A randomized study of aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Dexamethasone-sparing strategies in anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy with a focus on 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: a network meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP).

Results

The difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs.

Conclusion

Palonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy.

Risk Factors Associated with Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Women with Breast Cancer Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Individual Patient-Based Analysis of Three Prospective Antiemetic Trials

PURPOSE

Although risk factors related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified in previous studies, only a few studies have evaluated the risk factors associated with contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis, including olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA-containing regimens. This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with CINV development in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

METHODS

Data from 304 patients enrolled in 3 previously reported prospective antiemetic studies were included. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict risk factors associated with CINV occurrence. Additionally, the likelihood of treatment failure in relation to the number of risk factors in individual patients was evaluated.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis of the entire study group revealed that obesity status (defined as body mass index/= 25.0 kg/m2) and the use of olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA-containing anti-emetic regimens were associated with a high likelihood, while a history of motion sickness was associated with a lower likelihood, complete response (CR), and "no nausea" in the overall phase. A history of vomiting during pregnancy was also associated with a lower likelihood of an overall CR. Patients with an increasing number of risk factors had a higher likelihood of treatment failure and shorter time to first vomiting. Those who did not achieve CR and "no nausea" in the first cycle were less likely to achieve these parameters in the subsequent cycle of chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The present study confirmed previously reported risk factors for CINV in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Further optimization of CINV control is required for patients with identifiable risk factors; olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA- containing prophylaxis are the preferred contemporary anti-emetics regimens for Chinese breast cancer patients undergoing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

NEPA efficacy and tolerability during (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin

OBJECTIVES

This is a prospective study evaluating NEPA in patients with breast cancer (the NEPA group), who received (neo)adjuvant AC chemotherapy (consisting of doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2). The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of NEPA in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The secondary objectives were to compare CINV between the NEPA group and historical controls (the APR group) who received aprepitant in an earlier prospective randomised study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

60 patients participated in the NEPA group; 62 were in the APR group. Eligibility criteria of both groups were similar, that is, Chinese patients with breast cancer who were treated with (neo)adjuvant AC. NEPA group received NEPA and dexamethasone; APR group received aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone. Individuals filled in self-reported diary, visual analogue scale for nausea and Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire.

RESULTS

Within the NEPA group, 70.0%, 85.7% and 60.0%, respectively reported complete response in the acute, delayed and overall phases in cycle 1 AC. When compared with the historical APR group during cycle 1 AC, NEPA group achieved significantly higher rates of complete response, complete protection, total control, 'no significant nausea' and 'no nausea' in the delayed phase; similar findings were noted in the overall phase with significantly better quality of life. Superior efficacy of NEPA was maintained over multiple cycles. Both antiemetic regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In this study on Chinese patients with breast cancer who were uniformly receiving AC, NEPA was effective in controlling CINV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03386617.

Quality of Life Associated with Nausea and Vomiting from Anthracycline-Based Chemotherapy: A Pooled Data Analysis from Three Prospective Trials

BACKGROUND

There is limited work on the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on quality of life (QoL) in adriamycin-cyclophosphamide (AC)-treated patients with breast cancer. The objectives of the study were the following: (a) to confirm if symptoms of CINV led to lower QoL during AC; (b) to evaluate the pattern of changes in patients' QoL during multiple cycles of AC; and (c) to assess if the QoL in an earlier cycle affected the QoL in subsequent cycles of AC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a secondary pooled data analysis that included 303 Chinese patients with breast cancer who received 1,177 cycles of adjuvant AC in three prospective antiemetic studies. QoL data were based on Functional Living Index-emesis (FLIE) scored over three to four AC cycles. CINV symptoms assessed included "no significant nausea" (NSN), "significant nausea" (SN), "no vomiting" (NoV), "vomiting" (V), and complete response (CR).

RESULTS

Across all AC cycles, the mean scores for the FLIE nausea domain for patients who experienced NSN versus SN were 10.92 versus 53.92, respectively (p < .0001), with lower scores indicating better QoL; the mean scores for the FLIE vomiting domain for patients who experienced NoV versus V were 1.44 versus 19.11, respectively (p < .0001), with similar results across subsequent cycles. Analysis of the effect of the QoL in cycle 1 on the QoL of subsequent cycles revealed the following: for the nausea domain, among patients who had cycle 1 FLIE scores ≥ versus < the mean, the corresponding scores in cycle 2 were 6.87 versus 36.71 (p < .0001); whereas those for cycle 3 were 7.07 versus 36.87 (p < .0001); and those for cycle 4 were 5.92 versus 21.48 (p < .0001). Similar findings were observed for the vomiting domain. Netupitant + palonosetron- or aprepitant/olanzapine-based antiemetics had significantly better QoL outcomes.

CONCLUSION

CINV had a significant impact on the QoL of patients with breast cancer treated with AC over multiple cycles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In this post-hoc analysis of three prospective studies on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), quality of life (QoL) using contemporary antiemetic regimens in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) was evaluated. During the first and subsequent AC cycles, QoL was significantly better for patients who did not experience vomiting or significant nausea. QoL in an earlier cycle affected the QoL in subsequent AC cycles. Furthermore, recent regimens involving olanzapine/aprepitant or netupitant-palonosetron were associated with a positive impact in QoL. Antiemetic guideline-consistent practice and higher clinician awareness of the impact of CINV on QoL can further mitigate the negative effects of CINV on QoL.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Resveratrol as an Adjuvant for Normal Tissues Protection and Tumor Sensitization

Cancer is one of the most complicated diseases in present-day medical science. Yearly, several studies suggest various strategies for preventing carcinogenesis. Furthermore, experiments for the treatment of cancer with low side effects are ongoing. Chemotherapy, targeted therapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy are the most common non-invasive strategies for cancer treatment. One of the most challenging issues encountered with these modalities is low effectiveness, as well as normal tissue toxicity for chemo-radiation therapy. The use of some agents as adjuvants has been suggested to improve tumor responses and also alleviate normal tissue toxicity. Resveratrol, a natural flavonoid, has attracted a lot of attention for the management of both tumor and normal tissue responses to various modalities of cancer therapy. As an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent, in vitro and in vivo studies show that it is able to mitigate chemo-radiation toxicity in normal tissues. However, clinical studies to confirm the usage of resveratrol as a chemo-radioprotector are lacking. In addition, it can sensitize various types of cancer cells to both chemotherapy drugs and radiation. In recent years, some clinical studies suggested that resveratrol may have an effect on inducing cancer cell killing. Yet, clinical translation of resveratrol has not yielded desirable results for the combination of resveratrol with radiotherapy, targeted therapy or immunotherapy. In this paper, we review the potential role of resveratrol for preserving normal tissues and sensitization of cancer cells in combination with different cancer treatment modalities.

