Search

Background: How cannabis products are being used by cancer patients and survivors in the United States is poorly understood. This study reviewed observational data to understand the modes, patterns, reasons, discontinuation, and adverse experiences of cannabis use., Methods: PubMed and PsycINFO database searches were conducted between May 2022 and November 2022. Of the 1162 studies identified, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. The intercoder agreement was strong (0.81)., Results: The majority (74%) of the studies were cross-sectional in design. Study samples were approximately equal proportions of men and women and majority White participants. The prevalence of cannabis use based on national samples ranged between 4.8% and 22%. The most common modes of cannabis intake were topical application (80%), smoking (73%), vaping (12%), and ingestion of edible products (10%). Younger age, male gender, being a current or former smoker, and higher socioeconomic status were associated with greater likelihood of cannabis use. The main motive for cannabis use was management of symptoms due to cancer or cancer treatment such as pain, nausea, lack of sleep, and anxiety. A majority of the participants across studies reported that cannabis helped reduce these symptoms. Lack of symptom improvement, side effects such as fatigue and paranoia, cost, and social stigma were identified as some of the reasons for discontinuing cannabis use., Conclusions: It appears that cannabis may help cancer patients and survivors manage symptoms. However, more longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether positive experiences of cannabis use outweigh adverse experiences over time in this vulnerable population., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used., Materials and Methods: A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 -olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%., Results: A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist., Conclusion: This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081)., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent and burdensome condition. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of vortioxetine in treating MDD based on real-world data., Methods: A systematic search of 8 electronic databases was performed from inception until October 2022 to identify real-world studies, excluding randomized controlled trials. We conducted subgroup, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, publication bias, and quality assessments using the random-effects model. The effects were summarized by rates or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: Of the 870 records identified, 11 studies (3139 participants) and 10 case reports or series were eligible for inclusion. Vortioxetine significantly relieved depression symptoms as assessed by both patients (SMD = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.60-2.89) and physicians (SMD = 3.73, 95% CI = 2.78-4.69). Cognitive function (SMD =1.86, 95% CI = 1.11-2.62) and functional disability (SMD =1.71, 95% CI = 1.14-2.29) were similarly markedly improved. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that geographic location and medication regimen (whether combined with other antidepressants) were crucial factors influencing effectiveness (in terms of depression severity and cognitive function), potentially contributing to significant heterogeneity. The estimated response and remission rates were 66.4% (95% CI = 51.2%-81.5%) and 58.0% (95% CI = 48.9%-67.1%), respectively. Vortioxetine was well tolerated, with a pooled dropout rate of 3.5% (95% CI = 1.8%-5.8%), and the most common adverse event was nausea, with an estimated rate of 8.9% (95% CI = 3.8%-15.8%)., Limitations: The study has some limitations, including significant heterogeneity and limited evidence for some outcomes., Conclusions: Vortioxetine is effective, well tolerated, and safe for treating MDD in clinical practice, with significant improvements observed in depressive severity, cognitive function, and functioning. Future studies should directly compare vortioxetine with other antidepressants in real-world settings to further evaluate its clinical utility., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CINP.)

Background: The relationship between CINV duration and recurrence in subsequent cycles is largely unstudied. Our objective was to determine if patients experiencing CINV in their first cycle of chemotherapy (C1) would face increased risk of CINV in later cycles and whether the duration of the CINV would predict increased risk of recurrence., Patients and Methods: Using data from a previously reported phase III trial, we assessed patients' recurrence of breakthrough CINV after antiemetic prophylaxis for anthracycline+cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer, comparing C1 short CINV vs. extended CINV as a secondary analysis. Complete response (CR) and CINV duration were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. CR was considered prophylaxis success; lack of CR was considered treatment failure (TF)., Results: Among 402 female patients, 99 (24.6%) had TF in C1 (TF1). The remaining 303 patients (CR1) had ≥93% CR rates in each subsequent cycle, while the 99 patients with TF1 had TF rates of 49.8% for cycles 2-4 (P < .001). The 51 patients with extended TF (≥3 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 73/105 later cycles (69.5%, P < .001), while the 48 patients with short TF (1-2 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 33/108 later cycles (30.6%). The relative risk of recurrence after C1 extended TF was 2.28 (CI 1.67-3.11; P < .001) compared to short TF., Conclusions: Prophylaxis success in C1 led to >90% repeat success across cycles of AC-based chemotherapy. For patients with breakthrough CINV, extended duration strongly predicted recurrent CINV. The duration of CINV should be closely monitored, and augmenting antiemetic prophylaxis considered for future cycles when extended CINV occurs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objectives: Azithromycin is commonly used to treat Neisseria gonorrhoeae. We compared its gastrointestinal side effects using 1 g single, 2 g single or 2 g split (i.e. 1 g plus 1 g 6-12 h later) dosing, representing our clinic's changing guidelines over the study period., Methods: We recruited consecutive sexual health clinic patients who received azithromycin (and 500 mg ceftriaxone) for uncomplicated gonorrhoea. Each patient received a text message 48 h after their attendance to complete a questionnaire., Results: Patients received 1 g single (n = 271), 2 g single (218) or 2 g split (105) doses. Vomiting was less common for 1 g versus 2 g single dose [1.1% versus 3.7%; risk difference (RD): -2.6%; 95% CI: -0.2 to -5.4] and 2 g split versus 2 g single dose (0.9% versus 3.7%; RD: -2.8%; 95% CI: -0.3 to -5.8). Nausea was less common for 1 g versus 2 g single dose (13.7% versus 43.1%; RD: -29.5%; 95% CI: -21.7 to -37.2) and 2 g split versus 2 g single dose (16.4% versus 43.1%; RD: -26.8; 95% CI: -17.2 to -36.3). Diarrhoea was less common for 1 g versus 2 g single dose (25.5% versus 50.9%; RD: -25.5%; 95% CI: -17.0 to -33.9) and 2 g split versus 2 g single dose (30.9% versus 50.9%; RD: -20.0; 95% CI: -9.1 to -30.9). Almost all were willing to retake the same dosing for gonorrhoea in the future: 97% for 1 g single; 94% for 2 g single; and 97% for 2 g split dose., Conclusions: Azithromycin 2 g split dose for gonorrhoea resulted in significantly less vomiting, nausea and diarrhoea than a 2 g single dose., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)

Background: The dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy, which limits administration of DEX to day one, is reportedly non-inferior to conventional antiemetic regimens comprising multiple-day DEX. However, the usefulness of the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA] + serotonin receptor antagonist [5HT3RA] + DEX) for carboplatin and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has not been clarified., Patients and Methods: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of antiemetics for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with carboplatin and MEC. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the antiemesis efficacy of three-day DEX with NK1RA (3-DEX + NK1RA) and one-day DEX with NK1RA (1-DEX + NK1RA). The primary outcome was complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP). The secondary outcome was no nausea during the delayed phase (NN-DP)., Results: Seventeen trials involving 4534 patients were included. The proportion who experienced CR-DP was 82.5% (95% credible interval [CI], 73.9-88.6) and 73.5% (95% CI, 62.8-80.9) among those who received 3-DEX + NK1RA and 1-DEX + NK1RA, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two regimens. However, 3-DEX + NK1RA tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA, with an absolute risk difference of 9.0% (95% CI, -2.3 to 21.1) in CR-DP and 24.7% (95% CI: -14.9 to 54.6) in NN-DP. 3-DEX + NK1RA also tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA in patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy, for whom the absolute risk difference was 12.3% (95% CI, -3.2 to 30.7)., Conclusions: Care is needed when administering the DEX-sparing strategy in combination with NK1RA to patients receiving carboplatin and non-carboplatin MEC., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: There is limited work on the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on quality of life (QoL) in adriamycin-cyclophosphamide (AC)-treated patients with breast cancer. The objectives of the study were the following: (a) to confirm if symptoms of CINV led to lower QoL during AC; (b) to evaluate the pattern of changes in patients' QoL during multiple cycles of AC; and (c) to assess if the QoL in an earlier cycle affected the QoL in subsequent cycles of AC., Materials and Methods: This is a secondary pooled data analysis that included 303 Chinese patients with breast cancer who received 1,177 cycles of adjuvant AC in three prospective antiemetic studies. QoL data were based on Functional Living Index-emesis (FLIE) scored over three to four AC cycles. CINV symptoms assessed included "no significant nausea" (NSN), "significant nausea" (SN), "no vomiting" (NoV), "vomiting" (V), and complete response (CR)., Results: Across all AC cycles, the mean scores for the FLIE nausea domain for patients who experienced NSN versus SN were 10.92 versus 53.92, respectively (p < .0001), with lower scores indicating better QoL; the mean scores for the FLIE vomiting domain for patients who experienced NoV versus V were 1.44 versus 19.11, respectively (p < .0001), with similar results across subsequent cycles. Analysis of the effect of the QoL in cycle 1 on the QoL of subsequent cycles revealed the following: for the nausea domain, among patients who had cycle 1 FLIE scores ≥ versus < the mean, the corresponding scores in cycle 2 were 6.87 versus 36.71 (p < .0001); whereas those for cycle 3 were 7.07 versus 36.87 (p < .0001); and those for cycle 4 were 5.92 versus 21.48 (p < .0001). Similar findings were observed for the vomiting domain. Netupitant + palonosetron- or aprepitant/olanzapine-based antiemetics had significantly better QoL outcomes., Conclusion: CINV had a significant impact on the QoL of patients with breast cancer treated with AC over multiple cycles., Implications for Practice: In this post-hoc analysis of three prospective studies on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), quality of life (QoL) using contemporary antiemetic regimens in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) was evaluated. During the first and subsequent AC cycles, QoL was significantly better for patients who did not experience vomiting or significant nausea. QoL in an earlier cycle affected the QoL in subsequent AC cycles. Furthermore, recent regimens involving olanzapine/aprepitant or netupitant-palonosetron were associated with a positive impact in QoL. Antiemetic guideline-consistent practice and higher clinician awareness of the impact of CINV on QoL can further mitigate the negative effects of CINV on QoL., (© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

