Ithimakin, S., Runglodvatana, K., Nimmannit, A., Akewanlop, C., Srimuninnimit, V., Keerativitayanan, N., . . . Laocharoenkeat, A. (2012). Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron plus dexamethasone with or without metoclopramide as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin in medical practice. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20, 849-855.
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adding metoclopramide to the standard ondansetron and dexamethasone antiemetic regimen for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving cisplatin-based therapy
Patients were randomized (stratified by gender and age group) to a treatment or control group. All patients received ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to cisplatin and on the four subsequent days (days 2-5). Patients received either 20 mg of metoclopramide or placebo orally four times daily on days 2-5. Rescue treatment (including metoclopramide) was allowed based on the decision of the primary physician. On day 2, blinded data collectors documented the first emetic episode and frequency of emesis, severity of nausea and vomiting, side effects, and rescue antiemetic medications. On day 5, patients reported satisfaction of emetic treatment and quality of life.
The study was conducted at a single site, inpatient setting in Thailand.
All patients were in active antitumor treatment.
This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.
No antiemetic benefit was found by adding metoclopramide to the standard ondansetron and dexamethasone regimen during cisplatin-based therapy; however, results are difficult to interpret because of a significant number of control patients receiving metoclopramide prior to the start of the study.
A high number of patients in the placebo group developed anticipatory vomiting prior to the start of treatment, which illustrates the importance of performing thorough assessments prior to the start of chemotherapy and providing education prior to the start of the next course of chemotherapy.
Israel, F.J., Parker, G., Charles, M., & Reymond, L. (2010). Lack of benefit from paracetamol (acetaminophen) for palliative cancer patients requiring high-dose strong opioids: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 39, 548–554.
To investigate potential analgesic benefits of 4 g paracetamol daily for palliative patients with cancer requiring high-dose opioids
Patients received usual medications plus 4 g paracetamol or placebo for five days each in random order. Primary outcome, effect on pain, was assessed using daily diaries, including a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain) and recording numbers of breakthrough analgesics. Patients also indicated in which part of the study their pain was better controlled.
The study used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design.
There were no significant order or treatment-by-the-order interaction effects for any variable. There were no significant differences in pain when assessed with placebo compared with paracetamol. No change approached clinically significant levels, with a mean difference in rated pain of 0.16, and mean difference of 0.42 for a number of breakthrough medications. Fifteen patients were undecided whether paracetamol improved pain.
Data from this study do not support the common practice of adding regular paracetamol (acetaminophen) daily to high-dose opioids to enhance pain control in the palliative setting.
The study had a small sample, with less than 30 participants.
There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that some patients do not receive any additional benefit from adding paracetamol or acetaminophen to strong or high-dose opioids. Pain management interventions should be individualized. Unwarranted exposure to potential side effects/toxicities and costs should be avoided when possible by eliminating paracetamol or acetaminophen in those individuals in whom no benefit has been demonstrated.
Ismail, M.A., Kamal, A.M., Ghobashy, S., Al Baz, A.G., & Roshdy, M. (2015). Comparison of pain control during Trus guided biopsies between basal peri-prostatic local infiltration anesthesia versus combined topical anal lignocaine ointment and local infiltration anesthesia. Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology, 45, 285–289.
To compare two techniques for pain relief with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsies
Patients undergoing prostate biopsies were randomized to receive either local infiltration anesthesia alone or a combination of local anesthesia and lignocaine 5% ointment to the anal rind, canal, and anterior rectal wall. Patients were asked to rate pain during insertion, during infiltration, and after biopsy.
Randomized trial
Patients who received a combination of local and topical anesthesia reported significantly less pain (p = 0.005) at all stages of the procedure.
The combination of a local anesthetic infusion with a topical anesthetic may provide better pain control during biopsy.
The combination of anesthetic infiltration and a local topical anesthetic may reduce pain during biopsy.
Ishizuka, M., Nagata, H., Takagi, K., & Kubota, K. (2013). Needleless closed system does not reduce central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection: A retrospective study. International Surgery, 98, 88–93.
To determine whether a needleless closed system (NCS) is superior to the Luer cap system (LCS) in regards to the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection.
This was a retrospective study comparing the length of time from central venous catheter (CVC) insertion to the development of central-line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) using LCS and then switching to NCS.
Retrospective analysis
The authors measured the time interval from CVC insertion to the development of CLABSI and compared a group of patients using LCS to a group using NCS. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines were used to define and diagnose CLABSI.
Using the Kaplan-Meier estimate and the log-rank test, the authors found that there was no significant difference between the LCS group and the NCS group in the time interval from CVC insertion to onset of CLABSI. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of CLABSI (p = 0.3), blood culture positivity (p = 0.836), and CVC tip positivity (p = 0.116) between the two groups.
