Prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children with cancer: what is the evidence?

Age of Pediatric Patients Affects Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Vomiting

The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk factors for delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting (DCIV) in pediatric oncology patients. We collected data on pediatric patients from a tertiary care pediatric hospital in an Asian urban center. We analyzed the risk factors for DCIV in patients by univariate analysis and logistic regression. Patients were grouped according to age by the Youden index, and differences in clinical features between the high-risk and low-risk groups were calculated. In the univariate analysis, the number of chemotherapy days, pH, and blood glucose levels were significantly associated with DCIV. In the logistic regression analysis, patient age was an independent risk factor (odds ratio [OR] = 1.013, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.005-1.021, P = .002). Children in the high-risk group had a higher grade of vomiting (P < .05). Age is an important risk factor for DCIV in pediatric patients, with older children tending to experience more frequent and more severe vomiting.

Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Hindi Language Version of the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT) in the Indian Population

OBJECTIVES

To translate the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT) into Hindi and validate it in Indian pediatric cancer patients and survivors.

METHODS

The PeNAT-Hindi was finalized by forward and backward translations, and pilot testing. The PeNAT-Hindi was administered to 200 Hindi-speaking pediatric (4-18 y) cancer patients/survivors, in three groups. These included pediatric cancer patients who had recently received chemotherapy (n = 150); who received no chemotherapy within 5 d (n = 25) and survivors (n = 25). Construct validity was tested by comparing scores among the three groups. Test-retest reliability and criterion validity were estimated by the correlation of the first PeNAT score with the second (taken 1 h later) PeNAT score and the number of vomiting/retching episodes, respectively. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were estimated by correlating PeNAT scores with parent-assessed nausea severity, and pain, respectively. The responsiveness was tested by comparing second PeNAT scores with subsequent divergent PeNAT scores among patients reporting subjective change (improvement and worsening, respectively) in nausea severity.

RESULTS

Test-retest reliability of PeNAT-Hindi was good (intraclass correlation = 0.791). The initial PeNAT score had moderate correlation with the number of vomiting/retching episodes (Spearman ρ = 0.401). Median PeNAT scores in group 1 versus groups 2 and 3 were significantly different (p < 0.001). Initial PeNAT scores showed a moderate correlation with parent-assessed nausea (Spearman ρ = 0.657) and a weak correlation with parent-assessed pain (Spearman ρ = 0.319). The responsiveness (standardized response mean) of PeNAT-Hindi to the change in nausea severity was -1.79 (improvement) and 2.19 (worsening), respectively.

CONCLUSION

PeNAT-Hindi showed good reliability and acceptable validity. It may be used among Hindi-speaking children for measuring nausea. The responsiveness of PeNAT-Hindi needs further evaluation.

Addition of aprepitant improves acute emesis control in children and adolescents receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia: a randomised, open-label trial

OBJECTIVES

More than 50% patients develop emesis during induction therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). The addition of aprepitant for emesis control in children receiving induction for AML have not been explored.

METHODS

A single-institutional randomised, open-label trial (NCT02979548) was conducted where children between 5 and 18 years with the diagnosis of AML being planned for 3+7 induction regimen were included. All study participants received ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg) every 8 hours for 8 days starting 30 min prior to chemotherapy. Children belonging to aprepitant group additionally received aprepitant capsules (15-40 kg=days 1-3, 80 mg; >40 kg=day 1, 125 mg and days 2-3, 80 mg) starting from 1 hour prior to chemotherapy. The proportion of patients with complete response (CR) in chemotherapy induced vomiting (CIV) in acute phase (day 1-8), delayed phase (day 9-13), overall and initial 96 hours were recorded along with severity of vomiting and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Total 78 children were randomised (Aprepitant group: 37 and control group: 41). The proportion of patients with CR in CIV was significantly higher in Aprepitant group in acute phase (p=0.007), overall phase (p=0.007) and in initial 96 hours (p<0.001) but it was not different in delayed phase (p=0.07). The first episode of vomiting was also significantly delayed in aprepitant group (p=0.02). Adverse effect profile was similar in two groups.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant significantly improves emesis control in children receiving induction therapy for AML, especially in acute phase and should be routinely incorporated as part of antiemetic prophylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02979548).

