Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Comparative Study From Sudan

Prognostic models for survival predictions in advanced cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prognostication of survival among patients with advanced cancer is essential for palliative care (PC) planning. The implementation of a clinical point-of-care prognostic model may inform clinicians and facilitate decision-making. While early PC referral yields better clinical outcomes, actual referral time differs by clinical contexts and accessible. To summarize the various prognostic models that may cater to these needs, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL Ultimate, and Scopus to identify eligible studies focusing on incurable solid tumors, validation of prognostic models, and measurement of predictive performances. Model characteristics and performances were summarized in tables. Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was adopted for risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis of individual models, where appropriate, was performed by pooling C-index.

RESULTS

35 studies covering 35 types of prognostic models were included. Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP), and Objective Prognostic Score (OPS) were most frequently identified models. The pooled C-statistic of PPI for 30-day survival prediction was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62-0.73, n = 6). The pooled C-statistic of PaP for 30-day survival prediction was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.70-0.80, n = 11), while that for 21-day survival prediction was 0.80 (0.71-0.86, n = 4). The pooled C-statistic of OPS for 30-days survival prediction was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.65-0.72, n = 3). All included studies had high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

PaP appears to perform better but further validation and implementation studies were needed for confirmation.

Experiences of patients with advanced chronic diseases and their associates with a structured palliative care nurse visit followed by an interprofessional case conference in primary care - a deductive-inductive content analysis based on qualitative interviews (KOPAL-Study)

BACKGROUND

Chronic, non-malignant diseases (CNMD) like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and dementia in advanced stages are very burdensome for patients. Timely palliative care with strong collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams can reduce symptom burden, hospitalization rates, hospitalization costs and overall healthcare costs. The KOPAL-study on strengthening interprofessional collaboration for patients with palliative care needs tested the effect of an intervention comprising of a SPHC nurse assessment and an interprofessional case conference. This qualitative evaluative study explores patients', proxies' and their associates' motivation to participate in the KOPAL-study and views on the (benefits of the) intervention.

METHODS

We interviewed 13 male and 10 female patients as well as 14 proxies of patients with dementia and six associates of study participants using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with deductive-inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Motivation for participation was driven by curiosity, the aim to please the GP or to support research, respectively to help other patients. Few interviewees pointed out to have expected positive effects for themselves. The nurse visit was evaluated very positively. Positive changes concerning health care or quality of life were reported sparsely. Most study participants did not prepare for the SPHC nurse assessment. They had no expectations concerning potential benefits of such an assessment, the interdisciplinary case conference and an early integration of palliative care. The majority of interviewees reported that they did not talk about the nurse visit and the interprofessional case conference with their GPs.

CONCLUSION

Our results lead to the conclusion that SPHC nurses can serve as an advocate for the patient and thereby support the patients' autonomy. GPs should actively discuss the results of the interdisciplinary case conference with patients and collaboratively decide on further actions. Patient participation in the interdisciplinary case conference could be another way to increase the effects of the intervention by empowering patients to not just passively receive the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00017795 German Clinical Trials Register, 17Nov2021, version 05.

Trial Sequential Analysis and Meta-Analysis of Olanzapine in Pediatric Patients for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV)

