Assessing the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients' daily lives: a modified version of the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) with 5-day recall

Oral Cannabis Extract for Secondary Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Final Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II/III Trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this randomized, placebo-controlled, two-stage, phase II/III trial was to determine the efficacy of an oral cannabis extract in adults with refractory nausea and/or vomiting during moderately or highly emetogenic, intravenous chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis. Here, we report results of the prespecified combined analysis including the initial phase II and subsequent phase III components.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Study treatment consisted of oral capsules containing either tetrahydrocannabinol 2.5 mg plus cannabidiol 2.5 mg capsules (THC:CBD) or matching placebo, taken three times a day from days -1 to 5, in addition to guideline-consistent antiemetics. The primary measure of effect was the difference in the proportions of participants with no vomiting or retching and no use of rescue medications (a complete response) during hours 0-120 after the first cycle of chemotherapy on study (cycle A).

RESULTS

We recruited 147 evaluable of a planned 250 participants from 2016 to 2022. Background antiemetic prophylaxis included a corticosteroid and 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist in 97%, a neurokinin-1 antagonist in 80%, and olanzapine in 10%. THC:CBD compared with placebo improved the complete response rate from 8% to 24% (absolute difference 16%, 95% CI, 4 to 28, P = .01), with similar effects for absence of significant nausea, use of rescue medications, daily vomits, and the nausea scale on the Functional Living Index-Emesis quality-of-life questionnaire. More frequent bothersome adverse events of special interest included sedation (18% v 7%), dizziness (10% v 0%), and transient anxiety (4% v 1%). There were no serious adverse events attributed to THC:CBD.

CONCLUSION

THC:CBD is an effective adjunct for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting despite standard antiemetic prophylaxis, but was associated with additional adverse events. Drug availability, cultural attitudes, legal status, and preferences may affect implementation. Future analyses will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of THC:CBD.

Prolonged administration of the granisetron transdermal delivery system reduces capecitabine plus oxaliplatin regimen induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) combined with Dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin (CapeOX) therapy.

DESIGN

Open-label, prospective, multi-center phase II trial.

SETTING

Three institutions.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-four patients scheduled to receive CapeOX chemotherapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received GTDS (3.1 mg applied to the upper arm 48 h before chemotherapy, replaced on day 5, and discarded on day 12) and Dexamethasone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the complete control rate of CINV. Secondary endpoints included the duration of delayed complete control, complete control rate in the acute phase, safety, and quality of life.

RESULTS

The complete control rate for delayed CINV over the entire period (25-480 h) was 72.7% (95% CI 0.57-0.88). The duration of delayed complete control was 17.2 ± 4.5 days, with 51.5% of patients experiencing no nausea during the delayed phase. The complete control rate in the acute phase was 81.8% (95% CI 0.69-0.95). No serious adverse events related to the antiemetic regimen were reported.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged administration of GTDS is safe and effective for preventing CINV in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies treated with CapeOX.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT05325190); registered on October 10, 2021.

Establishing a nausea-free ward model to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A retrospective study

The objective of this study was to establish a nausea-free ward model and evaluate the effect of an intervention procedure guided by this model on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients. A total of 105 chemotherapy patients from March to September 2022 before the establishment of nausea-free ward in the Chongqing Jiulongpo District People's Hospital were selected as the control group as well as 105 chemotherapy patients from March to September 2023 after the establishment of nausea-free ward as the intervention group. The intervention group was managed by comprehensive standardized CINV management on the basis of the control group. Finally, the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology grading tool for nausea and vomiting and the Functional Living Index-Emesis were used to evaluate the effect. Under the intervention of the nausea-free ward model, the intervention group exhibited significantly lower ratings of nausea and vomiting compared to the control group (all P-value <.05). The nausea score, vomiting score, and total score of the intervention group were significantly lower than the control group (all P-value <.05). Our study found CINV symptoms and quality of life can be significantly improved by the application of the nausea-free ward model. The nausea-free ward model is instructive in clinical practice and can guide clinical work as well as bring management experience to clinical workers.

A nurse-led multidomain intervention to improve the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with head and neck cancers: A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of a nurse-led multidomain intervention on chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC).

METHODS

Ninety-two HNSCC patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy were divided into intervention group (n = 45) and control group (n = 47). The control group received usual care of CINV, which consisted of administration of antiemetics according to physicians' preference, education about CINV control and dietary recommendations provided by primary nurses. The intervention group received nurse-led, evidence-based multidomain management, including nurse-led CINV risk factors assessment, education on prevention and control of CINV, antiemetics following guidelines, dietary strategies, and relaxation therapy. The number of patients who experienced CINV was collected. The severity of CINV was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. The influence of CINV on patient's quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

RESULTS

The incidence and the severity of nausea and vomiting in the intervention group were significantly lower than those in the control group within 5 days after chemotherapy, and the scores of the dimension of nausea and vomiting in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group [63.00 (50.00-63.00) vs 40.00(28.00-63.00), 63.00(63.00-63.00) vs 63.00 (43.00-63.00)], the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-led multidomain intervention can reduce the incidence and the severity of CINV in patients with HNSCC who were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and thus reduced the influence of CINV on patients' quality of life.

THE CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05792228.

Herbal medicine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: A prospective randomized controlled trial

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Chinese herbal medicine is increasingly used as complementary therapy to manage nausea and vomiting in different cultures. One such herbal recipe is the Hezhong granules, which contain classical antiemetic formulations, and are commonly used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Modern pharmacological studies have shown that the key components of Hezhong granules, including Pinellia ternata (Thunb.), Evodia rutaecarpa (Juss.), and Zingiber officinale exhibit significant antiemetic and antitumor properties. Despite this promising evidence, controlling CINV remains a significant challenge in cancer treatment. Moreover, there is a lack of scientifically designed clinical trials to validate the efficacy and safety of classical antiemetic formulas for CINV interventions.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To investigate the efficacy and safety of Hezhong granules in preventing CINV in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

This study was conducted between October 2020 and February 2022 in 12 hospital wards in Southwest China. In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, we enrolled patients with advanced CRC who received fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the Hezhong granule group (receiving a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and Hezhong granules) or the placebo group (receiving a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and placebo) during the first and second courses of chemotherapy. A 5-day diary was provided to all patients. Acute and delayed CINV were defined as CINV occurring within 24 h or between 24 and 120 h after the start of treatment. The primary endpoints were complete response rate (CRR, defined as the proportion of patients without nausea/vomiting) and objective response rate (ORR, defined as the proportion of patients without nausea/vomiting plus mild nausea/vomiting) for both acute and delayed CINV. Secondary endpoints were the daily rates of CINV events and Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). To identify the predictors of CINV, we conducted multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis. This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial, number ChiCTR2100041643.

