Efficacy and tolerability of oral ondansetron versus prochlorperazine in the prevention of emesis associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy and maintenance of health-related quality of life

Ondansetron: recommended antiemetics for patients with acute pancreatitis? a population-based study

Objective: Ondansetron administration is a common antemetic of acute pancreatitis therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its actual association with patients' outcomes has not been confirmed. The study is aimed to determine whether the multiple outcomes of ICU patients with acute pancreatitis could benefit from ondansetron. Methods: 1,030 acute pancreatitis patients diagnosed in 2008-2019 were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database as our study cohort. The primary outcome we considered is the 90-day prognosis, and secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival and overall prognosis. Results: In MIMIC-IV, 663 acute pancreatitis patients received ondansetron administration (OND group) during their hospitalization, while 367 patients did not (non-OND group). Patients in the OND group presented better in-hospital, 90-day, and overall survival curves than the non-OND group (log-rank test: in-hospital: p < 0.001, 90-day: p = 0.002, overall: p = 0.009). After including covariates, ondansetron was associated with better survival in patients with multiple outcomes (in-hospital: HR = 0.50, 90-day: HR = 0.63, overall: HR = 0.66), and the optimal dose inflection points were 7.8 mg, 4.9 mg, and 4.6 mg, respectively. The survival benefit of ondansetron was unique and stable in the multivariate analyses after consideration of metoclopramide, diphenhydramine, and prochlorperazine, which may also be used as antiemetics. Conclusion: In ICU acute pancreatitis patients, ondansetron administration was associated with better 90-day outcomes, while results were similar in terms of in-hospital and overall outcomes, and the recommended minimum total dose might be suggested to be 4-8 mg.

Current treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with gastroparesis: antiemetics, prokinetics, tricyclics

Gastroparesis is a symptomatic chronic disorder characterized by delayed gastric emptying without a mechanical obstruction. Gastroparesis is most often associated with diabetes, gastric surgery, and systemic disorders affecting the neuromuscular control of the stomach. However, no underlying etiology can be found in up to 40% of patients, a condition referred to as idiopathic gastroparesis. Due to the numerous potential etiologies and the highly variable clinical manifestations, the management of gastroparesis is particularly challenging. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the use of antiemetics, prokinetics, and tricyclics for the treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with gastroparesis.

A review of patient self-report tools for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

GOALS OF WORK

The assessment of chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting and retching (CINVR) is important and to date no review has comprehensively assessed available patient self-report tools. The aim was to undertake a review of their utility, content and psychometric properties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One thousand three hundred and forty-seven citations were identified by electronic and hand searches resulting in 24 non-duplicate abstracts, 15 articles for analysis, and six articles, which fitted the inclusion criteria. E-mail investigations discovered a further scale, resulting in seven measures.

RESULTS

The review highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of current tools. The multiple domains, phases and aspects of CINVR signify that the assessment tools varied markedly. The diverse requirements of research and clinicians also contribute to the variation. There was a notable disparity in the quality of scales and paucity in terms of their development and psychometric evaluation. We found that several self-assessment scales currently perceived as well-validated tools have problems in terms of their validity, reliability and appropriateness.

CONCLUSIONS

The constituents of a scale relevant for both clinical and research use were assessed and it was recommended that a modular tool focusing on two domains (nausea and vomiting); two phases (acute and delayed); measuring the aspects of occurrence, frequency, intensity alongside duration and functional interference; and antiemetic use and adverse events should be developed. Based on these recommendations, further research into an appropriate scale would minimise conceptual confusion, increase clinicians' understanding and control of CINVR, decrease patient distress and could have equal utility in both a clinical and a research setting.

A case of respiratory akathisia in a cancer patient: a case report

OBJECTIVE

It has been reported that akathisia is a neurological side effect induced by antiemetic drugs and/or antipsychotics. Akathisia can occur in any area of the body, but respiratory akathisia is an unusual type of akathisia. Cases of respiratory akathisia in cancer patients taking antiemetic drugs have not previously been reported.

METHODS

We report on a case of a cancer patient taking prochlorperazine as an antiemetic drug who experienced dyspnea accompanied by severe restlessness associated with respiration. By administration of biperiden, his restlessness in respiration and dyspnea promptly disappeared.