There was no significant difference between the two groups in regard to blood culture positivity, CVC tip culture positivity, or the incidence of CLABSI. NCS did not demonstrate superiority in terms of prevention of CLABSI.
Although they were not shown to reduce CLABSI, NCSs are still recommended as a means of preventing needle-stick injuries.
Ishihara, M., Iihara, H., Okayasu, S., Yasuda, K., Matsuura, K., Suzui, M., & Itoh, Y. (2010). Pharmaceutical interventions facilitate premedication and prevent opioid-induced constipation and emesis in cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 18, 1531–1538.
In part 1, patients who were admitted and receiving opioids were surveyed for use of prophylactic laxatives to prevent constipation.
In part 2, prescribers were given drug information, orders were reviewed, and patients were educated about laxatives to manage constipation.
Patients were undergoing the active treatment phase of care.
This was a retrospective survey followed by an interventional study.
Laxative use prophylactically reduced the incidence of constipation in patients taking opioid therapy but did not completely prevent it.
Laxative prophylaxis is beneficial to reduce the risk of opioid-induced constipation. Proactive interventions to increase laxative use may be beneficial to patients.
Ishihara, M., Ikesue, H., Matsunaga, H., Suemaru, K., Kitaichi, K., Suetsugu, K., . . . Japanese Study Group for the Relief of Opioid-Induced Gastrointestinal Dysfunction. (2012). A multi-institutional study analyzing effect of prophylactic medication for prevention of opioid-induced gastrointestinal dysfunction. Clinical Journal of Pain, 28, 373–381.
To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic laxatives and antiemetics on constipation, nausea, and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving opioids for the first time.
Medical records were reviewed from 2009 to 2010 for patients experiencing constipation, nausea, or vomiting during the first week of opioid analgesic administration. Number of stools recorded was used in the analysis. Constipation was defined as a stool-free interval of at least 72 hours during the first week. One episode of vomiting was counted as evidence of vomiting. Nausea grading was recorded for seven days.
This was a descriptive, retrospective study.
National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE), version 4.0, for nausea grading
Use of prophylactic laxatives in patients receiving opioids for the first time was effective in reducing the risk and prevalence of constipation.
Findings suggested use of prophylactic laxatives can reduce opioid-induced constipation during the first week in which patients receive opioids. Findings also suggested older patients may be at greater risk for opioid-induced constipation. Nurses can ensure that prophylactic regimens to prevent constipation are suggested for patients beginning opioid use and older adult patients.
Ishido, K., Higuchi, K., Azuma, M., Sasaki, T., Tanabe, S., Katada, C., ... & Koizumi, W. (2016). Aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone versus palonosetron and dexamethasone for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer: A randomized crossover phase II trial (KDOG 1002). Anti-Cancer Drugs, 27, 884–890.
To gain evidence regarding which regimen should be used for the management of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)
Patients were randomly assigned to the order of receiving either palonosteron and dexamethasone (PD) or aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone (AGD) prophylaxis. The PD regimen was 0.75 mg palonosetron and 13.2 mg dexamethasone IV prior to treatment and 8 mg oral dexamethasone 24 and 48 hours later. The AGD regimen was 125 mg oral aprepitant and 3 mg granisetron and 6.6 mg dexamethasone IV before treatment, followed by 80 mg aprepitant and 4 mg dexamethasone at 24 and 48 hours. During the second cycle, patients were crossed over to the alternative regimen. During cycle 1, CINV and the use of rescue antiemetics were evaluated. After crossover, patients were asked which treatment was more effective and preferred. Rescue medications were metoclopramide or prochlorperazine.
No significant differences existed between treatment regimens for complete response in the acute phase. The complete response (CR) rate was higher in the delayed (p = 0.025) and overall phases (p = 0.025) in the regimen including aprepitant. Less than 40% with either treatment had no nausea. FLIE scores indicating impact on daily life showed that more patients in the aprepitant-based regimen group were not affected by nausea (p = 0.014). Forty-one percent indicated preference for AGD, 19.7% preferred PD, and 39.3% indicated no preference.
Findings suggest that a CINV prophylactic regimen containing an NK1—in this case, aprepitant—was more effective in preventing CINV than a regimen of palonosetron and dexamethasone alone.
Findings support the use of a triple drug regimen of a 5HT3, NK1, and dexamethasone for patients receiving HEC. Nausea in the delayed phase continues to be an ongoing problem that is not completely relieved with these regimens. Further research is needed to identify other adjuvant medications to address nausea.
Ishibashi, K., Okada, N., Miyazaki, T., Sano, M., & Ishida, H. (2010). Effect of calcium and magnesium on neurotoxicity and blood platinum concentrations in patients receiving mFOLFOX6 therapy: A prospective randomized study. International Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15, 82–87.
