Functional Living Index-Emesis Research Articles

Oral Cannabis Extract for Secondary Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Final Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II/III Trial.

The aim of this randomized, placebo-controlled, two-stage, phase II/III trial was to determine the efficacy of an oral cannabis extract in adults with refractory nausea and/or vomiting during moderately or highly emetogenic, intravenous chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis. Here, we report results of the prespecified combined analysis including the initial phase II and subsequent phase III components. Study treatment consisted of oral capsules containing either tetrahydrocannabinol 2.5 mg plus cannabidiol 2.5 mg capsules (THC:CBD) or matching placebo, taken three times a day from days -1 to 5, in addition to guideline-consistent antiemetics. The primary measure of effect was the difference in the proportions of participants with no vomiting or retching and no use of rescue medications (a complete response) during hours 0-120 after the first cycle of chemotherapy on study (cycle A). We recruited 147 evaluable of a planned 250 participants from 2016 to 2022. Background antiemetic prophylaxis included a corticosteroid and 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist in 97%, a neurokinin-1 antagonist in 80%, and olanzapine in 10%. THC:CBD compared with placebo improved the complete response rate from 8% to 24% (absolute difference 16%, 95% CI, 4 to 28, P = .01), with similar effects for absence of significant nausea, use of rescue medications, daily vomits, and the nausea scale on the Functional Living Index-Emesis quality-of-life questionnaire. More frequent bothersome adverse events of special interest included sedation (18% v 7%), dizziness (10% v 0%), and transient anxiety (4% v 1%). There were no serious adverse events attributed to THC:CBD. THC:CBD is an effective adjunct for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting despite standard antiemetic prophylaxis, but was associated with additional adverse events. Drug availability, cultural attitudes, legal status, and preferences may affect implementation. Future analyses will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of THC:CBD.

Neiguan (PC6) acupoint stimulation for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a cost-effective supplement in guideline-inconsistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis subgroup.

To assess the efficacy and safety of Neiguan (PC6) acupoint acustimulation in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), especially for patients with guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) due to personal reasons METHODS: From January 2021 to December 2021, 373 patients suffered from solid malignancy were recruited according to the inclusion criteria. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication use) rate during the overall phase (0-120 h of each chemo-cycle) was the primary assessment of CINV control. The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire was investigated among these patients as a secondary 'quality of life' objective to assess the impact of CINV on patients' daily life by recording score of nausea and vomiting. With acustimulation of Neiguan (PC6) acupuncture point through a portable, noninvasive and user-friendly device, in terms of complete response rate and scores in nausea/vomiting by FLIE questionnaire, patients achieve a better outcome in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) induced CINV, especially GICP subgroup. Meanwhile, analysis also demonstrated this tendency existed in other patients with HEC/GCCP (guideline consistent CINV prophylaxis) and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy, although the difference was not significant. Considering advantages of Neiguan (PC6) acustimulation such as noninvasive, covered by medical insurance and few side effects, we believe it would be an ideal auxiliary tool in CINV control, especially in patients who receive highly emetogenic chemo-protocol and are reluctant to GCCP for economic reasons.

A nurse-led multidomain intervention to improve the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with head and neck cancers: A randomized controlled trial

PurposeThis study aimed to investigate the effect of a nurse-led multidomain intervention on chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). MethodsNinety-two HNSCC patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy were divided into intervention group (n = 45) and control group (n = 47). The control group received usual care of CINV, which consisted of administration of antiemetics according to physicians' preference, education about CINV control and dietary recommendations provided by primary nurses. The intervention group received nurse-led, evidence-based multidomain management, including nurse-led CINV risk factors assessment, education on prevention and control of CINV, antiemetics following guidelines, dietary strategies, and relaxation therapy. The number of patients who experienced CINV was collected. The severity of CINV was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. The influence of CINV on patient's quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). ResultsThe incidence and the severity of nausea and vomiting in the intervention group were significantly lower than those in the control group within 5 days after chemotherapy, and the scores of the dimension of nausea and vomiting in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group [63.00 (50.00–63.00) vs 40.00(28.00–63.00), 63.00(63.00–63.00) vs 63.00 (43.00–63.00)], the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). ConclusionsNurse-led multidomain intervention can reduce the incidence and the severity of CINV in patients with HNSCC who were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and thus reduced the influence of CINV on patients' quality of life. The clinical trial registration numberNCT05792228.

