A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of four 5-HT3-receptor antagonists for acute chemotherapy-induced emesis

Integrating nutrition, physical exercise, psychosocial support and antiemetic drugs into CINV management: The road to success

Over the years, advancements in antiemetic drugs have improved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control. However, despite the antiemetics therapies, in a relevant number of adult patients (∼30 %), CINV is still persistent, leading to several complications, such as electrolyte imbalances, anorexia, and treatment discontinuation. Supportive care interventions have gained credibility in cancer care, helping to improve patients' psycho-physical condition, quality of life, and managing symptoms, including CINV. Physical exercise and tailored nutritional counseling have demonstrated benefits in reducing the severity of nausea and vomiting. Psychological intervention has been postulated as a key approach in controlling anticipatory nausea/vomiting, as well as acupuncture/acupressure has been shown to decrease nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy treatments. In the current review, we aim to provide a clinical update on current prophylactic and delayed antiemetic guidelines for CINV and an overview of the non-pharmacological interventions tested for alleviating CINV in patients with cancer.

Differences in severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: analysis of data from two prospective observational studies

PURPOSE

We assessed the differences in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) severity in patients with breast cancer, receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC).

METHODS

CINV severity in patients on anthracycline-based NAC (n = 203) and AC (n = 79) was assessed at baseline (C0) and after the first and fourth chemotherapy using a 10-point Likert scale. Group-by-time interaction term was used to evaluate the effect of the group on changes in CIN (cCIN) and CIV (cCIV) from C0 to the follow-up periods (C1, C4). If insignificant, group effects were analyzed without the interaction term. Subgroup analysis was performed based on age 50. In statistical analyses, sociodemographic and clinical variables that differed between groups were adjusted for.

RESULTS

The effect of group by follow-up period was not significant in cCIN and cCIV. The AC group showed a significantly higher change in the severity of cCIN compared to the NAC group (estimated mean = 1.133, 95% CI = 0.104-2.161, p = 0.031), but there was no difference in cCIV. In those ≤ 50 years, significant differences in cCIN severity (estimated mean = 1.294, 95% CI = 0.103-2.484, p = 0.033) were observed, but not in cCIV. In those > 50 years, neither cCIN nor cCIV differed significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

NAC in breast cancer patients showed less severe CIN than adjuvant chemotherapy AC, but not in those over 50. Clinicians should recognize that the severity of CIN may vary across different chemotherapy settings and adjust their management accordingly.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical trial registration ( www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ) numbers were NCT01887925 (the registration date is from June 20, 2013, to November 27, 2015) and NCT02011815 (the registration date is from December 10, 2013, to September 22, 2019).

Cyclic vomiting syndrome: From pathophysiology to treatment

Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is a disorder characterized by recurrent and unpredictable episodes of intense vomiting, interspersed with periods of apparent wellbeing. This disorder, which primarily affects children and adolescents but can persist into adulthood, has recently been the subject of extensive study and analysis in the medical literature. The aim of the present review is to examine the most important aspects of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, subtypes, diagnostic criteria, and current management of CVS. Even though the exact etiology remains unknown, genetic factors (polymorphisms), nervous system alterations and autonomic dysregulation, and environmental factors (use and abuse of cannabinoids) are postulated as possible triggers. CVS has significant diagnostic challenges, given that there is no specific test for confirming its presence. Thorough evaluation of symptoms and the ruling out of other possible causes of recurrent vomiting are required. Management of CVS typically involves a multidisciplinary approach. Pharmacologic options are explored, such as antiemetics and preventive medications, as well as behavioral and psychologic support therapies. Treatment personalization is essential, adapting it to the individual needs of each patient. Despite advances in the understanding of CVS, it remains a significant clinical challenge. This disorder impacts the quality of life of those affected and their families, underscoring the ongoing need for research and the development of more effective treatment strategies.

Effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly occurs after chemotherapy, adversely affecting patients' quality of life. Recently, studies have shown inconsistent antiemetic effects of two common 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists, namely, palonosetron and granisetron. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing CINV.

METHODS

Relevant studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the complete response (CR) rate. Secondary outcomes were headache and constipation events.