RESULTS

A total of 120 participants were randomly assigned, of whom 112 (56/56) completed two cycles and were included in the full analysis. In the acute phase, there were minor improvements in the Hezhong granule group, but there were no significant differences in the CRRs for nausea and vomiting (mean difference:10.7 %, P = 0.318, 0.324), while the ORRs increased by approximately 17.5 % (mean difference:16.1 %, P = 0.051; 17.9 %, P = 0.037, respectively). In the delayed phase, significant improvements of approximately 20 % were observed in both the CRRs (mean difference:19.6 %, P = 0.053; 21.4 %, P = 0.035) and ORRs (mean difference:17.9 %, P = 0.037, 0.043) for nausea and vomiting. Additionally, the daily rate of CINV events showed a mean difference of 19 % (P < 0.05). According to FLIE scores, approximately 70 % of patients who received Hezhong granules reported an improvement in their quality of life, with CINV symptoms having"no impact on daily life (NIDL)". No serious adverse events were attributed to herbal medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Hezhong granules proved to be both effective and well-tolerated in preventing CINV in patients with advanced CRC, with notable benefits in preventing delayed CINV. These promising results set the stage for subsequent phase III clinical trials and experimental research on Hezhong Granules.

Characteristics of nausea and its impact on health-related quality of life in cisplatin-treated patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing prophylaxis: an analysis of the LUNG-NEPA study

PURPOSE

We investigated the intensity and duration of nausea as well as its impact on health-related quality of life among cisplatin-treated patients who participated in a study of dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens based on NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included chemo-naive patients from a trial evaluating non-inferiority of DEX on day 1 (DEX1 arm) combined with NEPA, compared with the same regimen with DEX administered on days 1-4 (DEX4; reference arm) following cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) administration. Nausea intensity was self-rated using a four-point Likert scale. Extended nausea duration was considered ≥ 3 days within the 5 days post-chemotherapy. Patients completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on day 6.

RESULTS

In the DEX1 arm, more patients (20/76) experienced acute nausea, influencing the outcome of delayed nausea (38/76). During days 1 to 5, 51.3% (39/76) and 39.5% (30/76) of patients experienced nausea in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms, respectively (P = 0.192). Of these, 43.6% and 60% reported moderate-to-severe nausea, respectively, in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms (P = 0.200), while 74.4% and 56.7% of patients experienced extended nausea duration (P = 0.122). Similar between-arm rates of nauseated patients reported an impact on daily life (79.5% vs. 70%; P = 0.408). In analyses stratified for antiemetic regimen, moderate-to-severe nausea or extended nausea duration was associated with an impact on daily life (P ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite the higher incidence, there was no suggestion of any strong adverse effect of NEPA plus single-dose DEX on the characteristics of nausea as well as its impact on daily life in patients with cisplatin-induced nausea. Further prospective controlled study is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019.

Effect of a Standardized Ginger Root Powder Regimen on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

There is substantial interest in the role of ginger as an adjuvant therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, available evidence lacks robust methodology.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of adjuvant ginger compared with placebo on chemotherapy-induced nausea-related quality of life (QoL) and CINV-related outcomes.

DESIGN

A parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial with 1:1 allocation was conducted.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

One hundred three chemotherapy-naïve adults scheduled to receive moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy at two hospitals in Australia were enrolled and analyzed.

INTERVENTION

Four standardized ginger capsules (totaling 84 mg/day active gingerols/shogaols), or placebo, were administered commencing the day of chemotherapy and continuing for 5 days for chemotherapy cycles 1 through 3.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was chemotherapy-induced nausea-related QoL. Secondary outcomes were vomiting- and CINV-related QoL; anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting; fatigue; nutritional status; depression and anxiety; health-related QoL; and adverse events.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED

Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Mixed analysis of variance with repeated measures determined differences between groups. The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. After applying a Bonferroni multiple testing correction, evidence against the null hypothesis was considered at P= 0.003.

RESULTS

One hundred three participants (ginger: n = 52; placebo: n = 51) were enrolled and analyzed. There was clinically relevant evidence against the null hypothesis, favoring ginger, in change scores for nausea-related QoL (F[df] = 9.34[1,101]; P = 0.003; partial η2 = 0.09), overall CINV-related QoL (F[df] = 12.26[1,101]; P < 0.001; partial η2 = 0.11), delayed nausea severity (F[df] = 9.46[1,101]; P = 0.003; partial η2 = 0.09), and fatigue (F[df] = 10.11[1,101]; P = 0.002; partial η2 = 0.09). There was a clinically meaningful lower incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting in the ginger group at Cycle 2 (53% vs 75%; P = 0.020 and 4% vs 27%; P = 0.001, respectively) and Cycle 3 (49% vs 79%; P = 0.002 and 2% vs 23%; P = 0.001, respectively). There was a clinically meaningful lower incidence of malnutrition in the ginger group at Cycle 3 (18% vs. 41%; P = 0.032) and in change scores for Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (F[df)] = 4.32[1,100]; P = 0.040; partial η2 = 0.04). Change scores between groups favored ginger for vomiting-related QoL and number of vomiting episodes; however, findings were not clinically meaningful. There was no effect of ginger on anticipatory or acute CINV, health-related QoL, anxiety, or depression. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Ginger supplementation was a safe adjuvant to antiemetic medications for CINV that enhanced QoL during chemotherapy treatment. Future trials are needed to examine dose-dependent responses to verify optimal dosing regimens.