Characteristics of nausea and its impact on health-related quality of life in cisplatin-treated patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing prophylaxis: an analysis of the LUNG-NEPA study.

We investigated the intensity and duration of nausea as well as its impact on health-related quality of life among cisplatin-treated patients who participated in a study of dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens based on NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron). This retrospective analysis included chemo-naive patients from a trial evaluating non-inferiority of DEX on day 1 (DEX1 arm) combined with NEPA, compared with the same regimen with DEX administered on days 1-4 (DEX4; reference arm) following cisplatin (≥ 70mg/m2) administration. Nausea intensity was self-rated using a four-point Likert scale. Extended nausea duration was considered ≥ 3days within the 5days post-chemotherapy. Patients completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on day 6. In the DEX1 arm, more patients (20/76) experienced acute nausea, influencing the outcome of delayed nausea (38/76). During days 1 to 5, 51.3% (39/76) and 39.5% (30/76) of patients experienced nausea in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms, respectively (P = 0.192). Of these, 43.6% and 60% reported moderate-to-severe nausea, respectively, in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms (P = 0.200), while 74.4% and 56.7% of patients experienced extended nausea duration (P = 0.122). Similar between-arm rates of nauseated patients reported an impact on daily life (79.5% vs. 70%; P = 0.408). In analyses stratified for antiemetic regimen, moderate-to-severe nausea or extended nausea duration was associated with an impact on daily life (P ≤ 0.001). Despite the higher incidence, there was no suggestion of any strong adverse effect of NEPA plus single-dose DEX on the characteristics of nausea as well as its impact on daily life in patients with cisplatin-induced nausea. Further prospective controlled study is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019.

The prophylactic antiemetic therapies in management of differentiated thyroid cancer patients with radioactive iodine therapy: a single-center, non-randomized clinical trial.

The present study was to investigate three different single-drug regimens to show which was more effective to reduce radioactive iodine therapy (RAI) associated nausea and vomiting, and to compare the occurrence of long-term gastrointestinal diseases after RAI therapy. We performed a single-center, non-randomized clinical trial among patients who underwent RAI therapy from March 2016 to July 2022. Enrolled patients were divided into four cohorts based on the date of the treatment. cohort 1, with no preventive antiemetics; cohort 2, received 20 mg of pantoprazole per day for 3 days; cohort 3, received a 10 mg metoclopramide tablet two times daily for 3 days; cohort 4, oral ondansetron, 8 mg, twice daily for 3 days. The primary endpoints were proportion of patients who experience vomiting episodes and nausea during the 7-day hospital period. Secondary end points included Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) quality-of life questionnaires and the occurrence of gastrointestinal diseases. A total of 1755 patients were analyzed, comprised of 1299 (74.0%) women and 456 (26.0%) men, with a median age of 44 years (range 18-78 years). The characteristics of patient were similar within the four groups. 465 (26.4%) patients developed RAI-associated nausea, and 186 (14.4%) patients developed RAI-associated vomiting. The rate of nausea was significantly decreased in the patients who were taking ondansetron when compared with the other cohorts (P<0.05), while the rate of vomiting (≥6 episodes) was slightly lower. As secondary endpoint, FLIE measures ondansetron scored highly compared to other cohorts, from baseline (mean score of 110.53 ± 17.54) to day 7 (mean score of 105.56 ± 12.48). In addition, 48 (2.7%) patients were found to be with gastrointestinal diseases at the end of one year follow up. Multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight revealed a significantly independent risk factors of developing gastrointestinal disorders. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that short-term ondansetron could be an effective prophylactic agent in controlling RAI-associated nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the risk of developing gastrointestinal disorders was significantly higher for patients with multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Investigating an Integrated Nursing Educational Program to Mitigate Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Cancer Patients: The NIV-EC Trial

