The role of pharmacists in multimodal cancer cachexia care

Factors Associated with Multimodal Care Practices for Cancer Cachexia among Pharmacists

Pharmacists' roles in cachexia care are unclear. This study aimed to clarify the knowledge and practice of cachexia care and identify factors related to the practice of cachexia care among pharmacists. Information on the knowledge and practice of cachexia care was obtained. Components of practicing multimodal care were evaluated. Participants were categorized into two groups according to practicing multimodal care levels. Comparisons were made between the groups, and multiple regression analysis was employed. Of the 451 pharmacists, 243 responded. They were categorized into the Practicing group (n = 119) and Not practicing group (n = 124). Significant differences were observed for the number of advanced cancer patients/month, frequency of caring for them, and involvement in training programs on cachexia. The Practicing group had significantly better knowledge about cachexia. The Practicing group used guidelines, items, and symptoms more frequently to detect cachexia. The Practicing group tended to detect cachexia and initiate interventions in earlier phases and in patients with a better status. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the most significant factor was the regular provision of care (odds ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.92). The regular provision of care was associated with the practice of multimodal care.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for cancer cachexia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cancer cachexia affects more than half of all cancer patients, reducing survival rates. Evidence-based approaches are urgently needed to optimize treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacotherapies for cancer cachexia. Three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched for the period from January 1, 2000, to March 20, 2024. The netmeta package in R software was used to calculate the pooled effect, employing a random effects model.

RESULTS

Seven placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 1421 patients were analyzed. Pairwise analysis showed that body weight increases were 4.6 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-8.37 kg) for olanzapine, 3.82 kg (95% CI 0.73-6.91 kg) for espindolol (20 mg), 2.36 kg (95% CI 1.84-2.89 kg) for anamorelin (100 mg), and 1.31 kg (95% CI 0.42-2.19 kg) for anamorelin (50 mg). In terms of safety profiles, olanzapine demonstrated the lowest odds ratio when compared to placebo, at 0.26 (95% CI 0.07-0.94), followed by anamorelin (50 mg) at 0.86 (95% CI 0.30-2.48), and anamorelin (100 mg) at 0.89 (95% CI 0.42-1.88). However, network meta-analysis could not confirm the superiority of olanzapine over anamorelin in terms of efficacy and safety.

CONCLUSION

Both olanzapine and anamorelin are useful in improving body weight in patients with cancer cachexia. Personalization may be helpful for different patients.