Minimal clinically important difference of the Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients with gynecological malignant tumor: A post hoc analysis of a single-arm study

AIM

This study aimed to explore the impact of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) in patients with gynecologic malignancies.

METHOD

This post hoc analysis included patients with gynecological malignant tumors in the Department of Oncology of our hospital between October 2020 and October 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients (aged 50.05 ± 12.24 years) were included. Most of the patients were married (75.8%), lived in the city (60.4%), and had a history of motion sickness (75.8%). The degree of nausea (9.00 [0.00, 16.00] vs. 30.00 [16.00, 48.00], P < 0.001) and vomiting (9.00 [0.00, 16.00] vs. 30.00 [16.00, 48.00], P < 0.001) were significantly improved after treatment. Taking the options in the scale as the subjective anchor, the MCID of FLIE for nausea and vomiting were 28.5 and 29 in anchor-based analysis, respectively. In the distribution-based analysis, the MCID of FLIE for nausea and vomiting were 2.41, 6.04, and 9.66; and 2.31, 5.78, and 9.24 in effect size of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The MCID of FLIE for nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecological malignant tumors was 28.5 and 29 in the anchor-based analysis, with higher specificity, and 6.04 and 5.78 in the distribution-based analysis, with higher sensitivity. The development of the MCID scale might be used to interpret the clinical significance of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecological malignancies and help to calculate the sample size for future clinical trials.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Investigating an Integrated Nursing Educational Program to Mitigate Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Cancer Patients: The NIV-EC Trial

BACKGROUND

In addition to pharmacological prevention, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be mitigated through patient education; written supporting materials can be beneficial.

METHODS

This is a randomized, controlled trial which randomly assigned patients undergoing first chemotherapy cycle to receive oral information regarding CINV prevention and management (control arm) or oral information plus an informative booklet (experimental arm). Overall, 384 cancer patients fulfilling the following inclusion criteria were enrolled: age ≥18 years; life expectancy ≥6 months; no cognitive impairment; written informed consent. After the first cycle, CINV occurrence and its impact on daily activities were assessed using the Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE).

RESULTS

Severe nausea was self-reported by 3.0% and 10.8% of patients in the experimental and control group, respectively (difference: 7.8%; 95% confidence interval: 2.3% to 13.1%). Moderate/high impact of nausea on daily activities was lower in patients also receiving the booklet than in the control group (4.2% and 10.1%, respectively; difference: 5.9%; 95% confidence interval: 0.3% to 11.5%). Vomiting was not statistically different between study arms.

CONCLUSIONS

This integrated nursing approach was effective in aiding cancer patients in CINV self-management. Although the beneficial effect was moderate, this intervention demands minimal resources in terms of costs and time.

Huo Xiang Zheng Qi Oral Liquid Combined with 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists and Dexamethasone Can Prevent Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting for Patients Receiving Multiday Cisplatin-Based Regimen: A Multicenter Trial

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most distressing side effects associated with deterioration in the quality of life. This study aimed to assess the clinical value of Huoxiang Zhengqi (HXZQ) oral liquid, a Chinese patent medicine, in combination with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and dexamethasone, in preventing CINV in patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Methods: In this multicenter, exploratory randomized clinical trial, the authors compared the efficacy of HXZQ oral liquid against a control group receiving a placebo, in combination with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving a multiday cisplatin-based regimen between January 2021 and September 2021. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate. The secondary endpoints included days with no CINV, the incidence of CINV, and life function. Results: Sixty patients were randomized into two groups and included in the study. The CR rate was significantly improved by HXZQ oral liquid in acute CINV (63.33% vs. 33.33%, p = 0.020) and CINV beyond the risk phase (96.67% vs. 46.67%, p = 0.000). The number of days with no CINV was significantly more in the HXZQ group compared with the control group in the overall phase (18.10 ± 3.64 vs. 12.13 ± 7.63, p = 0.002). Significantly higher Functional Living Index-Emesis total and domain scores were observed in the HXZQ group. Conclusions: HXZQ oral liquid combined with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone is a feasible and safe approach to prevent CINV in patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy who cannot use neurokinin 1 RAs. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2000040123.

Application of comprehensive unit-based safety program model to improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with ovarian cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

To explore the effect of intervention programs constructed under the guidance of the comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) model on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with ovarian cancer.

METHOD

According to the time of admission, 90 ovarian cancer chemotherapy patients in the first affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from June 2019 to September 2020 were divided into an intervention group and a control group with 45 cases each. Both groups of patients received routine intervention, and the intervention group implemented the CUSP program on this basis. The intervention lasted 8 months. Before and after the intervention, the patients in the ward were used the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool, the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for the effect evaluation.

RESULTS

After the intervention, the degree of nausea and vomiting frequency in the intervention group were significantly lower than that in the control group, especially the degree of nausea in the delayed phase (P < 0.05). The score of the functional living index-emesis in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05), and the anxiety and depression in the intervention group were significantly relieved compared to the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The intervention program guided by the CUSP model can significantly alleviate patients' nausea and vomiting, improve the quality of life, and relieve anxiety and depression. The CUSP model is suitable for clinical practice and has guiding significance for clinical work.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in older patients (>65 years) fit for cisplatin: A sub-analysis from a phase 3 study

INTRODUCTION

We recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the guideline-recommended DEX use for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Since prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the DEX-sparing regimens in this subset.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chemo-naive patients aged >65 years treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) were eligible. Patients received NEPA and DEX on day 1 and were randomized to receive either (1) no further DEX (DEX1), (2) oral low-dose DEX (4 mg) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or (3) the guideline-recommended standard DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint of the parent study was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). No significant nausea (NSN; none or mild nausea) and the proportion of patients reporting no impact on daily life (NIDL) which was evaluated by the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire on day 6 (overall combined score > 108), were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Among the 228 patients in the parent study, 107 were > 65 years. Similar CR rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were observed in patients over 65 years across treatment groups [DEX1: 75% (59.7-86.8%); DEX3: 80.6% (62.5-92.6%); DEX4: 75% (56.6-88.5%)] as well as versus the total study population. NSN rates were also similar in the older-patients across treatment groups (p = 0.480) but were higher compared with the total population. Similar rates of NIDL (95% CI) were reported in the older-patient subset across treatment groups [DEX1: 61.5% (44.6-76.6%); DEX3: 64.3% (44.1-81.4%); DEX4: 62.1% (42.3-79.3%); p = 1.0] during the overall phase, as well as versus total population. A similar proportion of older patients across treatment groups experienced DEX-related side effects.