Background: In addition to pharmacological prevention, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be mitigated through patient education; written supporting materials can be beneficial. Methods: This is a randomized, controlled trial which randomly assigned patients undergoing first chemotherapy cycle to receive oral information regarding CINV prevention and management (control arm) or oral information plus an informative booklet (experimental arm). Overall, 384 cancer patients fulfilling the following inclusion criteria were enrolled: age ≥18 years; life expectancy ≥6 months; no cognitive impairment; written informed consent. After the first cycle, CINV occurrence and its impact on daily activities were assessed using the Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE). Results: Severe nausea was self-reported by 3.0% and 10.8% of patients in the experimental and control group, respectively (difference: 7.8%; 95% confidence interval: 2.3% to 13.1%). Moderate/high impact of nausea on daily activities was lower in patients also receiving the booklet than in the control group (4.2% and 10.1%, respectively; difference: 5.9%; 95% confidence interval: 0.3% to 11.5%). Vomiting was not statistically different between study arms. Conclusions: This integrated nursing approach was effective in aiding cancer patients in CINV self-management. Although the beneficial effect was moderate, this intervention demands minimal resources in terms of costs and time.

Minimal clinically important difference of the Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients with gynecological malignant tumor: A post hoc analysis of a single-arm study.

This study aimed to explore the impact of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) in patients with gynecologic malignancies. This post hoc analysis included patients with gynecological malignant tumors in the Department of Oncology of our hospital between October 2020 and October 2021. A total of 149 patients (aged 50.05 ± 12.24 years) were included. Most of the patients were married (75.8%), lived in the city (60.4%), and had a history of motion sickness (75.8%). The degree of nausea (9.00 [0.00, 16.00] vs. 30.00 [16.00, 48.00], P < 0.001) and vomiting (9.00 [0.00, 16.00] vs. 30.00 [16.00, 48.00], P < 0.001) were significantly improved after treatment. Taking the options in the scale as the subjective anchor, the MCID of FLIE for nausea and vomiting were 28.5 and 29 in anchor-based analysis, respectively. In the distribution-based analysis, the MCID of FLIE for nausea and vomiting were 2.41, 6.04, and 9.66; and 2.31, 5.78, and 9.24 in effect size of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively. The MCID of FLIE for nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecological malignant tumors was 28.5 and 29 in the anchor-based analysis, with higher specificity, and 6.04 and 5.78 in the distribution-based analysis, with higher sensitivity. The development of the MCID scale might be used to interpret the clinical significance of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecological malignancies and help to calculate the sample size for future clinical trials.

Application of comprehensive unit-based safety program model to improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with ovarian cancer: a retrospective study

BackgroundTo explore the effect of intervention programs constructed under the guidance of the comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) model on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with ovarian cancer.MethodAccording to the time of admission, 90 ovarian cancer chemotherapy patients in the first affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from June 2019 to September 2020 were divided into an intervention group and a control group with 45 cases each. Both groups of patients received routine intervention, and the intervention group implemented the CUSP program on this basis. The intervention lasted 8 months. Before and after the intervention, the patients in the ward were used the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool, the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for the effect evaluation.ResultsAfter the intervention, the degree of nausea and vomiting frequency in the intervention group were significantly lower than that in the control group, especially the degree of nausea in the delayed phase (P < 0.05). The score of the functional living index-emesis in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05), and the anxiety and depression in the intervention group were significantly relieved compared to the control group (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe intervention program guided by the CUSP model can significantly alleviate patients’ nausea and vomiting, improve the quality of life, and relieve anxiety and depression. The CUSP model is suitable for clinical practice and has guiding significance for clinical work.

