AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome: Commentary.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding diagnosis and management of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. METHODS: This CPU was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: Commentary.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding the diagnosis and management of cyclic vomiting syndrome. METHODS: This CPU was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors who are experts in treating patients with cyclic vomiting syndrome.

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.

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.

Distinguishing Clinical Features of Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome and Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical characteristics that distinguish cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) from cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS), 2 conditions marked by episodes of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to a large children's health care system from 2015 through 2022. Patients with CHS and CVS were identified by the electronic medical record using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes. RESULTS: Of 201 patients screened, 125 were included. Patients with CHS were older than those with CVS (mean [SD] 18.06 [1.41] vs 14.50 [2.91] years, P < .001). There were no significant differences in sex, race, ethnicity, or hospital length of stay between groups. Patients with CHS were more likely to have a positive urine drug screen (86% vs 2.9%, P < .001), lower mean (SD) serum potassium (3.62 [0.77] vs 3.88 [0.49], P < .001), and greater mean (SD) serum creatinine (0.83 (0.41) vs 0.63 (0.17), P < .001). The average (SD) systolic blood pressure was significantly greater in patients with CHS (systolic blood pressure 124.46 [10.66] vs 118.55 [10.99], P = .032) compared with children of comparable age range with CVS. Imaging was obtained in 36% of all patients, and only 2.4% had abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical features including older age, greater systolic blood pressure, positive urine drug screen, and select electrolyte findings might distinguish CHS from CVS. Abdominal imaging in both conditions is of low yield. These findings may allow for early recognition and appropriate therapy in CHS patients.

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.

Safety and efficacy of pyronaridine-artesunate paediatric granules in the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in children: insights from randomized clinical trials and a real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Children are particularly at risk of malaria. This analysis consolidates the clinical data for pyronaridine-artesunate (PA) paediatric granules in children from three randomized clinical trials and a real-world study (CANTAM). METHODS: An integrated safety analysis of individual patient data from three randomized clinical trials included patients with microscopically-confirmed Plasmodium falciparum, body weight ≥ 5 kg to < 20 kg, who received at least one dose of study drug (paediatric safety population). PA was administered once daily for 3 days; two trials included the comparator artemether-lumefantrine (AL). PCR-adjusted day 28 adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) was evaluated. Real-world PA granules safety and effectiveness was also considered. RESULTS: In the integrated safety analysis, 63.9% (95% CI 60.2, 67.4; 426/667) of patients had adverse events following PA and 62.0% (95% CI 56.9, 66.9; 222/358) with AL. Vomiting was more common with PA (7.8% [95% CI 6.0, 10.1; 52/667]) than AL (3.4% [95% CI 1.9, 5.8; 12/358]), relative risk 2.3 (95% CI 1.3, 4.3; P = 0.004), occurring mainly following the first PA dose (6.7%, 45/667), without affecting re-dosing or adherence. Prolonged QT interval occurred less frequently with PA (3.1% [95% CI 2.1, 4.8; 21/667]) than AL (8.1% [95% CI 5.7, 11.4; 29/358]), relative risk 0.39 (95% CI 0.22, 0.67; P = 0.0007). In CANTAM, adverse events were reported for 17.7% (95% CI 16.3, 19.2; 460/2599) of patients, most commonly vomiting (5.4% [95% CI 4.6, 6.4; 141/2599]), mainly following the first dose, (4.5% [117/2599]), with all patients successfully re-dosed, and pyrexia (5.4% [95% CI 4.6, 6.3; 140/2599]). In the two comparative clinical trials, Day 28 ACPR in the per-protocol population for PA was 97.1% (95% CI 94.6, 98.6; 329/339) and 100% (95% CI 99.3, 100; 514/514) versus 98.8% (95% CI 95.7, 99.9; 165/167) and 98.4% (95% CI 95.5, 99.7; 188/191) for AL, respectively. In CANTAM, PA clinical effectiveness was 98.0% (95% CI 97.3, 98.5; 2273/2320). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-malarial treatment with PA paediatric granules administered once daily for 3 days was well tolerated in children and displayed good clinical efficacy in clinical trials, with effectiveness confirmed in a real-world study. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: SP-C-003-05: identifier NCT00331136; SP-C-007-07: identifier NCT0541385; SP-C-021-15: identifier NCT03201770. Pan African Clinical Trials Registry: SP-C-013-11: identifier PACTR201105000286876.

