Which 5-HT3 antagonist prevents nausea and vomiting in cesarean section more effectively: a network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Selective 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor (5-HT3) antagonists are commonly used to prevent nausea and vomiting (NV) after cesarean section, but the comparative efficacy of different 5-HT3 antagonists remains unclear. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine which 5-HT3 antagonists might be the preferred choice for preventing NV in parturient scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before August 24, 2023. Random network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 to estimate the efficacy of different 5-HT3 antagonists in preventing intra- and post-operative NV. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-eight studies involving seven dosing regimens of three 5-HT3 antagonists were included. Pooled results showed that ondansetron 12 mg was superior to other six dosing regimens in the prevention of postoperative NV (PONV), PON, and POV, with the ranking probability of 80.2%, 95.8%, and 87.7%, respectively, followed by granisetron two mg. Ondansetron 4 mg might be the first choice for preventing intraoperative NV (IONV) (92.8%), with the least use of postoperative rescue antiemetics (90.6%). Granisetron 3 mg and tropisetron 2 mg might be the best options for preventing ION and IOV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data, ondansetron 12 mg may have the best efficacy in preventing PONV, PON, and POV. Additionally, more studies are warranted to compare the safety of ondansetron 12 mg versus granisetron two mg.

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.

Factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the National Referral Hospital, Bhutan: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common distressing symptoms experienced after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We report the rate, and the factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting, the patterns of prophylactic antiemetic prescription, and the anesthetic techniques used among patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the Jigme Dorji Wangchuck (JDW) National Referral Hospital, Bhutan. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the JDW National Referral Hospital, from January to December 2018. All the patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were included in the study. The demographic variables, premedication, induction agents, muscle relaxants, inhalational agents for maintenance, opioid and adjuvant analgesics, the reversal agents used, and the occurrence of PONV within 24 h were recorded. Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 23). Continuous variables were compared using a t-test or Mann-Whitney test, categorical variables were tested using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: 190 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia. The rate of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 31.1% (59/190). Over half (53.7%, 102/190) of the study population were within 21-40 years of age, over 80% (157/190) were female, and 2/3rd were overweight and obese. The most frequently used premedication was ranitidine (39%, 34/87) and metoclopramide (31%, 27/87). More than half (57.4%, 109/190) of the patients received morphine as an opioid analgesic before induction. Sodium thiopentone was a commonly used induction agent (65.8%, 125/190). Succinylcholine and atracurium were mostly preferred muscle relaxants. Isoflurane and air were the most used inhalational anesthetic agents for the maintenance of anesthesia. Ondansetron was the most preferred anti-emetics during the intraoperative period. Previous history of motion sickness (OR 5.8, 95%CI 2.9-11.2, p < 0.001), and use of sodium thiopental (OR 4.1, 95%CI 1.9-9.1, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for PONV. The use of antiemetics (OR 0.1, 95%CI 0.0-0.4, p = 0.002), propofol (OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1-0.5, p < 0.001), adjuvant analgesic paracetamol (OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.2-0.8, p = 0.026), and adequate hydration with IV fluids (OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.9-1.0, p = 0.042) were preventive factors for PONV. CONCLUSION: The rate of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy was high. History of motion sickness and use of sodium thiopental for induction were independent risk factors of PONV. The use of multimodal prophylactic antiemetics was robust and superior to monotherapy in preventing PONV. This finding re-emphasizes the need for risk stratification and appropriate use of antiemetics and anesthetic agents to prevent PONV.

Unleashing the Potential of ß -cyclodextrin Inclusion Complexes in Bitter Taste Abatement: Development, Optimization and Evaluation of Taste Masked Anti-emetic Chewing Gum of Promethazine Hydrochloride.

