Randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous ondansetron for the prevention of intrathecal chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children

A Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations for symptom treatment

BACKGROUND

Children with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions can experience high levels of suffering due to multiple distressing symptoms that result in poor quality of life and increase risk of long-term distress in their family members. High quality symptom treatment is needed for all these children and their families, even more so at the end-of-life. In this paper, we provide evidence-based recommendations for symptom treatment in paediatric palliative patients to optimize care.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of 56 experts in paediatric palliative care and nine (bereaved) parents was established to develop recommendations on symptom treatment in paediatric palliative care including anxiety and depression, delirium, dyspnoea, haematological symptoms, coughing, skin complaints, nausea and vomiting, neurological symptoms, pain, death rattle, fatigue, paediatric palliative sedation and forgoing hydration and nutrition. Recommendations were based on evidence from a systematic literature search, additional literature sources (such as guidelines), clinical expertise, and patient and family values. We used the GRADE methodology for appraisal of evidence. Parents were included in the guideline panel to ensure the representation of patient and family values.

RESULTS

We included a total of 18 studies that reported on the effects of specific (non) pharmacological interventions to treat symptoms in paediatric palliative care. A few of these interventions showed significant improvement in symptom relief. This evidence could only (partly) answer eight out of 27 clinical questions. We included 29 guidelines and two textbooks as additional literature to deal with lack of evidence. In total, we formulated 221 recommendations on symptom treatment in paediatric palliative care based on evidence, additional literature, clinical expertise, and patient and family values.

CONCLUSION

Even though available evidence on symptom-related paediatric palliative care interventions has increased, there still is a paucity of evidence in paediatric palliative care. We urge for international multidisciplinary multi-institutional collaboration to perform high-quality research and contribute to the optimization of symptom relief in palliative care for all children worldwide.

Vomiting after intrathecal chemotherapy under anesthesia in pediatric patients with hematologic cancers: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Despite preventive strategies, vomiting is an adverse event affecting patients with cancer. However, literature on the incidence and risk factors for vomiting in pediatric patients with cancer are scarce.

AIM

To assess the incidence and risk factors for vomiting within 24 h and goodness of fit for the Eberhart score in pediatric patients with hematologic cancers after receiving intrathecal chemotherapy under deep sedation.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included patients under 20 years of age with hematologic cancers who were scheduled to undergo intrathecal chemotherapy under anesthesia. The primary outcome was the occurrence of vomiting within 24 h after the end of anesthesia. Sociodemographic and procedure data and underlying diseases were collected. Patients were monitored during the procedure, in the postanesthesia care unit, and the day after (by phone call).

RESULTS

A total of 139 patients were included, and the incidence of vomiting was 30.9% within 24 h after intrathecal chemotherapy under anesthesia, with 90.7% of vomiting prior to 6 h. Prophylactic ondansetron was administered prior to the procedure to 45.3% of patients. Risk factors for vomiting were female gender (hazard ratio: 2.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-4.53, p: .003), consolidation phase of treatment (hazard ratio: 2.16, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-4.24, p: .025), and history of kinetosis (hazard ratio: 2.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-4.70, p: .005). Incidence of vomit was higher than estimated by the Eberhart score distribution (observed incidence in patients with a score of zero: 33.3%; with a score of one: 28.8%; with a score of two: 60%).

CONCLUSION

A high incidence of vomiting was observed within 24 h after intrathecal chemotherapy under propofol deep sedation. Risk factors for this outcome were established (being female, consolidation phase of treatment, and previous kinetosis), and evidence suggested that the Eberhart score was not suitable for the studied population.

Palliative care for children: methodology for the development of a national clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

Provision of paediatric palliative care for children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions and their families is often complex. Guidelines can support professionals to deliver high quality care. Stakeholders expressed the need to update the first Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline with new scientific literature and new topics. This paper provides an overview of the methodology that is used for the revision of the Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline and a brief presentation of the identified evidence.

METHODS

The revised paediatric palliative care guideline was developed with a multidisciplinary guideline panel of 72 experts in paediatric palliative care and nine (bereaved) parents of children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions. The guideline covered multiple topics related to (refractory) symptom treatment, advance care planning and shared-decision making, organisation of care, psychosocial care, and loss and bereavement. We established six main working groups that formulated 38 clinical questions for which we identified evidence by updating two existing systematic literature searches. The GRADE (CERQual) methodology was used for appraisal of evidence. Furthermore, we searched for additional literature such as existing guidelines and textbooks to deal with lack of evidence.

