Control Of Nausea Research Articles

A systematic review and meta-analysis on evaluating the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron compared to aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy.

823 Background: NEPA stands as the exclusive oral fixed combination antiemetic agent, comprising the highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) netupitant (300 mg) and the clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (0.5 mg). Administered in a single dose, NEPA concurrently modulates two critical antiemetic pathways, offering a more convenient and straightforward alternative for sustained protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea andvomiting (CINV). Numerous studies have assessed NEPA's efficacy relative to other Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), notably aprepitant (APR), widely utilized for CINV. Our study critically examines the efficacy and safety of NEPA versus APR for preventing CINV in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, drawing insights from recent studies. Methods: Studies comparing NEPA versus APR for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy until August 2024 were systematically searched on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Notably, no systematic review or meta-analysis of pooled data from existing studies is currently present in the literature. Results: Following screening, four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis, encompassing a total of 2079 patients. The NEPA group comprised 1047 individuals, while the APR group comprised 1032 subjects. The primary outcome included the comparison of subjects experiencing no nausea in overall phases. Secondary outcomes involved subjects with no emesis and no nausea in the acute and delayed phases. A significant reduction in the risk of overall nausea in the NEPA group was observed compared to the APR group after Moderately Emetogenic Therapy (MEC) or Highly Emetogenic Therapy (HEC) [Risk Ratio (RR) of 1.07, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.01-1.13, P = 0.01). A trend of reduced emesis during both acute [RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.95-1.22, P = 0.24] and delayed periods [RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.99-1.07, P = 0.15] was observed in the NEPA group, but the results were not statistically significant. Significant nausea in the acute and delayed post-chemotherapy periods exhibited a similar trend (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.98-1.06, P = 0.43) and (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.98-1.10, P = 0.23) respectively, with non-significant statistical outcomes. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that the use of NEPA results in better control of nausea in overall phases compared to Aprepitant for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. However, NEPA demonstrates comparable efficacy to aprepitant in achieving control of nausea and emesis when the symptoms are stratified in acute and delayed phases. Nevertheless, further studies are warranted for a comprehensive comparison between NEPA and Aprepitant for the prevention of CINV.

Fact-finding and risk factor analysis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children with solid tumors: a prospective observational study

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to describe the control of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children with solid tumors receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) at our center. Additionally, the study aimed to explore the risk factors for chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) with the ultimate goal of enhancing CINV management for children.MethodsChildren aged 1–18 years with solid tumors treated with HEC were enrolled. A structured diary was used to record CINV data, and the pediatric nausea assessment tool (PeNAT) was employed to assess the degree of nausea. The primary outcome was achieving complete CIV control in the acute phase for all children, and secondary outcomes included the control of acute phase CINV, CIV, and chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) in children aged ≥ 4 years. Data on children were prospectively collected, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to explore risk factors for complete CIV control.ResultsA total of 181 children were included, with 52.5% (95/181) experiencing acute phase complete CIV control. Eighty-six children aged ≥ 4 years could be evaluated for acute phase CINV control, and complete CINV control was achieved in 27.9% (24/86), with CIV, CIN complete control rates were 41.9% (36/86) and 34.9% (30/86), respectively. The results of multivariate logistic regression showed age (< 2 years vs. >6 years: OR = 0.186, 95% CI 0.062 ~ 0.56; 2 ~ 6 years vs. >6 years: OR = 0.322, 95% CI 0.145 ~ 0.715), female (OR = 2.034, 95% CI 1.035 ~ 3.994), duration of chemotherapy block (OR = 1.611, 95%CI 1.039 ~ 2.499), and antiemetic regimen (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RA) vs. 5HT3RA + dexamethasone: OR = 0.395, 95% CI 0.171 ~ 0.914) were statistically significant in complete CIV control (P < 0.05).ConclusionsChildren with solid tumors treated with HEC at our center experienced suboptimal control of CINV. Older age, female, and a longer duration of the chemotherapy block were identified as risk factors for complete CIV control. Receipt of 5HT3RA plus dexamethasone had a higher likelihood of acute phase complete CIV control versus 5HT3RA. In the future, individualized management of nausea and vomiting, based on existing CINV guidelines and the unique characteristics of children, will be necessary to reduce the incidence of CINV and improve the quality of life for these children.

