AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: Commentary.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding the diagnosis and management of cyclic vomiting syndrome. METHODS: This CPU was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors who are experts in treating patients with cyclic vomiting syndrome.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome: Commentary.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding diagnosis and management of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. METHODS: This CPU was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors.

GPCR large-amplitude dynamics by 19F-NMR of aprepitant bound to the neurokinin 1 receptor.

Comparisons of G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) complexes with agonists and antagonists based on X-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy structure determinations show differences in the width of the orthosteric ligand binding groove over the range from 0.3 to 2.9 Å. Here, we show that there are transient structure fluctuations with amplitudes up to at least 6 Å. The experiments were performed with the neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R), a GPCR of class A that is involved in inflammation, pain, and cancer. We used 19F-NMR observation of aprepitant, which is an approved drug that targets NK1R for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Aprepitant includes a bis-trifluoromethyl-phenyl ring attached with a single bond to the core of the molecule; 19F-NMR revealed 180° flipping motions of this ring about this bond. In the picture emerging from the 19F-NMR data, the GPCR transmembrane helices undergo large-scale floating motions in the lipid bilayer. The functional implication is of extensive promiscuity of initial ligand binding, primarily determined by size and shape of the ligand, with subsequent selection by unique interactions between atom groups of the ligand and the GPCR within the binding groove. This second step ensures the wide range of different efficacies documented for GPCR-targeting drugs. The NK1R data also provide a rationale for the observation that diffracting GPCR crystals are obtained for complexes with only very few of the ligands from libraries of approved drugs and lead compounds that bind to the receptors.

Low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine with triple antiemetic therapy for prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with solid tumours: a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is an effective antiemetic agent but it results in substantial daytime somnolence when administered at the standard dose. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine after highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with solid tumours. METHODS: This was a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in a tertiary care referral centre in India (Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai). Patients aged 13-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who were receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or high-dose cisplatin for a solid tumour were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with block randomisation (block sizes of 2 or 4) and stratified by sex, age (≥55 or <55 years), and chemotherapy regimen, to receive low-dose (2·5 mg) oral olanzapine or standard-dose (10·0 mg) oral olanzapine daily for 4 days, in combination with a triple antiemetic regimen. Study staff were masked to treatment allocation but patients were aware of their group assignment. The primary endpoint was complete control, defined as no emetic episodes, no rescue medications, and no or mild nausea in the overall phase (0-120 hours), assessed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (ie, all eligible patients who received protocol-specified treatment, excluding those who had eligibility violations and who withdrew consent after randomisation). Daytime somnolence was the safety endpoint of interest. Non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in the complete control proportions between the treatment groups excluded the non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry India, CTRI/2021/01/030233, is closed to accrual, and this is the final data analysis. RESULTS: Between Feb 9, 2021, and May 30, 2023, 356 patients were pre-screened for eligibility, of whom 275 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (134 to the 2·5 mg olanzapine group and 141 to the 10·0 mg olanzapine group). 267 patients (132 in the 2·5 mg group and 135 in the 10·0 mg group) were included in the mITT population, of whom 252 (94%) were female, 15 (6%) were male, and 242 (91%) had breast cancer. 59 (45%) of 132 patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group had complete control in the overall phase versus 59 (44%) of 135 in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group (difference -1·0% [one-sided 95% CI -100·0 to 9·0]; p=0·87). In the overall phase, there were significantly fewer patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group than in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group with daytime somnolence of any grade (86 [65%] of 132 vs 121 [90%] of 135; p<0·0001) and of severe grade on day 1 (six]5%] vs 54 [40%]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that olanzapine 2·5 mg is non-inferior to 10·0 mg in antiemetic efficacy and results in reduced occurrence of daytime somnolence among patients receiving highly emetic chemotherapy and should be considered as a new standard of care. FUNDING: Progressive Ladies Welfare Association.

The antiemetic actions of GIP receptor agonism.

