Elizabeth Marie Gavioli1,2, Alfred Burger3,4, Aia Gamaleldin5, Nourhan Eladghm5, Etty Vider5,6,7. 1. Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 1 University Plaza, Brooklyn, NY, 11201, USA. elizabeth.gavioli@dompe.com. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, NY, USA. elizabeth.gavioli@dompe.com. 3. Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, NY, USA. 4. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 5. Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 1 University Plaza, Brooklyn, NY, 11201, USA. 6. NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. 7. The Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Aminah Jatoi; Harold E Windschitl; Charles L Loprinzi; Jeff A Sloan; Shaker R Dakhil; James A Mailliard; Sarode Pundaleeka; Carl G Kardinal; Tom R Fitch; James E Krook; Paul J Novotny; Brad Christensen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cetin Ordu; Kezban Nur Pilanci; Ulkuhan Iner Koksal; Kerem Okutur; Sezer Saglam; Coskun Tecimer; Gokhan Demir Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Date: 2014
Authors: Richard P McQuellon; Dawn B Moose; Gregory B Russell; L Douglas Case; Katherine Greven; Michael Stevens; Edward G Shaw Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Geoff D E Cuvelier; Tina J Baker; Elaine F Peddie; Linda M Casey; Pascal J Lambert; Dianne S Distefano; Marlene G Wardle; Beth A Mychajlunow; Marcel A Romanick; David B Dix; Beverly A Wilson Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 3.167