Keeley, P.W. (2009). Nausea and vomiting in people with cancer and other chronic diseases. BMJ Clinical Evidence, 2406.

To determine the effects of treatments for nausea and vomiting either as a result of the disease or its treatment in adults with cancer and other chronic diseases

Databases reviewed searched were MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Harm alerts from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United Kingdom regulatory agency also were reviewed.

No separate description of the volume of literature evaluated or the specific evaluation process was provided. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADES) system was used for rating the evidence, and these results were provided. The literature review was completed as of April 2008.

The study reported on 13 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs), representing more than 14,000 patients with cancer. These included studies of nausea and vomiting as a result of disease or treatment.

Results indicated that 5-HT₃ RAs + dexamethasone was beneficial.

The following were identified as likely to be beneficial.

• 5-HT₃ RAs + corticosteroid with radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting
• Aprepitant added to conventional regimens
• Haloperidol
• Metoclopramide for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)
• Phenothiazines
• Venting gastrostomies

Cannabinoids were identified as being a tradeoff between benefit and harm.

The following were determined to have unknown effectiveness.

• 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists (RAs) for radiation-induced nausea and vomiting
• Antihistamines
• Antimuscarinics
• Antipsychotics
• Benzodiazepines for CINV

• Although no evidence was identified, and, at this writing, there was a stated drug safety alert on haloperidol, this review identified haloperidol as likely to be beneficial. It is unclear how this can meet this category.
• Results cited tended to focus on vomiting episodes and did not address the symptom of nausea.
• Results were a mix of symptoms from the disease itself or treatment, so differentiation of applicability was not always clear.
• Some aspects of the search strategy were unclear.
• Some interventions stated that no RCTs or systematic reviews were found, so no evidence was provided; however, in other areas, observational studies and consensus opinions were cited as supporting evidence.
• Inclusion and exclusions were not stated.
• No information was included on nonpharmacologic interventions in combination with antiemetic regimens.