Nausea and vomiting are primitive aspects of mammalian physiology and behavior that ensure survival. Unfortunately, both are ubiquitously present side effects of drug treatments for many chronic diseases with negative consequences on pharmacotherapy tolerance, quality of life, and prognosis. One of the most critical clinical examples is the profound emesis and nausea that occur in patients undergoing chemotherapy, which continue to be among the most distressing side effects, even with the use of modern antiemetic medications. Similarly, antiobesity/diabetes medications that target the glucagon-like peptide-1 system, despite their remarkable metabolic success, also cause nausea and vomiting in a significant number of patients. These side effects hinder the ability to administer higher dosages for optimal glycemic and weight management and represent the major reasons for treatment discontinuation. Our inability to effectively control these side effects highlights the need to anatomically, molecularly, and functionally characterize novel neural substrates that drive and inhibit nausea and emesis. Here, we discuss clinical and preclinical evidence that highlights the glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor system as a novel therapeutic central target for the management of nausea and emesis.

Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial).

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life. CONCLUSION: DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: UMIN000032269.

Dexamethasone and Surgical-Site Infection.

BACKGROUND: The glucocorticoid dexamethasone prevents nausea and vomiting after surgery, but there is concern that it may increase the risk of surgical-site infection. METHODS: In this pragmatic, international, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 8880 adult patients who were undergoing nonurgent, noncardiac surgery of at least 2 hours' duration, with a skin incision length longer than 5 cm and a postoperative overnight hospital stay, to receive 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone or matching placebo while under anesthesia. Randomization was stratified according to diabetes status and trial center. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 2.0 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 8725 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (4372 in the dexamethasone group and 4353 in the placebo group), of whom 13.2% (576 in the dexamethasone group and 572 in the placebo group) had diabetes mellitus. Of the 8678 patients included in the primary analysis, surgical-site infection occurred in 8.1% (354 of 4350 patients) assigned to dexamethasone and in 9.1% (394 of 4328) assigned to placebo (risk difference adjusted for diabetes status, -0.9 percentage points; 95.6% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The results for superficial, deep, and organ-space surgical-site infections and in patients with diabetes were similar to those of the primary analysis. Postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery occurred in 42.2% of patients in the dexamethasone group and in 53.9% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.82). Hyperglycemic events in patients without diabetes occurred in 22 of 3787 (0.6%) in the dexamethasone group and in 6 of 3776 (0.2%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone was noninferior to placebo with respect to the incidence of surgical-site infection within 30 days after nonurgent, noncardiac surgery. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; PADDI Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614001226695.).

