Search

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common side effects, classified according to timing and severity. Conventional agents such as dexamethasone are effective but have various side effects. For moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapies have been developed to minimize these side effects. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)., Methods: We performed a thorough literature search for studies related to dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy with neurokinin-1 antagonists (NK 1 RA) for HEC using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases. A qualitative analysis of the combined data was performed and risk differences with confidence intervals were calculated., Results: Two reviewers independently assessed the 425 records and 12 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility. Two studies were included in the qualitative and meta-analyses. These studies included anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) regimens and cisplatin-based regimens, with palonosetron as the serotonin receptor antagonist. In the two studies, no difference was found in the prevention of vomiting (delayed complete response). However, non-inferiority was not demonstrated in the subgroup that received cisplatin-containing regimens. Delayed complete control showed different results for nausea prevention; however, there was no significant difference in the meta-analysis. Only one report has shown non-inferiority for delayed total control. Although the strength of evidence for individual outcomes varied, there was no difference in the duration of dexamethasone administration., Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy with NK 1 RA and palonosetron can be used to prevent CINV in HEC, limited to AC combination therapy., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly affects patient quality of life and the overall effectiveness of chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT 3 RAs) and corticosteroids provides clinically meaningful benefits in preventing CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC)., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web to identify clinical studies evaluating NK1RAs combined with 5-HT 3 RAs and dexamethasone for managing CINV in MEC. The endpoints were complete response (CR), complete control (CC), total control (TC), adverse events, and costs. The data were analyzed using a random effects model., Results: From 142 articles identified, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 4,405 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Approximately 60% of the patients received carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. The meta-analysis showed that triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1RA was significantly more effective for achieving CR than doublet prophylaxis in each phase. Regarding CC, the triplet antiemetic prophylaxis was significantly more effective than the doublet in the overall (risk difference [RD]: 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.17) and delayed (RD: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.13) phases. For TC, no significant differences were observed in any phase. Adding NK1RA did not cause adverse events., Conclusions: Adding NK1RA to CBDCA-based chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits. However, the clinical benefits of NK1RA-containing regimens for overall MEC have not yet been established and require RCTs that exclusively evaluate MEC regimens other than CBDCA-based chemotherapy., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

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

The purpose of this article is to disseminate the standard of antiemetic therapy for Japanese clinical oncologists. On the basis of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument, which reflects evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, a working group of the Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) reviewed clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis and performed a systematic review of evidence-based domestic practice guidelines for antiemetic therapy in Japan. In addition, because health-insurance systems in Japan are different from those in other countries, a consensus was reached regarding standard treatments for chemotherapy that induce nausea and vomiting. Current evidence was collected by use of MEDLINE, from materials from meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and from European Society of Medical Oncology/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer guidelines for antiemesis. Initially, 21 clinical questions (CQ) were selected on the basis of CQs from other guidelines. Patients treated with highly emetic agents should receive a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5HT3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist. For patients with moderate emetic risk, 5HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone were recommended, whereas for those receiving chemotherapy with low emetic risk dexamethasone only is recommended. Patients receiving high-emetic-risk radiation therapy should also receive a 5HT3 receptor antagonist. In this paper the 2010 JSCO clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis are presented in English; they reveal high concordance of Japanese medical circumstances with other antiemetic guidelines that are similarly based on evidence.

Background: Japan Society of Clinical Oncology published a guideline for anti-emetic therapy two years ago. This guideline was a first evidence based guideline of anti-emetic treatment for the patients who received chemotherapy in Japan. To investigate a current situation of anti-emetic treatment in Japan, we analyzed the data from nationwide questionnaire., Material: Questionnaire analysis; From June 2012 to August 2012, we gave 24 questionnaires on the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Website and collected the response from the member of 5 major academic oncology societies. The questionnaires included degree of recognition, penetration, usefulness, problems and user type of medial stuff for the anti-emetic guideline published by (JSCO)., Results: Questionnaire; 1,529 medical stuff responded to our questionnaire. 1,308 (85.5%) stuffs recognized JSCO guidelines, 586 (51%) had regard for guideline and 489 (42.6%) referred to the guideline. 899 (78.3%) changed their practice in clinic to recommended practice by the guideline. But 385 (33.5%) complained high medical cost of recommended anti-emetic therapy., Conclusions: Degree of recognition and penetration of our guideline for anti-emetic therapy were very high in Japan.

