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.

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.

Emerging Variants of Canine Enteric Coronavirus Associated with Outbreaks of Gastroenteric Disease.

A 2022 canine gastroenteritis outbreak in the United Kingdom was associated with circulation of a new canine enteric coronavirus closely related to a 2020 variant with an additional spike gene recombination. The variants are unrelated to canine enteric coronavirus-like viruses associated with human disease but represent a model for coronavirus population adaptation.

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.

The Efficacy of Tradipitant in Patients With Diabetic and Idiopathic Gastroparesis in a Phase 3 Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neurokinin receptor 1 antagonists are effective in reducing nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy-induced emesis. We investigated the safety and efficacy of tradipitant, a neurokinin receptor 1 antagonist, in patients with idiopathic and diabetic gastroparesis. METHODS: A total of 201 adults with gastroparesis were randomly assigned to oral tradipitant 85 mg (n = 102) or placebo (n = 99) twice daily for 12 weeks. Symptoms were assessed by a daily symptom dairy, Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index scores, and other patient-reported questionnaires. Blood levels were monitored for an exposure-response analysis. The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 12 in average nausea severity, measured by daily symptom diary. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat (ITT) population did not meet the prespecified primary endpoint at week 12 (difference in nausea severity change drug vs placebo; P = .741) or prespecified secondary endpoints. Post hoc analyses were performed to control for drug exposure, rescue medications, and baseline severity inflation. Subjects with high blood levels of tradipitant significantly improved average nausea severity beginning at early time points (weeks 2-4). In post hoc sensitivity analyses, tradipitant treatment demonstrated strengthened effects, with statistically significant improvements in nausea at week 12. CONCLUSIONS: Although tradipitant did not reach significance in the ITT population, a pharmacokinetic exposure-response analysis demonstrated significant effects with adequate tradipitant exposure. When accounting for confounding factors such as baseline severity inflation and rescue medication, a statistically significant effect was also observed. These findings suggest that tradipitant has potential as a treatment for the symptom of nausea in gastroparesis. (ClincialTrials.gov, Number: NCT04028492).

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.

Preoperative free access to water compared to fasting for planned cesarean under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary guidance for preoperative feeding allows solids up to 6 hours and clear fluids up to 2 hours before anesthesia. Clinical trial evidence to support this approach for cesarean delivery is lacking. Many medical practitioners continue to follow conservative policies of no intake from midnight to the time of surgery, especially in pregnant women. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the pragmatic approach of permitting free access to water up to the call to dispatch to the operating theater vs fasting from midnight in preoperative oral intake restriction for planned cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia on perioperative vomiting and maternal satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the obstetrical unit of the University of Malaya Medical Centre from October 2020 to May 2022. A total of 504 participants scheduled for planned cesarean delivery were randomized: 252 undergoing preoperative free access to water up to the call to dispatch to the operating theater (intervention group) and 252 undergoing fasting from midnight (fasting arm). The primary outcomes were perioperative vomiting and maternal satisfaction. Analyses were performed using t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and chi-square test, as appropriate. RESULTS: Of note, 9 of 252 patients (3.6%) in the intervention group and 24 of 252 patients (9.5%) in the control group had vomiting at up to 6 hours after completion of cesarean delivery (relative risk, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.79; P=.007), and the maternal satisfaction scores (0-10 visual numerical rating scale) were 9 (interquartile range, 8-10) in the intervention group and 5 (interquartile range, 3-7) in the control group (P<.001). Assessed before dispatch to the operating theater, feeling of thirst was reported by 69 of 252 patients (27.4%) in the intervention group and 134 of 252 patients (53.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.65; P<.001), capillary glucose levels were 4.8±0.7 mmol/L in the intervention group and 4.9±0.8 mmol/L in the control group (P=.048), and preoperative intravenous fluid hydration was commenced in 49 of 252 patients (19.4%) in the intervention group and 76 of 252 patients (30.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88; P=.005). In the operating theater, ketone was detected in the catheterized urine in 38 of 252 patients (15.1%) in the intervention group and 78 of 252 patients (31.0%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.59; P<.001), and the numbers of doses of vasopressors needed to correct hypotension were 2.3±1.7 in the intervention group and 2.7±2.2 in the control (P=.009). The recommendation rates for preoperative oral intake regimen to a friend were 95.2% (240/252) in the intervention group and 39.7% (100/252) in the control group (relative risk, 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-2.80; P<.001), in favor of free access to water. Other assessed maternal and neonatal outcomes were not different. CONCLUSION: Compared with fasting, free access to water in planned cesarean delivery reduced perioperative vomiting and was strongly favored by women. In addition, several pre- and intraoperative secondary outcomes were improved. However, postcesarean delivery recovery and neonatal outcomes were not different.