To evaluate the effectiveness of calcium/magnesium (Ca/Mg) infusions in reducing the incidence and severity of oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity and to evaluate the effects of Ca/Mg infusions on progression-free survival and platinum plasma levels in patients with colorectal cancer
Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized and double-blinded to receive mFOLFOX6 with a Ca/Mg infusion (100 ml of 5% glucose-containing calcium gluconate of 850 mg and magnesium sulfate of 720 mg) before and after the administration of oxaliplatin or mFOLFOX6 with placebo (100 ml of 5% glucose alone) before and after administration of oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) every two weeks for six cycles. Prior to administration, patients were assessed for adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0, by nurses or pharmacists.
Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving mFOLFOX6
Ca/Mg infusion prior to and after mFOLFOX6 did not reduce the incidence of grade 1–3 neurotoxicity using two different standardized measures for neurotoxicity (DEB-NTS and CTCAE) after the completion of six cycles; response rates, disease control rates, and median survival times were not significantly different between groups. No significant differences existed in the plasma platinum levels between groups (Ca/Mg versus placebo) at any time point using the pre-established significance value of p < 0.05. Also, no significant difference in plasma platinum levels existed in those who developed grade 2 neuropathy compared to those who developed less severe neuropathy (DEB-NTS). When comparing those who achieved a partial or complete remission with mFOLFOX6 to those who achieved no response, plasma platinum levels did not differ, suggesting that calcium and magnesium infusions did not influence the efficacy of mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy.
Ca/Mg infusions before and after oxaliplatin did not reduce the incidence or severity of neurotoxic symptoms in patients with metastatic colorectal receiving mFOLFOX6.
The administration of Ca/Mg before and after oxaliplatin as a preventive measure to reduce the incidence or severity of oxaliplatin-related peripheral neuropathy in patients with colorectal cancer receiving mFOLFOX6 for six cycles has no clinical benefit.
Ishibashi, K., Ishida, H., Kuwabara, K., Ohsawa, T., Okada, N., Yokoyama, M., & Kumamoto, K. (2014). Short-term intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis for elective rectal cancer surgery: Results of a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial. Surgery Today, 44, 716–722.
To investigate the effects of single-dose versus multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical site infections (SSI) in patients undergoing elective surgery for rectal cancer
All patients received a preoperative bowel cleansing, kanamycin and erythromycin orally within 24 hours prior to surgery, and 1 g of a second-generation cephalosporin IV perioperatively. After surgery, patients were randomized to receive either single-dose prophylaxis one hour after surgery or an additional five doses over two consecutive days. Wounds were inspected daily in the hospital and in the clinic 30 days after surgery. The trial was designed to detect a 10% difference in the incidence of SSIs between groups.
Noninferiority randomized, controlled trial
The incidence of incision site infections was 5% in the single-dose group and 7.1% in the multiple-dose group. Organ/space infections were 10.8% in the single-dose group and 8.6% in the multiple-dose group. Several organ/space infections were related to anastomotic dehiscence. Overall, the incidence of SSIs was 13.7% with single-dose prophylaxis and 13.6% with multiple-dose prophylaxis. Subgroup analysis by specific surgical procedure did not show any significant differences between groups.
Single-dose, postoperative, intravenous, antimicrobial prophylaxis demonstrated similar results to that of multiple-dose prophylaxis. Multiple antimicrobial doses did not show improved benefit for the prevention of surgical site infections
A single dose of IV antibiotic prophylaxis after rectal surgery for cancer had similar outcomes to that of multiple postoperative antibiotic doses. These findings show there is no benefit to more doses of prophylactic postoperative antibiotics for the prevention of SSIs.
Isaacs, C., Robert, N.J., Bailey, F.A., Schuster, M.W., Overmoyer, B., Graham, M., . . . Kaye, J.A. (1997). Randomized placebo-controlled study of recombinant human interleukin-11 to prevent chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with breast cancer receiving dose-intensive cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15, 3368–3377.
Patients were assigned randomly to receive either placebo or interleukin-11 (IL-11) 50 mcg/kg/day subcutaneous (SC). The study drug was blinded. Randomization was stratified by investigative site and also by whether patients had received any prior chemotherapy. SC administration began on day two and was given for a minimum of 10 days after the first cycle of chemotherapy.
Sixty-seven patients were assessable. Sixty-eight percent of patients in the IL-11 group did not receive transfusions, versus 41% in the placebo group (p = .04). The IL-11 group had a decreased total number of platelet transfusions (p = .03) and time to platelet recovery to greater than 50K in the second cycle (p = .01). Side effects in the IL-11 group (p < .05) were peripheral edema (68%), dyspnea (48%), pleural effusion (18%), and conjunctival infection (25%).