Burden and Treatment of Chronic Upper GI Symptoms and Diagnoses: A Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are a common reason for seeking medical care. We aim to determine the rates of ambulatory care use and to characterize demographics, work-up, and treatment (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic) for patients with chronic upper GI symptoms and conditions in the United States. METHODS: Estimates of annual visits for the most common upper GI symptoms and diagnoses including gastroesophageal reflux disease, dyspepsia, nausea and vomiting, and gastroparesis were recorded from the 2007-2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. Only chronic conditions, defined as >3 months, were included. We calculated the weighted proportion of ambulatory visits associated with pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic treatment (eg, diet, complementary and alternative medicine), or both. RESULTS: A total of 116,184,475 weighted ambulatory visits were identified between the years of 2007 and 2015 for adults (average of 12,909,386 annual visits) with chronic upper GI symptoms and diagnoses. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was the most common reason for an ambulatory visit (n = 11,200,193), followed by dyspepsia (n = 1,232,598), nausea and vomiting (n = 714,834), and gastroparesis (n = 140,312). Pharmacologic treatment was more common than nonpharmacologic treatment (44.7% vs 28.5%). A total of 37.6% of patients were not receiving treatment at the time of the visit. These treatment patterns did not significantly change over the time of our study. Upper endoscopies were the most ordered test, representing 7.5% of all investigated upper GI symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic upper GI symptoms and diagnoses account for a high number of annual health care visits, both in primary care and specialty care. Although there are several treatments, many of these patients are not on any treatments.

A multicenter phase II trial of the triplet antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine for a cisplatin-containing regimen. - PATROL-I.

Dexamethasone is one of the key antiemetic agents and is widely used even now. However, dexamethasone has been associated with several adverse reactions even after short-term administration. Therefore, developing a steroid-free antiemetic regimen is an important issue to consider. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine in a multi-institutional phase II study. Chemotherapy-naive patients scheduled to receive cisplatin were enrolled and evaluated for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was total control (TC) in the overall phase. The key secondary endpoint was complete response (CR), which was assessed in the acute, delayed, and overall phase, respectively. Adverse events were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Eighty-five patients were enrolled from 8 centers in Japan, of which 83 were evaluable for analyses. The percentage of patients who achieved TC during the overall phase was 31.3%. CR was achieved in 61.4%, 84.3%, and 65.1% of patients during the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse event was anorexia. The primary endpoint was below the threshold and we could not find benefit in the dexamethasone-free regimen, but CR during the overall phase was similar to that of the conventional three-drug regimen. This antiemetic regimen without dexamethasone might be an option for patients for whom corticosteroids should not be an active application.

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.

Antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in haematologic malignancies patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Which is the best standard of care? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic prophylaxis in haematological patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy as part of their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioning regimens. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane database to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of antiemetic prophylaxis. Studies in English, French, Italian or Spanish were included. This review is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42023406380. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were analysed. The antiemetic regimens evaluated ranged from monotherapy with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor 3 antagonists (5-HT3RAs) to complex combinations including olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3RAs and corticosteroids. Complete response rates for triplet or quadruple regimens varied between 23.5% and 81.9%. Although no significant adverse effects were observed, minor symptoms such as diarrhoea, constipation, sedation and headaches were reported. CONCLUSION: Existing evidence on HSCT antiemetic therapy highlights its benefits but fails to provide clear clinical directions. The choice between triplet and quadruplet therapies for different patient scenarios is still uncertain. Until more detailed research is available, healthcare providers must rely on the latest guidelines and their judgement to customise antiemetic care for each patient's specific needs and risks.