RESULTS

In total, 12 randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies were reviewed. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior to granisetron in all phases in terms of the CR rate (acute phases: odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.54; delayed phases: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; and overall phases: OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.17-1.60). Moreover, a non-significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the headache event, but the occurrence of the constipation event was lower in the granisetron group than in the palonosetron group.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron showed a higher protective efficacy in all phases of CINV prevention, especially in delayed phases, and no relatively severe adverse effects were observed.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes and efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron in combination with dexamethasone in Egyptian patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is considered one of the most serious adverse events affecting chemotherapy-receiving cancer patients. It dramatically affects their food intake, nutritional status and more importantly their quality of life. We can observe CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) such as adriamycin-cyclophosphamide combination (AC) in breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other cancer types. This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) over granisetron (GRA) in combination with dexamethasone for multiple highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs (HEC), especially in chemotherapy regimens in Egyptian breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other diseases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An open-label randomized trial was carried out, including 115 patients receiving at least four cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. All patients received dexamethasone in combination with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. We recorded patients' clinical and biochemical characteristics and withdraw blood samples to monitor serum substance P and serotonin in correlation with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We use the MASCC antiemetic tool in the acute phase (0-24 hr) and delayed phase (24-120 h) to evaluate patient outcomes in both stages after each chemotherapy cycle.

RESULTS

In (PALO) group, only 7.84% of patients showed acute vomiting, and 11.76% showed acute nausea, whereas 43.75% of patients showed acute vomiting and 89.06% showed acute nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). For delayed CINV, 23.53% of patients showed delayed vomiting, and 47.06% showed delayed nausea in the (PALO) group, while 82.81% of patients showed delayed emesis, and 92.19% showed delayed nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). The study showed that PALO is a cost-effective choice when compared to GRA in CINV prevention as 45.10% of patients in (PALO) required additional rescue medications (Domperidone 10 mg orally three times per day plus Trimebutine 200 mg orally three times per week both for 5 days), while 95.24% in the (GRA) group used the same medications. Adverse events of both antiemetic drugs (PALO and GRA) include headaches and constipation and QTc prolongation reports, mostly mild to moderate, with relatively low rates among the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron, combined with dexamethasone, is more effective than granisetron and dexamethasone combination against both acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) cisplatin-based protocols and the combination of cyclophosphamide and anthracyclines (AC). Medical team members should make more efforts, especially clinical pharmacy personnel, to monitor medications' effectiveness and help the medical team achieve a suitable and reliable care plan.

Guidelines on management of cyclic vomiting syndrome in adults by the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and the Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome Association

The increasing recognition of cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) in adults prompted the development of these evidence-based guidelines on the management of CVS in adults, which was sponsored by the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society (ANMS) and the Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome Association (CVSA). GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework was used and a professional librarian performed the literature search. The expert committee included the President of the CVSA who brought a patient perspective into the deliberations. The committee makes recommendations for the prophylaxis of CVS, treatment of acute attacks, diagnosis, and overall management of CVS. The committee strongly  recommends that adults with moderate-to-severe CVS receive a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), such as amitriptyline, as a first-line prophylactic medication and receive topiramate or aprepitant as alternate prophylactic medications. Zonisamide or levetiracetam and mitochondrial supplements (Coenzyme Q10, L-carnitine, and riboflavin) are conditionally recommended as alternate prophylactic medications, either alone or concurrently with other prophylactic medications. For acute attacks, the committee conditionally recommends using serotonin antagonists, such as ondansetron, and/or triptans, such as sumatriptan or aprepitant to abort symptoms. Emergency department treatment is best achieved with the use of an individualized treatment protocol and shared with the care team (example provided). The committee recommended screening and treatment for comorbid conditions such as anxiety, depression, migraine headache, autonomic dysfunction, sleep disorders, and substance use with referral to appropriate allied health services as indicated. Techniques like meditation, relaxation, and biofeedback may be offered as complementary therapy to improve overall well-being and patient care outcomes.

Comparison of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic therapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, prospective, and observational study

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate the efficacy of 0.25 mg dose of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in breast cancer patients receiving HEC.

METHODS

Patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer who received HEC [doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC/EC)] were enrolled in the study. The prophylactic triplet antiemetic regimens were used according to the doctor's preference during the first cycle of HEC as intravenous dexamethasone and palonosetron 0.25 mg or granisetron 3 mg on day 1 as well as oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3).The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CR) on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), separately.