The use of cannabis is not unfamiliar to many cancer patients, as there is a long history of its use for cancer pain and/or pain, nausea, and cachexia induced by cancer treatment. To date, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 2 cannabis-based pharmacotherapies for the treatment of cancer chemotherapy-associated adverse effects: dronabinol and nabilone. Over the proceeding decades, both research investigating and societal attitudes toward the potential utility of cannabinoids for a range of indications have progressed dramatically. The following monograph highlights recent preclinical research focusing on promising cannabinoid-based approaches for the treatment of the 2 most common adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy: chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Both plant-derived and synthetic approaches are discussed, as is the potential relative safety and effectiveness of these approaches in relation to current treatment options, including opioid analgesics., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Session 2 of the National Cancer Institute's Cannabis, Cannabinoids, and Cancer Research Workshop opened with testimony from a lymphoma survivor who detailed medicinal cannabis-related improvements in nausea, low appetite, insomnia, and mental health and the limited clinical counsel she received regarding cannabis use. Discussion next turned to the evolution of the legal landscape of cannabis in the United States, one in which state and federal laws frequently conflict and the Controlled Substance Act renders cannabis Schedule I. This legal climate creates conundrums for US medicinal cannabis researchers who contend with limited funding opportunities, avenues to source trial drug, and procedural red tape and for oncology clinicians who recommend medicinal cannabis to patients with some frequency while perceiving themselves as ill equipped to make such clinical recommendations. Ultimately, it creates challenges for cancer patients who find themselves turning to nonmedical and anecdotal information sources. The risks of cannabis use by the cancer patient were discussed next. These include infection, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug-botanical interactions, cyclic nausea and vomiting, e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated illness, legal issues, and high cost. The session concluded with a broad survey of the research supporting oncologic cannabinoid use, conclusive evidence for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and suggestive evidence for cancer-related pain., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT 3 ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT 3 RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK 1 RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK 1 RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT 3 RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK 1 RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC)., Materials and Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%., Results: Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant., Conclusion: This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA., Implications for Practice: In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK 1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK 1 RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK 1 RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care., (© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Palonosetron has demonstrated non-inferiority to ondansetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients in the United States and Europe. We conducted a single-arm registration study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of palonosetron in pediatric patients in Japan., Methods: Key inclusion criteria were age of 28 days to 18 years and malignant disease for which initial highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was planned. Patients received palonosetron at 20 μg/kg over at least 30 s intravenously before the start of highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and received dexamethasone on Days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response in the overall phase (0-120 h) in Course 1, and its threshold was set at 30%., Results: From December 2016 to June 2019, 60 patients were enrolled, and 58 received at least one dose of palonosetron. The proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the overall phase was 58.6% (95% confidence interval, 44.9%-71.4%), showing the primary endpoint was met (P < 0.0001). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in two patients (3.4%). Regarding the pharmacokinetics of palonosetron, neither the plasma concentration immediately after administration nor the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity differed significantly among the age groups., Conclusion: We demonstrated the efficacy of palonosetron in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and confirmed the appropriateness of the 20 μg/kg dose, regardless of age, considering the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles., Trial Registration: JapicCTI-163305, registered 6 June 2016., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis improves nausea and vomiting control in most patients undergoing chemotherapy. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO) antiemetic guidelines recommend prophylaxis with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK 1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT 3 RA), and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)- and carboplatin (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy)-based chemotherapy. Here, we analyze the use of NK 1 RA-5-HT 3 RA-dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis associated with HEC and carboplatin., Methods: The data source was the Global Oncology Monitor (Ipsos Healthcare). Geographically representative physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. were screened for treatment involvement and number of patients treated per month. Patients' data from January to December 2018 were collected from medical charts and extrapolated on the basis of the total number of physicians who prescribe chemotherapy. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was classified per MASCC/ESMO guidelines., Results: Data from 45,324 chemotherapy-treated patients were collected, representing a total extrapolated prevalence of 1,394,848 chemotherapy treatments included in the analysis. NK 1 RAs were used in 45%, 42%, and 19% of patients receiving cisplatin-, AC-, and carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively; 18%, 24%, and 7% received the guideline-recommended NK 1 RA-5-HT 3 RA-dexamethasone combination; no antiemetics were prescribed for 12% of the treatments. Often, physicians' perception of the emetic risk of chemotherapy did not follow MASCC/ESMO guideline classification., Conclusion: Low adherence to antiemetic guidelines was revealed in clinical practice in five European countries, with 15% of all HEC-/carboplatin-based treatments receiving guideline-recommended NK 1 RA-5-HT 3 RA-dexamethasone prophylaxis and 12% of them receiving no antiemetics. New strategies for improving guideline adherence are urgently needed., Implications for Practice: Despite recent advances in antiemetic therapy, a substantial proportion of patients experience nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in daily clinical practice. Antiemetic guidelines aim at prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy can effectively prevent vomiting and, to a lesser extent, nausea in most patients with cancer. This study reports low adherence to antiemetic guidelines in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy setting in daily clinical practice across five European countries. Opportunity exists to increase adherence to antiemetic guideline recommendations. Implementation of strategies to facilitate guideline adherence can potentially improve CINV control., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Olanzapine is an inexpensive and durable agent for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and is also superior to neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in the control of nausea. