Side effects associated with the use of dexamethasone for prophylaxis of delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Dexamethasone-sparing strategies in anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy with a focus on 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: a network meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP).

Results

The difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs.

Conclusion

Palonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy.

The efficacy and safety of Xiao-Ban-Xia-Tang in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent and critical side effects due to chemotherapeutics. In China, Xiao-Ban-Xia-Tang (XBXT) has already been applied extensively to prevent and treat CINV. However, there is limited testimony on the effectiveness and safety of this purpose, and there was no correlative systematic review. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of XBXT in preventing and treating CINV.

Methods

The systematic search was conducted in eight databases to acquire randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that appraised the effect of XBXT in treating CINV. The vomiting and nausea relief efficiency, eating efficiency, quality of life, and adverse reactions were explored for efficacy assessment. Bias risk was rated by manipulating the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 (RoB 2). The retrieved investigations were analyzed by utilizing ReviewManager 5.4 and Stata 17.0. The quality of evidence was evaluated adopting the GRADE tool.

Results

A total of 16 clinical RCTs of XBXT in the treatment of CINV were incorporated into the investigation, with a total of 1246 participants. The meta-analysis showed that compared with conventional antiemetic drugs, XBXT and antiemetics improved the vomiting relief efficiency (RR 1.35, 95% confidence interval: 1.25-1.46, p < 0.00001), nausea relief efficiency (N = 367, RR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.09-1.38, p < 0.00001), and quality of life (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.14-1.65, p = 0.0009) and reduced the adverse events (N = 370, RR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29-0.96, p = 0.04). XBXT and DARAs raised eating efficiency compared with DARAs (N = 208, RR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.07-1.57, p = 0.007). The data existed as statistically significant, and the publication bias was identified as relatively low from the funnel plot and trim and fill analysis. In addition, sensitivity analysis demonstrated robust outcomes. The quality of evidence for each outcome ranged from moderate to high.

Conclusion

There is some encouraging evidence that XBXT and antiemetics had better therapeutic effects and safety in treating CINV than antiemetic drugs alone. The quality assessment and low publication bias indicated that the overall criterion was scientific. Better research is required to verify the evidence designed with large-scale RCTs and rigorous methods.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=281046.

A multicenter phase II trial of the triplet antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine for a cisplatin-containing regimen. - PATROL-I

Dexamethasone is one of the key antiemetic agents and is widely used even now. However, dexamethasone has been associated with several adverse reactions even after short-term administration. Therefore, developing a steroid-free antiemetic regimen is an important issue to consider. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine in a multi-institutional phase II study. Chemotherapy-naive patients scheduled to receive cisplatin were enrolled and evaluated for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was total control (TC) in the overall phase. The key secondary endpoint was complete response (CR), which was assessed in the acute, delayed, and overall phase, respectively. Adverse events were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Eighty-five patients were enrolled from 8 centers in Japan, of which 83 were evaluable for analyses. The percentage of patients who achieved TC during the overall phase was 31.3%. CR was achieved in 61.4%, 84.3%, and 65.1% of patients during the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse event was anorexia. The primary endpoint was below the threshold and we could not find benefit in the dexamethasone-free regimen, but CR during the overall phase was similar to that of the conventional three-drug regimen. This antiemetic regimen without dexamethasone might be an option for patients for whom corticosteroids should not be an active application.

Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial)

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%.

RESULTS

A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life.

CONCLUSION

DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER

UMIN000032269.

Dexamethasone-free antiemetic strategy for highly emetogenic chemotherapy: safety and efficacy-pilot study

OBJECTIVES

Dexamethasone sparing strategies have shown success. The feasibility of a dexamethasone-free antiemetic strategy remains undetermined. A prospective, single-arm, pilot study was planned to determine the efficacy of an olanzapine-based, dexamethasone-free, three-drug antiemetic regimen.

METHODS

Chemotherapy naïve, adult patients (≥18 years) who received ondansetron, aprepitant and olanzapine during the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete response (CR: no vomiting and no use of rescue medications) during the overall period (0-120 hours).

RESULTS

Out of the total of 101 patients enrolled, most were women (82%) and received anthracycline cyclophosphamide (73%) combination therapy. The rate of CR for the overall period was 65% (95% CI 55.2% to 74.5%). The rate of CR for the acute and delayed period was 79% (95% CI 70% to 86.7%) and 76% (95% CI 66.7% to 84.1%). The rate of nausea control rates for the acute, delayed and overall periods were 34%, 29% and 24%, respectively. The grade I, II and III sedation rates over the 5 days were 8%, 5% and 1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The dexamethasone-free antiemetic strategy showed modest efficacy with low incidence of clinically significant somnolence. There is a need to prospectively investigate the role of dexamethasone in the era of newer potent antiemetics in a randomised fashion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2021/07/034813.

Dexamethasone and hiccups: a 2000-patient, telephone-based study

OBJECTIVES

Dexamethasone causes hiccups in an undefined percentage of patients, and these hiccups are often ignored ('My doctors just shook their heads like I was joking …'). This study sought to learn the percentage of dexamethasone-treated patients who develop hiccups and to explore patients' responses to the availability of educational materials on hiccups.

METHODS

English-speaking, adult outpatients treated with oral, intravenous or epidural dexamethasone 2 weeks prior were contacted by phone and asked about hiccups. Educational materials were offered, and patients were queried on their opinion of the availability of such materials.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-seven patients or 11% (95% CI 9% to 13%) reported hiccups. This percentage was derived from 1186 reachable patients from 2000 total patients. Fifty-four (43%) of those with hiccups desired to learn about educational materials. Of these, 49 completed a single-item, 5-point scale item: 21 (43%) viewed the availability of educational materials 'extremely helpful,' providing a 5 rating; 8 (16%) provided a 4; 4 (8%) provided a 3; and 1 (4%) provided a 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone-induced hiccups occur in a small percentage of patients. The fact that most patients responded favourably to learning about the availability of educational materials suggests some have unmet needs.

Prolonged effects of dexamethasone following total knee arthroplasty: A pre-planned sub-study of the DEX-2-TKA trial

OBJECTIVES

The DEX-2-TKA trial demonstrated that one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone reduced opioid consumption and pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We aimed to investigate the prolonged effects of dexamethasone after the 48-h intervention period.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, pre-planned questionnaire follow-up on postoperative days 3-7 of patients in the DEX-2-TKA trial that randomly received: DX1 (dexamethasone 24 mg + placebo), DX2 (dexamethasone 24 mg + dexamethasone 24 mg), and placebo (placebo + placebo) perioperatively and 24 h later.

SETTING

A multicenter trial performed at five Danish hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

We analyzed 434 of 485 adult participants enrolled in the DEX-2-TKA trial.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was difference between groups in average of all numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores reported in the morning, at bedtime, and the daily average pain on postoperative days 3-7. Secondary outcomes were sleep quality and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range) pain intensity levels for postoperative days 3-7 were: DX2 3.2 (2.1-4.3); DX1 3.3 (2.3-4.1); and placebo 3.3 (2.5-4.7). Hodges-Lehmann median differences between groups were: 0 (95% confidence interval - 0.54 to 0.2), P = 0.38 between DX1 and placebo; 0.1 (-0.47 to 0.33), p = .87 between DX1 and DX2; and 0.1 (-0.6 to 0.13), p = .20 between DX2 and placebo. We found no relevant differences between groups on sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 nor for patient satisfaction with the analgesic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that neither one nor two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone demonstrated prolonged effects on overall pain or sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 after total knee arthroplasty. We also found that dexamethasone had no effect on patient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03506789 (main result trial).

