To develop an evidence-based guideline for the empiric management of pediatric fever and neutropenia (FN).
The International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel is a multidisciplinary and ...multinational group composed of experts in pediatric oncology and infectious disease as well as a patient advocate. The Panel was convened for the purpose of creating this guideline. We followed previously validated procedures for creating evidence-based guidelines. Working groups focused on initial presentation, ongoing management, and empiric antifungal therapy. Each working group developed key clinical questions, conducted systematic reviews of the published literature, and compiled evidence summaries. The Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to generate summaries, and evidence was classified as high, moderate, low, or very low based on methodologic considerations.
Recommendations were made related to initial presentation (risk stratification, initial evaluation, and treatment), ongoing management (modification and cessation of empiric antibiotics), and empiric antifungal treatment (risk stratification, evaluation, and treatment) of pediatric FN. For each recommendation, the strength of the recommendation and level of evidence are presented.
This guideline represents an evidence-based approach to FN specific to children with cancer. Although some recommendations are similar to adult-based guidelines, there are key distinctions in multiple areas. Implementation will require adaptation to the local context.
Purpose To update the ASCO guideline for antiemetics in oncology. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for the period of November 2009 to ...June 2016. Results Forty-one publications were included in this systematic review. A phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that adding olanzapine to antiemetic prophylaxis reduces the likelihood of nausea among adult patients who are treated with high emetic risk antineoplastic agents. Randomized controlled trials also support an expanded role for neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in patients who are treated with chemotherapy. Recommendation Key updates include the addition of olanzapine to antiemetic regimens for adults who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexamethasone on day 1 only for adults who receive anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy; and the addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for adults who receive carboplatin area under the curve ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute or high-dose chemotherapy, and for pediatric patients who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic regions, risk levels, and antiemetic administration schedules. Rescue therapy alone is now recommended for low-emetic-risk radiation therapy. The Expert Panel reiterated the importance of using the most effective antiemetic regimens that are appropriate for antineoplastic agents or radiotherapy being administered. Such regimens should be used with initial treatment, rather than first assessing the patient's emetic response with less-effective treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .
Antiemetics: ASCO Guideline Update Hesketh, Paul J; Kris, Mark G; Basch, Ethan ...
Journal of clinical oncology,
08/2020, Letnik:
38, Številka:
24
Journal Article
Recenzirano
To update the guideline to include new anticancer agents, antiemetics, and antiemetic regimens and to provide recommendations on the use of dexamethasone as a prophylactic antiemetic in patients ...receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs).
ASCO convened an Expert Panel and updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published between June 1, 2016, and January 24, 2020. To address the dexamethasone and CPI question, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs that evaluated the addition of a CPI to chemotherapy.
The systematic reviews included 3 publications from the updated search and 10 publications on CPIs. Two phase III trials in adult patients with non-small-cell lung cancers evaluating a platinum-based doublet with or without the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab recommended that all patients receive dexamethasone as a component of the prophylactic antiemetic regimen. In both studies, superior outcomes were noted in the PD-1 inhibitor-containing arms. Other important findings address olanzapine in adults and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients.
Recommendations for adults are unchanged with the exception of the option of adding olanzapine in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Dosing information now includes the option of a 5-mg dose of olanzapine in adults and intravenous formulations of aprepitant and netupitant-palonosetron. The option of fosaprepitant is added to pediatric recommendations. There is no clinical evidence to warrant omission of dexamethasone from guideline-compliant prophylactic antiemetic regimens when CPIs are administered to adults in combination with chemotherapy. CPIs administered alone or in combination with another CPI do not require the routine use of a prophylactic antiemetic.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.
We validated different approaches to symptom assessment for pediatric cancer patients based on the Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) for self-report (SSPedi and mini-SSPedi), proxy-report ...(proxy-SSPedi), and structured dyadic-report (co-SSPedi). The objective was to compare co-SSPedi scores vs proxy-report (proxy-SSPedi) and self-report (SSPedi or mini-SSPedi) scores for pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments.
This was a single-center, randomized crossover study enrolling English-speaking dyads of pediatric patients with cancer or hematopoietic cell transplant recipients 4-18 years old and their guardians. Dyads were randomized to first complete the dyadic-report (co-SSPedi) or self-report (patients: SSPedi or mini-SSPedi) and proxy-report (guardians: proxy-SSPedi). Dyads then crossed over to the alternate approach. Primary analysis compared total SSPedi scores between randomized groups.
