Safety and efficacy of nabilone for acute chemotherapy‐induced vomiting prophylaxis in pediatric patients: A multicenter, retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the safety and efficacy of nabilone given to pediatric patients to prevent acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective review of pediatric patients who received nabilone for acute CINV prophylaxis between December 1, 2010 and August 1, 2015 was undertaken. One course of nabilone was evaluated per patient. Adverse effects associated with nabilone use were noted. The proportion of patients who experienced complete acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control during the acute phase was determined. The acute phase was defined as starting with the first chemotherapy dose and continuing until 24 h after administration of the last chemotherapy dose of the chemotherapy block. RESULTS: One hundred ten eligible patients (median age: 14.0 years, range: 1.1-18.0 years; 65 male) were identified. Most (109/110) received nabilone plus a 5-HT3 antagonist for CINV prophylaxis. Adverse effects associated with nabilone were experienced by 34% (37/110) of children. All were of CTCAE Version 4.03 Grade 2 or less. Sedation (20.0%), dizziness (10.0%), and euphoria (3.6%) were the most commonly reported adverse events. Nabilone was discontinued in 10 patients due to an adverse event. The proportions of patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy who experienced complete acute CIV control were 50.6% (42/83) and 53.8% (14/26), respectively. CONCLUSION: Adverse events associated with nabilone were common but of minor clinical significance. Acute CIV control in children receiving nabilone as a part of their antiemetic regimen was poor. Future work should focus on implementation of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis and treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".