Prospective clinical evidence from over 1,000 pan-cancer patients: a complement to fosaprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BackgroundChemotherapy-induced nausea and/or vomiting (CINV) is an intractable adverse effect of anticancer drugs. Although prophylactic use of fosaprepitant may be effective in reducing CINV, there is a lack of studies evaluating the application of fosaprepitant in real world.Aims and methodsThis study prospectively observed the effectiveness and safety for the prophylaxis of CINV in a real-world clinical setting. A single dose fosaprepitant 150 mg was intravenously administered to enrolled patients 30 min prior to the chemotherapy drug. Initial data were recorded and patients were followed for 120 h (5 days). The primary endpoint is the complete response (CR) rate and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs). The second endpoint is the use of rescue therapy. We also performed stratified analyses to investigate the impact of different factors on fosaprepitant for the prevention of CINV in the acute phase.ResultsBetween March 2021 to August 2021, 1001 patients were enrolled in this study. CR was 77.32%, 93.61%, and 76.72% for vomiting control in 0–24 h, 24–120 h, and 0–120 h respectively, and 97.4%, 99.1%, and 96.9% for nausea control. No SAEs were recorded. 23.48% or 3.1% of patients needed rescue therapy for vomiting or nausea control respectively, most of which occurred in the acute phase. CR rate decreased with increasing emetogenicity of chemotherapeutic agents.ConclusionsSingle-dose fosaprepitant has shown good performance in real-world clinical practice. This study is the first to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant for the prevention of CINV in a real-world clinical setting and may be a good complement to the clinical data.

The evolving landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: inspiration from cisplatin-based antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials

BackgroundDespite the significant advancements in antiemetic regimens for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), over 40% of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy still experience CINV in clinical practice. To figure out underlying reasons and outline the landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV, our focus centered on cisplatin, one of the most commonly used highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs. We aimed to elucidate trends in CINV management by analyzing data extracted from cisplatin-based clinical trials.MethodsWe extracted CINV-related data from 156 eligible randomized clinical trials, comprising 39 antiemetic trials and 117 non-antiemetic trials, all with patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Subsequently, we conducted separate analyses of the extracted CINV data within antiemetic and non-antiemetic trial groups, as well as comparisons between them.ResultsOver the years, both antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials showed significant improvements in no-vomiting rates, although gains in no-nausea rates were more modest. Notably, antiemetic trials frequently underreported outcomes related to nausea control. There was a distinct yet gradually narrowing disparity in vomiting control rates between antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials during the same time frame. While non-antiemetic trials achieved comparable CINV control rates using the same antiemetic regimen as antiemetic trials, they exhibited significantly greater variations in no-vomiting and no-nausea rates.ConclusionsThe landscape of CINV management in cisplatin-based chemotherapy has evolved significantly alongside improvements in antiemetic agents. Substantial progress has been made in emesis control within both antiemetic and non-antiemetic cisplatin-based clinical trials. More attention should be paid on the chemotherapy induced nausea, and multiple approaches are needed to increase guideline adherence in future clinical practice.

Clinical benefits of adding olanzapine to 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, NK1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. It is particularly effective in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, it has side effects, such as hyperglycemia and somnolence, the efficacy and safety of adding olanzapine to triplet antiemetic therapy (5-HT3 receptor antagonist, NK1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone) must be verified. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine combined with triplet antiemetic therapy and triplet antiemetic therapy in preventing nausea and vomiting for HEC. We set five items (hyperglycemia, prevention of vomiting, prevention of nausea, adverse events, and cost (drug costs)) as outcomes and conducted a systematic review. Five randomized controlled trials was extracted and they showed that the addition of olanzapine was effective in control of nausea and vomiting, especially in the delayed phase. Complete response of acute and delayed phase were significantly higher in the olanzapine group. Risk difference was - 0.14 [95% CI - 0.26, - 0.03; p = 0.02] and - 0.14 [95% CI - 0.19, -0.09; p < 0.00001], respectively. Additionally, we evaluated hyperglycemia and somnolence, which are typical side effects of olanzapine. However, the incidence of grade ≥ 2 was low in both events, and there was no significant difference between olanzapine and control groups. Adding olanzapine to triplet antiemetic therapy is useful in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by HEC and there would be minimal adverse effects from the combination use.