Background and Objective: Olanzapine (OLZ) containing regimens are approved in adults for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), and the same has not been approved in the pediatric population. In order to generate data regarding the efficacy and safety of OLZ as an adjunct to the standard of care (SoC) for CINV in pediatric patients receiving HEC/MEC, the review authors performed this systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed through the databases Cochrane Library, Pub Med, and clinicaltrials.gov, from inception to September 2023, using keywords: "chemotherapy" and "olanzapine," "nausea" and "vomiting." Randomized clinical trials published in English that analyzed the efficacy and safety of olanzapine as an adjunct to SoC were included. The essential outcomes included in this study were the proportion of patients with no emesis in the acute and delayed phase, patients with no nausea in the acute and delayed phase, the proportion of patients requiring rescue medication, and the proportion of patients with reduced CNS arousal. Results: In the OLZ group, a greater number of patients had no emesis both in the acute and delayed phase (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.09-1.37; P = .0004); and (RR = 1.23; 95% CI = 0.92-1.63; P = .16) respectively. Similarly, a higher number of patients showed no nausea both in the acute and delayed phase (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.78-1.48; P = .66) and (RR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.79-1.61; P = .52) respectively. The use of rescue medication was significantly less in the OLZ group (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.42-0.91; P = .01). More patients experienced reduced CNS arousal in the OLZ group (RR = 2.97; 95% CI = 2.02-4.38; P < .0001). Conclusions: Olanzapine as an adjunct to the SoC may be effective in acute emesis, which may also reduce the use of rescue medication. Reduced CNS alertness was the significant adverse effect observed. For other endpoints, more studies are required to substantiate its role in CINV.

The quality of care delivered to residents in long-term care in Australia: an indicator-based review of resident records (CareTrack Aged study)

BACKGROUND

This study estimated the prevalence of evidence-based care received by a population-based sample of Australian residents in long-term care (LTC) aged ≥ 65 years in 2021, measured by adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations.

METHODS

Sixteen conditions/processes of care amendable to estimating evidence-based care at a population level were identified from prevalence data and CPGs. Candidate recommendations (n = 5609) were extracted from 139 CPGs which were converted to indicators. National experts in each condition rated the indicators via the RAND-UCLA Delphi process. For the 16 conditions, 236 evidence-based care indicators were ratified. A multi-stage sampling of LTC facilities and residents was undertaken. Trained aged-care nurses then undertook manual structured record reviews of care delivered between 1 March and 31 May 2021 (our record review period) to assess adherence with the indicators.

RESULTS

Care received by 294 residents with 27,585 care encounters in 25 LTC facilities was evaluated. Residents received care for one to thirteen separate clinical conditions/processes of care (median = 10, mean = 9.7). Adherence to evidence-based care indicators was estimated at 53.2% (95% CI: 48.6, 57.7) ranging from a high of 81.3% (95% CI: 75.6, 86.3) for Bladder and Bowel to a low of 12.2% (95% CI: 1.6, 36.8) for Depression. Six conditions (skin integrity, end-of-life care, infection, sleep, medication, and depression) had less than 50% adherence with indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study of adherence to evidence-based care for people in LTC using multiple conditions and a standardised method. Vulnerable older people are not receiving evidence-based care for many physical problems, nor care to support their mental health nor for end-of-life care. The six conditions in which adherence with indicators was less than 50% could be the focus of improvement efforts.

Ethical considerations in the relief of cancer pain

The management of pain for patients with cancer and cancer survivors is a critical clinical task that involves a multitude of ethical issues at almost every phase of the cancer experience. This review is divided into three sections: In the first, we address rights and duties in the relief of pain from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health care institutions and organizations, and public policy. This section includes a detailed description of issues and duties in relation to opioid misuse and addiction. In the second section, we discuss the ethical consideration of therapeutic planning. The final section addresses ethical considerations in the management of pain at the end of life including a detailed discussion regarding ethical issues relating to the use of palliative sedation as a clinical intervention of last resort.

An update on the use of pharmacotherapy for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

With the growing rate of aging and the incidence of chronic diseases, there has been an upsurge in opioid prescription and abuse worldwide. This has been associated with increased reports of opioid-related adverse events, particularly opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD), calling for a rational clinical management strategy.

AREAS COVERED

Through searching PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, English literature was gathered as of 1 January 2017. Furthermore, the USFDA, EMA, TGA, Clinicaltrials.Gov, WHO-ICTRP databases, and the latest guidelines were reviewed to extract ongoing clinical studies and provide an evidence-based expert opinion with detailed information on efficacy, safety, approval status, and pharmacokinetics of the currently used medications.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the significant burden of OIBD, the clinical development of agents lags behind disease progress. Although in most places, management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is initiated by lifestyle modifications followed by laxatives, opioid antagonists, and secretagogue agents, there are still major conflicts among global guidelines. The fundamental reason is the lack of head-to-head clinical trials providing inter- and intragroup comparisons between PAMORAs, laxatives, and secretagogue agents. These investigations must be accompanied by further valid biopharmaceutical and economic evaluations, paving the way for rational clinical judgment in each context.

