Antiemetic Corticosteroid Rotation from Dexamethasone to Methylprednisolone to Prevent Dexamethasone-Induced Hiccup in Cancer Patients Treated with Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Phase III Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Go SI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5679820 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Antiemetic Corticosteroid Rotation from Dexamethasone to Methylprednisolone to Prevent Dexamethasone-Induced Hiccup in Cancer Patients Treated with Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Phase III Trial.
Go Se-Il SI Koo Dong-Hoe DH Kim Seung Tae ST Song Haa-Na HN Kim Rock Bum RB Jang Joung-Soon JS Oh Sung Yong SY Lee Kyung Hee KH Lee Soon Il SI Kim Seong-Geun SG Park Lee Chun LC Lee Sang-Cheol SC Park Byeong-Bae BB Ji Jun Ho JH Yi Seong Yoon SY Lee Yun-Gyoo YG Yun Jina J Bruera Eduardo E Hwang In Gyu IG Kang Jung Hun JH
The oncologist 20170707 11
<h4>Background</h4>To assess whether the rotation of dexamethasone to methylprednisolone decreases the intensity of dexamethasone-induced hiccup (DIH) in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Adult patients who experienced DIH within 3 days after the administration of dexamethasone as an antiemetic were screened. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive dexamethasone (<i>n</i> = 33) or methylprednisolone (<i>n</i> = 32) as an antiemetic (randomization ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:While glucocorticoids have been used for over 50 years to treat rheumatoid and osteoarthritis pain, the prescription of glucocorticoids remains controversial because of potentially harmful side effects at the molecular, cellular and tissue levels. One member of the glucocorticoid family, dexamethasone (DEX) has recently been demonstrated to rescue cartilage matrix loss and chondrocyte viability in animal studies and cartilage explant models of tissue injury and post-traumatic osteoarthritis, suggesting the possibility of DEX as a disease-modifying drug if used appropriately. However, the literature on the effects of DEX on cartilage reveals conflicting results on the drug's safety, depending on the dose and duration of DEX exposure as well as the model system used. Overall, DEX has been shown to protect against arthritis-related changes in cartilage structure and function, including matrix loss, inflammation and cartilage viability. These beneficial effects are not always observed in model systems using initially healthy cartilage or isolated chondrocytes, where many studies have reported significant increases in chondrocyte apoptosis. It is crucially important to understand under what conditions DEX may be beneficial or harmful to cartilage and other joint tissues and to determine potential for safe use of this glucocorticoid in the clinic as a disease-modifying drug.
| S-EPMC7211090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is no effective therapy for the severe acute respiratory syndrome by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) responsible for the Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). To date, dexamethasone has shown a decrease in mortality in patients who require oxygen, especially those with invasive mechanical ventilation. However, it is unknown if another corticosteroid can be used, the optimal dose and its duration, to achieve a better clinical outcome. The objective of the study was to compare the differences in clinical outcome and laboratory results in hospitalized patients with severe SARS-CoV2 Pneumonia treated with dexamethasone at 6 mg doses versus patients treated with high-dose methylprednisolone.Materials and methodsAmbispective cohort study with survival analysis of 216 patients diagnosed with severe Covid-19 pneumonia confirmed by polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV2 by Berlin protocol, who were hospitalized in a high-complexity clinic in Medellín, Colombia. The patients should also have supplementary oxygen and radiological confirmation of Pneumonia by chest tomography. Sample size was not calculated since the total population that met the inclusion criteria was evaluated. 111 patients were treated with the institutional protocol with intravenous dexamethasone 6 mg QD for seven to 10 days if they required oxygen. Since September 15, 2020, the hospitalization protocol of the clinic was modified by the Infectious Diseases and Pulmonology service, recommending a high dose of methylprednisolone of 250 to 500 mg every day for three days with a subsequent change to oral prednisone 50 mg every day for 14 days. The protocol was not applied in the intensive care unit, where dexamethasone continued to be administered. The clinical outcome and differences in laboratory results of the patients who received dexamethasone vs. the prospective cohort that received methylprednisolone from September 15 to October 31, 2020, were evaluated. Follow-up was carried out by outpatient consultation one month after discharge or by telephone, inquiring about readmission or living-dead status.Results216 patients had Covid-19 pneumonia documented by ground-glass imaging and alveolar pressure / inspired oxygen fraction (PaFi) less than 300. 111 patients received dexamethasone (DXM) and 105 received methylprednisolone (MTP). Patients in the DXM group evolved to severe ARDS in a higher proportion (26.1% vs 17.1% than the MTP group). Upon completion 4 days of treatment with parenteral corticosteroid, laboratory markers of severity decreased significantly in the group that received MTP, CRP 2.85 (2.3-3.8) vs 7.2 (5.4-9.8), (p-value < 0.0001), D-dimer 691 (612-847) vs 1083 (740-1565) (p-value = 0.04) and DHL 273 (244-289) vs 355 (270.6-422) (p-value = 0.01). After starting the corticosteroid, transfer to the intensive care unit (4.8% vs. 14.4%) and mortality (9,5% vs. 17.1%) was lower in the group that received MTP. Recovery time was shorter in patients treated with MTP, three days (3-4) vs. DXM 6 days (5-8) (p-value < 0.0001). At 30-day follow-up, 88 (92.6%) were alive in MTP vs 58 (63.1%) of those who received dexamethasone.ConclusionsIn this study, the treatment of severe Covid-19 Pneumonia with high-dose methylprednisolone for three days followed by oral prednisone for 14 days, compared with 6 mg dexamethasone for 7 to 10 days, statistically significantly decreased the recovery time, the need for transfer to intensive care and the severity markers C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer and LDH. Randomized controlled studies with methylprednisolone are required to corroborate its effect, and studies in a population hospitalized in intensive care wards.