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a low dose of 5 mg olanzapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for treatment of carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic malignancies., Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial in four centers in Japan. Registered patients were scheduled to receive area under the curve (AUC) ≥5 mg/mL per minute of CBDCA and had never received moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received olanzapine 5 mg/day orally after supper for 4 days, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) rate during the overall phase (0-120 hours)., Results: Between February 2018 and June 2020, 51 patients were enrolled, and 50 patients were evaluated. The CR rates in the overall (0-120 hours), acute (0-24 hours), and delayed phases (24-120 hours) were 94.0%, 100%, and 94.0%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher adverse effects of olanzapine were observed., Conclusion: Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with a low dose of 5 mg olanzapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone showed durable efficacy with an acceptable safety profile. This three-drug combination appears to be a reasonable treatment approach in patients with thoracic malignancies receiving an AUC ≥5 mg/mL per minute of CBDCA-based regimen. Clinical trial identification number: UMIN000031267., Implications for Practice: The results of this phase II trial indicated that the prophylactic administration of low-dose of 5 mg olanzapine combined with granisetron and dexamethasone has promising activity with acceptable safety profile in patients with thoracic malignancy receiving high-dose carboplatin chemotherapy., (© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy is a standard treatment option for patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer. Sex is one of several factors responsible for the wide inter-patient variability in drug responses. Amalgamated data on the effect of sex on the toxicity of current standard adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer are missing., Methods: The objective of our study was to compare incidence and severity of major toxicities of fluoropyrimidine- (5FU or capecitabine) based adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without oxaliplatin, between male and female patients after curative surgery for colon cancer. Adult patients enrolled in 27 relevant randomized trials included in the ACCENT (Adjuvant Colon Cancer End Points) database, a large, multi-group, international data repository containing individual patient data, were included. Comparisons were conducted using logistic regression models (stratified by study and treatment arm) within each type of adjuvant chemotherapy (5FU, FOLFOX, capecitabine, CAPOX, and FOLFIRI). The following major toxicities were compared (grade III or IV and grade I-IV, according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria [NCI-CTC] criteria, regardless of attribution): nausea, vomiting, nausea or vomiting, stomatitis, diarrhea, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neuropathy (in patients treated with oxaliplatin)., Results: Data from 34 640 patients were analyzed. Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in the occurrence of grade III or IV nonhematological {especially nausea (5FU: odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.90 to 2.87, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.76 to 3.11, P < .001), vomiting (5FU: OR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.86 to 3.04, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.50 to 2.66, P < .001; CAPOX: OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.55 to 3.46, P < .001), and diarrhea (5FU: OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.51, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.90, P < .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.97, P < .001)} as well as hematological toxicities (neutropenia [5FU: OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.37 to 1.76, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.71 to 2.25, P < .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.43, P < .001; capecitabine: OR = 4.07, 95% CI = 1.84 to 8.99, P < .001] and leukopenia [5FU: OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.40 to 2.17, P < .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.40, P < .001]) were observed, with women being consistently at increased risk., Conclusions: Our analysis confirms that women with colon cancer receiving adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy are at increased risk of toxicity. Given the known sex differences in fluoropyrimidine pharmacokinetics, sex-specific dosing of fluoropyrimidines warrants further investigation., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation., Results: Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA., Conclusions: Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC., Implications for Practice: After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care., (© 2020 AlphaMed Press.)

Background: For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea., Patients and Methods: This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects., Results: Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms., Conclusion: This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510., Implications for Practice: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome presents with abdominal pain, nausea, and intractable vomiting caused by phytogenic and synthetic cannabinoid use. Complications associated with this disorder range from severe dehydration to acute kidney injury and rhabdomyolysis. This syndrome mimics many acute surgical and emergency medical conditions and can present several diagnostic and treatment challenges. While this syndrome is increasingly recognized as a common clinical entity in civilian emergency departments, there is little data concerning experience at military hospitals. We present a case of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome that was diagnosed and treated in a combat-zone US military emergency department in Southwest Asia., (© The Association of Military Surgeons of the United States. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin-1 (NK 1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5-HT 3 RA, palonosetron] offers 5-day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion-site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK 1 RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting., Materials and Methods: This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30-minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only., Results: A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment-related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment-related injection-site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0-120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles., Conclusion: IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions in patients receiving AC., Implications for Practice: As a combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK 1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5-HT 3 RA, NEPA offers 5-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK 1 RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK 1 RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection-site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA., (© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: We previously reported the results of a prospective study of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a cohort of patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy and were selected from a nationwide registry of those scheduled for moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) by the CINV Study Group of Japan. Of 1,910 previously registered patients (HEC: 1,195; MEC: 715), 400 patients received carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The frequency of CINV was determined, and the risk factors for CINV were assessed., Materials and Methods: CINV data were collected from 7-day diaries. Risk factors for CINV were identified using logistic regression models., Results: Of 400 patients scheduled for carboplatin-based chemotherapy, 267 patients received two antiemetics (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist [5-HT 3 RA] and dexamethasone [DEX]), 118 patients received three antiemetics (5-HT 3 RA, DEX, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK 1 RA]), and 15 were nonadherent to the treatment. In these patients, the CINV overall, acute, and delayed phase rates of complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting with no rescue medication, were 67.0%, 98.2%, and 67.5%, respectively. The rates of no nausea were 55.6%, 94.0%, and 56.1%, respectively, and those of no vomiting were 81.3%, 99.0%, and 81.8%, respectively. Older age was associated with a decreased non-CR, whereas female sex, history of pregnancy-related emesis, and dual antiemetic therapy were associated with an increased non-CR during the overall period., Conclusion: In a clinical practice setting, in patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy, adherence is quite high and appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis requires a triple antiemetic regimen including NK 1 RA., Implications for Practice: For patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy, triple antiemetic therapy with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist should be given prophylactically regardless of risk factor status., (© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Introduction: Antidepressant drugs are effective therapies for major depressive disorder; however, they are frequently associated with side effects. Although there is some evidence for a relationship between genetic variation and side effects, little is known regarding the role of dynamic molecular factors as moderators of side effects. The aim of this study was to assess microRNA (miRNA) changes associated with side effects during escitalopram treatment and their downstream effects on target gene expression., Methods: A total 160 patients with major depressive disorder from the CAN-BIND-1 cohort were included. Side effects were assessed with the Toronto Side Effect Scale after 2 weeks of treatment with escitalopram. We assessed the relationship between side effects and changes in peripheral expression of miRNAs between baseline and week 2. For miRNA whose expression changed, we used target prediction algorithms to identify putative messenger RNA (mRNA) targets and assessed their expression., Results: Nausea was experienced by 42.5% of patients. We identified 45 miRNAs whose expression changed on initiation of escitalopram treatment, of which 10 displayed a negative association with intensity of nausea (miR15b-5p, miR17-5p, miR20a-5p, miR20b-5p, miR103a-3p, miR103b, miR106a-5p, miR182-5p, miR185-5p, and miR660-5p). Additionally, we found negative associations between 4 microRNAs (miR20a-5p, miR106a-5p, miR185-5p, miR660-5p) and mRNA targets. The expression of the miR185-5p target, CAMK2δ was significantly decreased [log 2 mean = -0.048 (0.233)] between weeks 0 and 2 (P = .01)]., Conclusions: We identified an overexpression of miR185-5p during escitalopram treatment of major depressive disorder, which was negatively associated with intensity of nausea, and identified a potential mRNA target that may mediate this effect., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CINP.)

