scholarly journals Efficacy of Auricular Acupressure in Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Lichan Chen ◽  
Xiaohong Wu ◽  
Xisui Chen ◽  
Chunjiao Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Abdominal Distension ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Acute Nausea ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Auricular Acupressure ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Prevention And Treatment ◽  
Delayed Cinv

Background. More than 40% of patients with cancer have reported that chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remained the most debilitating side effects of treatment even in the era of new antiemetics. Objective. The purpose of this review was to systematically evaluate the clinical effect of auricular acupressure (AA) in prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Methods. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, the Web of Science, Chinese Biological Medicine (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP (from database inception to April 2020). Eligible randomized controlled trials of auricular acupressure in treating CINV were collected, including crossover randomized design study. The meta-analysis was carried out by RevMan software (5.3). Results. Totally 19 RCTs with 1449 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with control groups, the relief efficiency of overall CINV was enhanced by AA combined with antiemetics (RR = 1.31, CI 1.22 to 1.41, p  ≤ 0.001). Although the therapeutic effect on acute nausea and vomiting was not obvious, AA still played an important role in reducing delayed nausea and vomiting (delayed nausea frequency: RR = 0.68, CI −1.01 to −1.35, p  ≤ 0.001; delayed vomiting frequency: RR = 0.91, CI −1.22 to −0.61, p  ≤ 0.001). The likelihood of adverse reactions related to antiemetics was reduced by AA combined with antiemetics (RR = 0.62, CI 0.53 to 0.74, p  ≤ 0.001). Statistically significant association was found between AA and incidence of constipation, diarrhea, and tiredness, while there was no statistically significant association between AA and abdominal distension or headache. Conclusion. Auricular acupressure supplementation benefited delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting as well as constipation, diarrhea, and tiredness. AA alone or AA supplementation has little effect on acute nausea and acute vomiting. There is no conclusion on whether AA alone is superior to antiemetics in the management of delayed CINV. Further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of auricular acupressure alone in delayed CINV and anticipatory CINV. The results of this review provided the basis for further research with more rigorous study designs, adequate sample sizes, and standardized implementation to confirm the efficacy of auricular acupressure.

Efficacy of palonosetron (PAL) compared to other serotonin inhibitors (5-HT3R) in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic (MoHE) treatments: Systematic review and meta-analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20620-e20620
Author(s):  
O. Clark ◽  
T. Engel ◽  
L. Clark ◽  
L. Paladini ◽  
E. Faleiros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Delayed Cinv ◽  
The Impact

e20620 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are frequent side effects of cancer treatment, with negative effects on quality of life. CINV may be acute (occurring within 24 hours after the chemotherapy) or delayed (up to 7 days after it). There are currently five serotonin inhibitors (5-HT3R) available on the market. PAL has the longer half-life, but there are controversies regarding if a better control of CINV (particularly delayed) is obtained with it. This controversy is reflected in recommendations of practice guidelines. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing a single intravenous dose of PAL 0,25mg with other 5-HT3R in patients receiving MoHE chemotherapy. Methods: We searched several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoints were the incidence of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. The side effects of each treatment were analyzed. A subgroup analysis on the impact of added corticosteroids was performed.The results of individual studies were pooled in a meta-analysis, using the RevMan 5.1 software. The results are expressed as Risk Ratio (RR) and the correspondent 95% Confidence Interval (CI). Results: We included 4 studies, with 1,298 patients. PAL was compared to ondansetron, granisetron and dolasetron. Patients in PAL group had less nausea, either acute (RR=0.75; CI= 0.64 to 0.88; P = 0.0004) or delayed (RR= 0.73; CI= 0.66 to 0.82; P < 0.00001). They also had less acute vomiting (RR = 0.78; CI= 0.67 to 0.90; P = 0.0008) and delayed vomiting (RR= 0.75; CI= 0.67 to 0.84; P < 0.00001). There were no statistical differences in side effects like headache (RR = 0.83; P = 0.29), dizziness (RR = 0.40; P = 0.12), constipation (RR = 1.35; P = 0.30) or diarrhea (RR = 0.67; P = 0.44). Patients receiving PAL presented less nausea and vomiting regardless of the use of corticoids. There was no statistical heterogeneity in the analises. Conclusions: PAL was more effective than the other 5-HT3R in preventing acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving MoHE treatments, regardless of the use of concomitant corticosteroids. [Table: see text]

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in the era of NK-1 receptor antagonists. Perception versus reality

