Dataset Information

Megestrol acetate dispersible tablets with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone vs. 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone, can better control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized controlled study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A reasonable and effective control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) plays an important role in the comprehensive treatment of cancer. Megestrol belongs to the 17α-hydroxyprogesterone derivative and is a highly effective synthetic progesterone. Recorded in the instructions may improve appetite and cachexia in patients with advanced tumors. In recent years, clinical practice and small sample studies have shown that megestrol combined with chemotherapy can improve CINV. This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of megestrol acetate combined with a 5-Hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients with CINV.

Methods

Patients with malignant tumors who were treated with cisplatin-containing chemotherapy in our hospital from September 2018 to December 2019 were enrolled. A total of 120 patients were selected and randomly assigned to receive either megestrol acetate dispersible tablets with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone (megestrol group) or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone (control group). Megestrol acetate dispersible tablets: 160 mg orally every morning from the day of chemotherapy until it lasts for ten days. Abstract IV of the quality-of-life scale for cancer patients in China was used to assess the quality of life (QOL) of the participants. All adverse reactions during chemotherapy were assessed according to the CTCAE 4.03 evaluation standard issued by the National Cancer Institute and divided into five grades according to severity.

Results

For the control of nausea, the rates of complete prevention were significantly higher in the megestrol group than in the control patients during the delayed [53.3% (31/60) vs. 30.0% (18/60), P=0.012] and overall [40.0% (24/60) vs. 15.0% (9/60), P=0.002] observation periods. Moreover, the megestrol combination treatment group also achieved markedly higher rates of complete remission of vomiting than the control group during the delayed observation period [76.7% (46/60) vs. 51.7% (31/60), P=0.001], achieving an overall higher proportion of remission during the study period [68.3% (41/60) vs. 46.6% (28/60), P=0.0016].

Conclusions

The triple antiemetic protocol using megestrol acetate with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone can improve CINV symptoms caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) with cisplatin, with an excellent control effect and few adverse reactions, especially for delayed CINV.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1800017953.

SUBMITTER: Ma Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9652525 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Megestrol acetate dispersible tablets with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone <i>vs.</i> 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone, can better control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized controlled study.

Ma Yijie Y Zhao Weijie W Deng Wenying W Wei Chen C Bie Liangyu L Zhang Chi C Li Ning N Luo Suxia S

Annals of translational medicine 20221001 20

<h4>Background</h4>A reasonable and effective control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) plays an important role in the comprehensive treatment of cancer. Megestrol belongs to the 17α-hydroxyprogesterone derivative and is a highly effective synthetic progesterone. Recorded in the instructions may improve appetite and cachexia in patients with advanced tumors. In recent years, clinical practice and small sample studies have shown that megestrol combined with chemotherapy can impro ...[more]

PMID: 36388808

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCoadministration of different antiemetics proved to decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). This trial compared aprepitant/dexamethasone (A/D) combination vs mirtazapine/dexamethasone (M/D) combination vs dexamethasone (D) alone for prevention of PONV in morbidly obese patients undergoing LSG.MethodsNinety patients scheduled for LSG were randomly allocated to receive 8 mg dexamethasone intravenous infusion (IVI) only in the D group or in addition to 80 mg aprepitant capsule in the A/D group or in addition to 30 mg mirtazapine tablet in the M/D group. Assessment of PONV was carried out at 0-2 h (early) and 2-24 h (late). The primary outcome was the complete response 0-24 h after surgery. Collective PONV, postoperative pain, side effects and patient satisfaction score were considered as secondary outcomes.ResultsThe A/D and M/D groups were superior to the D group for a complete response within 0-24 h after surgery (79.3% for the A/D group, 78.6% for the M/D group, and 20.7% for the D group). The D group was inferior to the A/D and M/D groups regarding collective PONV and use of rescue antiemetic 0-24 h after surgery (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). The peak nausea scores (2-24 h) were significantly reduced in the M/D group in comparison to the D group (P=0.005). Patients in the M/D group showed high sedation scores, while those in the A/D group showed low pain scores (2-24 h) and less analgesic requirements (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). The A/D and M/D groups were superior to the D group with regard to the patient satisfaction score (P < 0.001).ConclusionAprepitant/dexamethasone combination and mirtazapine/dexamethasone combination were superior to dexamethasone alone in alleviating postoperative nausea and vomiting in morbidly obese patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04013386.

