Profilaxis antiemética en pacientes con neoplasias hematológicas que reciben protocolos de acondicionamiento para el trasplante de células madre hematopoyéticas: protocolo de estudio para una revisión sistemática / Antiemetic prophylaxis in hematologic malignancies patients receiving conditioning protocols for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A study protocol for a systematic review

Objetivo las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por la quimioterapia siguen siendo un reto importante para los pacientes que recibieron un trasplante de células madre hematopoyéticas. Este estudio tiene como objetivo sintetizar la evidencia disponible sobre los regímenes de profilaxis antiemética en los pacientes con neoplasias hematológicas que recibieron un trasplante de células madre hematopoyéticas, con el fin de identificar el mejor estándar de cuidado. Métodos se llevará a cabo una revisión sistemática utilizando las bases de datos MEDLINE a través de PubMed, EMBASE, Clinical-Trials.gov y Cochrane. Se considerarán los estudios escritos en inglés, francés, italiano o español. Después de seleccionar los estudios de acuerdo con los criterios de inclusión y exclusión, 2 revisores independientes extraerán los datos y evaluarán el riesgo de sesgo en los artículos seleccionados. Este protocolo se ha elaborado de acuerdo con las recomendaciones de las guías PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols). Este protocolo está registrado en PROSPERO (Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews) CRD42023406380. Discusión las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por la quimioterapia son un efecto secundario incapacitante que supone un reto importante para los pacientes con neoplasias hematológicas. A pesar de la publicación de diversas guías sobre profilaxis antiemética, ninguna de ellas incluye recomendaciones específicas para cada régimen de quimioterapia. Por lo tanto, analizar los regímenes de profilaxis antiemética primaria en los pacientes con neoplasias hematológicas que recibieron un trasplante de progenitores hematopoyéticos sería valioso para mejorar la calidad de vida de estos pacientes. (AU)

Objective Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting continue to pose a significant challenge for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This study aims to synthesize available evidence on antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in order to identify the best standard of care. Methods A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov., and Cochrane databases. Studies written in English, French, Italian or Spanish will be considered. After screening the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers will extract data and assess the risk of bias in eligible articles. This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. This protocol is registered in the Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42023406380. Discussion Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a debilitating side effect that presents a significant challenge for patients with hematologic malignancies. Despite the publication of various guidelines, none of them includes specific recommendations for each chemotherapy regimen. Therefore, analyzing the primary antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation would be valuable in enhancing patients' quality of life. (AU)

Guías antieméticas: ¿hemos incorporado los cambios referentes a carboplatino y antraciclinas? / Antiemetic guidelines: Have we incorporated the changes concerning carboplatin and anthracyclines?

Objetivo: en 2016 se publicaron las guías de la MASCC/ESMO que incorporaron los esquemas de antraciclinas como quimioterapia altamente emetógena (QAE) proponiendo la triple terapia antiemética, así como para los esquemas de carboplatino. Los objetivos fueron analizar el nivel de concordancia entre las guías y la profilaxis antiemética utilizada en el hospital de día de hematooncología, evaluar su efectividad y determinar el ahorro de la inclusión de netupitant/palonosetrón (NEPA) oral con dexametasona intravenosa (NEPAd) respecto a fosaprepitant con ondansetrón y dexametasona (FOD intravenosa). Método estudio observacional prospectivo registrando variables demográficas, esquema de quimioterapia recibido, localización tumoral, riesgo emetógeno del paciente, pauta antiemética prescrita, concordancia con guía MASCC/ESMO y su efectividad, utilización de medicación de rescate y registro de visitas a urgencias o ingresos por emesis.Se llevó a cabo un estudio farmacoeconómico de minimización de costes. Resultados se incluyeron 61 pacientes, 70% mujeres, mediana edad 60,5.Los esquemas de platino fueron más frecuentes en el periodo 1, siendo el 87,5% respecto al 67,6% en el periodo 2. Los esquemas con antraciclinas fueron del 21,6 y 10% respectivamente en cada periodo. Un 21,1% de las pautas antieméticas no coincidían con las recomendaciones MASCC/ESMO, siendo en su totalidad en el periodo 1. La puntuación de los cuestionarios de efectividad fue de protección total en el 90,9% en las náuseas agudas, del 100% en los vómitos agudos y en las náuseas retardadas, y del 72,7% en los vómitos retardados. La frecuencia de uso de medicación de rescate fue del 18,7% en el periodo 1 y no fue necesaria en el periodo 2.No se detectaron visitas a urgencias ni ingresos en ninguno de los periodos. El uso de NEPAd comportó una reducción del 28% de los costes con respecto al empleo de FOD. Conclusiones: ... (AU)