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20636-e20636
Author(s):  
M. Majem ◽  
E. Moreno ◽  
J. Perez ◽  
N. Calvo ◽  
A. Feliu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Acute Nausea ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Nausea And Emesis ◽  
Delayed Cinv ◽  
Antiemetic Medication

e20636 Background: Physicians and nurses had underestimated the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after both high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) (Grumberg, Cancer 2004;100:2261–8; Erazo Valle, Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:2403–10). We have assessed if physicians and nurses’ perception of CNIV in their own practices after the introduction of Aprepitant was closer to reality. Methods: A prospective, observational unicenter study of adult patients receiving their first chemotherapy cycle was performed. Medical oncologists and oncology nurses also estimated the incidence of acute (Day 1) and delayed (Days 2–5) CINV after first administration of HEC and MEC. Eligible patients completed a 6-day diary including emetic episodes, nausea assessment, and antiemetic medication use. Observed incidence rates of acute and delayed CINV were compared with physician/nurse predictions. Results: Twenty-nine physicians and nurses and 95 patients (86.3% receiving HEC and 13.7%MEC) were recruited. Acute nausea and emesis were observed in 14.3% and 2.4% respectively of HEC patients receiving Aprepitant, and delayed nausea and emesis were observed in 14.3% and 7.1% of these patients, respectively. Physicians and nurses accurately predicted the incidence of acute and delayed CINV after HEC patients receiving Aprepitant. Acute nausea and emesis were observed in 22.2% and 0% respectively of MEC patients and delayed nausea and emesis in 33.3% and 22.2% of MEC patients, respectively. All physicians and nurses underestimated the incidence of acute nausea and delayed nausea and emesis after MEC by 15, 28 and 18 percentage points, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of aprepitant in the prevention of CINV after HEC allows a better control of CINV that is perceived accurately by physicians and nurses. By contrary, physicians and nurses continue markedly underestimating the incidence of CINV after MEC. CINV still remain important targets for improved therapeutic intervention and physicians and nurses must be aware about the real incidence of CNIV. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Toxicities of chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 2832-2847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun Wang ◽  
Fei Wang ◽  
Xin Min ◽  
Qinfang Zhang ◽  
Li-juan Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Acute Nausea ◽  
Radiotherapy Alone ◽  
Grade 3

Objective We investigated the risk of acute and late toxicities of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and radiotherapy alone in patients with nasopharynx carcinoma (NPC). Methods In this meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In addition to the incidence of specific toxicities, risk ratios (RRs) or odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using fixed-effect or random-effects models. Results In total, 11 RCTs involving 2801 patients with NPC were included in this analysis. For grade ≥3 adverse events, patients who received CCRT treatment had a higher proportion of acute mucositis (39.9% vs. 30.5%, RR=1.30, 95%CI, 1.16–1.46) acute nausea and vomiting (RR=6.26, 95% CI: 2.01–19.45), and neutropenia (RR=30.86, 95% CI: 7.36 to 129.35). For late severe toxicities, CCRT treatment was significantly associated with higher incidence of hearing loss (116.56% vs. 411.43%, RR=1.461, 95%CI, 1.043–21.095). The incidence of acute nausea and vomiting was more frequent in patients receiving CCRT. Conclusion Compared with radiotherapy alone, CCRT increases the risk of severe acute toxicities (mucositis, nausea/vomiting, and neutropenia) and severe late toxicity (hearing loss) in patients with NPC. However, larger studies are needed to confirm this finding.

scholarly journals Granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 904-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Zhu ◽  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Bing Huang ◽  
Lin Ruan ◽  
Rui Liang
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Postoperative Nausea ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Laparoscopy Surgery ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objective This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of granisetron plus dexamethasone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Methods We searched the literature in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI. Results In total, 11 randomized controlled trials were enrolled in this analysis. The meta-analysis showed that granisetron in combination with dexamethasone was significantly more effective than granisetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopy surgery. No significant differences in adverse reactions (dizziness and headache) were found in association with dexamethasone. Conclusion Granisetron in combination with dexamethasone was significantly more effective than granisetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, with no difference in adverse reactions between the two groups. Granisetron alone or granisetron plus dexamethasone can be used to prevent PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

scholarly journals Intravenous dexmedetomidine during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 924-932 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeqing Bao ◽  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Xianxue Wang ◽  
Yu Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Spinal Anaesthesia ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of spinal anaesthesia using dexmedetomidine for caesarean section. Methods PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CNKI were searched for relevant literature. Results The incidence of nausea and vomiting in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the control group (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12–0.35, P < 0.00001). No difference was found in the incidence of pruritus between the two groups (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.36–4.09, P = 0.76).The dexmedetomidine group had a higher incidence of bradycardia than did the control group (OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.02–4.77, P = 0.05). The incidence of shivering in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the control group (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.13–0.32, P < 0.00001). The incidence of hypotension was not different between the two groups (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.49–1.56, P = 0.65). Conclusion Dexmedetomidine can decrease the incidence of nausea, vomiting, bradycardia, and shivering with spinal anaesthesia during caesarean section.