The Balance Between the Effectiveness and Safety for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting of Different Doses of Olanzapine (10 mg Versus 5 mg): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) settings including (1) at 5- and 10-mg doses, and (2) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library were searched from the establishment of the database through April 18, 2021. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue), in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of complete control (CC, no nausea, and no emesis), for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of somnolence, as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random, or fixed-effect analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO.

RESULT

Nine studies reported the use of 10 mg olanzapine to prevent CINV; three studies reported the use of 5 mg olanzapine to prevent CINV. When olanzapine was administered at 10 mg for HEC patients, the six endpoints were statistically and clinically better than the control group. For MEC patients, four out of six endpoints were better than the control group. When olanzapine is administered at 5 mg for MEC patients, four endpoints have statistical and clinical advantages. The sedative effects of 10 and 5 mg olanzapine were statistically more significant than those of the control group. The sedative effect of the 10-mg olanzapine group was more significant than that of the 5-mg olanzapine group, both statistically and clinically.

CONCLUSION

5 mg olanzapine may be as effective as 10 mg olanzapine for patients with HEC and MEC, and its sedative effect is lower than 10 mg olanzapine. Fewer studies on 5 mg olanzapine have led to uncertain data. In the future, more randomized controlled trials of 5 mg olanzapine are needed to study the balance between the effectiveness and safety of olanzapine.

Efficacy and Safety of Adding Olanzapine to the Standard Preventive Regimen for Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Children: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Trial

This study aimed to assess the additive value of olanzapine to a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in pediatric patients. A total of 40 patients between 4 to 18 years of age were enrolled in this randomized clinical trial. Both groups received a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone, and 0.14 mg/kg olanzapine or matched placebo were administered for olanzapine and control groups, respectively. The primary end points were complete response and lack of nausea as far as three days after chemotherapy evaluated by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) v5.0 and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Anti-emesis Tool (MAT). Side effects of olanzapine were also analyzed. In patients receiving the standard regimen of ondansetron and dexamethasone, nausea was observed in 10.5% and 21% of patients according to MAT and CTCAE scales, respectively. In the olanzapine group, 37.5% (MAT scale) and 31.3% (CTCAE scale) of patients developed nausea. Complete response was observed in 84% (MAT scale) and 94.7% (CTCAE scale) of patients in the placebo group receiving ondansetron and dexamethasone. In comparison, it was observed in 87.5% (MAT scale) and 81.25% (CTCAE scale) for patients allocated to the olanzapine group. Neither acute nor delayed CINV was statistically different between placebo and olanzapine groups. The frequency of adverse effects was higher in the olanzapine group. Adding olanzapine to the standard regimen of CINV prophylaxis was only unhelpful in pediatric patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy but also associated with a higher rate of minor side effects.

Olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review, meta-analysis, cumulative meta-analysis and fragility assessment of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model.

RESULTS

Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

[Brain metastases-Interdisciplinary approach towards a personalized treatment]

The incidence, treatment and prognosis of patients with brain metastases have substantially changed during the last decades. While the survival time after diagnosis of cerebral metastases was on average a maximum of 3-6 months only 10 years ago, the survival time could be significantly improved due to novel surgical, radiotherapeutic and systemic treatment modalities. Only a few years ago, the occurrence of brain metastases led to a withdrawal from systemic oncological treatment and the exclusion of drug therapy studies and to a purely palliatively oriented treatment in the sense of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) with or without surgery. The increasing availability of targeted and immunomodulatory drugs as well as adapted radio-oncological procedures enable increasingly more personalized treatment approaches. The aim of this review article is to demonstrate the progress and complexity of the treatment of brain metastases in the context of modern comprehensive interdisciplinary concepts.