Midazolam for acute emesis refractory to dexamethasone and granisetron after highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a phase II study

Minimum Effective dose of Dexamethasone in Combination with Midazolam as Prophylaxis against Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 20% and 30% of patients. As many as 60%–80% patients at high risk may be affected. Dexamethasone (D) and midazolam (M) are well studied as antiemetic. Use of D can be associated with certain undesirable side effects so minimum dose is preferred. M is a routinely used premedicant. Hence, this study was designed with both D and M in high risk patients for PONV to find minimum effective dose of D.

Aims:

To determine the minimum dose of D that combined with M would provide effective prophylaxis of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients at high risk for PONV.

Setting and Design:

This is a prospective, randomized double-blind trial.

Materials and Methods:

One hundred and fifty-five patients scheduled for elective LC were randomized to 5 groups of 31 each. Group C was given normal saline, and the rest were administered D 1 mg (group MD1), 2 mg (group MD2), 4 mg (group MD4), or 8 mg (group MD8) in combination with 0.04 mg/kg M at induction. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, severity of nausea, and the use of rescue antiemetic and postoperative pain was analyzed.

Statistical Analysis:

Chi-square test was used to compare incidence of study variables. Independent Student's t-test was used for continuous variables. Demographic data were compared using ANOVA. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in group MD4 (29%) and MD8 (6%) compared to placebo group (71%) (P < 0.001) and of vomiting was significantly lower in groups of MD2 (58%), MD4 (48%), and MD8 (6%) compared with placebo (90%) (P < 0.001) at 24 h. There was significant reduction in nausea, pain severity, and incidence of use of rescue antiemetic in MD4 and MD8 groups with no discernable side effects of the drugs.

Conclusion:

We conclude that 4 mg D with M and 2 mg D with M is effective for prevention of nausea and vomiting, respectively, in patients at high risk for PONV undergoing LC.

The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO): a systematic review

PURPOSE

Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21).

CONCLUSIONS

The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs.

Comparison of granisetron plus dexamethasone versus an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in children

Background:

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most disturbing side-effects in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess whether the addition of an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine to granisetron plus dexamethasone combination could ameliorate CINV in this study.

Patients and Methods:

A total of 23 children aged between 1 and 16 years to receive cisplatin containing chemotherapy in our clinic were included in this study from April 2007 to April 2008. 76 cycles in 23 patients were randomly assigned to receive either antiemetic regimen 1 or antiemetic regimen 2. Antiemetic regimen 1 containing granisetron 0, 04 mg/kg plus dexamethasone 0, 2 mg/kg were given in 45 chemotherapy cycles. In 31 cycles, an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam 0, 04 mg/kg, diphenhyramine 2, 5 mg/-kg in addition to granisetron plus dexamethasone was given. Number of vomiting, severity of nausea, the use of rescue therapy and adverse events were assessed between day 1 and day 5.

Results:

Complete response for the acute phase was observed 38/45 (84, 4%) cycles in regimen 1 as compared with 28/31 (90, 3%) in regimen 2, antiemetic cocktail regimen (P > 0.05). Complete response for delayed emesis after 24 h of the beginning of chemotherapy was observed in 29/45 (64, 4 %) in regimen 1 and 16/31 (51, 6%) in regimen 2. Antiemetic cocktail was not superior to the granisetron plus dexamethasone combination in controlling emesis in acute and delayed phase. Furthermore, patients receiving antiemetic regimen 2 were noted significantly more side effects.

Conclusion:

Our data showed that antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine was not better in controlling acute and delayed emesis. A slightly more toxicity with additional drugs was also observed.

Optimizing emetic control in children receiving antineoplastic therapy: beyond the guidelines

Existing guidelines for the prevention of antineoplastic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children are constrained by the lack of robust evidence. Current guidelines recommend the use of a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist plus a corticosteroid to prevent acute CINV. Consequently, antiemetic agents that are recommended for use in adult cancer patients do not appear in the current pediatric guidelines. In addition, there is no information to guide the selection of alternative antiemetic agents for children who either cannot receive the recommended agents or who do not respond adequately to the treatment. Possible barriers to adherence to the pediatric antiemetic selection guidelines that are currently available are discussed, and published pediatric experience with antiemetic agents recommended in the current adult antiemetic selection guidelines (dolasetron, tropisetron, palonosetron, aprepitant) is summarized in this review. The use of novel and emerging antiemetic therapeutic interventions {metopimazine, diphenhydramine (Benadryl)-lorazepam (Avitan)-dexamethasone (Decadron) [BAD], nabilone, acupuncture, midazolam, olanzapine, mirtazapine, gabapentin, droperidol} in children are explored.

