Search

Background: Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT 3 RA), is more effective than first-generation 5-HT 3 RA. Several studies have investigated whether dexamethasone (DEX), when combined with palonosetron as a 5-HT 3 RA, can be spared in the delayed phase after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine which between 1- and 3-day DEX administration, when combined with palonosetron, is more useful in patients receiving MEC., Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2020. We included studies that compared the efficacy of 1- and 3-day DEX administration in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with MEC. Outcomes were "prevention of vomiting (complete response rate and no vomiting rate)," "prevention of nausea" (complete control rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, and no clinically significant nausea rate)" in the delayed phase, "prevention of blood glucose level elevation," and "prevention of osteoporosis.", Results: Eight studies were included in this systematic review. The no vomiting rate was significantly higher in the 3-day DEX group than in the 1-day DEX group. However, the other efficacy items did not significantly differ between the two groups. Meanwhile, insufficient evidence was obtained for "prevention of blood glucose level elevation" and "prevention of osteoporosis.", Conclusions: No significant differences in most antiemetic effects were found between 1- and 3-day DEX administration. Thus, DEX administration could be shortened from 3 days to 1 day when used in combination with palonosetron., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: The effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis., Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP)., Results: The difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs., Conclusion: Palonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy., Competing Interests: DW reports honoraria from Chugai. HI reports receiving consulting fees from Eisai and Taiho; honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Nippon Kayaku, Ono, Sawai, Taiho, and Yakult. RK reports honoraria from Janssen. HF reports honoraria from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Kyowa Kirin, Ono, Sanofi and Taiho. KK reports grants from Kyowa Kirin; honoraria from Tsumura Pharmaceuticals. MF reports honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Chugai, Eisai, Lilly, and Nihon-Kayaku. AS reports institutional grants from Nippon Kayaku, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Chugai Pharm, Taiho Pharm, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan Blood Products Organization, Mochida Pharm, Sun Pharma; honoraria from Toa Eiyo, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Eisai, Nippon Shinyaku, Kyowa Kirin, Tsumura, Towa Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Mochida Pharmaceutical, EA Pharma, Yakult Honsha, Chugai Pharmaceutical. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Watanabe, Iihara, Kobayashi, Fujii, Mori, Kumada, Shimizu, Futamura and Suzuki.)

Background: Anamorelin is expected to improve cancer cachexia by increasing lean body mass (LBM) due to increased appetite and protein synthesis. However, the effect of anamorelin on cancer cachexia in real-world practice is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anamorelin and to identify predictors of efficacy on treatment with anamorelin., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with cancer cachexia treated with chemotherapy between May 2021 and August 2022. Efficacy of anamorelin was evaluated using LBM, with "12-week sustained effective response" to anamorelin treatment defined as maintenance or an increase in LBM for 12 weeks. We examined factors associated with "12-week sustained effective response" to anamorelin treatment using a multivariable logistic model that included controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score, an objective assessment of nutritional disorders, and the modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), which scores the cachexia status of cancer patients. To assess patient subjective quality of life (QOL) changes related to eating after starting anamorelin treatment, we used a questionnaire (QOL-ACD appetite-related items: Q8, 9, 11). Adverse events were evaluated in accordance with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0., Results: On analysis of data from 40 patients, 23 patients showed a 12-week sustained effective response to anamorelin (57.5%). At 12 weeks, LBM significantly increased by 1.63 ± 3.73 kg (mean ± SD). Multivariable logistic analysis revealed that a low CONUT score was significantly associated with "12-week sustained effective response" to anamorelin treatment (adjusted odds ratio: 13.5, 95% confidence intervals: 2.2-84.2, P = 0.004). QOL assessment showed a trend toward increased appetite and enjoyment of meals after anamorelin initiation. Five patients (12.5%) had an increase in HbA1c of more than 1.0% during the 12 weeks after the start of anamorelin. No patient had QT interval prolongation or grade 3 or higher hepatic transaminase elevation., Conclusion: Anamorelin may maintain or increase LBM with tolerable safety in patients with cancer cachexia undergoing chemotherapy. A low CONUT score, despite meeting criteria for cancer cachexia, is suggested as a predictor for the efficacy of anamorelin, indicating that patients with a low CONUT score may benefit from early introduction of anamorelin., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Anticipatory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a conditioned response influenced by the severity and duration of previous emetic responses to chemotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of non-pharmacologic interventions for anticipatory CINV among patients with cancer., Methods: We conducted a systematic search in databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Ichushi-Web, from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized designs, observational studies, or case-control studies that utilized non-pharmacological therapies were included. The primary outcomes were anticipatory CINV, with an additional investigation into adverse events and the costs of therapies. The risk-of-bias for each study was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software., Results: Of the 107 studies identified, six