DISCUSSION

This analysis shows that older-patients who are fit for cisplatin benefit from a simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX with neither loss in antiemetic efficacy nor the adverse impact on patient daily functioning. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04201769) on 17/12/2019 (retrospectively registered).

Validation of different personalized risk models of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of fosaprepitant for cancer patients treated with high-dose cisplatin

BACKGROUND

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in cancer patients without prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fosaprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with solid malignant tumors, determine risk factors and externally validate different personalized risk models for CINV.

METHODS

This phase III trial was designed to test the non-inferiority of fosaprepitant toward aprepitant in cancer patients who were to receive the first cycle of single-day cisplatin chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the overall phase (OP) with a non-inferiority margin of 10.0%. Logistic regression models were used to assess the risk factors of CR and no nausea. To validate the personalized risk models, the accuracy of the risk scoring systems was determined by measuring the specificity, sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), while the predictive accuracy of the nomogram was measured using concordance index (C-index).

RESULTS

A total of 720 patients were randomly assigned. CR during the OP in the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that in the aprepitant group (78.1% vs. 77.7%, P = 0.765) with a between-group difference of 0.4% (95% CI, -5.7% to 6.6%). Female sex, higher cisplatin dose (≥ 70 mg/m² ), no history of drinking and larger body surface area (BSA) were significantly associated with nausea. The AUC for the acute and delayed CINV risk indexes was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61-0.70), respectively, and the C-index for nomogram CINV prediction was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64). Using appropriate cutoff points, the three models could stratify patients with high- or low-risk CINV. No nausea and CR rate were significantly higher in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Fosaprepitant-based triple prophylaxis demonstrated non-inferior control for preventing CINV in patients treated with cisplatin-base chemotherapy. Female cancer patients without a history of alcohol consumption, with larger BSA and received high-dose cisplatin might be more vulnerable to CINV. Three personalized prediction models were well-validated and could be used to optimize antiemetic therapy for individual patients.

Patient-reported outcome measures for medication-related quality of life: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Medication use is common for the prevention and treatment of many health conditions. Understanding the impact of medication-taking on quality of life is important, as it could contribute to better care plans and improve shared decision-making between patients and healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify and summarize the extent of literature on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for medication-related quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments databases were searched until May 17, 2021 for peer-reviewed, original research articles that included a PROM for medication-related QoL and reported its psychometric properties. Study selection were completed by pairs with a third reviewer resolving any conflicts. Data were extracted by the study team using a form in Microsoft Excel. Extracted data were summarized descriptively and tabulated numerically.

RESULTS

We screened 8,878 records, including 170 full-text articles, of which 86 met the criteria for inclusion. We identified 80 unique PROMs. Over half (n = 53) described measuring treatment satisfaction and less than one quarter measured medication related-QoL more broadly. Most of the included PROMs were targeted towards populations with specific health conditions including cancer (n = 9) and diabetes (n = 8), as well as individuals taking medication for non-specific conditions (n = 7). The most reported psychometric properties were internal consistency (n = 75) and construct validity (n = 77). All PROMs but one (n = 79) assessed physical health but fewer assessed other QoL dimensions (e.g., autonomy, interactions with providers).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the PROMs were designed for condition-specific or medication-specific populations, with few for general medication-related QoL. Future research should focus on assessing medication-related QoL measures for broader populations such as those with disabilities, multimorbidity, or experiencing polypharmacy. There needs to be more guidance on how to implement the use of PROMs in clinical settings, as well as to ensure consistency around terminology related to QoL.

Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study

Background

The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

Methods

Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m²), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis.

Results

In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL.

Conclusion

Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

The Clinical Observation on PONV with the Intervention of Thumbtack Needles Combined with Chinese Medicine Ironing Therapy

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy of the intervention of thumbtack needles (applicable to subcutaneous embedding) combined with Chinese medicine ironing therapy on postoperation nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Methods

106 patients who scheduled elective surgery were enrolled and randomized into control group and experimental group, with 53 cases in each group. The control group received modern medication, while the experimental group was given thumbtack needles combined with Chinese medicine ironing therapy based on the control group. The PONV score, incidence rate, gastrointestinal hormone level, Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), and General Comfort Questionnaire (GCQ) of the two groups were compared.

Results

After treatment, the incidence of PONV and GCQ in the experimental group was observed to be remarkably lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05), while the levels of gastrointestinal hormones and the level in the FLIE of the experimental group were comparatively higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Thumbtack needles combined with Chinese medicine ironing therapy can be utilized to reduce the incidence of PONV, to improve the level of gastrointestinal hormones, and to improve the comfort and quality of patients' lives.

Systematic review of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues associated with gastric cancer: capturing cross-cultural differences

The treatment landscape for gastric cancer (GC) is constantly evolving with therapies affecting all aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) which need careful monitoring. While there are HRQoL measures designed specifically to capture issues relevant to patients with GC, these might be outdated and only relevant to patients in westernised cultures. This review identifies the patient-reported measures used to assess HRQoL of patients with GC and compares the HRQoL measures used across cultures including East Asia, where GC is more prevalent. We conducted a systematic review of publications between January 2001 and January 2021. A total of 267 papers were identified; the majority (66%) of studies involved patients from East Asian countries. Out of the 24 HRQoL questionnaires captured, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Cancer measure (QLQ-C30) was the most widely used (60% of all studies and 62% of those involving patients from East Asian countries), followed by its gastric cancer-specific module (QLQ-STO22, 34% of all studies and 41% from East Asia). Eight questionnaires were developed within East Asian countries and, of the 20 studies including bespoke questions, 16 were from East Asia. There were six qualitative studies. HRQoL issues captured include diarrhoea, constipation, reflux, abdominal pain and abdominal fulness or bloating, difficulty swallowing, restricted eating, and weight loss. Psychosocial issues related to these problems were also assessed. Issues relating to the compatibility of some of the westernised measures within East Asian cultures were highlighted.