Efficacy and safety of multi-day antiemetic treatment for patients undergoing multi-day chemotherapy: a systematic review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 from Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

A standardized multi-day antiemetic regimen for multi-day chemotherapy remains elusive. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of multi-day antiemetic regimens in patients undergoing multi-day intravenous chemotherapy. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases for relevant studies published from January 1990 to December 2020. We included studies comparing multi-day and single-day antiemetic regimens for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. No studies directly comparing multi-day versus single-day antiemetic regimens were found. Despite expanding control group criteria beyond "single-day antiemetic therapy" limited high-quality studies and variations in cancer types, chemotherapy regimens, and antiemetic treatments precluded meta-analysis. Among the included studies, some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on complete response and vomiting rates. Two studies comparing two- and three-drug combinations reported higher complete response and no-vomiting rates with the three-drug regimen. Limited RCTs explored "nausea control" and "cost," and assessing "adverse events" proved challenging due to inconsistent reporting. The research on multi-day antiemetic therapy is limited, necessitating further investigation. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that three-drug combination therapy, including aprepitant, may offer superior antiemetic efficacy compared to two-drug regimens. Multi-day antiemetic therapy is strongly recommended during multi-day intravenous administration of cytotoxic anticancer drugs.

The intervention effect of psychological care combined with ondansetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine hydrochloride on chemotherapy in breast cancer surgical patients.

Breast cancer (BC) is one of the most common malignancies in women and imposes a significant health burden globally. According to data from the World Health Organization, the incidence of BC has been increasing steadily over the years. It has become one of the leading causes of cancer-related death among women worldwide. This work was to evaluate the combined intervention effect of psychological care along with the use of ondansetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine hydrochloride in breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing chemotherapy, including their impact on nausea and vomiting control, quality of life (QoL), and psychological status. 64 BC patients undergoing chemotherapy were collected and randomly rolled into a control group (Group C) and an intervention group (Group I). Group C received ondansetron combined with routine psychological support and counseling therapy, while Group I received a combination of ondansetron, dexamethasone, promethazine hydrochloride, and psychological care therapy. Self-assessment scores for anxiety, QoL ratings, white blood cell counts, and incidence of adverse reactions were assessed and compared between the two groups. Group I showed better control of nausea and vomiting versus Group C (P< 0.05). Marked improvements were also observed in the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) scores, white blood cell counts, and nursing satisfaction in Group I versus Group C (P< 0.05). Nevertheless, the two groups had no significant difference regarding QoL scores (P> 0.05). the combination of psychological care with ondansetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine hydrochloride effectively controls nausea and vomiting symptoms in BC patients undergoing chemotherapy and provides higher levels of clinical nursing satisfaction.

Does Cold Vapor Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy? A Randomized Controlled Trial

PurposeThe aim of this study was to examine the effect of cold vapor on nausea and vomiting in the early postoperative period after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. DesignRandomized controlled study. MethodsThis study was carried out with 44 intervention and 44 control group patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between May 2022 and December 2022. Cold vapor was applied to the experimental group for 15 minutes in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The patients were evaluated in terms of nausea and vomiting at the 0th minute and 30th minute in the PACU, and at the 2nd, 6th, 12th, and 24th hours in service after surgery. FindingsThere was a significant difference between the groups in terms of nausea at the postoperative 30th minute, 2nd hour, and 6th hour. The postoperative nausea incidence and scores in the experimental group were significantly lower. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of vomiting at all times after surgery. ConclusionsPostoperative cold vapor helps to reduce the severity of nausea but does not affect vomiting. Thus, it can be used in the control of nausea after cholecystectomy.

Vomiting despite adherence to guidelines: Suboptimal control of vomiting in pediatric cancer patients.

