The clinical effect of an electric massage chair on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: randomized phase II cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse events in cancer patients and can negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an electric massage chair (EMC) for the treatment of CINV. METHODS: A randomized phase II cross-over trial was conducted on solid cancer patients who received moderate (MEC) to high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The participants were randomly assigned to receive their first chemotherapy either on a standard bed (Group A) or in an EMC (Group B) during the infusion. The patients were then crossed over to the next cycle. CINV and QoL questionnaires were collected from the participants. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients completed the trial protocol and were included in the analysis, with 29 and 30 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean INVR (Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching) score in the 2nd day of the first cycle was higher in Group B (3.63 ± 5.35) than Group A (2.76 ± 4.78), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5367). The complete response rate showed little difference between the groups. Among the high-emetic risk subgroups, patients who received HEC (p = 0.04595), younger patients (p = 0.0108), and non-colorectal cancer patients (p = 0.0495) presented significantly lower CINV scores when EMC was applied. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no significant difference in INVR scores between standard care and EMC. Applying EMC at the first chemotherapy infusion may help preserve QoL and reduce CINV in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: KCT0008200, 17/02/2023, Retrospectively registered.

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.

The Effectiveness of P6 and Auricular Acupressure as a Complimentary Therapy in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most prevalent and distressing side effects of chemotherapy among patients with cancer worldwide. Despite continuing advances in antiemetic medicines, nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy remain a substantial therapeutic concern for many patients. However, P6 and Auricular acupressure (AA) have been recognized as potential therapy for managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of P6 and Auricular acupressure (AA) in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with cancer. And to explore a prominent and effective evidence-based protocol for implementing acupressure to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHOD: This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Several databases were used to search for eligible studies using specific keywords. Only systematic reviews and clinical trials on acupressure for managing CINV among adults with cancer were included. This review covered articles published in English from 2015 to 2022. RESULTS: A total of 14 published studies were included in this review study; 10 articles were trial studies, and the other 4 were systematic review and meta-analysis studies. The quality of 10 included clinical trials were assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for quantitative studies, the overall result showed that 40% of study rated with moderate quality, no study was rated with low quality, and (60%) studies rated as high-quality study. As well as the quality assessment of all review studies showed that the majority of included systematic reviews and meta-analysis with a low risk of bias and high to moderate power of evidence. In all included studies the acupressure was utilized as a primary complementary intervention for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The result of this extensive and comprehensive review the P6 and auricular acupressure is an effective complementary therapy in reducing and controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among participants with various types of cancer and receiving various types of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The successful and effective application of acupressure in managing CINV for certain types of cancer had been supported in previous literature as a safe, affordable, and non-invasive alternative to pharmaceutical medications. However, standardization guidelines regarding the use of acupressure independently or in combination with other pharmacological therapies to address CINV in various cancers require immediate attention.

Investigating the efficacy and safety of olanzapine prophylaxis for opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (JORTC-PAL20): a study protocol for an open-label, single-arm exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: In opioid therapy for cancer pain, opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) occur in 20%-40% of patients during initial opioid treatment or increasing opioid doses. OINV result in failure to achieve pain relief due to poor opioid adherence. Therefore, antiemetics are used to prevent OINV, but their efficacy and safety in this context have not yet been fully elucidated. Olanzapine is a promising antiemetic for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-arm, single-centre exploratory study will evaluate the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine in patients with cancer pain who are withholding initial regular opioid therapy. Thirty-five patients will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients achieving complete control (CC) of OINV during 5 days of opioid treatment. CC was defined as the absence of emetic episodes, no need for rescue medication to treat nausea, and minimal or no nausea (3 or less on an 11-point categorical scale). Secondary endpoints include the complete response, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication during the overall assessment period, the time from opioid initiation to first emetic episode, the time from opioid initiation to first rescue antiemetic administration, and adverse events graded by Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 1.0 and CTCAE version 5.0. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by National Cancer Center Hospital Certified Review Board. The results will be used as preliminary data to conduct a validation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) jRCTs031220008.

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

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

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

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

Asenapine versus olanzapine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer: A retrospective study.