Objective: Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).MethodsProspective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis.A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out. Results 61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period.A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting.The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2.No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods. Conclusions: ...(AU)

Ondansetrón para el control de vómitos asociados a gastritis y gastroenteritis aguda en urgencias de Pediatría: uso, abuso y buen uso / Ondansetron for the control of vomiting associated with acute gastritis/gastroenteritis in Pediatric Emergencies: use, abuse and appropriate use

Introducción: el ondansetrón es un antiemético ampliamente utilizado en la práctica clínica para el control de vómitos asociados a gastritis y/o gastroenteritis aguda en niños. Sin embargo, la evidencia disponible es controvertida, sus indicaciones no están claramente definidas y no existe una unanimidad de uso en las guías de práctica clínica. Material y métodos: se realizó un estudio de cohortes retrospectivo en el que se incluyó un total de 825 niños entre 0 y 14 años con vómitos asociados a gastritis y/o gastroenteritis aguda que acudieron a Urgencias de Pediatría de un hospital terciario durante el año 2019. Se analizó la asociación entre el uso de ondansetrón y la necesidad de rehidratación intravenosa, las hospitalizaciones, el tiempo de permanencia en Urgencias y las nuevas consultas a Urgencias dentro de las 72 horas posteriores. Resultados: de la muestra estudiada, el 38,8% de los pacientes recibieron ondansetrón. La administración de ondansetrón redujo el riesgo de ingreso (OR 0,19; IC 95%: 0,04-0,84) y disminuyó el tiempo de permanencia en Urgencias (p = 0,000). No se encontraron diferencias significativas en la reducción de la necesidad de rehidratación intravenosa (OR 0,65; IC 95%: 0,40-1,05) ni en las nuevas visitas a Urgencias dentro de las 72 horas siguientes (OR 1,38; IC 95%: 0,82-2,31). Conclusiones: nuestros resultados sugieren que el uso de ondansetrón podría ser beneficioso en niños mayores de 6 meses con vómitos asociados a gastritis y/o gastroenteritis aguda y que presenten deshidratación de leve a moderada (AU)

Background: ondansetron is an antiemetic widely used in clinical practice for the control of vomiting associated with gastritis and/or acute gastroenteritis in children. However, the available evidence about its use is controversial, its directions for use are not clearly defined and there is no unanimity on its use in clinical practice guidelines.Methodology: we performed a retrospective cohort study which included a total of 825 children between 0 and 14 years, who presented symptoms of vomiting associated with gastritis and/or acute gastroenteritis and attended the Pediatric Emergency Department of a tertiary hospital in 2019. The association between the use of ondansetron and the need for intravenous rehydration, hospitalization, length of stay in the Pediatric Emergency Department and return visits to the emergency department within 72 hours was analysed.Results: of the sample studied, 38.7% of the patients received ondansetron. The administration of ondansetron reduced the risk of hospital admission (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.84) and decreased the length of stay in the emergency department (p = 0.000). No significant differences were found in reducing the need for intravenous rehydration (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05) or in return visits to emergency department within 3 days (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.82-2.31).Conclusions: our results suggest that the use of ondansetron could be beneficial in children older than 6 months with vomiting associated with gastritis and/or acute gastroenteritis and with mild-to-moderate dehydration. (AU)

Simultaneous quantification of sumatriptan succinate and prochlorperazine maleate in orodispersible films using two validated UV-spectroscopic methods.