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Acute Hepatic Porphyrias: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The acute hepatic porphyrias (AHP) are rare, inborn errors of heme-metabolism and include acute intermittent porphyria, hereditary coproporphyria, variegate porphyria, and porphyria due to severe deficiency of 5-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase. Acute intermittent porphyria is the most common type of AHP, with an estimated prevalence of patients with symptoms of approximately 1 in 100,000. The major clinical presentation involves attacks of severe pain, usually abdominal and generalized, without peritoneal signs or abnormalities on cross-sectional imaging. Acute attacks occur mainly in women in their childbearing years. AHP should be considered in the evaluation of all patients, and especially women aged 15-50 years with recurrent severe abdominal pain not ascribable to common causes. The screening tests of choice include random urine porphobilinogen and δ-aminolevulinic acid corrected to creatinine. All patients with elevations in urinary porphobilinogen and/or δ-aminolevulinic acid should initially be presumed to have AHP. The cornerstones of management include discontinuation of porphyrinogenic drugs and chemicals, administration of oral or intravenous dextrose and intravenous hemin, and use of analgesics and antiemetics. Diagnosis of AHP type can be confirmed after initial treatment by genetic testing for pathogenic variants in HMBS, CPOX, PPOX, and ALAD genes. AHP is also associated with chronic symptoms and long-term risk of systemic arterial hypertension, chronic renal and liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients who have recurrent acute attacks (4 or more per year) should be considered for prophylactic therapy with intravenous hemin or subcutaneous givosiran. Liver transplantation is curative and reserved for patients with intractable symptoms who have failed other treatment options. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Women aged 15-50 years with unexplained, recurrent severe abdominal pain without a clear etiology after an initial workup should be considered for screening for an AHP. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial diagnosis of AHP should be made by biochemical testing measuring δ-aminolevulinic acid, porphobilinogen, and creatinine on a random urine sample. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Genetic testing should be used to confirm the diagnosis of AHP in patients with positive biochemical testing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Acute attacks of AHP that are severe enough to require hospital admission should be treated with intravenous hemin, given daily, preferably into a high-flow central vein. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: In addition to intravenous hemin, management of acute attacks of AHP should include pain control, antiemetics, management of systemic arterial hypertension, tachycardia, and hyponatremia, and hypomagnesemia, if present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Patients should be counseled to avoid identifiable triggers that may precipitate acute attacks, such as alcohol and porphyrinogenic medications. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Prophylactic heme therapy or givosiran, administered in an outpatient setting, should be considered in patients with recurrent attacks (4 or more per year). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Liver transplantation for AHP should be limited to patients with intractable symptoms and significantly decreased quality of life who are refractory to pharmacotherapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Patients with AHP should be monitored annually for liver disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Patients with AHP, regardless of the severity of symptoms, should undergo surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma, beginning at age 50 years, with liver ultrasound every 6 months. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Patients with AHP on treatment should undergo surveillance for chronic kidney disease annually with serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients should be counseled on the chronic and long-term complications of AHP, including neuropathy, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and need for long-term monitoring.

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.

Prescription medication use during pregnancy in the United States from 2011 to 2020: trends and safety evidence.

BACKGROUND: Medication use during pregnancy has increased in the United States despite the lack of safety data for many medications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform research priorities by examining trends in medication use during pregnancy and identifying gaps in safety information on the most commonly prescribed medications. STUDY DESIGN: We identified population-based cohorts of commercially (MarketScan 2011-2020) and publicly (Medicaid Analytic eXtract/Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files 2011-2018) insured pregnancies ending in live birth from 2 health care utilization databases. Medication use was based on filled prescriptions between the date of last menstrual period through delivery, as well as the period before the last menstrual period and during specific trimesters. We also included a cross-sectional representative sample of pregnancies ascertained by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011-2020), with information on prescription medication use during the preceding month obtained through maternal interviews. Teratogen Information System was used to classify the available evidence on teratogenic risk. RESULTS: Among over 3 million pregnancies, the medications most commonly dispensed at any time during pregnancy were analgesics, antibiotics, and antiemetics. The top medications were ondansetron (16.8%), amoxicillin (13.5%), and azithromycin (12.4%) in MarketScan, nitrofurantoin (22.2%), acetaminophen (21.3%; mostly as part of acetaminophen-hydrocodone products), and ondansetron (19.5%) in Medicaid Analytic eXtract/Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files, and levothyroxine (5.0%), sertraline (2.9%), and insulin (2.9%) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey group. The most commonly dispensed suspected teratogens during the first trimester were antithyroid medications. The use of antidiabetic and psychotropic medications has continued to increase in the United States during the last decade, opioid dispensation has decreased by half, and antibiotics and antiemetics continue to be common. For one-quarter of medications, there is insufficient evidence available to characterize their safety profile in pregnancy. CONCLUSION: There is a need for more drug research in pregnant patients. Future research should focus on anti-infectives with high utilization and limited level of evidence on safety for use during pregnancy. Although lack of evidence is not evidence of safety concerns, it does not indicate risk either. In many instances, the benefits outweigh the risks when these medications are used clinically, and some of the medications with no proven safety may be necessary to treat patients.

Safety and tolerability of intravenous aprepitant and fosaprepitant in children with cancer: A retrospective, single-center review.