AIM: Patients with cancer often experience nausea and vomiting (N/V), but may have difficulty using olanzapine (OLZ), a common antiemetic. Asenapine (ASE) is a multi-acting receptor-targeted antipsychotic like OLZ, although there is little evidence that ASE serves as an antiemetic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ASE compared to those of OLZ for the treatment of N/V in patients with cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study involved patients who received 5 mg ASE, 5 mg OLZ, or 2.5 mg OLZ for 2 days. Daily worst N/V was rated on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (very much). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a response, defined as any reduction in N/V score. A complete response (CR) was defined as a score reduction to 0. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with CR and adverse events. RESULTS: Between April 2017 and March 2023, 212 patients were enrolled to receive treatment: 5 mg ASE (n = 34), 5 mg OLZ (n = 102), or 2.5 mg OLZ (n = 76). No significant differences in response rates (52.9% vs. 58.8% vs. 52.6%, p = 0.671) or secondary endpoints were observed between the groups. Patients receiving ASE were more likely to experience oral hypoesthesia (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that ASE may be effective for N/V. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as antiemetic prophylaxis for fludarabine and melphalan-based conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu-Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu-Mel compared to a historical control group. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu-Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: The median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31-3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61-4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3-122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7-48.1]; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu-Mel-based preparative regimen.

Impact of body weight-based dosing of palonosetron and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse effect following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Palonosetron with a standard dosing (75 µg) schedule has been questioned due to its low efficiency in obese patients. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the body weight-based dosing of palonosetron in managing PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized study was conducted between August 2021 and December 2021. Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were prospectively recruited in the study. One hundred patients were randomly divided into palonosetron (Group P) and ondansetron (Group O). The demographic and clinical variables were recorded. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of PONV between the two groups during the hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were the number of rescue anti-emetic and analgesic medications and the Functional Living Index-Emesis scores. RESULTS: There were 50 patients in each group (Group P and Group O). There were significant differences in the scores of POVN, nausea, and vomiting favoring Group P. In Group P, the rate of patients using rescue anti-emetics was significantly lower. The incidence of complete response and proportion of patients with higher Functional Living Index-Emesis scores were significantly higher in patients using palonosetron. CONCLUSIONS: The use of palonosetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. There was a significant improvement in the scores of Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients using palonosetron.

Analysis of Nausea and Vomiting Frequency Following Opioid Dose Escalation and Its Risk Factors: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study.

Background and Objective: Opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) is known to develop not only upon opioid introduction but also during opioid dose escalation, but the actual details are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of OINV in opioid dose escalation at a single center and to identify risk factors. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the medical records of hospitalized patients with cancer who underwent increased intake of oral oxycodone extended-release tablets at Komaki City Hospital between January 2016 and December 2019 was performed. Associations between the incidence of OINV and multiple factors were analyzed, including patient demographics, opioid daily dose, comorbidities, history of nausea after opioid introduction, and prophylactic antiemetic drugs. Results: Of the 132 patients analyzed, 56 (42.4%; grades 1 and 2, 36 and 20, respectively) developed opioid-induced nausea after opioid dose escalation, 26 (19.7%; grades 1 and 2, 19 and 7, respectively) developed opioid-induced vomiting, 58 (43.9%) had either opioid-induced nausea or vomiting. Thirty-five of 60 patients (55.0%) developed OINV among those who received prophylactic antiemetic drugs at opioid dose escalation. Performance status (≥2) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.36, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.15-4.84, p = 0.02) and history of nausea for opioid introduction (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.20-7.10, p = 0.02) were detected as risk factors for the development of OINV. Conclusion: This study revealed a high incidence of OINV during opioid dose escalation, indicating that careful monitoring is required as at the time of opioid introduction. Further validation by a prospective study is required.

Associations between ondansetron and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and food intake in Japanese female undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is important to achieve DREAM (drinking, eating, mobilization). Ondansetron inhibits PONV, but its effects on postoperative food intake have not been investigated. This study aimed to examine associations between ondansetron and PONV incidence, and postoperative food intake. METHODS: This retrospective study included adult patients (n = 632) who underwent laparoscopic gynecological surgery at Kyushu University Hospital between January 2017 and June 2023. Outcomes were PONV on the day of surgery, PONV up to the day after surgery, and food intake, which was assessed for breakfast and lunch on the day after surgery. Odds ratios (ORs) for PONV incidence and postoperative no-food intake were calculated between those with and without ondansetron during surgery. Multivariable-adjusted analysis was performed using possible confounding factors for PONV. Synergistic effects of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) were assessed. RESULTS: Multivariable-adjusted ORs for PONV on the day of surgery and up to the day after surgery were 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.99, p = 0.04) and 0.52 (0.30-0.93, p = 0.03), respectively, in the ondansetron group (n = 84) compared with the non-ondansetron group (n = 548). In contrast, multivariable-adjusted ORs for no-food intake of breakfast and lunch the day after surgery in the ondansetron group compared with the non-ondansetron group were not significant. Analysis of synergistic effects on PONV showed no significant interaction between ondansetron and dexamethasone or ondansetron and TIVA combinations. CONCLUSION: Ondansetron administration during surgery was significantly associated with decreased PONV risk but was not associated with food intake the day after surgery.