The study aimed at simultaneous quantification of sumatriptan succinate (SUM) and prochlorperazine maleate (PCP) in an orodispersible film using two validated spectroscopic methods viz. simultaneous equation (Method I) and the Q-absorption ratio (Method II). The Method I involved measurement of absorbances at λmax of both drugs while in Method II, absorbances were measured at isosbestic wavelength and λmax of one of the two components. Method validation were accomplished as per the ICH guidelines. A 1:1 mixture of the drugs and an orodispersible film (ODF) containing these drugs were assayed by both methods. The absorbance data of SUM and PCP in both methods were linear at respective wavelengths with correlation coefficient values >0.995. Both methods were precise as % RSD in repeatability, interday and intraday precision was less than 2. The estimation of SUM and PCP from the film dosage form by method I was104.74% and 98.34% and by method II was 103.45% and 98.85%, respectively, with a standard deviation <2. The study concluded that both the methods were simple, reliable and robust and can be applied successfully for the simultaneous quantification of SUM and PCP in mixture and orodispersible film dosage form.

Prospective real-time evaluation of the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol among emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol in a population of undifferentiated, stable, and non-agitated patients receiving droperidol in the emergency department. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥12 years of age who received low-dose droperidol (≤ 2.5 mg) for indications other than acute behavioral disturbances. QTc intervals were monitored in real-time during pre-specified observation periods in the ED. Primary outcome was variation of QTc interval after droperidol administration, defined as the maximum delta (change) of QTc interval. Other outcomes included proportion of patients with a QTc ≥ 500 ms after droperidol, delta ≥ +60 ms, and incidence of clinical adverse events. Patients were monitored up to 30 min after IV bolus and up to 46 min after infusion. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were included (mean age 42.1 years, 66.2% females). The median dose of droperidol was 1.875 mg (range 0.625 mg, 2.5 mg) and 94.1% received droperidol for headache management. Most patients received droperidol as a 2-min bolus (n = 41, 60.3%). The mean maximum delta of QTc interval after droperidol across all 68 patients was +29.9 ms (SD 15). A total of 12 patients (17.6%) experienced a QTc interval ≥ 500 ms during the observation period after droperidol, and 3 patients (4.4%) had a delta QTc ≥ +60 ms. There were no serious arrhythmias, such as TdP, or deaths among the 68 participants in this study (0/68). However, 13.2% (n = 9) had at least one non-serious adverse event including restlessness and/or anxiety. CONCLUSION: The QTc interval slightly increased after droperidol administration, but these prolongations were brief, mostly below 500 msec and did not lead to serious arrhythmias. The yield of continuous cardiac monitoring in patients receiving low doses of droperidol is likely low.

Dose optimization of intravenous dexamethasone for total knee arthroplasty: when two is not better than one.

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose regimen of dexamethasone in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has not been determined. This study was performed to evaluate the impact of a single preoperative high-dose dexamethasone compared with two perioperative low-dose dexamethasone in TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively studied three regimens on dexamethasone: no dexamethasone (A), a single preoperative dose of 20-mg dexamethasone (B), and two perioperative doses of 10-mg dexamethasone (C). The primary outcome was postoperative pain level. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), use of analgesic and antiemetic rescue, interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, range of motion (ROM), and complications were also compared. RESULTS: The dynamic pain scores and CRP and IL-6 levels were significantly lower for Group B compared to Groups A and C on postoperative days 1 and 2 (POD 1 and 2). Such differences were also detected between Groups C and A. Besides, the pain scores at rest were significantly lower in Groups B and C than in Group A on POD 1 and 2. Patients in Groups B and C had a lower incidence of PONV, reduced use of analgesic and antiemetic rescue, and improved ROM than in Group A. No complications occurred in any group. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone in TKA provides short-term advantages in analgesic, antiemetic and anti-inflammatory effects. Besides, regarding the effects of pain and inflammatory control on POD 1 and 2, a single preoperative high dose of 20-mg dexamethasone was more effective than two perioperative low doses of 10-mg dexamethasone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Oral Ondansetron Administration in Children Seeking Emergency Department Care for Acute Gastroenteritis: A Patient-Level Propensity-Matched Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore oral ondansetron usage and impact on outcomes in clinical practice. METHODS: This observational study was a planned secondary analysis of 2 trials conducted in 10 US and 6 Canadian institutions between 2014 and 2017. Children 3 to 48 months old with gastroenteritis and ≥3 episodes of vomiting in the 24 hours preceding emergency department (ED) presentation were included. Oral ondansetron was administered at the discretion of the provider. The principal outcomes were intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization at the index visit and during the subsequent 72 hours and diarrhea and vomiting frequency during the 24 hours following the ED visit. RESULTS: In total, 794 children were included. The median age was 16.0 months (interquartile range 10.0 to 26.0), and 50.1% (398/794) received oral ondansetron. In propensity-adjusted analysis (n=528), children administered oral ondansetron were less likely to receive intravenous fluids at the index visit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 0.88). There were no differences in the frequencies of intravenous fluid administration within the first 72 hours (aOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10) or hospitalization at the index visit (aOR 0.31; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.10) or the subsequent 72 hours (aOR 0.52; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.28). Episodes of vomiting (aRR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19) and diarrhea (aRR 1.11; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.32) during the 24 hours following ED discharge also did not differ. CONCLUSION: Among preschool-aged children with gastroenteritis seeking ED care, oral ondansetron administration was associated with a reduction in index ED visit intravenous fluid administration; it was not associated with intravenous fluids administered within 72 hours, hospitalization, or vomiting and diarrhea in the 24 hours following discharge.

