ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022
Propensity score-matching analysis comparing safety outcomes of appetite-stimulating medications in oncology patients.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Safety of Cyproheptadine-Based Appetite Stimulants: An Electronic Health Record-Based Retrospective Cohort Study in Adult Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAnorexia 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionThere were no safety differences seen when evaluating both agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.