Pediatric oncology provider perspectives and patient/family perceptions of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management: Experiences at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in children undergoing cancer treatment, and significantly impacts quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to guide CINV management, though many patients do not receive guideline-concordant care. Few studies have examined provider perspectives on CINV management or preferred improvement approaches, or pediatric patient perception of CINV control. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of pediatric oncology providers was conducted at a large freestanding children's hospital. Providers completed an anonymous online survey about CINV control in patients admitted for scheduled chemotherapy, and their knowledge and utilization of CINV CPGs. A survey of English and Spanish-speaking pediatric oncology patients admitted for scheduled chemotherapy was conducted to assess CINV management, with key demographics used to understand association with perceptions and adherence to antiemetic guidelines. RESULTS: For providers, 75% of respondents felt CINV management could be moderately or extremely improved, significantly more so by chemotherapy prescribers and pediatric medical residents than nurses. Over half of respondents did not have awareness of CINV CPGs, particularly pediatric medical residents. For patients, nausea was reported to be extremely well controlled in 44% of cases, and vomiting extremely well controlled in 50% of cases. There were no significant differences in patient-reported CINV across demographics, when considering emetogenicity of chemotherapy received, or concordance to guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing education in this area may help to improve provider comfort, and ultimately, the patient experience. Future studies will expand upon this novel patient perception, and develop and evaluate CINV management interventions.

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.

Phantosmia during proton radiation and differences in frequency of phantosmia rates based on proton craniospinal irradiation technique for pediatric brain tumor patients.

BACKGROUND: Unusual olfactory perception, often referred to as "phantosmia" or "cacosmia" has been reported during brain radiotherapy (RT), but is infrequent and does not typically interfere with the ability to deliver treatment. We seek to determine the rate of phantosmia for patients treated with proton craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and identify any potential clinical or treatment-related associations. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 127 pediatric patients treated with CSI, followed by a boost to the brain for primary brain tumors in a single institution between 2016 and 2021. Proton CSI was delivered with passive scattering (PS) proton technique (n = 53) or pencil beam scanning technique (PBS) (n = 74). Within the PBS group, treatment delivery to the CSI utilized a single posterior (PA) field (n = 24) or two posterior oblique fields (n = 50). We collected data on phantom smell, nausea/vomiting, and the use of medical intervention. RESULTS: Our cohort included 80 males and 47 females. The median age of patients was 10 years (range: 3-21). Seventy-one patients (56%) received concurrent chemotherapy. During RT, 104 patients (82%) developed worsening nausea, while 63 patients (50%) reported episodes of emesis. Of those patients who were awake during CSI (n = 59), 17 (29%) reported phantosmia. In the non-sedated group, we found a higher rate of phantosmia in patients treated with PBS (n = 16, 42%) than PS (n = 1, 4.7%) (p = .002). Seventy-eight patients (61%) required medical intervention after developing nausea/vomiting or phantosmia during RT. Two patients required sedation due to the malodorous smell during CSI. We did not find any significant difference in nausea/vomiting based on treatment technique. CONCLUSION: Proton technique significantly influenced olfactory perception with greater rates of phantosmia with PBS compared to PS. Prospective studies should be performed to determine the cause of these findings and determine techniques to minimize phantosmia during radiation therapy.

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

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

Assessment of dietary interventions including low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols diet as management for fructose intolerance.