RESULTS

A total of 118 female patients were included in the study. Patients received AC (83%), EC (3%), and dose-dense AC (14%) as adjuvant (88%) or neoadjuvant (12%). The majority of patients received palonosetron (59%) containing antiemetic treatment. The CR rate on acute and delayed vomiting was very high and not statistically different in both of the arms (acute 87% vs. 96%, p = 0.089; delayed 90% vs. 92%, p = 0.489), respectively. Nevertheless, the CR rate on either acute or delayed nausea was lower than vomiting (acute 51% vs. 51%; delayed 38% vs. 29%, p = 0.203; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the second study that compared a 0.25 mg dose of palonosetron with first-generation setron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving HEC. We could not find meaningful statistical differences between two arms, regarding CR rate on acute and delayed CINV.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with netupitant/palonosetron, the first fixed combination antiemetic: current and future perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients receiving appropriate antiemetic treatment. However, inadequate uptake of current antiemetic guideline recommendations by physicians, and poor treatment adherence by patients, lead to suboptimal CINV control. There is an unmet need to optimize guideline-consistent use of antiemetics to improve CINV management and prevention. Herein, we provide an overview of CINV, then discuss oral and intravenous NEPA, the first fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant/fosnetupitant and palonosetron. We describe the main pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of NEPA, and review the clinical evidence supporting its use in the prevention of CINV.

Clinical Update on Palonosetron in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

The need to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is continuously stimulating research to find better options for the optimal antiemetic care. Palonosetron is different from conventional serotonin receptor antagonists not only by the fact of having a longer half-life but also by higher binding affinity for serotonin receptors. It is the first agent in the class which is approved for preventing both delayed and acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Recent studies using palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens, as well as in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy, have been reported. Palonosetron plus dexamethasone given as a pre-treatment infusion was effective for preventing acute and delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone and aprepitant was highly effective in preventing emesis in the days following administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Treatment was well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events. Multiple-day dosing of palonosetron plus dexamethasone was safe and effective for prevention of emesis induced by 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There was no evidence of cumulative toxicity when palonosetron was given three times over 5 days. Further evidence from ongoing clinical trials with palonosetron with or without dexamethasone will be available soon. Palonosetron represents an useful addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of palonosetronin combination with dexamethasone compared with that of older serotonin receptor antagonists combined with dexamethasone. However, palonosetron may offer advantages of convenience over the short-acting older antagonists due to its ability to be given as a single intravenous dose prior to chemotherapy.

COMPARISON OF THE ANTIEMETIC EFFECTIVENESS BETWEEN GRANISETRON AND DEXAMETHASONE WITH ONDANSETRON AND DEXAMETHASONE IN ACUTE-PHASE CHEMOTHERAPY PATIENTS

Nausea and vomiting may occur in patients receiving chemotherapy, a condition referred to as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The provision of combined dexamethasone and ondansetron or granisetron is the therapeutic management of acute phase nausea and vomiting in cytostatics with a high risk of nausea and vomiting. Granisetron has been known to have better pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics compared to ondansetron, so it is possible to have nausea and vomiting suppressing effect higher than that of ondansetron. This study aimed to compare antiemetic effectiveness of granisetron and dexamethasone with ondansetron and dexamethasone in acute-phase chemotherapy patients. This study was conducted in patients who received the combination of cisplatin-paclitaxel and cisplatin-fluorouracil, double-blind, with samples comprised new head and neck surgical oncology patients. Measurement of nausea and vomiting during the acute phase of chemotherapy was conducted using Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching (INVR). Observation of nausea and vomiting in the patients was done during the first 12 hours after administration of cisplatin and interviews were conducted on h 12. Results showed that there was no difference in the effectiveness of nausea and vomiting suppression in the administration of granisetron and dexamethasone compared to ondanstron and dexamethasone in acute phase chemotherapy patients (p = 0.076).

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.

Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Incidence, and Current Management