Dexamethasone-Free Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Double-Blind, Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial (CINV POD study)

PURPOSE

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone (DEX)-free regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is not known.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, phase III trial designed to show the noninferiority of a DEX-free regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant [OPF]) compared with the DEX-containing regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and DEX [OPD]). Chemotherapy-naïve patients age 18-80 years receiving single-day HEC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either the OPD regimen or the OPF regimen. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates for vomiting during the overall period (start of chemotherapy to 120 hours). Secondary objectives included CR for vomiting during the acute period (0-24 hours) and delayed period (24-120 hours), CR for nausea, and comparison of toxicities and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-six patients received the study interventions, 174 in the OPD arm and 172 in the OPF arm. The DEX-free OPF arm had significantly higher CR rates for vomiting compared with the DEX-containing OPD arm in acute (94.7% v 85.6%; P < .004), delayed (81.9% v 50.5%; P < .001), and overall (79.6% v 48.8%; P < .001) periods. For nausea, CR rates in the OPF arm were higher in delayed (53.4% v 39.6%; P = .009) and overall (50.5% v 39.1%; P = .031) periods but not in the acute period (77.9% v 81.6%; P = .39). Fatigue (P = .009) and drowsiness (P = .002) were more in the OPF arm in the acute period and insomnia (P < .001) in the OPD arm in the overall period.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that a DEX-free OPF regimen is efficacious and should be considered a standard option for acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis for HEC.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

This review is an update of the MASCC/ESMO 2015 recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed from June 1, 2015, through February 1, 2023.

RESULTS

We identified 56 references (16 were duplications or invalid), leaving 40 manuscripts for this search. The panel classified level I evidence (three manuscripts) and level II evidence (14 manuscripts). High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant were discussed in four of these manuscripts, and multiple-day chemotherapy treatment in 15. Some manuscripts covered both topics. Additionally, a search for breakthrough nausea and vomiting resulted in 12 "hits." No new relevant studies were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations for patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplants and patients undergoing multiple-day cisplatin were updated. For patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy for stem cell transplant, a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended. Olanzapine could be considered part of the antiemetic regimen. Patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant plus olanzapine. For patients experiencing breakthrough nausea and vomiting, the available evidence suggests using a single dose of olanzapine daily for 3 days.

Perioperative Dexamethasone Associated With Decreased Length of Stay After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Dexamethasone is increasingly used after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain. The primary aim of this study was to examine the relationship between perioperative intravenous (IV) dexamethasone and length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing primary, elective TJA.

METHODS

All patients who underwent TJA from 2015 to 2020 and received perioperative IV dexamethasone were queried from the Premier Healthcare Database. The cohort of patients who received dexamethasone was randomly truncated by a power of 10 and matched in a 1:2 ratio based on age and sex to patients who did not receive dexamethasone. Patient characteristics, hospital factors, comorbidities, 90-day postoperative complications, LOS, and postoperative morphine milligram equivalents were recorded for each cohort. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess differences.

RESULTS

Overall, 190,974 matched patients were included, 63,658 (33.3%) of whom received dexamethasone and 127,316 (66.7%) did not. The dexamethasone cohort was composed of fewer patients with uncomplicated diabetes (11.6% vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001). Patients who received dexamethasone had significantly decreased mean LOS compared with patients who did not receive dexamethasone (1.66 vs. 2.03 days, P < 0.001). After controlling for confounding variables, dexamethasone was associated with significantly lower risk of pulmonary embolism (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.90, P = 0.003), deep vein thrombosis (aOR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.89, P < 0.001), PONV (aOR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.80, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (aOR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.89, P < 0.001), and urinary tract infection (aOR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.80, P < 0.001). In aggregate, dexamethasone was associated with similar postoperative opioid utilization between cohorts ( P = 0.061).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative dexamethasone was associated with reduced LOS and decreased postoperative complications including PONV, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, acute kidney injury, and urinary tract infection after TJA. Although perioperative dexamethasone was not associated with notable reductions in postoperative opioid utilization, this study supports the use of dexamethasone to decrease LOS through multifactorial mechanisms beyond decreased pain.

Chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: Pathogenesis and current management

Chemotherapy is the most common treatment for malignant tumors. However, chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity (CIGT) has been a major concern for cancer patients, which reduces their quality of life and leads to treatment intolerance and even cessation. Nevertheless, prevention and treatment for CIGT are challenging, due to the prevalence and complexity of the condition. Chemotherapeutic drugs directly damage gastrointestinal mucosa to induce CIGT, including nausea, vomiting, anorexia, gastrointestinal mucositis, and diarrhea, etc. The pathogenesis of CIGT involves multiple factors, such as gut microbiota disorders, inflammatory responses and abnormal neurotransmitter levels, that synergistically contribute to its occurrence and development. In particular, the dysbiosis of gut microbiota is usually linked to abnormal immune responses that increases inflammatory cytokines' expression, which is a common characteristic of many types of CIGT. Chemotherapy-induced intestinal neurotoxicity is also a vital concern in CIGT. Currently, modern medicine is the dominant treatment of CIGT, however, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has attracted interest as a complementary and alternative therapy that can greatly alleviate CIGT. Accordingly, this review aimed to comprehensively summarize the pathogenesis and current management of CIGT using PubMed and Google Scholar databases, and proposed that future research for CIGT should focus on the gut microbiota, intestinal neurotoxicity, and promising TCM therapies, which may help to develop more effective interventions and optimize managements of CIGT.

Cancer Cell Membrane-Enveloped Dexamethasone Normalizes the Tumor Microenvironment and Enhances Gynecologic Cancer Chemotherapy

The aberrant tumor microenvironment (TME), especially immature and leaky vessels, prevents the penetration and accumulation of chemotherapeutics and results in the failure of chemotherapy to treat gynecologic cancer. Herein, dexamethasone (Dex), a glucocorticoid steroid used to moderate tumor extracellular matrix and normalize vessels, was enclosed within a biocompatible material known as poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), and the obtained Dex@PLGA was further coated with a mouse cervical cancer cell membrane (CM). The formulated Dex@PLGA-CM nanoparticles showed efficient extravascular diffusion within the tumor owing to the homologous targeting abilities inherited from the source cancer cells. The Dex@PLGA-CM nanoparticles greatly reshaped the TME, enhancing the penetration of Doxil and thus markedly improving the therapeutic effect of this drug against cervical cancers. Excitingly, the Dex@PLGA-CM nanoparticles coated with mouse ovarian cancer cell membranes also promoted Doxil-mediated chemotherapy effects in metastatic ovarian cancer when administered intraperitoneally. This work presents an effective nanomedicine for the efficient modification of the TME to enhance the effects of gynecologic cancer chemotherapy.

Prevalence and predictors of long-delayed (> 120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although there have been reports of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) beyond 120 h, its overall prevalence has not been systematically examined. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to report on the prevalence of this long-delayed CINV.

METHODS

This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022346963). PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until August 2022. Articles were included if they reported on CINV > 120 h after initiation of the chemotherapy regimen and patients received a single-agent highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) antineoplastic agent for 1 day alone or in combination with low/minimal emetogenic chemotherapy. For all eligible articles, individual study authors were contacted and requested to provide individual patient-level data of demographics, emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens, and daily incidence of nausea and vomiting. Forward stepwise logistic regression identified predictors for the incident day's CINV based on prior day's CINV episodes, controlling for patient demographics, and stratified by regimen emetogenicity.