OBJECTIVES: Abdominal pain remains one of the most common referral reasons to pediatric gastroenterology. Dietary intolerances are often considered but due to various factors are hardly pursued. We observed that diet review in large number of children with abdominal pain was high in sugary foods which led to food intolerance investigation and dietary intervention. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients presenting with abdominal pain, diarrhea, or vomiting and negative GI evaluation, who underwent fructose breath testing. Patients younger than 20 years old who were seen between June 1, 2018 and March 1, 2021 were included. Statistical analysis was performed in R. RESULTS: There were 110 pediatric patients during the study period who underwent fructose breath testing, with 31% male and 69% female. The average age was 12.14 ± 4.01 years, and the average BMI was 21.21 ± 6.12. Abdominal pain was the most common presenting symptom (74.5%) followed by diarrhea and vomiting. Seventy-seven patients (70%) had a positive fructose breath test and were diagnosed with dietary intolerance to fructose. The 56 (67.5%) of those patients experienced symptoms during the breath test. Forty-three patients improved with dietary intervention. Twenty-seven on low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols diet and 16 on other diets. CONCLUSIONS: Based on analysis of our cohort of children with abdominal pain and high incidence of fructose intolerance as well as improvement in symptoms, following dietary changes, this condition should be considered and treated. Further investigation is needed to improve diagnostic testing but also into understanding mechanisms behind symptom presentation in this population.

Predictors of sleep quality components in patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolisation: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolisation experience postembolisation symptoms and interferences affecting sleep quality, which require intervention. The study aimed to identify the predictors of sleep quality components in patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolisation. METHODS: This study included two groups of participants: 50 patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolisation and 45 nurses caring for them. Data were collected from September to November 2022 using a structured questionnaire, and analysed using descriptive statistics, the t-test, analysis of variance, Spearman's rank correlation, and multiple regression analysis using the SPSS 27.0 program (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: The mean sleep quality score was 40.28±14.10. Heat sensation (t=-2.08, p=.043) and fatigue (t=-4.47, p<.001) predicted sleep fragmentation in 38.6% of the patients. Abdominal pain (t=-2.54, p=.014), vomiting (t=-2.21, p=.032), and the expected fatigue by the nurses (t=2.68, p=.014) predicted sleep length in 41.7% of patients. Abdominal pain (t=-2.05, p=.046) explained 42.9% of sleep depth. CONCLUSION: Based on the predictors of sleep quality components obtained in this study, strategies to improve sleep quality tailored to patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolisation should be developed. This study highlighted the need to bridge the gap between patients' and nurses' expected fatigue and its contribution to sleep fragmentation and sleep length. It also highlighted the importance of noncontact temperature measurement, controlling vomiting, and pain relief for improving sleep length in patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolisation.

The emerging emetogenicity of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS­102) from patient self-reporting: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0. RESULTS: Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-58.5, P = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50-5.21, P = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment.

Evaluation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine-a case series.

PURPOSE: Although lomustine has been used as a chemotherapeutic agent for decades, no recommendation on appropriate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is available. As CINV is considered one of the most bothersome side effects of chemotherapy, adequate prophylaxis is of relevance to improve quality of life during cancer treatment. The aim of this retrospective case series was to report the incidence and severity of CINV in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine and to formulate recommendations for appropriate CINV prophylaxis. METHODS: Pediatric patients treated with lomustine for high-grade glioma according to the ACNS 0423 protocol were identified retrospectively. Two researchers independently reviewed and classified complaints of CINV and administered CINV prophylaxis. Treatment details, tumor localization, and response to therapy were systematically extracted from the patients' files. RESULTS: Seventeen children aged 8-18 years received a median of four cycles of lomustine. CINV complaints and administered prophylaxis were evaluable in all patients. Moderate or severe CINV was observed in 13/17 (76%) patients. Administered prophylactic CINV regimens varied from no prophylaxis to triple-agent combinations. CONCLUSION: In this case series, we identified lomustine as a highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. According to the current guidelines, CINV prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in combination with dexamethasone and (fos)aprepitant is recommended.

2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

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.