Even when chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be effectively controlled in the acute phase, it may still occur in the delayed phase. Identifying at-risk patients is complex and requires consideration of clinical, personal, demographic, and behavioral factors. Delayed CINV has a significant detrimental effect on patients' daily life and is responsible for significant healthcare resource utilization. Patients who do not experience acute CINV are not necessarily exempt from delayed CINV, and healthcare professionals have been shown to underestimate the incidence of delayed CINV. Failure to protect against CINV during the first cycle of chemotherapy is the most significant independent risk factor for delayed CINV during subsequent cycles. Addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic prophylactic regimens involving a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid helps to ameliorate delayed CINV, particularly vomiting. Netupitant and rolapitant are second-generation neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists that provide effective prophylaxis against delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting and also have an antinausea benefit. All of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with the exception of rolapitant inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), and a reduced dose of dexamethasone (a CYP3A4 substrate) should be administered with aprepitant or netupitant; by contrast, this is not necessary with rolapitant. Here we review specific challenges associated with delayed CINV, its pathophysiology, epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes relative to acute CINV, and its management within the larger context of overall CINV.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of serotonin receptor antagonists in patients undergoing chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although serotonin (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are effective in reducing nausea and vomiting, they may be associated with increased cardiac risk. Our objective was to examine the comparative safety and effectiveness of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists (e.g., dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron, palonosetron, tropisetron) alone or combined with steroids for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until December 2015 for studies comparing 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists with each other or placebo in chemotherapy patients. The search results were screened, data were abstracted, and risk of bias was appraised by pairs of reviewers, independently. Random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted.

RESULTS

After screening 9226 citations and 970 full-text articles, we included 299 studies (n = 58,412 patients). None of the included studies reported harms for active treatment versus placebo. For NMAs on the risk of arrhythmia (primary outcome; three randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 627 adults) and mortality (secondary outcome; eight RCTs, 4823 adults), no statistically significant differences were observed between agents. A NMA on the risk of QTc prolongation showed a significantly greater risk for dolasetron + dexamethasone versus ondansetron + dexamethasone (four RCTs, 3358 children and adults, odds ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval 2.13-4.17). For NMAs on the number of patients without nausea (44 RCTs, 11,664 adults, 12 treatments), number of patients without vomiting (63 RCTs, 15,460 adults, 12 treatments), and number of patients without chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting (27 RCTs, 10,924 adults, nine treatments), all agents were significantly superior to placebo. For a NMA on severe vomiting (10 RCTs, 917 adults), all treatments decreased the risk, but only ondansetron and ramosetron were significantly superior to placebo. According to a rank-heat plot with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve results, palonosetron + steroid was ranked the safest and most effective agent overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Most 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were relatively safe when compared with each other, yet none of the studies compared active treatment with placebo for harms. However, dolasetron + dexamethasone may prolong the QTc compared to ondansetron + dexamethasone. All agents were effective for reducing risk of nausea, vomiting, and chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered at PROSPERO: ( CRD42013003564 ).

Economic evaluation of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone for the prevention of 'overall' nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese adult patients

Background Two pivotal Phase III trials compared the efficacy of palonosetron, ondansetron and granisetron, combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. However, an economic evaluation of these three regimens in the real-world setting of Chinese adult patients has not been determined. Objectives To estimate, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, which of these frequently used strategies consisting of 0.25 mg palonosetron (0.25P), 16 mg ondansetron (Onda), and 3 mg granisetron (Gran), is the most cost-effective option in patients following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods A Markov decision-analytic model was developed. The health and economic outcomes of the three strategies; 0.25P, Onda, and Gran were investigated. The clinical and utility data were taken from published studies. The cost data were calculated according to current local Chinese practices. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of uncertainty regarding the results. Results The base-case analysis showed that the 0.25P strategy yielded maximum health benefits compared with the other two strategies. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the Gran strategy was the most cost-effective approach when the willingness-to-pay threshold was not more than US$22,515/quality-adjusted life year. Moreover, palonosetron is not cost-effective in preventing 'overall' nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese patients. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that, compared with palonosetron and ondansetron, 3 mg granisetron may be a cost-effective treatment option in the current Chinese healthcare setting.

Evaluation of Antiemetic Therapy for Hepatic Transcatheter Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Cisplatin

Antiemetic prophylaxis with aprepitant, a 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended for patients receiving intravenous cisplatin chemotherapy. Whether the same antiemetic regime is superior for hepatic transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin (CDDP-TAI) is unknown. We conducted a retrospective study of antiemetic prophylaxis protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in CDDP-TAI at Nagasaki University Hospital. The rate of complete response (CR) to antiemetics in the acute (<24 h) and delayed phases (24-120 h) was measured. Twenty-four patients were treated with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (granisetron or azasetron) and dexamethasone on the day of chemotherapy (day 1 only). There was a significant difference between the CR rates in the acute and delayed phases, 91.6, and 69.7%, respectively. Combination of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone on day 1 is effective against acute CINV, but not delayed CINV during CDDP-TAI. These results may help guide the management of nausea and vomiting during CDDP-TAI to achieve better tolerance and compliance for fewer interventions and increased favorable therapeutic outcomes.