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.

Olanzapine (5 mg) plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of multiple-day cisplatin hemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a prospective randomized controlled study

Objective

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare 5 mg olanzapine plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy.

Methods

Patients who received a 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (25 mg/m²/d) were given either 5 mg olanzapine plus triple therapy with aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (quadruple group) or 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant (triplet group). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) in the overall phase (OP) (0–120 h) between quadruple group and triplet group. The secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute phase (AP) (0–24 h) and delayed phase (DP) (25–120 h) between two groups. The first time of vomiting was also compared by Kaplan–Meier curves. The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Aprepitant-related adverse effects (AEs) were also recorded.

Results

(1) The primary endpoint CR during OP was 76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) between the quadruple group and triplet group (P = 0.271). The secondary endpoint CR during the AP was significantly higher in the quadruple group than in the triplet group, which was 100.0% (59/59) vs 93.0% (57/61) (P = 0.045). The difference of CR during delayed phase between the groups was especially higher in the quadruple group compared to the triplet group (76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) (P = 0.271)). The rate of patients who achieved total protection in the overall phase was also higher in the quadruple group than the triplet group (28.8% (17/59) vs 23.0% (14/61) (P = 0.463)). During the OP, the incidence of no vomiting in the quadruple group and the triplet group was 93.2% (55/59) vs 80.3% (49/61) (P = 0.038), respectively. (2) Kaplan–Meier curves of time to first emesis were obviously longer in the quadruple group compared with the triplet group (P = 0.031). According to FLIE, no impact of CINV on daily life was defined as total score of questionnaire > 108; this study exhibited identical life quality between two groups. (3) The most common aprepitant- or olanzapine-related AEs included sedation, fatigue, and constipation. The occurrences between two groups were identical.

Conclusion

It may been recommended that 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant triplet regimen as an alternative therapy in prevention CINV induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy due to the excellent CINV control rate and safety.

A Comparison of the Efficacy of 5 mg Olanzapine and Aprepitant in the Prevention of Multiple-Day Cisplatin Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

OBJECTIVE

The significance of this article is to talk about aprepitant and olanzapine 5 mg, compare them, and deeply explore the safety or effectiveness during the whole process of multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy-induced vomiting and nausea.

METHODS

This trial was randomized and prospective. It is needed to receive cisplatin chemotherapy (25 mg/m2/d) for three days. Its patients would need to choose to use 5 mg olanzapine or aprepitant for this treatment, combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone. The primary endpoints were the total protection (TP) during the acute phase (AP) (0-24 hours), delayed phase (DP) (25-120 hours), and overall phase (OP) (0-120 h) between the two groups. The secondary endpoints were the complete response (CR) and total control (TC) during the three phases. The first time of the whole process is particularly important and needs to be observed vigorously. However, the time of the patient's first vomiting symptom is also compared accurately by using the Kaplan-Meier curve. The functional life index vomiting (FLIE) was used to calculate and carefully evaluate the serious impact of nausea and vomiting (CINV) induced by the whole chemotherapy process on the quality of life. About olanzapine, its related symptoms and other side effects and aprepitant were also recorded.

RESULTS

(1) The primary endpoint TP rates of the olanzapine and aprepitant groups were similar; for the AP, they were 94.23% (98/104) vs. 95.45% (98/106) P=0.61(P=0.61); for the DP, they were 54.81% (57/104) vs. 54.72% (58/106) (P=0.99), and for the OP, the values were 53.79% (58/105) and 55.31% (56/104), respectively (P=0.99). The secondary endpoints, the TC rates, and CR rates were also comparable in the three phases (P > 0.05). (2) After research and display, the results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups when they were used for the first time of vomiting and the FLIE index (P > 0.05). (3) The main olanzapine-related adverse event was drowsiness, while that of aprepitant was constipation.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of 5 mg olanzapine was similar to that of aprepitant, and it also showed an advantageous economic potency ratio in preventing CINV induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy with increased sedation side effects.

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.

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.

Fixed-Dose Netupitant and Palonosetron for Chronic Nausea in Cancer Patients: A Double-Blind, Placebo Run-in Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

CONTEXT

No clinical trials have examined the effect of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) on chronic nausea in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

In this pilot randomized trial, we assessed the efficacy of NEPA and placebo on chronic nausea.

METHODS

This double-blind, parallel, randomized trial enrolled patients with cancer and chronic nausea for at least 1 month, intensity ≥4/10 and not on moderately or highly emetogenic systemic therapies. Patients started with a placebo run-in period from days 1 to 5; those without a placebo response proceeded to the double-blinded phase between days 6 to 15 (NEPA: placebo 2:1 ratio). The primary outcome was within-group change in average nausea over the 24 hours on a 0-10 numeric rating scale between day 5 and 15.

RESULTS

Among the 53 enrolled patients, 46 proceeded to placebo run-in and 33 had blinded treatment (22 NEPA and 11 placebo). We observed a statistically significant within-group improvement in nausea numeric rating scale between day 5 and 15 in the NEPA group (mean change, -2.0; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.8) and the placebo group (mean change, -2.3; 95% CI, -3.9 to -0.7). A complete response was achieved in 8 (38%) patients in the NEPA group and 2 (20%) in the placebo group by day 15. No grade 3-4 toxicities were attributed to NEPA. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the primary/secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA and placebo were associated with similar magnitude of within-group improvement in chronic nausea without significant between-group differences (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03040726).

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.