A phase I trial of lurbinectedin in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background In vitro/in vivo data showed synergism of cisplatin and lurbinectedin in ovarian cancer cells and grafts. This phase I trial investigated the recommended phase II dose (RD) of cisplatin and lurbinectedin combination, with (Group A) or without aprepitant (Group B), in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods All patients received 60 mg/m2 cisplatin 90-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion followed by lurbinectedin 60-min i.v. infusion at escalating doses on Day 1 every 3 weeks (q3wk). Patients in Group A additionally received orally 125 mg aprepitant one hour before cisplatin on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2 and 3. Toxicity was graded according to the NCI-CTCAE v.4. Results RD for Group A was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.1 mg/m2. RD for Group B was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.4 mg/m2. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hematological [neutropenia (41%), lymphopenia (35%), leukopenia (24%), thrombocytopenia (18%)] and fatigue (35%) in Group A (n = 17), and neutropenia (50%), leukopenia (42%), lymphopenia (29%), and fatigue (13%) and nausea (8%) in Group B (n = 24). Four patients (2 in each group) had a partial response. Disease stabilization for ≥ 4 months was observed in 4 and 10 patients, respectively. Conclusion The combination of lurbinectedin with cisplatin was not possible in meaningful therapeutic dosage due to toxicity. The addition of aprepitant in combination with cisplatin did not allow increasing the dose due to hematological toxicity, whereas omitting aprepitant increased the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Modest clinical activity was observed in general.Clinical trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov code: NCT01980667. Date of registration: 11 November 2013.

Supportive care for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in a phase 1B study of selinexor in advanced cancer patients: an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical observations of cancer patients treated with selinexor have reported high incidence of nausea and anorexia. The study objective was to investigate the adoption of prophylactic olanzapine for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in cancer patients receiving selinexor and standard chemotherapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed supportive care interventions in patients receiving selinexor and recorded frequency of adverse events (NCI-CTAE). Association between categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests; repeated measures analysis was performed to assess weight changes over time. RESULTS: Of 124 evaluable patients, 83 (66.9%) were female, 93 were white (75.0%), and the most common cancer was ovarian (N = 30, 24.2%). One hundred and four patients (83.9%) received olanzapine, of which 93 (89.4%) were prophylactically treated, the majority (86.5%) receiving low 2.5 mg daily dose. Other anti-emetics included ondansetron in 90 patients (72.6%), dexamethasone prescribed in 50 patients (40.3%) and metoclopramide in 49 patients (39.5%), while aprepitant/fosaprepitant (N = 2, 1.6%) were prescribed infrequently. Cancer patients receiving prophylactic olanzapine (N = 93) compared to patients who never received olanzapine (N = 20) had more Grade 1 + anorexia (31.2% vs 20.0%), less nausea (53.8% vs 70.0%), less vomiting (33.3% vs 40.0%), and increased hyperglycemia (29.0% vs 10.0%), but differences were non-statistically significant. In addition, there was minimal weight loss over time in both groups and no statistically significant differences in weight loss between groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic olanzapine decreased nausea, vomiting and maintained weight over 3 months but did not prevent anorexia in patients receiving selinexor and chemotherapy. Low dose olanzapine was well tolerated but associated with hyperglycemia.