RESULTS

This finding led us to conclude that this cancer patient was experiencing respiratory akathisia.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Respiratory akathisia is uncommon. It is important for cancer patients that dyspnea induced by disease progression be ruled out as a cause of the respiratory restlessness. It is necessary to consider the possibility of akathisia in patients that complain of vague anxiety, chest discomfort, or dyspnea following antipsychotic medication.

Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately High to Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

The purpose of this article is to assess the comparative antiemetic efficacy of prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and dexamethasone in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Cancer patients (n = 232) receiving moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized to 1 of 3 treatments: 15 mg prochlorperazine spansules twice daily; 8 mg ondansetron tablets twice daily; or 8 mg dexamethasone tablets twice daily on days 2 through 5. All patients received 24 mg ondansetron and 20 mg dexamethasone orally before chemotherapy. Daily assessment (days 1 through 5) included the number of episodes of retching and vomiting, severity of nausea, restlessness, difficulty concentrating and fatigue, treatment satisfaction, and overall quality of life (measured using a 10-cm VAS). The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) was completed on day 5. Other side effects attributed to antiemetic therapy were recorded daily. For acute CINV, total control, defined as no vomiting, retching, nausea <1 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale, and no administration of rescue medications, was achieved in 78% in the overall group and was not significantly different in the patients randomized to the 3 treatment arms for delayed CINV. Delayed CINV was reported by 43% to 57% of patients, with the highest incidence reported on day 3. For delayed CINV, patients receiving prochlorperazine reported the lowest average nausea score on days 2 to 5, whereas patients receiving ondansetron reported the highest nausea score (P = 0.05). No statistically significant differences in CINV or side effects of antiemetic therapy were noted between treatment groups on days 2 to 5. For patients similar to those included in this study, there does not appear to be a clinically important difference in efficacy, adverse effects, or treatment satisfaction among dexamethasone, prochlorperazine, and ondansetron in the doses used in these delayed CINV regimens on days 2 to 5 in this study.

Chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting - past reflections, present practice and future management

Although much progress has occurred in the last decade regarding the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, these remain among the most intolerable side-effects of treatment and patients continue to report the negative impact such symptoms have on their ability to enjoy life. Inadequate control of nausea and vomiting reduces patients' quality of life and functional status and jeopardizes the delivery of optimal treatment, so making its management a priority for oncology health care workers. This article will reflect on past and present evidence regarding the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting while highlighting some of the most recent scientific advances before drawing conclusions about the future management of this troublesome symptom for patients receiving chemotherapy.

Options for the prevention and management of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children

The current standard of care with respect to preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children includes the administration of a 5-HT(3) antagonist with or without a corticosteroid, depending on the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy to be given. Problems in assessing the emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens and nausea severity in children may influence the degree of success of CINV prophylaxis. Nevertheless, the majority of children who receive chemotherapy today experience moderate to complete control of acute CINV when given appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis. If children vomit or experience nausea despite appropriate prophylaxis, then measures must be taken to treat these symptoms since these children are likely to go on to experience delayed or anticipatory CINV. However, appropriate selection of interventions to treat acute CINV in children is limited by the lack of rigorous evidence to support one approach over another. Lorazepam is suggested as an immediate agent for the treatment of acute CINV. Doses and frequencies of the 5-HT(3) antagonist and corticosteroid administered for initial prophylaxis should also be maximized. Further treatment must be tailored to the circumstances and preferences of each child and family. Options include crossover to another 5-HT(3) antagonist, or administration of an adjunctive antiemetic such as metopimazine, low dose metoclopramide, domperidone, alizapride, nabilone, scopolamine, prochlorperazine, or chlorpromazine. Complementary interventions such as acupuncture, hypnosis, counseling, or ginger may also be of benefit. Further study is required to establish optimal antiemetic strategies in children.