| S-EPMC8148307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the significant advancements in antiemetic regimens for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), over 40% of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy still experience CINV in clinical practice. To figure out underlying reasons and outline the landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV, our focus centered on cisplatin, one of the most commonly used highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs. We aimed to elucidate trends in CINV management by analyzing data extracted from cisplatin-based clinical trials.MethodsWe extracted CINV-related data from 156 eligible randomized clinical trials, comprising 39 antiemetic trials and 117 non-antiemetic trials, all with patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Subsequently, we conducted separate analyses of the extracted CINV data within antiemetic and non-antiemetic trial groups, as well as comparisons between them.ResultsOver the years, both antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials showed significant improvements in no-vomiting rates, although gains in no-nausea rates were more modest. Notably, antiemetic trials frequently underreported outcomes related to nausea control. There was a distinct yet gradually narrowing disparity in vomiting control rates between antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials during the same time frame. While non-antiemetic trials achieved comparable CINV control rates using the same antiemetic regimen as antiemetic trials, they exhibited significantly greater variations in no-vomiting and no-nausea rates.ConclusionsThe landscape of CINV management in cisplatin-based chemotherapy has evolved significantly alongside improvements in antiemetic agents. Substantial progress has been made in emesis control within both antiemetic and non-antiemetic cisplatin-based clinical trials. More attention should be paid on the chemotherapy induced nausea, and multiple approaches are needed to increase guideline adherence in future clinical practice.
| S-EPMC11599296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:People with cancer face an elevated risk of infection and severe sequelae from COVID-19. Dexamethasone is commonly used for antiemetic prophylaxis with systemic therapy for cancer. However, dexamethasone is associated with increased risk of viral and respiratory infections, and causes lymphopenia, which is associated with worse outcomes during COVID-19 infections. Our purpose was to minimize dexamethasone exposure during antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic therapy for solid tumors during the COVID-19 pandemic, while maintaining control of nausea and emesis. METHODS:We convened an expert panel to systematically review the literature and formulate consensus recommendations. RESULTS:No studies considered the impact of dexamethasone-based antiemetic regimens on the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. Expert consensus recommended modifications to the 2019 Cancer Care Ontario Antiemetic Recommendations. CONCLUSION:Clinicians should prescribe the minimally effective dose of dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. Single-day dexamethasone dosing is recommended over multi-day dosing for regimens with high emetogenic risk excluding high-dose cisplatin, preferably in combination with palonosetron, netupitant, and olanzapine. For regimens with low emetogenic risk, 5-HT3 antagonists are recommended over dexamethasone.
| S-EPMC7324309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although pulse (high-dose) methylprednisolone therapy can hypothetically control immune system flare-ups effectively, the clinical benefit of pulse methylprednisolone compared with dexamethasone in COVID-19 remains inconclusive.ObjectivesTo compare pulse methylprednisolone to dexamethasone as a COVID-19 treatment.Design setting and participantsUsing a Japanese multicenter database, we identified adult patients admitted for COVID-19 and discharged between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with pulse methylprednisolone (250, 500, or 1,000 mg/d) or IV dexamethasone (≥ 6 mg/d) at admission day 0 or 1.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, new ICU admission, insulin initiation, fungal infection, and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to differentiate the dose of pulse methylprednisolone (250, 500, or 1,000 mg/d). Additionally, subgroup analyses by characteristics such as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were also conducted.ResultsA total of 7,519, 197, 399, and 1,046 patients received dexamethasone, 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively. The crude in-hospital mortality was 9.3% (702/7,519), 8.6% (17/197), 17.0% (68/399), and 16.2% (169/1,046) for the different doses, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) was 1.26 (0.69-2.29), 1.48 (1.07-2.04), and 1.75 (1.40-2.19) in patients starting 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively, compared with those starting dexamethasone. In subgroup analyses, the adjusted odds ratio of in-hospital mortality was 0.78 (0.25-2.47), 1.12 (0.55-2.27), and 1.04 (0.68-1.57) in 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively, among patients with IMV, whereas the adjusted odds ratio was 1.54 (0.77-3.08), 1.62 (1.13-2.34), and 2.14 (1.64-2.80) among patients without IMV.Conclusions and relevanceHigher doses of pulse methylprednisolone (500 or 1,000 mg/d) may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes when compared with dexamethasone, especially in patients not on IMV.
