Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES:Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy. DESIGN:Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol. SETTING:11 palliative care sites in Australia. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours. INTERVENTIONS:Based on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:A ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change. RESULTS:Response to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In the per protocol analysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Complete per protocol response rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm. CONCLUSION:This study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN 12615000177550

A randomized open-label study of guideline-driven antiemetic therapy versus single agent antiemetic therapy in patients with advanced cancer and nausea not related to anticancer treatment

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: Nausea/vomiting (N/V) not related to anti-cancer treatment is common in patients with advanced cancer. The standard approach to management is to define a dominant cause, and treat with an antiemetic selected through pathophysiologic knowledge of emetic pathways. High rates of N/V control have been reported using both etiology-based guideline-driven antiemetic regimens and an empiric approach using single agents in uncontrolled studies. These different approaches had never been formally compared. Methods: This randomized, prospective, open label, dose-escalating study used readily available antiemetics in accordance with etiology-based guidelines or single agent therapy with haloperidol. Participants had a baseline average nausea score of ≥3/10. Response was defined as a ≥ 2/10 point reduction on a numerical rating scale of average nausea score with a final score < 3/10 at 72 h. Results: Nausea scores and distress from nausea improved over time in the majority of the 185 patients randomized. For those who completed each treatment day, a greater response rate was seen in the guideline arm than the single agent arm at 24 h (49% vs 32%; p = 0.02), but not at 48 or 72 h. Response rates at 72 h in the intention to treat analysis were 49 and 53% respectively, with no significant difference between arms (0.04; 95% CI: -0.11, 0.19; p = 0.59). Over 80% of all participants reported an improved global impression of change. There were few adverse events worse than baseline in either arm. Conclusion: An etiology-based, guideline-directed approach to antiemetic therapy may offer more rapid benefit, but is no better than single agent treatment with haloperidol at 72 h. Clinical trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical

Bacteria-inducing legume nodules involved in the improvement of plant growth, health and nutrition

Bacteria-inducing legume nodules are known as rhizobia and belong to the class Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria. They promote the growth and nutrition of their respective legume hosts through atmospheric nitrogen fixation which takes place in the nodules induced in their roots or stems. In addition, rhizobia have other plant growth-promoting mechanisms, mainly solubilization of phosphate and production of indoleacetic acid, ACC deaminase and siderophores. Some of these mechanisms have been reported for strains of rhizobia which are also able to promote the growth of several nonlegumes, such as cereals, oilseeds and vegetables. Less studied are the mechanisms that have the rhizobia to promote the plant health; however, these bacteria are able to exert biocontrol of some phytopathogens and to induce the plant resistance. In this chapter, we revised the available data about the ability of the legume nodule-inducing bacteria for improving the plant growth, health and nutrition of both legumes and nonlegumes. These data showed that rhizobia meet all the requirements of sustainable agriculture to be used as bio-inoculants allowing the total or partial replacement of chemicals used for fertilization or protection of crops