Comparison of the incidence of nausea and vomiting between linezolid and vancomycin using claims database: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting during linezolid therapy have been reported as part of safety analyses in clinical trials. We have previously examined the incidence of vomiting during linezolid therapy (18.1%). A previous study conducted at a single hospital showed low external validity. It is necessary to verify whether these results can be reproduced using generalizable data sources. AIM: To evaluate the incidence of nausea and vomiting during linezolid therapy compared with vancomycin using a Japanese claims database. METHOD: Patients administered linezolid or vancomycin were selected from the database between January 2005 and June 2017. The primary endpoint was the comparison of nausea and vomiting between the linezolid and vancomycin groups. We conducted propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for patient characteristics. To assess risk factors for nausea and vomiting, logistic regression was conducted as the secondary endpoint. We defined nausea and vomiting as the first prescription of antiemetics during linezolid or vancomycin therapy as a surrogate endpoint. RESULTS: In total, 1215 patients were enrolled. After PSM, the number of patients in the linezolid and vancomycin groups was 241. Nausea and vomiting were observed in 11.2% and 5.0% of patients in the linezolid and vancomycin groups, respectively (p < 0.05). Linezolid administration was extracted as a risk factor for nausea and vomiting (odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-4.30). CONCLUSION: This study clarified the relationship between linezolid and nausea and vomiting using a Japanese claims database. Further studies are required to elucidate the unknown mechanisms of linezolid-induced nausea and vomiting.

Chemotherapy-induced Emesis: Experienced Burden in Life, and Significance of Treatment Expectations and Communication in Chemotherapy Care.

OBJECTIVE: Because antiemetics have become more effective and integrative therapies such as acupuncture are used in combination with antiemetics, people receiving chemotherapy for cancer today might expect less emesis than in the past. It is not previously described if and how people receiving modern antiemetics during chemotherapy experience emesis. The objective of this study was to describe experiences regarding emesis among persons undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy, and how it affects their quality of life, daily life and work. A further aim was to describe views on the significance of treatment expectations and communication with healthcare personnel while undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. METHOD: Fifteen participants (median age 62 years, n = 1 man and n = 14 women, with breast (n = 13) or colorectal (n = 2) cancer) undergoing adjuvant or neo-adjuvant highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were interviewed individually. The data were then analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes described the participants' experiences: "Your whole life is affected, or continues as usual," covering descriptions of emesis limiting some participants' everyday lives, while others experienced no emesis at all or had found ways to manage it. Overall, participants described satisfaction with their antiemetic treatment. "Experiences and expectations more important than information", that is, the participants reported wanting all the information they could get about possible adverse effects of treatment, although they believed previous experiences were more important than information in creating expectations about treatment outcomes. The participants reported that being seen as a unique person was of utmost importance: "Meet me as I am." This creates trust in healthcare personnel and a feeling of safety and security in the situation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underline the importance of person-centered care and support in creating positive treatment expectations. Future research is called for regarding the potential antiemetic effects of positive communication regarding strengthening positive treatment expectations during emetogenic chemotherapy.

Factor Analysis of Fatigue in the Early Stages of Cancer Chemotherapy.