The efficacy of aprepitant in salvage treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for patients with gastrointestinal cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of aprepitant and its effect on the quality of life when added to standard antiemetic therapy as salvage therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is an open-label, noncomparative prospective phase II clinical trial. A total of 224 patients receiving initial moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) were enrolled. Patients received standard antiemetic treatment (5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) antagonists + dexamethasone) in the first cycle. Patients failing to achieve a complete response (CR) during cycle 1 entered cycle 2 with the addition of aprepitant as salvage treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 224 patients eligible for cycle 1, 159 (71.0%, 95% CI 65.0-77.0) had a CR, and 65 patients with a noncomplete response (NCR) proceeded to cycle 2 to receive aprepitant-based salvage therapy. Then, 49 (75.4%, 95% CI 64.6-84.1) of these patients achieved a CR. The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire showed that NCR patients in cycle 1 had an improved quality of life after receiving aprepitant-based salvage therapy in cycle 2 (cycle 1 and 2: 80.3 vs 114.0, P < 0.001). Failing to achieve a CR had a significant impact on the quality of life in both cycle 1 (FLIE score of NCR and CR patients: 80.3 vs 119.7, P < 0.001) and cycle 2 (FLIE score of NCR and CR patients: 88.3 vs 122.4, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of aprepitant as salvage therapy for patients with gastrointestinal cancer is effective and has a positive effect on quality of life.

Identification of optimal contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis for doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in Chinese cancer patients: post-hoc analysis of 3 prospective studies

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy. Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), corticosteroid, and dopamine antagonists. This post-hoc analysis compared results of 3 prospective antiemetic studies conducted among Chinese breast cancer patients who received (neo)adjuvant AC, in order to identify optimal antiemetic prophylaxis.

METHODS

A total of 304 patients were included: Group 1, ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 2, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 3, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1-3); Group 4, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1-3)/olanzapine; and Group 5, netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone (D1-3). Antiemetic efficacies of Groups 3, 4, and 5 during cycle 1 of AC were individually compared with Group 1. In addition, emesis outcomes of patients in Groups 3 and 5, and those of Groups 2 and 3, were compared.

RESULTS

When comparing efficacies of a historical doublet (5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with triplet antiemetic regimens (NK1RA/5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with/without olanzapine, complete response (CR) percentages and quality of life (QOL) in overall phase of cycle 1 AC were compared between Group 1 and the other groups: Group 1 vs. 3, 41.9% vs. 38.3% (P = 0.6849); Group 1 vs. 4, 41.9% vs. 65.0% (P = 0.0107); and Group 1 vs. 5, 41.9% vs. 60.0% (P = 0.0460). Groups 4 and 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing netupitant-based (Group 3) with aprepitant-based (Group 5) triplet antiemetics, CR percentages were 38.3% vs. 60.0%, respectively (P = 0.0176); Group 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing 1 day (Group 2) vs. 3 day (Group 3) dexamethasone, CR percentages were 46.8% and 38.3%, respectively (P = 0.3459); Group 3 had a worse QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant-containing triplets were non-superior to doublet antiemetics. Netupitant-containing triplets and adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triplets were superior to doublets. Netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone was superior to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone. Protracted administration of dexamethasone provided limited additional benefit.

A randomized trial of individualized versus standard of care antiemetic therapy for breast cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Purpose

Despite triple antiemetic therapy use for breast cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, nausea remains a clinical challenge. We evaluated adding olanzapine (5 mg) to triple therapy on nausea control in patients at high personal risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods

This multi-centre, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial randomized breast cancer patients scheduled to receive neo/adjuvant chemotherapy with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide or platinum-based chemotherapy to olanzapine (5 mg, days 1–4) or placebo. Primary endpoint was frequency of self-reported significant nausea, repeated for all cycles of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included: duration of nausea, overall total control of CINV, Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) using FLIE questionnaire, use of rescue mediation and treatment-related adverse events.

Results

218 eligible patients were randomised to placebo (105) or olanzapine (113). From days 0–5 following each cycle of chemotherapy, 41.3% (95%CI: 36.1–46.7%) of patients in the placebo group reported significant nausea compared to 27.7% (95%CI: 23.2–32.4%) in the olanzapine group (p = 0.001). Across all cycles of chemotherapy, patients receiving olanzapine experienced a statistically significant improvement in HRQoL (p < 0.001). Grade 1/2 sedation was the most commonly side effect reported at 40.8% in the placebo group vs. 54.1% with olanzapine (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In patients at high personal risk of CINV, the addition of olanzapine 5 mg daily to standard antiemetic therapy significantly improves the control of nausea, HRQoL, with no unexpected toxicities.

•

Double-blind trial evaluated the addition of olanzapine to triple therapy in patients at high personal risk of CINV.

•

Adding 5 mg olanzapine was associated with significantly improved nausea control with no unexpected toxicities.

•

Olanzapine plus triple therapy should be considered standard of care for breast cancer patients at high risk of CINV.

Antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and provide updated information for clinical practice.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 3 Chinese literature databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing standard regimen (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and glucocorticoid) with aprepitant triple regimen (aprepitant plus the standard regimen) for preventing CINV were screened. Literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 51 randomized controlled trials were finally included in the systematic review. Compared with the standard regimen, the aprepitant triple regimen significantly improved the complete response in the overall (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.71-2.07), acute (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.65-2.32) and delayed (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.70-2.27) phases, regardless of emetogenic risk of chemotherapy. Aprepitant could also significantly enhance the proportions of patients who have no emesis, nausea, or use of rescue medication respectively in the overall, acute and/or delayed phases. Aprepitant was found to be associated with decreased risk of constipation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97), but increased the incidence of hiccup (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups on other safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The aprepitant triple regimen is effective for the prevention of CINV in patients being treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and has a significant tendency to reduce the risk of constipation and increase the incidence of hiccup.

