Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 25, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Propensity score-matching analysis comparing safety outcomes of appetite-stimulating medications in oncology patients
Elizabeth Marie Gavioli1,2, Alfred Burger3,4, Aia Gamaleldin5
1Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 1 University Plaza, Brooklyn, NY, 11201, USA. elizabeth.gavioli@dompe.com.
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.
Related Concept Videos
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Dopamine Receptor Antagonists
Phenothiazines, such as prochlorperazine...
Cancer Survival Analysis
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...