scholarly journals Physiotherapy and Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises for the Prevention and Treatment of Pregnancy-Related Pelvic Floor Dysfunctions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-132
Author(s):  
Fahime Khorasani ◽  
Fariba Ghaderi ◽  
Parvin Sarbakhsh ◽  
Parisa Ahadi ◽  
Elahe Khorasani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pelvic Floor ◽  
Pelvic Floor Muscle ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prevention And Treatment ◽  
Pfm Strength

Objectives: The present systematic review focused on the prevention or treatment of three main types of pelvic floor dysfunctions (PFDs) specifically pelvic organ prolapse (POP), urinary incontinence (UI), and fecal incontinence (FI) using physiotherapy and pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFMEs). With regard to the breadth of the problem, there is not much evidence grounded on the best management. The main purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of physiotherapy and PFMEs on the prevention and treatment of pregnancy-related PFDs; namely, POP, FI, and UI. Therefore, this review incorporated studies comparing the use of physiotherapy and PFMEs with every other existing interventions. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on randomized-controlled-trial (RCT) articles and quasi-RCT designs through a search in the studies published with no time limits until December 2017 in the databases of PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. The meta-analysis was also applied for data synthesis. Moreover, heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I2 index. Results: A total number of 26 RCTs were examined in this review in which the outcome variables were related to POP, UI, and FI prevalence; POP, UI, and FI severity, as well as pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength and endurance. In most articles, UI prevalence or severity in intervention groups had significantly improved compared with those in controls. The number of studies examining POP and FI was also relatively low. In two studies, FI severity or prevalence in intervention groups had significantly enhanced in comparison with those in control groups; however, FI prevalence in two articles had been reported lower in intervention groups than that in control groups although no significant difference had been observed. There was also no significant improvement in intervention groups in two other studies in this respect. Besides, three articles had not reported traces of improvement in POP, as well as a significant difference between intervention and control groups. Nevertheless, two studies had found a significant improvement in POP in this regard. Based on meta-analysis results for the variable of PFM strength, Cochran’s Q test (P<0.001) and I2 index (90.02) indicated heterogeneity between studies; so, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied to estimate overall effect sizes. The overall mean differences following intervention between the study groups were also equal to 6.94, with a 95% CI (1.36 to 12.52). Conclusions: It was concluded that physiotherapy and PFMEs might have effects on pregnancy-related UI, but they had not consistently reduced FI severity or prevalence and failed to constantly improve POP.

scholarly journals Survival of Patients Treated with Antibiotics and Immunotherapy for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fausto Petrelli ◽  
Alessandro Iaculli ◽  
Diego Signorelli ◽  
Antonio Ghidini ◽  
Lorenzo Dottorini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Reporting Data

Antibiotics (ABs) are common medications used for treating infections. In cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), concomitant exposure to ABs may impair the efficacy of ICIs and lead to a poorer outcome compared to AB non-users. We report here the results of a meta-analysis evaluating the effects of ABs on the outcome of patients with solid tumours treated with ICIs. PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until September 2019 for observational or prospective studies reporting the prognoses of adult patients with cancer treated with ICIs and with or without ABs. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, and progression-free survival (PFS) was the secondary endpoint. The effect size was reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and an HR > 1 associated with a worse outcome in ABs users compared to AB non-users. Fifteen publications were retrieved for a total of 2363 patients. In the main analysis (n = 15 studies reporting data), OS was reduced in patients exposed to ABs before or during treatment with ICIs (HR = 2.07, 95%CI 1.51–2.84; p < 0.01). Similarly, PFS was inferior in AB users in n = 13 studies with data available (HR = 1.53, 95%CI 1.22–1.93; p < 0.01). In cancer patients treated with ICIs, AB use significantly reduced OS and PFS. Short duration/course of ABs may be considered in clinical situations in which they are strictly needed.

scholarly journals Effects of palonosetron and ondansetron on preventing nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 411-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qili Liu ◽  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Zeqing Bao ◽  
Yu Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Background This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with general anesthesia. Methods We searched for randomized controlled clinical trials in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Results Nine studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis and showed no statistically significant difference between palonosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PONV in the first 24 hours after surgery (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–1.10). Palonosetron more effectively prevented vomiting at various time intervals during the first 24 hours postoperatively than did ondansetron: 0–2 hours (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26–0.78), 2–6 hours (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39–1.40), and 6–24 hours (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.55–2.64). No significant differences in side effects were found between palonosetron and ondansetron (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.14). Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrated that palonosetron is not more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of early PONV. However, palonosetron was more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document