Aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapies and tumor types: a randomized, double-blind study

Defining the clinical benefits of adding a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis 2023 from the Japan society of clinical oncology

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly affects patient quality of life and the overall effectiveness of chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) and corticosteroids provides clinically meaningful benefits in preventing CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web to identify clinical studies evaluating NK1RAs combined with 5-HT3RAs and dexamethasone for managing CINV in MEC. The endpoints were complete response (CR), complete control (CC), total control (TC), adverse events, and costs. The data were analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

From 142 articles identified, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 4,405 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Approximately 60% of the patients received carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. The meta-analysis showed that triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1RA was significantly more effective for achieving CR than doublet prophylaxis in each phase. Regarding CC, the triplet antiemetic prophylaxis was significantly more effective than the doublet in the overall (risk difference [RD]: 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.17) and delayed (RD: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.13) phases. For TC, no significant differences were observed in any phase. Adding NK1RA did not cause adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding NK1RA to CBDCA-based chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits. However, the clinical benefits of NK1RA-containing regimens for overall MEC have not yet been established and require RCTs that exclusively evaluate MEC regimens other than CBDCA-based chemotherapy.

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.

Dexamethasone-sparing strategies in anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy with a focus on 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: a network meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP).

Results

The difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs.

Conclusion

Palonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy.

Bibliometric and visual analysis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2004-2023)

Background

Patients undergoing chemotherapy often encounter troubling and common side effects, notably Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This side effect not only impairs the patient's quality of life but could also result in the interruption or discontinuation of the chemotherapy treatment. Consequently, research into CINV has consistently remained a focal point in the realm of clinical medicine. In this research domain, bibliometric analysis has not been conducted. The purpose of this study is to deliver a thorough summary of the knowledge framework and key areas of interest in the field of Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, using bibliometric methods. This approach aims to furnish novel concepts and pathways for investigators working in this area.

Methods

Publications focusing on Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, spanning from 2004 to 2023, were identified using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. Tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the R package "bibliometrix" were employed for this bibliometric analysis.

Results

This research covers 734 publications from 61 countries, with the United States and China being the primary contributors. There has been a significant rise in the volume of papers published in the most recent decade compared to the one before it, spanning over the past twenty years. However, the annual publication rate in the last ten years has not shown a significant upward trend. The University of Toronto, Merck & Co., Sun Yat-sen University, and Helsinn Healthcare SA emerged as the principal research institutions in this field. Supportive Care in Cancer stands out as the most frequently published and cited journal in this domain. These works are contributed by 3,917 authors, with Rudolph M Navari, Matti Aapro, Shimokawa Mototsugu, and Lee Schwartzberg being among those who have published the most. Paul J. Hesketh is notably the most co-cited author. The primary focus of this research field lies in exploring the mechanisms of CINV and the therapeutic strategies for managing it. Key emerging research hotspots are represented by terms such as "Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting," "nausea," "vomiting," "chemotherapy," and "antiemetics."

Conclusion

This represents the inaugural bibliometric study to thoroughly outline the research trends and advancements in the field of CINV. It highlights the latest research frontiers and trending directions, offering valuable insights for scholars engaged in studying CINV.

Single-dose NEPA versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0-120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long-lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post-chemotherapy. In this post-hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1-3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1-4. Patients were chemotherapy-naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male <60 years, male ≥60 years who received carboplatin, or male ≥60 years with anxiety). CR rates were compared during the extended overall (0-144 h) phase.

RESULTS

The MEC group included 211 patients; of these 181 were in the risk factor subset. Significantly higher CR rates were seen for NEPA than aprepitant during the extended overall phase for the total MEC group (NEPA 77.1%, aprepitant 57.8%, p = 0.003) and also in the subset of patients with CINV risk factors (NEPA 73.9%, aprepitant 56.2%, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

A single dose of NEPA, administered on day 1 only, was more effective than a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV for an extended duration in patients receiving MEC and in those with emetic risk factors.

Fosaprepitant: current options to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A review

Background. Chemotherapy (CT) is a mainstay of treatment for malignant tumors. CT-induced nausea and vomiting are observed in 3090% of patients within 0120 h after moderate and highly emetogenic CT administration. These adverse events can severely impact the quality of treatment, daily life, and adherence to treatment, thus reducing the effectiveness of therapy and survival. Materials and methods. The author provides the results of a systematic review of research papers, including clinical studies, on the efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist fosaprepitant to prevent CT-induced nausea and vomiting. Data from the PubMed database were reviewed. Results. The prevention and treatment of CT-associated nausea and vomiting are vital during special therapy, including symptomatic therapy. International organizations recommend using a triple combination with antagonists of neurokinin-1 and 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptors and dexamethasone. According to the data obtained, the efficacy of fosaprepitant has been proven in delayed and general phases in several large, well-planned studies; the drug reduces the incidence of adverse events by 2.74.4 times compared with aprepitant. Conclusion. Fosaprepitant is an antagonist of neurokinin-1 receptors; when administered intravenously, it rapidly converts into aprepitant. When used as part of a triple combination with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone in patients receiving moderate and highly emetogenic CT leads to a higher rate of complete response when controlling nausea and vomiting. In general, fosaprepitant is well tolerated.

Aprepitant plus palonosetron versus dexamethasone plus palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy: A randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background

Despite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by using dexamethasone combined with palonosetron for patients who received moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), some of these patients still suffer from CINV. We evaluated whether aprepitant combined with palonosetron can improve the efficacy in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving MEC.

Methods

This was a single-centre, open-label, phase III, randomized controlled trial, which was done at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University of China. The registered patients planned to receive mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) but had not received any chemotherapy previously. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the aprepitant group (aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1, 80 mg on day 2-3) and the dexamethasone group (dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously on day 1, 5 mg on days 2 and 3), both groups with palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously on day 1. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as the absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the overall phase (0-120 h). The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded all patients who used estazolam within 24 h before registration and those who refused to keep a diary documenting the severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting, and the use of rescue therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02909478.