Rolapitant for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a review of the clinical evidence

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), both acute and delayed, has a dramatic effect on the well-being and quality of life of patients with cancer. Improved understanding of the mechanisms involved in CINV has led to the development of agents targeting the 5-HT3 receptor as well as the NK-1 receptor. Antiemetic prophylaxis given to patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy combines agents blocking the 5-HT3 and NK-1 receptors along with corticosteroids given regularly and repeatedly. Rolapitant is a long-acting NK-1 receptor antagonist with proven efficacy in controlling CINV as part of the prophylaxis regimen. This review will detail the clinical efficacy and safety of rolapitant in the treatment of patients with cancer receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

A phase II, randomized study of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapies in colorectal cancer patients

The present study aimed to study the efficacy of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for colorectal cancer (CRC), and comprised a multicenter, phase II, open-label, randomized, parallel comparative study conducted as part of the Kagoshima aprepitant study for colon cancer in Japan. Patients with advanced or recurrent CRC were treated with standard MEC regimens (FOLFOX, XELOX or FOLFIRI) and received either standard chemotherapy [5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) + dexamethasone] or aprepitant regimen chemotherapy (5-HT₃ RA + reduced-dose dexamethasone + aprepitant). The primary endpoint of the present study was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR) during the overall, acute, and delayed phases of the first planned chemotherapy cycle. Secondary endpoints were complete protection, the proportions of patients without emetic episodes or nausea, patients with no more than moderate nausea during the overall, acute and delayed phases, and the time to treatment failure. The CR rates in the overall, acute and delayed phases were similar in the aprepitant and the standard-regimen groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences in secondary endpoints between the two groups. In summary, aprepitant in combination with 5-HT₃ RA and reduced-dose corticosteroids was well tolerated and effective in preventing CINV associated with moderately emetogenic antitumor agents in Japanese patients with CRC.

Ramosetron Versus Ondansetron in Combination With Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Trial, KCSG PC10-21

BACKGROUND

A combination of serotonin receptor (5-hydroxytryptamine receptor type 3) antagonists, NK-1 receptor antagonist, and steroid improves the complete response (CR) of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients. Ramosetron's efficacy in this triple combination regimen has not been investigated. This prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, phase III study compares a combination of ramosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (RAD) with a combination of ondansetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (OAD) to prove the noninferiority of RAD in controlling highly emetogenic CINV.

METHODS

Aprepitant and dexamethasone were orally administered for both arms. Ramosetron and ondansetron were intravenously given to the RAD and OAD groups. The primary endpoint was no vomiting and retching and no need for rescue medication during the acute period (day 1); the noninferiority margin was -15%.

RESULTS

A total of 299 modified intention-to-treat cancer patients who received RAD (144 patients) and OAD (155 patients) were eligible for the efficacy analysis. The CR rates of RAD versus OAD were 97.2% versus 93.6% during the acute period, 77.8% versus 73.6% during the delayed period (day 2-5), and 77.1% versus 71.6% during the overall period. Furthermore, RAD was noninferior to OAD in subgroups stratified by age, cancer type, chemotherapeutic agents, and schedule. Repeated measures analysis showed that in male patients, RAD was superior to OAD. Profiles of adverse events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RAD is as effective and tolerable as OAD for CINV prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Ramosetron could be considered one of the best partners for aprepitant.

Management of Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients on Multiday Cisplatin Based Combination Chemotherapy

Introduction of cisplatin based chemotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of germ cell tumors. A common side effect of multiday cisplatin chemotherapy is severe nausea and vomiting. Considerable progress has been made in the control of these side effects since the introduction of cisplatin based chemotherapy in the 1970s. Germ cell tumor which is a model for a curable neoplasm has also turned into an excellent testing ground to develop effective strategies to prevent chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in multiday cisplatin based regimens. The use of combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine (HT)3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonist, and dexamethasone has greatly improved our ability to prevent and control acute and delayed CINV. Mechanism and pattern of CINV with multiday chemotherapy may differ from those in single day chemotherapy and therefore efficacy of antiemetic drugs as observed in single day chemotherapy may not be applicable. There are only few randomized clinical trials with special emphasis on multiday chemotherapy. Further studies are essential to determine the efficacy, optimal dose, and duration of the newer agents and combinations in multiday cisplatin based chemotherapy.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of granisetron-based versus standard antiemetic regimens in low-emetogenic chemotherapy: a hospital-based perspective from Malaysia

BACKGROUND

In a prospective cohort study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Malaysia, a total of 94 patients received low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) with or without granisetron injections as the primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study is a retrospective cost analysis of two antiemetic regimens from the payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.