Dataset on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and quality of life (QOL) during multiple chemotherapy cycles among a Chinese breast cancer patient population who were randomized to antiemetic regimens with or without olanzapine

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are highly distressing symptoms for cancer patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy. This dataset was obtained from a homogenous group of Chinese breast cancer patients who were uniformly planned to receive a highly emetogenic (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, consisting of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (commonly known as AC). Patients were being randomized to one of the two antiemetic regimens: aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone with (the Olanzapine arm) or without olanzapine (the Standard arm). Patients underwent self-reported diaries and questionnaires to record their nausea and vomiting symptoms, use of rescue medication as well as their quality of life (QOL). The primary and secondary endpoints have focused on efficacy analysis during the first cycle of AC chemotherapy; the results have been reported in The Breast [1]. In this Data in Brief article, we provide outcome of the analysis of data collected during multiple cycles of chemotherapy. The data reported here include the proportion of patients with "Complete Response", "Complete Protection" and "Total Control" of emesis in the acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h) and overall periods (0-120 h), as well as QOL data during all the 4 cycles of AC.

A randomized study of olanzapine-containing versus standard antiemetic regimens for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are distressing symptoms. This randomized study evaluated the antiemetic efficacies of standard antiemetic regimen with/without olanzapine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were chemotherapy-naive Chinese breast cancer patients who were planned for (neo)adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Antiemetic regimen for all studied population included aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone; patients were randomized to Olanzapine (with olanzapine) or Standard arms (without olanzapine). Patients filled in self-reported diaries and completed visual analogue scales for nausea, as well as Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaires. Blood profiles including fasting glucose and lipids were monitored.

RESULTS

120 patients were randomized. In Cycle 1 doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, the Olanzapine arm had significantly higher rates of "Complete Response" than the Standard arm: 65.0% vs 38.3% in the overall period (p = 0.0035), 70.0% vs 51.7% in the acute period (p = 0.0397) and 92.9% vs 74.2% in the delayed period (p = 0.0254). Olanzapine arm also had significantly higher rates of "No significant nausea" and "No nausea" during all 3 time-frames and better QOL. Similar findings were also revealed throughout multiple cycles. Pre-study abnormalities in glucose and lipids occurred in 39.7% and 34.2% of the studied population respectively; there were no differences in these parameters between the two arms at end-of-study assessment.

CONCLUSION

The addition of olanzapine to standard aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen provides clinically meaningful improvement in controlling CINV. This was associated with a positive impact on QOL and tolerable toxicity profiles among Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Further studies on metabolic profiles of breast cancer patients are warranted.

Comparison of Pharmacokinetics of Aprepitant in Healthy Chinese and Caucasian Subjects

Purpose

Aprepitant is used to prevent nausea and vomiting associated with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this open-label, 2-period study, the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of aprepitant (EMEND^®) were evaluated in healthy Chinese and Caucasian subjects.

Patients and Methods

Twelve Chinese and 12 Caucasian subjects were to receive a 125 mg single-dose of aprepitant during period 1; subsequently, after 15 days washout, only Chinese subjects were to receive the 3-day regimen in period 2. In each period, serial blood samples were collected and analyzed by a validated liquid chromatographic and mass spectrometric method to characterize aprepitant PK across both groups.

Results

In both Chinese and Caucasian subjects, there were no serious adverse events. AUC_0-∞, C_max, T_max, and t_1/2 were largely comparable between the two ethnicities. Comparing the result of period 1 in Chinese and Caucasian subjects, the geometric least-squares mean maximum plasma concentrations (C_max) were 1482 ng/mL and 1435 ng/mL, and the area under the concentration–time curve (AUC_0-∞) 34,035 hr·ng/mL and 34,188 hr·ng/mL. In period 2, the geometric mean AUC_0–24 on Day 1 and Day 3 were 19,446 hr·ng/mL and 27,843 hr·ng/mL, and the geometric mean C_max on Day 1 and Day 3 were 1423 ng/mL and 1757 ng/mL, respectively.

Conclusion

Aprepitant is generally safe and well tolerated in healthy Chinese and Caucasian subjects. Aprepitant PK is comparable between Chinese and Caucasian subjects following single-dose administration. The PK following a clinical 3-day regimen on healthy Chinese subjects has been characterized.

Effectiveness and safety of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment for multiple-day anthracycline-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment for multiple-day anthracycline chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

One hundred patients with breast cancer from department of Medical Oncology of Ordos Central Hospital from June 2015 to February 2018 were selected and randomize subdivided into 2 groups. All cases received anthracycline (30 mg/m²/d for pirarubicin or 45 mg/m²/d for epirubicin) and cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy, along with either the standard therapy (dexamethasone and tropisetron) or the combined aprepitant therapy (aprepitant plus dexamethasone and tropisetron). The results of the observation between groups were presented by complete response in the overall phase (OP, 0-120 hours), acute phase (AP, 0-24 hours) and delay phase (DP, 25-120 hours). The Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to exhibit the first time of vomiting, Functional Living Index-Emesis of patients' quality of life, and therapy-related adverse effects (AEs).

RESULTS

The complete response of OP, AP, and DP were statistically different between aprepitant group and standard group (80.0% vs 48%, P = 0.001; 92.0% vs 74%, P = 0.017; 80.0% vs 48%, P = 0.001). The aprepitant group held a longer time reaching the first emesis after the relevant treatment than the standard group. The Functional Living Index-Emesis increased significantly in the aprepitant group compared with the standard group (24% vs 8.3%, P = 0.029). Fatigue and constipation were the only AEs of aprepitant, since no significant differences were observed in fatigue between the 2 groups (72% vs 70%, P = 0.826), while the incidence of constipation of aprepitant group was higher than the standard group (48% vs 28%, P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

Combined aprepitant therapy is efficient and safe in the multiple-day anthracycline chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control and is recommended for the clinical use.

Cost-utility analysis of aprepitant for patients who truly need it in Japan

PURPOSE

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA) is recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC, respectively). We previously reported that aprepitant, an NK₁RA, was needed to control CINV in 43% and 12% of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively (Support Care Cancer 23:905-912, 2015). To elucidate the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in these patients, a cost-utility analysis according to the necessity of aprepitant was performed.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed according to the necessity of aprepitant and CINV responses in both acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy. Probabilities of health states and medical costs were derived from the results of the abovementioned trial.

RESULT

In patients who received HEC and needed aprepitant, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the regimen with no aprepitant, was 7912 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which was far below the commonly accepted threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. The ICER was 27,457 USD/QALY in patients who received MEC and needed aprepitant. In contrast, in patients who received HEC or MEC but did not need aprepitant, the ICER was 175,959 or 478,844 USD/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of whether a patient received HEC or MEC, aprepitant use was highly cost-effective for patients who truly needed it. These results warrant further research to predict the necessity of NK₁RA treatment before initiating emetogenic chemotherapies.