Findings

Between Sep 1, 2017, and Oct 23, 2019, 320 patients were enrolled, and 315 patients were evaluated. The proportion of patients who achieved CR was significantly higher with aprepitant than that noted with dexamethasone in the overall phase (88.8% vs. 74.2%; P = 0.0010; rate difference, RD 15%, 95% CI, 6% to 23%) and in the delayed phase (25-120 h), 90.6% vs. 75.5%, (P < 0.0001; RD 15%, 95%CI, 7% to 23%). No significant difference of CR rate was observed in the acute phase (0-24 h), 93.8% vs. 93.5%, (P = 0.94; RD 0%, 95% CI, -5% to 6%)). In the overall phase, the incidence of insomnia (P < 0.0010), dyspepsia (P = 0.038), and flushing (P = 0.0010) reported by the patients was significantly higher in the dexamethasone group than that in the aprepitant group.

Interpretation

Aprepitant combined with palonosetron is superior to dexamethasone combined with palonosetron in patients who received the MEC regimen mFOLFOX6 in terms of preventing CINV.

Funding

The National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFC1316000) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81974369).

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone with NK1RA for Patients Receiving Carboplatin and Moderate Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy, which limits administration of DEX to day one, is reportedly non-inferior to conventional antiemetic regimens comprising multiple-day DEX. However, the usefulness of the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA] + serotonin receptor antagonist [5HT3RA] + DEX) for carboplatin and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has not been clarified.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of antiemetics for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with carboplatin and MEC. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the antiemesis efficacy of three-day DEX with NK1RA (3-DEX + NK1RA) and one-day DEX with NK1RA (1-DEX + NK1RA). The primary outcome was complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP). The secondary outcome was no nausea during the delayed phase (NN-DP).

RESULTS

Seventeen trials involving 4534 patients were included. The proportion who experienced CR-DP was 82.5% (95% credible interval [CI], 73.9-88.6) and 73.5% (95% CI, 62.8-80.9) among those who received 3-DEX + NK1RA and 1-DEX + NK1RA, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two regimens. However, 3-DEX + NK1RA tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA, with an absolute risk difference of 9.0% (95% CI, -2.3 to 21.1) in CR-DP and 24.7% (95% CI: -14.9 to 54.6) in NN-DP. 3-DEX + NK1RA also tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA in patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy, for whom the absolute risk difference was 12.3% (95% CI, -3.2 to 30.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Care is needed when administering the DEX-sparing strategy in combination with NK1RA to patients receiving carboplatin and non-carboplatin MEC.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Published Articles

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the published cost-effectiveness analyses of aprepitant for patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and CBM database. The date of publication is up to January 2019. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved and reviewers reached a consensus. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the 24-item checklist of the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS). The costs reported by the included studies were converted to US dollars via purchasing power parities (PPP) in the year 2019 using the CCEMG–EPPI–Certer Cost Converter.

Results: Thirteen articles were included based on the inclusion criteria for cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis. Twelve studies were rated as good quality and one as a moderate quality based on the CHEERS checklist. Eight studies compared aprepitant plus 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) and dexamethasone with the standard regimen (5-HT3RA and dexamethasone). It was concluded that aprepitant plus standard regimen was a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV. Only one study that compared aprepitant plus 5-HT3RA with 5-HT3RA, concluded that the addition of aprepitant reduced the incidence of severe nausea, and it might also provide an economic benefit in the overall management. Four studies that compared aprepitant with other antiemetic drugs concluded that aprepitant is a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV compared with metoclopramide. However, netupitan + palonosetron and olanzapine are cost-effective compared with aprepitant.

Conclusion: This study is the first systematic evaluation of adding aprepitant to standard regimens for patients with CINV. Most economic evaluations of antiemetic medications are reported to be of good quality. Adding aprepitant to standard regimens is found to be a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃ ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT₃ RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK₁ RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT₃ RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK₁ RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK₁ ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK₁ RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK₁ RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Effect of Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has an important role in the overall management of cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether adding aprepitant to palonosetron and dexamethasone can further prevent the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting caused by FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) or FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy regimens among women with gastrointestinal cancer at higher risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited young women (age ≤50 years) who drank little or no alcohol and had gastrointestinal cancer for which they received FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy. A total of 248 women were enrolled and assigned in the ratio 1:1 to intervention and control groups from August 4, 2015, to March 31, 2020. Intention-to-treat analysis was used to evaluate patient baseline characteristics and efficacy. The analysis was conducted on October 30, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to the aprepitant group (aprepitant, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 6 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1) or the placebo group (placebo, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally on each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 12 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the complete response (CR) rate, defined as the proportion of patients without emesis episodes or rescue medication use during the overall phase of the first cycle. Other efficacy indicators, such as no vomiting and no nausea, were measured as the secondary and exploratory end points.

RESULTS

A total of 248 women from 4 clinical centers in China entered this study, and 243 patients (aprepitant regimen, 125 patients [51.4%]; placebo regimen, 118 patients [48.5%]) were evaluable for efficacy and safety; mean (SD) age of the total population was 40.1 (7.3) years. The CR rate was significantly higher in the aprepitant group vs the control group overall (107 [87.0%] vs 80 [66.7%]; P < .001) and in the acute (114 [92.7%] vs 91 [75.8%]; P = .001) and delayed (109 [88.6%] vs 84 [70.0%]; P = .001) phases of the trial. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (100 [80.0%] vs 96 [81.3%]; P = .79), and no grade 3 or 4 aprepitant treatment-related adverse events were observed. Multivariable analysis revealed that aprepitant use was the only independent factor associated with CR during the overall phase.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The combination of aprepitant with palonosetron and dexamethasone provided increased antiemetic efficacy in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen and was well tolerated by younger women with gastrointestinal cancer who have a history of little or no alcohol consumption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03674294.

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.

Optimizing antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japan: Update summary of the 2015 Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0).