This study aimed to evaluate differences in the experience of pain, nausea, and vomiting, as well as the hemodynamic parameters including heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) in burn patients across four pain treatment groups-i.e., gabapentin, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and entonox. In a single blinded randomized comparative study, 25 burn patients with second- or third-degree burns between 20% and 50% of their body surface were assigned to different treatment groups by using block randomization, while keeping the investigator blind to the size of the block. We recorded demographics, the hemodynamics, adverse effects, and pain levels before the treatment and again 5, 10, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 360 minutes postadministration of pain medication (after-treatment). Gabapentin ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and entonox had significant effects in treatment of pain in burn patients. Entonox had the best analgesic effect with the least adverse effects and hemodynamic changes. Gabapentin also had good pain management effects; however, it showed less desirable effects on hemodynamic variables. Entonox caused the least amount of hemodynamic changes and the least adverse reactions, but since the medication is delivered by a facemask it limited its application with our patients. Gabapentin offered good benefits but caused a gradual drop in BP and HR and had some unfavorable reactions. However, since it is administered orally and often is cheaper, it could be considered as the drug of choice., (© American Burn Association 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: A dexamethasone-sparing regimen consisting of palonosetron plus 1-day dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been studied previously. Here, we evaluate the noninferiority of the dexamethasone-sparing regimen in overall antiemetic control using a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD)., Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review for randomized trials reporting CINV outcomes for the comparison of palonosetron plus 1-day dexamethasone (d1 arm) versus the same regimen followed by dexamethasone on days 2-3 after chemotherapy (d3 arm) in chemotherapy-naïve adult patients undergoing either moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-containing chemotherapy. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched electronically. A manual search was also conducted. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the overall 5-day study period. The noninferiority margin was set at -8.0% (d1 arm-d3 arm)., Results: Five studies ( n = 1,194) were eligible for analysis and all IPD was collected. In the overall study period, the d1 arm showed noninferiority to the d3 arm for CR as well as complete control (pooled risk difference in CR rate - 1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.1 to 4.0%, I 2 = 0%; in complete control rate - 2.4%, 95% CI -7.7 to 2.9%, I 2 = 0%). There was no significant interaction between dexamethasone regimen and risk factors (type of chemotherapy, sex, age, and alcohol consumption)., Conclusion: This IPD meta-analysis indicates that the dexamethasone-sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall antiemetic control in patients undergoing MEC or AC-containing chemotherapy, irrespective of known risk factors for CINV., Implications for Practice: Although dexamethasone in combination with other antiemetic agents has been used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), it is of clinical importance to minimize total dose of dexamethasone in patients undergoing multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy. This individual-patient-data meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trials (1,194 patients) demonstrated a noninferiority of the dexamethasone-sparing regimen for complete response and complete control of CINV. The outcomes were comparable across patients with different characteristics. These findings thus help physicians minimize use of the steroid and further reduce the burden of dexamethasone-related side effects in patients undergoing multiple consecutive courses of emetogenic chemotherapy., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: It is important to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to maintain dose intensity and patients' quality of life. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest combination therapy of antiemetic agents. The growing number of antiemetic regimens, and in particular the growing use of regimens containing antagonists to the Nk-1 receptor (NK1RAs) and the antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ), call for the re-evaluation of the optimal regimen for CINV. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, using Bayesian network meta-analysis., Methods: Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included. We strictly followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (absence of vomiting). We conducted network meta-analysis within a Bayesian model to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: We systematically reviewed 27 randomized control trials (13,356 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens: serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3), 5HT3 + dexamethasone (Dex), palonosetron (PAL), PAL + Dex, PAL at 0.75 mg (PAL0.75), PAL0.75 + Dex, NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex, NK1RA + PAL + Dex, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) + Dex, OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex. An NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex regimen and an NK1RA + palonosetron + Dex regimen gave a higher complete response (CR) rate than the reference regimen, 5HT3 + Dex (OR, 1.75; 95% credibility interval [95% CrI], 1.56-1.97, and OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.66-3.03, respectively). A regimen containing NEPA was more effective in producing CR than conventional regimens without NEPA or olanzapine. Further analysis, based on the surface under the cumulative ranking probability curve, indicated that olanzapine-containing regimens were the most effective in producing CR., Conclusion: Our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that olanzapine-containing regimens are the most effective for CINV of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We confirmed that NK1RA + PAL + Dex is the most effective of conventional regimens. Substituting olanzapine for an Nk-1 receptor antagonist may offer a less costly and more effective alternative for patients., Implications for Practice: Nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy often pose difficulties for patients and doctors, making it hard to continue the proper therapy and to maintain the quality of life. This article gives insights into the optimal choice of medicine to treat nausea during chemotherapy. The findings reported here provide readers with a robust efficacy ranking of antinausea medicine, which can be used as a reference for the best possible treatment. Furthermore, the 70% less costly drug, olanzapine, is suggested to be equally effective to aprepitant in reducing nausea and vomiting. The possibility of offering a cost-effective treatment to a wider range of the population is discussed., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Objective: Netupitant is a novel, selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist used for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, a distressing side effect of chemotherapy. This double-blind, randomized, Phase II study investigated the dose-response of oral netupitant in Japanese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy., Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients were randomized (1:1:1) to a single oral netupitant 30-, 100- or 300-mg dose before chemotherapy initiation. Patients received concomitant palonosetron (0.75 mg intravenously [i.v.] Day 1) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg i.v. Day 1, 8 mg orally Days 2-4)., Results: Overall, 402 patients (30 mg: 134; 100 mg: 135; 300 mg: 133) were treated and evaluable for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint of overall (0-120 h after chemotherapy administration) complete response (CR) rate (no emesis, no rescue medication) was 64.2%, 60.0% and 54.9% in the 30-, 100- and 300-mg arms, respectively, without statistical significance for dose-response. The safety profile of netupitant was comparable in the three arms. The plasma concentrations of netupitant and its metabolites increased with the dose increase from 30 mg to 300 mg., Conclusions: No dose-response relationship of netupitant in terms of overall CR rate was observed in this study. Netupitant was well tolerated at all doses without clinically harmful safety signals observed., Clinical Trial Registration: JapicCTI-142 483.