RESULTS

Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.

Carbamazepine for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pilot study

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Nausea and vomiting are major inconveniences for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Despite standard preventive treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still occurs in approximately 50% of these patients. In an attempt to optimize this treatment, we evaluated the possible effects of carbamazepine for prevention of CINV.

DESIGN AND LOCATION

Prospective nonrandomized open-label phase II study carried out at a Brazilian public oncology service.

METHODS

Patients allocated for their first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy were continuously recruited. In addition to standard antiemetic protocol that was made available, they received carbamazepine orally, with staggered doses, from the third day before until the fifth day after chemotherapy. Considering the sparseness of evidence about the efficacy of anticonvulsants for CINV prevention, we used Simon's two-stage design, in which 43 patients should be included unless overall complete prevention was not achieved in 9 out of the first 15 entries. The Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire was used to measure the impact on quality of life.

RESULTS

None of the ten patients (0%) presented overall complete prevention. In three cases, carbamazepine therapy was withdrawn because of somnolence and vomiting before chemotherapy. Seven were able to take the medication for the entire period and none were responsive, so the study was closed. There was no impact on the patients' quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Carbamazepine was not effective for prevention of CINV and also had a deleterious side-effect profile in this population.

WITHDRAWN: Serotonin receptor antagonists for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in adults

This review is now out of date although it is correct as of the date of publication. The latest version of this review (available in ‘Other versions’ tab on The Cochrane Library) may still be useful to readers.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

International antiemetic guidelines on chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): content and implementation in daily routine practice

Over the past decades major improvements in the management of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were obtained. With the correct use of antiemetic drugs, CINV can be prevented in almost 70%, and even up to, 80% of patients. Treatment guidelines enable physicians to integrate the latest clinical research into their daily practice. The large volume of rapidly evolving clinical data has been summarised and incorporated into treatment recommendations by well-known and reliable institutions. These organisations include the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). However, despite the availability of these guidelines, there is an emerging evidence that adherence to, and implementation of, treatment recommendations is less than optimal. This review will especially focus on the content of the current antiemetic guidelines and will address the important question of how these guidelines are implemented in routine practice.

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone in highly emetogenic chemotherapy: pooled data from two Phase III trials

Aim: Data from two randomized trials were pooled to further characterize the effectiveness of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients & methods: The analysis included 1411 patients who were randomized to receive palonosetron or ondansetron/granisetron intravenously on day 1 plus either 1-day or 3-day dexamethasone dosing. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no rescue antiemetics over days 1–5) in cycle one. Data across the studies were analyzed by the Mantel–Haenszel method. Results: The vast majority of patients received either cisplatin (62%) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (34%). The palonosetron regimen provided a 12 percentage-point improvement in the rate of overall complete response compared with the control regimen (49.2 vs 37.3%; odds ratio: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.33–2.04; p < 0.0001). The frequency of no delayed nausea at all daily periods was consistently higher in the palonosetron group. Conclusion: The current analysis confirmed that palonosetron plus dexamethasone improved control of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting throughout 5 days postchemotherapy to a significantly greater extent than the combination including older 5-HT3 antagonists.

Efficacy of aprepitant in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy of a combination of aprepitant and conventional antiemetic therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer who were treated with MEC regimens at the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fukuoka University Hospital, were included and classified into the following groups: control group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone) and aprepitant group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone + aprepitant). The presence or absence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0; patients with grade 1 or above were considered positive for CINV. Food intake per day, completion of planned chemotherapy, and progression-free survival (PFS) achieved by chemotherapy were investigated.

RESULTS

The complete suppression rate of nausea in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0043). Throughout the study, the food intake in the aprepitant group was greater than that in the control group, with the rate being significantly higher, in particular, on day 5 (p = 0.003). The completion rate of planned chemotherapy was also higher in the aprepitant group (p = 0.042). PFS did not differ significantly, but tended to be improved in the aprepitant group.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant group showed significantly higher complete suppression of nausea, food intake on day 5, and completion of planned chemotherapy than the control group.