Efficacy of ondansetron against emesis induced by a multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen for malignant lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), ondansetron, in patients with malignant lymphoma receiving multi-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients receiving the first course of an ESHAP (etoposide, cisplatin, methylprednisolone, cytarabine) regimen including 4-day continuous infusion of cisplatin (25 mg/m2/day). All patients received ondansetron 4 mg intravenously during 5-day administration of ESHAP. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) for emesis, which was defined as absence of both emesis and rescue medications. Total control (TC) was defined as an absence of emetic episodes, including nausea and emesis, and complete protection (CP) was defined as an absence of emesis with addition of rescue antiemetics. Nausea and vomiting were assessed and graded daily by medical staff. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were analyzed. Nausea and vomiting were generally well controlled, with the CR rates of emesis being 79% in the overall phase, 82% in the early phase (days 1-6), and 89% in the delayed phase (days 7-10). TC and CP were achieved in 51 patients (62%) and 77 patients (94%) in the overall phase. DISCUSSION: Most of the chemotherapy regimens for lymphoid malignancies include high-dose corticosteroid which may be also effective as antiemetics. Although NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) is generally recommended for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, it can interact with variety drugs. CONCLUSION: Although NK1RA is generally recommended for cisplatin-containing regimen, our results suggest that ondansetron effectively controlled emesis in patients receiving ESHAP therapy which includes high-dose corticosteroid.

Palonosetron versus Granisetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting after Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study.

The triplet antiemetic regimen is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, the superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in triplet antiemetic therapy remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) and granisetron (GRA) in triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV. This study included 267 patients who received MEC at our hospital between April 2017 and September 2020. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising PALO or GRA and dexamethasone on day 1 and aprepitant on days 1-3. We evaluated the rate of complete response (CR) (i.e., no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the acute phase (0-24 h), delayed phase (24-120 h), and overall phase (0-120 h) after first-cycle chemotherapy. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for non-CR. The rate of CR in the overall and delayed phases was significantly higher in the PALO group (91.9 and 91.9%, respectively) than in the GRA group (74.1 and 75.5%, respectively). In the acute phase, the incidence was not different between the GRA and PALO groups (96.5 and 99.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex and the use of GRA were risk factors for non-CR. Subgroup analysis revealed the superiority of PALO over GRA in female patients, but not in male patients. In conclusion, PALO was more effective than GRA in triplet antiemetic therapy in preventing CINV during MEC, especially for female patients.

NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy (CINV) with Folfirinox and Folfoxiri even during the COVID-19 pandemic: a real-life study.