Assessing the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients' quality of life: An Arabic version of the Functional Living Index-Emesis

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a serious complication of cancer treatment that compromises patients' quality of life and treatment adherence, which necessitates regular assessment. Therefore, there is a need to assess patient-reported nausea and vomiting using a validated scale among Arabic speaking cancer patient population. The objective of this study was to translate and validate the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument in Arabic, a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the influence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients' quality of life.

METHODS

Linguistic validation of an Arabic-language version was performed. The instrument was administered to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in a tertiary hospital's cancer center in Saudi Arabia.

RESULTS

One-hundred cancer patients who received chemotherapy were enrolled. The participants' mean age was 53.3 ± 14.9 years, and 50% were female. Half of the participants had a history of nausea and vomiting with previous chemotherapy. The Cronbach coefficient alpha for the FLIE was 0.9606 and 0.9736 for nausea and vomiting domains, respectively, which indicated an excellent reliability for the Arabic FLIE. The mean FLIE score was 110.9 ± 23.5, indicating no or minimal impact on daily life (NIDL).

CONCLUSIONS

The Arabic FLIE is a valid and reliable tool among the Arabic-speaking cancer population. Thus, the Arabic version of the FLIE will be a useful tool to assess the quality of life among Arabic speaking patients receiving chemotherapy. Additionally, the translated instrument will be a useful tool for future research studies to explore new antiemetic treatments among cancer patients.

Evaluating the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating antiemetic prophylaxis have primarily focused on the solid tumor setting and single-day regimens. This study evaluates antiemetic prophylaxis and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with lymphoma receiving a multiday doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide containing regimen.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single center, cohort study evaluating patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted R-EPOCH in the hospital. Data was collected from the electronic medical record from April 2016 to September 2019. Complete response over 120 hours was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included complete response during the acute and delayed phases as well as complete control.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients who received dose adjusted R-EPOCH were identified. Most patients (n = 39, 53%) were male with a the median age was 63 years (range: 21-81). Most patients received ondansetron 16 mg once daily (n = 48, 66%) on days 1-5 as antiemetic prophylaxis with a minority receiving either dexamethasone (n = 8) or an NK1 antagonist (n = 13) in addition to ondansetron. Complete response rate was 32% and the complete response in the acute and delayed phase was also 32%.

CONCLUSION

Control of CINV in patients with lymphoma hospitalized to receive dose-adjusted R-EPOCH was suboptimal, with only 32% of patients achieving complete response. Nearly three-quarters of patients received only a 5HT3 receptor antagonist as scheduled antiemetic therapy without an NK1 receptor antagonist. This data supports the importance of improving awareness of regarding multiday CINV guidelines and ensuring timely update and implementation of these evidence-based guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) patients

PURPOSE

Olanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV.

RESULTS

Olanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

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.

Metoclopramide, Dexamethasone, or Palonosetron for Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEDEA): A Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects.

RESULTS

Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC.

Efficacy of olanzapine for quality of life improvement among patients with malignant tumor: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients always experience an ongoing deterioration in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is a strengthening awareness of health care professionals of taking HRQoL, which is a patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), into consideration when they make an adequate selection in clinical practice. Olanzapine, an antipsychotic agent, has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective agent in improving cancer-related symptoms.

AIM

To review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in improving HRQoL among adults with malignant tumor.

METHODS

Eligible studies were retrieved from an electronic database search of the Cochrane, Medline, CINAHL plus, Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. The methodological quality of selected studies was evaluated, and the relevant data were extracted and synthesized.

RESULTS

While studies differed in target population, olanzapine-based treatment regimen, and HRQoL measurement tools, results have shown that olanzapine has a positive impact on cancer patients' general HRQoL status, functional outcomes, and/or symptoms improvement. Besides, no serious toxicities attributable to olanzapine were observed in all studies included.

CONCLUSION

While further studies are needed especially which adopted the HRQoL as primary outcome through comprehensive measures, olanzapine could still be recommended in the palliative care.

Efficacy of NEPA, a fixed antiemetic combination of netupitant and palonosetron, vs a 3-day aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Chinese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in a randomized Phase 3 study

NEPA is the only fixed combination antiemetic, comprised of an NK₁ RA (netupitant) and a 5-HT₃ RA (palonosetron). In the first head-to-head trial to compare NK₁ RA-containing regimens, a single oral dose of NEPA was non-inferior to a 3-day aprepitant/granisetron (APR/GRAN) regimen for the primary endpoint of overall (0-120 hours) complete response (no emesis/no rescue). This pre-specified analysis evaluates the efficacy of NEPA versus APR/GRAN in the subset of Chinese patients in the study. In addition, efficacy in patients at greatest emetic risk receiving high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m² ) was explored. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors in this randomized, double-blind study received either a single dose of NEPA prior to cisplatin-based chemotherapy or a 3-day regimen of APR/GRAN, both with dexamethasone on Days 1-4. Efficacy was evaluated through complete response, no emesis, and no significant nausea rates during the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (25-120 hours) and overall phases as well as individual days post-chemotherapy, as the daily course of CINV protection is often unstudied. The Chinese subset included 667 patients; of these, 363 (54%) received high-dose cisplatin. Baseline characteristics were comparable. While response rates were similar for NEPA and APR/GRAN during the acute, delayed and overall phases, significantly fewer NEPA patients experienced breakthrough CINV on individual Days 3-5 in both the Chinese patients and also in those receiving high-dose cisplatin. As a fixed oral NK₁ RA/5HT₃ RA combination given once/cycle, NEPA is a convenient highly effective prophylactic antiemetic that may offer better protection from CINV than a 3-day APR/GRAN regimen on Days 3-5 following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Real-world evidence of NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron, in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention: effects on quality of life

Aim: To determine quality of life, effectiveness and safety of oral netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA)–based antiemetic prophylaxis in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: Prospective, noninterventional study in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NEPA for three cycles. NEPA was administered per summary of product characteristics. Results: A total of 2429 patients enrolled, 2173 were evaluable. ‘No impact on daily life’ due to vomiting was reported by 84%/82% of patients in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy groups in cycle 1, with rates of 54%/59% for nausea. Overall, complete response rate was 89%/87%/83% in the acute/delayed/overall phases. NEPA was well tolerated. Conclusion: NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients and was safe and effective in the real-world setting.

Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting.

Materials and Methods

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by sex, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aprepitant versus two dosages of olanzapine with ondansetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

We assessed the efficacy of aprepitant (APR) or 10 or 5 mg OLN (OLN10 or OLN5) plus ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

Patients who received doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide or cisplatin were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy and oral dexamethasone on days 2-4 and randomized 1:1:1 to receive APR125 on day 1 and APR80 on days 2-3 or OLN10 or OLN5 on days 1-4. Matched placebo controls were used. The primary endpoint was no nausea in ≤ 120 h. Secondary endpoints included CINV severity, complete response (CR) rate, adverse effects (AE), and quality of life.

RESULTS

Of 141 patients, 104 received AC and 37 received cisplatin. The no-nausea rates were 33% (APR), 43.2% (OLN10; p = 0.24), and 37% (OLN5; p = 0.87). Grades 2-4 nausea were experienced by fewer patients for OLN10 than for APR (24-120 h, 8.7% vs. 27.7%, respectively; p = 0.02; overall period, 19.6% vs. 40.4%, respectively; p = 0.03). The median visual analog scale nausea score from 24 to 120 h was significantly lower for OLN10 (2.3) than for APR (1.2, p = 0.03). The degrees of vomiting, CR, and AE were similar between the APR and OLN10 groups. CINV was similar between the OLN5 and APR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nausea was less severe for OLN10 than for APR in patients receiving HEC, but other measures were similar. CINV prevention efficacy was comparable between OLN5 and APR.

Phase IIIb Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Initial and Repeat Cycles of Anthracycline and Cyclophosphamide (AC) Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron] offers 5-day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion-site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30-minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only.

RESULTS

A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment-related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment-related injection-site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0-120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles.

CONCLUSION

IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions in patients receiving AC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As a combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5-HT3 RA, NEPA offers 5-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1 RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection-site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA.

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.

A randomized phase III study evaluating the efficacy of single-dose NEPA, a fixed antiemetic combination of netupitant and palonosetron, versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)

Background

Co-administration of multiple antiemetics that inhibit several molecular pathways involved in emesis is required to optimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). NEPA, a fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ receptor antagonist, netupitant (300 mg), and the pharmacologically distinct 5-HT₃RA, palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), has shown superior CINV prevention compared with PALO in cisplatin and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based settings. This study is the first head-to-head comparison of NEPA versus an aprepitant (APR)/granisetron (GRAN) regimen.

Patients and methods

This randomized, double-blind phase III study conducted in Asia was designed with the primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of a single oral dose of NEPA compared with a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on days 1–4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall (0–120 h) phase. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the non-inferiority margin set at − 10%. Secondary efficacy endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN).

Results

Treatment groups were comparable for the 828 patients analyzed: predominantly male (71%); mean age 54.5 years; ECOG 0–1 (98%); lung cancer (58%). NEPA demonstrated non-inferiority to APR/GRAN for overall CR [NEPA 73.8% versus APR/GRAN 72.4%, 95% CI (−4.5%, 7.5%)]. No emesis [NEPA 75.0% versus APR/GRAN 74.0%, 95% CI (−4.8%, 6.9%)] and NSN rates [NEPA 75.7% versus APR/GRAN 70.4%, 95% CI (−0.6%, 11.4%)] were similar between groups, but significantly more NEPA patients did not take rescue medication [NEPA 96.6% versus APR/GRAN 93.5%, 95% CI (0.2%, 6.1%)]. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to APR/GRAN.

Conclusions

In this first study comparing NK₁RA regimens and DEX, NEPA administered only on day 1 was non-inferior to a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in preventing CINV associated with HEC.

Fixed Combination Antiemetic: A Literature Review on Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Using Netupitant/Palonosetron

BACKGROUND

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be improved with guideline-consistent use of antiemetics. However, adherence to antiemetic guidelines remains often insufficient. Therefore, new strategies that improve adherence are needed.

OBJECTIVES

To review the latest antiemetic guideline recommendations and provide an update on the use of NEPA, a fixed combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA) netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA palonosetron (Akynzeo®).

METHODS

Analysis of the literature was performed, including guidelines, published literature, congress data on NEPA, and relevant articles on CINV.

FINDINGS

Nurses are in a unique position to promote guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis and are central in the education of patients and caregivers. Thus, nurses’ continuous education on antiemetic treatments is key for the prevention and management of CINV. NEPA offers a simplified antiemetic therapy with the potential to increase guideline adherence.

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.

Rolapitant for the prevention of nausea in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Most patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting without antiemetic prophylaxis. While neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) effectively prevent emesis, their ability to prevent nausea has not been established. We evaluated the efficacy of the long-acting NK-1RA rolapitant in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea using post hoc analyses of data from 3 phase 3 trials. Patients were randomized to receive 180 mg oral rolapitant or placebo approximately 1-2 hours before chemotherapy in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Nausea was assessed by visual analog scale during the acute (≤24 hours), delayed (>24-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) phases. Post hoc analyses by treatment group (rolapitant vs control) were performed on pooled data within patient subgroups receiving cisplatin-based, carboplatin-based, or anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. In the cisplatin-based chemotherapy group, significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reported no nausea (NN) in the overall (52.3% vs 41.7% [P < .001]; absolute benefit [AB] = 10.6%), delayed (55.7% vs 44.3% [P < .001]; AB = 11.4%), and acute (70.5% vs 64.3% [P = .030]; AB = 6.2%) phases. Similar results were observed in the carboplatin-based chemotherapy group, with significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reporting NN in the overall (62.5% vs 51.2% [P = .023]; AB = 11.3%) and delayed (64.1% vs 53.6% [P = .034]; AB = 10.5%) phases. In the AC-based chemotherapy group, patients receiving rolapitant or control reported similar NN rates during the overall and delayed phases. Rolapitant effectively prevents nausea during the overall and delayed phases in patients receiving cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

Evaluation of a Neurokinin-1 Antagonist in Preventing Multiple-day Cisplatin-induced Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

To perform a prospective non-randomized comparison of the effectiveness and safety of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment with the standard multiple-day cisplatin regimen for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods

Patients being administered 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (25 mg/m²/d) who had never received aprepitant were given either the standard regimen (tropisetron and dexamethasone) or the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus tropisetron and dexamethasone). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) in the overall phase (OP, 0–120 h) between the combined aprepitant triple regimen group and the standard group. Secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute phase (AP, 0–24 h) and delay phase (DP, 25–120 h) between the two groups. The first time of vomiting was also compared by Kaplan–Meier curves. The impact of CINV on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Aprepitant-related adverse effects (AEs) were also recorded.