The effect of palonosetron hydrochloride in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced moderate and severe nausea and vomiting

The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron hydrochloride injection for preventing chemotherapy-induced moderate and severe nausea and vomiting. A multi-centered, randomly stratified, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group and positive-controlled trial was performed. A total of 240 patients who underwent chemotherapy treatment which induced moderate or severe vomiting were divided into the experimental and control groups. Half an hour before chemotherapy, the experimental group received a 0.25-mg palonosetron hydrochloride injection, whereas the control group received a 3-mg granisetron injection. The acute vomiting complete remission rate (CRR) of the experimental group was not significantly different compared with that of the control group (P=0.35). The delayed vomiting CRR of the experimental group was significantly higher compared with that of the control group (P=0.002). No difference in full course vomiting CRR, vomiting control time, treatment failure time or acute nausea CRR was identified between the two groups. No significant differences in adverse events were observed between the experimental group and the control group. No significant differences in adverse reactions occurred between the experimental group and the control group (12.50%). Palonosetron hydrochloride injection had a better effect on delayed vomiting CRR than granisetron hydrochloride injection. The two injections exhibited similar effects on acute vomiting CRR, full course vomiting CRR, vomiting control time, treatment failure time (days), acute nausea CRR and adverse events.

Evaluation of anti-emetic use in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a third-world country (Lebanon)

RATIONALE

In Lebanon, the appropriateness of anti-emetic use is questionable in large measure because of the absence of published multicentre trials.

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the extent of appropriateness of anti-emetic use in patients on chemotherapy among several Lebanese hospitals. Appropriateness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis was determined as per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

METHODS

A multicentre, cross-sectional study was conducted over a 3-month period. Data were collected from medical charts of cancer patients. The main outcome measure was to evaluate the appropriateness of prophylactic use of anti-emetics in CINV in terms of selected drug regimen, dosage and route of administration, and to investigate the role of several pre-specified variables (including hospital type and size, type of insurance coverage and patient-related factors) in influencing the appropriateness of anti-emetic practice.

RESULTS

A total of 493 patients' forms were analysed. The median age was 58.8 ± 13.9 years, 290 (58.8%) patients were female. Around 211 (42.8%) patients received inappropriate anti-emetic regimen, and only 17 (6%) patients of those receiving appropriate regimen received the appropriate dose, and just 55 (19.5%) patients were treated for the appropriate duration. Factors that may affect the relative effectiveness of treatment were identified.

CONCLUSION

This study reflected substantial flaws in CINV prophylaxis practice in Lebanon which should alert health care professionals of the adverse consequences resulting from non-adherence to guidelines. Our study also highlighted areas for improvement and suggested recommendations in order to minimize patient risk and optimize safe and effective CINV management.

Evolving treatment paradigms for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most debilitating toxicities associated with cancer treatment. Although effective antiemetic agents are available, their use in practice often is suboptimal.

METHODS

The author reviews the pathophysiology of CINV as well as the drug classes and cost considerations that should be incorporated into treatment planning.

RESULTS

Several drug classes, including 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids, are effective, especially when used in combination. Older antiemetic agents, such as prochlorperazine and metoclopramide, as well as olanzapine may provide reasonable alternatives in certain settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions for CINV should include standard-of-care antiemetics combined with corticosteroids. The cost of using older, less expensive antiemetics may be outweighed by the expenditures to rescue patients after suboptimal prophylaxis, as well as the indirect costs of missed work and lost productivity.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Aprepitant for Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: An Economic Analysis for Singapore

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant (a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist), in combination with a serotonin receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) and dexamethasone, has demonstrated superior efficacy on end points related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with standard care (combination 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of an aprepitant-containing regimen compared with current clinical practice for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in Singapore.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess the costs and outcomes associated with an aprepitant-containing regimen compared with standard care in the prevention of CINV following HEC. Three scenarios were modeled on the basis of results of four double-blind randomized clinical trials of aprepitant. CINV event probabilities were calculated on the basis of the occurrence of nausea and vomiting and the need for rescue medication in the 5 days following a single cycle of HEC. The analysis was conducted from the Singapore health care system perspective.