OBJECTIVE: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the treatment of cancer patients, with particular regard to the management of both chemotherapy and side effects. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are amongst the most troublesome side effects that impair patients' adherence to treatments and their quality of life (QoL). NEPA (Akynzeo®), is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant [a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 300 mg] and palonosetron [(5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin or 5HT) type3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), 0.5 mg] which has been shown to be effective in preventing CINV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study started before the outbreak of COVID-19 and was carried out during the pandemic period. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose NEPA plus 12 mg of dexamethasone (DEX) in patients treated with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab and Folfirinox. The patients were diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). They were divided into two groups: naïve patients and patients previously treated with serotonin receptor antagonists (5HT3-RA) and neurokin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA). RESULTS: During the overall phase, the complete response (CR) rate was 96.8% in naïve patients treated with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab, and 94.6% in patients treated with Folfirinox. During the acute and delayed phases, the CR rate was 92.8% and 94.2%, with Folfoxiri and Bevacizumab, as well as 96.2% and 94.6%, with Folfirinox. There was no adequate control of CINV events in patients on antiemetic prophylaxis with 5HT3-RA or NK1-RA associated with cortisone. During the overall phase, the CR rate was 74.6% with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab and 75.8% with Folfirinox. During the acute and delayed phases, the CR rate was 72.5% and 74.8% with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab, as well as 75.2% and 74.6% with Folfirinox. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown the therapeutic benefits of NEPA in the management and prophylaxis of CINV events, both in naive patients and patients previously treated with 5HT3-RA and NK1-RA. In addition, NEPA has been shown to be safe, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A randomized study of IV prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine versus IV hydromorphone for migraine-associated symptoms: A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized trial among emergency department patients with migraine to determine the relative impact on migraine-associated symptoms of hydromorphone, an opioid, versus prochlorperazine, an antidopaminergic antiemetic. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data from a double-blind study registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02389829). Patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for migraine without aura or for probable migraine without aura were eligible for participation. Participants received either hydromorphone 1 mg IV or prochlorperazine 10 mg IV plus diphenhydramine 25 mg IV and could receive a second dose of the same medication 1 h later if needed. The outcomes were sustained relief of nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients were enrolled, of whom 63 received prochlorperazine and 64 received hydromorphone. Of 49 patients in the prochlorperazine arm who reported nausea at baseline, 34 (69.4%) reported complete resolution without relapse versus 15/49 (30.6%) in the hydromorphone arm (absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 38.8%, 95% CI: 20.5%-57.0%, p < 0.001). Of 55 patients in the prochlorperazine arm who reported photophobia at baseline, 23 (41.8%) reported complete resolution without relapse versus 13/62 (20.9%) patients treated with hydromorphone (ARR = 20.8%, 95% CI: 4.3%-37.3%, p = 0.014). Of 56 patients in the prochlorperazine arm who reported phonophobia at baseline, 25 (44.6%) reported complete resolution without relapse versus 16/59 (27.1%) in the hydromorphone arm (ARR = 17.5%, 95% CI: 0.3%-34.8%, p = 0.049). For adverse events, three patients in the prochlorperazine arm reported anxiety or restlessness, and nine patients in the hydromorphone arm reported dizziness or weakness. CONCLUSIONS: Prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine is more efficacious than hydromorphone for the treatment of migraine-associated symptoms.

15-hydroxystearate micelles for the delivery of aprepitant: Preparation, characterization, pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution in mice.

This study developed a novel Aprepitant micells (APPT-Ms) formulation that uses a mixture of 15-hydroxystearate (HS15) as surfactant to solubilize AAPT. This article determines the content of APPT by HPLC. The in vitro test results show that the optimized APPT-Ms has small particle size, excellent stability and long-lasting release. At a test dose of 20mg/kg, the pharmacokinetic study of APPT-Ms showed that it accorded with first-order kinetics in mice, and its AUC value was higher than the pure AAPT about 6 times. The tissue distribution study of mice showed that the APPT-Ms had higher tissue binding ability than pure AAPT. The APPT-Ms could be rapidly distributed to various tissues and it was easier to pass through the blood-brain barrier than APPT. In this study, the APPT-Ms has high antiemetic activity and improves the compliance of patient. The pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of APPT-Ms after injection administration were studied, which may be of guiding significance for further research.

Formulation and optimization of dimenhydrinate emulgels for topical delivery using response surface methodology.

Development of dimenhydrinate (DMN) emulgel formulation has been described in this work with enhanced permeation for transdermal delivery of DMN for effective management of motion sickness. Various DMN emulgel formulations were prepared using central composite design in response surface methodology. Propylene glycol and olive oil were used in varying ratios as permeation enhancers along-with carbopol-934 as gelling agent. Prepared formulations were evaluated by physico-chemical properties, stability and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) studies. In-vitro drug release was studied using cellophane membrane. Formulation F2 showed maximum drug permeation following diffusion-based release mechanism and was used in further studies. Rat skin was used in Franz cell for ex-vivo studies to determine various permeation kinetic parameters. FTIR studies provided no evidence of chemical interaction between DMN and polymers used, whereas molecular docking revealed formation of a stable complex in the presence of aqueous environment with stable intermolecular binding and the complex was well hydrated. No evidence of skin irritation was observed in human volunteers following application of the optimized formulation. Histopathology data of the rat skin showed a decreased proliferation of the lymphocytes whereas monocytes were induced. In conclusion, combination of propylene glycol and olive oil was successfully employed for delivery of DMN through transdermal route with good permeability and prolonged release time that can be highly beneficial in treating motion sickness in unusual circumstances.