Ea versus Sham Acupuncture and no Acupuncture for the Control of Acute and Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Pilot Study

Objective

To assess the feasibility of undertaking a high-quality randomised controlled study to determine whether EA gives better control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) than sham EA or standard antiemetic treatment alone.

Methods

Patients having their first cycle of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomised to EA, sham EA or standard care. EA was given for 30 min on day 1 at the time of chemotherapy and on day 3 using standard acupuncture points bilaterally. Sham EA was given to points adjacent to true EA points. All patients received usual care, comprising antiemetics, according to hospital guidelines. The primary outcomes related to study feasibility, and the clinical outcome measure was the change in Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) score captured on days 1 and 7.

Results

153 participants were screened between April 2009 and May 2011. Eighteen patients did not meet the inclusion criteria, 37 declined to participate and the absence of an acupuncturist or lack of consent from the treating oncologist excluded a further 38 patients; 60 patients were recruited. The FLIE was completed on day 7 by 49 participants; 33 of 40 patients returned on day 3 for treatment. The nausea and vomiting scores were low in all three arms. Adverse events were generally mild and infrequent.

Conclusions

It was feasible to undertake a randomised EA trial on a busy day oncology unit. As few patients experienced nausea with their first cycle of chemotherapy, it was not possible to determine whether EA improves CINV over standard care. An enriched enrolment strategy is indicated for future studies. A simple numerical rating scale may prove a better objective nausea measure than the FLIE.

Trial Registration Number

ACTRN12609001054202.

HTX-019: polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may occur during the acute (0-24 h) or delayed (25-120 h) phase following chemotherapy administration. The addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic regimens containing a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone has resulted in improved CINV prophylaxis. Due to numerous adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions associated with fosaprepitant, a commonly used neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, there remains an unmet need for better-tolerated formulations. HTX-019, the US FDA-approved polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free aprepitant injectable emulsion, is bioequivalent to and better tolerated (fewer treatment-emergent adverse events) than fosaprepitant. HTX-019 represents a valuable alternative to fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis.

Evolving role of neurokinin 1-receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

To examine pharmacologic and clinical characteristics of neurokinin 1 (NK₁)-receptor antagonists (RAs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a literature search was performed for clinical studies in patients at risk of CINV with any approved NK₁ RAs in the title or abstract: aprepitant (capsules or oral suspension), HTX019 (intravenous [IV] aprepitant), fosaprepitant (IV aprepitant prodrug), rolapitant (tablets or IV), and fixed-dose tablets combining netupitant or fosnetupi-tant (IV netupitant prodrug) with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃) RA palonosetron (oral or IV). All NK₁ RAs are effective, but exhibit important differences in efficacy against acute and delayed CINV. The magnitude of benefit of NK₁-RA-containing three-drug vs two-drug regimens is greater for delayed vs acute CINV. Oral rolapitant has the longest half-life of available NK₁ RAs, but as a consequence should not be administered more frequently than every 2 weeks. In general, NK₁ RAs are well tolerated; however, IV rolapitant was recently removed from US distribution, due to hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, and IV fosaprepitant is associated with infusion-site reactions and hypersensitivity presumed related to its polysorbate 80 excipient. Also, available NK₁ RAs have potential drug–drug interactions. Adding an NK₁ RA to 5HT₃ RA and dexamethasone significantly improves CINV control vs the two-drug regimen. Newer NK₁ RAs offer more formulation options, higher acute-phase plasma levels, or improved tolerability, and increase clinicians’ opportunities to maximize benefits of this important class of antiemetics.

Olanzapine-Based Triple Regimens Versus Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice.

Genetic Risk Factors Associated With Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone in Japanese Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Anthracycline-based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer patients often receive anthracycline-based chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most uncomfortable and distressing adverse reactions. Poor control of CINV reduces the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy agents, which has been associated with poor clinical outcomes and shorter survival. The aim of the present study was to identify genetic risk factors associated with anthracycline-based CINV.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated CINV attributable to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in Japanese breast cancer patients treated with an antiemetic regimen that included palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone. Furthermore, we investigated the associations between CINV and single nucleotide polymorphisms in 6 candidate genes.

RESULTS

Emesis episodes were rarely observed in the 125 patients included in the present survey (7.2%; n = 9); however, significant nausea occurred in more than one half of the patients (52.8%; n = 66). In particular, acute significant nausea was not effectively controlled. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ABCG2 (rs2231142) AA genotype is significantly associated with acute significant nausea (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-23.60; P = .049).

CONCLUSION

The findings of the present study provide significant insights for developing personalized antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) are widely used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Whether the efficacy and toxicity of antiemesis are different among various NK-1RA-based triple regimens is unknown.

Methods

Data of complete responses (CRs) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted from electronic databases. Efficacy and toxicity were integrated by pairwise and network meta-analyses.

Results

Thirty-six trials involving 18 889 patients using triple regimens (NK-1RA+serotonin receptor antagonists [5HT3RA] + dexamethasone) or duplex regimen (5HT3RA+dexamethasone) to control CINV were included in the analysis. Different NK-1RA-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CRs. In patients with HEC, almost all triple regimens showed statistically significantly higher CRs than duplex regimen (odds ratio [OR]duplex/triple = 0.47-0.66). However, in patients with MEC, only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better effect than duplex regimen statistically significantly in CRs (ORduplex/triple = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34 to 0.68). No statistically significant difference of TRAEs was found among different triple regimens. Palonosetron-based triple regimens were equivalent to first-generation 5HT3RAs-based triple regimens for CRs. Moreover, different doses of dexamethasone plus NK-1RA and 5HT3RA showed no statistically significant difference in CRs.

Conclusions

Different NK-1RAs-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CINV control. Various triple regimens had superior antiemetic effect than duplex regimen in patients with HEC. Only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better CINV control compared with duplex regimen in patients receiving MEC. Palonosetron and first-generation 5HT3RAs might share equivalent CINV control in the combination of NK-1RAs and dexamethasone. Lower doses of dexamethasone might be applied when used with NK-1RAs and 5HT3RAs.