Discovering different acupoint combinations of manual or electro-acupuncture to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting based on the complex networks analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to find the acupoint combinations of manual and electro-acupuncture to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting via the complex networks analysis. METHODS: We conducted searches using PubMed, ScienceDirect, MEDLINE, Ovid, spring, Wiley, EMBASE, the Chinese biomedicine database, VIP information network, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from the establishment of the databases to the August, 2023. Information about titles, journals, interventions, and main acupoints was extracted using the self-established "acupoint for prevention CINV data base" powered by EpiData. According to the level of literature evidence and sample size, the clinical trials and weights of the outcome indicators including nausea/vomiting efficiency were combined. After identifying articles, literature processing and complex network analysis were conducted. The degree distribution of each node, the probability distribution of node degree, the node clustering coefficient, and the distance matrix are calculated by software. RESULTS: Of the 4001 screened publications, 489 were eligible after careful selection. Our result showed the acupoints ST36 and PC6 were the most common combination acupoints in both electro and manual acupuncture. In terms of efficiency, ST36, PC6, and CV12 are significantly effective acupoints for manual acupuncture, and the PC6 and ST36 are effective acupoint for electro-acupuncture. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the near-far collocation method has been commonly used for different types of acupuncture treatment in CINV. Zhongwan, Shangwan, and Liangmen have been mainly used as local acupoints, while Neiguan, Hegu, Quchi, Zusanli, Gongsun, TaiChong, and Neiguan have been mainly used as distal acupoints. From the effect analysis, acupuncture treatment of nausea manual acupuncture effect is better; acupuncture treatment of vomiting or electro-acupuncture effect is better.

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in solid cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is known to induce nausea and vomiting (CINV) in approximately 90% of cancer patients undergoing this regimen unless proper prophylactic antiemetics are administered. This study aimed to analyze the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen during the first cycle of chemotherapy and assess the compliance rate with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2020 provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The claims data encompassed 10 to 13% of inpatients admitted at least once each year. Patients with solid cancers treated with two HEC regimens, namely anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) and cisplatin-based regimens, were selected as the study population. We evaluated the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone and compliance with the NCCN guidelines. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to estimate the influence of variables on guideline adherence. RESULTS: A total of 3119 patients were included in the analysis. The overall compliance rate with the NCCN guidelines for prophylactic antiemetics was 74.3%, with higher rates observed in the AC group (87.9%) and lower rates in the cisplatin group (60.4%). The AC group had a 6.37 times higher likelihood of receiving guideline-adherent antiemetics than the cisplatin group. Further analysis revealed that, compared to 2016, the probability of complying with the guidelines in 2019 and 2020 was 0.72 times and 0.76 times lower, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that a considerable proportion of HEC-treated patients received guideline-adherent antiemetic therapies. However, given the variations in adherence rates between different chemotherapy regimens (AC vs. cisplatin), efforts to improve adherence and optimize antiemetic treatment remain essential for providing the best possible care for patients experiencing CINV.

Auriculotherapy and acupuncture treatments for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multicenter clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Nausea and vomiting complicating chemotherapy (CINV) remain side effects despite preventive and curative treatments. We hypothesize that acupuncture (ACU), auriculotherapy (AUR), and their combination (ACU-AUR), could decrease, compared to usual treatment (UT), the intensity of acute nausea in patients already treated according to the antiemetic guidelines and presenting nausea with or without vomiting in the earlier cycle. METHODS: In this multicenter study, patients were treated just before chemotherapy according to randomization. ACU consisted of implanting bilaterally on each forearm, one semi-permanent needle at point P6. AUR consisted of implanting bilaterally on each pavilion of the ear, one semi-permanent needle at point O. All patients received systematic preventive drug treatment according to antiemetic guidelines. Main outcome was intensity of nausea at 24 h after chemotherapy using a numeric scale ranging from 0 (no nausea) to 10 (maximum symptoms). RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups at inclusion. Intensity of nausea at 24 h after chemotherapy, was statistically different between the groups (covariance intergroup analysis, p = 0.005) and was significantly lower for the all-treatment groups vs UT group (p = 0.007 for AUR, p = 0.008 for ACU, and p = 0.0009 for AUR-ACU). AUR-ACU also decreased intensity of delayed nausea when compared to UT (p = 0.023). AUR, ACU and AUR-ACU had no effect on acute and delayed vomiting episodes. No serious adverse event due to the studied treatments was reported in our study. CONCLUSION: AUR or ACU reduce intensity of acute and delayed nausea in patients treated by optimal antiemetic treatment. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT02767791, registered on May 10, 2016.