RESULTS

A total of 2048 patients from 2 studies were included in this individual patient data meta-analysis: 1333 patients (65%) received HEC and 715 (35%) received MEC. Among those receiving HEC, 325 (24%) experienced acute, 652 (49%) delayed, and 393 (31%) long-delayed nausea; 107 (8%) experienced acute, 179 (14%) delayed, and 79 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Among those receiving MEC, 48 (7%) experienced acute, 272 (38%) delayed, and 167 (24%) long-delayed nausea; 12 (2%) experienced acute, 97 (14%) delayed, and 42 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Nausea in the long-delayed phase was as severe as in the delayed phase. Patients experiencing nausea and vomiting on days 4 and 5 were at significant risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

CONCLUSION

While not as prevalent as delayed nausea and vomiting, long-delayed CINV affects a significant proportion of patients and severity is similar. Patients with delayed CINV, specifically on days 4-5, are at risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in older patients (>65 years) fit for cisplatin: A sub-analysis from a phase 3 study

INTRODUCTION

We recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the guideline-recommended DEX use for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Since prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the DEX-sparing regimens in this subset.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chemo-naive patients aged >65 years treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) were eligible. Patients received NEPA and DEX on day 1 and were randomized to receive either (1) no further DEX (DEX1), (2) oral low-dose DEX (4 mg) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or (3) the guideline-recommended standard DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint of the parent study was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). No significant nausea (NSN; none or mild nausea) and the proportion of patients reporting no impact on daily life (NIDL) which was evaluated by the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire on day 6 (overall combined score > 108), were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Among the 228 patients in the parent study, 107 were > 65 years. Similar CR rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were observed in patients over 65 years across treatment groups [DEX1: 75% (59.7-86.8%); DEX3: 80.6% (62.5-92.6%); DEX4: 75% (56.6-88.5%)] as well as versus the total study population. NSN rates were also similar in the older-patients across treatment groups (p = 0.480) but were higher compared with the total population. Similar rates of NIDL (95% CI) were reported in the older-patient subset across treatment groups [DEX1: 61.5% (44.6-76.6%); DEX3: 64.3% (44.1-81.4%); DEX4: 62.1% (42.3-79.3%); p = 1.0] during the overall phase, as well as versus total population. A similar proportion of older patients across treatment groups experienced DEX-related side effects.

DISCUSSION

This analysis shows that older-patients who are fit for cisplatin benefit from a simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX with neither loss in antiemetic efficacy nor the adverse impact on patient daily functioning. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04201769) on 17/12/2019 (retrospectively registered).

Effects of food-based interventions in the management of chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment-related nausea and vomiting continue to be common and distressing symptoms for patients, despite improvements in antiemetics. Dietary modifications could potentially improve this symptom experience. Clinicians frequently provide dietary advice to patients, although the evidence base of such suggestions or recommendations is not clear.

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to examine the current literature on food interventions associated with improvements in cancer treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

Eight electronic databases were searched with a specific search term strategy covering trials without time or language limitations. Eligible studies focused on a food substance, defined as any nutritious substance that people eat or drink to maintain life and well-being. Trials in children and adults during chemotherapy or radiotherapy were included. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess trial quality and GRADE was used to assess the certainty in the effect of each outcome.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials were included, 3 focusing on children and 14 on adults. Two trials included patients receiving radiation. Ten out of 17 trials (59%) had a high risk of bias. Strongest evidence with highest certainty was found for dietary counseling to meet macronutrient requirements in reducing incidence of radiotherapy-related nausea and vomiting in adults (n=2 studies; n=124 participants; GRADE level: moderate). There was also moderate certainty in the beneficial effect of protein supplementation on nausea and vomiting incidence in adults during radiotherapy (n=2 studies; n=124 participants; GRADE level: moderate). A significant positive effect on CINV incidence and/or severity in adults was also found for dietary counseling to meet macronutrient requirements during chemotherapy, a peppermint drink, scaly wood mushroom, chamomile, protein with ginger, and a colorless odorless diet (GRADE level: low to very low).

CONCLUSIONS

The review identified food-based approaches that could improve the nausea and vomiting experience in patients with cancer and provide guidance to clinicians. However, confidence in these findings was low and studies were heterogeneous and mostly of low quality, requiring further investigation before stronger recommendations can be made. Future research is needed to confirm efficacy and safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022341154.

Dexamethasone to prednisolone rotation relieved hiccups in colorectal cancer patient continuing teleworking during anticancer therapy

We present a case of chemotherapy-induced hiccups that were alleviated by steroid rotation. Hiccups are often overlooked, but they have an impact on the patient's quality of life. In the COVID-19 era, web-based teleworking has become an important tool, hiccups during a teleconference should be noted as a concern for patients.

Effects of Dexamethasone on Postoperative Glycemic Control in Diabetic Patients Following Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Concerns regarding the effects of dexamethasone on diabetics' glucose control have stymied its use following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two intravenous (IV) perioperative doses of dexamethasone on glucose levels, pain scores, and inpatient opioid consumption following TJA in diabetic patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 523 diabetic patients who underwent primary elective THA and 953 diabetic patients who underwent primary elective TKA between May 6, 2020 and December 17, 2021. Patients who received one dose (1D) of perioperative dexamethasone 10 mg IV were compared to patients who received two doses (2D). Primary outcomes included postoperative glucose levels, opioid consumption as morphine milligram equivalences (MMEs), postoperative pain as Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) pain scores, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The 2D TKA cohort had significantly greater average and maximum blood glucose levels from 24 to 60 hours compared to the 1D TKA cohort. The 2D THA cohort had significantly greater average blood glucose levels at 24 to 36 hours compared to the 1D THA cohort. However, the 2D TKA group had significantly reduced opioid consumption from 24 to 72 hours and reduced total consumption compared to the 1D TKA group. VRS pain scores did not differ between cohorts for both TKA and THA at any interval.

CONCLUSION

Administration of a second perioperative dose of dexamethasone was associated with increased postoperative blood glucose levels. However, the observed effect on glucose control may not outweigh the clinical benefits of a second perioperative dose of glucocorticoids.

Betulin and Its Derivatives Reduce Inflammation and COX-2 Activity in Macrophages

Betulin is a heavily studied natural compound for its use as an anticancer or pro-regenerative agent. The structural similarity between betulin to steroids gives rise to the idea that the substance may as well act as an anti-inflammatory drug. This study is the first to describe the anti-inflammatory properties of betulinic acid, betulin, and its derivatives with amino acids 1,4-diaminebutane (Dab), 1,3-diaminepropane (Dap), Ornithine (Orn), and lysine (Lys) on murine macrophages from lymphoma site. The compounds were compared to dexamethasone. To establish the response of the macrophages to the natural compounds, we tested the viability as well as sensitivity to the inflammatory signaling (IFNγR). IL-6 secretory properties and HSP-70 content in the cells were examined. Furthermore, we characterized the effects of compounds on the inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) activity both in the enzymatic assays and molecular docking studies. Then, the changes in COX-2 expression after betulin treatment were assessed. Betulin and betulinic acid are the low-cytotoxicity compounds with the highest potential to decrease inflammation via reduced IL-6 secretion. To some extent, they induce the reorganization of IFNγR with nearly no effect on COX-2 activity. Conversely, Bet-Orn and Bet-Lys are highly cytotoxic and induce the aggregation of IFNγR. Besides, Bet-Lys reduces the activity of COX-2 to a higher degree than dexamethasone. Bet-Orn is the only one to increase the HSP-70 content in the macrophages. In case of IL-6 reduction, all compounds were more potent than dexamethasone.