NK-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) are key agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Current pediatric practice guidelines recommend the use of intravenous fosaprepitant or oral aprepitant. However, there are reports of hypersensitivity reactions with fosaprepitant due to polysorbate 80. Intravenous aprepitant does not contain polysorbate 80, but its use in pediatric patients has not been described. In this retrospective, single-center study, 106 pediatric patients received either fosaprepitant or intravenous aprepitant as part of their antiemetic regimen. Intravenous aprepitant was well tolerated and did not lead to any instances of hypersensitivity reactions requiring discontinuation.

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 Management of Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum (Green-top Guideline No. 69).

An objective and validated index of nausea and vomiting such as the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) and HyperEmesis Level Prediction (HELP) tools can be used to classify the severity of NVP and HG. [Grade C] Ketonuria is not an indicator of dehydration and should not be used to assess severity. [Grade A] There are safety and efficacy data for first line antiemetics such as anti (H1) histamines, phenothiazines and doxylamine/pyridoxine (Xonvea®) and they should be prescribed initially when required for NVP and HG (Appendix III). [Grade A] There is evidence that ondansetron is safe and effective. Its use as a second line antiemetic should not be discouraged if first line antiemetics are ineffective. Women can be reassured regarding a very small increase in the absolute risk of orofacial clefting with ondansetron use in the first trimester, which should be balanced with the risks of poorly managed HG. [Grade B] Metoclopramide is safe and effective and can be used alone or in combination with other antiemetics. [Grade B] Because of the risk of extrapyramidal effects metoclopramide should be used as second-line therapy. Intravenous doses should be administered by slow bolus injection over at least 3 minutes to help minimise these. [Grade C] Women should be asked about previous adverse reactions to antiemetic therapies. If adverse reactions occur, there should be prompt cessation of the medications. [GPP] Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) with additional potassium chloride in each bag, with administration guided by daily monitoring of electrolytes, is the most appropriate intravenous hydration. [Grade C] Combinations of different drugs should be used in women who do not respond to a single antiemetic. Suggested antiemetics for UK use are given in Appendix III. [GPP] Thiamine supplementation (either oral 100 mg tds or intravenous as part of vitamin B complex (Pabrinex®)) should be given to all women admitted with vomiting, or severely reduced dietary intake, especially before administration of dextrose or parenteral nutrition. [Grade D] All therapeutic measures should have been tried before considering termination of pregnancy. [Grade C].

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).

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.

MASCC 2023 Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines and Education Statements: an evidence-based and consensus resource for patients.

PURPOSE: The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Patient Antiemetic Guideline Committee aimed to (1) adapt the updated evidence-based, clinical guidelines to patient-centered antiemetic guidelines and (2) develop patient education materials and statements. METHODS: The MASCC 2023 Patient Antiemetic Guidelines were created and reviewed by antiemetic experts and patient advocates by incorporating the 2023 MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines into patient-friendly language. Patient Education Statements were developed based on current literature and by utilizing an expert modified Delphi consensus (≥ 75% agreement). Patient advocate/focus group input and patient survey results were further integrated into Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines and Education Statements. RESULTS: Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines were created using patient-friendly language and visual slides. Patient-friendly language was also utilized to communicate the Educational Statements. Key content categories identified for the Educational Statements included the following: nausea/vomiting definitions, causes, risk factors, categories, complications, accompanying symptoms, prophylactic antiemetic treatment, general management, when to call/what to ask the healthcare team, what caregivers can do, and available resources. All identified content met the ≥ 75% expert agreement threshold. Fifteen (15) items demonstrated 100% agreement, 11 items achieved ≥ 90% agreement, and three content items demonstrated 80 ~ 82% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The inaugural MASCC 2023 Patient Antiemetic Guidelines can help patients and caregivers understand the prevention of nausea and vomiting related to their cancer treatment. Educational Statements provide further patient information. Educating patients on how to utilize guideline antiemetics and the education statements can contribute improvements in the control of anticancer treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

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.

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.