Randomized, double-blind trial comparing the antiemetic effect of tropisetron plus metopimazine with tropisetron plus placebo in patients receiving multiple cycles of multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of dopamine-receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Dopamine (D)2,3-receptor antagonists (RAs) were the first antiemetics used in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

AREAS COVERED

Eight D2,3-RAs, amisulpride, domperidone, droperidol, haloperidol, metoclopramide, metopimazine, olanzapine and prochlorperazine are reviewed focusing on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antiemetic effect and side effects.

EXPERT OPINION

Since the introduction of D2,3-RAs, antiemetics such as corticosteroids, 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3-RAs and neurokinin (NK)1-RAs have been developed. The classical D2,3-RAs are recommended in the prophylaxis of CINV from low emetic risk chemotherapy, but not as a fixed component of an antiemetic regimen for moderately or highly (HEC) emetic risk chemotherapy. D2,3-RAs are also used in patients with breakthrough nausea and vomiting. It should be emphasized, that most of these drugs are not selective for dopamine receptors.The multi-receptor targeting agent, olanzapine, is recommended in the prophylaxis of HEC-induced CINV as part of a four-drug antiemetic regimen, including a 5-HT3-RA, dexamethasone and a NK1-RA. Olanzapine is the most effective agent to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea.Side effects differ among various D2,3-RAs. Metopimazine and domperidone possess a low risk of extrapyramidal side effects. Domperidone and metoclopramide are prokinetics, whereas metopimazine delays gastric emptying and haloperidol does not influence gastric motility. Many D2,3-RAs increase the risk of prolonged QTc interval; other side effects include sedation and orthostatic hypotension.

Effect of naloxone on intravenous fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

This study aims to evaluate the effect of naloxone on intravenous fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy under total intravenous anesthesia.A total of 90 patients, who underwent intravenous fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy under total intravenous anesthesia, were included into this study. All patients were randomly divided into 3 groups (each group, n=30): naloxone group (naloxone+fentanyl), tropisetron group (tropisetron+fentanyl), and fentanyl group (fentanyl). Patients in each group were given a corresponding dose of naloxone. Postoperative analgesia effect and the incidence of side effects such as nausea and vomiting were observed.Small doses of naloxone or tropisetron combined with fentanyl used for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia can significantly reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Six hours after surgery, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower in patients that underwent intravenous patient-controlled analgesia using low-dose naloxone combined with fentanyl compared with patients who received fentanyl alone; however, the postoperative analgesic effect of tropisetron was not observed. Compared with the combination of tropisetron and fentanyl, low-dose naloxone combined with fentanyl can obviously reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and enhance the analgesic effect of fentanyl 6 hours after surgery.Low-dose naloxone can reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under total intravenous anesthesia, and exhibits a certain synergic analgesic effect.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Multinational study exploring patients' perceptions of side-effects induced by chemo-radiotherapy

PURPOSE

We aimed to prospectively assess the incidence, severity and patients' perceptions of side-effects induced by radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multinational survey included patients with a diagnosis of gynaecological or head and neck cancer scheduled to receive radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to anti-cancer treatment and after 3 weeks of treatment. Baseline frequency and severity of symptoms were compared to frequency and severity after 3 weeks of treatment, and patients were asked to rank the five most severe symptoms experienced.

RESULTS

An increase in the severity as well as in the mean number of symptoms (18 compared to 24) was observed during treatment. Patients ranked 7 of the 10 most feared baseline symptoms as non-physical, whereas 8 of the 10 most feared symptoms after 3 weeks of treatment were physical. Nausea was ranked as the 5th most severe symptom during treatment, despite 98% of patients receiving antiemetic prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Patients with head and neck cancer or gynaecological cancer suffer from a number of primarily non-physical symptoms before starting combined chemo-radiotherapy. After 3 weeks of treatment patients score 8 of the 10 most feared symptoms as physical. Future trials focusing on the prevention of side-effects in patients receiving radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy are highly warranted.

Antiemetic Use in Oncology: Updated Guideline Recommendations from ASCO

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

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Efficacy and tolerability of transdermal granisetron for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately and highly emetogenic multi-day chemotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, phase III study

Purpose

A novel transdermal formulation of granisetron (the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS)) has been developed to deliver granisetron continuously over 7 days. This double-blind, phase III, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the GTDS to daily oral granisetron for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Patients and methods

Six hundred forty-one patients were randomized to oral (2 mg/day, 3–5 days) or transdermal granisetron (one GTDS patch, 7 days), before receiving multi-day chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was complete control of CINV (no vomiting/retching, no more than mild nausea, no rescue medication) from chemotherapy initiation until 24 h after final administration. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 15%.

Results

Five hundred eighty-two patients were included in the per protocol analysis. The GTDS displayed non-inferiority to oral granisetron: complete control was achieved by 60% of patients in the GTDS group, and 65% in the oral granisetron group (treatment difference, −5%; 95% confidence interval, −13–3). Both treatments were well tolerated, the most common adverse event being constipation.

Conclusions

The GTDS provides effective, well-tolerated control of CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic multi-day chemotherapy. It offers a convenient alternative route for delivering granisetron for up to 7 days that is as effective as oral granisetron.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-010-0990-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Optimizing antiemetic therapy in multiple-day and multiple cycles of chemotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Only a few studies have investigated the effect of antiemetic therapy in patients treated with multiple-day or multiple cycles of chemotherapy. The present review will assess the available data, highlight the current recommendations and draw attention towards the remaining problems in this field of antiemetic treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence-based guidelines recommend a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In patients treated with multiple cycles of chemotherapy the addition of a NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy has increased the antiemetic effect, and multiple cycle extension studies have demonstrated that this increment in effect is sustained during multiple cycles of chemotherapy. A recent study indicated that the dopamine D2-receptor antagonist metopimazine has some additive effect on delayed symptoms induced by multiple-day chemotherapy.

SUMMARY

The development of the NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant has significantly improved the antiemetic control in patients treated with multiple cycles of chemotherapy. Far too many patients still experience considerable emetic side effects. The effect of aprepitant in multiple-day chemotherapy has yet to be defined. The effect of new antiemetic agents such as palonosetron and olanzapine also needs to be investigated in randomized trials.