Motion sickness also known as kinetosis is a condition in which there exists a disagreement between visually perceived movement and the vestibular system's sense of movement. Nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, and headache are the most common symptoms of motion sickness. This study mainly focuses on the taste masking of Promethazine Hydrochloride (PMZ) by inclusion complexation method, its formulation development in the chewing gum form by using directly compressible gum base HIG® and its quality and performance testing. Different molar ratios (1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4) of PMZ-cyclodextrin complexes were prepared by using ß-Cyclodextrin (ß-CD) as a taste masking agent. These complexes were evaluated for FTIR, DSC, % Entrapment Efficiency, % drug yield, and taste evaluation by E-Tongue. The optimized ratio was further evaluated by sophisticated analytical techniques such as Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and X-Ray Diffraction (XRD). A central composite design (CCD) (3 ^2) was utilized to examine the effects of independent variables (amount of gum-X1 and amount of plasticizer-X2) on dependent variables (%CDRY1 and hardness Y2). The prepared gums were evaluated for drug content, organoleptic properties, in-vitro dissolution testing by fabricated disintegration apparatus, texture analysis, etc. The optimization statistics showed that on decreasing the amount of gum, in- vitro drug release increases and hardness decreases. The optimized batch MCG-2 of Promethazine MCG showed 92.34 ± 0.92% of drug release, whereas for marketed formulation (Phenergan®-25 mg) drug release value was 86.19 ± 1.88%. Results provided evidence that PMZ MCGs could be a better alternative to conventional tablet formulations with improved drug release, palatability and texture.

Effect of Ondansetron on Postoperative Pain and Vomiting after Acute Appendicitis Surgery: A Placebo-Controlled Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Common postoperative complications following surgery, particularly acute appendicitis surgery, include postoperative pain and vomiting, which can cause discomfort and delay recovery time. Methods: A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with 80 cases of acute appendicitis of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II and aged 18-60 y/o scheduled for appendectomy under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups: group A received 4 mg of ondansetron IV (2 ml) and group B received 2 ml of normal slain IV (placebo). Pain according to VAS, nausea and vomiting according to clinical symptoms, shivering and sedation according to the Bedside Shivering Assessment Scale (BSAS), and the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) at 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery were evaluated and compared between the groups. Results: There was a significant decline in the severity of pain only at 2 hours after surgery between the ondansetron and control groups (5.3 ± 1.0 vs. 6.0 ± 1.0; p=0.01), not showing a difference between the groups at 6, 12, and 24 hours after appendectomy. Postoperative nausea and vomiting at 2 (5% vs. 25%; p=0.03) and 6 (7.5% vs. 27.5%; p=0.04) hours after appendectomy in the ondansetron group. At different times, the ondansetron and control groups did not differ in terms of pethidine consumption or sedation. Conclusions: In conclusion, our study found that ondansetron was effective in reducing postoperative vomiting after acute appendicitis surgery. However, it did not show a clinically significant effect on postoperative pain. This trial is registered with IRCT20230722058883N1.

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

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

Effect of intravenous palonosetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravenous palonosetron compared to ondansetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing cesarean section. METHODS: Fifty-four women scheduled for elective cesarean section were, randomly allocated to ondansetron group (n = 27) or palonosetron group (n = 27). Ten minutes prior to the administration of spinal anesthesia, participants received an intravenous injection of either ondansetron or palonosetron. A prophylactic phenylephrine infusion was initiated immediately following the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was titrated to maintain adequate blood pressure until the time of fetal delivery. The primary outcome was total dose of phenylephrine administered. The secondary outcomes were nausea or vomiting, the need for rescue antiemetics, hypotension, bradycardia, and shivering. Complete response rate, defined as the absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and no need for additional antiemetics, were assessed for up to 24 hours post-surgery. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the total dose of phenylephrine used between the ondansetron and palonosetron groups (387.5 µg [interquartile range, 291.3-507.8 µg versus 428.0 µg [interquartile range, 305.0-507.0 µg], P = 0.42). Complete response rates also showed no significant differences between the groups both within two hours post-spinal anesthesia (88.9% in the ondansetron group versus 100% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.24) and at 24 hours post-surgery (81.5% in the ondansetron group versus 88.8% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.7). In addition, there was no difference in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic administration of palonosetron did not demonstrate a superior effect over ondansetron in mitigating hemodynamic changes or reducing phenylephrine requirements in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl for cesarean section.