RESULTS

Aprepitant reduced emesis and nausea, resulting in small but clinically important improvements when measured in quality-adjusted life-years. The aprepitant-containing regimen was associated with higher acquisition costs but lower costs relating to patient management, hospitalization, and use of rescue medication. Across the scenarios, the incremental cost per emetic event avoided ranged from cost saving to Singapore $63 (US $51). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from cost saving to Singapore $49,800 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (US $40,600). The analysis was relatively insensitive to changes in the inputs.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant is a clinically important and cost-effective therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients treated with HEC in Singapore.

Palonosetron: An Evidence-Based Choice in Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Aims and background

In 2003, the second-generation, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) palonosetron was approved by the FDA for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. We reviewed the current knowledge on the role of palonosetron against acute and delayed emesis in patients with solid tumors undergoing single-day moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

Methods

A literature review in PubMed was performed to update currently available preclinical and clinical evidence on palonosetron, prioritizing randomized clinical trials.

Results

The distinct pharmacology of palonosetron provides a rationale behind the improved efficacy observed with the drug in prevention of delayed symptoms. This may be explained by allosteric binding properties and by palonosetron-triggered receptor internalization, which result in prolonged inhibition of the 5-HT3 receptor function. Very recent pharmacology experiments have also suggested that palonosetron would be able to differentially inhibit 5-HT3/neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor signaling cross-talk. In two recent meta-analyses, palonosetron was shown to be more effective than other available 5-HT3 RAs in preventing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting for both HEC and MEC. Recent findings also suggest that a single-day regimen of palonosetron plus dexamethasone (both drugs administered intravenously) may provide a reasonable therapeutic alternative to reduce the total dexamethasone dose administered in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Conclusions

On the basis of accumulating data, the evidence-based international guidelines devised from the major organizations have been recently updated to recommend the use of palonosetron plus 3-day dexamethasone for the optimal prevention of nausea and vomiting due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. There is still a need to investigate the efficacy of palonosetron in combination with an NK-1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in well-designed randomized trials.

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.

A review of granisetron, 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonists, and other antiemetics

Nausea and vomiting are 2 of the most upsetting adverse reactions of chemotherapy. Current guidelines propose 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists as a pharmacologic intervention for acute and delayed nausea and vomiting [chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)] associated with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Meanwhile, both postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting are challenging situations after surgeries and procedures. Prophylactic and therapeutic combinations of antiemetics are recommended in patients at high risk of suffering from PONV and postdischarge nausea and vomiting. Granisetron (Kytril) is a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that does not induce or inhibit the hepatic cytochrome P-450 system in vitro. There are also 4 other antagonists of 5-HT3 receptor (dolasetron, ondansetron, palonosetron, and tropisetron) being metabolized via the CYP2D6 and are subject to potential genetic polymorphism. The launch of a new class of antiemetics, the substance P/neurokinin1 receptor antagonists, was attributed to the scientific update on the central generator responsible for emesis and role of substance P. There has been mounting interest in exploring integrative medicine, either acupuncture or acustimulation of P6 (Nei-Kuwan), to complement the western medicine for prevention and management of nausea and vomiting. The potential application of cannabinoids, either alone or in combination with other agents of different mechanism, could contribute further to improve outcome in CINV. Implementation of future treatment guidelines for more effective management of CINV and PONV could certainly improve the efficacy and outcome of cancer and postoperative care.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of intravenous palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare treatment effectiveness and adverse effects in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with palonosetron to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) comparing palonosetron with first-generation 5-HT3RA in the prevention of CINV in cancer patients. Meta-analyses were performed on homogeneous studies. Fixed or random-effects models were used to combine data.

RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified, reporting outcomes on 3,592 patients. Meta-analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of palonosetron compared with first-generation 5-HT3RA in prevention of acute CINV (p = .0003), delayed CINV (p < .00001), and overall phase of CINV (p < .00001). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of both 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg of palonosetron in prevention of all phases of CINV. There were no statistically significant differences between 0.25 and 0.75 mg of palonosetron. Compared with the first-generation 5-HT3RA, 0.75 mg of palonosetron showed a statistically significant difference in the occurrence of constipation (p = .04).

INTERPRETATION

The use of palonosetron should be considered an integral part of adjuvant therapy for prevention of the acute, delayed, and overall phases of CINV. The 0.25 mg intravenous palonosetron dose is as effective as the 0.75 mg intravenous palonosetron dose. However, 0.75 mg intravenous palonosetron causes constipation more frequently than the first-generation 5-HT3RA.