Impact of nausea and vomiting on quality of life in cancer patients during chemotherapy

It is commonly claimed that the nausea and vomiting accompanying cytotoxic chemotherapy have a negative impact on health-related quality of life. While this may seem self-evident, until a few years ago there was little empirical data demonstrating that the failure to control postchemotherapy emesis affects aspects of quality of life. In spite of their limitations, several observational studies showed that nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy induced a decrease in health-related quality of life with respect to patients without nausea and vomiting. This has also been demonstrated after the adjustment for health-related quality of life before chemotherapy that is an important prognostic factor of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, one study suggests that the optimal time of assessment of quality of life to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is day 4 if a 3-day recall period is used or day 8 when the recall period is 7 days. In double-blind studies the efficacy, tolerability and impact on quality of life of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists was superior with respect to metoclopramide, alizapride and prochlorperazine. Similar results have been achieved with the combination of ondansetron with dexamethasone, the standard treatment for the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with respect to the metoclopramide plus dexamethasone combination. Instead, in another double-blind study, in patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a 5-HT3 antagonist did not seem to significantly increase complete protection from delayed emesis and the patients' quality of life with respect to dexamethasone alone. In conclusion, the evaluation of quality of life in randomized trials comparing different antiemetic drugs for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can add important information useful for the choice of the optimal antiemetic treatment.

Quality of life in patients attending a low-risk gynaecological oncology follow-up clinic

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the quality of life (QOL) of patients who had been treated for gynaecological malignancies and who were attending a low risk follow-up clinic. (2) To determine the accuracy of the clinic physicians' assessment of patients' QOL compared with the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLI-C) [Schipper et al., 1984. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the Functional Living Index-Cancer: development and validation. J Clin Oncol 2(5): 472-483]. (3) To examine a single subjective question about change in QOL. (4) To assess patient fear of cancer recurrence.

DESIGN

Self-administered patient questionnaire. The questionnaire contained the FLI-C, with four additional questions.

SETTING

Low risk (good prognosis) follow-up clinics in the Department of Gynaecological Oncology at King Edward Memorial Hospital (the tertiary centre for obstetrics and gynaecology for the state of Western Australia).

PATIENTS

202 consecutive attendees of the clinic. Non-English speaking patients attending without an interpreter were excluded.

RESULTS

Most patients reported a good QOL. The range of FLI-C scores was 59-154 (possible range 22-154), with a median score of 140 and a mean of 134. Younger patients were more fearful of cancer recurrence. Radiotherapy was associated with a worsening of QOL. Patients living with partners experienced deterioration in sexual functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients attending the low risk follow-up clinic after gynaecological malignancy have a good overall QOL.

Economics and health-related quality of life in antiemetic therapy: recommendations for trial design

Emesis (nausea and vomiting) is one of the most important toxicities associated with chemotherapy. Although it is not life threatening, it has a major impact on a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQL) and overall response to chemotherapy. New antiemetics are expensive and well-conducted comparative health economic studies are rare. The aim of the study was to review the literature in the area of chemotherapy-induced emesis in cancer patients and to offer recommendations for the inclusion of these outcomes in the design of clinical trials for new antiemetic therapies. The economic literature was reviewed based on methodological standards for economic evaluation. Many studies did not comply with standards, specifically with regard to the choice of alternatives, chosen perspective, setting, type of emesis, measurement of costs and defining outcomes (including health-related quality of life). These issues are described for each study and recommendations for trial design are presented. The role of economic data is to support decision making in choosing between competing antiemetic therapies. It is the combination of clinical outcomes, costs and health-related quality of life, which will allow treating physicians to comprehensively assess the relative value of antiemetic therapies and to provide the most cost-effective therapy for their patients.

Guidelines for anti-emetic therapy: acute emesis

Anti-emetic therapy has become integral to the management of patients with cancer. Goals related to complete emesis control include providing treatment that reduces hospitalisation and time in the ambulatory setting, care that is convenient for the patient and therapy that enhances patients' quality of life. A panel of clinical, health economic and basic scientists with expertise in various oncology disciplines reviewed published literature to develop evidence-based consensus guidelines for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Currently, serotonin receptor antagonists and corticosteroids are the two categories of anti-emetics that are most effective, have the fewest side-effects and are convenient to use. These agents are recommended in combination for highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens and as single agents or in combination for moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. When possible, these agents may be given orally in single doses; current evidence does not support dose escalation for either category of anti-emetics. In special situations, such as the use of high-dose chemotherapy combination regimens, the most emetogenic component of the regimen should dictate the choice of anti-emetic. Appropriate anti-emetic use described in these guidelines represents both good medical practice and a sensible economic approach to care.