Off-Label Megestrol in Patients with Anorexia-Cachexia Syndrome Associated with Malignancy and Its Treatments

Dose-dependent effect of megestrol acetate supplementation in cancer patients with anorexia-cachexia syndrome: A meta-analysis

There is inconsistent evidence relating to the effects of megestrol acetate (MA) supplementation on cancer patients suffering from anorexia-cachexia syndrome. This review aimed to examine the dose-response effect of MA supplementation in patients with cancer-associated anorexia/cachexia. Relevant keywords were searched in PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science from inception to June 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of MA on pathologies in patients with cancer-associated cachexia. Our primary outcomes were changes in body weight and appetite. However, fatigue and quality of life were secondary outcomes. The mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated using the random-effects method. Thirteen trials comprising 1229 participants (mean age 60 years) were identified. The results of our highest versus lowest analysis revealed that MA supplementation was not associated with any increase in body weight (MD: 0.64 kg, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.38], P = 0.093, I2 = 69.1%; GRADE = very low certainty). Twelve trials, including 14 effect sizes derived from 1369 patients (intervention = 689, control = 680), provided data on the effect of MA on body weight. Subgroup analyses showed a significant increase in body weight following short-term intervention (≤8 weeks) and a combination of radiation/chemotherapy as concurrent treatment. A linear dose-response meta-analysis indicated that each 200 mg/day increment in MA consumption had a significant increase in weight gain (MD: 0.44; 95% CI [0.13, 0.74], P = 0.005; I2 = 97.1%); however, the magnitude of the effect was small. MA administration significantly affected the quality of life based on pooled effect sizes (MD: 1.15, 95% CI [0.76, 1.54], P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; n = 2 RCTs including 176 patients; GRADE = very low certainty). However, no significant effect of MA supplementation was observed on appetite (MD: 0.29, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.64], P = 0.096, I2 = 18.3%; n = 3 RCTs including 163 patients; GRADE = very low certainty) and fatigue (MD: 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.36], P = 0.236, I2 = 0%; n = 2 RCTs including 300 patients; GRADE = very low certainty). With very low certainty of the evidence, MA supplementation may not lead to a significantly increased weight gain and other outcomes.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Use of Megestrol Acetate for Cancer-Related Anorexia/Cachexia

Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia is known to be associated with worsened quality of life and survival; however, limited treatment options exist. Although megestrol acetate (MA) is often used off-label to stimulate appetite and improve anorexia/cachexia in patients with advanced cancers, the benefits are controversial. The present meta-analysis aimed to better elucidate the clinical benefits of MA in patients with cancer-related anorexia/cachexia. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, OVID Medline, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases found 23 clinical trials examining the use of MA in cancer-related anorexia. The available randomized, controlled trials were appraised using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and they had moderate-to-high risk of bias. A total of eight studies provided sufficient data on weight change for meta-analysis. The studies were divided into high-dose treatment (>320 mg/day) and low-dose treatment (≤320 mg/day). The overall pooled mean change in weight among cancer patients treated with MA, regardless of dosage was 0.75 kg (95% CI = −1.64 to 3.15, τ2 = 9.35, I2 = 96%). Patients who received high-dose MA tended to have weight loss rather than weight gain. There were insufficient studies to perform a meta-analysis for the change in tricep skinfold, midarm circumference, or quality of life measures. MA was generally well-tolerated, except for a clear thromboembolic risk, especially with higher doses. On balance, MA did not appear to be effective in providing the symptomatic improvement of anorexia/cachexia in patients with advanced cancer.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms

PURPOSE

The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms.

METHODS

We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here.

RESULTS

For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD.

CONCLUSION

We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.

Clinical Use of Progestins and Their Mechanisms of Action: Present and Future (Review)

This review summarizes the current opinions on the mechanisms of action of nuclear, mitochondrial, and membrane progesterone receptors. The main aspects of the pharmacological action of progestins have been studied. Data on the clinical use of gestagens by nosological groups are presented. Particular attention is paid to progesterone, megestrol acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate due to broadening of their spectrum of action. The possibilities of using gestagens as neuroprotectors, immunomodulators, and chemosensitizers are considered.