Search

Background: The use of inhaled isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been proposed as a therapeutic intervention for the relief of nausea in various settings. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the existing evidence for the use of inhaled IPA in the management of nausea and vomiting. Methods: We performed a literature search on Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases before November 2021. The following concepts were searched using subject headings and keywords as needed "aromatherapy," "alcohol," "ethylic alcohol," "ethanol," "isopropyl alcohol," "emesis," "chemotherapy-induced," "pregnancy," "hyperemesis gravidarum," "motion sickness," "emetics," "antiemetics," "inhalation," and "inhale." Searches were not limited to a specific language. The bibliographies of identified articles were also manually searched. Two authors independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias. Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials out of 158 studies identified met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1253 participants. Twelve studies were conducted in the postoperative anesthesia care unit and two studies were performed in the emergency department setting. Four studies were double blinded, one was single blind, and eight were open label. Three studies assessed the use of inhaled IPA for prevention, whereas 10 studies evaluated its use in the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Seven studies reported IPA to be more effective, four studies reported no difference, and two studies reported IPA to be ineffective. Participant satisfaction was high overall, regardless of intervention received. No adverse effects were reported. The overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: There is a lack of strong evidence to support the use of inhaled IPA in the management of nausea and vomiting. Additional trials are warranted to confirm this finding and to further explore the use of inhaled IPA in various populations and settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In our study we found that the overall meta-analysis of all cancer related fatigue (CRF) treatment studies showed significant reduction of CRF. The meta-analysis did not show significant reduction of CRF with treatment ginseng, guarana, megestrol, mistletoe, psychostimulants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/antidepressants. Metanalysis of Corticosteroids studies showed significant reduction in CRF. Further studies are needed. Purpose: In this study we aimed to estimate the effectiveness of pharmacological, nutraceutical, and phytopharmaceutical treatments on CRF. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Psych info, CINHAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 30 September 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, nutraceutical and phytopharmaceutical interventions for treatment of CRF for at least one week duration and have used valid tool to assess severity of CRF as a primary or secondary outcome were considered. Results: 32 eligible studies (4896 patients) were reviewed. For the overall meta-analysis, the random effect models yielded the treatment effect (95% CI) of −0.29 (−0.48,−0.09), p < 0.001. The meta-analysis did not show significant reduction of CRF with treatment with ginseng (n = 6), guarana (n = 3), megestrol (n = 2), mistletoe (n = 3), psychostimulants (n = 14), SSRI/antidepressants (n = 2). Corticosteroids (n = 2) showed significant reduction in CRF with treatment effects of 0.94 (−1.21, −0.67), p <0.0001, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, overall meta-analysis of all studies demonstrates significant reduction of CRF using Pharmacological, Nutraceutical and Phytopharmaceutical interventions with a pooled standardized treatment effect of −0.29. Metanalysis of Corticosteroids studies showed significant reduction in CRF. Further studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with cancer-related pain use opioids for nociceptive pain, while gabapentinoids are common to treat neuropathic pain. The simultaneous use of opioids with gabapentinoids has been associated with an increased risk of opioid-related death. Objectives: Determine the frequency of combined use of gabapentinoids among patients receiving opioids for cancer-related pain. We also examined if concomitant use of opioids and gabapentinoids together was associated with increased scores of fatigue and drowsiness on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) compared to patients on opioids. Design: Retrospective study of patients on opioids and opioids plus gabapentinoids at their third visit to the outpatient Supportive Care Center. Results: We found that 48% (508/1059) of patients were on opioids. Of these patients, 51% (257/508) were on opioids only, and 49% (251/508) were on opioids plus gabapentinoids. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) morphine equivalent daily dose for patients on opioids was 75 (45, 138) mg, and opioids plus gabapentinoids was 68 (38, 150) mg (p = 0.94). The median (IQR) gabapentinoid equivalent daily dose was 900 (300, 1200) mg. The median (IQR) for ESAS-fatigue in patients on opioids was 5 (3, 7), and opioids plus gabapentinoids was 5 (3, 7) (p = 0.27). The median (IQR) for ESAS-drowsiness in patients on opioids was 3 (0, 5), and opioids plus gabapentinoids was 3 (0, 6) (p = 0.11). Conclusion: Almost 50% of advanced cancer patients receiving opioids for pain were exposed to gabapentinoids. Maximal efforts should be made to minimize potential complications from the concomitant use of opioids with gabapentinoids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]