Influence of CYP2D6 metabolizer status on ondansetron efficacy in pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A case series

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is commonly experienced by patients receiving antineoplastic agents prior to hemopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Ondansetron, a 5‐HT3 antagonist metabolized by CYP2D6, is an antiemetic prescribed to treat short‐term CINV, but some patients still experience uncontrolled nausea and vomiting while taking ondansetron. Adult CYP2D6 ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs) are at higher risk for CINV due to rapid ondansetron clearance, but similar studies have not been performed in pediatric patients. We performed a retrospective chart review of 128 pediatric HSCT recipients who received ondansetron for CINV prevention and had CYP2D6 genotyping for 20 alleles and duplication detection. The number of emetic episodes for each patient was collected from the start of chemotherapy through 7 days after HSCT. The average age of the cohort was 6.6 years (range: 0.2–16.7) and included three UMs, 72 normal metabolizers, 47 intermediate metabolizers, and six poor metabolizers. Because UMs are the population at risk for inefficacy, we describe the course of treatment for these three patients, as well as the factors influencing emesis: chemotherapy emetogenicity, diagnosis, and duration of ondansetron administration. The cases described support guidelines recommending non‐CYP2D6 metabolized antiemetics (e.g., granisetron) when a patient is a known CYP2D6 UM, but pediatric studies with a larger sample of CYP2D6 UMs are needed to validate our findings.

Dexamethasone dosing for prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in pediatric patients: A systematic review

A systematic review was undertaken to describe dexamethasone doses studied for chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) prophylaxis in pediatric patients and their effects on achieving complete acute CIV control. No dose-finding studies were identified. However, 16 studies assessing pediatric patients who received dexamethasone were included and classified according to the emetogenicity of chemotherapy administered. Eight different total daily dexamethasone doses were administered to patients on day 1 of highly emetogenic chemotherapy: three in conjunction with aprepitant/fosaprepitant plus a 5HT₃ antagonist and five in conjunction with a 5HT₃ antagonist. Five different total daily dexamethasone doses were administered in conjunction with a 5HT₃ antagonist to patients on day 1 of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of studies identified, meta-analysis was not possible. The optimal dexamethasone dose to control acute CIV and to minimize harms in pediatric patients remains uncertain. This is a key area for future research.

Olanzapine for Prevention of Vomiting in Children and Adolescents Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Investigator-Initiated, Randomized, Open-Label Trial

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant toxicity of chemotherapy. Olanzapine is recommended in adult patients for the prevention of CINV but has not been prospectively investigated in children.

METHODS

This investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label trial evaluated olanzapine in children (ages 5-18 years) scheduled to receive the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All participants received aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone during and 2 days after chemotherapy. Participants in the study group additionally received oral olanzapine 0.14 mg/kg/day (rounded to the nearest 2.5 mg; maximum, 10 mg) during the chemotherapy block and 3 days postchemotherapy. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates (no vomiting and no rescue medication) between the groups in the acute, delayed, and overall periods. Nausea comparison and safety evaluation were secondary and additional objectives, respectively. The collection of outcomes and adverse events was performed daily until the completion of the overall period.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients underwent randomization. We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the control group and 115 in the study group). A higher proportion of patients in the olanzapine group achieved CR in the acute period (78% v 59%; P = .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001) and overall period (64% v 38%; P < .001) than in the control group. The proportion of patients with no nausea was significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the acute period (74% v 52%; P < .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001), and overall period (64% v 37%; P < .001). Grade 1/2 somnolence was greater in the olanzapine group (35% v 11%; P < .001). There was no grade 3/4 somnolence reported.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine significantly improved CR rates for vomiting in children receiving the first cycle of HEC.

Acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children with cancer: Still waiting for a common consensus on treatment

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common treatment side-effects, and remains a significant concern, in children undergoing chemotherapy. Although adult patients receive chemotherapy regimens combined with appropriate standardized antiemetic treatment, children can receive markedly varying antiemetic treatments. A narrative review of CINV was performed regarding CINV definition, scoring system, prevention and treatment, specifically focussing on studies conducted with paediatric oncology patients. The review highlighted a lack of rigorously developed CINV scoring systems and standardized CINV pharmacological treatment for paediatric oncology patients. Different scoring systems were found to identify potential risk factors for CINV associated with the use of several different antiemetic drugs, however, few studies have been performed in children undergoing chemotherapy. Thus, CINV remains a distressing and partially controlled side-effect in the paediatric patient population. To reduce emesis and improve quality of life in paediatric oncology patients, standardized antiemetic treatment may be preferred, using a unique CINV scoring system that accounts for the emetogenic level of the chemotherapy regimen adopted and the children's clinical characteristics.