Background: Sjögren syndrome (SS) is associated with xerostomia and xerophthalmia. Pilocarpine has been shown to stimulate the secretion of saliva., Objectives: To investigate and compare the efficacy of pilocarpine and artificial saliva as symptomatic treatments for xerostomia and xerophthalmia in patients with SS., Methods: A double-blind randomized controlled study was performed. A total of 72 patients with SS were assigned randomly to receive 10 drops of pilocarpine (5 mg) or 10 drops of artificial saliva orally, three times daily for 12 weeks. Whole saliva and tear flow were evaluated at baseline and periodically throughout the study to provide a global assessment of dryness and to report any adverse effects., Results: Patients receiving pilocarpine had a statistically significant improvement in their salivary flow (P < 0·001), lacrimal flow (P < 0·001) and their subjective global assessment (P < 0·001), compared with patients who received artificial saliva. The most common side-effects were sialorrhoea and nausea., Conclusions: Pilocarpine is more effective than artificial saliva for enhancing salivary and lacrimal secretion in patients with SS. This is the first study to compare the efficacy of pilocarpine and artificial saliva for the treatment of xerostomia and xerophthalmia in SS., (© 2018 British Association of Dermatologists.)

The Guidelines of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology recommend standard triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Recently, a Phase III study demonstrated the significance of adding of olanzapine (10 mg) to standard triple antiemetic therapy. Olanzapine is associated with somnolence, and we have previously conducted a randomized Phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 10 mg and 5 mg olanzapine. Lower dose of olanzapine reduced the incidence of somnolence. Therefore, we conducted a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine (5 mg) combined with standard triple antiemetic therapy for cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. This study initiated in Feb 2017. A total of 690 patients are planned to be enrolled over a period of 2 years. This study has been registered at the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000024676.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven efficacy and safety and are approved for use in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and those with atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no clear guidance on the use of DOACs in the significant proportion of these patients who have or will develop concomitant cancer. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting in these patients, despite implementation of guideline-recommended antiemetic strategies, is a particular concern because it may affect oral drug intake and consequently outcomes with anticoagulation therapy.Here, we review recent data on the incidence and management of cancer-associated nausea and vomiting and the current evidence and guidance relating to the use of DOACs in patients with cancer. On the basis of this evidence, an international working group of experts in the fields of cancer-associated thrombosis/hemostasis, hematology, and oncology discussed key issues related to the use of DOACs in patients with VTE or AF and cancer who are at risk of nausea and vomiting and developed some consensus recommendations. We present these consensus recommendations, which outline strategies for the use and management of anticoagulants, including DOACs, in patients with VTE or AF and cancer for whom oral drug intake may pose challenges. Guidance is provided on managing patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or nausea and vomiting that is caused by cancer treatments or other cancer-related factors.The recommendations outlined in this review provide a useful reference for health care professionals and will help to improve the management of anticoagulation in patients with VTE or AF and cancer., Implications for Practice: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer several advantages over traditional anticoagulants, including ease of administration and the lack of need for routine monitoring. However, the management of patients with an indication for anticoagulation and concomitant cancer, who are at high risk of thromboembolic events, presents several challenges for administering oral therapies, particularly with regard to the risk of nausea and vomiting. In the absence of robust data from randomized trials and specific guidelines, consensus recommendations were developed for healthcare professionals regarding the use of DOACs in patients with cancer, with a focus on the management of patients who are at risk of nausea and vomiting., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Background: The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear., Materials and Methods: We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed., Results: Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens., Conclusion: Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea., Implications for Practice: According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Background: Although opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) often result in analgesic undertreatment in patients with cancer, no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic antiemetics for preventing OINV. We conducted this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic treatment with prochlorperazine for preventing OINV., Materials and Methods: Cancer patients who started to receive oral oxycodone were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prochlorperazine 5 mg or placebo prophylactically, given three times daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a complete response (CR) during the 120 hours of oxycodone treatment. CR was defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medication for nausea and vomiting during 5 days. Key secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with emetic episodes, proportion of patients with moderate or severe nausea, quality of life, and proportion of treatment withdrawal., Results: From November 2013 through February 2016, a total of 120 patients were assigned to receive prochlorperazine ( n  = 60) or placebo ( n  = 60). There was no significant difference in CR rates (69.5% vs. 63.3%; p  = .47) or any secondary endpoint between the groups. Patients who received prochlorperazine were more likely to experience severe somnolence ( p  = .048)., Conclusion: Routine use of prochlorperazine as a prophylactic antiemetic at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations., Implications for Practice: Prophylactic prochlorperazine seems to be ineffective in preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and may cause adverse events such as somnolence. Routine use of prophylactic prochlorperazine at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