Efficacy and Safety of Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Can addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs) be considered as an ideal strategy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)? Researchers differ on this question.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of NK1-RAs in preventing CINV. The primary end point was complete response (CR) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases after chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses evaluated the types of NK1-RAs, routines of administration, types of malignancies, regimens used in combination with NK1-RAs, and age of patients included in the studies. The incidences of different types of adverse events were also extracted to estimate the safety of NK1-RAs.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs involving 13,923 patients were identified. The CR rate of patients receiving NK-RAs was significantly higher than patients in the control groups during overall phase (70.8% vs 56.0%, <0.001), acute phase (85.1% vs 79.6%, <0.001), and delayed phase (71.4% vs 58.2%, <0.001). There were three studies including patients of children or adolescents, the CR rate was also significantly higher in the treatment group (overall phase: OR=2.807, <0.001; acute phase: OR=2.863, P =0.012; delayed phase: OR=2.417, <0.001). For all the other outcomes, patients in the NK1-RAs groups showed improvements compared to the control groups (incidence of nausea: 45.2% vs 45.9%, <0.001; occurrence of vomiting: 22.6% vs 38.9%, <0.001; usage of rescue drugs: 23.5% vs 34.1%, <0.001). The pooled side effects from NK1-RAs did not significantly differ from previous reports and the toxicity rates in patients less than eighteen years old also did not diff between the two groups (P=0.497). However, we found that constipation and insomnia were more common in the patients of control groups, whereas diarrhea and hiccups were more frequently detected in patients receiving NK1-RAs.

CONCLUSIONS

NK1-RAs improved the CR rate of CINV. They are effective for both adults and children. The use of NK1-RAs might be associated with the appearance of diarrhea and hiccups, while decreasing the possibility of constipation and insomnia.

Preliminary evaluation of a predictive blood assay to identify patients at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to test a new blood-based assay for its ability to predict delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea.

METHODS

Blood drawn from consented patients prior to receiving their first platinum-based therapy was tested for glutathione recycling capacity and normalized to total red cell numbers. This number was used to predict nausea and then compared to patient reported outcomes using the Rotterdam Symptom Check List and medical records.

RESULTS

We show that the pathways involved in the glutathione recycling are stable for at least 48 h and that the test was able to correctly classify the risk of nausea for 89.1 % of the patients. The overall incidence of nausea was 21.9 % while women had an incidence of 29.6 %.

CONCLUSIONS

This might be the first objective test to predict delayed nausea for cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We believe that this assay could better guide clinicians in their efforts to provide optimal patient-oriented care.

Rolapitant improves quality of life of patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Addition of rolapitant to standard antiemetic therapy improved protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in phase 3 trials of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Here, we assessed the impact of CINV on the daily lives of patients receiving HEC or MEC using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

METHODS

In three double-blind phase 3 studies, patients receiving HEC or MEC were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo prior to chemotherapy plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone therapy. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included FLIE total score, nausea and vomiting domain scores, and the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (total score >108 [range 18-126]). We performed a prespecified analysis of the MEC/anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) study and a post hoc analysis of two pooled cisplatin-based HEC studies.

RESULTS

In the pooled HEC studies, rolapitant significantly improved the FLIE total score (114.5 vs 109.3, p < 0.001), nausea score (55.3 vs 53.5, p < 0.05), and vomiting score (59.2 vs 55.8, p < 0.001) versus control; similar results were observed in the MEC/AC study for FLIE total score (112.7 vs 108.6, p < 0.001), nausea score (54.1 vs 52.3, p < 0.05), and vomiting score (58.6 vs 56.3, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patients reported no impact on daily life with rolapitant than with control in the MEC/AC study (73.2 vs 67.4, p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with control, rolapitant improved quality of life in patients receiving HEC or MEC.

Efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aprepitant, ondansetron, and prednisone for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by R-CEOP or CEOP chemotherapy regimen for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase 2 open-label, randomized comparative trial

We performed a prospective study to investigate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aprepitant, ondansetron, and prednisone in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients receiving R-CEOP or CEOP chemotherapy regimen. All patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and prednisone), or a control regimen (ondansetron and prednisone) treatment group. For the complete response, the aprepitant group was statistically superior to the control group in the overall study period (76.5% vs. 56.0%; p = .03), as well as in separate analyses of the acute phase (92.2% vs. 78.0%; p = .045), and even more notably in the delayed phase (82.4% vs. 64.0%; p = .037). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the two treatment groups (p > .05). The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving R-CEOP or CEOP regimen and was generally well tolerated.

Control of nausea with palonosetron versus granisetron, both combined with dexamethasone, in patients receiving cisplatin- or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based regimens

Purpose

In a comparative phase 3 study involving 1114 Japanese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), palonosetron (PALO) was found to be superior to granisetron (GRA) for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase. This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy of PALO for the control of nausea.

Methods

The proportion of patients without nausea was assessed at 24-h intervals during the acute phase (0–24 h), delayed phase (24–120 h), and overall (0–120 h). No nausea rates were also evaluated by sex, type of chemotherapy (cisplatin or doxorubicin/epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide [AC/EC]), and age (<55 vs. ≥55 years). Nausea severity was categorized using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = no nausea to 3 = severe nausea).

Results

The proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm than in the GRA arm in the delayed phase (37.8 % vs. 27.2 %; p = 0.002) and overall (31.9 % vs. 25.0 %; p = 0.0117). When analyzed by stratification factors, the proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm in the delayed phase and overall in patients who were female, younger, or treated with cisplatin and in the delayed phase in patients who were older or treated with doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (all p < 0.05).

Conclusions

PALO was more effective than GRA in prophylaxis of HEC-induced nausea in the delayed phase and overall. In addition, PALO was more effective than GRA in young and female patients, who are at high risk of CINV, both in the delayed phase and overall.

Cheaper Options in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common challenge in oncology practice for which there are expensive guideline-based treatment options. Although supportive care in cancer adds significantly to the overall cost, the discussion of unaffordability of anticancer treatment frequently only revolves around the targeted drugs and immunotherapies. In this review, we highlight the available cost-saving strategies and recent updates in preventing CINV in patients with cancer. This is the first work, to our knowledge, to review specifically the less expensive alternatives in CINV prevention, which is particularly important for those working in resource-limited settings. Whereas patients in these settings often cannot afford expensive antiemetics, we now have the science to offer cheaper, more affordable options without necessarily compromising efficacy.