Vomiting is a common and distressing acute side effect of chemotherapy, negatively impacting quality of life, nutritional status, and the ability of patients to tolerate further treatment. Standardized guidelines have been developed to improve control of nausea and vomiting. We aimed to determine the benefit of adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on complete control of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in newly diagnosed pediatric patients with cancer. An electronic dashboard of pediatric patients newly diagnosed with cancer at Phoenix Children's Hospital between August 2019 and January 2021 and receiving their first cycle of chemotherapy was utilized to monitor chemotherapy regimen, antiemetic medications, and vomiting episodes. Blocks were classified as guideline-inconsistent, guideline-consistent, or guideline-consistent PLUS if additional prophylactic antiemetic medications were utilized. We identified patients with complete control of vomiting, defined as no vomiting and no additional antiemetics needed. Among 136 patients, 29% received guideline-inconsistent care, 37% received guideline-consistent care, and 34% received guideline-consistent PLUS care. Overall, 48% of patients achieved complete control of vomiting. Older patients (p<0.0001) and those receiving higher emetogenicity chemotherapy (p=0.0003) were more likely to receive guideline-consistent or guideline-consistent PLUS therapy. With guideline-consistent and -consistent PLUS grouped together, the diagnosis was also associated with improved adherence to CPGs (p=0.022). Multivariate analysis showed that patients more likely to receive guideline-consistent prophylaxis were of older age (OR 1.11, p=0.016) and solid tumor patients (OR 5.59, p=0.028). Despite high rates of CPG adherence, complete control of vomiting remains suboptimal, which highlights the need for novel and/or risk-adapted therapies.

A nationwide double-blind phase III randomized clinical trial (RCT) of olanzapine vs. prochlorperazine for the treatment of refractory nausea in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy among NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices.

185 Background: Despite advances in antiemetics given during chemotherapy, nausea remains a clinically significant issue and greatly impairs quality of life (QOL). Current ASCO guidelines recommend olanzapine or prochlorperazine for refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea. However, there is a lack of direct empirical comparisons to establish their relative efficacy. Methods: The URCC NCORP Research Base and 21 NCORP practices enrolled 1,363 chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer starting a high/moderate emetogenic chemotherapy regimen to this Phase III RCT (NCT03367572). Antiemetics were prescribed per ASCO guidelines. Screening occurred during Cycle 1, followed by randomization for Cycle 2. Those with ≥ moderate nausea (≥3 on a 1-7 scale) in Cycle 1 and willing to continue were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) into 3 arms (n=310): 1) ASCO regimen plus olanzapine (OLZ), 2) ASCO regimen plus prochlorperazine (PC), or 3) ASCO regimen plus placebo. Nausea was evaluated using a four-day home diary (4x daily), with the primary outcomes being changes in average (avg) and maximum (max) nausea. FACT-G measured QOL. Intent-to-treat primary analyses (ANOVA and Cohen’s Δ effect size) evaluated whether OLZ or PC improved nausea, testing between-arm differences in nausea change from Cycle 1 to 2 compared to placebo at a p=0.025 significance level corrected for 3 arms. Results: The median age was 50.7y, with 80.7% White/12.3% Black/5.8% Asian/4.2% Latino, and evenly distributed across groups. The change in avg nausea score was statistically significant for the OLZ (avg change = −1.07: Cohen’s Δ = 0.49) and PC arms (avg change = −0.94: Cohen’s Δ = 0.38) compared to the placebo (avg change = −0.50; p &lt;0.001 vs OLZ, p = 0.01 vs PC). Similar but larger changes were noted for change in max nausea score in the OLZ (max change = −2.57: Cohen’s Δ = 0.86) and PC arms (max change = −2.01: Cohen’s Δ = 0.47) against the placebo (max change = −1.30; p &lt;0.001 vs OLZ, p &lt;0.01 vs PC). The OLZ arm had a clinically significant change in overall QOL from pre-chemo to Cycle 2 vs placebo (FACT-G mean difference = +4.91; p = 0.006) but the PC arm vs placebo did not (FACT-G mean difference = −0.87; p = 0.61). OLZ exhibited superiority over PC in terms of changes in max nausea (mean difference = −0.56; p = 0.023) and QOL (FACT-G mean difference = +5.80; p = 0.006), but not for avg nausea (mean difference = −0.13; p = 0.418). Conclusions: OLZ and PC, when added to ASCO guidelines, each significantly reduces refractory nausea. OLZ demonstrates superior max nausea control with clinically and statistically significant improvements in QOL. This study fills the gap in empirical comparisons and solidifies OLZ's position as a promising intervention for refractory nausea. Clinical trial information: NCT03367572 .