5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during moderately emetic chemotherapy for solid tumors: a multicenter, prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

Of patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC), 30-90% experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial.

METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC while receiving chemotherapy for various cancer types in Japan, the enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone.

RESULTS

Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The median age was 64 (range, 26-84). The overall complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures) rate was 64%. The proportion of patients showing CR was low in the carboplatin (CBDCA)- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy groups, especially among women. We showed that the CR rates in men were high in the CBDCA (AUC5) + etoposide (ETP) (80%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) (78%), and CBDCA+ paclitaxel (PTX) groups for lung cancer (73%). Total control (TC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and less than mild nausea) were achieved in 51 and 61% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed history of motion sickness, history of pregnancy-associated vomiting and CBDCA-based chemotherapy as risk factors for CR and history of motion sickness and history of pregnancy-associated vomiting as risk factors for TC. Additional, Ages ≥65 years is an independent predictive factor for achieving TC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed that two antiemetics were insufficient to control CINV in patients receiving CBDCA- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, two antiemetics may be sufficiently effective for elderly male patients receiving CBDCA (AUC5) + ETP, CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer, or CAPOX. Additionally, we consider that three antiemetics are necessary for women with colorectal cancer receiving CAPOX. Risk factor analysis related to CR showed that CINV prophylaxis in patients treated with CBDCA-based chemotherapy was generally supportive of the guideline-recommended three antiemetics. However, the control of nausea in patients receiving non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy is a key point to note. The further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC based on both types of chemotherapy regimens and sex is needed.

Lymphoma Occurring During Pregnancy: Current Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pregnancy-associated lymphoma (PAL) is an uncommon entity that lacks detailed prospective data. It poses significant management challenges that incorporate maternal and fetal risks associated with treatment or delayed intervention. Herein, we review the current literature for the diagnosis, management, and supportive care strategies for PAL.

RECENT FINDINGS

Establishment of a multidisciplinary team, including hematology-oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, and neonatology, is critical in the management of PAL. For staging, ultrasound and MRI are preferred modalities with use of computerized tomography in select situations. Data for the safety and effectiveness of therapy for PAL is largely based on retrospective studies. The timing of lymphoma-directed antenatal systemic therapy depends on the trimester, gestational age, lymphoma subtype and aggressiveness, and patient wishes. Therapy in the first trimester is usually not advocated, while treatment in the second and third trimesters appears to result in similar outcomes for PAL compared with non-pregnant patients with lymphoma. An overarching goal in most PAL cases should be to plan for delivery at term (i.e., gestational age > 37 weeks). For supportive care, most antiemetics, including agents such as neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, have been used safely during pregnancy. For prevention or treatment of infections, particular antibiotics (i.e., macrolides, cephalosporins, penicillins, metronidazole), antivirals (i.e., acyclovir, valacyclovir, famciclovir), and antifungals (amphotericin B) have demonstrated safety and with use of growth factors reserved for treatment of neutropenia (vs. primary prophylaxis). Therapy for PAL should be individualized with goals of care that balance maternal and fetal well-being, which should include a multidisciplinary care team and overall intent for term delivery in most cases.

Antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and provide updated information for clinical practice.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 3 Chinese literature databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing standard regimen (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and glucocorticoid) with aprepitant triple regimen (aprepitant plus the standard regimen) for preventing CINV were screened. Literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 51 randomized controlled trials were finally included in the systematic review. Compared with the standard regimen, the aprepitant triple regimen significantly improved the complete response in the overall (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.71-2.07), acute (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.65-2.32) and delayed (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.70-2.27) phases, regardless of emetogenic risk of chemotherapy. Aprepitant could also significantly enhance the proportions of patients who have no emesis, nausea, or use of rescue medication respectively in the overall, acute and/or delayed phases. Aprepitant was found to be associated with decreased risk of constipation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97), but increased the incidence of hiccup (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups on other safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The aprepitant triple regimen is effective for the prevention of CINV in patients being treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and has a significant tendency to reduce the risk of constipation and increase the incidence of hiccup.

Efficacy, Safety And Feasibility Of Antiemetic Prophylaxis With Fosaprepitant, Granisetron And Dexamethasone In Pediatric Patients With Hemato-Oncological Malignancies

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are a major burden for patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. International guidelines recommend an antiemetic prophylaxis with corticosteroids, 5-HT₃R-antagonists and NK₁R-antagonists. The NK₁R-antagonist fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients. There is little pediatric experience with fosaprepitant.

Methods

This non-interventional observation study analyzed 303 chemotherapy courses administered to 83 pediatric patients with a median age of 9 years (2-17 years), who received antiemetic prophylaxis either with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone (fosaprepitant group/FG; n=41), or granisetron with or without dexamethasone (control group/CG; n=42), during moderately (CINV risk 30-90%) or highly (CINV risk>90%) emetogenic chemotherapy. The two groups' results were compared with respect to the safety and efficacy of the antiemetic prophylaxis during the acute (0-24hrs after chemotherapy), delayed (>24-120hrs after chemotherapy) and both CINV phases. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were compared between the two cohorts.

Results

Adverse events were not significantly different in the two groups (p>0.05). Significantly fewer vomiting events occurred during antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant in the acute (23 vs 142 events; p<0.0001) and the delayed (71 vs 255 events; p<0.0001) CINV phase. In the control group, the percentage of chemotherapy courses with vomiting was significantly higher during the acute (24%/FG vs 45%/CG; p<0.0001) and delayed CINV phase (28%/FG vs 47%/CG; p=0.0004). Dimenhydrinate (rescue medication) was administered significantly more often in the CG, compared to the FG (114/FG vs 320/CG doses; p<0.0001). Likewise, in the control group, dimenhydrinate was administered in significantly more (p<0.0001) chemotherapy courses during the acute and delayed CINV phases (79 of 150; 52.7%), compared to the fosaprepitant group (45 of 153; 29.4%).