RESULTS

The two systematic literature searches yielded a total of 29 RCTs or systematic reviews of RCTs on paediatric palliative care interventions and 22 qualitative studies on barriers and facilitators of advance care planning and shared decision-making. We identified evidence for 14 out of 38 clinical questions. Furthermore, we were able to select additional literature (29 guidelines, two textbooks, and 10 systematic reviews) to deal with lack of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The revised Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline addresses many topics. However, there is limited evidence to base recommendations upon. Our methodology will combine the existing evidence in scientific literature, additional literature, expert knowledge, and perspectives of patients and their families to provide recommendations.

Nausea and vomiting in children and adolescents receiving intrathecal methotrexate: A prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of nausea and vomiting after receipt of intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX) in pediatric oncology patients is unknown.

METHODS

Patients (4-18 years) about to receive IT-MTX were eligible to participate in this prospective, observational study. Patients received antiemetics as prescribed by their clinical team. Nausea severity (patient-assessed), timing of emetic episodes, and administration of antiemetics were recorded beginning immediately prior to IT-MTX administration, for the next 24 hr (acute phase), and for a maximum of 7 additional days (delayed phase). Complete chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control was defined as no emetic episodes and no nausea.

RESULTS

One hundred patients consented to participate in this study; 70 provided evaluable data (mean age: 8.3 years; range: 4.1-17.6). Most (94%) received propofol-containing anesthesia for IT-MTX administration. Most (89%) received a 5-HT3 antagonist prior to IT-MTX. During the acute phase, 36 children (51%) experienced complete CINV control, 67 (96%) complete vomiting control, and 36 (51%) complete nausea control. Severe acute phase nausea was reported by 12 children (17%). During the delayed phase, 35 patients (50%) experienced complete CINV control, 60 (86%) complete vomiting control, and 36 (51%) complete nausea control. Severe nausea was reported in the delayed phase by 27 (39%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Most pediatric patients who received IT-MTX and prophylaxis with ondansetron or granisetron experienced complete acute and delayed vomiting control. However, nausea control was poor and severe nausea was reported by many children. Effective interventions to control nausea are needed.

Original article. Efficacy of intravenous dexamethasone for the prevention of vomiting associated with intrathecal chemotherapy and ketamine sedation in children: a randomized, double-blinded, crossover, placebocontrolled trial

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remains a significant problem for children with leukemia. There is limited evidence to support using prophylactic antiemetic prior to the administration of intrathecal chemotherapy.

Objective: Determine whether vomiting and nausea associated with intravenous ketamine and intrathecal chemotherapy may be reduced by the addition of prophylactic dexamethasone in children.

Method:A randomized, double-blinded, crossover, placebo-controlled trial was completed in 33 children receiving intrathecal chemotherapy with methotrexate and ketamine sedation at Pharmongkutklao Hospital. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blinded fashion to receive one of two interventions during the first period, either an infusion of normal saline or intravenous dexamethasone at 0.25 mg/kg/dose. Each patient acted as his or her own control, and each patient was studied at two time-points.

Results: Period effect, sequence effect, and carry over effect were not demonstrated. The absolute risk reduction of vomiting was significantly greater after infusion of dexamethasone than after placebo at 33.3 % (p=0.02). The number needed to treat was three to prevent one episode of vomiting. Fifteen patients in the treatment group reported nausea versus 26 patients in the placebo group (p= 0.007). In the group of patients treated with dexamethasone, five required antiemetic vs. 16 of those receiving placebo (p=0.02). There was no complication from dexamethasone.

Conclusion: Intravenous dexamethasone reduced vomiting associated with intrathecal chemotherapy and ketamine sedation, without significant side-effects. It may be recommended a reasonable option before intrathecal chemotherapy

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children

PURPOSE

To update the 2009 recommendations for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced emesis in children.

METHODS

We updated the original systematic literature search. Randomized studies were included in the evidence to support this guideline if they were primary studies fully published in full text in English or French; included only children less than 18 years old or, for mixed studies of adults and children, reported the pediatric results separately or the median or mean age was no more than 13 years; evaluated acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis; provided sufficient information to permit determination of the emetogenicity of the antineoplastic therapy administered or the study investigators stated the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy administered; included an implicit or explicit definition of complete acute CINV response; described the antiemetic regimen in full; and reported the complete acute CINV response rate as a proportion.

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized studies, including eight published since 2009, met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 antagonist (granisetron or ondansetron or palonosetron or tropisetron) ± dexamethasone ± aprepitant is recommended for children receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. For children receiving chemotherapy of low emetogenicity, a 5-HT3 antagonist is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of several randomized trials were used to update recommendations for the prevention of acute CINV. However, significant research gaps remain and must be addressed before CINV control in children can be optimized.