The AAHKS Best Podium Presentation Research Award: A Second Dose of Dexamethasone Reduces Postoperative Opioid Consumption and Pain in Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The optimal administration of dexamethasone for postoperative pain management and recovery following primary elective total joint arthroplasty (TJA) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a second intravenous (IV) dose of dexamethasone on postoperative pain scores, inpatient opioid consumption, and functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of 2,256 primary elective THAs and 1,951 primary elective TKAs between May 2020 and April 2021. Patients who received 2 perioperative doses (2D) of dexamethasone 10 mg IV were propensity-matched 1:1 to a control group who received 1 perioperative dose (1D). Primary outcomes were opiate consumption as morphine milligram equivalences (MMEs), postoperative pain as Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) pain scores, and functional status assessed by the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) scores.

RESULTS

The 2D THA and 2D TKA cohorts consumed significantly less opiates at the 24 to 48-hour and 48 to 72-hour intervals. The 2D TKA cohort had significantly lower total opiate consumption compared to the 1D TKA cohort. Compared to the 1D cohorts, the 2D THA cohort and 2D TKA cohorts had significantly lower pain scores at the 48 to 60-hour interval; additionally, the 2D TKA cohort had significantly lower pain scores in the 36 to 48-hour interval. AM-PAC scores did not differ between cohorts for both TKA and THA at any interval.

CONCLUSION

The administration of a second perioperative dexamethasone dose significantly decreased opioid consumption in the immediate postoperative period. Inpatient opioid administration can be significantly reduced while maintaining comparable functional recovery and superior pain control.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Retrospective Cohort Study.

Exploratory analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone-sparing regimen for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis on food intake (LUNG-NEPA study)

We demonstrated the non-inferiority of a dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing (single-dose) regimen with NEPA, a netupitant/palonosetron fixed combination, for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by cisplatin. This pre-planned exploratory analysis assessed the effect of the DEX-sparing regimen on a patient's food intake. Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either no further DEX (DEX1), or oral DEX (4 mg BID) on days 2-4 (DEX4). Patient-reported endpoint maintenance of usual daily food intake was assessed during the 5-days post-chemotherapy. The relationship between usual daily food intake and CINV control, pre-chemotherapy self-rated food intake and BMI-adjusted weight loss (WL) were evaluated. One-hundred fifty-two patients (76/group) were assessable. The proportion of patients reporting maintenance of usual daily food intake was similar in both groups: 69.7% (95% CI, 58.6-78.9) for DEX1 vs. 72.4% (95% CI, 61.4-81.2) for DEX4. Only CINV control was significantly associated with maintenance of usual daily food intake (P ≤ 0.001) during the overall phase. The DEX-sparing regimen does not adversely affect patient-reported daily food intake post-chemotherapy. The current analysis adds further insights into antiemetic efficacy of DEX sparing beyond day 1 in the challenging setting of cisplatin.Trial registration: The parent study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04201769).

Efficacy and Safety of Ginger on the Side Effects of Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the world, with breast cancer being the most prevalent cancer. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most serious side effects of chemotherapy. Because the current CINV treatment option has several flaws, alternative treatment options are required. Ginger has traditionally been used to treat nausea and vomiting, and it also has anticancer properties in breast cancer cells. Based on these findings, researchers investigated whether using ginger to treat CINV in breast cancer patients is both effective and safe. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang from inception to June 2022. Outcomes included Rhodes Index Scores of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching, severity and frequency of CINV. Five RCTs were included. We pooled all included data and performed subgroup analysis by types of CINV. Overall, authors found that ginger was associated with a reduction in CINV. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis revealed that managing severity of acute CINV in breast cancer patients with ginger was efficient. In terms of managing delayed CINV in breast cancer patients, ginger was also statistically significant. The authors concluded that ginger may be helpful in lowering both acute and delayed CINV in breast cancer patients. Since there were no serious side effects, ginger is thought to be safe.

Efficacy of the dexamethasone-sparing triplet regimen for preventing cisplatin-induced emesis: a combined analysis

Aim: To further evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of single-dose versus multiple-dose dexamethasone (DEX) against nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin. Materials & methods: Two similar non-inferiority studies were pooled. Patients were randomized to single-day DEX or multiple-day DEX plus palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase. Results: The combined analysis included 242 patients. The absolute risk difference between single day versus multi-day DEX for CR was -2% (95% CI, -14 to 9%). Conclusion: Administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in the setting of single-day cisplatin.

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

Background

The 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).

Methods

Chemotherapy-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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusion

Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Aprepitant plus palonosetron versus dexamethasone plus palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy: A randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background

Despite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by using dexamethasone combined with palonosetron for patients who received moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), some of these patients still suffer from CINV. We evaluated whether aprepitant combined with palonosetron can improve the efficacy in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving MEC.

Methods

This was a single-centre, open-label, phase III, randomized controlled trial, which was done at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University of China. The registered patients planned to receive mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) but had not received any chemotherapy previously. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the aprepitant group (aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1, 80 mg on day 2-3) and the dexamethasone group (dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously on day 1, 5 mg on days 2 and 3), both groups with palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously on day 1. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as the absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the overall phase (0-120 h). The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded all patients who used estazolam within 24 h before registration and those who refused to keep a diary documenting the severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting, and the use of rescue therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02909478.

Findings

Between Sep 1, 2017, and Oct 23, 2019, 320 patients were enrolled, and 315 patients were evaluated. The proportion of patients who achieved CR was significantly higher with aprepitant than that noted with dexamethasone in the overall phase (88.8% vs. 74.2%; P = 0.0010; rate difference, RD 15%, 95% CI, 6% to 23%) and in the delayed phase (25-120 h), 90.6% vs. 75.5%, (P < 0.0001; RD 15%, 95%CI, 7% to 23%). No significant difference of CR rate was observed in the acute phase (0-24 h), 93.8% vs. 93.5%, (P = 0.94; RD 0%, 95% CI, -5% to 6%)). In the overall phase, the incidence of insomnia (P < 0.0010), dyspepsia (P = 0.038), and flushing (P = 0.0010) reported by the patients was significantly higher in the dexamethasone group than that in the aprepitant group.

Interpretation

Aprepitant combined with palonosetron is superior to dexamethasone combined with palonosetron in patients who received the MEC regimen mFOLFOX6 in terms of preventing CINV.

Funding

The National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFC1316000) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81974369).

Nanomaterials for Photocatalytic Degradations of Analgesic, Mucolytic and Anti-Biotic/Viral/Inflammatory Drugs Widely Used in Controlling SARS-CoV-2

The COVID-19 pandemic has been transformed into one of the main worldwide challenges, in recent years. For controlling symptoms that are caused by this disease (e.g., chills or fever, shortness of breath and/or difficulty in breathing, cough, sore throat, fatigue, headache, muscle aches, the new loss of tastes and/or smells, congestion or runny nose, nausea, vomiting and/or diarrhea), lots of medicines including analgesics, mucolytics, and anti-biotic/viral/inflammatory drugs have been frequently prescribed. As these medicines finally contaminate terrestrial and aquatic habitats by entering surface waterways through pharmaceutical production and excreting trace amounts of waste after human usage, they have negative impacts on wildlife’s health and ecosystem. Residual drugs in water have the potential to harm aquatic creatures and disrupt their food chain as well as the breeding cycle. Therefore, proper degradation of these broadly used medicines is highly crucial. In this work, the use of nanomaterials applicable in photocatalytic degradations of analgesics (e.g., acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen), mucolytics (e.g., ambroxol), antibiotics (e.g., azithromycin and quinolones including hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine phosphate), anti-inflammatory glucocorticoids (e.g., dexamethasone and cortisone acetate), antihistamines (e.g., diphenhydramine), H2 blockers (e.g., famotidine), anthelmintics (e.g., praziquantel), and finally antivirals (e.g., ivermectin, acyclovir, lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, nitazoxanide, and remdesivir) which widely used in controlling/treating the coronavirus have been reviewed and discussed.