Impact of body weight-based dosing of palonosetron and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized, double-blind study

Background Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse effect following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Palonosetron with a standard dosing (75 μg) schedule has been questioned due to its low efficiency in obese patients. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the body weight-based dosing of palonosetron in managing PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Methods A single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized study was conducted between August 2021 and December 2021. Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were prospectively recruited in the study. One hundred patients were randomly divided into palonosetron (Group P) and ondansetron (Group O). The demographic and clinical variables were recorded. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of PONV between the two groups during the hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were the number of rescue anti-emetic and analgesic medications and the Functional Living Index-Emesis scores. Results There were 50 patients in each group (Group P and Group O). There were significant differences in the scores of POVN, nausea, and vomiting favoring Group P. In Group P, the rate of patients using rescue anti-emetics was significantly lower. The incidence of complete response and proportion of patients with higher Functional Living Index-Emesis scores were significantly higher in patients using palonosetron. Conclusions The use of palonosetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. There was a significant improvement in the scores of Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients using palonosetron.

Therapeutic effect of low frequency electric pulse therapy on cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung adenocarcinoma: A prospective controlled study.

To explore the efficacy of low-frequency electric pulse therapy (LFEPT) combined with 2 antiemetics in the prevention and treatment of cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. A total of 82 patients with lung adenocarcinoma who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly divided into the experimental group (n=41) and control group (n=41) by random numerical table method. The experimental group was treated with LFEPT combined with 2 antiemetic drugs (tropisetron hydrochloride and dexamethasone hydrochloride), while the control group was treated with the same 2 antiemetic drugs. Revised index of nausea and vomiting and retching (R-INVR) and Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) scale were used to quantitatively evaluate the symptoms of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy, and the effect of LFEPT in the prevention and treatment of CINV was observed. The baseline characteristics had no statistical difference between the 2 groups. The degree of nausea reaction, vomiting, and dry retching were similar in 2 groups on the first day after chemotherapy. However, the degree of nausea reaction, vomiting, and dry retching were significantly improved in the experimental group than that of the control group on 2 to 5 days with all P<.05. The score of FLIE had no difference between the 2 groups on the first day after chemotherapy (84.05 vs 82.69, P=.30), and the score was significantly higher in experiment group on day 6 compared with the control group (103.71 vs 89.38, P=.02). The side effects had no difference between the 2 groups. The LFEPT can significantly ameliorate CINV in patients with lung adenocarcinoma, which is worthy of clinical application.

Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study

BackgroundThe non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).MethodsChemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis.ResultsIn the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL.ConclusionReducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

The Clinical Observation on PONV with the Intervention of Thumbtack Needles Combined with Chinese Medicine Ironing Therapy.

Objective This study aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy of the intervention of thumbtack needles (applicable to subcutaneous embedding) combined with Chinese medicine ironing therapy on postoperation nausea and vomiting (PONV). Methods 106 patients who scheduled elective surgery were enrolled and randomized into control group and experimental group, with 53 cases in each group. The control group received modern medication, while the experimental group was given thumbtack needles combined with Chinese medicine ironing therapy based on the control group. The PONV score, incidence rate, gastrointestinal hormone level, Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), and General Comfort Questionnaire (GCQ) of the two groups were compared. Results After treatment, the incidence of PONV and GCQ in the experimental group was observed to be remarkably lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05), while the levels of gastrointestinal hormones and the level in the FLIE of the experimental group were comparatively higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion Thumbtack needles combined with Chinese medicine ironing therapy can be utilized to reduce the incidence of PONV, to improve the level of gastrointestinal hormones, and to improve the comfort and quality of patients' lives.

Olanzapine (5 mg) plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of multiple-day cisplatin hemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a prospective randomized controlled study