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), is more effective than first-generation 5-HT3RA. Several studies have investigated whether dexamethasone (DEX), when combined with palonosetron as a 5-HT3RA, can be spared in the delayed phase after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine which between 1- and 3-day DEX administration, when combined with palonosetron, is more useful in patients receiving MEC.The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2020. We included studies that compared the efficacy of 1- and 3-day DEX administration in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with MEC. Outcomes were “prevention of vomiting (complete response rate and no vomiting rate),” “prevention of nausea” (complete control rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, and no clinically significant nausea rate)” in the delayed phase, “prevention of blood glucose level elevation,” and “prevention of osteoporosis.”Eight studies were included in this systematic review. The no vomiting rate was significantly higher in the 3-day DEX group than in the 1-day DEX group. However, the other efficacy items did not significantly differ between the two groups. Meanwhile, insufficient evidence was obtained for “prevention of blood glucose level elevation” and “prevention of osteoporosis.”No significant differences in most antiemetic effects were found between 1- and 3-day DEX administration. Thus, DEX administration could be shortened from 3 days to 1 day when used in combination with palonosetron.Methods: Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), is more effective than first-generation 5-HT3RA. Several studies have investigated whether dexamethasone (DEX), when combined with palonosetron as a 5-HT3RA, can be spared in the delayed phase after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine which between 1- and 3-day DEX administration, when combined with palonosetron, is more useful in patients receiving MEC.The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2020. We included studies that compared the efficacy of 1- and 3-day DEX administration in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with MEC. Outcomes were “prevention of vomiting (complete response rate and no vomiting rate),” “prevention of nausea” (complete control rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, and no clinically significant nausea rate)” in the delayed phase, “prevention of blood glucose level elevation,” and “prevention of osteoporosis.”Eight studies were included in this systematic review. The no vomiting rate was significantly higher in the 3-day DEX group than in the 1-day DEX group. However, the other efficacy items did not significantly differ between the two groups. Meanwhile, insufficient evidence was obtained for “prevention of blood glucose level elevation” and “prevention of osteoporosis.”No significant differences in most antiemetic effects were found between 1- and 3-day DEX administration. Thus, DEX administration could be shortened from 3 days to 1 day when used in combination with palonosetron.Results: Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), is more effective than first-generation 5-HT3RA. Several studies have investigated whether dexamethasone (DEX), when combined with palonosetron as a 5-HT3RA, can be spared in the delayed phase after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine which between 1- and 3-day DEX administration, when combined with palonosetron, is more useful in patients receiving MEC.The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2020. We included studies that compared the efficacy of 1- and 3-day DEX administration in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with MEC. Outcomes were “prevention of vomiting (complete response rate and no vomiting rate),” “prevention of nausea” (complete control rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, and no clinically significant nausea rate)” in the delayed phase, “prevention of blood glucose level elevation,” and “prevention of osteoporosis.”Eight studies were included in this systematic review. The no vomiting rate was significantly higher in the 3-day DEX group than in the 1-day DEX group. However, the other efficacy items did not significantly differ between the two groups. Meanwhile, insufficient evidence was obtained for “prevention of blood glucose level elevation” and “prevention of osteoporosis.”No significant differences in most antiemetic effects were found between 1- and 3-day DEX administration. Thus, DEX administration could be shortened from 3 days to 1 day when used in combination with palonosetron.Conclusions: Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), is more effective than first-generation 5-HT3RA. Several studies have investigated whether dexamethasone (DEX), when combined with palonosetron as a 5-HT3RA, can be spared in the delayed phase after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine which between 1- and 3-day DEX administration, when combined with palonosetron, is more useful in patients receiving MEC.The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2020. We included studies that compared the efficacy of 1- and 3-day DEX administration in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with MEC. Outcomes were “prevention of vomiting (complete response rate and no vomiting rate),” “prevention of nausea” (complete control rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, and no clinically significant nausea rate)” in the delayed phase, “prevention of blood glucose level elevation,” and “prevention of osteoporosis.”Eight studies were included in this systematic review. The no vomiting rate was significantly higher in the 3-day DEX group than in the 1-day DEX group. However, the other efficacy items did not significantly differ between the two groups. Meanwhile, insufficient evidence was obtained for “prevention of blood glucose level elevation” and “prevention of osteoporosis.”No significant differences in most antiemetic effects were found between 1- and 3-day DEX administration. Thus, DEX administration could be shortened from 3 days to 1 day when used in combination with palonosetron. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]