Antiemetic medication for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting remain a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting, and associated clinical problems. This is an update of the original systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged less than 18 years) about to receive or receiving chemotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society of Paediatric Oncology, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and ISI Science and Technology Proceedings Index from incept to December 16, 2014, and trial registries from their earliest records to December 2014. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies. We also screened the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened abstracts in order to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid, or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (less than 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies that examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (27 studies). Adverse events were reported in 29 studies and nausea outcomes in 16 studies.Two studies assessed the addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT3 antagonists for complete control of vomiting (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). Three studies compared granisetron with ondansetron for complete control of acute nausea (pooled RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; 2 studies), acute vomiting (pooled RR 2.26; 95% CI 2.04 to 2.51; 3 studies), delayed nausea (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; 2 studies), and delayed vomiting (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; 2 studies). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents, even when these agents are combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people, and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective in patients who are to receive emetogenic chemotherapy, with granisetron or palonosetron possibly better than ondansetron. Adding dexamethasone improves control of vomiting, although the risk-benefit profile of adjunctive steroid remains uncertain.

An overview of the clinical use of ondansetron in preschool age children

The introduction of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist has revolutionized the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting in preschool aged children. These distressing symptoms, arising from multiple etiologies such as anesthesia, chemotherapy, and viral infection, are a major concern of patients and their families. Clinical research has demonstrated the antiemetic effectiveness of ondansetron in children. Although most of these studies focus primarily on preventing vomiting across the pediatric age group, they provide strong evidence for the use of ondansetron in preschool age children. For children at high risk, pediatric practice guidelines recommend ondansetron in conjunction with other antiemetics to achieve complete control of symptoms.

Antiemetic medication for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in childhood

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are still a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting and associated clinical problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged < 18 years) about to receive/receiving chemotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS, trial registries from their earliest records to February 2008, and ASCO, MASCC and SIOP conference proceedings from 2001 to 2007. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently screened abstracts to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (< 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies which examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (22 studies). Adverse events were reported in 24 studies and nausea outcomes in 10 studies.The addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT(3) antagonists was assessed in two studies for complete control of vomiting (pooled relative risk (RR) 2.03; 95% CI 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests 5-HT(3) antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents even when combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT(3) antagonists with dexamethasone added are effective in patients who are to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy although the risk-benefit profile of additional steroid remains uncertain.

Optimizing emetic control in children receiving antineoplastic therapy: beyond the guidelines

Existing guidelines for the prevention of antineoplastic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children are constrained by the lack of robust evidence. Current guidelines recommend the use of a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist plus a corticosteroid to prevent acute CINV. Consequently, antiemetic agents that are recommended for use in adult cancer patients do not appear in the current pediatric guidelines. In addition, there is no information to guide the selection of alternative antiemetic agents for children who either cannot receive the recommended agents or who do not respond adequately to the treatment. Possible barriers to adherence to the pediatric antiemetic selection guidelines that are currently available are discussed, and published pediatric experience with antiemetic agents recommended in the current adult antiemetic selection guidelines (dolasetron, tropisetron, palonosetron, aprepitant) is summarized in this review. The use of novel and emerging antiemetic therapeutic interventions {metopimazine, diphenhydramine (Benadryl)-lorazepam (Avitan)-dexamethasone (Decadron) [BAD], nabilone, acupuncture, midazolam, olanzapine, mirtazapine, gabapentin, droperidol} in children are explored.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of morphine and morphine 6-glucuronide after oral and intravenous administration of morphine in children with cancer

The aim of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of morphine and morphine 6-glucuronide (M6G) in children with cancer. Serum concentrations of morphine and M6G in children who received single oral or short term continuous intravenous morphine were determined by HPLC and ELISA assays, respectively. The serum C(max) of morphine and M6G after i.v. morphine administration was 560.5 and 309.0 nM and the T(max) was 61 and 65 min, respectively. The elimination half-life was 140.0 and 328.7 min, respectively. After oral administration of morphine, the serum C(max) of morphine and M6G was 408.34 and 256.3 nM and the T(max) was 40.0 and 60 min, respectively. The half-life was 131.0 and 325.8 min, respectively. The side effects were: drowsiness (100%), nausea and/or vomiting (57%), pruritus (28%) and urinary retention (14%). There were no reports of respiratory complications. This study showed that pharmacokinetics factors of morphine and M6G in children were significantly different from adults. Therefore the required dose for children should be different from that of adults and should be based on studies performed on children rather than on studies on adults. Some adverse effects, particularly nausea and pruritus, may be commoner than is usually thought, while others, particularly respiratory problems did not occur.