Netupitant/Palonosetron: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo®), available in oral and intravenous (IV) formulations, is a fixed-dose combination of the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist netupitant (or the prodrug, fosnetupitant, in the IV formulation) and the second-generation serotonin 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist palonosetron. Administered as a single dose, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron (in combination with dexamethasone) is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults. In clinical trials, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron plus dexamethasone was associated with high complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute, delayed and overall phases in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with efficacy maintained over multiple cycles. Further, oral netupitant/palonosetron was found to be superior to palonosetron and non-inferior to aprepitant plus granisetron in preventing CINV in individual trials. Both the oral and IV formulations of the drug combination are well tolerated. The fixed-dose combination is concordant with guideline recommendations and provides a simple and convenient option for prophylaxis against acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common problem during cancer treatment. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo^®) is a fixed-dose combination of two drugs (netupitant, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist; and palonosetron, a serotonin 3 receptor antagonist) which target two different signalling pathways involved in the induction of vomiting. Approved for use in the prevention of acute and delayed CINV in adults, netupitant/palonosetron is given orally or via intravenous infusion as a single dose prior to chemotherapy. In clinical trials, high proportions of patients who received netupitant/palonosetron (used in combination with the corticosteroid dexamethasone) prior to chemotherapy reported no vomiting, no requirement for rescue medication, and no significant nausea in the 5 days post chemotherapy. Both the oral and intravenous formulations of the drug combination are well tolerated. In conclusion, netupitant/palonosetron is a simple, convenient and effective drug combination for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy that has a moderate to high potential to cause nausea and vomiting.

Comparison of efficacy between palonosetron-midazolam combination and palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing breast surgery and patient controlled analgesia: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study: A CONSORT-compliant study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complaint in patients following general anesthesia. Various antiemetics, including 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, are effective but still have limited efficacy. Therefore, combination therapy is preferable to using a single drug alone in high-risk patients. We performed a comparative study on the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, monotherapy vs palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy for the prevention of PONV. METHODS: A total of 104 female patients scheduled for breast cancer surgery were enrolled. They were randomly divided into 2 groups, a palonosetron monotherapy group (group P) and palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy group (group PM). Both groups received 0.075 mg palonosetron intravenously after induction of anesthesia. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was applied according to the allocated group. Intravenous (IV)-PCA in group P consisted of fentanyl 20 µg/kg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml); IV-PCA in group PM consisted of fentanyl 20 µg/kg plus midazolam 4 mg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml). Efficacy parameters were collected during 0 to 1, 1 to 6, 6 to 24, and 24 to 48 hours postoperative time intervals. These measures included complete response (defined as no PONV and no rescue anti-emetic use) rate, incidence of PONV, sedation score, rescue antiemetic use, rescue analgesic use, and numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain. The complete response rate during the 0 to 24 hours interval was analyzed as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Although the complete response rate between 0 and 24 hours was higher in group PM (42.3% and 48.1% in group P and PM, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference (P = .55). The complete response rates in other time intervals were not different between the 2 groups as well. The sedation score and NRS score also showed no differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy of palonosetron with midazolam did not lead to a greater reduction in the incidence of PONV than monotherapy in patients undergoing breast surgery and receiving IV-PCA containing fentanyl.

Study of Haloperidol for Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department (SHAPE).