Systems and Criteria for Patient Evaluation and Discharge in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit: A Systematic Review

Safe transfer of patients who have undergone anesthesia and surgery is a basic principle to maintain stability, and avoid side effects and preventable errors. Specific scoring systems or criteria may be used to assess and decide whether patients are sufficiently recovered to be safely transferred to another ward or discharged home. This study aims to answer the question, what criteria are appropriate for patient evaluation and discharge in the post-anesthesia care unit? designed. To find documents related to writing a review article on various scoring systems for patients after anesthesia in Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases and using English keywords post-anesthesia care unit, PACU, recovery room, discharge, scoring system, Assessment was searched. A total of 168 articles were found by searching the databases. After removing duplicates, 77 articles were evaluated. Finally, 17 articles were selected and included in the study. The included studies included a variety of tools and criteria for evaluating and discharging patients in the post-anesthesia care unit. This article separately describes each of the tools and criteria for the evaluation and discharge of patients in the post-anesthesia care unit along with the method of scoring, advantages and disadvantages of each. A safe scoring system for discharge from PACU should evaluate important parameters after anesthesia, including alertness, blood pressure, heart rate, ventilation, oxygen saturation, and surgical site bleeding, which can cause serious complications. Considering that one of the goals of PACU is to relieve patients’ pain in the post-surgery phase, the evaluation and control of pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting is effective in the satisfaction and safety of patients.

Olanzapine as Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

The role of olanzapine has not been adequately evaluated in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens with or without neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. To evaluate whether addition of olanzapine to an MEC regimen reduces nausea, vomiting, and use of nausea rescue medications among patients with solid malignant tumors. This multicenter, open-label phase 3 randomized clinical trial included patients aged 18 years or older with solid malignant tumors who were receiving oxaliplatin-, carboplatin-, or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. The trial was conducted at 3 institutes in India from March 26, 2019, to August 26, 2023; the final cutoff date for analysis was September 10, 2023. Patients were randomized 1:1 to dexamethasone, aprepitant, and palonosetron with olanzapine (experimental group) or without olanzapine (observation group). The experimental group received 10 mg of olanzapine orally once at night on days 1 through 3 of the chemotherapy regimen. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as the proportion of patients with no vomiting, no significant nausea (scored as <5 on a visual analog scale of 1 to 100), and no use of rescue medications for nausea. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients experiencing nausea and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), receiving rescue medications, and experiencing adverse events. A total of 560 patients (259 [64%] male; median age, 51 years [range, 19-80 years]) were randomized. The analysis included 544 patients with evaluable data (274 assigned to olanzapine and 270 to observation). Baseline characteristics were evenly matched between the 2 groups. The proportion of patients with CR was significantly greater in the group with (248 [91%]) than without (222 [82%]) olanzapine in the overall 120-hour treatment period (P = .005). Likewise, there were significant differences between the olanzapine and observation groups for nausea control (264 [96%] vs 234 [87%]; P < .001) and CINV (262 [96%] vs 245 [91%]; P = .02) during the overall assessment period, and the proportion of patients receiving rescue medications significantly increased in the observation group (30 [11%]) compared with the olanzapine group (11 [4%]) (P = .001). Grade 1 somnolence was reported by 27 patients (10%) following administration of chemotherapy and olanzapine and by no patients in the observation group. In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of olanzapine significantly improved CR rates as well as nausea and vomiting prevention rates in chemotherapy-naive patients who were receiving MEC regimens containing oxaliplatin, carboplatin, or irinotecan. These findings suggest that use of olanzapine should be considered as one of the standards of care in these chemotherapy regimens. Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) Identifier: CTRI/2018/12/016643.