met the inclusion criteria. Three types of non-pharmacological treatments were identified: systematic desensitization (n = 2), hypnotherapy (n = 2), and yoga therapy (n = 2). Among them, systematic desensitization significantly improved anticipatory CINV as compared to that in the control group (nausea: risk ratio [RR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49-0.72, p < 0.00001; vomiting: RR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.32-0.91, p = 0.02). However, heterogeneity in outcome measures precluded meta-analysis for hypnotherapy and yoga. Additionally, most selected studies had a high or unclear risk of bias, and adverse events were not consistently reported., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that systematic desensitization may effectively reduce anticipatory CINV. However, further research is warranted before implementation in clinical settings., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 was extensively revised to reflect the latest advances in antineoplastic agents, antiemetics, and antineoplastic regimens. This update provides new evidence on the efficacy of antiemetic regimens., Methods: Guided by the Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual of 2017, a rigorous approach was used to update the guidelines; a thorough literature search was conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020., Results: Comprehensive process resulted in the creation of 13 background questions (BQs), 12 clinical questions (CQs), and three future research questions (FQs). Moreover, the emetic risk classification was also updated., Conclusions: The primary goal of the present guidelines is to provide comprehensive information and facilitate informed decision-making, regarding antiemetic therapy, for both patients and healthcare providers., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce the bioavailability of several anticancer drugs. The impact of PPIs co-administered with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors is controversial. We aimed to clarify whether the concomitant use of PPIs impacts palbociclib and abemaciclib effectiveness in breast cancer treatment., Patients and Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study, conducted across 4 medical institutions in Japan, consecutively included patients with endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer, receiving palbociclib or abemaciclib between December 2017 and August 2022. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed. Treatment efficacy and safety with and without PPIs were compared. Progression-free survival and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using a log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio., Results: The study included 240 patients. After 1:1 matching, 112 patients were treated with and without PPIs. The median progression-free survival period was 1.2 years in the PPI group and 1.3 years in the non-PPI group (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.70-2.02). The median overall survival period was 3.6 years in the PPI group, whereas it was not reached in the non-PPI group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.61-2.47). Consistent results were obtained for subgroups receiving palbociclib (n = 177) and abemaciclib (n = 63) without propensity score matching. Adverse event incidence and severity were similar in both groups., Conclusion: The effectiveness of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors is unlikely to be affected by concomitant PPI use. Future prospective pharmacokinetic studies are warranted., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Mirtazapine blocks 5-hydroxytryptamine type (5-HT) 2A , 5-HT 2C , 5-HT 3 and histamine H 1 receptors, similarly to olanzapine. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancers., Methods: We conducted a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial in four institutions in Japan. Registered patients were moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy-naïve, and were scheduled to receive CBDCA at area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute. Patients received mirtazapine 15 mg/day orally at bedtime for four consecutive days, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) rate during the delayed period (24-120 h)., Results: Between July 2022 and July 2023, 52 patients were enrolled, and 48 patients were evaluated. CR rates in the delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and acute periods (0-24 h) were 83.3%, 83.3%, and 100%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were observed except for one patient who had grade 3 dry mouth as evaluated by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0., Conclusions: Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with mirtazapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone shows promising efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. This three-drug combination appears to be a reasonable treatment approach in patients with thoracic cancers receiving a CBDCA-based regimen at AUC ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Iihara has received personal fees from Taiho, Chugai, Yakult, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Nippon Kayaku, Ono, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and consulting fees for their institution from Taiho and Eisai outside the submitted work. Dr. Morita has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Takeda, Taiho, Thermo Fisher, Nihon Kayaku, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer outside the submitted work. Ms. Hirose has received personal fees from Eli Lilly, Eisai, Merck, Chugai, and Nippon Kayaku outside the submitted work. Dr. Kawazoe has received grants for their institution from Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. Dr. Fukunaga has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Kyorin outside the submitted work and grants for their institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chugai outside the submitted work. Dr. Fukunaga has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Kyorin outside the submitted work and grants for their institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chugai outside the submitted work. Dr. Suzuki has received personal fees from Toa Eiyo, Asahi Kasei, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Eisai, Nippon Shinyaku, Celltrion Healthcare