Antiemetic medication for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting remain a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting, and associated clinical problems. This is an update of the original systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged less than 18 years) about to receive or receiving chemotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society of Paediatric Oncology, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and ISI Science and Technology Proceedings Index from incept to December 16, 2014, and trial registries from their earliest records to December 2014. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies. We also screened the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened abstracts in order to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid, or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (less than 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies that examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (27 studies). Adverse events were reported in 29 studies and nausea outcomes in 16 studies.Two studies assessed the addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT3 antagonists for complete control of vomiting (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). Three studies compared granisetron with ondansetron for complete control of acute nausea (pooled RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; 2 studies), acute vomiting (pooled RR 2.26; 95% CI 2.04 to 2.51; 3 studies), delayed nausea (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; 2 studies), and delayed vomiting (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; 2 studies). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents, even when these agents are combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people, and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective in patients who are to receive emetogenic chemotherapy, with granisetron or palonosetron possibly better than ondansetron. Adding dexamethasone improves control of vomiting, although the risk-benefit profile of adjunctive steroid remains uncertain.

Ondansetron attenuates co-morbid depression and anxiety associated with obesity by inhibiting the biochemical alterations and improving serotonergic neurotransmission

In our earlier study we reported the antidepressant activity of ondansetron in obese mice. The present study investigates the effect of ondansetron on depression and anxiety associated with obesity in experimental mice with biochemical evidences. Male Swiss albino mice were fed with high fat diet (HFD) for 14weeks to induce obesity. Then the subsequent treatment with ondansetron (0.5 and 1mg/kg, p.o.), classical antidepressant escitalopram (ESC) (10mg/kg, p.o.) and vehicle (distilled water 10ml/kg, p.o.) was given once daily for 28days. Behavioral assay for depression including sucrose preference test, forced swim test (FST) and anxiety such as light dark test (LDT) and hole board test (HBT) were performed in obese mice. Furthermore, in biochemical estimations oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), plasma leptin, insulin, corticosterone, brain oxidative stress marker malonaldehyde (MDA), antioxidant reduced glutathione (GSH) and serotonin assays were performed. Results indicated that HFD fed obese mice showed severe depressive and anxiety-like behaviors. Chronic treatment with ondansetron inhibited the co-morbid depression and anxiety in obese mice by increasing sucrose consumption in sucrose preference test and reducing the immobility time in FST, increasing time and transitions of light chamber in LDT, improving head dip and crossing scores in HBT compared to HFD control mice. Ondansetron in obese mice inhibited glucose sensitivity in OGTT, improved plasma leptin and insulin sensitivity, reversed hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis hyperactivity by reducing the corticosterone concentration, restored brain pro-oxidant/anti-oxidant balance by inhibiting MDA and elevating GSH concentrations and facilitated serotonergic neurotransmission. In conclusion, ondansetron reversed the co-morbid depression and anxiety associated with obesity in experimental mice by attenuating the behavioral and biochemical abnormalities.

Guideline for the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic medication in pediatric cancer patients

This guideline provides an approach to the prevention of acute antineoplastic-induced nausea and vomiting (AINV) in children. It was developed by an international, inter-professional panel using AGREE and CAN-IMPLEMENT methods. Evidence-based interventions that provide optimal AINV control in children receiving antineoplastic agents of high, moderate, low, and minimal emetogenicity are recommended. Recommendations are also made regarding selection of antiemetic agents for children who are unable to receive corticosteroids for AINV control, the role of aprepitant and optimal doses of antiemetic agents. Gaps in the evidence used to support the recommendations were identified. The contribution of this guideline to AINV control in children requires prospective evaluation.

Guideline for the classification of the acute emetogenic potential of antineoplastic medication in pediatric cancer patients

This guideline provides clinicians caring for children with an approach to assessing the acute emetogenic potential of antineoplastic therapies. It was developed by an international, inter-professional panel of clinicians and researchers using AGREE and CAN-ADAPTE methods. The emetogenicity of antineoplastic agents was evaluated and ranked as high, moderate, low, or minimal. The emetogenicity of multiple-agent and multiple-day antineoplastic therapy was also classified. Gaps in the evidence used to underpin the guideline recommendations were identified. The contribution of this guideline to the prevention of antineoplastic-induced nausea and vomiting in individual children about to receive antineoplastic therapy requires prospective evaluation.

An overview of the clinical use of ondansetron in preschool age children

The introduction of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist has revolutionized the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting in preschool aged children. These distressing symptoms, arising from multiple etiologies such as anesthesia, chemotherapy, and viral infection, are a major concern of patients and their families. Clinical research has demonstrated the antiemetic effectiveness of ondansetron in children. Although most of these studies focus primarily on preventing vomiting across the pediatric age group, they provide strong evidence for the use of ondansetron in preschool age children. For children at high risk, pediatric practice guidelines recommend ondansetron in conjunction with other antiemetics to achieve complete control of symptoms.