Gastrointestinal adverse events and weight reduction in people with type 2 diabetes treated with tirzepatide in the SURPASS clinical trials.

AIMS: To evaluate gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) and the impact of nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea (N/V/D) and any gastrointestinal (GI) AEs overall on weight change with tirzepatide across the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive once-weekly tirzepatide (5, 10 or 15 mg) or comparator (placebo, semaglutide 1 mg once weekly, or titrated daily basal insulins) as monotherapy or added on to background antihyperglycaemic medication(s). This post hoc analysis subdivided participants within each trial into subgroups that self-reported (yes/no) any N/V/D or GI AEs. Change from baseline in body weight at the primary timepoint was assessed within each trial and subgroup. Mediation analyses were conducted to evaluate the contribution of direct and indirect (mediated by N/V/D or GI AEs) effects of tirzepatide on weight change versus comparators. RESULTS: Across the SURPASS-1 to -5 trials (N = 6263), nausea (12%-24%), diarrhoea (12%-22%), and vomiting (2%-13%) were the most common GI AEs reported with tirzepatide; these were transient and of mild-to-moderate severity. Mean weight reduction at the primary timepoint with tirzepatide was consistent between participants who reported N/V/D (-6.2 to -14.9 kg) and those who did not report N/V/D (-6.2 to -13.3 kg). Mean weight reduction was significantly (P < 0.01) greater with tirzepatide compared with placebo, semaglutide 1 mg, and basal insulins within the N/V/D and GI AEs subgroups. Mediation analyses suggested minimal contribution (<6%) of N/V/D and GI AEs to the overall difference in weight change between tirzepatide and comparators. CONCLUSIONS: Superior weight reduction with tirzepatide versus comparators appears to be independent of reported N/V/D or GI AEs.

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.

Early childhood-onset rumination syndrome is clinically distinct from adolescent-onset rumination syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Rumination syndrome (RS) beginning in early childhood or infancy is understudied and challenging to treat. Our objective is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of early-onset (EO) and adolescent-onset (AO) patients with RS. METHODS: We conducted an ambidirectional cohort study of children diagnosed with RS at our institution. Patients were included in two groups: EO (RS symptom onset ≤5 years and diagnosis ≤12 years) and AO (onset >12 years). Patient characteristics, severity, and outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: We included 49 EO and 52 AO RS patients. The median ages of symptom onset and diagnosis in EO were 3.5 and 6 years, respectively; AO, 14.5 and 15 years. EO RS had a slight male predominance while AO was predominantly female (p = 0.016). EO patients were more likely to have developmental delay (24% vs. 8%, p = 0.029) and less likely to have depression (0% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) or anxiety (14% vs. 40%, p = 0.004). At baseline, EO RS was less severe than AO RS: EO RS had greater regurgitation frequency (p < 0.001) but lower vomiting frequency (p = 0.001), resulting in less meal skipping (p < 0.001), reliance on tube feeding or parenteral nutrition (p < 0.001), and weight loss (p = 0.035). EO RS symptoms improved over time: at follow-up, patients had lower regurgitation (p < 0.001) and vomiting frequency (p < 0.001) compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: EO RS is clinically distinct from AO RS, with differences in sex distribution, comorbid conditions, and severity of initial presentation. The pathogenesis and natural history of EO RS may be distinct from that of AO RS.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.