Hiccups in patients with cancer: a multi-site, single-institution study of etiology, severity, complications, interventions, and outcomes

Background

To our knowledge, previous studies have not investigated hiccups in patients with cancer with detailed patient-level data with the goal of capturing a broad spectrum of hiccup symptomatology.

Methods

This multi-site, single institution study examined consecutive medical records to better understand hiccups in patients with cancer.

Results

A total of 320 patients are the focus of this report. The median age of patients when hiccups were first reported in the medical record was 63 years (range: 21, 97 years) with 284 (89%) men and 36 (11%) women. The most common diagnose was gastrointestinal cancer. Hiccups most frequently occurred daily, as seen in 194 patients (62%), and the most common duration was less than 1 week, as seen in 146 patients (47%). However, nine patients had had daily hiccups for greater than 6 weeks, and 5 had symptoms for years. Cited etiology was non-chemotherapy medications in 36 (11%) and cancer chemotherapy in 19 (6%). Complications occurred in approximately a third and included insomnia in 51 patients (16%); hospitalization or emergency department visit in 34 (11%); and musculoskeletal pain in 23 (7%). Baclofen was the single most prescribed agent for hiccup palliation, but 100 patients received more than one medication. Medical procedures, which included acupuncture, paracentesis, or phrenic nerve block, were performed in 5 patients. In 234 patients (73%), the medical record documented hiccup cessation.

Conclusions

Hiccups appear to be highly problematic in a small subset of patients with cancer with no well-defined palliative approaches.

Antiemetic prophylaxis for chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in locally advanced head and heck squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective phase II trial

Background

There is sparse research reporting effective interventions for preventing nausea and emesis caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC).

Methods

Treatment-naïve LA-HNSCC patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concomitant cisplatin 100 mg/m² (33 mg/m²/days [d]1–3) every 3 weeks for two cycles. All patients were given oral aprepitant 125 mg once on d1, then 80 mg once on d2–5; ondansetron 8 mg once on d1; and dexamethasone 12 mg once on d1, then 8 mg on d2–5. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR). Pursuant to δ = 0.2 and α = 0.05, the expected CR rate was 80%.

Results

A total of 43 patients with LA-HNSCC were enrolled. The median age was 53 years, and 86.0% were male. All patients received radiotherapy and 86.0% of patients completed both cycles as planned. The overall CR rate was 86.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.1–94.7). The CR rates for cycles 1 and 2 were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9–96.1) and 89.2% (95% CI: 74.6–97.0). The complete protection rate in the overall phase was 72.1% (95% CI: 56.3–84.7). The emesis-free and nausea-free responses in the overall phase were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9–96.1) and 60.5% (95% CI: 44.4–75.0), respectively. The adverse events related to antiemetics were constipation (65.1%) and hiccups (16.3%), but both were grade 1–2. There was no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related toxicity with antiemetic usage.

Conclusion

The addition of aprepitant into ondansetron and dexamethasone provided effective protection from nausea and emesis in patients with LA-HNSCC receiving radiotherapy and concomitant high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

The Prevention and Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Tumor Therapy

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia.

METHODS

The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods.

CONCLUSION

Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone with NK1RA for Patients Receiving Carboplatin and Moderate Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy, which limits administration of DEX to day one, is reportedly non-inferior to conventional antiemetic regimens comprising multiple-day DEX. However, the usefulness of the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA] + serotonin receptor antagonist [5HT3RA] + DEX) for carboplatin and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has not been clarified.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of antiemetics for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with carboplatin and MEC. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the antiemesis efficacy of three-day DEX with NK1RA (3-DEX + NK1RA) and one-day DEX with NK1RA (1-DEX + NK1RA). The primary outcome was complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP). The secondary outcome was no nausea during the delayed phase (NN-DP).

RESULTS

Seventeen trials involving 4534 patients were included. The proportion who experienced CR-DP was 82.5% (95% credible interval [CI], 73.9-88.6) and 73.5% (95% CI, 62.8-80.9) among those who received 3-DEX + NK1RA and 1-DEX + NK1RA, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two regimens. However, 3-DEX + NK1RA tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA, with an absolute risk difference of 9.0% (95% CI, -2.3 to 21.1) in CR-DP and 24.7% (95% CI: -14.9 to 54.6) in NN-DP. 3-DEX + NK1RA also tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA in patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy, for whom the absolute risk difference was 12.3% (95% CI, -3.2 to 30.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Care is needed when administering the DEX-sparing strategy in combination with NK1RA to patients receiving carboplatin and non-carboplatin MEC.

Artemisia gmelinii Attenuates Lung Inflammation by Suppressing the NF-κB/MAPK Pathway

Cigarette smoke (CS) is the main cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and continuous CS exposure causes lung inflammation and deterioration. To investigate the protective effects of Artemisia gmelinii against lung inflammation in this study, cigarette smoke extract (CSE)/lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-treated alveolar macrophages (AMs) and mice stimulated with CSE/porcine pancreas elastase (PPE) were used. Artemisia gmelinii ethanol extract (AGE) was effective in decreasing the levels of cytokines, chemokine, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and cyclooxygenase-2 by inhibiting mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinases/nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) signaling pathway in AMs. Additionally, oral administration of AGE suppressed inflammatory cells’ infiltration and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, matrix metallopeptidase 9, and neutrophil extracellular traps in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from the COPD model. Moreover, the obstruction of small airways, the destruction of the lung parenchyma, and expression of IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1β, and MIP-2 were suppressed by inhibiting NF-κB activation in the lung tissues of the AGE group. These effects are associated with scopolin, chlorogenic acid, hyperoside, 3,4-di-O-caffeoylquinic acid, 3,5-di-O-caffeoylquinic acid, and 4,5-di-O-caffeoylquinic acid, which are the main components of AGE. These data demonstrate the mitigation effect of AGE on lung inflammation via inhibition of MAPK and NF-κB pathways, suggesting that AGE may be instrumental in improving respiratory and lung health.

Emetogenicity of Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) in Solid Tumors with a Focus on Trastuzumab Deruxtecan: Insights from an Italian Expert Panel

Simple Summary

Four antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are approved for the treatment of solid tumors, improving the therapeutic index. Despite their high selectivity, nausea and vomiting are the most frequently observed side effects. A deeper understanding of the potential risk for nausea and vomiting is crucial, as they can affect patients’ quality of life and treatment adherence. Prophylaxis with the potential combination of antiemetic therapy with complementary non-pharmacological approaches are even more important, considering that ADC therapies are generally given continuously until disease progression or the occurrence of toxicities.

