) and delayed (89.7% v 75.6%, respectively) phases were significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (both P < .001). Somnolence was observed in 43 (24.6%) and 41 (22.9%) patients in the olanzapine and placebo groups, respectively, and no events were grade ≥3 in severity. CONCLUSION: The addition of olanzapine was not associated with a significant increase in the overall CR rate. Regarding the prevention of nausea, adding olanzapine provided better control in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, which needs further exploration.

A nurse-led multidomain intervention to improve the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with head and neck cancers: A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the effect of a nurse-led multidomain intervention on chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). METHODS: Ninety-two HNSCC patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy were divided into intervention group (n = 45) and control group (n = 47). The control group received usual care of CINV, which consisted of administration of antiemetics according to physicians' preference, education about CINV control and dietary recommendations provided by primary nurses. The intervention group received nurse-led, evidence-based multidomain management, including nurse-led CINV risk factors assessment, education on prevention and control of CINV, antiemetics following guidelines, dietary strategies, and relaxation therapy. The number of patients who experienced CINV was collected. The severity of CINV was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. The influence of CINV on patient's quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). RESULTS: The incidence and the severity of nausea and vomiting in the intervention group were significantly lower than those in the control group within 5 days after chemotherapy, and the scores of the dimension of nausea and vomiting in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group [63.00 (50.00-63.00) vs 40.00(28.00-63.00), 63.00(63.00-63.00) vs 63.00 (43.00-63.00)], the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led multidomain intervention can reduce the incidence and the severity of CINV in patients with HNSCC who were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and thus reduced the influence of CINV on patients' quality of life. THE CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05792228.