Pediatric Oncology Nurses' Management of Patients' Symptoms

The purpose of this article is to describe the results of a national descriptive survey of 509 pediatric oncology nurses' interventions for managing patients'symptoms. The Nurses' Distress and Interventions for Symptoms Survey (NDISS) is used to assess nurses' management of patients' 7 most distressing symptoms. The average number of symptoms reported as being present is 6.0 (SD 1.3; range, 0-7). Pain is the most commonly reported symptom; trouble sleeping is the least common. The mean score for nurses' distress is 2.9 (SD 0.8; range, 0-4); nurses' distress is greatest with trouble sleeping and lowest with hair loss. Nurses use an average of 12.7 interventions to treat each symptom; pain has the greatest number of interventions to treat and hair loss the least. The average perceived effectiveness of interventions across symptoms is 2.5 (SD 0.5; range, 0-4). Pain is perceived as the most effectively treated symptom; fatigue is the least.

Safety of ondansetron loading doses in children with cancer

INTRODUCTION

In highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the recommended dose of the serotonin-receptor antagonist ondansetron (5 mg/m(2) q8h) may be insufficient to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In adults, ondansetron-loading doses (OLD) of 32 mg are safe. We aimed to evaluate in children the safety of an OLD of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v., followed by two doses of 5 mg/m(2) q8h.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included all pediatric oncology patients having received > or =1 OLD between 2002 and 2005. Adverse events (AE) definitely, probably, or possibly related to OLD were studied, excluding AE not or unlikely related to the OLD. Associations between potential predictors and at least moderate AE were analyzed by mixed logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 167 patients treated with chemotherapy, 37 (22%) received 543 OLD. The most common AE were hypotension, fatigue, injection site reaction, headache, hot flashes/flushes, and dizziness. At least mild AE were described in 139 OLD (26%), at least moderate AE in 23 (4.2%), and severe AE in 5 (0.9%; exact 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-2.1). Life-threatening or lethal AE were not observed (0.0%; 0.0-0.6). At least moderate AE were significantly more frequent in female patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% CI 1.4-8.8; p = 0.010), after erroneously given second OLD (17.0; 1.9-154; p = 0.012) and higher 24 h cumulative surface corrected dose (1.26 per mg/m(2); 1.06-1.51; p = 0.009). OLD given to infants below 2 years were not associated with more frequent AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron-loading doses of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v. seem to be safe in infants, children, and adolescents.

A systematic review of nonpharmacologic adjunctive therapies for symptom management in children with cancer

Symptom management in pediatric oncology remains a problem. Despite remarkable pharmacologic and surgical advances, children continue to report symptoms as the most troublesome aspect of cancer treatment. However, there are additional therapies that are not considered standard symptom management, such as acupuncture and guided imagery. These nonpharmacologic adjunctive therapies are a potential source of assistance for children with unrelenting pain, nausea, or other unpleasant symptoms due to cancer treatment. This article summarizes research studies that have examined nonpharmacologic therapies for symptom management in pediatric oncology.

Safety and efficacy of a continuous infusion, patient-controlled antiemetic pump for children receiving emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most distressing side effects of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Diphenhydramine, lorazepam, and dexamethasone have been used individually to treat CINV. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and potential efficacy of those drugs administered via a patient controlled pump (BAD pump) to control CINV.

PROCEDURE

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all pediatric oncology patients who received the BAD pump. Emetic episodes, doses of rescue medications to treat breakthrough nausea or vomiting, and occurrence of adverse events were recorded. Complete response (CR) was defined as no emesis or rescue medications, partial response (PR) as emesis but no rescue medications, and failure (F) as rescue medications required.

RESULTS

Thirty patients received a total of 141 courses. Adverse events occurred in 4.2% of the courses; confusion (n = 2), depressed mood (n = 1), dysphoria (n = 1), agitation (n = 1), and restlessness (n = 1). All side effects resolved after decreasing the infusion rate, and the pump was not discontinued in any patients. Eighteen patients failed conventional prophylaxis and received BAD pump for identical subsequent chemotherapy cycles; they spent more days in CR with BAD pump than without it, 21 versus 45 days (P = .003) respectively. Patients receiving BAD pump had significantly shorter hospital stay with BAD pump than those not receiving it, 68 days versus 76 (P = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

BAD pump is well tolerated in pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy and may be more effective than conventional prophylaxis in controlling CINV in some patients.