Abstract

In the past decade, nine antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been approved for the treatment of various tumors, four of which specifically for solid malignancies. ADCs deliver the cytotoxic payload to the cancer site, thereby improving chemotherapy efficacy while reducing systemic drug exposure and toxicity. With their high selectivity, ADCs are associated with a manageable side-effect profile, with nausea and vomiting being among the most frequent toxicities, although this may vary according to the respective ADC and the associated payload. Information about the emetic risk of the new ADC compounds is limited. Three virtual focus groups of Italian oncologists were held to raise awareness on the importance of an antiemetic prophylaxis regimen to prevent and mitigate ADC-associated emesis and its sequelae. After reviewing published evidence and guidelines, the three expert panels shared their experience on the early use of ADCs gained through the participation in specific clinical trials and their clinical practice. The following issues were discussed: antiemetic therapy during trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment, with a protocol adopted at the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy); the use of steroids; the management of anticipatory nausea during trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy; nutritional counselling; and effective doctor–patient communication. The experts acknowledged that recommendations should be drug-specific, and formulated opinion-based advice intended to guide physicians in their daily practice until further evidence emerges.

Analysis of Factors Associated with Hiccups Using the FAERS Database

In this study, we used the large number of cases in the FDA adverse-event reporting system (FAERS) database to investigate risk factors for drug-induced hiccups and to explore the relationship between hiccups and gender. From 11,810,863 adverse drug reactions reported between the first quarter of 2004 and the first quarter of 2020, we extracted only those in which side effects occurred between the beginning and end of drug administration. Our sample included 1454 adverse reactions for hiccups, with 1159 involving males and 257 involving females (the gender in 38 reports was unknown). We performed univariate analyses of the presence or absence of hiccups for each drug and performed multivariate analysis by adding patient information. The multivariate analysis showed nicotine products to be key suspect drugs for both men and women. For males, the risk factors for hiccups included older age, lower body weight, nicotine, and 14 other drugs. For females, only nicotine and three other drugs were extracted as independent risk factors. Using FAERS, we were thus able to extract new suspect drugs for drug-induced hiccups. Furthermore, this is the first report of a gender-specific analysis of risk factors for hiccups that provides novel insights into drug-induced hiccups, and it suggests that the mechanism responsible is strongly related to gender. Thus, this study can contribute to elucidating the mechanism underlying this phenomenon.

Effects of Intravenous Dexamethasone on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus After Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether administrations of intravenous (IV) dexamethasone jeopardize blood glycemic control, increase rates of postoperative complications, and diabetic medication change after TKA.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 427 patients with DM who underwent TKA. Patients were divided into two groups according to the use of IV dexamethasone (Dexa and No Dexa). For the Dexa, IV dexamethasone (5mg) was administered twice (surgery day, postoperative day 1). Blood glucose level until postoperative day 5, whether the mean blood glucose level was ≥200 mg/dL or not, the rate of a diabetic medication change, and postoperative complications (surgical site infection, delayed wound healing) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The adverse effects of IV dexamethasone on glycemic control were limited to the day of injection. The mean blood glucose level was 168.8 mg/dL and 204.4 mg/dL on operation day and 193.0 mg/dL and 210.5 mg/dL on postoperative day 1 in the No Dexa and the Dexa, respectively. High preoperative glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, but not IV dexamethasone administration, increased the risk of postoperative blood glucose level ≥200 mg/dL (odds ratio [OR], 2.810) and diabetic medication change (OR, 3.635, P < .001). A preoperative HbA1c level of >7.05% was associated with the risk of diabetic medication change. There was increase of postoperative complications (OR, 0.693, P = .552).

CONCLUSIONS

IV dexamethasone have transient effects on increasing the blood glucose level after TKA in patients with DM. However, patients with a preoperative HbA1c level of ≥7.05% may need to change their diabetic medication after TKA, regardless of IV dexamethasone administration.

A Repeat Dose of Perioperative Dexamethasone Can Effectively Reduce Pain, Opioid Requirement, Time to Ambulation, and In-Hospital Stay After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The ideal dose of intravenous glucocorticoids to control pain in total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains unclear. This randomized controlled trial compared postoperative pain and tramadol requirement in patients undergoing unilateral primary THA who received one versus two perioperative doses of dexamethasone.

METHODS

Patients consented to undergo blinded, simple randomization to either one (at anesthetic induction [1D-group]: 54 patients) or two (with an additional dose 8 hours after surgery [2D-group]: 61 patients) perioperative doses of 8-mg intravenous dexamethasone. Pain was evaluated with visual analog scale at 8, 16, and 24 hours postoperatively and with tramadol requirement. The secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting, time to ambulation, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Age (mean, 66 ± 13 years), body mass index (mean, 29 ± 5), gender (60% female), and history of diabetes were similar between groups (P >.05). Pain was higher at 16 (4 [interquartile range {IQR} 3-5] vs 2 [IQR 1-3]; P <.001) and 24 (2.5 [IQR 2-3] vs 1 [IQR 0-1] P <.001) hours postoperatively in the 1D-group patients. 1D-group patients had significantly more tramadol consumption (50 [IQR 50-100] vs 0 [IQR 0-50]; P = .01), as well as postoperative nausea and vomiting (18 [33.3%] vs 5 [8.2%]; P = .001). Fifty-five (90%) patients in the 2D-group and 32 (59%) in the 1D-group ambulated on postoperative day 0 (P = .0002). Fifty-eight (95%) patients in the 2D-group and 37 (68%) in the 1D-group were discharged on postoperative day 1 (P = .0002).

CONCLUSION

An additional dose of dexamethasone at 8 hours postoperatively significantly reduced pain, tramadol consumption, time to ambulation, and length of stay after primary THA.

Dexamethasone Sensitizes Cancer Stem Cells to Gemcitabine and 5-Fluorouracil by Increasing Reactive Oxygen Species Production through NRF2 Reduction

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have high tumor-initiating capacity and are resistant to chemotherapeutic reagents; thus eliminating CSCs is essential to improving the prognosis. Recently, we reported that dexamethasone increases the effects of gemcitabine on pancreatic CSCs; however, the mechanism involved remains to be fully elucidated. In this study, we explored the role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the dexamethasone-induced chemosensitization of CSCs. Dexamethasone increased the growth-inhibitory effects of gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil, whereas N-acetyl-cysteine, a ROS scavenger, abolished this effect. Although dexamethasone alone did not increase ROS levels, dexamethasone promoted the increase in ROS levels induced by gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil. Dexamethasone treatment reduced the expression of NRF2, a key regulator of antioxidant responses, which was attenuated by siRNA-mediated knockdown of the glucocorticoid receptor. Furthermore, brusatol, a suppressor of NRF2, sensitized pancreatic CSCs to gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil. Of note, essentially, the same mechanism was functional in ovarian and colon CSCs treated by the combination of dexamethasone and chemotherapeutic agents. Our study suggests that dexamethasone can sensitize CSCs to chemotherapeutic agents by promoting chemotherapy-induced ROS production through suppressing NRF2 expression.

Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy and Diabetes: A Scoping Review

Although cancer and diabetes are common diseases, the relationship between diabetes, neuropathy and the risk of developing peripheral sensory neuropathy while or after receiving chemotherapy is uncertain. In this review, we highlight the effects of chemotherapy on the onset or progression of neuropathy in diabetic patients. We searched the literature in Medline and Scopus, covering all entries until 31 January 2021. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were: (1) original article (2) full text published in English or Spanish; (3) neuropathy was specifically assessed (4) the authors separately analyzed the outcomes in diabetic patients. A total of 259 papers were retrieved. Finally, eight articles fulfilled the criteria, and four more articles were retrieved from the references of the selected articles. The analysis of the studies covered the information about neuropathy recorded in 768 cancer patients with diabetes and 5247 control cases (non-diabetic patients). The drugs investigated are chemotherapy drugs with high potential to induce neuropathy, such as platinum derivatives and taxanes, which are currently the mainstay of treatment of various cancers. The predisposing effect of co-morbid diabetes on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy depends on the type of symptoms and drug used, but manifest at any drug regimen dosage, although greater neuropathic signs are also observed at higher dosages in diabetic patients. The deleterious effects of chemotherapy on diabetic patients seem to last longer, since peripheral neuropathy persisted in a higher proportion of diabetic patients than non-diabetic patients for up to two years after treatment. Future studies investigating the risk of developing peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients with comorbid diabetes need to consider the duration of diabetes, cancer-induced neuropathic effects per se (prior chemotherapy administration), and the effects of previous cancer management strategies such as radiotherapy and surgery.