ObjectiveA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare 5 mg olanzapine plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy.MethodsPatients who received a 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (25 mg/m2/d) were given either 5 mg olanzapine plus triple therapy with aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (quadruple group) or 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant (triplet group). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) in the overall phase (OP) (0–120 h) between quadruple group and triplet group. The secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute phase (AP) (0–24 h) and delayed phase (DP) (25–120 h) between two groups. The first time of vomiting was also compared by Kaplan–Meier curves. The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Aprepitant-related adverse effects (AEs) were also recorded.Results(1) The primary endpoint CR during OP was 76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) between the quadruple group and triplet group (P = 0.271). The secondary endpoint CR during the AP was significantly higher in the quadruple group than in the triplet group, which was 100.0% (59/59) vs 93.0% (57/61) (P = 0.045). The difference of CR during delayed phase between the groups was especially higher in the quadruple group compared to the triplet group (76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) (P = 0.271)). The rate of patients who achieved total protection in the overall phase was also higher in the quadruple group than the triplet group (28.8% (17/59) vs 23.0% (14/61) (P = 0.463)). During the OP, the incidence of no vomiting in the quadruple group and the triplet group was 93.2% (55/59) vs 80.3% (49/61) (P = 0.038), respectively. (2) Kaplan–Meier curves of time to first emesis were obviously longer in the quadruple group compared with the triplet group (P = 0.031). According to FLIE, no impact of CINV on daily life was defined as total score of questionnaire > 108; this study exhibited identical life quality between two groups. (3) The most common aprepitant- or olanzapine-related AEs included sedation, fatigue, and constipation. The occurrences between two groups were identical.ConclusionIt may been recommended that 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant triplet regimen as an alternative therapy in prevention CINV induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy due to the excellent CINV control rate and safety.

Olanzapine enhances the effect of conventional drugs in chemotherapy inducing nausea and vomiting: A randomized clinical trial.

Background:Chemotherapy inducing nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the significant side effects of anti-cancer treatment, and its full prevention is a potential challenge. This study was done to specify the effect of olanzapine in this setting.Methods:In this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial study, olanzapine was compared with a placebo in combination with dexamethasone and granisetrone in patients with cancer. Patients in the intervention group received dexamethasone , granisetron and olanzapine. Patients in the control group received a placebo instead of olanzapine. Overall, acute nausea and vomiting prevention were the primary and secondary end points; complete response (no nausea,no vomiting) in the delayed period of chemotherapy was the third end point. Response to treatment was evaluated by the Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire completion in the first, the third and the fifth of chemotherapy.Results: Percentage reduction in mean±SD nausea and vomiting in the overall phase (0-120 hours) of intervention group compared to the control group respectively were 29.94±2.06, 69.75±2.32 [(57.93% reduction (p<0.001)]. For the acute phase (0-24 hours) were 26.08±2.36, 51.85±2.24 [(47.21% reduction (p<0.001)], for the delayed phase (24-120 hours), were 31.26±2.57, 67.91±2.12 ,[(55.11% reduction;(p<0.001)] respectively.Conclusion:Olanzapine, along with dexamethasone and granisetron, significantly reduced vomiting and nausea in patients undergoing chemotherapy. No adverse event of olanzapine was observed in the patients.

Quality of Life Associated with Nausea and Vomiting from Anthracycline-Based Chemotherapy: A Pooled Data Analysis from Three Prospective Trials.

BackgroundThere 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 MethodsThis 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).ResultsAcross 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.ConclusionCINV had a significant impact on the QoL of patients with breast cancer treated with AC over multiple cycles.Implications for PracticeIn 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

Clinical Observation of Gene Polymorphism of Olanzapine or Aprepitant in Prevention of CINV.

ObjectiveThe present study aims to investigate the correlation between the gene polymorphisms of the multidrug resistance protein 1 (ABCB1), the intron region of transcriptional factor (GTF2E1) and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), dopamine receptor (DRD2), and the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by olanzapine or aprepitant in a Chinese population under a fractionated cisplatin dosing pattern.MethodsAntiemetic treatment with 5 mg of olanzapine or aprepitant triplet therapy was conducted in 210 patients with malignancies receiving cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy. The general data on the patients were collected with the evaluation of the rate of complete protection (TP), complete remission (CR), complete control (TC), and time to first vomiting, the functional living index-emesis (FLIE) scale, and side effects in the acute and delayed phases. The DNA mass spectrometry detected the gene polymorphisms of ABCB1, GTF2E1, COMT, and DRD2, and the correlation with TP was analyzed.Results1) There were no statistically significant differences in the TP, CR, TC, time of first vomiting, and FLIE index at different phases between the 5mg of olanzapine group and the aprepitant group (P > 0.05). 2) The main side effect in the olanzapine group was drowsiness (P = 0.00), and in the aprepitant group was constipation (P = 0.02). 3) The distributions of each genotype were in the Hardy–Weinberg (H–W) equilibrium. Univariate analysis showed that in the olanzapine group, delayed-phase TP was correlated with the ABCB1 rs1045642 non-TT (P = 0.01) genotype.ConclusionThe present study revealed that females and the rs1045642TT genotype were independent risk factors for delayed-phase CINV in the northern Chinese population, which provided a scientific basis for subsequent CINV-related analysis of high-risk factors in Chinese patients.

