Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
Propensity score-matching analysis comparing safety outcomes of appetite-stimulating medications in oncology patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marie Gavioli Elizabeth, Burger Alfred, Gamaleldin Aia, Eladghm Nourhan, Vider Etty
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Anorexia and weight loss are common complications in the elderly, advanced cancer population. Appetite stimulants are commonly used therapies for oncology patients with weight loss, yet their safety comparison remains unknown.
METHODS: This was a two-center, retrospective, study conducted in New York City at Mount Sinai Beth Israel and New York University Langone from January 2016 to July 2019 in adult patients with histologic evidence of malignancy who were taking either megestrol acetate or mirtazapine as an appetite-stimulating medication. Endpoints included safety concerns of mortality, QTc prolongation, venous thromboembolism, fall, somnolence, xerostomia, and hallucinations. Effectiveness of weight gain or maintenance of weight was not assessed. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed using a logistic regression analysis to assess the two comparable groups.
RESULTS: The study included 350 patients (69.56 ± 13.31 years) with the most common malignancies being gastrointestinal, breast, and hematologic with metastasis present in over half the patients. Adverse events were commonly seen in the oncology population. After a propensity score-matched analysis, all safety outcomes associated with mirtazapine compared to megestrol acetate were similar; all-cause mortality (7%, n = 7 vs. 12%, n = 12, p = 0.23), QTc prolongation (31%, n = 31 vs. 31%, n = 31, p = 1.00), thromboembolism (11%, n = 11 vs. 11%, n = 11, p = 1.00), somnolence (29%, n = 30 vs. 22%, n = 23, p = 0.34), xerostomia (27%, n = 28 vs. 18%, n = 19, p = 0.24), and hallucinations (17%, n = 18 vs. 8%, n = 8, p = 0.06), respectfully.
CONCLUSION: There were no safety differences seen when evaluating both agents.
METHODS: This was a two-center, retrospective, study conducted in New York City at Mount Sinai Beth Israel and New York University Langone from January 2016 to July 2019 in adult patients with histologic evidence of malignancy who were taking either megestrol acetate or mirtazapine as an appetite-stimulating medication. Endpoints included safety concerns of mortality, QTc prolongation, venous thromboembolism, fall, somnolence, xerostomia, and hallucinations. Effectiveness of weight gain or maintenance of weight was not assessed. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed using a logistic regression analysis to assess the two comparable groups.
RESULTS: The study included 350 patients (69.56 ± 13.31 years) with the most common malignancies being gastrointestinal, breast, and hematologic with metastasis present in over half the patients. Adverse events were commonly seen in the oncology population. After a propensity score-matched analysis, all safety outcomes associated with mirtazapine compared to megestrol acetate were similar; all-cause mortality (7%, n = 7 vs. 12%, n = 12, p = 0.23), QTc prolongation (31%, n = 31 vs. 31%, n = 31, p = 1.00), thromboembolism (11%, n = 11 vs. 11%, n = 11, p = 1.00), somnolence (29%, n = 30 vs. 22%, n = 23, p = 0.34), xerostomia (27%, n = 28 vs. 18%, n = 19, p = 0.24), and hallucinations (17%, n = 18 vs. 8%, n = 8, p = 0.06), respectfully.
CONCLUSION: There were no safety differences seen when evaluating both agents.