MASCC 2023 Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines and Education Statements: an evidence-based and consensus resource for patients.

The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Patient Antiemetic Guideline Committee aimed to (1) adapt the updated evidence-based, clinical guidelines to patient-centered antiemetic guidelines and (2) develop patient education materials and statements. The MASCC 2023 Patient Antiemetic Guidelines were created and reviewed by antiemetic experts and patient advocates by incorporating the 2023 MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines into patient-friendly language. Patient Education Statements were developed based on current literature and by utilizing an expert modified Delphi consensus (≥ 75% agreement). Patient advocate/focus group input and patient survey results were further integrated into Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines and Education Statements. Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines were created using patient-friendly language and visual slides. Patient-friendly language was also utilized to communicate the Educational Statements. Key content categories identified for the Educational Statements included the following: nausea/vomiting definitions, causes, risk factors, categories, complications, accompanying symptoms, prophylactic antiemetic treatment, general management, when to call/what to ask the healthcare team, what caregivers can do, and available resources. All identified content met the ≥ 75% expert agreement threshold. Fifteen (15) items demonstrated 100% agreement, 11 items achieved ≥ 90% agreement, and three content items demonstrated 80 ~ 82% agreement. The inaugural MASCC 2023 Patient Antiemetic Guidelines can help patients and caregivers understand the prevention of nausea and vomiting related to their cancer treatment. Educational Statements provide further patient information. Educating patients on how to utilize guideline antiemetics and the education statements can contribute improvements in the control of anticancer treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

Study of Propofol for Control of Nausea and Vomiting During Caesarian Delivery Under Spinal Anasthesia.

Study of Propofol for Control of Nausea and Vomiting During Caesarian Delivery Under Spinal Anasthesia.

Incidence of Radiation-induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Prospective Single-institution Pilot Study

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a frequent adverse event that occurs in patients undergoing radiotherapy. However, research on RINV is underrepresented. This prospective single-institution exploratory pilot study investigated the incidence of RINV according to the irradiation site and observed the efficacy of symptomatic antiemetic treatment in controlling symptoms of RINV. The primary outcomes were the proportions of emesis-free days and nausea-free days. The secondary endpoints included the time to the first episode of RINV, frequency of vomiting, and severity of nausea, including its impact on eating habits and weight loss. Fifteen patients were enrolled in each group (minimal, low, and moderate emetogenic risk). All patients received greater than 20 Gy in five fractions. Evaluation was based on weekly questionnaires completed by patients during routine clinic visits. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 11 and 0 patients, respectively. Six of 15 patients in the minimal-risk group, 1 in the low-risk group, and 4 in the moderate-risk group experienced nausea. Although all 11 symptomatic patients were offered antiemetics, only 3 used them, who reported satisfactory control of nausea. The percentage of emesis-free days for all patients was 100% and the percentage of nausea-free days for the 11 patients who developed RINV was 38%. An unexpectedly high percentage of patients in the minimal-risk group experienced nausea; all had breast cancer. Future studies should investigate factors beyond the irradiation site, including the characteristics of the patient and the treatment, to better predict an individual's risk of RINV.

Factor Analysis of Fatigue in the Early Stages of Cancer Chemotherapy

Patients undergoing chemotherapy for cancer frequently experience fatigue, which can significantly lower their quality of life and interfere with treatment. However, the risk factors for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced fatigue (CIF) are unclear. In this study, we investigated the occurrence of CIF in 415 patients newly treated with chemotherapy at Fukuoka University Hospital between December 2020 and July 2022, and analyzed the factors that influence the occurrence of fatigue. The observation period was defined as the two-week period starting from the day after the induction of chemotherapy, and we collected data retrospectively from medical records. Fatigue was assessed based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 by pharmacists who interviewed patients. The prevalence of fatigue was 56.4% (234/415). Nausea and vomiting, anorexia, hypoalbuminemia, and a high blood urea nitrogen/creatinine (BUN/Cr) ratio were extracted as risk factors for CIF. The prevalence of fatigue in 95 patients with nausea and vomiting was 83.2% (79/95), of whom 74.7% (59/79) had concomitant anorexia. Patients with nausea and vomiting had a high prevalence of both fatigue and anorexia, indicating that control for nausea and vomiting is crucial for the prevention of CIF. The serum albumin level reflects the nutritional status of patients approximately three weeks before chemotherapy, and BUN/Cr ≥20 indicates dehydration. Patients with a poor nutritional status or dehydration should be closely monitored for fatigue before and during treatment. These findings offer new prospects for healthcare providers to avoid or reduce CIF and improve patients' quality of life by early control of CIF risk factors.