An Observational Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Quality of Life Provided by Netupitant and Palonosetron Regimen against Ondansetron in Management and Prevention of CINV

Cancer is a public health concern amongst millions of humans and claims hundreds of lives every year. The maximum worry-inducing side effect of cancer treatment is nausea and vomiting. Therefore, stopping and managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is an important part of a cancer patient’s treatment plan. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and quality of life provided by two commonly used antiemetic regimens in the management and prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients. We assessed patient-reported nausea, vomiting, use of rescue medication, and Functional Living IndexEmesis (FLIE) questionnaire results, and used them as parameters to make comparisons. We also examined the percentage of patients showing complete response (CR; no emesis and non-use of rescue antiemetics), and the impact of CINV on patient’s daily life during the acute and delayed phases. The results show that the complete response is achieved by 26 patients in group-B and 18 patients in group-A, from the total 60 patients, while the FLIE scores indicated better quality of life is maintained in group-B (76.6%). In the study, the predominance of Netupitant and Palonosetron regimen to Ondansetron was demonstrated.

The efficacy of aprepitant in salvage treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

To evaluate the efficacy of aprepitant and its effect on the quality of life when added to standard antiemetic therapy as salvage therapy. This is an open-label, noncomparative prospective phase II clinical trial. A total of 224 patients receiving initial moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) were enrolled. Patients received standard antiemetic treatment (5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) antagonists + dexamethasone) in the first cycle. Patients failing to achieve a complete response (CR) during cycle 1 entered cycle 2 with the addition of aprepitant as salvage treatment. Of the 224 patients eligible for cycle 1, 159 (71.0%, 95% CI 65.0-77.0) had a CR, and 65 patients with a noncomplete response (NCR) proceeded to cycle 2 to receive aprepitant-based salvage therapy. Then, 49 (75.4%, 95% CI 64.6-84.1) of these patients achieved a CR. The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire showed that NCR patients in cycle 1 had an improved quality of life after receiving aprepitant-based salvage therapy in cycle 2 (cycle 1 and 2: 80.3 vs 114.0, P < 0.001). Failing to achieve a CR had a significant impact on the quality of life in both cycle 1 (FLIE score of NCR and CR patients: 80.3 vs 119.7, P < 0.001) and cycle 2 (FLIE score of NCR and CR patients: 88.3 vs 122.4, P < 0.001). The addition of aprepitant as salvage therapy for patients with gastrointestinal cancer is effective and has a positive effect on quality of life.

Assessing the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients' quality of life: An Arabic version of the Functional Living Index-Emesis.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a serious complication of cancer treatment that compromises patients' quality of life and treatment adherence, which necessitates regular assessment. Therefore, there is a need to assess patient-reported nausea and vomiting using a validated scale among Arabic speaking cancer patient population. The objective of this study was to translate and validate the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument in Arabic, a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the influence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients' quality of life. Linguistic validation of an Arabic-language version was performed. The instrument was administered to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in a tertiary hospital's cancer center in Saudi Arabia. One-hundred cancer patients who received chemotherapy were enrolled. The participants' mean age was 53.3 ± 14.9 years, and 50% were female. Half of the participants had a history of nausea and vomiting with previous chemotherapy. The Cronbach coefficient alpha for the FLIE was 0.9606 and 0.9736 for nausea and vomiting domains, respectively, which indicated an excellent reliability for the Arabic FLIE. The mean FLIE score was 110.9 ± 23.5, indicating no or minimal impact on daily life (NIDL). The Arabic FLIE is a valid and reliable tool among the Arabic-speaking cancer population. Thus, the Arabic version of the FLIE will be a useful tool to assess the quality of life among Arabic speaking patients receiving chemotherapy. Additionally, the translated instrument will be a useful tool for future research studies to explore new antiemetic treatments among cancer patients.