The association between Helicobacter pylori and gastrointestinal disorders during pregnancy: A Multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Some gastrointestinal disorders may be associated with Helicobacter pylori infection, which not only affect maternal health, but may also lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes. We aim to explore the association between H. pylori and gastrointestinal disorders in pregnant women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 503 patients were retrospectively analyzed and divided into the H. pylori-uninfected group, the H. pylori-infected group, or the H. pylori-eradicated group. We analyzed the influence of H. pylori on gastrointestinal diseases during pregnancy among the groups, as well as the severity, symptoms, laboratory tests of the H. pylori-related diseases. RESULTS: Pregnant women with H. pylori infection had higher risk of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) (p < 0.001), severe NVP(p = 0.012), hyperemesis gravidarum (p = 0.027), hematemesis (p = 0.018), hyponatremia (p = 0.033), as well as functional dyspepsia symptoms including epigastric pain (p = 0.004), bloating (p = 0.024), and feeling full quickly in a meal (p = 0.031) compared with those without H. pylori infection. While the prevalence of NVP (p = 0.024), severe NVP (p = 0.009), epigastric pain (p = 0.037), and bloating (p = 0.032) were lower in H. pylori-eradicated pregnant women than in H. pylori-infected women. In addition, pregnant women with H. pylori infection had higher risk of spontaneous preterm birth than whom without H. pylori infection (p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Helicobacter pylori infection was associated with higher risks of NVP, severe NVP, hyperemesis gravidarum, functional dyspepsia, and spontaneous preterm birth in pregnant women.

Pediatric oncology provider perspectives and patient/family perceptions of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management: Experiences at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in children undergoing cancer treatment, and significantly impacts quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to guide CINV management, though many patients do not receive guideline-concordant care. Few studies have examined provider perspectives on CINV management or preferred improvement approaches, or pediatric patient perception of CINV control. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of pediatric oncology providers was conducted at a large freestanding children's hospital. Providers completed an anonymous online survey about CINV control in patients admitted for scheduled chemotherapy, and their knowledge and utilization of CINV CPGs. A survey of English and Spanish-speaking pediatric oncology patients admitted for scheduled chemotherapy was conducted to assess CINV management, with key demographics used to understand association with perceptions and adherence to antiemetic guidelines. RESULTS: For providers, 75% of respondents felt CINV management could be moderately or extremely improved, significantly more so by chemotherapy prescribers and pediatric medical residents than nurses. Over half of respondents did not have awareness of CINV CPGs, particularly pediatric medical residents. For patients, nausea was reported to be extremely well controlled in 44% of cases, and vomiting extremely well controlled in 50% of cases. There were no significant differences in patient-reported CINV across demographics, when considering emetogenicity of chemotherapy received, or concordance to guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing education in this area may help to improve provider comfort, and ultimately, the patient experience. Future studies will expand upon this novel patient perception, and develop and evaluate CINV management interventions.

The effect of perioperative benzodiazepine administration on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent systematic reviews suggesting their benefit for postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both (PONV) prevention, benzodiazepines have not been incorporated into guidelines for PONV prophylaxis because of concerns about possible adverse effects. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to inform future practice guidelines. METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of all languages comparing benzodiazepines with non-benzodiazepine comparators in adults undergoing inpatient surgery. Our outcomes were postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both. We assessed risk of bias for RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We pooled data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We screened 31 413 abstracts and 950 full texts. We included 119 RCTs; 104 were included in quantitative synthesis. Based on moderate certainty evidence, we found that perioperative benzodiazepine administration reduced the incidence of PONV (52 studies, n=5086, relative risk [RR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.89; number needed to treat [NNT] 16; moderate certainty), postoperative nausea (55 studies, n=5916, RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.83; NNT 21; moderate certainty), and postoperative vomiting (52 studies, n=5909, RR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91; NNT 55; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence shows that perioperative benzodiazepine administration decreases the incidence of PONV. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will inform future clinical practice guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: The protocol for this systematic review was pre-registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361088) and published in BMJ Open (PMID 31831540).