Determining Chemotherapy Agents in Saliva through Spectrometry and Chromatography Methods Correlated with Periodontal Status in Oncology Patients

Background: The aim of this study is to quantify chemotherapy agents in the saliva of oncology patients undergoing intravenous chemotherapy treatment, and evaluate the oral and periodontal clinical modifications and possible correlations between them. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 29 patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment with cisplatin, oxaliplatin or gemcitabine. Three total saliva samples were gathered from each patient in three key points regarding chemotherapy. The samples were then analyzed through methods of mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography. Results: Cisplatin and gemcitabine were only found in saliva at 30 min and 2 h after chemotherapy administration, however oxaliplatin was determined in all three samples. Clinically, the most accentuated clinical attachment loss and CPITN scores were observed on mandibular teeth, whereas the highest values for the Sillness and Loe gingival index and gingival bleeding index were in the lateral maxillary areas. We found no statistically significant correlation between the periodontal parameters and chemotherapy concentration in saliva. Conclusion: A fraction of systemically administered chemotherapy can also be found in the saliva of oncology patients and have the potential to exacerbate oral infections and cause local and systemic complications throughout the oncology treatment. Further research is required in order to fully understand how chemotherapy can influence the development of periodontal disease.

Dexamethasone-Sparing Regimens with Oral Netupitant and Palonosetron for the Prevention of Emesis Caused by High-Dose Cisplatin: A Randomized Noninferiority Study

Background

To reduce the overall exposure to dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving cisplatin‐based chemotherapy, we evaluated the noninferiority of DEX on day 1, with or without low‐dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with an oral fixed‐dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), compared with the guideline‐consistent use of 4‐day DEX.

Patients and Methods

In this open‐label, multicenter study, chemotherapy‐naïve patients undergoing high‐dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m²), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (a) no further DEX (DEX1), (b) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or (c) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) during the 5‐day overall phase. The noninferiority margin was set at −15% difference (DEX1 or DEX3 minus DEX4). Secondary efficacy endpoints included complete protection (CP: CR and none or mild nausea).

Results

Two‐hundred twenty‐eight patients, 76 in each arm, were assessable. Noninferiority was met for both DEX‐sparing regimens and the reference arm, with overall phase CR rates of 76.3% in each of the DEX1 and DEX3 arms and 75.0% in the DEX4 arm (95% confidence interval, −12.3% to 15% for each comparison). During the overall phase, CP rates were similar between groups.

Conclusion

A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single‐dose DEX offers comparable chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting prevention throughout 5 days post‐chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high–emetic‐risk setting of cisplatin‐based chemotherapy.

Implications for Practice

Dexamethasone (DEX) has traditionally played an integral role in the management of chemotherapy‐induced emesis. Although generally considered safe, even short‐term DEX use is associated with various side effects, and some evidence suggests that concurrent steroids may reduce the efficacy of immunotherapies. This study demonstrates comparable antiemetic control during the 5 days post‐chemotherapy with a simplified regimen of netupitant/palonosetron plus single‐dose DEX versus the standard 4‐day DEX reference treatment in high‐dose cisplatin. This represents a clinically relevant achievement as it not only simplifies antiemetic prophylaxis but also offers an opportunity to appropriately use in patients where caution with corticosteroid use is advised.

This study was designed to test whether two different dexamethasone‐sparing regimens, when administered with NEPA, might provide the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose while maintaining the same degree of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting control in patients undergoing cisplatin‐based chemotherapy.

A prospective multi-centre, randomized study comparing the addition of tapering dexamethasone to other standard of care therapies for taxane-associated pain syndrome (TAPS) in breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Taxane-associated pain syndrome (TAPS) is common with docetaxel and is characterised by myalgias and arthralgias starting 2-3 days after treatment and can last for up to 7 days. Anecdotal evidence suggests that corticosteroids can reduce TAPS. This multicentre, randomized trial evaluated the effect of additional tapering dexamethasone on TAPS.

METHODS

130 breast cancer patients commencing docetaxel were randomized to dexamethasone premedication (8 mg/twice daily for 3 days) or dexamethasone premedication followed by tapering dexamethasone (4 mg/daily for 2 days followed by 2 mg/daily for 2 days). The primary endpoint was absolute change in FACT-Taxane questionnaire during the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with clinically significant TAPS, QoL, pain and toxicity.

RESULTS

110/130 patients had complete data included in the primary analysis. The fall in FACT-Taxane scores was lower in the experimental group on day 5 (p = 0.05), but not on day 7 (p = 0.21). There was no difference in FACT-Taxane scores over the entire study duration (p = 0.59). Fewer patients in the experimental arm reported TAPS on day 5 (30 vs. 47%). There was a borderline significant attenuation of impairment of QoL with experimental treatment on day 5 (p = 0.06), but not day 7 (p = 0.53). Tapered schedule was associated with more dyspepsia and insomnia.

CONCLUSION

A tapering schedule of dexamethasone was associated with a brief reduction in docetaxel-associated symptoms which was observed only during dexamethasone exposure and did not persist after discontinuation of the drug.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03348696.

Practice review: Evidence-based quality use of corticosteroids in the palliative care of patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

It would be unusual for a patient with advanced cancer not to be prescribed corticosteroids at some stage of their disease course for a variety of specific and non-specific indications.

AIM

The aim of this practice review was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting current practice and to identify areas in which further research is indicated.

DESIGN

A 'state-of-the-art' review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related complications and in symptom control, in the context of known risks and harms to inform quality use of this medicine. We developed 'Do', 'Do not', and 'Don't know' recommendations based on current literature and identified areas for future investigation and research.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library from inception to 14th October 2020. Our initial search limited to reviews, reviews of reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials was supplemented by supporting literature as appropriate.

RESULTS

Evidence to support common practice in the use of corticosteroids is lacking for most indications. This is in the context of strong evidence for the potential for significant toxicity and poor quality use of medicine.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines recommending the widespread use of corticosteroids should acknowledge the poor evidence base supporting much current dogma. Quality research is essential not only to define the role of corticosteroids in this context but to ensure good prescribing practice.

A single-arm feasibility study of gradual dose de-escalation of antiemetic dexamethasone for older patients receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether discontinuation of prophylactic dexamethasone by gradual dose de-escalation is practicable in older patients with cancer undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-arm, feasibility study prospectively enrolled 40 patients (≥70 years old) with colorectal cancer, who were scheduled to undergo adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy, and ten patients ≤60 years old to serve as a control group for pharmacokinetic study. All patients received an antiemetic regimen consisting of intravenous dexamethasone 8 mg and palonosetron at day 1 of the first cycle and underwent phone interviews using symptom questionnaires at day 7 of each cycle. Dexamethasone was tapered off through gradual de-escalation by 2 mg per cycle, when complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue therapy) was achieved. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who discontinued dexamethasone completely.