Choice of study endpoint significantly impacts the results of breast cancer trials evaluating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Multiple endpoints can be used to evaluate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). These endpoints reflect the various combinations of vomiting, nausea and rescue antiemetic use in the acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) periods after chemotherapy. As the choice of outcome measure could potentially change the interpretation of clinical trial results, we evaluated CINV rates using different endpoints on a single dataset from a prospective cohort. Data from 177 breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy was used to calculate CINV control rates using the 15 most commonly reported CINV endpoints. As nausea remains such a significant symptom, we explored the frequency at which pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical company-funded studies included measures of nausea in their primary study endpoint. CINV control rates ranged from 12.5 %, 95 % (CI 7.6-17.4 %) for total control (no vomiting, no nausea and no rescue medication) in the overall period to 77.4 %, 95 % (CI 71.2-83.6 %) for no vomiting in the overall period. Similar differences were found in the acute and delayed periods. Non-pharmaceutical company-funded trials were more likely to include a measure of nausea in the primary study outcome (9/18, 50 %) than pharmaceutical-funded trials (1/12, 8.3 %). The choice of trial endpoint has an important impact on reported CINV control rates and could significantly impact on interpretation of the results. Primary endpoints of studies, including those mandated by regulatory bodies, should account for nausea to reflect patient experience. Reporting of endpoints should be more comprehensive to allow for cross-trial comparisons.

Aprepitant in the prevention of vomiting induced by moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is a major therapeutic approach for malignant neoplasms; however, due to the most common adverse events of nausea and vomiting, scheduled chemotherapeutic programs may be impeded or even interrupted, which severely impairs the efficacy. Aprepitants, 5-HT3 antagonists and dexamethasone are primary drugs used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). These drugs have excellent efficacy for control of acute vomiting but are relatively ineffective for delayed vomiting. Aprepitant may remedy this deficiency. Substance P was discovered in the 1930s and its association with vomiting was confirmed in the 1950s. This was followed by a period of non-peptide neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist synthesis and investigation in preclinical studies and clinical trials (phases I, II and III). The FDA granted permission for the clinical chemotherapeutic use of aprepitant in 2003. At present, the combined use of aprepitant, 5-HT3 antagonists and dexamethasone satisfactorily controls vomiting but not nausea. Therefore, new therapeutic approaches and drugs are still needed.

Defining optimal control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting-based on patients' experience

PURPOSE

A considerable challenge when comparing antiemetic trials for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the large number of outcome measures for nausea and vomiting. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal definition of CINV control from the patients' perspective.

METHODS

Patients with early-stage breast cancer who had received anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy were surveyed. They were asked about their experiences of CINV and perceptions of different CINV assessment tools.

RESULTS

Of 201 patients approached, 168 (83 %) completed the survey. Patients consistently ranked nausea over vomiting as the "worst side effect from chemotherapy." Despite the use of multi-agent antiemetic regimens, 71 % of patients experienced nausea and 26 % vomiting. Only 57 % of patients with any nausea or vomiting took rescue medications and only then when the symptom was severe. Most (76 %) patients believed that the primary end point of antiemetic trials should include the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients felt that CINV should be evaluated for the overall period post chemotherapy (i.e., days 1-5) and not simply the acute (the first 24 h) or delayed (days 2-5) periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients strongly favored a CINV end point that includes the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients' experience with CINV is underestimated when nausea is not included in composite end points. "Use of rescue medication," a commonly used surrogate for emesis control, is inappropriate as it underestimates nausea. A standardized primary end point that includes nausea is essential if CINV control is to be improved.

Effects of inhaled ginger aromatherapy on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of inhaled ginger aromatherapy on nausea, vomiting and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in chemotherapy breast cancer patients.

DESIGN

Single-blind, controlled, randomized cross-over study. Patients received 5-day aromatherapy treatment using either ginger essential oil or fragrance-matched artificial placebo (ginger fragrance oil) which was instilled in a necklace in an order dictated by the treatment group sequence.

SETTING

Two oncology clinics in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

VAS nausea score, frequency of vomiting and HRQoL profile (EORTC QLQ-C30 scores).

RESULTS

Sixty female patients completed the study (age=47.3±9.26 years; Malay=98.3%; on highly emetogenic chemotherapy=86.7%). The VAS nausea score was significantly lower after ginger essential oil inhalation compared to placebo during acute phase (P=0.040) but not sustained for overall treatment effect (treatment effect: F=1.82, P=0.183; time effect: F=43.98, P<0.001; treatment×time effect: F=2.04; P=0.102). Similarly, there was no significant effect of aromatherapy on vomiting [F(1, 58)=0.29, P=0.594]. However, a statistically significant change from baseline for global health status (P<0.001) was detected after ginger essential oil inhalation. A clinically relevant 10 points improvement on role functioning (P=0.002) and appetite loss (P<0.001) were also documented while patients were on ginger essential oil.

CONCLUSION

At present time, the evidence derived from this study is not sufficiently convincing that inhaled ginger aromatherapy is an effective complementary therapy for CINV. The findings for HRQoL were however encouraging with significant improvement in several domains.

Economic analysis of aprepitant-containing regimen to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Hong Kong

AIM

We aim to evaluate the cost effectiveness of aprepitant-containing regimens for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in Hong Kong.

METHODS

Both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were conducted utilizing a decision-analytic model to measure the economic costs and clinical outcomes associated with the aprepitant-containing regimen versus a standard regimen in the prevention of CINV. Analyses were conducted on the basis of four published double-blind randomized clinical trials involving different usages of serotonin receptor antagonists.

RESULTS

The use of aprepitant-containing regimens is associated with an improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with non-aprepitant regimens. For cisplatin-based chemotherapy, the incremental cost per QALY gained is HKD 239,644 (1 USD approximates HKD 7.8) when ondansetron is administered on day 1 only. The incremental cost per QALY is HKD 440,950 when ondansetron is used on day 1 to 4. For anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy, the aprepitant-containing regimen is associated with incremental cost of HKD 195,442 per QALY gained. Similar results were obtained when other 5HT3 receptor antagonists are used. The use of aprepitant was associated with higher cost of drug but lower costs of emesis-related management. With the cost-effectiveness threshold set at the World Health Organization endorsed criteria of three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (three times GDP per capita in Hong Kong in 2011 is HKD 798,078), the current analyses showed that the aprepitant-containing regimen was cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing HEC, the use of aprepitant as the anti-emetic is cost-effective in Hong Kong.