Pilot study to evaluate control of nausea and vomiting in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy (cCRT).

291 Background: The standard treatment for patients with locally advanced EC is cCRT +/- surgery. Chemotherapy and radiation both attribute to nausea and vomiting and pose significant challenges to patients’ compliance with the treatment. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate their level of control during cCRT. Methods: Weekly surveys were administered during cCRT for first consecutive 5 weeks. Scores scale range was 1-10 to assess nausea and vomiting and related risk factors. Analyses was performed using SPSS v26.0. Wilcoxson test was used to compare medians of pairs and Friedman’s test to compare medians of groups. Results: We had 28 evaluable patients. Majority were males (M=25 vs F=3), median age 64.1 years (range 44-80 yrs.) and ethnicity was Caucasian at 89.29% (n=25). Scores for ‘expect to experience nausea and vomiting’ were below 5 (1=do not expect), medians: 4.00 (SD 2.136), 4.00 (SD 1.939), 3.00 (SD 2.408), 3.50 (SD 2.505) and 4.00 (SD 2.801) for weeks 1 (baseline), 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Significant improvement in the ‘expectation scores’ between weeks 3 and 4 (p=0.022) and baseline to week 5 (p=0.049). Scores for ‘nausea and vomiting control’ vs prior week were also in the lower range (1= better control) indicating good overall control (highest median score 3.00 [SD 2.580] in week 4). ‘Acid reflux episodes’ median scores were on lower range (1=I have episodes very frequently) through all weeks without significant change. On the other hand, ‘acid reflux control’ showed significant improvement in median scores: 2.50 (SD 2.44), 2.00 (SD 2.76), 3.00 (SD 2.40), 2.00 (SD 2.43) and 1.00 (SD 1.81) (p=0.020). ‘Anxiety levels’ scores were highest on baseline (median 3.00 SD 2.299, p=0.022) then deescalated through subsequent weeks (2.00, 1.00, 2.00 &amp; 1.00 at weeks 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively), p=NS. Conclusions: During cCRT, EC patients demonstrated significant anxiety at baseline, likely due to ‘perceived expectations. Acid reflux control peaks as an important component of treatment strategy for clinicians during cCRT. This suggests that focused control of these symptoms may improve nausea and vomiting control and treatment compliance.

THU373 Refractory Hypoglycemia In A Patient With Metastatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Abstract