| S-EPMC10047604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Various predictive models have been developed which incorporates patient risk factors into the selection of optimal antiemetic therapy, one of which is chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk scoring system developed by Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). Patients and Methods Consecutive patients with gastrointestinal malignancy who had not received previous chemotherapy were eligible for enrollment in the study if they were scheduled to receive at least one cycle of chemotherapy. The CINV risk assessment tool was used to collect the study data and to assess CINV risk score. Results Ninety-eight patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in this study, out of which 57% were males, median age was 48 years (range: 28-77). Colorectal cancer (32.7%) was the most common diagnosis followed by gastric cancer (27.6%). Gemcitabine/cisplatin and CAPOX regimen were the most common regimen being administered in 19.4% each. As per MASCC guidelines, 19.4% patients received highly emetogenic chemotherapy, 69.4% moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, while 11.2% received regimen with low emetogenicity. CINV risk module characterized 52% patients to have high risk for CINV, while 48% to have low risk of CINV, thus, 52% had the discrepancy in risk assigned by two methods, and this was statistically significant ( p = 0.025). In subgroup analysis, although patient cohort with acute nausea had no statistically significant discrepancy ( p = 0.123), but statistically significant discrepancy was found in patient cohort with delayed nausea ( p = 0.001), acute ( p = 0.038), and delayed ( p < 0.001) vomiting. Conclusion A significant percentage of patients who receive chemotherapy continue to experience nausea and vomiting despite receiving antiemetic treatment as per standard guidelines. The study generates a hypothesis for future large randomized studies looking at change in antiemetic prophylaxis based on CINV risk tool, leading to improvement in complete response rates of acute and delayed CINV.
| S-EPMC8197652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Glucocorticoids, such as dexamethasone (Dex), are used to prevent common side effects induced by chemotherapy and are heavily prescribed for solid cancers such as breast cancer. There is substantial pre-clinical data to support that Dex activation of the glucocorticoid receptor overrides chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in breast cancer cell lines. These findings are compounded by a recent study demonstrating that increased glucocorticoid receptor activation by endogenous stress hormones increased breast cancer heterogeneity and metastasis. Our study is the first to use both in vitro and in vivo models to thoroughly compare the Dex response on the migration of multiple estrogen receptor negative (ER-) and ER+ cancer cell lines. ER+ and ER- breast cancer cell lines were studied to compare their endogenous glucocorticoid activity as well as their metastatic ability in response to Dex treatment. We show that in the ER- breast cancer lines, Dex increases cell numbers, invasiveness, and migration, while decreasing apoptotic ability. Furthermore, we show that following Dex treatment, ER- breast cancer lines migrate further in an in vivo zebrafish model in comparison to ER+ cell lines. The use of ROR1 antibody to block WNT signaling diminished the metastatic properties of ER- cells, however recombinant WNT5A alone was not sufficient to induce migration. Taken together, we demonstrate that Dex treatment exacerbates the metastatic potential of ER- but not ER+ cells. These findings add to the growing body of data stressing the potential adverse role of endogenous and synthetic glucocorticoids in breast cancer biology.
| S-EPMC9477352 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The pharmacogenomic effects of a corticosteroid (CS) were assessed in rat skeletal muscle using microarrays. Adrenalectomized (ADX) rats were treated with methylprednisolone (MPL) by either 50 mg/kg intravenous injection or 7-day 0.3 mg/kg/h infusion through subcutaneously implanted pumps. RNAs extracted from individual rat muscles were hybridized to Affymetrix Rat Genome Genechips. Data mining yielded 653 and 2316 CS-responsive probe sets following MPL bolus and infusion treatments. Of these, 196 genes were controlled by MPL under both dosing conditions. Cluster analysis revealed that 124 probe sets exhibited three typical expression dynamic profiles following acute dosing. Cluster A consisted of up-regulated probe sets which were grouped into five subclusters each exhibiting unique temporal patterns during the infusion. Cluster B comprised down-regulated probe sets which were divided into two subclusters with distinct dynamics during the infusion. Cluster C probe sets exhibited delayed down-regulation under both bolus and infusion conditions. Among those, 104 probe sets were further grouped into subclusters based on their profiles following chronic MPL dosing. Several mathematical models were proposed and adequately captured the temporal patterns for each subcluster. Multiple types of dosing regimens are needed to resolve common determinants of gene regulation as chronic exposure results in unexpected differences in gene expression compared to acute dosing. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling provides a quantitative tool for elucidating the complexities of CS pharmacogenomics in skeletal muscle.