Japan, Otsuka, Sandoz, Tsumura, Nipro, Taiho, Kyowa-Kirin, Nippon Chemiphar, Japan Blood Products Organization, Takeda, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and grants for their institution from Nippon Kayaku, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Taiho, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan Blood Products Organization, Mochida, and Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. Other authors do not have conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Medication errors related to the pre-admission medication history obtained on admission are a major cause of medication error during hospitalization. Medication reconciliation (MR) improves patient safety through the detection of inadvertent medication discrepancies at transitions of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of MR by pharmacists for patients prior to hospital admission on the incidence of medication errors in the early post-admission period., Patients and Methods: Patients admitted to the orthopedic ward for surgery between April 2012 and March 2020 were included. Pharmacist-led MR for pre-admission patients was started on April 1, 2017. The incidence of medication errors related to pre-admission medications that occurred during hospitalization were compared between the pre- and post-initiation of pharmacist-led MR (pre-initiation: April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015, post-initiation: April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2020)., Result: In the post-initiation group, 94.2% (1245/1321) of patients who were taking medications on admission had a pharmacist-led MR before admission. The proportion of patients whose physicians ordered the prescription of their pre-admission medications at the time before hospitalization to continue from admission was significantly higher in the post-initiation group than in the pre-initiation group (47.4% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001). The incidence of medication errors related to pre-admission medications during hospitalization was significantly lower in the post-initiation group than in the pre-initiation group (1.83% vs. 0.85%, p = 0.025). Pharmacist-led MR prior to admission was a significant protective factor against incidents related to pre-admission medication (odds ratio (OR), 0.3810; 95% confidence interval (CI); 0.156-0.9320, p = 0.035)., Conclusion: Pharmacist-led MR for patients prior to hospital admission led to a reduction in medication errors related to pre-admission medications during hospitalization. Patient safety during hospitalization can be improved by accurate medication histories provided early by pharmacists., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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 D 2 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., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy., Methods: Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%., Results: A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life., Conclusion: DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation., Clinical Trials Registry Number: UMIN000032269., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Olaparib and niraparib (poly adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose polymerase [PARP] inhibitors) have significant antitumor action in patients with ovarian cancer. However, the incidence of nausea and vomiting among patients on these drugs in clinical trials is rather high. There are no guidelines on antiemetic treatment for nausea caused by oral anticancer agents. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of nausea and vomiting caused by PARP inhibitors and the actual situation of antiemetic therapy in patients with gynecologic cancer. Methods: Patients with gynecologic cancer who were scheduled to receive PARP inhibitors were enrolled. Data on PARP inhibitor-induced nausea and vomiting were collected from patient diaries for 21 days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the 21 days after starting olaparib and niraparib. Results: Overall, between January 2020 and March 2023, 134 patients were enrolled. Of the 129 patients who were evaluated, 28 (21.7%) received prophylactic antiemetics for 21 days, and 101 (78.3%) did not. The overall incidence of PARP inhibitor-induced vomiting was 16.3%. The incidence of vomiting in the group that did not receive antiemetic prophylaxis was 13.9%. On dividing the group that did not receive antiemetic prophylaxis into the olaparib and niraparib subgroups, the incidence of vomiting was found to be 18.6% for the olaparib group and 10.3% for the niraparib group. Conclusion: The incidence of emesis without antiemetic prophylaxis among patients on olaparib and niraparib ranged from 10% to 30%. Therefore, olaparib and niraparib can be classified in the low emetogenic risk and prophylactic antiemetic therapy at the time of treatment initiation may be unnecessary., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: Ms. Yamamoto received personal fees from Chugai outside of the submitted work. Dr. Tsuchiya received personal fees from Chugai, Taiho, Ono, Sun Pharma, Kyowa-Kirin, Pfizer, Eizai, and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Dr. Iihara received personal fees from Taiho, Chugai, Yakult, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Nippon Kayaku, Ono, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and consulting fees for their institution from Taiho and Eisai outside the submitted work. Dr. Suzuki received personal fees from Takeda and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work. Mr. Watanabe received personal fees from Chugai outside of the submitted work. Dr. Suzuki A received personal fees from Toa Eiyo, Asahi Kasei, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Eisai, Nippon Shinyaku, Celltrion Healthcare Japan, Otsuka, Sandoz, Tsumura, Nipro, Taiho, Kyowa-Kirin, Nippon Chemiphar, Japan Blood Products Organization, Takeda, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and grants for their institution from Nippon Kayaku, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Taiho, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan Blood Products Organization, Mochida, and Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. Dr. Abe received personal fees from Taiho, Chugai, AstraZeneca, and Takeda outside the submitted work., (© The author(s).)