Effect of herbal medicine on postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, herbal medicines have been used to alleviate nausea and vomiting; however, a comprehensive clinical evaluation for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), especially after laparoscopic surgery, remains limited. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of herbal medicine as an alternative therapy to prevent and manage nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery compared with untreated, placebo, and Western medicine groups. METHODS: We searched 11 databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of herbal medicines on PONV after laparoscopic surgery on July 7, 2022. Two independent reviewers screened and selected eligible studies, extracted clinical data, and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV, whereas the secondary outcomes included the frequency and intensity of PONV, symptom improvement time, antiemetic requirement frequency, and incidence of adverse events. Review Manager Version 5.3. was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 19 RCTs with 2726 participants comparing herbal medicine with no treatment, placebo, and Western medicine. The findings showed that compared with no treatment, herbal medicine demonstrated significant effects on vomiting incidence (risk ratio [RR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.57, P < .00001). Compared with placebo, herbal medicine revealed a significant effect on the severity of nausea 12 hours after laparoscopic surgery (standardized mean difference = -2.04, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.41, P = .01). Herbal medicines showed similar effects with Western medicine on the incidence of postoperative nausea (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.63-1.42, P = .77) and vomiting (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.25-1.84, P = .45). Furthermore, comparing the experimental group containing herbal medicine and control group excluding herbal medicine, adverse events were considerably lower in the group with herbal medicine (RR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.72, P = .001). CONCLUSION: Herbal medicine is an effective and safe treatment for nausea and vomiting secondary to laparoscopic surgery. However, the number of studies was small and their quality was not high; thus, more well-designed RCTs are warranted in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Efficacy of Aprepitant in Preventing Post-bariatric Surgery Nausea and Vomiting: Evidence from Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of aprepitant in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS). METHODS: Clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases, as well as clinical trials registered at clinicaltrials. gov. These trials compared aprepitant with the control or placebo groups among patients who underwent MBS. Meta-analysis was performed using StataSE 17.0 software to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess the effectiveness of aprepitant in preventing PONV following MBS. RESULTS: A total of five articles comprising six studies including 929 patients undergoing MBS were included. Meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in the incidence of PONV among patients receiving aprepitant (pooled RR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis indicated that aprepitant effectively reduced PONV incidence at 0, 6, and 12 h postoperatively in patients with MBS, but did not decrease PONV occurrence at 24 and 48 h postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant demonstrated significant clinical efficacy in preventing PONV following MBS, effectively reducing patient discomfort, and improving postoperative recovery. Therefore, aprepitant should be considered a preventive measure in patients undergoing MBS to enhance patient satisfaction and recovery rates. Additionally, to maintain an effective drug concentration, aprepitant should be administered within the first 24 h postoperatively. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD 42024528154.

Two doses of fosaprepitant included prophylactic treatment for the three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists included prophylactic treatment was recommended for patients who receive one-day cisplatin chemotherapy. It is unclear whether the prolonged administration of fosaprepitant is effective for three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We aim to explore the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of two doses of fosaprepitant included regimen in the patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy. METHODS: This randomized, parallel-group, open-labelled study was conducted in nine hospitals between February 2021 and February 2023. Patients diagnosed as lung cancer and chemotherapy naive were screened. Eligible participants were scheduled to be treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen which including three days of cisplatin. Then they were randomly divided into the experimental group (two doses of fosaprepitant, Group 2DF) and the control group (one dose of fosaprepitant, Group C). The primary endpoints included the safety and the average none CINV days (NCDs). This study was registered on the website of chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR2100042665. RESULTS: Overall, 204 participants were randomly assigned, and 198 patients were analyzed. No statistical difference in adverse events was found between the two groups. All treatment-related adverse effects for fosaprepitant observed were of grade 1-2. The average NCDs of Group 2DF was significantly more than Group C (18.21 ± 3.40 days vs 16.14 ± 5.20 days, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the better life function score was achieved in Group 2DF according to FLIE questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The administration of two-dose fosaprepitant was safe and more effective than one dose in protecting patients from CINV induced by three-day cisplatin included chemotherapy.

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.