[Chemotherapy induced emesis: pathophysiology and prevention]

Nausea and emesis are one of the most feared secondary effect of chemotherapy. The development of antiemetic therapies has increased after the introduction of cisplatin, a cytotoxin with the highest emetic potential. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been classified into acute, delayed and anticipatory based on the time of onset. According to the percentage of nausea and emesis without any antiemetic treatment, chemotherapy is divised into highly, moderate, low and very low emetic potential. The discovery of emetics stimuli neurotransmitters and their receptors has led to the introduction of new molecules which associated with steroids have prevented nausea and vomiting chemotherapy-induced for 70 to 80% of the patients receiving chemotherapy with high emetic potential. Numerous studies have evaluated the various antiemetics and recommendations were issued by learned societies in US and Europe. This text discusses the physiopathology of nausea and vomiting, the development of anti-emetics and the new discovered antiemetics. Finally, a synthesis of the recommandations from the guidelines developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is presented.

Antiemetic Efficacy of Dexamethasone Combined with Midazolam after Middle Ear Surgery

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of dexamethasone combined with midazolam after middle ear surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING: University hospital.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 120 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, adult female patients undergoing middle ear surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were randomized into three groups of 40 each who received a dexamethasone dose of 10 mg/kg (group D), a combination of dexamethasone 10 mg and midazolam 0.075 mg/kg (group DM), and normal saline (group C) immediately after the induction of anesthesia. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, usage of rescue antiemetics, pain intensity, and side effects, such as headache and dizziness, were assessed during the first 24 hours after surgery.

RESULTS: The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in group D (35%, P < 0.05) and group DM (25%, P < 0.05) compared with that in group C (65%). The incidences of vomiting and usage of rescue antiemetic drugs in group DM were lower than those in group D ( P < 0.05). There were no significant differences among groups in pain intensity and side effects, such as headache and dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS: The combination of dexamethasone and midazolam was better than dexamethasone alone in reducing the incidence of vomiting and the rescue antiemetic requirements in women patients undergoing middle ear surgery. However, this combination treatment did not significantly decrease the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting compared with the use of dexamethasone alone.

Antiemetics: an update and the MASCC guidelines applied in clinical practice

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most severe problems for patients treated with chemotherapy. Until the late 1970s, nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy was an almost neglected research area. With the introduction of cisplatin, the cytotoxin with the highest emetic potential, research was stimulated and has now resulted in the development of two new classes of antiemetics, the serotonin and neurokinin antagonists. A large number of trials have fine-tuned antiemetic therapy and made evidence-based recommendations possible for the majority of patients receiving chemotherapy. This Review discusses the pathophysiology of nausea and vomiting, the development of antiemetics, highlights some of the newest antiemetics, and finally summarizes recommendations from the evidence-based guidelines developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer.

Comparative activity of antiemetic drugs

Nausea and vomiting continues to be an important problem for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are classified as acute, occurring within the first 24h, or delayed, occurring after the first 24h. A number of antiemetic agents are available for the management of nausea and vomiting, including 5-HT3-receptor-antagonists, corticosteroids, NK-1-receptor-antagonists, dopamine-receptor antagonists, benzodiazepines, neuroleptics and cannabinoids. With modern antiemetic therapy, vomiting can be prevented in 70-80% of patients, whereas the control of nausea remains suboptimal. The development of acute emesis is known to depend on serotonin. The pathophysiology of delayed emesis is less well understood, and multiple mechanisms may contribute, including substance P. Here, the most recent developments in the antiemetic therapy, including new antiemetic drugs and the latest guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis, are reviewed.

New approaches to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: from neuropharmacology to clinical investigations

Nausea and vomiting are considered to be among the most distressing consequences of cytotoxic chemotherapies. Currently, there are several novel 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), including ondansetron, granisetron, and dolasetron. These agents provide significant improvement in the management of acute emesis but are ineffective at preventing delayed emesis. In 2003, a new 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, palonosetron HCL (Aloxi), was introduced to the U.S. market. Palonosetron was found to be effective in preventing delayed CINV. Indeed, palonosetron was the first and only 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist approved by the FDA for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. More recently, studies on the role of substance P in the emetic process led to the development of aprepitant (Emend) for the prevention of delayed emesis in combination with 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Despite these major advances, CINV remains uncontrolled in some patients. Current efforts are focused on treating refractory emesis and include both the clinical evaluation of compounds marketed for other indications and the preclinical evaluation of novel molecules targeting other transmitters in the emetic pathway. Ongoing work in pharmacogenomics has postulated several candidate genes that could be involved in emetic sensitivity and responsiveness to antiemetic therapy. Investigations into the pharmacogenomics of CINV may someday be able to aid in the identification of high risk patients and patients unlikely to respond to conventional therapies.