Conclusion

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone was well tolerated, safe and effective in pediatric patients. However, larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate these findings.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists: review of their role for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults

Introduction: The addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK₁RAs) to standard prophylaxis of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT₃RA) plus dexamethasone more effectively prevents chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Areas covered: This review presents the evidence base for the use of oral and intravenous (IV) NK₁RAs, focusing on the pharmacologic and clinical properties as a class, and highlighting differences between agents. A PubMed literature search was conducted from 2000 to 2018. Expert opinion: Adherence to international antiemetic guidelines remains a clinical challenge. Strategies to simplify antiemetic regimens and facilitate their administration may improve compliance and treatment outcomes. The use of fixed-combination antiemetics offers clinical utility, in combining an NK₁RA with a 5-HT₃RA in a single oral dose. The use of long-lasting NK₁RAs and administering CINV prophylaxis closer to the time of chemotherapy may also assist with guideline and treatment compliance, diminishing the need for home-based administration, and potentially reducing resource utilization. The availability of IV and oral formulations of NK₁RAs and NK₁RA-5-HT₃RA fixed combinations offers further utility, particularly for those patients unsuited for oral administration. However, safety considerations with respect to injection site toxicity and hypersensitivity reactions of the new NK₁RA IV formulations deserve close attention.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis Between Aprepitant- and Fosaprepitant-containing Regimens To Prevent Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy in Japan

PURPOSE

Clinical trials have shown that the addition of aprepitant (APR) or a phosphorylated prodrug of aprepitant, fosaprepitant (FosAPR) as prophylactic antiemetic therapy consisting of a 5-hydrotryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is effective in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. These combination therapies have been commonly used in Japan. In the present study, we performed a cost-utility analysis of APR and FosAPR in the context of the Japanese medical insurance system, and economic efficiency was compared.

METHODS

Data from randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of APR and FosAPR in the Japanese population were used. A decision tree was constructed to estimate the effectiveness of chemotherapy for 5 days from the day of the treatment and the cost associated with outpatient chemotherapy from the perspective of a payer. Health outcome was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were estimated based on medical fees and drug prices from 2018. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each regimen containing either APR or FosAPR. The robustness of the model was assessed using 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

FINDINGS

The base-case analysis estimated that the addition of APR or FosAPR would have incremental effects of 0.00166 and 0.00143 QALY and incremental costs of 8305 and 11,348 JPY (74 and 101 USD [1 USD = 112.17 JPY]), resulting in ICERs of 4,992,172 and 7,955,560 JPY/QALY (44,505 and 70,924 USD/QALY), respectively. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of a complete response for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting had the most influence on the ICERs. Reductions in the drug costs of APR and FosAPR also had an effect on the ICERs. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, APR and FosAPR were dominant in terms of cost-effectiveness in 48.7% and 8.55% of cases, respectively.

IMPLICATIONS

The ICER of outpatient prophylactic antiemetic therapy in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy was calculated in the context of the Japanese medical insurance system. Assuming the willingness-to-pay of 5,000,000 JPY/QALY based on the calculated ICER, our findings suggest that although the addition of APR is cost-effective, FosAPR is not cost-effective.

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.

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.

Cost-utility analysis of aprepitant for patients who truly need it in Japan

PURPOSE

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA) is recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC, respectively). We previously reported that aprepitant, an NK₁RA, was needed to control CINV in 43% and 12% of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively (Support Care Cancer 23:905-912, 2015). To elucidate the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in these patients, a cost-utility analysis according to the necessity of aprepitant was performed.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed according to the necessity of aprepitant and CINV responses in both acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy. Probabilities of health states and medical costs were derived from the results of the abovementioned trial.

RESULT

In patients who received HEC and needed aprepitant, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the regimen with no aprepitant, was 7912 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which was far below the commonly accepted threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. The ICER was 27,457 USD/QALY in patients who received MEC and needed aprepitant. In contrast, in patients who received HEC or MEC but did not need aprepitant, the ICER was 175,959 or 478,844 USD/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of whether a patient received HEC or MEC, aprepitant use was highly cost-effective for patients who truly needed it. These results warrant further research to predict the necessity of NK₁RA treatment before initiating emetogenic chemotherapies.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation: review of the evidence and suggestions

INTRODUCTION

High-dose melphalan (HDMel) is the most common conditioning chemotherapy regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). No consensus exists for the emetogenicity or prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in this regimen.

METHODS

Data on the incidence and efficacy/safety of CINV prophylaxis among patients affected by MM undergoing autologous SCT with the HDMel regimen was extracted from electronic databases and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving multiple CINV prophylaxis regimens were identified and included. No consensus on HDMel emetogenicity was reached, but most studies summarized the emetogenicity as moderate-high risk. An aprepitant-based three-drug regimen (aprepitant + serotonin receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) + dexamethasone) showed better efficacy than a two-drug regimen (5HT3RA + dexamethasone) for CINV prevention without increasing the frequency in adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant-based three-drug regimen should be the regimen of choice for CINV prophylaxis for MM patients undergoing autologous SCT with HDMel conditioning.

Effect of nerve electrical stimulation for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced gastric cancer: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of nerve electrical stimulation (NES) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

One hundred twenty-four eligible patients with AGC were included in this randomized controlled trial. They were equally divided the NES group and the sham group. The patients in the NES group received NES intervention, while the subjects in the sham group underwent sham NES. The primary outcome included symptoms severity and appetite. The secondary outcomes included quality of life, as measured by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) score, and functional impairment, as evaluated by the Karnofsky score. Additionally, adverse events were also documented during the period of the treatment.

RESULTS

After treatment, NES showed greater effectiveness in reducing the severity of nausea (P = .02), and vomiting (P = .04), as well as the appetite improvement (P = .02), compared with the sham NES. Furthermore, no adverse events related to NES treatment were detected.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrated that NES may help to relieve CINV in patients with AGC. Future studies are still needed to warrant these results.