Project description:BackgroundWe carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of prophylactic dexamethasone on post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), post-operative pain, and complications in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.MethodsWe searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the prophylactic effect of dexamethasone versus placebo with or without other antiemetics for PONV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software.ResultsThirteen RCTs that considered high quality evidence including 2,180 patients were analyzed. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in the incidence of PONV (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63, P < 0.00001), the need for rescue anti-emetics (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57, P<0.00001), post-operative pain scores (WMD -1.17, 95% CI -1.91 to -0.44, P = 0.002), and the need for rescue analgesics (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.83, P = 0.0008) in patients receiving dexamethasone compared to placebo, with or without concomitant antiemetics. Dexamethasone 8-10mg had a significantly greater effect for reducing the incidence of PONV than dexamethasone 1.25-5mg. Dexamethasone was as effective as other anti-emetics for reducing PONV (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86-1.81, P = 0.24). A significantly higher level of blood glucose during the immediate post-operative period in patients receiving dexamethasone compared to controls was the only adverse event.ConclusionsProphylactic dexamethasone 8-10mg administered intravenously before induction of anesthesia should be recommended as a safe and effective strategy for reducing the incidence of PONV, the need for rescue anti-emetics, post-operative pain, and the need for rescue analgesia in thyroidectomy patients, except those that are pregnant, have diabetes mellitus, hyperglycemia, or contraindications for dexamethasone. More high quality trials are warranted to define the benefits and risks of prophylactic dexamethasone in potential patients with a high risk for PONV.

Project description:Objectives To determine whether preoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative vomiting in patients undergoing elective bowel surgery and whether it is associated with other measurable benefits during recovery from surgery, including quicker return to oral diet and reduced length of stay.Design Pragmatic two arm parallel group randomised trial with blinded postoperative care and outcome assessment.Setting 45 UK hospitals.Participants 1350 patients aged 18 or over undergoing elective open or laparoscopic bowel surgery for malignant or benign pathology.Interventions Addition of a single dose of 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone at induction of anaesthesia compared with standard care.Main outcome measures Primary outcome: reported vomiting within 24 hours reported by patient or clinician.Secondary outcomesvomiting with 72 and 120 hours reported by patient or clinician; use of antiemetics and postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24, 72, and 120 hours rated by patient; fatigue and quality of life at 120 hours or discharge and at 30 days; time to return to fluid and food intake; length of hospital stay; adverse events.Results 1350 participants were recruited and randomly allocated to additional dexamethasone (n=674) or standard care (n=676) at induction of anaesthesia. Vomiting within 24 hours of surgery occurred in 172 (25.5%) participants in the dexamethasone arm and 223 (33.0%) allocated standard care (number needed to treat (NNT) 13, 95% confidence interval 5 to 22; P=0.003). Additional postoperative antiemetics were given (on demand) to 265 (39.3%) participants allocated dexamethasone and 351 (51.9%) allocated standard care (NNT 8, 5 to 11; P<0.001). Reduction in on demand antiemetics remained up to 72 hours. There was no increase in complications.Conclusions Addition of a single dose of 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone at induction of anaesthesia significantly reduces both the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 hours and the need for rescue antiemetics for up to 72 hours in patients undergoing large and small bowel surgery, with no increase in adverse events.Trial registration EudraCT (2010-022894-32) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN21973627).

Project description:BackgroundThis is an updated version of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 2) on 'Megestrol acetate for the treatment of anorexia-cachexia syndrome'. Megestrol acetate (MA) is currently used to improve appetite and to increase weight in cancer-associated anorexia. In 1993, MA was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of anorexia, cachexia or unexplained weight loss in patients with AIDS. The mechanism by which MA increases appetite is unknown and its effectiveness for anorexia and cachexia in neoplastic and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) patients is under investigation.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of MA in palliating anorexia-cachexia syndrome in patients with cancer, AIDS and other underlying pathologies.Search methodsWe sought studies through an extensive search of electronic databases, journals, reference lists, contact with investigators and other search strategies outlined in the methods. The most recent search for this update was carried out in May 2012.Selection criteriaStudies were included in the review if they assessed MA compared to placebo or other drug treatments in randomised controlled trials of patients with a clinical diagnosis of anorexia-cachexia syndrome related to cancer, AIDS or any other underlying pathology.Data collection and analysisTwo independent review authors conducted data extraction and evaluated methodological quality. We performed quantitative analyses using appetite and quality of life as a dichotomous variable, and analysed weight gain as continuous and dichotomous variables.Main resultsWe included 35 trials in this update, the same number but not the same trials as in the previous version of the review. The trials comprised 3963 patients for effectiveness and 3180 for safety. Sixteen trials compared MA at different doses with placebo, seven trials compared different doses of MA with other drug treatments and 10 trials compared different doses of MA. Meta-analysis showed a benefit of MA compared with placebo, particularly with regard to appetite improvement and weight gain in cancer, AIDS and other underlying conditions, and lack of benefit in the same patients when MA was compared to other drugs. There was insufficient information to define the optimal dose of MA, but higher doses were more related to weight improvement than lower doses. Quality of life improvement in patients was seen only when comparing MA versus placebo but not other drugs in both subcategories: cancer and AIDS. Oedema, thromboembolic phenomena and deaths were more frequent in the patients treated with MA. More than 40 side effects were studied.Authors' conclusionsThis review shows that MA improves appetite and is associated with slight weight gain in cancer, AIDS and in patients with other underlying pathology. Despite the fact that these patients are receiving palliative care they should be informed of the risks involved in taking MA.