The Management of Nausea and Vomiting Not Related to Anticancer Therapy in Patients with Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

In cancer patients, the management of nausea and vomiting that is not directly related to treatment is challenging. Much current practice is based on expert opinion and anecdote. Fortunately, over recent years, a number of quality trials have been undertaken to strengthen the evidence base that guides the care of our patients with these distressing symptoms. Much is still unknown however. In this article, we present the latest literature that addresses some of the outstanding issues.

[Treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients : a review]

BACKGROUND

Many recommendations concerning the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients exist but what is the evidence for this? Most studies dealing with this topic have focused on cancer patients under chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy or on patients with postoperative nausea. Cancer patients without chemotherapy or radiation therapy, patients without postoperative nausea, and patients having other diseases with palliative care aspects, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), progressive heart failure, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and multiple sclerosis (MS) have been underrepresented in studies on nausea and vomiting so far.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine the level of evidence for the treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients suffering from far advanced cancer and no longer being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, AIDS, COPD, progressive heart failure, ALS or MS.

METHODS

Two different electronic databases (PubMed und Embase) were used to identify studies. Furthermore, a hand search for related articles was performed. No restriction was made concerning study types. Studies with patients undergoing chemotherapy radiation therapy or suffering from postoperative nausea, pediatric studies and studies published neither in English nor in German were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were found. All studies focused on cancer patients. Despite intensive research studies in patients with AIDS, COPD, heart failure, ALS or MS were not detected. Metoclopramide is seen as an effective drug in many studies whereas the evidence for it is moderate at best. Within the group of neuroleptics, levosupiride and levomepromazine seem to have good antiemetic potential but the evidence level is low.

CONCLUSION

In patients with advanced cancer not being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, metoclopramide can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting. Neuroleptics, such as levosulpiride or levomepromazine are alternatives but their adverse effects have to be considered carefully. The evidence level for prokinetics and neuroleptics is moderate to low. Concerning palliative care of patients with diseases other than cancer no studies exist. More well designed studies in palliative care patients are needed in order to facilitate evidence based antiemetic therapy. The English full text version of this article will be available in SpringerLink as of November 2012 (under "Supplemental").

ABH gel is not absorbed from the skin of normal volunteers

BACKGROUND

Lorazepam (Ativan(®)), diphenhydramine (Benadryl(®)), haloperidol (Haldol(®)) (ABH) topical gel is currently widely used for nausea in hospice because of perceived efficacy and low cost and has been suggested for cancer chemotherapy. However, there are no studies of absorption, a prerequisite for effectiveness. We completed this study to establish whether ABH gel drugs are absorbed, as a prerequisite to effectiveness.

INTERVENTION

Ten healthy volunteers, aged 25 to 58 years (mean 37 years), two African Americans and eight Caucasian Americans, applied the standard 1.0 mL dose (2mg of lorazepam, 25mg of diphenhydramine, and 2mg of haloperidol in a pluronic lecithin organogel), rubbed on the volar surface of the wrists by the subject.

MEASURES

Blood samples were obtained at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 minutes. Plasma concentrations were analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry using deuterated internal standards for each drug.

OUTCOMES

No lorazepam or haloperidol was detected in any sample from any of the 10 volunteers down to a level of 0.05 ng/mL. Diphenhydramine was found in multiple plasma samples at concentrations >0.05 ng/mL in three patients, with the highest concentration of 0.30 ng/mL in one person at 240 minutes. Overall, five of 10 patients exhibited detectable diphenhydramine in one or more samples, supporting limited absorption. No subject noted any side effects.

CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED

As commonly used, none of the lorazepam, haloperidol, or diphenhydramine in ABH gel is absorbed in sufficient quantities to be effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Diphenhydramine is erratically absorbed at subtherapeutic levels. The efficacy of ABH gel should be confirmed in randomized trials before its use is recommended.

A systematic review of the treatment of nausea and/or vomiting in cancer unrelated to chemotherapy or radiation

CONTEXT

A systematic review of antiemetics for emesis in cancer unrelated to chemotherapy and radiation is an important step in establishing treatment recommendations and guiding future research. Therefore, a systematic review based on the question "What is the evidence that supports antiemetic choices in advanced cancer?" guided this review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of evidence for antiemtrics in the management of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer unrelated to chemotherapy and radiation, and to discover gaps in the evidence, which would provide important areas for future research.

METHODS

Three databases and independent searches using different MeSH terms were performed. Related links were searched and hand searches of related articles were made. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective single-drug studies, studies that used guidelines based on the etiology of emesis, cohort studies, retrospective studies, and case series or single-patient reports. Studies that involved treatment of chemotherapy, radiation, or postoperation-related emesis were excluded. Studies that involved the treatment of emesis related to bowel obstruction were included. The strength of evidence was graded as follows: 1) RCTs, A; 2) single-drug prospective studies, B1; 3) studies based on multiple drug choices for etiology of emesis, B2; and 4) cohort, case series, retrospective, and single-patient reports, E. Level of evidence was determined by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001) (A, B, C, D).

RESULTS

Ninety-three articles were found. Fourteen were RCTs, most of them of low quality, based either on lack of blinding, lack of description of the method of randomization, concealment, and/or attrition. Metoclopramide had modest evidence (B) based on RCTs and prospective cohort studies. Octreotide, dexamethasone, and hyoscine butylbromide are effective in reducing symptoms of bowel obstruction, based on prospective studies and/or one RCT. There was no evidence that either multiple antiemetics or antiemetic choices based on the etiology of emesis were any better than a single antiemetic. There is poor evidence for dose response, intraclass or interclass drug switch, or antiemetic combinations in those individuals failing to respond to the initial antiemetic.

CONCLUSION

There are discrepancies between antiemetic studies and published antiemetic guidelines, which are largely based on expert opinion. Antiemetic recommendations have moderate to weak evidence at best. Prospective randomized trials of single antiemetics are needed to properly establish evidence-based guidelines.