Patients undergoing chemotherapy for cancer frequently experience fatigue, which can significantly lower their quality of life and interfere with treatment. However, the risk factors for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced fatigue (CIF) are unclear. In this study, we investigated the occurrence of CIF in 415 patients newly treated with chemotherapy at Fukuoka University Hospital between December 2020 and July 2022, and analyzed the factors that influence the occurrence of fatigue. The observation period was defined as the two-week period starting from the day after the induction of chemotherapy, and we collected data retrospectively from medical records. Fatigue was assessed based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 by pharmacists who interviewed patients. The prevalence of fatigue was 56.4% (234/415). Nausea and vomiting, anorexia, hypoalbuminemia, and a high blood urea nitrogen/creatinine (BUN/Cr) ratio were extracted as risk factors for CIF. The prevalence of fatigue in 95 patients with nausea and vomiting was 83.2% (79/95), of whom 74.7% (59/79) had concomitant anorexia. Patients with nausea and vomiting had a high prevalence of both fatigue and anorexia, indicating that control for nausea and vomiting is crucial for the prevention of CIF. The serum albumin level reflects the nutritional status of patients approximately three weeks before chemotherapy, and BUN/Cr ≥20 indicates dehydration. Patients with a poor nutritional status or dehydration should be closely monitored for fatigue before and during treatment. These findings offer new prospects for healthcare providers to avoid or reduce CIF and improve patients' quality of life by early control of CIF risk factors.

Gastroparesis Worsens Indomethacin-Induced Gastric Antral Ulcers by Bile Reflux via Activation of 5-HT3 and Dopamine D2 Receptors in Mice.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We examined the contributions of gastric emptying and duodenogastric bile reflux in the formation of gastric antral ulcers induced by NSAIDs in mice. METHODS: We used the murine re-fed indomethacin (IND) experimental ulcer model. Outcome measures included the appearance of gastric lesions 24 h after IND treatment and the assessment of gastric contents and the concentration of bile acids 1.5 h after re-feeding. The effects of atropine, dopamine, SR57227 (5-HT3 receptor agonist), apomorphine, ondansetron, haloperidol, and dietary taurocholate and cholestyramine were also examined. RESULTS: IND (10 mg/kg, s.c.) induced severe lesions only in the gastric antrum in the re-fed model. The antral lesion index and the amount of food intake during the 2-h refeeding period were positively correlated. Atropine and dopamine delayed gastric emptying, increased bile reflux, and worsened IND-induced antral lesions. SR57227 and apomorphine worsened antral lesions with increased bile reflux. These effects were prevented by the anti-emetic drugs ondansetron and haloperidol, respectively. The anti-emetic drugs markedly decreased the severity of antral lesions and the increase of bile reflux induced by atropine or dopamine without affecting delayed gastric emptying. Antral lesions induced by IND were increased by dietary taurocholate but decreased by the addition of the bile acid sequestrant cholestyramine. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that gastroparesis induced by atropine or dopamine worsens NSAID-induced gastric antral ulcers by increasing duodenogastric bile reflux via activation of 5-HT3 and dopamine D2 receptors.

A re-consideration of neural/receptor mechanisms in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: current scenario and future perspective.

The neural mechanisms and the receptors behind the course of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are well described and considered mechanistically multifactorial, whereas the neurobiology of nausea is not completely understood yet. Some of the anti-neoplastic medications like cisplatin result in biphasic vomiting response. The acute phase of vomiting is triggered mainly via the release of serotonin from the enterochromaffin (EC) cells in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and results in stimulation of dorsal vagal complex (DVC) of the vomiting center and the vomiting is initiated by downward communication to the gut via vagal efferents. Agonism of 5HT3 receptors is majorly involved in the mediation of the acute phase. Therefore, antagonists at 5HT3 receptors are effective in the management of acute-phase vomiting episodes. Likewise, Dopamine type 2 (D2) receptors, dopamine neurotransmitter, Muscarinic receptors (M3), GLP1 receptors, and histaminergic receptors (H1) are also implicated in the vomiting act as well. In continuation, Cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) receptors are also recommended and included in the guidelines as agonism of presynaptically located CB1 receptors inhibits the release of excitatory neurotransmitters responsible for vomiting initiation. The delayed phase involves the release of "Substance P" in the gut and results in the stimulation of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptors centrally in the area postrema (AP) and nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS), subsequently the vomiting response. The current understanding is the existence of overlapping mechanisms of neurotransmitters, serotonin, dopamine, and substance P throughout the time course of CINV. Furthermore, the emetic neurotransmitters are released via calcium ion (Ca++)-dependent mechanisms, implicating the molecular targets of intracellular Ca++ signaling in emetic circuitry. The current review entails the neurobiology of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapeutic agents and the recent approaches in the management.

