METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.
RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.
CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.
METHODS: In three double-blind phase 3 studies, patients receiving HEC or MEC were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo prior to chemotherapy plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone therapy. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included FLIE total score, nausea and vomiting domain scores, and the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (total score >108 [range 18-126]). We performed a prespecified analysis of the MEC/anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) study and a post hoc analysis of two pooled cisplatin-based HEC studies.
RESULTS: In the pooled HEC studies, rolapitant significantly improved the FLIE total score (114.5 vs 109.3, p
METHODS: Plasma SPM were measured in samples obtained from two double-blind controlled interventions. The first, included 51 women mean age 53 ± 1.5 years, undergoing breast surgery allocated to either intravenous saline, or dexamethasone (4 mg or 8 mg) after induction of anaesthesia. The second study included 31 women of mean age 44 ± 0.5 years undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery that were allocated to either saline, or dexamethasone (4 mg). SPM (18-HEPE, 17-HDHA, RvE2, RvD1 17R-RvD1 and RvD2) were measured in plasma collected prior to induction of anaesthesia and at 24 h, and 6 weeks post-surgery. Pain was assessed using a verbal analogue scale at discharge from the post-anaesthesia recovery unit. The data from each study was combined to examine the effect of dexamethasone on plasma SPM. The relationship between pain score and SPM was examined using ordinal logistic regression.
RESULTS: The SPM 18-HEPE, 17-HDHA, RvE2, RvD1 17R-RvD1 and RvD2 were detectable in all plasma samples. There was no significant difference in any SPM due to dexamethasone over the duration of the study. There was a fall in 17-HDHA between baseline and 24 h in both the dexamethasone and saline groups (P = 0.003) but no change in the downstream SPM (RvD1, 17R-RvD1 and RvD2) or 18-HEPE and RvE2. Pain score was negatively related to levels of RvE2 measured prior to induction of anaesthesia (rho = -0.2991, P = 0.006) and positively related to BMI (rho = 0.279, P = 0.011). In ordinal logistic regression the odds ratio for RvE2 was 0.931 (CI 0.880, 0.986; P = 0.014); after adjusting for the effect of BMI indicating that an increase in RvE2 of 1 pg/ml would result in a 6.9 % fall in pain score. Allocation to a dexamethasone group did not influence the pain score or the relationship between RvE2 and pain score.
CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone administered as an anti-emetic does not affect plasma SPM levels. An elevated RvE2 level prior to surgery is predictive of a lower perceived pain score post-anaesthesia.
METHODS: We enrolled 160 women with hyperemesis gravidarum in a double-blind randomized trial. Participants were randomized to intravenous 4 mg ondansetron or 10 mg metoclopramide every 8 hours for 24 hours. Participants kept an emesis diary for 24 hours; at 24 hours, they expressed their well-being using a 10-point visual numeric rating scale and answered an adverse effects questionnaire. Nausea intensity was evaluated using a 10-point visual numeric rating scale at enrollment and at 8, 16, and 24 hours. Primary analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis.
RESULTS: Eighty women each were randomized to ondansetron or metoclopramide. Median well-being visual numeric rating scale scores were 9 (range, 5-10) compared with 9 (range, 4-10) (P=.33) and vomiting episodes in the first 24 hours were 1 (range, 0-9) compared with 2 (range, 0-23) (P=.38) for ondansetron compared with metoclopramide, respectively. Repeat-measures analysis of variance of nausea visual numeric rating scale showed no difference between study drugs (P=.22). Reported rates of drowsiness (12.5% compared with 30%; P=.01; number needed to treat to benefit, 6), xerostomia (10.0% compared with 23.8%; P
METHODS: Women at their first hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum were approached when intravenous antiemetic therapy was needed. They were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg promethazine or 10 mg metoclopramide every 8 hours for 24 hours in a double-blind study. Primary outcomes were vomiting episodes by diary and well-being visual numerical rating scale score (10-point scale) in the 24-hour main study period. Participants also filled out an adverse-effects questionnaire at 24 hours and a nausea visual numerical rating scale score at recruitment and at 8, 16, and 24 hours.
RESULTS: A total of 73 and 76 women, randomized to metoclopramide and promethazine, respectively, were analyzed. Median vomiting episodes were one (range 0-26) compared with two (range 0-26) (P=.81), and well-being visual numerical rating scale scores were 8 (range 1-10) compared with 7 (range 2-10) (P=.24) for metoclopramide and promethazine, respectively. Repeat-measures analysis of variance of the nausea visual numerical rating scale scores showed no significant difference between study drugs (F score=0.842, P=.47). Reported drowsiness (58.6% compared with 83.6%, P=.001, number needed to treat to benefit [NNTb] 5), dizziness (34.3% compared with 71.2%, P
METHODS: CINAHL, PubMed, and EBSCO Host and Science Direct databases were searched for articles related to the use of EOs and/or aromatherapy for nausea and vomiting. Only articles using English as a language of publication were included. Eligible articles included all forms of evidence (nonexperimental, experimental, case report). Interventions were limited to the use of EOs by inhalation of their vapors to treat symptoms of nausea and vomiting in various conditions regardless of age group. Studies where the intervention did not utilize EOs or were concerned with only alcohol inhalation and trials that combined the use of aromatherapy with other treatments (massage, relaxations, or acupressure) were excluded.
RESULTS: Five (5) articles met the inclusion criteria encompassing trials with 328 respondents. Their results suggest that the inhaled vapor of peppermint or ginger essential oils not only reduced the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting but also decreased antiemetic requirements and consequently improved patient satisfaction. However, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn due to methodological flaws in the existing research articles and an acute lack of additional research in this area.
CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence is encouraging but yet not compelling. Hence, further well-designed large trials are needed before confirmation of EOs effectiveness in treating nausea and vomiting can be strongly substantiated.
RECENT FINDINGS: The cause of hyperemesis is continuing to be elaborated. Recent data attest to the effectiveness of the oral doxylamine-pyridoxine in NVP. Follow-up data of children exposed in early pregnancy to doxylamine-pyridoxine for NVP are reassuring. Evidence is increasing for ginger as an effective herbal remedy for NVP. Metoclopramide is effective in NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, with a good balance of efficacy and tolerability. A recent large-scale study on first trimester exposure to metoclopramide is reassuring of its safety. Evidence is emerging for the treatment of acid reflux to ameliorate NVP. The role of corticosteroids for hyperemesis gravidarum remains controversial. Transpyloric feeding may be warranted for persistent weight loss, despite optimal antiemetic therapy.
SUMMARY: Women with significant NVP should be identified so that they can be safely and effectively treated.