Abstract Disclosure: M.G. Fernandez: None. D.J. Selen: None. Background: Nonislet cell tumor hypoglycemia is an uncommon but severe complication of cancer. It results from tumoral overproduction of insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF-2), which inhibits hepatic glycogenolysis and the release of glucagon and growth hormone (GH). These three mechanisms can result in severe and refractory hypoglycemia. Clinical Case: We present a case of a 57-year-old female newly diagnosed with metastatic cholangiocarcinoma who was admitted to the hospital after an episode of syncope at home in the setting of hypoglycemia with a serum blood glucose of 17 mg/dL (N &amp;gt;60 mg/dL). During the hospital admission, evaluation of hypoglycemia included a normal TSH of 1.170 (reference range [RR] 0.3-5.5 mIU/ml), fasting morning cortisol of 23.3 (RR &amp;gt;14-15 μg/dL), and a negative sulfonylurea screen. In addition, the patient had an undetectable level of Insulin &amp;lt;3.0 (RR 3-25 mU/L), Beta-hydroxybutyrate &amp;lt;0.10 (RR 0.02-0.27 mMol/L), C-peptide &amp;lt;0.1 (RR 0.5-3.3 ng/ml), and Pro-insulin &amp;lt;1.6 (RR 3-20 pmol/L). CT of the abdomen revealed disease progression with innumerable bilateral enhanced hypoattenuating masses in the liver. Management for refractory hypoglycemia required nutrition optimization, nausea control, close glucose monitoring, IV dextrose infusion, and intermittent intravenous glucagon for episodes of severe hypoglycemia (&amp;lt;40 mg/dL). During the hospitalization, the patient received the first cycle of chemotherapy with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and dexamethasone. On day 10 of admission, the IGF-2 resulted at 120 ng/ml (RR 180-580ng/ml) and IGF-1&amp;lt;10 (RR 50-317 ng/ml) with an IGF-2/IGF-1 ratio greater than 100 (cut off&amp;gt;10), diagnostic of a large nonislet cell tumor as the most likely cause of her severe hypoglycemia. Artificial nutrition did not align with this patient’s goals of care, so she was discharged from the hospital with a FreeStyle Libre 2 for continuous glucose monitoring. However, two weeks later, she returned to the emergency department with hypoglycemia (&amp;lt;40 mg/dL), ultimately choosing to pursue hospice. Conclusion: Patients with large liver tumor burden can experience hypoglycemia due to low glycogen content in the liver. In addition, these patients can have decreased oral intake and weight loss, which confounds the clinical scenario and can delay diagnostic workup. Patients with refractory hypoglycemia and nonislet cell tumors require further evaluation for IGF-2 production, and alternative temporary nutritional options should be discussed with the patient immediately. Therapeutic options depend on the ability to treat underlying cancer. Palliative chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation can be considered to control the tumor and improve hypoglycemia for quality of life when the cancer is otherwise untreatable. Presentation: Thursday, June 15, 2023

Efficacy and Safety of Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain the most distressing event in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine containing regimen in preventing CINV in children on HEC and MEC. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials electronic databases to identify randomized clinical trials that compared 2 groups who either got olanzapine (olanzapine group) or placebo/no olanzapine (control group) for the prevention of CINV in children. The primary outcome was to determine the efficacy of olanzapine (complete response). The secondary outcomes were nausea control, the need for rescue medications, and adverse events of olanzapine. Three randomized clinical trials (n=394 patients) were included in this meta-analysis (olanzapine group, n=194, and placebo/control group, n=200). The pooled analysis of this meta-analysis found that olanzapine had a higher complete response in all phases of emesis in the HEC group and only in the acute phase in HEC/MEC groups compared with the control group. Olanzapine had higher nausea control in all phases of HEC but no nausea control in HEC/MEC. Olanzapine also reduced the need for rescue medications. A significant number of patients in the olanzapine group experienced somnolence (grades 1 and 2), but none of the participants discontinued the study due to side effects. In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that olanzapine significantly prevented CINV in HEC. There was also a lesser need for rescue medications in the olanzapine group. Somnolence was higher in the olanzapine group, but it was clinically insignificant.

Effectiveness of acupressure therapy in reducing first trimester hyperemesis Gravidum: Case Study

Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy is a common condition affecting up to 70% of pregnant women. Emergency treatment of Hyperemesis gravidarum will focus on correction of dehydration and/or electrolyte disturbances and control of nausea and vomiting to allow for adequate oral intake. Application of acupressure on the P6 (Nei Guan) meridian point is known to treat vomiting and other stomach problems in traditional Chinese medicine practice Objective: To determine the Effectiveness of Accupresure Therapy in Reducing Hyperemesis Gravidum Trimester I. Methods: The method used in this study used a case study with pre and post intervention with the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis questionnaire (PUQE-24). The patient was given accupresure therapy for 15 minutes every day for 3 days. Results: there was a change in the hyperemesis gravidarum score felt by the patient from a score of 10 (moderate level of nausea and vomiting) be 6 (mild level of nausea and vomiting) after being given acupressure therapy. Conclusion: Accupresure therapy with appropriate methods and procedures can be an alternative to reduce Hyperemesis Gravidum in First Trimester Women.