Therapeutic and preventive antiemetic effect of aprepitant in Japanese patients with thoracic malignancies who truly need it

PURPOSE

Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist is recommended for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and has recently been introduced to oncology practice in Japan. However, whether all patients undergoing HEC truly need NK-1 receptor antagonist remains unknown, and increasing medical costs due to uniform use of NK-1 receptor antagonist are a concern. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence of patients who needed aprepitant at the time of its introduction in Japan, and therapeutic and preventive effects of aprepitant on HEC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with thoracic malignancies who were to undergo HEC or MEC received 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to prevent CINV. Aprepitant was administered to treat CINV occurring in the first course, or to prevent CINV in the second course. Frequency of vomiting, degree of nausea, and quality of life with respect to CINV were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 96 patients were enrolled. Aprepitant was not administered in 57 and 88 % of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively. In patients treated with aprepitant (n = 18), therapeutic use of aprepitant after occurrence of CINV (n = 9) decreased average scores in numerical rating scale for nausea from 7.44 to 5.44 (p = 0.10), and average frequency of vomiting per day from 2.11 to 0.11 (p = 0.03). Prophylactic use of aprepitant in the second course (n = 18) increased the proportion of patients with no significant nausea from 6 % (first course) to 50 % (second course; p = 0.007), and those with no vomiting from 33 to 89 % (p = 0.002). Aprepitant use also significantly improved quality of life with respect to CINV in the second course.

CONCLUSION

More than half of patients receiving HEC and 88 % of patients receiving MEC did not use aprepitant. Aprepitant showed significant therapeutic and preventive effects on CINV in patients who truly needed it.

Baseline patient characteristics, incidence of CINV, and physician perception of CINV incidence following moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Asia Pacific countries

PURPOSE

This paper describes the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries.

METHODS

Sequential adult patients naïve to chemotherapy and scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day HEC or MEC were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool on post-chemotherapy days 2 and 6 to record acute-phase (first 24 h) and delayed-phase (days 2-5) CINV.

RESULTS

There were 648 evaluable patients (318 HEC, 330 MEC) from Australia (n = 74), China (153), India (88), Singapore (57), South Korea (151), and Taiwan (125). Mean (SD) patient age was 56 (12) and 58% of patients were women; the most common primary cancers were breast (27%), lung (22%), and colon (20%). Overall in cycle 1, complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) was recorded by 69% (95% confidence interval (CI), 66-73) of all evaluable patients, with country percentages ranging from 55 to 78% (p < 0.001). After HEC, no emesis was recorded by 75% and no nausea by 38% of patients. After MEC, 80% had no emesis and 50% no nausea. Acute-phase CINV was better controlled than delayed-phase CINV, and the control of nausea was the lowest of any CINV measure in all phases. In a CINV perception survey, physicians tended to overestimate emesis rate and underestimate nausea rate.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV remains a substantial problem, and country-specific information about CINV can be useful in developing strategies to improve outcomes for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Addition of aprepitant improves protection against cisplatin-induced emesis when a conventional anti-emetic regimen fails

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 antagonist, could decrease chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following cisplatin, when a conventional anti-emetic regimen had failed.

METHODS

This was a prospective study (April 2011-April 2012) of patients with lung cancer, treated with cisplatin at the Beijing Cancer Hospital, and initially receiving granisetron, dexamethasone, and metoclopramide as anti-emetics. If patients experienced vomiting of grade ≥2 and required rescue anti-emetic medications during the first cycle, oral aprepitant was added in subsequent cycles (day 1: 125 mg; days 2-3: 80 mg once daily). Acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-5) nausea and vomiting, use of rescue medications, and occurrence of adverse reactions were monitored after the start of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Twenty-five of 132 patients (18.9 %) were administered aprepitant for secondary prophylaxis against emesis during the second cycle of chemotherapy. The incidences of acute and delayed nausea were 52 and 100 % in the first cycle, but 8 and 72 % in the second cycle. The incidences of acute and delayed vomiting were 20 and 100 % in the first cycle, but 0 and 36 % in the second cycle. No patients required rescue medications or intravenous rehydration during the second cycle. Aprepitant was not associated with additional adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with lung cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, the addition of aprepitant to a 5-HT3 antagonist, dexamethasone, and metoclopramide improves protection against CINV when the conventional anti-emetic regimen fails.

Exploring Chemotherapy-Induced Toxicities through Multivariate Projection of Risk Factors: Prediction of Nausea and Vomiting

Many risk factors exist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study utilized a multivariate projection technique to identify which risk factors were predictive of CINV in clinical practice. A single-centre, prospective, observational study was conducted from January 2007~July 2010 in Singapore. Patients were on highly (HECs) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapies with/without radiotherapy. Patient demographics and CINV risk factors were documented. Daily recording of CINV events was done using a standardized diary. Principal component (PC) analysis was performed to identify which risk factors could differentiate patients with and without CINV. A total of 710 patients were recruited. Majority were females (67%) and Chinese (84%). Five risk factors were potential CINV predictors: histories of alcohol drinking, chemotherapy-induced nausea, chemotherapy-induced vomiting, fatigue and gender. Period (ex-/current drinkers) and frequency of drinking (social/chronic drinkers) differentiated the CINV endpoints in patients on HECs and anthracycline-based, and XELOX regimens, respectively. Fatigue interference and severity were predictive of CINV in anthracycline-based populations, while the former was predictive in HEC and XELOX populations. PC analysis is a potential technique in analyzing clinical population data, and can provide clinicians with an insight as to what predictors to look out for in the clinical assessment of CINV. We hope that our results will increase the awareness among clinician-scientists regarding the usefulness of this technique in the analysis of clinical data, so that appropriate preventive measures can be taken to improve patients' quality of life.

Analysis of aprepitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Aim: This study aimed to determine how aprepitant affects the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on daily activities during highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Patients & methods: Patients received aprepitant plus standard antiemetic therapy (ondansetron plus dexamethasone) or standard antiemetic therapy alone. Data were analyzed from pooled data of two Phase III randomized, double-blind HEC trials and one MEC trial. Patients completed the Functional Living Index–Emesis questionnaire. Results: A significantly greater percentage of patients receiving aprepitant reported no or minimal CINV impact on daily life (overall total Functional Living Index–Emesis score >6) compared with those receiving standard therapy alone (HEC: 74.4 vs 63.9%, respectively; p < 0.01; MEC: 73.4 vs 66.3%; p < 0.05). In HEC, favorable responses to aprepitant treatment persisted in nausea (70.2 vs 60.9%) and vomiting domains (84.6 vs 68.7%; both p < 0.01). Similar results were seen in MEC. Conclusion: Addition of aprepitant reduced CINV impact on daily life compared with standard antiemetic therapy.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and the role of neurokinin 1 inhibitors: from guidelines to clinical practice in solid tumors

A significant proportion of cancer patients experience nausea or vomiting during the course of their disease, either because of the cancer itself or because of the treatment received. Highly or moderately emetogenic drugs are part of the standard chemotherapy regimens frequently used in patients with lung cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other common solid tumors. In this review, we describe the impact of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy, and the main progress achieved in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the introduction of neurokinin 1 inhibitors. The adherence to existing guidelines is particularly important to avoid suboptimal prophylaxis and maximize patients' outcome. This review is focused on lung, breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer, which are among the solid tumors characterized by a numeric and clinical relevance of the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting issue because of the wide use of highly and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The addition of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) antagonists to antiemetic regimens has substantially reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We sought to systematically review the overall impact of NK1R antagonists on CINV prevention.