[Curative Effect of Aprepitant Preventing CINV]

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy is the most important method for cancer treatment. However, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has a profound effect on patients. In recent years, there have been new antiemetic drugs, such as aprepitant. We review the curative effect of aprepitant with tropisetron and dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving Cisplatin chemotherapy.

METHODS

Observation is divided into three stages. Whole study phase (0-120 h after chemotherapy administration), acute phases (0-24 h), and delayed phase (24 h-120 h). The primary endpoints were complete response (CR) and complete prevention (CP) during the three different study phase.

RESULTS

In the whole study phase, 86.02% of patients achieved CR; in acute phases and delayed phases were 89.25%, 87.1%, respectively. CP were 46.22%, 83.87%, 45.16%, respectively. Anti-CINV effect was significantly associated with age distribution (P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant with tropisetron and dexamethasone prevented effectively CNIV for patients receiving Cisplatin chemotherapy. This combination could improve the quality of life and the compliance of patient with chemotherapy.

Effectiveness of Antiemetic Regimens for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is important to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to maintain dose intensity and patients' quality of life. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest combination therapy of antiemetic agents. The growing number of antiemetic regimens, and in particular the growing use of regimens containing antagonists to the Nk-1 receptor (NK1RAs) and the antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ), call for the re-evaluation of the optimal regimen for CINV. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included. We strictly followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (absence of vomiting). We conducted network meta-analysis within a Bayesian model to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We systematically reviewed 27 randomized control trials (13,356 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens: serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3), 5HT3 + dexamethasone (Dex), palonosetron (PAL), PAL + Dex, PAL at 0.75 mg (PAL0.75), PAL0.75 + Dex, NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex, NK1RA + PAL + Dex, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) + Dex, OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex. An NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex regimen and an NK1RA + palonosetron + Dex regimen gave a higher complete response (CR) rate than the reference regimen, 5HT3 + Dex (OR, 1.75; 95% credibility interval [95% CrI], 1.56-1.97, and OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.66-3.03, respectively). A regimen containing NEPA was more effective in producing CR than conventional regimens without NEPA or olanzapine. Further analysis, based on the surface under the cumulative ranking probability curve, indicated that olanzapine-containing regimens were the most effective in producing CR.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that olanzapine-containing regimens are the most effective for CINV of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We confirmed that NK1RA + PAL + Dex is the most effective of conventional regimens. Substituting olanzapine for an Nk-1 receptor antagonist may offer a less costly and more effective alternative for patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy often pose difficulties for patients and doctors, making it hard to continue the proper therapy and to maintain the quality of life. This article gives insights into the optimal choice of medicine to treat nausea during chemotherapy. The findings reported here provide readers with a robust efficacy ranking of antinausea medicine, which can be used as a reference for the best possible treatment. Furthermore, the 70% less costly drug, olanzapine, is suggested to be equally effective to aprepitant in reducing nausea and vomiting. The possibility of offering a cost-effective treatment to a wider range of the population is discussed.

HTX-019: polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may occur during the acute (0-24 h) or delayed (25-120 h) phase following chemotherapy administration. The addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic regimens containing a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone has resulted in improved CINV prophylaxis. Due to numerous adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions associated with fosaprepitant, a commonly used neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, there remains an unmet need for better-tolerated formulations. HTX-019, the US FDA-approved polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free aprepitant injectable emulsion, is bioequivalent to and better tolerated (fewer treatment-emergent adverse events) than fosaprepitant. HTX-019 represents a valuable alternative to fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis.

Emergency department presentations in early stage breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy

(Neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer is associated with side-effects, resulting in increased emergency department (ED) presentations. Treatment-related toxicity can affect quality of life, compromise chemotherapy delivery and treatment outcomes, and increase healthcare use. We performed a retrospective study of ED presentations in patients receiving curative chemotherapy for early breast cancer to identify factors contributing to ED presentations. Of 102 patients, 39 (38%) presented to ED within 30 days of chemotherapy, resulting in 63 ED presentations in total. Most common reasons were non-neutropenic fever (17 presentations/27%), neutropenic fever (15/24%), pain (9/14%), drug reaction (6/10%) and infection (4/6%). Factors significantly associated with ED presentation were adjuvant chemotherapy timing compared to neoadjuvant timing (P = 0.031), prophylactic antibiotics (P = 0.045) and docetaxel-containing regimen (P = 0.018).

Evolving role of neurokinin 1-receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

To examine pharmacologic and clinical characteristics of neurokinin 1 (NK₁)-receptor antagonists (RAs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a literature search was performed for clinical studies in patients at risk of CINV with any approved NK₁ RAs in the title or abstract: aprepitant (capsules or oral suspension), HTX019 (intravenous [IV] aprepitant), fosaprepitant (IV aprepitant prodrug), rolapitant (tablets or IV), and fixed-dose tablets combining netupitant or fosnetupi-tant (IV netupitant prodrug) with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃) RA palonosetron (oral or IV). All NK₁ RAs are effective, but exhibit important differences in efficacy against acute and delayed CINV. The magnitude of benefit of NK₁-RA-containing three-drug vs two-drug regimens is greater for delayed vs acute CINV. Oral rolapitant has the longest half-life of available NK₁ RAs, but as a consequence should not be administered more frequently than every 2 weeks. In general, NK₁ RAs are well tolerated; however, IV rolapitant was recently removed from US distribution, due to hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, and IV fosaprepitant is associated with infusion-site reactions and hypersensitivity presumed related to its polysorbate 80 excipient. Also, available NK₁ RAs have potential drug–drug interactions. Adding an NK₁ RA to 5HT₃ RA and dexamethasone significantly improves CINV control vs the two-drug regimen. Newer NK₁ RAs offer more formulation options, higher acute-phase plasma levels, or improved tolerability, and increase clinicians’ opportunities to maximize benefits of this important class of antiemetics.