| S-EPMC4196382 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePractice variability exists in the use of corticosteroids to treat or prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely preterm infants, but there is limited information on longer-term impacts.ObjectiveTo describe the use of corticosteroids in extremely preterm infants and evaluate the association with neurodevelopmental outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was a secondary analysis of data from the Preterm Erythropoietin Neuroprotection (PENUT) randomized clinical trial, conducted at 19 participating sites and 30 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in the US. Inborn infants born between 24 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks gestational age between December 2013 and September 2016 were included in analysis. Data analysis was conducted between February 2021 and January 2022.ExposuresCumulative dose of dexamethasone and duration of therapy for dexamethasone and prednisolone or methyl prednisolone were evaluated.Main outcomes and measuresDemographic and clinical characteristics were described in infants who did or did not receive corticosteroids of interest and survived to discharge. Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years of age were evaluated using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Third Edition (BSID-III) at corrected age 2 years.ResultsA total of 828 extremely preterm infants (403 [49%] girls; median [IQR] gestational age, 26 [25-27] weeks) born at 19 sites who survived to discharge were included in this analysis, and 312 infants (38%) were exposed to at least 1 corticosteroid of interest during their NICU stay, including 279 exposed to dexamethasone, 137 exposed to prednisolone or methylprednisolone, and 79 exposed to both. Exposed infants, compared with nonexposed infants, had a lower birth weight (mean [SD], 718 [168] g vs 868 [180] g) and were born earlier (mean [SD] gestational age, 25 [1] weeks vs 26 [1] weeks). The median (IQR) start day was 29 (20-44) days for dexamethasone and 53 (30-90) days for prednisolone or methylprednisolone. The median (IQR) total days of exposure was 10 (5-15) days for dexamethasone and 13 (6-25) days for prednisolone or methylprednisolone. The median (IQR) cumulative dose of dexamethasone was 1.3 (0.9-2.8) mg/kg. After adjusting for potential confounders, treatment with dexamethasone for longer than 14 days was associated with worse neurodevelopmental outcomes, with mean scores in BSID-III 7.4 (95% CI, -12.3 to -2.5) points lower in the motor domain (P = .003) and 5.8 (95% CI, -10.9 to -0.6) points lower in the language domain (P = .03), compared with unexposed infants.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that long duration and higher cumulative dose of dexamethasone were associated with worse neurodevelopmental scores at corrected age 2 years. Potential unmeasured differences in the clinical conditions of exposed vs unexposed infants may contribute to these findings. Improved standardization of treatment and documentation of indications would facilitate replication studies.
| S-EPMC8917427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe first case of Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were diagnosed in Wuhan, China in 2019. In the first half of 2020 this disease has already converted into a global pandemic. Various treatment options were being tried all over the world. Some studies showed beneficial effects of corticosteroids in covid 19. Hence, we designed this study to compare the effect of two steroids in moderate to severe covid 19 disease.ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone in moderate to severe covid 19 disease.Study settingsFatima Memorial Hospital, Lahore and Ganga Ram hospital, Lahore.Study designQuasi experimental, interventional study.Duration of studyFrom 1st June 2020 to 30th June 2020.MethodologySample size and technique: there were total 100 patients; 35 patients received dexamethasone and 65 were kept in methylprednisolone receiving group.ResultsThe mean age of patients was 57.91 years in dexamethasone group and 54.86 years in methylprednisolone group. In dexamethasone group, there were 15 (42.8%) critically ill patients who were shifted to Intensive care unit (ICU) and seven (20%) of them needed ventilatory support, whereas in methylprednisolone group 22 (33.8%) had to be admitted in ICU with eight (12.3%) patient needing ventilator. As outcome measure, patients in both the groups showed marked improvement in temperature, oxygen requirement and C-reactive protein (CRP) on day 5. Only six (17.1%) patient died who received dexamethasone while 10 (15.3%) patients died among those receiving methylprednisolone.ConclusionDexamethasone and methylprednisolone both are equally effective in treating moderate to severe covid 19 disease.
| S-EPMC7654232 | biostudies-literature