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, and meeting proceedings for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated NK1R antagonists plus standard antiemetic therapy for CINV prevention. Complete response (CR) to therapy was defined as the absence of emesis and the absence of rescue therapy. The endpoints were defined as CR in the overall phase (during the first 120 hours of chemotherapy), CR in the acute phase (first 24 hours), and the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after chemotherapy, nausea, and toxicity. Subgroup analyses evaluated the type of NK1R antagonist used, the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy regimen, and prolonged use of 5-HT3 (serotonin) receptor antagonists, a class of standard antiemetic agents. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical tests for heterogeneity were one-sided; statistical tests for effect estimates and publication bias were two-sided.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials (8740 patients) were included in this analysis. NK1R antagonists increased the CR rate in the overall phase from 54% to 72% (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.57, P < .001). CR and nausea were improved in all phases and subgroups. The expected side effects from NK1R antagonists did not statistically significantly differ from previous reports; however, this analysis suggests that the incidence of severe infection increased from 2% to 6% in the NK1R antagonist group (three RCTs with a total of 1480 patients; OR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.69 to 5.67, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

NK1R antagonists increased CINV control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases. They are effective for both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Their use might be associated with increased infection rates; however, additional appraisal of specific data from RCTs is needed.

Prevention of delayed nausea: a University of Rochester Cancer Center Community Clinical Oncology Program study of patients receiving chemotherapy

PURPOSE

We conducted a double-blind randomized clinical trial of the following four regimens for controlling delayed nausea (DN): group 1: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 2: granisetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 3: aprepitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with aprepitant + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3; and group 4: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients received doxorubicin, epirubicin, cisplatin, carboplatin, or oxaliplatin. The primary end point was average nausea assessed four times daily on days 2 and 3. Primary analyses were whether nausea control would be improved by using palonosetron versus granisetron on day 1 (group 1 v group 2); by adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (group 1 v group 4); and by using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine (group 3 v group 4). Statistical significance was set at P = .017.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-four, 234, 241, and 235 evaluable patients were accrued to groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Adjusted mean differences for the three planned analyses were as follows: palonosetron versus granisetron: -0.01 (95% CI, -0.23 to 0.20; P = .72); adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3: 0.20 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.41; P = .01); and using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine: -0.03 (95% CI, -0.24 to 0.19; P = .56).

CONCLUSION

The addition of dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 reduced DN. Palonosetron and granisetron have similar effects on DN. The beneficial effect of adding aprepitant for control of DN was the same as adding prochlorperazine.

Efficacy and safety of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pooled analysis

PURPOSE

A number of studies have reported that aprepitant has been used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In this study, we aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, which can provide evidence for aprepitant administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen trials involving patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in this pooled analysis. Antiemetic drugs in these studies included aprepitant, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

RESULTS

A total of 4,798 cases were investigated in these clinical trials. Compared with placebo or the standard antiemetic therapy, the cumulative incidence of emesis was significantly reduced in the patients treated with aprepitant-based (125 mg/80 mg) therapy on the first day [relative risk (RR) = 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.16], from 2 to 5 days (RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.22-1.48) and in the overall 5 days (RR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.22-1.39). In terms of drug safety, there was no significant difference between aprepitant-based regimens and non-aprepitant regimens.

CONCLUSION

Results from the analysis suggest that aprepitant with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone is highly effective in preventing nausea and vomiting in the days after administration of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) agents.

Computational prediction of state anxiety in Asian patients with cancer susceptible to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

State anxiety, a risk factor for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), is a subjective symptom and difficult to quantify. Clinicians need appropriate anxiety measures to assess patients' risks of CINV. This study aimed to determine the anxiety characteristics that can predict CINV based on computational analysis of an objective assessment tool. A single-center, prospective, observational study was carried out between January 2007 and July 2010. Patients with breast, head and neck, and gastrointestinal cancers were recruited and treated with a variety of chemotherapy protocols and appropriate antiemetics. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting characteristics and antiemetic use were recorded using a standardized diary, whereas patients' anxiety characteristics were evaluated using the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Principal component (PC) analysis was performed to analyze the anxiety characteristics. A subset known as principal variables, which had the highest PC weightings, was identified for patients with and without complete response, complete protection, and complete control. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting events and anxiety characteristics of 710 patients were collated; 51%, 30%, and 20% were on anthracycline-, oxaliplatin-, and cisplatin-based therapies, respectively. Most patients suffered from delayed CINV, with decreasing proportions achieving complete response (58%), complete protection (42%), and complete control (27%). Seven symptoms (fear of dying, fear of the worst, unable to relax, hot/cold sweats, nervousness, faintness, numbness) were identified as potential CINV predictors. This study demonstrates the usefulness of PC analysis, an unsupervised machine learning technique, to identify 7 anxiety characteristics that are useful as clinical CINV predictors. Clinicians should be aware of these characteristics when assessing CINV in patients on emetogenic chemotherapies.

Antiemetic Use in Oncology: Updated Guideline Recommendations from ASCO

In 2011, ASCO updated its guideline for the use of antiemetics in oncology, informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. This is an abbreviated version of that guideline, which is available in full at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics. Key changes from the prior update in 2006 include the following: Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK1 receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours following treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. Continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy is recommended. Clinicians often underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as vomiting. Detailed information about the development of the guideline as well as practice tools are available at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

METHODS

A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and meeting materials from ASCO and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer were all searched. Primary outcomes of interest were complete response and rates of any vomiting or nausea.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials met prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria for this systematic review. Two systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration were identified; one surveyed the pediatric literature. The other compared the relative efficacy of the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours after treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. The Update Committee noted the importance of continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy. Clinicians underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as emesis.