Prophylactic aprepitant is better than salvage for carboplatin-based chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis

Aprepitant prevents chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. However, it is unknown whether aprepitant salvage therapy after the development of emesis is as effective as adding prophylactic aprepitant to doublet therapy with dexamethasone and a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist from the first cycle of chemotherapy. To compare the antiemetic efficacy of aprepitant between salvage and prophylactic administration in the second cycle of carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, twenty-two NSCLC patients who developed CINV in the first cycle of carboplatin-containing therapy without aprepitant (salvage group) and 44 patients who received aprepitant (prophylaxis group) were extracted from the pooled data of two clinical trials, with adjustment for age, sex, and chemotherapeutic regimen as co-variables using propensity score matching. In the second cycle of chemotherapy, both groups received aprepitant, and the rate of antiemetic complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) at 5 days after chemotherapy was compared. The prophylaxis group demonstrated a significantly better overall complete response rate (88.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 75.4-96.2) compared with that of observed for the salvage group (68.2%; 95% CI 45.1-86.1, p = 0.042). The prophylaxis group also demonstrated a significantly lower proportion of any-grade nausea (43.2%) and appetite loss (43.2%) than the salvage group (72.7%, p = 0.036 and 77.3%, p = 0.010, respectively). Adding aprepitant to doublet therapy from the first cycle of carboplatin-containing chemotherapy may be more effective than salvage use of aprepitant after the development of CINV.

Phase III Randomized Trial of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone With or Without Aprepitant to Prevent Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Full-dose Single-day Cisplatin-based Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer receiving full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who received full dose single-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized (1:1) to aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone, or placebo plus palonosetron and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was complete response of nausea and vomiting in the first cycle. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with nausea and vomiting who received rescue antiemetic medication, the response of cross-over patients, and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients were randomized. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding personal characteristics. The administration of aprepitant significantly improved the complete response for vomiting in the overall period (92.6% vs. 79.93%; P < .01), but not a nausea-free response (75.4% vs. 71.3%; P > .05) in the first cycle. The percentage of patients who received rescue antiemetic medication was decreased for the aprepitant group (14.8% vs. 37.1%; P < .001). Patients who did not use aprepitant and suffered with nausea and vomiting in cycle 1 were crossed over to the aprepitant group (N = 32), and the rate of nausea and vomiting in cycle 2 was decreased to 37.5% (P < .05) and 25% (P < .05), respectively. There were no drug-related adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone proved to be effective and well-tolerated in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in Japanese patients treated with cisplatin-containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse event in cancer chemotherapy. Although aprepitant is effective in preventing CINV, an increment in financial burden for uniform use of aprepitant is a concern. The aim of the present study was to define the cost‐effectiveness of aprepitant from the perspective of the Japanese National Health Insurance system. Based on the results of a randomized phase II trial comparing an aprepitant‐containing regimen versus a nonaprepitant regimen in Japanese patients who received cisplatin‐containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy, a decision analytic model was developed. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated both in the outpatient care setting (OCS) and in the inpatient care setting (ICS). The use of the aprepitant‐containing regimen was associated with improved quality of life compared with the nonaprepitant regimen, with an increment in quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) of 0.0016. The incremental total medical costs associated with the use of the aprepitant regimen were lower in the OCS than in the ICS, 6192 JPY (56.92 USD) and 9820 JPY (90.27 USD), respectively. The ICER was calculated as 3 906 698 JPY (35 910 USD) per QALY gained in the OCS and 6 195 781 JPY (56 952 USD) per QALY gained in the ICS. Cost‐effectiveness of the aprepitant‐containing antiemetic therapy was limited to the OCS, considering the threshold of willingness‐to‐pay commonly accepted (5 million JPY [45 960 USD] in Japan and 50 000 USD in the USA). The efficacy of aprepitant offsets the costs for revisiting clinics or rehospitalization added with rescue medications in the OCS.

Recent advances in antiemetics: new formulations of 5HT3-receptor antagonists

Purpose

To discuss new therapeutic strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) involving 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃)-receptor antagonists (RAs).

Summary

CINV remains poorly controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); nausea and delayed-phase CINV (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) are the most difficult to control. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemesis-guideline recommendations for HEC include a four-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, neurokinin 1 [NK₁] RA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine). For some MEC regimens, a three-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, NK₁ RA, and dexamethasone) is recommended. While 5HT₃ RAs have dramatically improved CINV in the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy), their efficacy declines in the delayed phase. Newer formulations have been developed to extend 5HT₃-RA efficacy into the delayed phase. Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), the most recently approved 5HT₃ RA, provides slow, controlled release of therapeutic granisetron concentrations for ≥5 days. GERSC is included in the NCCN and ASCO guidelines for MEC and HEC, with NCCN-preferred status for MEC in the absence of an NK₁ RA. Efficacy and safety of 5HT₃ RAs in the context of guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy are reviewed.

Conclusion

Recent updates in antiemetic guidelines and the development of newer antiemet-ics should help mitigate CINV, this dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. GERSC, the most recently approved 5HT₃-RA formulation, is indicated for use with other antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination-chemotherapy regimens.

Incidence of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy regimens in Italy: NAVY observational study

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event with cancer chemotherapy, despite the availability of effective antiemetic agents. This is a prospective observational study of Italian breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC), assessed CINV incidence, adherence to national antiemetic guidelines (AIOM 2012), and the relationship with CINV outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with breast cancer scheduled to receive their first cycle of an AC-based regimen were enrolled at 12 Italian centers and their clinical data prospectively recorded. CINV incidence was assessed from patient diaries after the first chemotherapy cycle. The relationship between guideline adherence and CINV outcomes was examined using multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

The overall incidence rates of nausea and vomiting among 246 evaluable patients were 63.0 and 25.4%, respectively. Most patients received a 5-HT3-RA agent and dexamethasone for acute phase CINV prophylaxis, whereas a triple combination including aprepitant (NK1-RA), consistent with national guidelines, was used in only 45.5% of cases. In the delayed phase, the guideline adherence was 48.8%, while the overall adherence was 43.5%. After adjusting for confounding factors, adherence to antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of three endpoints, namely any nausea, "significant nausea," and vomiting (OR = 0.49, OR = 0.54, and OR = 0.48, respectively), and a 90% increase in the odds of overall complete protection (OR = 1.90).

