Methodological issues in antiemetic studies

Granisetron transdermal system and dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in multiple myeloma patients receiving chemo-mobilization: An observational real-world study of effectiveness and safety

PURPOSE

Cyclophosphamide (CY) in a dose of 2-4 g/m² is widely used for hemopoietic progenitor stem cells mobilization. CY administration is associated with several adverse effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of granisetron transdermal system (GTDS) plus dexamethasone in the management of CINV in MM patients undergoing chemo-mobilization with CY.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, observational, real world study, GTDS plus dexamethasone was administered to MM patients receiving chemo-mobilization based on CY 2 g/m2 plus G-CSF in an outpatient setting. The rate of complete response was evaluated as the main outcome. Other outcomes were rate of complete control of CINV, incidence of nausea/vomiting of any grade and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were enrolled. A complete response was achieved in 45.5 % of patients; among them, 39.77 % attained complete control of CINV. Nausea and vomiting never occurred in 34.1 % and 45.5 % of patients, respectively. No episodes of grade 3-4 nausea and/or vomiting were documented. GTDS was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In real world, GTDS provided an innovative, effective, and well-tolerated control of CINV in MM patients after chemo-mobilization with CY. The study found out effectiveness of a non-invasive delivery system of antiemetic.

A systematic review of methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures in randomized trials of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Clinical trials in radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) appear to have varied methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures. This complicates trial comparisons, weakens practice guideline recommendations, and contributes to variability in supportive care patterns of practice. We systematically reviewed RINV trials to describe and compare their pertinent design features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ovid versions of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to January/February 2017 were searched for adult phase III trials of RINV management strategies. Key abstracted data included trial interventions and eligibility criteria, standard radiation therapy (RT) metrics, symptom assessment procedures, symptom definitions and grading systems, pre-specified and reported endpoints, and other outcome measures.

RESULTS

From 1166 references identified in the initial database search, we selected 34 trials for analysis that collectively randomized 4529 patients (median 61, range 11-1492). Twenty-eight trials (82%) were published prior to the year 2000. Twenty-seven trials (79%) involved multiple fraction RT and 7 (21%) single fraction RT. Twenty-four trials (71%) evaluated prophylactic interventions, 9 (26%) rescue interventions, and 1 trial did not specify. Thirty-three trials (97%) evaluated pharmacologic interventions. Twenty trials (59%) had patient report symptoms, 5 (15%) healthcare professionals or researchers, and 10 (29%) did not specify. Nausea was not defined in any trial but was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 26 trials (76%) and was graded in 20 (59%), with categorical qualitative scales being the most common method. Vomiting was defined in 3 trials (9%), was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 17 (47%), and was graded in 7 (21%), with continuous numerical scales being the most common method. Retching was defined in 3 trials, was not reported as a stand-alone symptom in any trial, and was graded in 1 (3%). Twenty-one trials (62%) created compound symptom measures that combined individual symptoms. Fifteen trials (44%) reported "emetic episode/event" measures but only 9 defined them. Seventeen trials (50%) reported complicated endpoints (e.g., "response," "control," "success") that combined multiple symptom or compound symptom measures, but 7 did not define them comprehensively. Ten trials (29%) defined a primary endpoint a priori.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures varied considerably among 34 randomized trials in RINV.

5-Hydroxyindoleacetic acid and substance P profiles in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy

Background. Even though direct cause and effect has not been proved, clinical evidence suggests serotonin and substance P (SP) are involved in the emetic response following chemotherapy. Because of several parallels, we hypothesized that SP release, like serotonin, may be propagated by chemotherapy and both substances can be measured in biological fluids, and correlated with a particular phase of emesis.

Methods. Urinary 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) was assessed by HPLC; serum and urine SP were measured by immunoassay. In addition to construction of neurotransmitter profiles, all SP data were grouped according to cisplatin dosages, = or>75 mg/m 2 versus <75 mg/m2, and phase of emesis, acute versus delayed. Analyses of these data were performed by repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results. Samples were collected over a 72-hour period from 26 adult patients who received cisplatin-( n=13) or non-cisplatin-containing ( n=13) chemotherapy. Mean baseline 5-HIAA: creatinine ratios were 5.23 and 5.16 in females and males, respectively; mean baseline SP levels were 392 and 181 pg/mL in females and males, respectively. Comparisons between SP data stratified by cisplatin dosage and emetic phase were significantly different, P <0.0001.

Conclusions. Laboratory studies provide additional evidence that serotonin and SP are involved primarily, though not exclusively, in acute and delayed vomiting, respectively.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology: update 2006

PURPOSE

To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

UPDATE METHODOLOGY

The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of data published from 1998 thru February 2006. The literature review focused on published randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) serotonin receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended before chemotherapy of high emetic risk. For persons receiving chemotherapy of high emetic risk, there is no group of patients for whom agents of lower therapeutic index are appropriate first-choice antiemetics. These agents should be reserved for patients intolerant of or refractory to 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone. The three-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. For patients receiving other chemotherapy of moderate emetic risk, the Update Committee continues to recommend the two-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist and dexamethasone. In all patients receiving cisplatin and all other agents of high emetic risk, the two-drug combination of dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended for the prevention of delayed emesis. The Update Committee no longer recommends the combination of a 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed emesis after chemotherapeutic agents of high emetic risk. CONCLUSION The Update Committee recommends that clinicians administer antiemetics while considering patients' emetic risk categories and other characteristics.