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous haloperidol has been shown to decrease milligram morphine equivalents (MME) of analgesia and reduce hospital admissions for diabetic gastroparesis. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether haloperidol decreases MME for the treatment of non-specific abdominal pain diagnoses in the emergency department (ED), including gastroparesis, cyclic vomiting, cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, and unspecified abdominal pain. The primary outcome compared the difference in MME between encounters. Secondary outcomes included admission rate, pain scores, length of stay, rescue therapy administration, and adverse effects. METHODS: This retrospective chart review included patients ≥ 18 years old who presented to the ED. Patients must have had ≥ 2 ED encounters for abdominal pain, one in which they received conventional therapy with opioids (C-encounter), and the other in which they received haloperidol (H-encounter). Agitated patients were excluded. Seventy-five patients were needed to detect a 3 MME difference with 80% power and two-sided alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: We analyzed 107 patients with self-matched encounters. The median dose of haloperidol administered was 5.0 milligrams (mg) (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0 - 5.0). C-encounters had significantly more MME administered than H-encounters (median 5.7 mg [IQR 4.0 - 8.0] vs 0.0 mg [IQR 0.0 - 2.5], P < 0.001). These results remained significant despite route of haloperidol administration. C-encounters had higher rates of rescue therapy administration than H-encounters, (56% vs 33.6%, P < 0.001). There were higher rates of ketorolac administration in the H-encounter (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Encounters in which patients received haloperidol and ketorolac for abdominal pain had a statistically significant reduction in MME administered and lower rates of rescue therapy administration than encounters in which patients were treated with opioids.

The use of ondansetron for the treatment of nausea in dogs with vestibular syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular syndrome is often accompanied by nausea. Drugs currently approved for its treatment have been developed to stop vomiting but not nausea. The efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists to reduce nausea has been described for chemotherapy, but not for nausea secondary to vestibular disorders. METHODS: Sixteen dogs with vestibular syndrome-associated nausea were included in the open-label, multicentre study. The intensity of nausea-like behaviour was analysed before ondansetron administration (0.5 mg/kg i.v.) and 2 h afterwards, using a validated 5-point-scale. The occurrence and frequency of salivation, lip licking, restlessness, vocalisation, lethargy, and vomiting were assessed. RESULTS: All dogs initially showed signs of nausea, whereas only 31% showed vomitus. The intensity of nausea was significantly reduced in all dogs (p ≤ 0.0001) 2 h after ondansetron administration, including the clinical signs of nausea analysed in 11 dogs (salivation [p = 0.0078], lip licking [p = 0.0078], restlessness [p = 0.0039], and lethargy [p = 0.0078]) except for vocalisation (p > 0.9999). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide preliminary evidence of the potential benefit of ondansetron in the treatment of nausea, which was present in all examined dogs. Vomiting was only observed in 5 dogs indicating that nausea can occur separately and should not be perceived only as a preceding stimulation of the vomiting centre.

Stability of Aprepitant Injectable Emulsion in Alternate Infusion Bags, in Refrigerated Storage, and Admixed with Dexamethasone and Palonosetron.

PURPOSE: The stability of aprepitant injectable emulsion is evaluated in various admixture bags and solutions, under different storage conditions, and when combined with other antiemetics. METHODS: A volume of 18 mL aprepitant injectable emulsion was added to infusion bags (either non-di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate [DEHP], polyvinyl chloride [PVC]-containing bags or non-DEHP, non-PVC bags) containing 100, 130, or 250 mL of 0.9% normal saline solution (NSS) or 5% dextrose in water (D5W). Bags were stored at controlled room temperature (20-25°C) for up to 12 hours or refrigerated (2-8°C) for up to 72 hours. Compatibility/stability was also assessed in admixtures combined with either dexamethasone or palonosetron. At specified time points, bags were tested for appearance, pH, assay for aprepitant (ie, percent label claim of aprepitant) and aprepitant-related substances, Z-average particle size, globule size distribution, particulate matter, and DEHP content (PVC bags). In separate analyses to assess microbial burden, bags containing aprepitant were inoculated with seven different organisms and assessed for microbial growth. RESULTS: There was no detectable impact on the physicochemical properties or potential to promote microbial growth of aprepitant when diluted with various amounts of either NSS or D5W and when admixed with either dexamethasone or palonosetron at room temperature for at least 6 hours or during refrigeration for up to 72 hours in either PVC- or non-PVC-containing bags. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant-containing admixtures are stable under these conditions, a finding that may improve patient and provider convenience and reduce medication wastage.