Non-pulmonary complications of intrathecal morphine administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal morphine provides effective analgesia for a range of operations. However, widespread implementation into clinical practice is hampered by concerns for potential side-effects. We undertook a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression with the primary objective of determining whether a threshold dose for non-pulmonary complications could be defined and whether an association could be established between dose and complication rates when intrathecal morphine is administered for perioperative or obstetric analgesia. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature for randomised controlled trials comparing intrathecal morphine vs control in patients undergoing any type of surgery under general or spinal anaesthesia, or women in labour. Primary outcomes were rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention within the first 24 postoperative hours, analysed according to doses (1-100 µg; 101-200 µg; 201-500 µg; >500 µg), type of surgery, and anaesthetic strategy. Trials were excluded if doses were not specified. RESULTS: Our analysis included 168 trials with 9917 patients. The rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention were significantly increased in the intrathecal morphine group, with an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.52 (1.29-1.79), P<0.0001; 6.11 (5.25-7.10), P<0.0001; and 1.73 (1.17-2.56), P=0.005, respectively. Meta-regression could not establish an association between dose and rates of non-pulmonary complications. There was no subgroup difference according to surgery for any outcome. The quality of evidence was low (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] system). CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal morphine significantly increased postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention after surgery or labour in a dose-independent manner. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD42023387838).

Commonly used antiemetics for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after Caesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT3 antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority of any drug class is yet to be established. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis in women receiving neuraxial morphine for Caesarean delivery. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Wanfang Data for eligible randomised controlled trials. Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) within 24 h after surgery. We used a Bayesian random-effects model and calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous data. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses for primary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies with 4238 women were included. In the primary analyses of all women, 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone significantly reduced PON and POV compared with placebo, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone were more effective than monotherapy. In the subgroup analyses, similar results were seen in women receiving epidural morphine or intrathecal morphine alone but not in women receiving intrathecal morphine with fentanyl or sufentanil. However, most included studies had some concerns or a high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: Combined 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy in preventing PONV associated with neuraxial morphine after Caesarean delivery. Future studies are needed to determine the role of prophylactic antiemetics in women receiving intrathecal morphine and lipophilic opioids. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023454602.

Opioid-free anaesthesia reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting after thoracoscopic lung resection: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative opioid use has a positive relationship with postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) might reduce PONV. We investigated whether OFA compared with opioid-based anaesthesia would reduce PONV during the first 2 postoperative days among patients undergoing thoracoscopic lung resection. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, 120 adult patients were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by sex) to receive either OFA with esketamine, dexmedetomidine, and sevoflurane, or opioid-based anaesthesia with sufentanil and sevoflurane. A surgical pleth index (SPI) of 20-50 was applied for intraoperative analgesia provision. All subjects received PONV prophylaxis (dexamethasone and ondansetron) and multimodal analgesia (flurbiprofen axetil, ropivacaine wound infiltration, and patient-controlled sufentanil). The primary outcome was the occurrence of PONV during the first 48 h after surgery. RESULTS: The median age was 53 yr and 66.7% were female. Compared with opioid-based anaesthesia, OFA significantly reduced the incidence of PONV (15% vs 31.7%; odds ratio [OR]=0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.91; number needed to treat, 6; P=0.031). Secondary and safety outcomes were comparable between groups, except that OFA led to a lower rate of vomiting (OR=0.23, 95% CI, 0.08-0.77) and a longer length of PACU stay (median difference=15.5 min, 95% CI, 10-20 min). The effects of OFA on PONV did not differ in the prespecified subgroups of sex, smoking status, and PONV risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of PONV prophylaxis and multimodal analgesia, SPI-guided opioid-free anaesthesia halved the incidence of PONV after thoracoscopic lung resection, although it was associated with a longer stay in the PACU. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200059710).