We enrolled 420 dyads that were randomized to co-SSPedi first (n = 213) or proxy-SSPedi and self-report SSPedi first (n = 207). Mean total SSPedi scores (± standard deviation) were co-SSPedi (9.6 ± 7.1), proxy-SSPedi (9.7 ± 7.5; P = .950 for comparison vs co-SSPedi), and self-report SSPedi (9.7 ± 8.2; P = .981 for comparison vs co-SSPedi). Co-SSPedi scores were significantly different from proxy-SSPedi for feeling disappointed or sad, feeling cranky or angry, feeling tired, mouth sores, and changes in taste. Co-SSPedi scores were significantly different from self-report SSPedi scores for problems with thinking or remembering things, feeling tired, mouth sores, tingly or numb hands or feet, and diarrhea.
Total co-SSPedi scores were not significantly different compared with proxy-report or self-report scores, although there were differences in specific symptom scores. If different reporter types are used during clinical implementation, specifying reporter type will be important. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT #05012917). Symptoms are common and frequently severely bothersome in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients (1). To measure the extent of bothersome symptoms, the Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) suite of symptom assessment tools was developed for pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments and currently consists of multiple validated instruments. SSPedi was developed for self-report by patients 8-18 years of age (2,3). Mini-SSPedi was developed for self-report by patients 4 to 7 years of age (4). Proxy-SSPedi was developed for proxy-report by guardians of pediatric patients 2-18 years of age (5). These 3 instruments can be categorized as either self-report (SSPedi or mini-SSPedi) or proxy-report (proxy-SSPedi).
Abstract
Background
Bacteremia and other invasive bacterial infections are common among children with cancer receiving intensive chemotherapy and in pediatric recipients of hematopoietic stem cell ...transplantation (HSCT). Systemic antibacterial prophylaxis is one approach that can be used to reduce the risk of these infections. Our purpose was to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing HSCT.
Methods
An international and multidisciplinary panel was convened with representation from pediatric hematology/oncology and HSCT, pediatric infectious diseases (including antibiotic stewardship), nursing, pharmacy, a patient advocate, and a CPG methodologist. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to generate recommendations based on the results of a systematic review of the literature.
Results
The systematic review identified 114 eligible randomized trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. The panel made a weak recommendation for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis for children receiving intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia and relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Weak recommendations against the routine use of systemic antibacterial prophylaxis were made for children undergoing induction chemotherapy for ALL, autologous HSCT and allogeneic HSCT. A strong recommendation against its routine use was made for children whose therapy is not expected to result in prolonged severe neutropenia. If used, prophylaxis with levofloxacin was recommended during severe neutropenia.
Conclusions
We present a CPG for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric cancer and HSCT patients. Future research should evaluate the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of prophylaxis.
This clinical practice guideline presents recommendations for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients. The recommendations were developed by an international panel based on the results of a systematic review of 114 randomized trials.
This clinical practice guideline (CPG) provides clinicians with recommendations regarding chemotherapy emetogenicity classification in pediatric oncology patients. This information is critically ...important for the appropriate selection of antiemetic prophylaxis. Recommendations are based on a systematic review limited to pediatric patients and a framework for classification when antiemetic prophylaxis is provided. Findings of 87 publications informed the emetogenicity classification of 49 single‐agent and 13 combination‐agent regimens. Information required for the classification of many chemotherapies commonly administered to pediatric patients is lacking. In the absence of pediatric data, consultation of methodologically sound CPGs aimed at adult oncology patients may be appropriate.
There is growing recognition of the degree to which symptoms negatively impact on children receiving cancer treatments. A recent study described that almost all inpatient pediatric oncology patients ...are experiencing at least one bothersome symptom and almost 60% are experiencing at least one severely bothersome symptom. Poor symptom control occurs because of challenges with communication of bothersome symptoms to clinicians, lack of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for most of these symptoms, and failure to administer preventative and therapeutic interventions known to be effective for symptom control. This article reviews approaches used to improve symptom control for children receiving cancer treatments. Areas addressed include systematic symptom screening and creation of CPGs for symptom management. Challenges with electronic health integration are also addressed. Several multi-symptom assessment scales have been developed but none have yet been used to directly influence patient management. The number of CPGs applicable to symptom control in pediatric oncology is increasing but remains small. Improving the creation of and adherence to CPGs for symptom management is an important priority. Finally, identifying ways that symptom management systems can be integrated into clinical work flows is essential; these will likely need to focus on electronic health records.