Prevención y control de las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por quimioterapia

Nausea and vomiting are considered one of the most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Complete control of acute and delayed emesis improves quality of life and increases adherence to treatment. The frequency of nausea and vomiting depends primarily on the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic agents used. With the standard antiemetic therapy (5HT-3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone) approximately 13% of patients receiving chemotherapy have vomiting in the acute phase and almost 50% in the delayed phase. A new group of antiemetic drugs, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, in combination with standard therapy significantly improves emesis protection in the acute and in the delayed phase, although control of nausea is not so effective. Nowadays chemotherapy-induced emesis still occurs. Recent developments in antiemetic therapy and responsibility to achieve the best control of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy justified a review of this problem, which is frequently underestimated by physicians and nurses.

Optimising antiemetic therapy: what are the problems and how can they be overcome?

BACKGROUND

Management of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced emesis has improved significantly following the introduction of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists. Prophylactic use of these agents is recommended for the prevention of both chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, given with a corticosteroid. Despite these advances, nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared and debilitating adverse effects of cytotoxic therapy. The shift towards a more elderly population of patients with cancer presents additional considerations for supportive care, with an emphasis on achieving control of nausea and vomiting, whilst minimising toxicity and avoiding drug-drug interactions. This review presents some of the key issues for consideration in optimising antiemetic therapy. The PubMed search engine was used to search for relevant literature (up to December 2004) and relevant international congress materials collected during 2003 and 2004.

SCOPE

While the early stages of nausea and vomiting are 5-HT-mediated, identification of a role for substance P in late emesis has led to the development of the NK1-receptor antagonist, aprepitant. As a new agent, the clinical profile of aprepitant is still being explored, including its interaction with concomitant medications. Patients who achieve good control of acute and late-acute nausea and vomiting have a reduced risk of experiencing delayed onset symptoms, emphasising the importance of prophylactic management with effective agents. Although the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists are widely considered to have equivalent efficacy, they vary in half-life and the nature of antagonism at receptors. Their metabolic profiles also differ, with cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolism affecting their propensity for drug-drug interactions. Several sets of guidelines are available that outline recommendations for selection and use of antiemetic therapy. However, under-use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists has been reported in both the radiotherapy and chemotherapy settings, and some commonly used doses may be suboptimal.

CONCLUSION

In optimising antiemetic therapy, wider implementation of guidelines is desirable, as is consideration of each patient's individual needs. Safety and tolerability of supportive care medications should be a key consideration, and cardiovascular warnings and the possibility of drug-drug interactions should be given sufficient consideration, particularly in view of the older age of the population with cancer.

Evaluation of new antiemetic agents and definition of antineoplastic agent emetogenicity—an update

Development of effective antiemetic therapy depends upon an understanding of both the antiemetic agents and the emetogenic challenges these agents are designed to address. New potential antiemetic agents should be studied in an orderly manner, proceeding from phase I to phase II open-label trials and then to randomized double-blind phase III trials comparing new agents and regimens to best standard therapy. Use of placebos in place of antiemetic therapy against highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is unacceptable. Nausea and vomiting should be evaluated separately and for both the acute and delayed periods. Defining the emetogenicity of new antineoplastic agents is a challenge, since such data are often not reliably recorded during early drug development. A four-level classification system is proposed for emetogenicity of intravenous antineoplastic agents. A separate four-level classification system for emetogenicity of oral antineoplastic agents, which are often given over an extended period of time, is also proposed.

Granisetron: An Update on its Clinical Use in the Management of Nausea and Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are typical side effects of cytotoxic therapy and some surgical procedures. These symptoms can represent a major therapeutic challenge and, if inadequately controlled by antiemetic treatment, will result in increased mortality, morbidity, and health care costs. However, the management of nausea and vomiting has improved greatly in recent years following the introduction of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists, known as 'setrons.' In light of recent developments in antiemetic care, including the approval of the first neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist aprepitant (Emend; Merck and Company, Inc.; West Point, PA) and a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (Aloxi; MGI Pharma; Minneapolis, MN), this article provides an update on the clinical experience gained with the 5-HT3-receptor antagonist granisetron (Kytril; Roche Laboratories, Inc.; Nutley, NJ) for the management of chemotherapy-induced, radiation-induced, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and also reviews its use in special patient populations. Granisetron is a potent and highly selective 5-HT3-receptor antagonist that has little or no affinity for other receptors, a characteristic that is thought to underlie the favorable side-effect and safety profiles of this agent. Extensive clinical trial data have shown granisetron to be an effective and well-tolerated agent for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the oncology and surgical settings. Granisetron has also been shown to be effective and well tolerated in special populations, such as patients refractory to antiemetic treatment, patients with hepatic or renal impairment, and children. Data also suggest that its safety profile and minimal potential for drug-drug interactions would make it an antiemetic agent of choice for elderly cancer patients.