Antiemetic medication for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in childhood

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are still a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting and associated clinical problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged < 18 years) about to receive/receiving chemotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS, trial registries from their earliest records to February 2008, and ASCO, MASCC and SIOP conference proceedings from 2001 to 2007. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently screened abstracts to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (< 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies which examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (22 studies). Adverse events were reported in 24 studies and nausea outcomes in 10 studies.The addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT(3) antagonists was assessed in two studies for complete control of vomiting (pooled relative risk (RR) 2.03; 95% CI 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests 5-HT(3) antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents even when combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT(3) antagonists with dexamethasone added are effective in patients who are to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy although the risk-benefit profile of additional steroid remains uncertain.

Pediatric oncology sedation trial (POST): A double-blind randomized study

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence to support the use of an anti-emetic with the administration of intra-thecal chemotherapy. Nor is there adequate clarity on analgesic strategies for children with cancer undergoing painful procedures.

PROCEDURES

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, factorial trial was performed in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia undergoing combined bone marrow aspirations and lumbar punctures during maintenance therapy. The study was designed to measure the effect of adding ondansetron and fentanyl to a standard combination of midazolam and propofol.

RESULTS

During the first 12 hr following the procedures, patients experienced significantly less vomiting/retching and less disruption of activity while receiving ondansetron, and recorded significantly lower pain scores while receiving fentanyl.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that the addition of an analgesic (fentanyl) and an anti-emetic (ondansetron) to the combination of a sedative (midazolam) and an anesthetic (propofol) is of measurable benefit in children who undergo procedures that are painful and risk the consequence of nausea and vomiting.

Safety of ondansetron loading doses in children with cancer

INTRODUCTION

In highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the recommended dose of the serotonin-receptor antagonist ondansetron (5 mg/m(2) q8h) may be insufficient to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In adults, ondansetron-loading doses (OLD) of 32 mg are safe. We aimed to evaluate in children the safety of an OLD of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v., followed by two doses of 5 mg/m(2) q8h.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included all pediatric oncology patients having received > or =1 OLD between 2002 and 2005. Adverse events (AE) definitely, probably, or possibly related to OLD were studied, excluding AE not or unlikely related to the OLD. Associations between potential predictors and at least moderate AE were analyzed by mixed logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 167 patients treated with chemotherapy, 37 (22%) received 543 OLD. The most common AE were hypotension, fatigue, injection site reaction, headache, hot flashes/flushes, and dizziness. At least mild AE were described in 139 OLD (26%), at least moderate AE in 23 (4.2%), and severe AE in 5 (0.9%; exact 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-2.1). Life-threatening or lethal AE were not observed (0.0%; 0.0-0.6). At least moderate AE were significantly more frequent in female patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% CI 1.4-8.8; p = 0.010), after erroneously given second OLD (17.0; 1.9-154; p = 0.012) and higher 24 h cumulative surface corrected dose (1.26 per mg/m(2); 1.06-1.51; p = 0.009). OLD given to infants below 2 years were not associated with more frequent AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron-loading doses of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v. seem to be safe in infants, children, and adolescents.

Prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children with cancer: what is the evidence?

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are preventable side effects of cancer chemotherapy for children. Antiemetics are essential, especially as treatment becomes more intensive. Many drugs are available, but adequate evidence-based recommendations are lacking. We aimed (1) to consider an evidence-based approach for pharmacological prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children, and (2) to compare this approach with antiemetic prescribing in two paediatric oncology centres.

PROCEDURE

Relevant publications (Medline, Embase, CancerLit:1966-2002) were critically evaluated using pre-defined criteria. Evidence-based statements summarising their findings were formulated, and evidence basis proposed. Current prescribing practice was then compared with this evidence basis in Welsh children under 16 receiving chemotherapy at Llandough Hospital, Cardiff or Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2001.

RESULTS

Of 213 studies retrieved, 82 provided evidence. Our evidence basis recommends combination 5HT3-antagonist/corticosteroid for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, 5HT3-antagonist alone for moderate emetogenicity, and no antiemetic for other chemotherapy. Forty-four children in Cardiff (0.6-16.9 yrs) and 14 in Liverpool (0.8-16.2 yrs) were included in the audit. Differences in prescribing practice between the centres were not significant. In 109/159 (69%) of chemotherapy courses (35, 87 and 100% of high, moderate and low emetogenicity, respectively), antiemetics were selected in accordance with evidence basis. Seventy percent of prescribed doses were as evidence basis recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

We present an evidence basis for prescribing prophylactic antiemetics to children undergoing chemotherapy. Prescribing practices in these two centres treating Welsh children were similar. Both differed from the evidence basis we propose. Deviations were greatest for regimens of high emetogenicity, where effective emetic control is most crucial.