Aprepitant and fosaprepitant drug interactions: a systematic review Patel, Priya; Leeder, J. Steven; Piquette‐Miller, Micheline ...
BJCP. British journal of clinical pharmacology/British journal of clinical pharmacology,
October 2017, Letnik:
83, Številka:
10
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Aims
Aprepitant and fosaprepitant, commonly used for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting, alter cytochrome P450 activity. This systematic review evaluates clinically ...significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with aprepitant and fosaprepitant and describes adverse events ascribed to drug interactions with aprepitant or fosaprepitant.
Methods
We systematically reviewed the literature to September 11, 2016, to identify articles evaluating drug interactions involving aprepitant/fosaprepitant. The clinical significance of each reported pharmacokinetic drug interaction was evaluated based on the United States Food and Drug Administration guidance document on conducting drug interaction studies. The probability of an adverse event reported in case reports being due to a drug interaction with aprepitant/fosaprepitant was determined using the Drug Interaction Probability Scale.
Results
A total of 4377 publications were identified. Of these, 64 met inclusion eligibility criteria: 34 described pharmacokinetic drug interactions and 30 described adverse events ascribed to a drug interaction. Clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and bosutinib PO, cabazitaxel IV, cyclophosphamide IV, dexamethasone PO, methylprednisolone IV, midazolam PO/IV, oxycodone PO and tolbutamide PO were identified, as were adverse events resulting from an interaction between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and alcohol, anthracyclines, ifosfamide, oxycodone, quetiapine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin‐norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and warfarin.
Conclusions
The potential for a drug interaction with aprepitant and fosaprepitant should be considered when selecting antiemetic therapy.
Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that dexrazoxane reduces anthracycline cardiotoxicity in adults, but use in children has been hindered by lack of direct evidence of ...cardioprotection and concerns regarding second malignant neoplasms (SMNs). This study aimed to systematically review the evidence regarding dexrazoxane in children.
We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and abstracts for RCTs and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) that compared dexrazoxane to no cardioprotection among children. We combined findings using random-effects models. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Eleven eligible publications reported results from five RCTs (1254 patients), and 15 publications reported results from 12 NRSs (3385 patients). Dexrazoxane did not impact clinical cardiotoxicity in RCTs because of a low cardiotoxic event rate (three events among all patients) but was associated with a reduction in subclinical cardiotoxicity. Among NRSs, dexrazoxane was associated with a reduction in clinical cardiotoxicity (relative risk (RR) = 0.29, P = .001) and clinical+subclinical cardiotoxicity (RR = 0.43, P < .001). Among RCTs, 17 of 635 (2.7%) patients treated with dexrazoxane developed an SMN compared with seven of 619 (1.1%) who did not receive dexrazoxane (RR = 2.37, P = .06). Two RCTs that used concurrent etoposide reported an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia, while one that used cranial radiation reported an increased risk of brain tumors. Event-free survival did not differ (P = .91).
Dexrazoxane is associated with a statistically significant risk reduction for most cardiotoxic outcomes. Dexrazoxane is associated with a statistically borderline increase in SMNs, possibly because of an interaction with concurrent cancer therapies. The decision to use dexrazoxane in children should balance the risks of cardiotoxicity and SMNs specific to each treatment protocol.
Purpose
Changes in taste is a common bothersome symptom in children receiving cancer treatments. However, little is known about how pediatric cancer patients experience this symptom. The objective ...was to describe how children receiving cancer treatments experience taste alterations and the approaches they use to address the issue.
Methods
In this qualitative study, we included English-speaking children 4–18 years of age with cancer or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients who were actively receiving cancer treatment or who had completed therapy. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, we asked questions about the experience of altered taste sensation. We asked about its characteristics, impacts and identified coping strategies.
Results
We included 50 children. Children experienced changes in taste in a heterogeneous fashion although commonly described food as tasting “different”, “not right” or “funny”. While change in food preferences due to taste alterations was common, specific choices varied. Many found changes started with treatment initiation or mid-way through treatment, and some found that symptoms persisted up to 9 months following treatment completion. Actions taken to address taste changes were sucking on candy, brushing teeth and modifying food choices.
Conclusions
The experience of changes in taste was common yet highly variable in its presentation and resultant changes in food preferences. Taste changes did not always resolve soon after treatment completion. Future research should identify ways to manage this symptom in pediatric cancer patients.
PDF