CONCLUSIONS

CINV is still a critical issue in AC-treated patients, despite antiemetic treatment. Non-adherence to antiemetic guidelines may lead to poorer outcomes and indicates the need for strategies to enhance the use of guidelines in clinical practice.

Prophylaxis of postoperative complications after craniotomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review reports an update of the evidence on practices applied for the prevention and management of the most common complications after craniotomy surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Latest guidelines support the combined thromboprophylaxis with the use of both mechanical and chemical modalities, preferably applied within 24 h after craniotomy. Nevertheless, a heightened risk of minor hemorrhagic events remains an issue of concern. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain constitute the complications most commonly encountered during the first 24 h postcraniotomy. Recently, neurokinin type-1 receptor antagonists have been tested as adjuncts for PONV prophylaxis with encouraging results, whereas dexmedetomidine and gabapentinoids emerge as promising alternatives for postcraniotomy pain management. The available data for seizure prophylaxis following craniotomy lacks scientific quality; thus, this remains still a debatable issue. Significantly, a growing body of evidence supports the superiority of levetiracetam over the older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), in terms of efficacy and safety.

SUMMARY

Optimum management of postoperative complications is incorporated as an integral part of the augmented quality of care in patients undergoing craniotomy surgery, aiming to improve outcomes. This review may serve as a benchmark for neuroanesthetists for heightened clinical awareness and prompt institution of well-documented practices.

Olanzapine-Based Triple Regimens Versus Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice.

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting : Current recommendations for prophylaxis]

The chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent side effects in cytostatic therapy and a profound challenge during the therapy of cancer patients. Therefore, standardized guideline-orientated prophylaxis is essential and a fundamental contribution for the success of treatment. This review summarizes the current recommendations for CINV of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the S3-guideline Supportive Therapie of the Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie and shall facilitate its use in the daily routine.

Getting it right the first time: recent progress in optimizing antiemetic usage

Recent years have witnessed significant improvements in the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), allowing patients to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimens without compromising quality of life. This reduction in the incidence of CINV can be primarily attributed to the emergence of effective, well-tolerated antiemetic therapies, including serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT3) receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, and the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. While 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are highly effective in the prevention of acute CINV, NK-1 receptor antagonists and olanzapine have demonstrated considerable activity against both acute and delayed CINV. Various combinations of these three types of agents, along with dexamethasone and dopamine receptor antagonists, are now becoming the standard of care for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Optimal use of these therapies requires careful assessment of the unique characteristics of each agent and currently available clinical trial data.

Rikkunshito for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Lung Cancer Patients: Results from 2 Prospective, Randomized Phase 2 Trials

The herbal medicine rikkunshito has the potential to improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by stimulating ghrelin secretion. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rikkunshito in preventing CINV for patients with lung cancer. Two separate prospective, randomized, phase II parallel design studies were conducted in patients with lung cancer. Fifty-eight and sixty-two patients scheduled to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), respectively, were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard antiemetic therapy in accordance with international guidelines (S group) or standard antiemetic therapy plus oral rikkunshito (R group). The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR)-that is, no emesis and rescue medication in the first 120 h post-chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included CR in the acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases and safety. Fifty-seven patients (S group, 28; R group, 29) receiving HEC and sixty-two patients (S group, 30; R group, 32) receiving MEC with comparable characteristics were evaluated. The CR rates were similar across the S and R groups for the HEC study in the overall (67.9% vs. 62.1%), acute (96.4% vs. 89.6%), and delayed (67.9% vs. 62.1%) phases, respectively, and for the MEC study in the overall (83.3% vs. 84.4%), acute (100% vs. 100%), and delayed (83.3% vs. 84.4%) phases, respectively. No severe adverse events were observed. Although rikkunshito was well tolerated, it did not demonstrate an additional preventative effect against CINV in lung cancer patients receiving HEC or MEC. Clinical Trial Registry Information: This study is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trial Registry, identification numbers UMIN 000014239 and UMIN 000014240.

Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: focus on fosaprepitant

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a challenge in cancer care. Improved understanding of CINV pathophysiology has triggered the development of new antiemetic therapeutic options, such as selective neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), which effectively prevent CINV when added to a standard antiemetic regimen (serotonin-3 RA and dexamethasone). Aprepitant and its water-soluble prodrug, fosaprepitant dimeglumine, are the most widely used NK₁ RAs, with extensive clinical use worldwide. Recently, a Phase III trial prospectively evaluated fosaprepitant-based antiemetic therapy for CINV prevention in a large, well-defined nonanthracycline- and cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy population. Fosaprepitant demonstrated significantly improved efficacy outcomes compared with a control regimen and was generally well tolerated, indicating that NK₁ RAs are a valuable therapeutic option in this setting.

Incidence of Infusion Site Reactions in Peripheral Fosaprepitant Infusions

Fosaprepitant is administered intravenously to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. To verify the incidence of infusion site reactions and the relationship among risk factors, a quantitative retrospective cohort study was undertaken. The study included patients seen between October 2013 and February 2014. Fifty-seven patients were included in the study, and there were 105 infusions among them. Infusion site reactions were identified in 42 (40%) cases. Risk factors identified by the study included age (P < .001), insertion at the back of the hand and wrist (P < .001), and first fosaprepitant administration (P < .001). The study found evidence of a higher incidence of infusion site reactions than was reported in the package insert.