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in solid cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is known to induce nausea and vomiting (CINV) in approximately 90% of cancer patients undergoing this regimen unless proper prophylactic antiemetics are administered. This study aimed to analyze the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen during the first cycle of chemotherapy and assess the compliance rate with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2020 provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The claims data encompassed 10 to 13% of inpatients admitted at least once each year. Patients with solid cancers treated with two HEC regimens, namely anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) and cisplatin-based regimens, were selected as the study population. We evaluated the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone and compliance with the NCCN guidelines. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to estimate the influence of variables on guideline adherence. RESULTS: A total of 3119 patients were included in the analysis. The overall compliance rate with the NCCN guidelines for prophylactic antiemetics was 74.3%, with higher rates observed in the AC group (87.9%) and lower rates in the cisplatin group (60.4%). The AC group had a 6.37 times higher likelihood of receiving guideline-adherent antiemetics than the cisplatin group. Further analysis revealed that, compared to 2016, the probability of complying with the guidelines in 2019 and 2020 was 0.72 times and 0.76 times lower, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that a considerable proportion of HEC-treated patients received guideline-adherent antiemetic therapies. However, given the variations in adherence rates between different chemotherapy regimens (AC vs. cisplatin), efforts to improve adherence and optimize antiemetic treatment remain essential for providing the best possible care for patients experiencing CINV.

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.

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.

The emerging emetogenicity of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS­102) from patient self-reporting: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0. RESULTS: Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-58.5, P = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50-5.21, P = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment.

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.

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).

Low Vitamin D Levels in Patients with Symptoms of Gastroparesis: Relationships with Nausea and Vomiting, Gastric Emptying and Gastric Myoelectrical Activity.

Patients with gastroparesis (Gp) often have diets deficient in calories, electrolytes, and vitamins. Vitamin D levels have been reported to be low in some patients with Gp but has not been systematically studied. AIMS: To determine vitamin D levels and relationships among symptoms, gastric emptying and gastric myoelectrical activity (GMA) in patients with symptoms of Gp. METHODS: 25-hydroxy-vitamin D was measured in patients at enrollment in the Gastroparesis Clinical Consortium Registry. Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptoms Index (GCSI), gastric emptying, and GMA before and after water load satiety test (WLST) were measured. GMA, expressed as percentage distribution of activity in normal and dysrhythmic ranges, was recorded using electrogastrography. RESULTS: Overall, vitamin D levels were low (< 30 ng/ml) in 288 of 513 (56.1%) patients with symptoms of Gp (206 of 376 (54.8%) patients with delayed gastric emptying (Gp) and 82 of 137 (59.9%) patients with symptoms of Gp and normal gastric emptying). Low vitamin D levels were associated with increased nausea and vomiting (P < 0.0001), but not with fullness or bloating subscores. Low vitamin D levels in patients with Gp were associated with greater meal retention at four hours (36% retention) compared with Gp patients with normal vitamin D levels (31% retention; P = 0.05). Low vitamin D in patients with normal gastric emptying was associated with decreased normal 3 cpm GMA before (P = 0.001) and increased tachygastria after WLST (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Low vitamin D levels are present in half the patients with symptoms of gastroparesis and are associated with nausea and vomiting and gastric neuromuscular dysfunction.

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.

Comparing the Efficacy of Fosnetupitant, an NK1 Receptor Antagonist in CDDP-Based Regimens, with That of Fosaprepitant and Aprepitant: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Existing antiemetic therapy against emetic-risk agents across malignancies 24 h post-dose in the acute period in cisplatin (CDDP)-based regimens yields a satisfactory complete response (CR) rate of ≥90%. However, the control rate after 24 h in the delayed period is unsatisfactory. This study compared the efficacy of fosnetupitant (F-NTP), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, with that of fosaprepitant (F-APR) and aprepitant (APR) in the treatment of patients with cancer at high emetic risk due to chemotherapy. In this retrospective case-control study involving patients receiving cisplatin-containing regimens and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists, patients were divided into three groups based on prophylactic antiemetic therapy: F-NTP, F-APR, and APR. The CR rate was evaluated for each period up to 168 h and further subdivided into acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and beyond-delayed (120-168 h) periods. Eighty-eight patients were included in the F-NTP group, 66 in the F-APR group, and 268 in the APR group. The CR rates at 0-168 and 120-168 h after cisplatin administration were significantly higher in the F-NTP group than in the F-APR and APR groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, F-NTP use was an independent factor in the multivariate analysis. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy, including F-NTP, was effective and well-tolerated during the delayed period. The efficacy of F-NTP in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was superior to those of F-APR and APR during the study period.