Background: To evaluate the safety of flibanserin in premenopausal and naturally postmenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in an open-label extension (OLE) study., Aim: To examine the safety and tolerability of flibanserin 100 mg once daily at bedtime in the treatment of premenopausal and naturally postmenopausal women with HSDD in a multicenter 28-week OLE study., Methods: Patients entering this study received flibanserin or placebo in the double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of premenopausal and postmenopausal women and in a pharmacokinetic study of postmenopausal women., Outcomes: The primary end point of this OLE study was the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Secondary exploratory efficacy measures included the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) total score and FSDS-R item 13 (distress owing to low desire) score and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) total score. Because the sponsor terminated the study early at discontinuation of the development of flibanserin, only descriptive statistics were calculated., Results: Of the 595 patients receiving study medication, 346 and 249 patients were premenopausal and postmenopausal, respectively. The mean number of days of exposure to flibanserin was 72.8 (SD = 41.6). AEs were reported by 352 patients (59.2%), and most AEs (93.8%) were mild or moderate. The most common AEs (≥5%) were dizziness (9.6%), somnolence (8.6%), insomnia (6.2%), and nausea (5.7%). There were no flibanserin-related serious AEs and no instances of suicidal ideation. The safety profile of flibanserin was similar for premenopausal and postmenopausal women. The FSDS-R total scores and FSDS-R item 13 scores were numerically lower at weeks 4, 12, and 20 than at baseline (decrease in distress owing to low desire) for premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Mean FSFI total scores were numerically higher at weeks 4, 12, and 20 than at baseline, irrespective of menopausal status of the patients., Clinical Implications: The results of this study support the safety and tolerability of flibanserin for the treatment of HSDD in premenopausal and naturally postmenopausal women., Strengths and Limitations: Although this open-label study was designed to be 28 weeks long, it was discontinued early by the sponsor, and patients' maximum duration of exposure to flibanserin was 23.9 weeks. The open-label design and lack of a placebo-controlled arm are other study limitations., Conclusion: In this open-label study, flibanserin 100 mg once daily at bedtime was generally safe and well tolerated by premenopausal and naturally postmenopausal women with HSDD. Simon JA, Derogatis L, Portman D, et al. Flibanserin for Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder: An Open-Label Safety Study. J Sex Med 2018;15:387-395., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. However, standard antiemetic therapy is not completely effective in all patients., Methods: We conducted an open-label, single-center, single-arm Phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine in combination with standard antiemetic therapy in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic malignancy receiving their first cycle of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Patients received 5 mg oral olanzapine on Days 1-5 in combination with standard antiemetic therapy. The primary endpoint was complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) during the overall Phase (0-120 h post-chemotherapy)., Results: Twenty-three men and seven women were enrolled between May and October 2015. The median age was 64 years (range: 36-75 years). The most common chemotherapy regimen was 75 mg/m2 cisplatin and 500 mg/m2 pemetrexed, which was administered to 14 patients. Complete response rates in acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy) and overall phases were 100%, 83% and 83% (90% confidence interval: 70-92%; 95% confidence interval: 66-93%), respectively. There were no Grade 3 or Grade 4 adverse events. Although four patients (13%) experienced Grade 1 somnolence, no patients discontinued olanzapine., Conclusions: The addition of 5 mg oral olanzapine to standard antiemetic therapy demonstrates promising efficacy in preventing cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and an acceptable safety profile in patients with thoracic malignancy., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Three-weekly high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m 2 ) is considered the standard systemic regimen given concurrently with postoperative or definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN). However, due to unsatisfactory patient tolerance, various weekly low-dose schedules have been increasingly used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy, safety, and compliance between these two approaches., Materials and Methods: We systematically searched literature for prospective trials of patients with LA-SCCHN who received postoperative or definitive conventionally fractionated concurrent chemoradiation. Radiation doses were usually 60-66 gray (Gy) in the postoperative setting and 66-70 Gy in the definitive setting. Standard, three-weekly high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m 2 , 3 doses) was compared with the weekly low-dose protocol (≤50 mg/m 2 , ≥6 doses). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary outcomes comprised response rate, acute and late adverse events, and treatment compliance., Results: Fifty-two studies with 4,209 patients were included in two separate meta-analyses according to the two clinical settings. There was no difference in treatment efficacy as measured by overall survival or response rate between the chemoradiation settings with low-dose weekly and high-dose three-weekly cisplatin regimens. In the definitive treatment setting, the weekly regimen was more compliant and significantly less toxic with respect to severe (grade 3-4) myelosuppression (leukopenia p  = .0083; neutropenia p  = .0024), severe nausea and/or vomiting ( p  < .0001), and severe nephrotoxicity ( p  = .0099). Although in the postoperative setting the two approaches were more equal in compliance and with clearly less differences in the cisplatin-induced toxicities, the weekly approach induced more grade 3-4 dysphagia ( p  = .0026) and weight loss ( p  < .0001)., Conclusion: In LA-SCCHN, current evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a meaningful survival difference between the two dosing regimens. Prior to its adoption into routine clinical practice, the low-dose weekly approach needs to be prospectively compared with the standard three-weekly high-dose schedule., Implications for Practice: Given concurrently with conventional radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer, high-dose three-weekly cisplatin has often been replaced with weekly low-dose infusions to increase compliance and decrease toxicity. The present meta-analysis suggests that both approaches might be equal in efficacy, both in the definitive and postoperative settings, but differ in toxicity. However, some toxicity data can be influenced by unbalanced representation, and the conclusions are not based on adequately sized prospective randomized studies. Therefore, low-dose weekly cisplatin should not be used outside clinical trials but first prospectively studied in adequately sized phase III trials versus the high-dose three-weekly approach., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of duloxetine 60 mg in Japanese patients with fibromyalgia enrolled from a preceding randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III duloxetine trial., Methods: This was a long-term, open-label extension study. Patients received oral duloxetine once daily at a dose of 20 mg for 1 week, followed by 40 mg for 1 week, and then 60 mg for 48 weeks. The primary outcome was the frequency of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of duloxetine. Efficacy and health outcomes were assessed., Results: In total, 149 patients were enrolled from the preceding study. The median length of treatment was 364.0 days. The incidence of AEs and ADRs was 92.6 and 63.8%, respectively. ADRs occurring at an incidence of ≥5% were somnolence, constipation, nausea, weight increase, thirst, and malaise. The proportion of patients with mild, moderate, and severe AEs was 80.5, 10.1, and 2.0%. There were no serious treatment-related AEs in this study. The Brief Pain Inventory average pain score improved at all time-points compared with baseline (mean change ± standard deviation at Week 50 was -1.31 ± 1.70)., Conclusions: Duloxetine was safe and effective in the long-term treatment of Japanese patients with fibromyalgia.