Recent developments in the clinical pharmacology of rolapitant: subanalyses in specific populations

Knowledge of the involvement of the neurokinin substance P in emesis has led to the development of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1 RAs) for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), in combination with serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids. The NK-1 RA rolapitant, recently approved in oral formulation, has nanomolar affinity for the NK-1 receptor, as do the other commercially available NK-1 RAs, aprepitant and netupitant. Rolapitant is rapidly absorbed and has a long half-life in comparison to aprepitant and netupitant. All three NK-1 RAs undergo metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, necessitating caution with the concomitant use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, but in contrast to aprepitant and netupitant, rolapitant does not inhibit or induce CYP3A4. However, rolapitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6, and concomitant use with CYP2D6 substrates with narrow therapeutic indices should be avoided. Aprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant have all demonstrated efficacy in the control of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in randomized controlled trials, including over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. We reviewed recent post hoc analyses of clinical trial data demonstrating that rolapitant is efficacious in the control of CINV in patient populations with specific tumor types, namely, breast cancers, gastrointestinal/colorectal cancers, and lung cancers. In addition, we show that rolapitant has efficacy in the control of CINV in specific age groups of patients receiving chemotherapy (<65 and ≥65 years of age). Overall, the safety profile of rolapitant in these specific patient populations was consistent with that observed in primary analyses of phase 3 trials.

Is the addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist beneficial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) excluding anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed and OVID) and Central databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT₃ RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy endpoints were complete response (CR), no emesis and no nausea rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials (3848 patients) were identified. Results were separately analyzed for (a) pure MEC regimens (excluding regimens containing carboplatin or oxaliplatin), (b) carboplatin-based regimens, and (c) oxaliplatin-based regimens. (a) Two trials (abstracts) enrolled 715 patients. The odds ratio for overall CR with the addition of an NK1-RA was 1.46 (95% 1.06-2.02; p = 0.02) with an absolute risk difference (RD) of 8%. (b) Nine trials (1790 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.96 (95% CI 1.57-2.45; p < 0.00001) in favor of the NK1RA containing regimen with an RD of 15%. (c) Three trials (1190 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.34 (95% CI 0.88-2.04; p = 0.17) not reaching statistical significance with a RD of 4%.

CONCLUSION

Clear clinically significant benefit was seen with the addition of NK1RAs in carboplatin-based chemotherapy. A global benefit of an NK1RA containing regimen for the whole MEC category cannot be attested yet and warrants more randomized trials exclusively testing pure MEC regimens without carboplatin.

Lentinula edodes mycelia extract plus adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients: Results of a randomized study on host quality of life and immune function improvement

Anthracycline-based chemotherapies for breast cancer are known to adversely affect patients' quality of life (QOL) and immune function. For that reason, adjuvants that improve those impairments are required. A randomized double-blind study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of Lentinula edodes mycelia extract (LEM), which is an oral biological response modifier (BRM) medicine for cancer patients as such an adjuvant. A total of 47 breast cancer patients who were scheduled to receive postoperative adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy, i.e., 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + cyclophosphamide + epirubicin (FEC regimen), 5-FU + cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin/pirarubicin (FAC regimen), cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin/pirarubicin (AC regimen) and cyclophosphamide + epirubicin (EC regimen), were entered in the study. The patients were randomly divided into either an LEM or a placebo tablet group; the tablets were orally ingested daily over 2 courses of each therapy. In the placebo group, the total scores for QOL were lower on day 8 of the second course of chemotherapy compared with the baseline scores, whereas in the LEM group the scores had not decreased. In the placebo group, the QOL functional well-being score was lower on day 8 after both the first and second courses of chemotherapy compared with the baseline score, but it had not decreased in the LEM group. Evaluation of immunological parameters indicated that an increase in the proportion of regulatory T cells to peripheral blood CD4⁺ cells tended to be inhibited in the LEM group compared with the placebo group. Oral LEM that was coadministered with anthracycline-based chemotherapies was useful for maintaining patients' QOL and immune function. Thus, LEM appears to be a useful oral adjuvant for patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Efficacy of the oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant for nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin and carboplatin in Japanese patients with gynecological cancer

AIM

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and the difference in effects of the oral neurokinin-1(NK-1) receptor antagonist aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) in Japanese patients with gynecological cancer receiving highly emetogenic (cisplatin) and moderately emetogenic (carboplatin) chemotherapy.

METHODS

Aprepitant was added during the second course of chemotherapy in Japanese patients with grade ≥ 2 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0) nausea and vomiting during the first course despite receiving antiemetic therapy (a first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist + dexamethasone), and in patients who requested stronger antiemetic therapy despite only having grade 1 nausea and vomiting. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was compared between the first and second courses in each group.

RESULTS

Ninety-six (55.5%) out of 173 patients received add-on therapy with aprepitant. There was a significant increase in the complete response (CR: no vomiting or salvage therapy) rate in the patients receiving aprepitant, with marked improvement being confirmed for delayed CINV. Stratified analysis showed that patients with delayed CINV treated with carboplatin had a significantly higher CR rate, while patients with both acute and delayed CINV treated with cisplatin had significantly higher CR rates. There was a positive correlation between the incidence of nausea and the incidence of vomiting in the patients treated with aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

The oral NK-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant could be effective for both acute and delayed CINV with cisplatin and for delayed CINV with carboplatin in Japanese gynecological cancer patients.

Genetic Risk Factors Associated With Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone in Japanese Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Anthracycline-based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer patients often receive anthracycline-based chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most uncomfortable and distressing adverse reactions. Poor control of CINV reduces the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy agents, which has been associated with poor clinical outcomes and shorter survival. The aim of the present study was to identify genetic risk factors associated with anthracycline-based CINV.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated CINV attributable to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in Japanese breast cancer patients treated with an antiemetic regimen that included palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone. Furthermore, we investigated the associations between CINV and single nucleotide polymorphisms in 6 candidate genes.

RESULTS

Emesis episodes were rarely observed in the 125 patients included in the present survey (7.2%; n = 9); however, significant nausea occurred in more than one half of the patients (52.8%; n = 66). In particular, acute significant nausea was not effectively controlled. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ABCG2 (rs2231142) AA genotype is significantly associated with acute significant nausea (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-23.60; P = .049).

CONCLUSION

The findings of the present study provide significant insights for developing personalized antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy.