[Fire dragon cupping in prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical efficacy and safety of fire dragon cupping in prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in breast cancer. METHODS: Sixty breast cancer patients receiving medium-high emetogenic chemotherapy regimen were randomly divided into an observation group (30 cases, 3 cases dropped out) and a control group (30 cases, 3 cases dropped out). In both groups, 5 mg tropisetron hydrochloride was given intravenously on the day of chemotherapy and 1st to 3rd days after chemotherapy. In the observation group, fire dragon cupping on the abdomen was applied on 1st, 3rd and 5th days after chemotherapy. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, abdominal distension, the severity of nausea, vomiting on 1st to 6th days after chemotherapy, and the duration of nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite were observed in the two groups. The self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) score, general comfort questionnaire scale (GCQ) score before and after treatment and remedy antiemetic medication were observed in the two groups, and the safety was evaluated. RESULTS: On 2nd to 6th days after chemotherapy, the number of patients with nausea, loss of appetite and abdominal distension and nausea scores in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). On 1st to 3rd days after chemotherapy, the number of patients with vomiting and vomiting scores in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The duration of nausea, vomiting and loss of appetite in the observation group were shorter than those in the control group (P<0.05). In the observation group, there was no significant difference in SAS and GCQ scores before and after treatment (P>0.05). After treatment, the GCQ score in the control group was decreased compared with that before treatment (P<0.05). After treatment, there was no significant difference in SAS and GCQ scores between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the number of patients using remedy medication between the two groups (P>0.05). No adverse reaction occurred during treatment in both groups. CONCLUSION: Fire dragon cupping can effectively reduce the incidence of nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite and the severity of nausea, vomiting related to chemotherapy in breast cancer, and improve patient comfort, and have good safety.

Neiguan (PC6) acupoint stimulation for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a cost-effective supplement in guideline-inconsistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis subgroup.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of Neiguan (PC6) acupoint acustimulation in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), especially for patients with guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) due to personal reasons METHODS: From January 2021 to December 2021, 373 patients suffered from solid malignancy were recruited according to the inclusion criteria. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication use) rate during the overall phase (0-120 h of each chemo-cycle) was the primary assessment of CINV control. The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire was investigated among these patients as a secondary 'quality of life' objective to assess the impact of CINV on patients' daily life by recording score of nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: With acustimulation of Neiguan (PC6) acupuncture point through a portable, noninvasive and user-friendly device, in terms of complete response rate and scores in nausea/vomiting by FLIE questionnaire, patients achieve a better outcome in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) induced CINV, especially GICP subgroup. Meanwhile, analysis also demonstrated this tendency existed in other patients with HEC/GCCP (guideline consistent CINV prophylaxis) and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy, although the difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: Considering advantages of Neiguan (PC6) acustimulation such as noninvasive, covered by medical insurance and few side effects, we believe it would be an ideal auxiliary tool in CINV control, especially in patients who receive highly emetogenic chemo-protocol and are reluctant to GCCP for economic reasons.

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab(R-CHOP) is one of the standard regimens. Given that R-CHOP is highly emetogenic, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention is clinically important. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on these patients. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in preventing CINV in patients with DLBCL undergoing first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy. Seventy patients were enrolled in this single-center prospective non-comparative study conducted between November 2020 and May 2023 in South Korea. NEPA was administered 1 h prior to chemotherapy initiation on day 1. The primary endpoint of the study was the complete response rate (no emesis, and no rescue medication) during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, which were assessed over a period of 120 h post-chemotherapy. The complete response rates for NEPA were 90.0% [95% CI 80.5, 95.9] for the acute phase, 85.7% [95% CI 75.3, 92.9] for the delayed phase, and 84.3% [95% CI 73.6, 91.9] for the overall phase, with no-emesis rates (acute: 97.1% [95% CI 97.1, 99.7], delayed: 95.7% [95% CI 88.0, 99.1], overall: 92.9% [95% CI 84.1, 97.6]). NEPA was well tolerated with no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. NEPA exhibited substantial efficacy in mitigating CINV in DLBCL patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy, demonstrating high CR and no-emesis rates, and favorable safety profiles.

Prevalence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Anticipatory nausea and vomiting are unpleasant symptoms observed before undergoing chemotherapy sessions. Less is known about the occurrence of symptoms since the advent of the new neurokinin-1 antagonist. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was performed at a single Brazilian Institution. This study included breast cancer patients who received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and an appropriate antiemetic regimen (dexamethasone 10 mg, palonosetron 0.56 mg, and netupitant 300 mg in the D1 followed by dexamethasone 10 mg 12/12 h in D2 and D4). Patients used a diary to record nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication in the first two cycles of treatment. The prevalence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting was assessed before chemotherapy on day 1 of C2. RESULTS: From August 4, 2020, to August 12, 2021, 60 patients were screened, and 52 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 50.8 (28-69) years, most had stage III (53.8%), and most received chemotherapy with curative intent (94%). During the first cycle, the frequency of overall nausea and vomiting was 67.31%, and that of severe nausea and vomiting (defined as grade>4 on a 10-point visual scale or use of rescue medication) was 55.77%. Ten patients had anticipatory nausea and vomiting (19.23%). The occurrence of nausea and vomiting during C1 was the only statistically significant predictor of anticipatory nausea and vomiting (OR=16, 95%CI 2.4-670.9, p=0.0003). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of anticipatory nausea is still high in the era of neurokinin-1 antagonists, and failure of antiemetic control in C1 remains the main risk factor. All efforts should be made to control chemotherapy-induced nausea or nausea and vomiting on C1 to avoid anticipatory nausea.

Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol on Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients Undergoing Radical Resection of Colon Cancer: A Single-Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND We compared the effect of remimazolam and propofol intravenous anesthesia on postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colon cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS One hundred patients undergoing elective radical operation of colon cancer under general anesthesia were divided into a remimazolam group (group R) and propofol group (group P) by a random number table method. During anesthesia induction and maintenance, group R was intravenously injected with remimazolam to exert sedation; however, in group P, propofol was injected instead of remimazolam. The occurrence of postoperative delirium was assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit scale and postoperative pain was assessed with the visual analogue score (VAS). The primary outcome measures were the incidence and duration of delirium within 7 days following surgery. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative VAS scores, intraoperative anesthetic drug dosage, and adverse reactions, including nausea and vomiting, hypoxemia, and respiratory depression. RESULTS There was no significant difference in baseline data between the 2 groups (P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence and duration of postoperative delirium between the 2 groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in VAS scores, remifentanil consumption, and adverse reactions, including nausea and vomiting, hypoxemia, and respiratory depression between the 2 groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS In elderly patients undergoing radical colon cancer surgery, remimazolam administration did not improve or aggravate the incidence and duration of delirium, compared with propofol.

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.

SummaryCannabis use is legalised in many countries. We present a patient in their 40s who complained of recurrent abdominal pain and associated nausea and vomiting. The patient was previously seen in various hospitals, treated symptomatically, and discharged with a diagnosis of non-specific abdominal pain. The patient had a chronic history of smoking cannabis and nicotine and drinking alcohol. Abdominal examination revealed no masses, and abdominal X-ray was normal. Blood tests and gastroduodenoscopy revealed no obvious aetiology. Intravenous fluids, together with antiemetics and proton pump inhibitors, were administered. The patient also received counselling and was advised to stop cannabis use. At discharge, the patient was well and asked to come back for review in 2 weeks, and, thereafter monthly for a period of 6 months after stopping cannabis use. The patient reported no recurrent symptoms despite continued cigarette and alcohol use. A suspected cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) became a consideration. Awareness of cannabis-related disorders such as CHS may assist in avoiding costly hospital workups.

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.

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.

Gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with the use of intravenous oliceridine compared with intravenous hydromorphone or fentanyl in acute pain management utilizing adjusted indirect treatment comparison methods.

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. Aim: To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine - 2; hydromorphone - 3; fentanyl - 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.

Exploring the role of ghrelin and des-acyl ghrelin in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Ghrelin and its mimetics have been shown to reduce cisplatin-induced emesis in preclinical studies using ferrets and shrews. This study investigated the effectiveness of ghrelin and des-acyl ghrelin (DAG) in antagonizing cisplatin-induced emesis and physiological changes indicative of nausea in Suncus murinus. Animals implanted with radiotelemetry devices were administered ghrelin (0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 µg/day), DAG (0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 µg/day), or saline (14 µL/day) intracerebroventricularly 4 days before and 3 days after treatment with cisplatin (30 mg/kg). At the end, the anti-apoptotic potentials of ghrelin and DAG were assessed by measuring Bax expression and cytochrome C activity. Neurotransmitter changes in the brain were evaluated using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. Ghrelin and DAG reduced cisplatin-induced emesis in the delayed (24-72 h) but not the acute phase (0-24 h) of emesis. Ghrelin also partially reversed the inhibitory effects of cisplatin on food intake without affecting gastrointestinal myoelectrical activity or causing hypothermia; however, ghrelin or DAG did not prevent these effects. Ghrelin and DAG could attenuate the cisplatin-induced upregulation of Bax and cytochrome C in the ileum. Cisplatin dysregulated neurotransmitter levels in the frontal cortex, amygdala, thalamus, hypothalamus, and brainstem, and this was partially restored by low doses of ghrelin and DAG. Our findings suggest that ghrelin and DAG exhibit protective effects against cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. The underlying antiemetic mechanism may involve GHSR and/or unspecified pathways that modulate the neurotransmitters involved in emesis control in the brain and an action to attenuate apoptosis in the gastrointestinal tract.

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.