Analysis of Quality-of-Life (QoL) in Patients Receiving NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea (CINV) and Vomiting

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common and distressing side effect that has a detrimental impact on QoL. For pts receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), which includes those on anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimens, a triple combination of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA and dexamethasone is recommended by the NCCN and MASCC/ESMO. The complexity of the NK1 RA-based schedules may be a reason for the low adherence to antiemetic guidelines and a not sufficient control of CINV in pts receiving HEC and MEC. NEPA is the only available fixed-combination antiemetic. It is composed of an NK1 RA, netupitant (300 mg) and a 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (0.50 mg); thus, it acts by blocking two main emetic pathways in a single dose and eases compliance to guidelines. Methods: Prospective, non-interventional study at 162 sites in Germany from 09/2015 to 03/2018. The aim was to determine QoL of adult cancer pts receiving NEPA for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with 1 or 2 day HEC or MEC in daily clinical practice. The primary outcome was measured via the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. FLIE questionnaires were analyzed according to the FLIE scoring and administration manual v12; higher scores correlated to better performance on daily life activities due to the lower occurrence of nausea and vomiting. 'No impact on daily life (NIDL) activities' for individual nausea and vomiting domains was defined as a FLIE score higher than 53.8; NIDL for the combined domains of nausea and vomiting was defined as a FLIE score higher than 108. Secondary objectives included evaluating effectiveness, as determined by measuring the rate of complete response (CR) and rescue medication, as well as safety outcomes. Efficacy was documented by the treating physicians and via patient diaries for 3 Ctx cycles within 24 hrs and on 4 additional d after Ctx. Safety, additional medication and physicians' overall satisfaction was reported via eCRF. Results: A total of 2429 pts were enrolled, 2405 of whom were assessed for eligibility; of these, 2173 were included in the final analysis and constitute the full analysis set population (FAS). Evaluable FLIE questionnaires were collected from 1886 (88%) pts in cycle 1, 1795 (88%) pts in cycle 2 and 1698 (86%) pts in cycle 3. A total of 1389 pts received HEC and 764 MEC in cycle 1. The majority of pts (91%) were scheduled to receive 1-day ctx at study entry. More than half of the pts (1230, 56%) received anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-(AC), 19% carboplatin-, 8% cisplatin-, 7% oxaliplatin- and 9% other CTs. NIDL due to vomiting during cycle 1 was reported by 84% of pts in the HEC group and 82% in the MEC group. These frequencies were maintained in cycles 2 and 3. NIDL due to nausea increased from 54% in cycle 1 to 58% in cycle 3 for pts receiving HEC, and from 59% in cycle 1 to 66% in cycle 3 for pts in the MEC group. The rates for the combined domain of NIDL due to nausea and vomiting were consistent across cycle 1 (64%) and in cycles 2 and 3 (66% in each cycle) for pts in the HEC group, while the rates increased from 67% in cycle 1 to 73 and 74% in cycles 2 and 3, respectively, for pts receiving MEC. The CR rate (no emesis and no use of rescue medication) was 89% in the acute phase (0-24 h), 87% in the delayed phase (25-120 h) and 83% in the overall period (0-120 h) in cycle 1. The no significant nausea (NSN) rate was 79 % in the acute, 75 % in the delayed and 67 % in the overall phase in cycle. The majority of physicians (≥89%) and pts (≥86%) rated the effectiveness of NEPA prophylaxis as 'very good' or 'good' during all three ctx cycles. The most common NEPA-related AEs, which occurred in &amp;gt;1% of pts in the overall study period, were fatigue (3%), constipation (3%), nausea (2%) and insomnia (2%). There were no reports of NEPA-related deaths. Conclusions: Real-life data show that NEPA was effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life and was highly effective in the acute and delayed phase of HEC and MEC. NEPA antiemetic effectiveness was rated highly both by patients and physicians. Disclosures Karthaus: RIEMSER: Consultancy, Honoraria. Schilling:Riemser: Honoraria.