Low Dose Olanzapine in the Prevention and Treatment of Carboplatin Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Prospective Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) in preventing vomiting and nausea caused by carboplatin chemotherapy. METHODS: All patients with malignant tumors (n = 113) who underwent Carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) treatment were randomly categorized into two groups: the standard group (n = 57) and the OLZ regimen (n = 56). The major endpoints of the trial were the TC (total control) between two groups during the OP (Overall phase, 0-120 hours), DP (delayed phase, 25-120 hours), and AP (acute phase, 0-24 hours). The secondary endpoints were the CR (complete response) and TP (total protection) during AP, OP, and DP. The time of first vomiting was compared between the two groups using Kaplan-Meier curves. The impact of CINV on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). OLZ-related side effects were also recorded. RESULTS: (1) The primary endpoint TC rates were more favorable in the OLZ regimen group than in the standard group during the AP 87.50% (49/56) vs. 63.15% (36/57) P = 0.003, OP 62.50% (35/56) vs. 31.57% (18/57) P = 0.001, and DP 64.28% (36/56) vs. 33.33% (19/57) P = 0.001. (2) The secondary endpoints TP were 82.14% (46/56) vs. 63.15% (36/57), P = 0.024, 83.92% (47/56) vs. 63.15% (36/57). P = 0.012 during the DP and OP. There was no statistical significance during AP between the two groups. The CR rates were not statistically different between the two groups during the three periods, P > 0.05; (3) The first vomiting time in the OLZ group was delayed compared with the standard group (P = 0.248). The effect on life quality (score ≥ 108) assessed by FLIE was 62.50% vs. 43.48% between the two groups, P < 0.05. The primary side effects of OLZ are fatigue (85%) and somnolence (75%). The primary side effects of the standard group are fatigue (77%) and loss of appetite (85%). CONCLUSION: The 5 mg OLZ-based triple antiemetic regimen is effective and safe in preventing vomiting and nausea induced by Carboplatin.

Application of comprehensive unit-based safety program model to improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with ovarian cancer: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: To explore the effect of intervention programs constructed under the guidance of the comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) model on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with ovarian cancer. METHOD: According to the time of admission, 90 ovarian cancer chemotherapy patients in the first affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from June 2019 to September 2020 were divided into an intervention group and a control group with 45 cases each. Both groups of patients received routine intervention, and the intervention group implemented the CUSP program on this basis. The intervention lasted 8 months. Before and after the intervention, the patients in the ward were used the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool, the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for the effect evaluation. RESULTS: After the intervention, the degree of nausea and vomiting frequency in the intervention group were significantly lower than that in the control group, especially the degree of nausea in the delayed phase (P < 0.05). The score of the functional living index-emesis in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05), and the anxiety and depression in the intervention group were significantly relieved compared to the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The intervention program guided by the CUSP model can significantly alleviate patients' nausea and vomiting, improve the quality of life, and relieve anxiety and depression. The CUSP model is suitable for clinical practice and has guiding significance for clinical work.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in older patients (>65 years) fit for cisplatin: A sub-analysis from a phase 3 study.

INTRODUCTION: We recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the guideline-recommended DEX use for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Since prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the DEX-sparing regimens in this subset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chemo-naive patients aged >65 years treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) were eligible. Patients received NEPA and DEX on day 1 and were randomized to receive either (1) no further DEX (DEX1), (2) oral low-dose DEX (4 mg) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or (3) the guideline-recommended standard DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint of the parent study was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). No significant nausea (NSN; none or mild nausea) and the proportion of patients reporting no impact on daily life (NIDL) which was evaluated by the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire on day 6 (overall combined score > 108), were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Among the 228 patients in the parent study, 107 were > 65 years. Similar CR rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were observed in patients over 65 years across treatment groups [DEX1: 75% (59.7-86.8%); DEX3: 80.6% (62.5-92.6%); DEX4: 75% (56.6-88.5%)] as well as versus the total study population. NSN rates were also similar in the older-patients across treatment groups (p = 0.480) but were higher compared with the total population. Similar rates of NIDL (95% CI) were reported in the older-patient subset across treatment groups [DEX1: 61.5% (44.6-76.6%); DEX3: 64.3% (44.1-81.4%); DEX4: 62.1% (42.3-79.3%); p = 1.0] during the overall phase, as well as versus total population. A similar proportion of older patients across treatment groups experienced DEX-related side effects. DISCUSSION: This analysis shows that older-patients who are fit for cisplatin benefit from a simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX with neither loss in antiemetic efficacy nor the adverse impact on patient daily functioning. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04201769) on 17/12/2019 (retrospectively registered).