Purpose: An expanding array of options for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), including regimens containing olanzapine or recently approved neurokinin 1 (NK 1 ) receptor antagonists, are reviewed., Summary: Up to 80% of patients receiving chemotherapy have CINV. Current practice guidelines recommend that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy also receive a 3-drug antiemetic regimen initiated on the day of and continued for 3 days after chemotherapy administration, with the most commonly used 3-drug regimen consisting of an NK 1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT 3 ) receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. Developments in the area of CINV management in recent years include the use of olanzapine in combination with a 5-HT 3 antagonist and dexamethasone; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the NK 1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, which provides a longer duration of effect than aprepitant; FDA approval of a combination product containing palonosetron and the NK 1 receptor antagonist netupitant; and revisions of U.S. practice guidelines ending palonosetron's status as the preferred 5-HT 3 antagonist for prevention of CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy., Conclusion: Newer therapeutic options for the management of CINV are equivalent to standard-of-care regimens in terms of efficacy and toxicity. While the NK 1 receptor antagonist rolapitant and a product combining palonosetron and netupitant have potential advantages over standard therapy in terms of convenience or pharmacologic properties, their relatively high costs must be considered., (Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Irinotecan-based chemotherapy is a standard backbone of therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) or gastric cancer (GC). However, there is still a paucity of information concerning the efficacy and safety of irinotecan-based regimens in elderly patients., Patients and Methods: Using the patient cohort ( n  = 1,545) from the UGT1A1 genotype study, we compared the efficacy and safety between elderly and nonelderly patients with metastatic CRC ( n  = 934) or GC ( n  = 611) who received first- or second-line FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy., Results: Despite lower relative dose intensity in elderly patients, progression-free survival and overall survival were similar between elderly (age ≥70 years) and nonelderly (<70 years) patients in the CRC cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 1.117; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.927-1.345; p  = .244, and HR, 0.989; 95% CI, 0.774-1.264; p  = .931, respectively) and the GC cohort (HR, 1.093; 95% CI, 0.854-1.400; p  = .479, and HR, 1.188; 95% CI, 0.891-1.585; p  = .241, respectively). In both cohorts, febrile neutropenia (22.1% vs. 14.6% in CRC cohort and 35.2% vs. 22.5% in GC cohort) and asthenia (grade 3: 8.4% vs. 1.7% in CRC cohort and 5.5% vs. 2.9% in GC cohort) were more frequent in elderly patients. In the CRC cohort, mucositis and anorexia were more frequent in elderly patients. In the GC cohort, nausea and vomiting were less frequent in elderly patients., Conclusion: The efficacy of the FOLFIRI regimen was similar between elderly and nonelderly patients in both the CRC and the GC cohorts. However, special attention should be paid to elderly patients because of increased risk for febrile neutropenia and asthenia. The Oncologist 2017;22:293-303 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The efficacy of FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer or gastric cancer was similar to that in nonelderly patients. However, special attention should be paid to elderly patients because of the increased risk for febrile neutropenia and asthenia. These data suggest that the FOLFIRI regimen could be considered as a standard backbone of therapy in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer or gastric cancer and that the clinical decision between doublet and singlet chemotherapy may not be based solely on age. However, the data require further assessment of frailty and performance status., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

Chemotherapy is an indispensable therapeutic approach for esophageal cancer. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most crucial adverse events, the current state of CINV in patients with esophageal cancer remains unclear. This multicenter prospective observational study analyzed data for 192 patents with esophageal cancer who underwent moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The patients recorded their CINV incidence and severity daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy, using visual analog scales (VAS). Of the 192 patients, 181 received HEC including cisplatin, and 11 patients received MEC including nedaplatin. Approximately 81% of HEC and 82% of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Although CINV was controlled relatively well in the early phase (days 1-4), it was not fully controlled in late phase (days 5-7) for both the HEC and MEC groups. Female sex was a major risk factor for delayed vomiting (P=0.034). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for VAS revealed that motion sickness, age, and use of other antiemetics were risk factors for delayed nausea. Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed CINV in both HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will help develop personalized treatments for CINV. In the clinical setting for esophageal cancer, regimens that include nedaplatin might need to be treated as HEC., (© 2016 International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.)

Medical marijuana continues to gain acceptance and become legalized in many states. Various species of the marijuana plant have been cultivated, and this plant can contain up to 100 active compounds known as cannabinoids. Two cannabinoids seem the most clinically relevant: Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which tends to produce the psychotropic effects commonly associated with marijuana, and cannabidiol (CBD), which may produce therapeutic effects without appreciable psychoactive properties. Smoking marijuana, or ingesting extracts from the whole plant orally (in baked goods, teas, and so forth), introduces variable amounts of THC, CBD, and other minor cannabinoids into the systemic circulation, where they ultimately reach the central and peripheral nervous systems. Alternatively, products containing THC, CBD, or a combination of both compounds, can be ingested as oral tablets or via sprays applied to the oral mucosal membranes. These products may provide a more predictable method for delivering a known amount of specific cannabinoids into the body. Although there is still a need for randomized controlled trials, preliminary studies have suggested that medical marijuana and related cannabinoids may be beneficial in treating people with chronic pain, inflammation, spasticity, and other conditions seen commonly in physical therapist practice. Physical therapists, therefore, should be aware of the options that are available for patients considering medical marijuana and should be ready to provide information for these patients. Clinicians also should be aware that marijuana can produce untoward effects on cognition, coordination, balance, and cardiovascular and pulmonary function and should be vigilant for any problems that may arise if patients are using cannabinoids during physical rehabilitation., (© 2017 American Physical Therapy Association.)

Background: Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) are widely used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Whether the efficacy and toxicity of antiemesis are different among various NK-1RA-based triple regimens is unknown., Methods: Data of complete responses (CRs) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted from electronic databases. Efficacy and toxicity were integrated by pairwise and network meta-analyses., Results: Thirty-six trials involving 18 889 patients using triple regimens (NK-1RA+serotonin receptor antagonists [5HT3RA] + dexamethasone) or duplex regimen (5HT3RA+dexamethasone) to control CINV were included in the analysis. Different NK-1RA-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CRs. In patients with HEC, almost all triple regimens showed statistically significantly higher CRs than duplex regimen (odds ratio [OR] duplex/triple = 0.47-0.66). However, in patients with MEC, only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better effect than duplex regimen statistically significantly in CRs (OR duplex/triple = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34 to 0.68). No statistically significant difference of TRAEs was found among different triple regimens. Palonosetron-based triple regimens were equivalent to first-generation 5HT3RAs-based triple regimens for CRs. Moreover, different doses of dexamethasone plus NK-1RA and 5HT3RA showed no statistically significant difference in CRs., Conclusions: Different NK-1RAs-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CINV control. Various triple regimens had superior antiemetic effect than duplex regimen in patients with HEC. Only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better CINV control compared with duplex regimen in patients receiving MEC. Palonosetron and first-generation 5HT3RAs might share equivalent CINV control in the combination of NK-1RAs and dexamethasone. Lower doses of dexamethasone might be applied when used with NK-1RAs and 5HT3RAs., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Liver transplantation (LTx) is considered a safe procedure in selected HIV-infected patients. In this clinical setting raltegravir is the antiretroviral of choice due to its optimal tolerability and its negligible interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. We aimed at providing data on the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir in LTx recipients, on which the available information is inconclusive., Methods: In this retrospective multicentre study we characterized the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir in a consecutive series of HIV-infected LTx recipients referred to our laboratory for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and compared the obtained profiles with those collected from a control group of HIV-infected patients., Results: Seventeen HIV-infected LTx patients were considered. LTx recipients had significantly higher raltegravir AUC0-12 compared with the control group of HIV-infected patients [14 314 (11 627-19 998) versus 8795 (5218-12 954) ng·h/mL; P < 0.01]. Two LTx patients experienced moderate increments in serum transaminases, nausea and vomiting that improved after raltegravir dose reduction., Conclusions: High raltegravir exposure and acceptable safety profile were observed in HIV-infected LTx recipients. Our results highlight that some patients may obtain an advantage from TDM-guided raltegravir dose adjustments with potential benefits in terms of drug tolerability., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Standard prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with highly emetogenic and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy includes a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), and corticosteroid therapy. NEPA is a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron. The primary objective of this analysis was to document the safety profile, including cardiac safety, of NEPA + dexamethasone in comparison with current therapies across all phase II/III trials., Materials and Methods: This pooled analysis was based on data from 3,280 patients in 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 pooled groups on the basis of actual treatment received: NEPA + dexamethasone, palonosetron + dexamethasone, and aprepitant + ondansetron/palonosetron + dexamethasone. Safety was assessed by number and frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline electrocardiogram measures., Results: Most patients were female and younger than 65 years of age. Demographic characteristics varied among studies and pooled groups. Frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar across groups. TEAEs were mostly mild and consistent with expected chemotherapy and disease-related AEs (hematologic events, hair loss, general weakness). TRAEs in ≥2% of patients were headache and constipation. Frequencies of cardiac TEAEs were similar across groups, with QT prolongation (1.6%), tachycardia (1.1%), and dyspnea (0.9%) the most common. Serious cardiac TEAEs were rare., Conclusion: NEPA was well-tolerated, with an AE profile as expected for the regimen. Sample size, demographic characteristics, study design, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimen differences across the four studies may have contributed to differences in frequencies of neutropenia and alopecia. Adding an NK1RA to a CINV prophylaxis regimen can improve outcomes without additional toxicity., Implications for Practice: Supportive care for cancer should ideally be efficacious, convenient, and well-tolerated. There have been concerns about cardiac safety with current antiemetic prophylactic agents, namely dolasetron and ondansetron. This pooled safety analysis demonstrates that the new oral fixed combination therapy NEPA can be safely added to an antiemetic regimen without increased toxicity., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sunitinib following at least one course of radioactive iodine treatment in patients with advanced differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). The study endpoints included best response rate (including best objective response rate) and progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, measurement of serum thyroglobulin (Tg), and toxicity evaluation., Design and Methods: This was a single center, nonrandomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial. In total, 23 patients were enrolled and were treated with a starting daily, oral dose of 37.5  mg sunitinib. Patients were evaluated with imaging, laboratory tests, and physical examination periodically per protocol., Results: The mean best response was a decrease of 17.2% (S.D. 22.8) in tumor sum from baseline. Six (26%) patients achieved a partial response (PR), and 13 (57%) had stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate (PR+SD) of 83%. The overall median PFS was 241 days (interquartile limits, 114-518). No statistically significant difference was observed between the medians of the baseline and post-treatment Tg values (P=0.24). The most common adverse events included grades 1 and 2 decreases in blood cell counts (especially leukocytes), diarrhea, fatigue, hand-foot skin reaction, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, and hypertension., Conclusions: These data demonstrate that sunitinib exhibits significant anti-tumor activity in patients with advanced DTC. Since sunitinib was relatively well-tolerated, there is the potential for clinical benefit in these patients, and further investigation of this agent is warranted., (© 2016 European Society of Endocrinology.)

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most debilitating toxicities associated with cancer treatment. In recent decades, significant strides have been made in our understanding of the pathophysiology of CINV, making way to more effective targeted pharmacotherapies, especially 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonists and neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists. As much as 70%-80% of CINV can be prevented with appropriate administration of available antiemetics. Nevertheless, fear of CINV still may diminish cancer treatment adherence. To assimilate and summarise the rapidly growing body of clinical research literature on CINV, three professional organisations-the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-have created CINV management guidelines. While these respective guidelines are developed from similar consensus processes using similar clinical research literature, their results demonstrate several key differences in recommended strategies. This article aims to provide an overview of CINV pathophysiology, compare and contrast three expert guidelines and offer considerations for future clinical and research challenges., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: A combination of serotonin receptor (5-hydroxytryptamine receptor type 3) antagonists, NK-1 receptor antagonist, and steroid improves the complete response (CR) of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients. Ramosetron's efficacy in this triple combination regimen has not been investigated. This prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, phase III study compares a combination of ramosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (RAD) with a combination of ondansetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (OAD) to prove the noninferiority of RAD in controlling highly emetogenic CINV., Methods: Aprepitant and dexamethasone were orally administered for both arms. Ramosetron and ondansetron were intravenously given to the RAD and OAD groups. The primary endpoint was no vomiting and retching and no need for rescue medication during the acute period (day 1); the noninferiority margin was -15%., Results: A total of 299 modified intention-to-treat cancer patients who received RAD (144 patients) and OAD (155 patients) were eligible for the efficacy analysis. The CR rates of RAD versus OAD were 97.2% versus 93.6% during the acute period, 77.8% versus 73.6% during the delayed period (day 2-5), and 77.1% versus 71.6% during the overall period. Furthermore, RAD was noninferior to OAD in subgroups stratified by age, cancer type, chemotherapeutic agents, and schedule. Repeated measures analysis showed that in male patients, RAD was superior to OAD. Profiles of adverse events were similar in both groups., Conclusion: RAD is as effective and tolerable as OAD for CINV prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Ramosetron could be considered one of the best partners for aprepitant., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting using two different instruments and relate them to quality of life (QOL) in patients with cancer receiving antineoplastic treatment., Methods: Severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was measured by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and a numerical scale. QOL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire., Key Findings: Of the 50 patients studied, 60.0% reported nausea (40.0% CTCAE grade 1; 66.7% moderate intensity on numerical scale) and 30.0% reported vomiting (46.7% CTCAE grades 1 and 2, each; 66.7% moderate intensity on numerical scale). CINV did not influence overall QOL., Conclusion: The frequency of CINV was high. There was no association between nausea/vomiting and overall QOL., (© 2015 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Background: Although long treatment courses of outpatient antimicrobials are often used in pediatric patients, few data exist regarding the frequency of adverse events (AEs) associated with these medications., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients seen in the Infectious Diseases clinic at a tertiary referral children's hospital from August 1, 2009 to August 1, 2011. We included patients who received ≥14 days of oral or intravenous antibiotic, antiviral, or antifungal medications. Patients receiving only prophylactic medications or human immunodeficiency virus treatment were excluded., Results: Three hundred thirty-five subjects met inclusion criteria, with a median age of 7.4 years at start of therapy. The cohort was predominantly male (60%), white (54%), and previously healthy (59%). A majority (88.4%) of subjects were treated for bacterial infections. β-Lactam agents were the most commonly used antimicrobial class (210 subjects; 62.7%), followed by clindamycin (86; 25.7%), rifampin (76; 22.7%), and vancomycin (62; 18.5%). Overall, 107 (31.9%) subjects experienced 151 distinct AEs. The most common individual AE noted was diarrhea (44; 29.1% of all AEs). Serious AEs developed in 42 (12.5%) subjects, including allergic reactions (15; 11.3% of all AEs), venous catheter-related complications (14; 13.0% of those with catheters), neutropenia (9; 3.0%), renal insufficiency (7; 2.5%), and hepatotoxicity (3; 1.1%). Rates of AEs were similar between those on oral and intravenous antimicrobials., Conclusions: In our study population, patients on prolonged oral or intravenous outpatient antimicrobials experienced AEs frequently. These findings support the need for close monitoring of pediatric patients on prolonged antimicrobial therapy and vigilance for unwanted effects of these medications., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)