Results

A CR was achieved by 80.0% in the aprepitant group compared with 56.0% in the standard group during the OP (P =0.018)as well as during the DP. However, during the AP, the aprepitant and standard therapy groups achieved identical CR rates (98.0%, P =1.000). A longer time to first emesis was documented for the aprepitant group than for the standard group. No effect of CINV on quality of life as assessed by FLIE was reported by 44.7% of aprepitant therapy patients and 24.0% of standard therapy patients (P=0.035). The main aprepitant-related AEs were fatigue and constipation, but there was no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion

Combined aprepitant therapy is recommended for the prevention of multiple-day CINV because of its improved CINV control rate and safety.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Results of the Korean South West Oncology Group (KSWOG) Study

PURPOSE

Data on the efficacy of olanzapine in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) are limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of olanzapine versus placebo in controlling nausea and vomiting in patients receiving MEC.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether olanzapine can reduce the frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and improve the quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving palonosetron and dexamethasone as prophylaxis for MEC-induced nausea and vomiting. The primary end point was complete response for the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy). The secondary end points were complete response for the delayed (24-120 hours) and overall phase (0-120 hours), proportion of significant nausea (visual analogue scale ≥ 25 mm), use ofrescue medications, and effect on QOL.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were randomized to the olanzapine (n=29) and placebo (n=27) groups. Complete response rates were not significantly different between the olanzapine and placebo groups in the acute (96.5% vs. 88.0%, p=0.326), delayed (69.0% vs. 48.0%, p=0.118), and overall phases (69.0% vs. 48.0%, p=0.118). However, the percentage of patients with significant nausea (17.2% vs. 44.0%, p=0.032) and the use of rescue medications (0.03±0.19 vs. 1.88±2.88, p=0.002) were lower in the olanzapine group than in the placebo. Furthermore, the olanzapine group demonstrated better QOL (p=0.015).

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved QOL and vomiting control among previously untreated patients receiving MEC, although the efficacy was limited to the reduction of the frequency of CINV.

The Effect of a Standardized Ginger Extract on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea-Related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Moderately or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Double Blind, Randomized, Placebo Controlled Trial

Ginger supplementation could be an effective adjuvant treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). The aim of this clinical trial was to address significant methodological limitations in previous trials. Patients (N = 51) were randomly allocated to receive either 1.2 g of standardised ginger extract or placebo per day, in addition to standard anti-emetic therapy, during the first three cycles of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was CIN-related quality of life (QoL) measured with the Functional Living Index- Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included acute and delayed nausea, vomiting, and retching as well as cancer-related fatigue, nutritional status, and CIN and vomiting-specific prognostic factors. Over three consecutive chemotherapy cycles, nausea was more prevalent than vomiting (47% vs. 12%). In chemotherapy Cycle 1, intervention participants reported significantly better QoL related to CIN (p = 0.029), chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related QoL (p = 0.043), global QoL (p = 0.015) and less fatigue (p = 0.006) than placebo participants. There were no significant results in Cycle 2. In Cycle 3, global QoL (p = 0.040) and fatigue (p = 0.013) were significantly better in the intervention group compared to placebo. This trial suggests adjuvant ginger supplementation is associated with better chemotherapy-induced nausea-related quality of life and less cancer-related fatigue, with no difference in adverse effects compared to placebo.

Relationship between Helicobacter pylori infection and vomiting induced by gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are the most common adverse reactions to chemotherapy.

AIM

To discuss the relationship between Helicobacter pylori and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

METHODS

A total of 112 patients with malignant tumours of the gastrointestinal tract was selected. Based on the 14C-urea breath test results, the patients were divided into H. pylori-positive (n = 59) and H. pylori-negative (n = 53) groups. Both groups received prophylactic antiemetic treatment during chemotherapy. The incidence of nausea and vomiting and their effects on the patients' life functions was recorded using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemetic Tool (MAT) and the Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) from 0-120 h after chemotherapy. Records of the H. pylori-positive and H. pylori-negative groups were compared.

RESULTS

The rates of nausea and vomiting remission were higher in the H. pylori -negative group than in the H. pylori -positive group. The proportions of no effect in daily life (NIDL) patients in the nausea and vomiting section were 73.4 and 75.5% in the H. pylori -negative group respectively. There was a higher proportion of NIDL patients in the H. pylori -negative group than in the H. pylori -positive group (P < 0.001, P = 0.046). A multivariate unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed, and the results showed that H. pylori infection was a factor affecting the nausea scores on the FLIE (odds ratio = 0.757, 95% confidence interval 0.597-0.960, P = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

H. pylori infection in patients with cancer may be a factor that increases CINV.

Differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. CINV typically manifests during two well-defined time periods (acute and delayed phases). The acute phase is the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and is largely managed with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists. The delayed phase, a 5-day at-risk period during which patients are not often in direct contact with their health care provider, remains a significant unmet medical need. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists have demonstrated protection against acute and delayed CINV in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy when used in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Furthermore, recent data indicate that this protection is maintained over multiple treatment cycles. Rolapitant, a selective and long-acting NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved as oral formulation for the prevention of delayed CINV in adults. This review discusses the differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in preventing CINV compared with other NK-1 receptor antagonists.

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.