Intravenous administration of low-dose chlorpromazine may be an effective and safe treatment option for delirium in patients with terminal cancer who have hyperactive delirium, longer predictive prognosis, and shock index <1.

No abstract

Nivolumab, an anti-programmed cell death 1 antibody, has been approved for the treatment of unresectable advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although immune-related adverse events (irAEs) such as dermatologic, digestive, endocrine, hepatic, and pulmonary toxicities are known to occur upon administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors, case reports of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) associated with nivolumab use are rare. We report a case of an NSCLC patient who developed PMR during treatment with nivolumab and received corticosteroids. A 74-year-old man without a history of autoimmune diseases received nivolumab at a dosage of 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks for the treatment of stage IIIB squamous cell carcinoma. After 12 cycles of nivolumab treatment, he developed grade 3 muscle pain and arthralgia, requiring hospitalization and discontinuation of nivolumab. A bone scintigraphy revealed no bone metastasis. Serological tests showed that although creatine phosphokinase did not increase, C-reactive protein and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate were both high. Tests for the rheumatoid factor, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody, and anti-nuclear antibody were negative. In addition to the serologicalˆndings, joint ultrasonography data and clinical symptoms were evaluated, leading to the diagnosis of PMR. Oral prednisolone 20 mg/d was started to treat the PMR without giant-cell arteritis. The patient's symptoms improved within 5 days of the initiation of treatment. Prednisolone was tapered to 5 mg/d without recurrence of PMR. Although grade 3 or 4 irAEs (except in type 1 diabetes) are generally treated with high-dose corticosteroids, grade 3 PMR associated with nivolumab use may be treatable with low-dose corticosteroids.

Background: Sleep disturbance is a common psychiatric disorder in patients with cancer. However, many patients with incurable cancer have difficulty receiving oral administrations, which limits treatment options during disease progression. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous chlorpromazine treatment for sleep disturbances in patients with incurable cancer, with oral administration difficulty.Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted among 52 patients with incurable cancer, with oral administration difficulty received daily intravenous chlorpromazine treatment for sleep disturbance from 2018 to 2020 at a single-unit university hospital. St. Mary's Hospital Sleep Questionnaire (SMHSQ) compared sleep before and after intravenous chlorpromazine administration. The primary endpoint was the efficacy rate of sleep quality [defined as a score of ≥4 (range: 1-6)] 7 days after receiving chlorpromazine.Results: Beginning the day after receiving chlorpromazine, sleep quality significantly improved from a mean score of 1.6±0.7 to 4.3±1.2, and 80.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 66.5-89.1%] and 69.2% (95% CI: 53.8-79.6%) of patients reported good sleep quality 3 and 7 days after receiving chlorpromazine, respectively. The patients reported increased total sleep time and fewer awakenings during sleep, and satisfaction with sleep and difficulty falling asleep improved. Some adverse events occurred [akathisia (n=2), dry mouth (n=2), and somnolence (n=3)]; all were Grade 1 (CTCAE ver5.0) and improved with chlorpromazine discontinuation. Systolic blood pressure and heart rate displayed no clinically problematic changes.Conclusions: Intravenous chlorpromazine has a high tolerability and effectively treats sleep disturbances in patients with incurable cancer with oral administration difficulties.

Mabi district of Kurashiki City was seriously damaged by flood in 2018. Over 4,000 houses were completely damaged. Questionnaire survey was conducted to study housing recovery behavior of victims in reconstruction of damaged houses after flood. Housing recovery behavior was analyzed whether they applied water-proof countermeasures or not in relation with the knowledge about flood hazard information, acquirement of river improvement construction works and the risk perception towards flood. It was found that only 20% of respondents applied water-proof countermeasures, such as raising level of ground, elevation of foundation in housing reconstruction. It is assumed that one of the reasons is victims risk perception that flood risks will be reduced after the completion of river improvement construction, therefore, they do not need to apply water-proof countermeasures.