RESULTS

The median age of the patient was 74 years, and 50% were male. Of the 40 patients, 36 completed twelve cycles of chemotherapy, and 73% (N = 29) were able to discontinue dexamethasone completely. The mean (±SD) dose of dexamethasone per cycle was 3.0 mg (±2.4 mg), which was reduced to 37.5% of the initial dose level. The severity of patient-reported nausea did not significantly change over chemotherapy cycle. Geriatric assessment revealed no decline in any domain and fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels were not elevated after twelve cycles of chemotherapy, compared to the baseline.

CONCLUSION

Gradual dose de-escalation and discontinuation of prophylactic dexamethasone is feasible without compromising its antiemetic effect in older patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Antiemetic Efficacy of Adding Olanzapine 5 mg to Aprepitant, Palonosetron and Dexamethasone-Sparing After Day Two for Cancer Patients Receiving Anthracycline and Cyclophosphamide

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) decrease patient quality of life (QOL). We evaluated the efficacy of adding 5 mg Olz to a three-drug steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen (aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone-sparing after day two) for breast cancer (BC) patients receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 177 BC patients with no previous highly emetogenic chemotherapy history receiving AC plus the steroid-sparing three-drug regimen or the steroid-sparing four-drug regimen including Olz 5mg at our hospital between January 2012 and December 2018. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting and no usage of rescue medication during the first AC cycle. We analyzed the odds ratio (OR) of the CR with 95% confidence interval (CI) in the three-drug group against the four-drug group. The OR was adjusted for types of anticancer drugs by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. Secondary endpoints were incidences of nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and somnolence during the first cycle.

RESULTS

Compared to the three-drug group, the four-drug group demonstrated high incidence of no vomiting (71% vs 95%), a similar incidence of no rescue medication usage (50% vs 51%), and a similar CR rate (45% vs 49%). The OR of the CR rate in the three-drug group against the four-drug group after CMH adjustment for drug type was 0.958 (95% CI, 0.46-1.98). Compared to the three-drug group, the four-drug group demonstrated identical incidence of nausea (66%), but lower incidences of anorexia (78% vs 35%) and fatigue (86% vs 73%). The incidence of somnolence in the four-drug group was 49%. We did not have data of somnolence for the three-drug group in the records.

CONCLUSION

Adding 5 mg Olz to the steroid-sparing three-drug combination can reduce vomiting, anorexia, and fatigue, although there was no difference in CR rate.

Efficacy of one-day versus multiple-day dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategies (one-day DEX) with palonosetron as doublet antiemetic prophylaxis have previously been studied. However, DEX-sparing regimens with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, have not been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of 5-HT₃RA, APR, and DEX on day 1 of carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

Data were pooled from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective observational study using propensity score-matched analysis to compare the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) between one- and multiple-day DEX regimens in combination with 5-HT₃RA plus APR.

RESULTS

Incidence of delayed nausea was significantly higher in the one-day than in the multiple-day DEX group. Incidence of nausea was also significantly higher in the one-day than in the multiple-day DEX group on days 3-5. Kaplan-Meier curves for nausea showed a significant difference between the two groups; however, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of vomiting or the Kaplan-Meier curves of time to vomiting.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the efficacy of a DEX-sparing regimen by comparing one- and multiple-day DEX combined with 5-HT₃RA and APR concerning CINV incidence in lung cancer patients receiving CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Antiemetic regimens of one-day DEX result in poor control of delayed nausea; therefore, we recommend the application of the DEX-sparing strategy only after careful patient selection while considering the development of nausea.

Study protocol for SPARED trial: randomised non-inferiority phase III trial comparing dexamethasone on day 1 with dexamethasone on days 1-4, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron and olanzapine (5 mg) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Dexamethasone (DEX) is administered for multiple days to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, its notorious side effects have been widely reported. Although our multicentre randomised double-blind comparative study verified non-inferiority of sparing DEX after day 2 of chemotherapy when combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and palonosetron (Palo) for patients receiving HEC regimen, DEX sparing was not non-inferior in patients receiving cisplatin (CDDP)-based HEC regimens in subgroup analysis. Recently, the efficacy of the addition of olanzapine (OLZ) to standard triple antiemetic therapy on HEC has been demonstrated by several phase III trials. This study aims to confirm non-inferiority of DEX sparing when it is combined with NK-1RA, Palo and OLZ in patients receiving CDDP-based HEC regimens.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a randomised, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients who are scheduled to receive CDDP ≥50 mg/m² as initial chemotherapy are eligible. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either DEX on days 1-4 or DEX on day 1 combined with NK1-RA, Palo and OLZ (5 mg). The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) rate, defined as no emesis and no rescue medications during the delayed phase (24-120 hours post-CDDP administration). The non-inferiority margin is set at -15.0%. We assume that CR rates would be 75% in both arms. Two hundred and sixty-two patients are required for at least 80% power to confirm non-inferiority at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. After considering the possibility of attrition, we set our final required sample size of 280.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The institutional review board approved the study protocol at each of the participating centres. The trial result will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000032269.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Recommendations, and New Trends

The significant physical and emotional effects of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are experienced by cancer patients. Severe symptoms decrease the patient's quality of life and potentially deters further treatment. The five main forms of CINV (i.e., acute, delayed, anticipatory, breakthrough, and refractory) require different treatment regimens, which often include 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids. Despite a significant amount of research and development of antiemetic agents, management of CINV remains a great challenge with many needs waiting to be adequately addressed, such as controlling non-acute CINV, developing appropriate CINV treatment protocols for multiple-day chemotherapy patients, and providing options for those prone to CINV despite treatment. Further research is required to optimize CINV management for these patients.

Is Host Metabolism the Missing Link to Improving Cancer Outcomes?

For the past 100 years, oncologists have relentlessly pursued the destruction of tumor cells by surgical, chemotherapeutic or radiation oncological means. Consistent with this focus, treatment plans are typically based on key characteristics of the tumor itself such as disease site, histology and staging based on local, regional and systemic dissemination. Precision medicine is similarly built on the premise that detailed knowledge of molecular alterations of tumor cells themselves enables better and more effective tumor cell destruction. Recently, host factors within the tumor microenvironment including the vasculature and immune systems have been recognized as modifiers of disease progression and are being targeted for therapeutic gain. In this review, we argue that—to optimize the impact of old and new treatment options—we need to take account of an epidemic that occurs independently of—but has major impact on—the development and treatment of malignant diseases. This is the rapidly increasing number of patients with excess weight and its’ attendant metabolic consequences, commonly described as metabolic syndrome. It is well established that patients with altered metabolism manifesting as obesity, metabolic syndrome and chronic inflammation have an increased incidence of cancer. Here, we focus on evidence that these patients also respond differently to cancer therapy including radiation and provide a perspective how exercise, diet or pharmacological agents may be harnessed to improve therapeutic responses in this patient population.

Duration of dexamethasone administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the most common non-haematological toxicity of chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing short course (1-2 days) with long course (3+ days) dexamethasone in preventing CINV was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

1535 articles were screened to identify the 11 studies included in the review. Nine studies of 1892 patients were included in meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in complete response of nausea and vomiting between a short or long course of dexamethasone (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.89-1.07, p = 0.58). There was a lower risk of adverse events with a short course of dexamethasone (RR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between a short or long course of dexamethasone in preventing nausea or vomiting, but a short course was associated with fewer adverse effects. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42019133785.

Metoclopramide, Dexamethasone, or Palonosetron for Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEDEA): A Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects.

RESULTS

Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC.